If You Care About the Uninsured, Please Drink Budweiser. Or Schlitz. Or Coors. Or Hamm’s. It Doesn’t Really Matter What Beer You Drink, Only That You Drink a Highly Taxed Beer. And If You Really Care About The Uninsured, Why Not Drink a Case of Beer?
Nick Gillespie | May 21, 2009, 7:21am
*** begin quote ***
Is it too late to take it all back, this loose talk about legalizing “vices” and then taxing them?
Some details on a “proposed beer tax” currently working its way through Congress like a kidney stone through Ted Kennedy’s man-parts. It’s all over but the shouting, screaming, and gnashing of teeth:
Consumers in the United States may have to hand over nearly $2 more for a case of beer to help provide health insurance for all.
Details of the proposed beer tax are described in a Senate Finance Committee document that will be used to brief lawmakers Wednesday at a closed-door meeting.
Taxes on wine and hard liquor would also go up. And there might be a new tax on soda and other sugary drinks blamed for contributing to obesity. No taxes on diet drinks, however.
Beer taxes would go up by 48 cents a six-pack, wine taxes would rise by 49 cents per bottle, and the tax on hard liquor would increase by 40 cents per fifth. Proceeds from the new taxes would help cover an estimated 50 million uninsured Americans.
*** end quote ***
And, of course, there won’t be any discussion of:
(1) Why do beer drinkers have to pay for the “uninsured”?
(2) Who is in the 50M “uninsured”? (Young people, people who could afford insurance, illegal aliens, UAW pensioners)
(3) Why is the government in the health insurance business in the first place?
# # # # #