> "Not in countries with partially or fully-socialized healthcare."

Even in countries without, the public still end up paying the price in the end. Even if they don't see it manifest in their taxes, the social cost of cola manifests in other ways such as living in an environment where obesity is commonplace (aesthetic impact), having obese friends and family (particularly medical expenses in the family.) When obesity is commonplace, fit labor is in short supply which drives up the cost of everything. Public transit holds fewer people when massively obese cola drinkers are filling up more than one seat. Fewer people walk or cycle around town, opting instead to drive which results in worse traffic and worse air quality. The perceived importance of outdoor facilities like parks, hiking trails, etc all take a hit. All in all, obesity is bad for the economy, bad for the environment, and bad for the aesthetic qualities of society.

When the majority are physically fit, everybody benefits (even those who aren't fit.) When the majority are unfit, everybody is harmed (even those who are fit.)

This is the biggest corporate and right wing driver for opposing socialized medicine in the US. It isn't the free healthcare that is problem,because a rational corp would love to offload health care costs onto the worker, it is that it will completely upend the relationship between corporations and the government.

Just deny care to those who drink soda or do other unhealthy things.

I can’t tell if you’re kidding, but this is a slippery slope that doesn’t end well, especially for addictive behavior. “Oh, you’re addicted to opioids? Sorry, no treatment for you. Maybe you should’ve been more responsible.”

It’s not the job of a doctor to pass moral judgement on you. They can recommend healthier habits, but doctors deciding whom to treat and whom not to treat based on some arbitrary moral judgement is really scary territory. It’s punitive and more importantly, it doesn’t work. Punishing people for their self-induced health problems doesn’t make them better, and it opens the door to some really scary discrimination.

If you don't do that you're on the other end of that slippery slope.

Should a chain smoker and someone with no elective risk factors have equal eligibility for a lung transplant? They're otherwise comparable patients. One's going to die, and there's only one lung to go around.

We seem to survive as a society by using systems like that for insurance that isn't health insurance. If your house burns down it matters if it was because of foreseeable and reckless behavior on your part.

Except it’s easy to prove negligence with a house fire, less so for medical problems. But those aren’t equivalent things. A fire is a one-off event, and if you don’t catch it right away, it runs its course and then it’s over. But how do you adequately paint a smoker as negligent? They’re certainly doing it to themselves, but they also have an addiction, propped up by companies and a society and probably a social group that supports them.

It’s obvious whether or not you’ve had a house fire, and it’s sometimes possible to divine who was at fault. But healthcare isn’t binary like that. Organ transplants are a special case too, and the ethics there are tricky because of limited resources. It also depends he wilt on compatibility. It doesn’t really matter if a smoker gets new lungs and a non-smoker doesn’t if the smoker is compatible with available lungs and the non-smoker isn’t.

Are you really responsible for your car accident record, or did you through no fault of your own develop an adrenaline addiction, propped up by auto commercials and a neighborhood that normalized street racing?

For any tax or public policy you can find sob stories on the edges, it doesn't mean it's not a good idea in the aggregate to enact the policy.

Which is what I'm pointing out in this case, it's generally a good idea to tax the specific harm that's being addressed (unhealthyness), not some mostly-but-not-quite related variable (sugar consumption).

That organ transplant example isn't meant to be plausible, but an apocryphal story. You presented a story of "no treatment for you" for someone being grossly negligent with their own body.

I'm pointing out that you'll equivalently have otherwise healthy people who don't get timely treatment because the health care system overall is strained by obesity-related illnesses, tobacco-related cancers etc.

Doing nothing is equivalent to continuing to punish people for their health problems because some other people have preventable self-induced health problems. So I don't think you can make the slippery-slope argument, or claim the moral high ground.

Difficult to implement, how do you know if a given person is obese due to soda or to, e.g., genetics?

And even if it could be implemented, it's still not the point of universal healthcare. In most European countries we'd rather take care of everyone, even those who are guilty of their own health problems.

For example, and even from an egoistic point of view and leaving ethics aside, I'd rather have drug addicts treated and sheltered with my tax money than having to encounter dozens of them, homeless and stinking from bad hygiene, every time I walk the street, as I have seen in many US cities.

Because 99.999% of people are going to be because of soda.

That would be inconsistent with generally accepted social values in western countries.

Right and then pay with increased crime and homlessnes.