As President Obama begins to strongly push for health care reform, the nation is steeped in controversy.Republicans — and many Americans in general — are fundamentally opposed to the most basic ideas at the root of his proposed solutions.  Republicans fear the bill, which would fundamentally alter the health care landscape by introducing a national health-care plan, pushes the nation towards socialism.One of their biggest issues with the plan is money — how, conservatives ask, can Obama possibly plan to pay for such sweeping “reforms?”It’s an undeniably legitimate question.By all accounts, the plan for health care reform will cost a huge amount of funding, as much as a trillion dollars.  With the nation already under a colossal deficit, many believe the amount paid for reform may simply be too steep.Obama and his supporters obviously believe it is needed, and they are proposing some innovative solutions in an attempt to come up with a way to fund the programs.One of these solutions is an innovative take on an old strategy — create another sin tax.”Sin taxes” are nothing new. They are essentially taxes on items that are traditionally considered “sinful,” such as alcohol or cigarettes. Such taxes provide government funding while simultaneously discouraging less than admirable behavior. The novel part of the proposed tax is what it would affect — soft drinks.Proponents of a soda sin tax argue that taxing soft drinks to pay for health care reform just makes sense.  First, the tremendous amount of soft drinks purchased daily would mean a huge revenue stream.Secondly, taxing soft drinks — and thereby likely reducing their consumption, in the same way previous sin taxes have — is a kind of health care reform in and of itself. Soft drinks have undeniably negative effects on consumers’ health and contribute to the obesity epidemic that is our nation’s ultimate health crisis.But the soda tax is unlikely to succeed. Obviously, such a tax would be wildly unpopular and difficult or impossible to pass. In addition, the research indicates such a tax might do little or nothing to actually limit consumption and would pay but a fraction of whatever mammoth health care overhaul eventually solidifies.But even if the soda tax fails, it brings up an important point.No matter how much money is thrown into reforming our health care system, those reforms will be meaningless if they do nothing to correct the unhealthy behaviors that plague Americans. The biggest issue is obesity. By any standard, obesity is an epidemic in this country, and the resulting health problems are largely responsible for the stresses we are seeing in the system.Unfortunately, correcting the lifestyles that lead to obesity on any meaningful scale is a difficult task.One solution is to discourage consumption of unhealthy foods — such as sodas — by taxes. If a national health care plan is created, then some propose that it would require obese people to pay more. The arguments for forcing those who practice unhealthy behaviors to pay more for health care are similar to those for the soda tax — it would simultaneously discourage unhealthy behaviors while providing additional revenue.  Besides, it only seems fair that those with unhealthy lifestyles pay more, since they are more likely to require service.However, these negative incentives do have some drawbacks.First, obesity is more prevalent among lower-income families. As any college student knows, healthy eating often requires time, effort and money that many Americans simply cannot afford. Imposing further financial burdens may not just be ineffective, but actually counter-productive.Second, although obesity is certainly influenced by unhealthy behavior, genetic factors do favor certain individuals. Is it fair to require people with a genetic disposition towards weight gain to pay more?  The most fair solution would obviously account for genetic factors, but such a system would be ripe for abuse and likely impossible to create in the first place.But the complexities involved with penalties for unhealthy behavior don’t end there. What constitutes unhealthy behavior? Should smokers pay more under a government health program? Should those who do not exercise? Should college students who party on the weekends have to pay more for their government health insurance?These are all questions that need to be answered.  In addition, a standard for determining the degree of these penalties would be difficult to implement.The problem with health care reform isn’t only whether to create government-sponsored health insurance. Even if the political capital can be mustered to create such a program, significant effort will need to be put into solving these questions.And it’s important that everyone pay attention — because the solutions could have significant impacts on American lifestyles.
 
Matthew Albright is a 20-year-old mass communication sophomore from Baton Rouge.
 
 
—–Contact Matthew Albright at [email protected]