[bonestormii_]

Eh, I don't find this argument compelling. Insurance companies already have significant influence in the government, and the line from sugar consumption to health care costs has already been established. So if this is the concern, well... guess what... it's already the case.

Also, while there are examples of behavioral engineering taxes (tobacco, etc.), this can't really be applied so easily to a basic food item like sugar, which is in practically everything in varying degrees. People have revolted over taxes on tea, mind you. A coffee tax, sugar tax, etc. is nearly unthinkable.

Furthermore, this type of taxation is not correlated with already existing examples of socialized medical systems, and this concern over pleasure taxes is not typically expressed by opponents to socialized medicine. Rather, the issue I hear expressed is that people who have good insurance already are scared they will wind up with something worse, and will have no other options at that point. This belief seems to be related and magnified by the xenophobic tendencies of the American political right (the more vocal opponents of socialized medicine; though so-called moderate liberals don't really entertain it either). They believe that if we let marginalized groups have equal access to good medical care, it will dilute their own access, creating scarcity and resulting in longer wait times to get treatment. These people also generally fear 'big government', and characterize anything run by the government as inefficient and costly. Therefore, they essentially believe they will pay more in taxes than the cost of their existing insurance; that they will be subsidizing the cost of care for peoples they generally contempt (HIV meds for homosexuals; abortions for women); and will have worse care for themselves. That's pretty much the argument in a nutshell. It's extremely petty and self-serving.

But, it's not so much that their belief is fully incorrect. While it is likely that health care would cost much much less overall for everyone, it could reduce their presently-VIP access to essential medical treatment in some instances. They believe their money entitles them to better access to medical treatment.

In conclusion, the more realistic (and actual) good faith argument is that insurance companies already do lobby the government to prevent any legislation that would pose an existential threat to their industry, which has vast wealth and power. Socializing medicine is good for medicine, and bad for medical insurers. So, they pay politicians who perpetuate the beliefs I described above and resist meaningful regulation and reform of the medical industry.

This is simply a fact. No need to construct unrealistically contrived stories about pleasure taxes. Ask these people in private what they believe. They will certainly tell you!