The Cost of Stress: Health Effects, Workplace Hazards, Insurance Implications

[Ivan Seeking]

Forty-three percent of all adults suffer adverse health effects from stress.

Seventy-five to 90% of all doctor's office visits are for stress-related ailments and complaints.

Stress can play a part in problems such as headaches, high blood pressure, heart problems, diabetes, skin conditions, asthma, or arthritis in addition to depression and anxiety.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) declared stress a hazard of the workplace. Stress costs American industry more than $300 billion annually.

The lifetime prevalence of an emotional disorder is more than 50%, often due to chronic, untreated stress reactions.

http://www.webmd.com/balance/guide/effects-of-stress-on-your-body

Given that we tax alcohol, tobacco, and now even fat, based on the logic that the use of these products have a financial cost to society, it is interesting to note that stress is probably the single greatest cause of health problems, after genetics and aging.

Do insurance companies have the right to test for stress hormones and adjust insurance rates accordingly? Also, is it possible to somehow tax people who choose highly stressful lifestyles, or who engage in highly stressful activities?

Can an insurance company identify a person as a Type A personality, and charge for it?

Edit: Tobacco

 

[drankin]

http://www.webmd.com/balance/guide/effects-of-stress-on-your-body

Given that we tax alcohol, tabacco, and now even fat, based on the logic that the use of these products have a financial cost to society, it is interesting to note that stress is probably the single greatest cause of health problems, after genetics and aging.

Do insurance companies have the right to test for stress hormones and adjust insurance rates accordingly? Also, is it possible to somehow tax people who choose highly stressful lifestyles, or who engage in highly stressful activities?

Can an insurance company identify a person as a Type A personality, and charge for it?

I think they should charge everyone specifically to whichever group they fit into. That way those of us who aren't the big drains on the system get better deals. Why should those who are typically healthier carry those who typically aren't?

 

[neu]

I think they should charge everyone specifically to whichever group they fit into. That way those of us who aren't the big drains on the system get better deals. Why should those who are typically healthier carry those who typically aren't?

Yeah, why should anyone give a **** about anyone else?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What does caring about people have to do with it?

 

[LowlyPion]

In related news:

US Army base shuts down after rise in suicides

http://rawstory.com/08/afp/2009/05/29/us-army-base-shuts-down-after-rise-in-suicides/

 

[rootX]

Given that we tax alcohol, tobacco, and now even fat, based on the logic that the use of these products have a financial cost to society, it is interesting to note that stress is probably the single greatest cause of health problems, after genetics and aging.

I don't think stress is exactly comes under the same category as "alcohol, tobacco, and now even fat" because stress can be an effect of productive work but other things are not related to productivity

 

[drankin]

It's my opinion that stress itself is not the issue. It's how it is dealt with. A high stress life is required to accomplish great things. If you deal with the stress with regular exercise and a decent diet, some form of psychological support (friends, sports, therapy, etc.) I think one can do fine. But if it's dealt with excessive smoking, eating, drugs, alcohol, and other destructive practices, one tends to develop health problems.

 

[drankin]

But, LOL, I'm hardly one to talk.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't think stress is exactly comes under the same category as "alcohol, tobacco, and now even fat" because stress can be an effect of productive work but other things are not related to productivity

Presumably, productive work already yields financial benefits. So the person has been rewarded for that. But the cost to society from stress due to overwork, for example, still exists [to the tune of one bailout a year, apparently]. There is also the genetic component, which I assume exists at some level. I don't see how charging or taxing for this is any different than taxing people's addictions, or charging more for insurance based on one's health history, age, demographic, etc.

Also, lifestyle choices are surely a significant factor in determining one's stress levels. A few simple tests might be, the number of hours that one works each week, the number of hours one spends in traffic each week, or even one's debt to income ratio. There must be quantitative methods for determining stress levels. Perhaps a blood test would tell as much as anything? Are stress hormones a reliable indicator? [I have only heard these being referenced. I don't know anything about it]

 

[cabledog]

Too much stress=Not enough sex

 

[rootX]

Presumably, productive work already yields financial benefits. So the person has been rewarded for that. But the cost to society from stress due to overwork, for example, still exists [to the tune of one bailout a year, apparently].

1. I am assuming that personal returns are also the returns to the society.
2. Putting tax would deter people from choosing stressful lives styles so employers would have to pay more or there would be less output from those areas (which is not desirable). This makes me wonder if there would be any difference. Looking from economics perspective, I don't think taxing people with stressful lives would solve the problem.

One better approach I see is to educate employers about the stress harms and I am sure most know the harms and try to prevent them by providing facilities like gyms/others to its employees.
e.g.

- Health and Wellness Centre and Fitness facilities
- Basketball courts
- Franchised coffee shops and convenience stores
- A cafeteria geared towards healthy lifestyle
- Outdoor Patios
- Zen Garden
- A medical office

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

In related news:
http://rawstory.com/08/afp/2009/05/29/us-army-base-shuts-down-after-rise-in-suicides/

I have heard some criticism over referencing combat and multiple tours as a cause of the hiked suicide rate. Specifically the reference in regards to the man at camp Victory who shot several people. He was an engineer, not on combat duty. Soldiers deal with a lot of sources of stress being away from home and financial issues that they have little to no control over (being overseas) are just as likely contributing factors. Its quite possible that the same factors being attributed to currently high suicide rates in america in general could account for much of this.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

1. I am assuming that personal returns are also the returns to the society.

Perhaps...maybe, maybe not. He might be a crooked used-car saleman. Making a personal profit is no guarantee that one is benefitting society, beyond paying taxes. The tobacco companies make a profit, pay taxes, and create jobs, but I don't hear anyone defending the tobacco industry.

2. Putting tax would deter people from choosing stressful lives styles so employers would have to pay more or there would be less output from those areas (which is not desirable). This makes me wonder if there would be any difference. Looking from economics perspective, I don't think taxing people with stressful lives would solve the problem.

At 300 billion dollars a year in existing workplace losses, I think it could easily be justified - that is about $1000 a year for every US citizen. For that matter, if there was less stress, we would probably see a reduction in other problems like drinking, smoking, and drug use. Also, as indicated above, 75 to 90% of all doctor's office visits are for stress-related ailments and complaints. Surely this translates into missed work days, reduced productivity, and even unpaid time off for people on very tight budgets. Finally, either punitive taxation works, or not. Part of the rationale for other taxes is that punitive taxes work.

One better approach I see is to educate employers about the stress harms and I am sure most know the harms and try to prevent them by providing facilities like gyms/others to its employees.
e.g.

You are assuming that all stress is the result of productive behavior. It is not. It may result from anything from overspending, to cheating on one's wife, to cheating on one's taxes, and perhaps even genetics [Insurance companies charge other people for diseases related to genetics, I don't see why this would be any different].

 

[neu]

What does caring about people have to do with it?

What does caring about people have to do with the policy of the health system? I that the question you're asking?

If you're trying to be clever it's happening the opposite effect

 

[cristo]

In the world of health insurance, if you start charging people more if they find it harder to deal with "stress" (however you wish to define that), then isn't that tantamount to discrimination? After all, to some extent you cannot change your personality.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

In the world of health insurance, if you start charging people more if they find it harder to deal with "stress" (however you wish to define that), then isn't that tantamount to discrimination? After all, to some extent you cannot change your personality.

There are already many ways in which insurance companies 'descriminate'. I'm not too familiar with medical insurance but I know car insurance companies charge differently depending on your sex, age, the area you live in, ect. Oddly enough the only variable that I know of that is actively being pursued as illegal descrimination is 'where you live'. Even though if you live in certain areas you are statistically more likely to get in a car accident it is considered racist to descriminate based upon where one lives since you are less likely to get in an accident in nicer (whiter) neighbourhoods and more likely to get in an accident in poorer (darker) neighbourhoods.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What does caring about people have to do with the policy of the health system? I that the question you're asking?

Yes, that is what I am asking. It is entirely consistent with existing laws. Do you see any special considerations for people with diabetes, for example? How is charging more for insurance for this any different than charging more for people who live stressful lives?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In the world of health insurance, if you start charging people more if they find it harder to deal with "stress" (however you wish to define that), then isn't that tantamount to discrimination? After all, to some extent you cannot change your personality.

Again, I don't see that it is any different than existing laws and policies. Many people suffer from diseases that are genetically acquired, like diabetes, and they pay more for their insurance IF they can even afford to get any.

The standard is that we charge people for their lifestyle choices, as well as genetics and bad luck for that matter.

 

[cristo]

Again, I don't see that it is any different that existing laws and policies. Many people suffer from diseases that are genetically acquired, like diabetes, but they pay more for their insurance IF they can even afford to get any.

The standard is that we charge people for their lifestyle choices, as well as genetics, or bad luck for that matter.

Yes, I suppose that's true. Of course, you could have a nationalised health system which doesn't (to the same extent) discriminate like that. I guess that's a different topic of discussion, though.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, I suppose that's true. Of course, you could have a nationalised health system which doesn't (to the same extent) discriminate like that. I guess that's a different topic of discussion, though.

Or, maybe it is entirely relevant to this discussion. As you probably know, Obama wants to revamp health care. But there is also the issue of taxation for lifestyle choices. For example, smokers pay more for auto insurance, health insurance, and they pay additional taxes for the product they buy.

Given that some people who have suffered severe health problems from smoking can be found smoking through their trache tube, I'm not even convinced that smoking is a choice in all cases.

 

[drankin]

In the world of health insurance, if you start charging people more if they find it harder to deal with "stress" (however you wish to define that), then isn't that tantamount to discrimination? After all, to some extent you cannot change your personality.

Yes, it is discrimination. Not all discrimination is bad, as if the word itself poisons anything it refers to.

I don't know that insurance companies will ever get into personality profiles. I don't see that as helping them. They are typically interested in prevention to keep the final bill down and offering better rates if you don't participate in high risk activities. If you play you pay.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yes, that is what I am asking. It is entirely consistent with existing laws. Do you see any special considerations for people with diabetes, for example? How is charging more for insurance for this any different than charging more for people who live stressful lives?

http://www.cvshealthresources.com/topic/africanstress

I believe that African Americans are significantly more likely to suffer from stress related health problems (what ever the reason) and so any attempt to charge based on stress will likely be challenged as racist. Not that I think that is any more right than charging based on stress indicators to begin with.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

http://www.cvshealthresources.com/topic/africanstress

I believe that African Americans are significantly more likely to suffer from stress related health problems (what ever the reason) and so any attempt to charge based on stress will likely be challenged as racist.

Wouldn't that be true of tobacco and alcohol use as well? Beyond a doubt, alcohol and tobacco taxes hit the poor the hardest.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, it is discrimination. Not all discrimination is bad, as if the word itself poisons anything it refers to.

I don't know that insurance companies will ever get into personality profiles. I don't see that as helping them. They are typically interested in prevention to keep the final bill down and offering better rates if you don't participate in high risk activities. If you play you pay.

Either way you look at it, cost is based on risk. I am only following the existing logic and pointing at the elephant in the room. As I said earlier, stress is probably the single greatest cause of health problems, after genetics and aging. If the system is going to be based on risk, then stress should be the number one consideration - even before activities like smoking and drinking.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Wouldn't that be true of tobacco and alcohol use as well? Beyond a doubt, alcohol and tabacco taxes hit the poor the hardest.

It goes back to my earlier post. Car insurance companies discriminate based on age which is theoretically illegal except that they discriminate 'against' younger people as opposed to older people and younger people do not have the lobby to protect them that older people do. They discriminate based on sex but 'against' males as opposed to females and males do not have a protective lobby. They discriminate based on where you live which on the surface seems fine and does not actually target a protected demographic except that blacks and hispanics are the ones prodominantly effected and they have quite a lobby so they can fight it even though they are not directly targeted.

Smoking and drinking impact all demographics. They may effect minorities more so but I think anyone would be hard pressed to show discriminatory levels of disproportion in statistics for medical purposes. They are also choices and while one can theoretically choose where one lives it is a choice with far less freedom than whether or not one smokes or drinks. Aswell the lobbies have finite resources and choose to focus their efforts on the tobacco and alcohol companies due to their targeted marketing startegies. I would not be suprised though to find out that there are lobbyists trying to hit medical insurance companies with discrimination over the issue. Its probably just a much smaller effort and in the realm of medical insurance they probably have their hands full just trying to making sure they have insurance to begin with.

Stress is certainly a multi-demographic issue aswell. The thing is that rich folk in high stress jobs probably pay for premium insurance to begin with and wouldn't even notice much if their payments were a bit higher, just as they probably have premium car insurance would not likely notice a difference there either. The pressure would come from poorer people who work in warehouses and such places where there is high stress and less income and they are less likely to be able to afford medical insurance to begin with. And then there are the union jobs and the unions have quite a voice.

Medical insurance providers instituting such a policy would suffer great political backlash and I'm sure they know it.

 

[Proton Soup]

In related news:
http://rawstory.com/08/afp/2009/05/29/us-army-base-shuts-down-after-rise-in-suicides/

seems unlikely they'd be all that concerned about suicide, seeing as it's just above the "national record". but fragging it seems gets the attention of the brass.

 

[Moonbear]

http://www.webmd.com/balance/guide/effects-of-stress-on-your-body

Given that we tax alcohol, tobacco, and now even fat, based on the logic that the use of these products have a financial cost to society, it is interesting to note that stress is probably the single greatest cause of health problems, after genetics and aging.

Do insurance companies have the right to test for stress hormones and adjust insurance rates accordingly? Also, is it possible to somehow tax people who choose highly stressful lifestyles, or who engage in highly stressful activities?

I'd rather get the workman's comp for the work-related stress-induced health conditions.

On a more serious note, I'm not sure how they came up with numbers suggesting that such a high percentage of office visits are ailments related to stress. That sounds like enormous hand-waving.

And, stress hormones generally are a lousy way to measure physiological responses to stress. It's something that researchers have debated for a very long time. Under chronic stress, there's an adaptation of stress hormone responses, and after a short time of being elevated, they return to baseline. Yet, the person experiencing the stressor would still self-report as being stressed. And, one of the real difficulties in studies of things like PTSD is that exposure to the stressor itself doesn't determine susceptibility to develop health problems as a result of the experience. In all likelihood, but as yet lacking solid evidence in the literature (a lot of other things have been ruled out), it still boils down to genetics in terms of susceptibility to stress. Two people can work at the same job under the same conditions, and one will complain of constantly being under stress and another will take it all in stride and not perceive it as particularly stressful at all.

The anectdotal story I like to use just to illustrate the point is to talk about the job my mom had when I was in high school and college. She would always come home and talk about how stressful her day was, how much she had to do and how many deadlines and all the phones to answer, etc. Eventually, I got a temporary job there when they were down an employee and I needed some extra cash for college. I didn't find anything at all stressful about the job or workplace, and instead was bored to death with the job. This was still in the day of hand-written spreadsheets in ledger books, and they had something not balancing. I was told they'd been working for a week on the problem and nobody could find the error yet, so I was handed a pile of receipts and invoices and a calculator and set to work finding it. An hour later, I had found the incorrect entry and was looking for something else to occupy me. I only worked there two weeks, and at the end of the two weeks, I think I had gone to everyone in the office and they were all running out of work for me to do. So, I'm pretty sure that what counts as a stressor is really hard to quantify, unless boredom is a stressor too.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It goes back to my earlier post. Car insurance companies discriminate based on age which is theoretically illegal except that they discriminate 'against' younger people as opposed to older people and younger people do not have the lobby to protect them that older people do. They discriminate based on sex but 'against' males as opposed to females and males do not have a protective lobby. They discriminate based on where you live which on the surface seems fine and does not actually target a protected demographic except that blacks and hispanics are the ones prodominantly effected and they have quite a lobby so they can fight it even though they are not directly targeted.

Based on your logic, any risk-based assesment of insurance costs or taxes are discrimination. How is charging more for insurance for any person with a history of health problems not discrimination?

Smoking and drinking impact all demographics. They may effect minorities more so but I think anyone would be hard pressed to show discriminatory levels of disproportion in statistics for medical purposes. They are also choices and while one can theoretically choose where one lives it is a choice with far less freedom than whether or not one smokes or drinks.

So then addiction is a myth?

Stress is certainly a multi-demographic issue aswell. The thing is that rich folk in high stress jobs probably pay for premium insurance to begin with and wouldn't even notice much if their payments were a bit higher, just as they probably have premium car insurance would not likely notice a difference there either. The pressure would come from poorer people who work in warehouses and such places where there is high stress and less income and they are less likely to be able to afford medical insurance to begin with. And then there are the union jobs and the unions have quite a voice.

Medical insurance providers instituting such a policy would suffer great political backlash and I'm sure they know it.

Well, since by yours and MB's statements, since it seems that we can't properly distribute the burden of the number one cause of health problems, instead we should just target the easy pickings - the poor, the under-represented, and those who suffer from deadly addictions or other problems - and impose excessive taxes and fees on them to make up the difference?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Based on your logic, any risk-based assesment of insurance costs or taxes are discrimination. How is charging more for insurance for any person with a history of health problems not discrimination?

There is a difference between discrimination and illegal discrimination. My point is that courts decide what is illegal discrimination and only those who have representation and choose to sue for discrimination will be protected.

So then addiction is a myth?

No. But one chooses to smoke and chooses to drink while one does not choose where one is born or how rich the family they are born to will be. Most poor people live all or most of their lives in or near the same area where they grew up.
As I mentioned the primary target for lobbiests regarding alcohol and tobacco are going to be the companies that sell them. Not so much medical insurance companies. And on that front making sure that the poor have medical coverage to begin with is likely a greater concern than the policies of the insurance companies though the policies are probably treated as a part of the larger concern.

Well, since by yours and MB's statements, since it seems that we can't properly distribute the burden of the number one cause of health problems, instead we should just target the easy pickings - the poor, the under-represented, and those who suffer from deadly addictions or other problems - and impose excessive taxes and fees on them to make up the difference?

I did not mean to make any value judgement or take any stance in this regard. I only meant to paint a picture of the concerns of the groups involved. I actually very much support the idea of socialized medicine.

 

[Moonbear]

Well, since by yours and MB's statements, since it seems that we can't properly distribute the burden of the number one cause of health problems...

I'm not convinced it IS the number one cause of health problems. That WebMD article has no references to back up those claims, and while it's usually a reasonable source of basic information on medical issues, it does get things wrong from time to time...especially when the person writing the article hasn't bothered to cite any sources. Do you have a source to back up that claim beyond the WebMD site?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm not convinced it IS the number one cause of health problems. That WebMD article has no references to back up those claims, and while it's usually a reasonable source of basic information on medical issues, it does get things wrong from time to time...especially when the person writing the article hasn't bothered to cite any sources. Do you have a source to back up that claim beyond the WebMD site?

Yes, I'm quite sure there have been other recent reports about this. A recent report heard is what made me think of this in the first place. I will dig some up. However, note that the $300 Billion number is attributed to an OSHA report. And that only applies to the workplace.

Also, surely you would agree that it is a signficant factor no matter the language.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No. But one chooses to smoke and chooses to drink while one does not choose where one is born or how rich the family they are born to will be. Most poor people live all or most of their lives in or near the same area where they grew up.

Again you seem to be suggesting that addiction is a choice.

As I mentioned the primary target for lobbiests regarding alcohol and tobacco are going to be the companies that sell them. Not so much medical insurance companies. And on that front making sure that the poor have medical coverage to begin with is likely a greater concern than the policies of the insurance companies though the policies are probably treated as a part of the larger concern.

My point is in regards to taxes and insurance costs to the individual. From my point of view, tobacco and alcohol taxes in particular unfairly target the poor and people with addictions. I think it was Whoopie Goldberg who was saying that a pack of cigarettes cost something like $10 in New York now. Almost all of that cost goes to taxes. At that rate, we can expect a black market for cigarettes that will only follow suit with the violence and crime associated with illegal drugs. But that is another discussion.

I did not mean to make any value judgement or take any stance in this regard. I only meant to paint a picture of the concerns of the groups involved. I actually very much support the idea of socialized medicine.

Yes, this is not intended to be personal. I am trying to demonstrate the problem with a risk-based system. If we are going to charge and tax according to risk, then it must apply to ALL siginficant risks. I don't see how else the system can be fair and equitable. Based on the link in the op and other reports that I have heard about, stress is the elephant in the room.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Again you seem to be suggesting that addiction is a choice.

I am suggesting that addiction is a consequence of choice and that there is far more freedom in those choices than the choice of where one lives.
I do not make much money. I live in a poor neighbourhood. I smoke and I drink.
I'll tell you right now that between choosing to quit smoking and choosing to live in a nicer neighbourhood the later would be the more difficult to accomplish.

My point is in regards to taxes and insurance costs to the individual. From my point of view, tobacco and alcohol taxes in particular unfairly target the poor and people with addictions. I think it was Whoopie Goldberg who was saying that a pack of cigarettes cost something like $10 in New York now. Almost all of that cost goes to taxes. At that rate, we can expect a black market for cigarettes that will only follow suit with the violence and crime associated with illegal drugs. But that is another discussion.

As far as taxes are concerned I would agree. I do not support "sin taxes". But probably more so for other reasons than you do.

Yes, this is not intended to be personal. I am trying to demonstrate the problem with a risk-based system. If we are going to charge and tax according to risk, then it must apply to ALL siginficant risks. I don't see how else the system can be fair and equitable. Based on the link in the op and other reports that I have heard about, stress is the elephant in the room.

I understand. When it comes to a private company though I can not argue with informed risk assessment. Its certainly not fair. Its not supposed to be. That is why I prefer socialized medicine.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I am suggesting that addiction is a consequence of choice and that there is far more freedom in those choices than the choice of where one lives.
I do not make much money. I live in a poor neighbourhood. I smoke and I drink.
I'll tell you right now that between choosing to quit smoking and choosing to live in a nicer neighbourhood the later would be the more difficult to accomplish.

It is undeniable that many people struggle desperately with addiction. I don't know how many people smoke or drink by choice as opposed to those who can't help themselves, but the fact is that addiction destroys lives every day. That is a tougher road to follow than is moving. You know that by smoking you are killing yourself, so why don't you quit? Isn't that a greater motivation to quit than is a tax?

Just popping into post a couple of links regarding the cost and causes of stress.

Work-related stress is one of the biggest health and safety challenges that we face in Europe. Nearly one in four workers is affected by it, and studies suggest that between 50% and 60% of all lost working days are related to it. This represents a huge cost in terms of both human distress and impaired economic performance.

http://osha.europa.eu/en/topics/stress

Stress
Having good mental health helps you make good decisions and deal with lifeÌs challenges at home, work and school. (APA, How Psychotherapy Helps People Recover from Depression, 1998)
Learn more here.
Two thirds of Americans say they are likely to seek help for stress. (APA Survey 2004)
45% of workers list job insecurity has a significant impact on work stress levels. (APA Survey 2004)
61% of workers list heavy workloads as a significant impact on work stress levels. (APA Survey 2004)
Executives and managers tend to have the most stressful jobs, while self-employed workers are the least stressed. (APA Survey 2004)
A majority of workers (52%) are more stressed because of work than home. (APA Survey 2004)
54% of workers are concerned about health problems caused by stress. (APA Survey 2004)
One in four workers have taken a mental health day off from work to cope with stress. (APA Survey 2004)
Learn more here.
62% of Americans say work has a significant impact on stress levels. (APA Survey 2004)
73% of Americans name money as the number one factor that affects their stress level. (APA Survey 2004)
Fifty-four percent of Americans are concerned about the level of stress in their everyday lives. (APA Survey 2004)

http://apahelpcenter.org/articles/topic.php?id=6

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A related discussion is the so-called fat tax

Alabama officials are warning state employees to shape up or pay more for health insurance.

On Friday, the State Employees' Insurance Board announced a new plan beginning next year in which state employees will be required to receive medication screenings for several conditions, including body mass index. Those considered obese or who have high blood pressure, high cholesterol or high glucose will have to pay $25 a month more in health insurance beginning in January 2011, if they don't take steps to address their health problems.

The new rule will affect more than 37,000 people employed by the state. Alabama is the first state to issue a so-called fat tax. The state already charges smokers a $24 per month surcharge (which will increase to $25 next month)...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2008/08/alabama-places.html

There has been discussion of taxing fatty foods. Also, I don't know if anyone has proposed a salt tax yet, but by the current logic, they should. From what I understand, sodium is one of the greatest offenders related to issues of heart disease and high blood pressure. Then we could talk about processed sugars and diabetes...

Note also that the current philosophy is to tax health sins to such a level that the sins are avoided.