Pericles: Don't put words in my mouth, so to speak. I didn't mention anything about genetics. I'm talking about behaviour based on free choice here. Whilst there is some overlap between the two, it would be pretty easy for the health system to determine whose problems were genetic and whose were self-afflicted. Penalising the latter does not imply penalising the former.

You missed one of my major points. Calls from some people to tax junk food, much like taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, are sin taxes. However, someone consuming an odd bit of junk food (especially if he or she leads a very active lifestyle) is not going to cause problems for himself or herself, or for society via the medical system. Yet such a person would still get sin taxed along the same lines as someone who doesn't use such products in moderation. Deal with the outcomes.

I was not my intention to "put words in your mouth" shorbe, I just trying to describe the slippery slope that we find ourselves on when it comes to a "user pays" philosophy.

First of all, no government is going to unravel the existing system by insisting that everyone "bears the consequences of their actions by paying the real costs of their healthcare", because there would be riots on the street.

Are injuries from a car accident the consequences of someone's actions, and if so, would they be liable to pay? For their own treatment? For any other injuries caused in the accident? Who would decide?

What about a twentysomething vegan bushwalker who gets bitten by a snake? Or falls off a cliff? If they had taken more care... etc etc.

As an alternative they might, however, insist that we all take out insurance. And once in the hands of the insurance companies - well, that was what I was describing in my last post.

As you point out, the government is also hooked on the concept of "sin taxes", which - like speeding fines - are just another way to raise revenue while pretending it is in "all our interests". If everyone gave up smoking, avoided alcohol, drove within the speed limits and shunned fatty foods, believe me, they would simply have to find different ways of taxing us. Someone would discover that tofu is bad for you, and whammo - a tax on tofu "in the interests of keeping Australia healthy".

So on the one hand we have a healtcare system that does not discriminate against fatties, drug addicts, drunks etc., but instead the government finds ways to modify our behaviours through the legal system and through taxation. On balance it seems just a little less drastic than the reverse, which is for the health system to discriminate and for taxation to be relaxed.

Regarding so-called sin taxes. I have maximum no claims bonus on car insurance. I get a discount on home and contents because I have an alarm system and deadlocks. I don't set out to qualify for these discounts to save money, but because it makes good sense to do the things which happen to result in earning these discounts. If I didn't earn these discounts, I wouldn't be paying a sin tax. I would merely be paying premiums which more accurately represented my attitude to driving and home ownership.

I have never smoked, so I've never paid tobacco tax. I am a light drinker, so I pay a small amount of alcohol tax. I eat an occasional take away meal, so I would pay an occasional small amount of extra tax if such things incurred extra tax. If I overindulged in such products to the point where it could reasonably be said that, on average, my intake was likely to seriously affect my health, then who should bear the probable extra cost on the health system? Obviously, I should. I wouldn't call this a sin tax, merely a logical and fair way of balancing the country's books.

I try to have a healthy lifestyle because I enjoy the feeling of being fit enough to be able to do the things I like to do. I have a very active life. And I take a pride in being slim and fit looking.

I'm not judgemental about other people's lifestyles. It's nothing to do with me what others choose to do with their bodies. But we're constantly being told that we have an epidemic of obesity and the evidence is all around us. If this trend is not reversed, it will be an ever increasing burden on our health service. Someone will have to pay for this and it should logically be the ones who are contributing most to this burden.

If such a tax was introduced gradually and with well publicised reasoning, there wouldn't be rioting in the streets, no more than there is when tobacco taxes are gradually increased.

Pericles: In your hypothetical situation of a car accident, obviously, people make silly mistakes (that may, unfortunately, be fatal), and then there are people who just take outrageous risks (eg. drink driving, speeding, etc.). I don't think we should penalise the former, as "we're all only human". The latter should be heavily penalised, however. Who would decide? Well, we already have a system in place that does that.

Again, there may be freak mishaps (and let's remember that most injuries actually occur in the home), and then there are activities that are clearly dicing with death (eg. parachuting).

I wouldn't have a problem with people having to take out insurance. If you want a government model, you could have restrictions on using genetic testing. If you want a free market model, it would be up to consumers to avoid using companies that used genetic testing if they thought it was wrong (and there would be enough customers that it would work for both customers and ethical companies).

You're probably quite right that the government would find ways to tax us regardless, which seems like it's almost a fatalistic argument or the beginning of an anti-government argument. I think, in many ways you're right about this with tax, although I think I would come out better off under my system. As a side issue, whilst I am very much in favour of developing and implementing alternative fuel sources, even if we could all generate enough free, clean solar power to run our houses and cars, the government would gouge us for owning such things.

I have no problem with the health system discriminating or taxation being relaxed. You're talking to someone who would ultimately like the state to disappear up its own... However, I guess we won't agree on that.

Rex: I'm with you on this, but expecting someone to pay his or her own way rather than passing that onto someone else is very "un-Australian" of us -- it's the "little Aussie battler's" right to stick his hand in someone else's pocket (preferably ours)!

There's an emotional aspect to being overweight that is being missed here. People self-medicate with drugs and alcohol to make themselves feel good. Food acts like a drug in that it produces a pleasruable response in the brain and we also associate it with nurturing. Many, many people eat for comfort so deal with personal pain or depression and eat when they are stressed. The fact that we are working long hours is problematic too. If you work full-time and then need to attend to kids before and after work too, there is precious little time to focus on yourself and exercise.

In my experience the size of the person is a good indicator of their socio-economic station. Often, the larger you are, the poorer you are. Poor people are very good at saying they aren't hungry when they haven't eaten all day.

Pericles said that junk food was expensive, yes but the working poor consider McDonalds to be an expensive indulgence and they know which fish and chip shop has humungous serves of $2 chips. How else can you feed a family for $2. Don't tell me about the carcinegenic qualities of chemically cleaned cooking oils. Don't forget to include gas and electricity in your calculations.

Rex told us that he swims a brisk 100 metres per day. People who are watching their budget aren't willing to spend $3 on pool entry for a 30 minute swim.

Many heavy people, excluding present company, reward themselves with food after a particularly trying day. The supermarkets know this and sell hot cross buns from New Year until Easter - as well as Easter Eggs. How many of you did not have your first hot cross bun or egg until Easter?

Time and time again surveys show that about 25% of primary school children don't eat breakfast.

If we are serious about childhood obesity and the dangers of the 25% of malnourished children in Australian schools then it might be time to consider school lunches in all those areas where more than 20% of the population is on social security benefits. And presumably not allow the canteen to supply hamburgers, fries or coke.