Well it's not like you have much choice in the Uk.

considering your government pays for healthcare.

It's just one of those dumb and annoying sitautions your stuck with when it comes to univesal healthcare... someones rights are always infringed on.

A) People aren't taxed for unhealthy lifestyles, meaning the healthy have to offset their poor choices.

B) People are taxed for unhealthy lifestyles, meaning their choices are being engineered by the government... and the healthy people who have unhealthy habits are screwed and are paying more for those people.  Since unhealthy food doesn't effect people the same way.

C) Tax people for being fat.  This is unfair to people who are naturally fat... though... possibly not, considering that being fat means your probably likely to require more medical treatment.... but again... not nessisairly.

D) Tax everyone more... but offer credits to people who live health lifestylse... basically "You must pay this much more but you won't if you take advantage of these free things the government sponsers."  Like regular doctors checkups.  (The UK does pay for bi-anual doctors visits right?)

Really it's something I can't figure to find a way to NOT infringe on someones rights...  D seems like the best.

i have trouble believing your 2liter of pop is that high.  prices in the states are generally 20-50% cheaper on everything including food items than products in canada.  and i can go buy a 2litre of pop for 99 cents.  

and the water is cheaper than pop only when getting it from the tap.

Don't know what to tell you.  It's $1.99 at my cornerstore.  $1.50 at the supermarket.  More at other places.

Where i used to live it was more like... 1.70 - 2.50 cornerstore.

Supermarket store brand spring water = 99 cents a galon... at most.

Heck.  Diet Coke is 99% water.

Well, it's not really "penalizing". It's making them personally incur the costs that they're simply forcing the nation to incur. As a conservative, you're against having tax payers pay for someone else's personal choice right? This is a way to prevent that in the least invasive way possible.

If we don't have the government pay for people's health care, then we have a lot of economic inefficienies, and on top of that, HUGE unrest. The lesson of the Great Depression, a lesson that Ottoman Bismark learned a long time before that, is that stability needs to be achieved, and compromise is needed.

FDR and the post-war governments are ultimately conservative. If you let things just free fall, you get extremism. Already, there's unrest with the tea party, and you can see the uproar the Ryan plan is causing with seniors. Now imagine a few more years when college graduates, after being raised with the assumption that they will join the middle class their parents raised them in, find that it no longer exists, and they can't get any jobs, permanetly fucking them over for their career development.

A) I'm not a conservative.

B) No it isn't... sicne acting unhealthy in one isntance =/= incurring costs.  The most inevasive way to do it... and damage to society is a fallacy.  Afterall, if I could be a great doctor... but instead decide I want to try to be a comedian... and I'm unpopular.... aren't i costing society a great doctor?  The nation is nothing more then the sum of individuals and their choices.  It isn't cost anything.

C) You do know FDR didn't stop the great depression right?  He just prolonged it... and if he was a conservative... i'd hate to see what a liberal would of done with the economy.

D) Herbert Hoover expanded government more then any other president before him... engaged in mass protectionism and wage controls.  So.... yeah.

E) The Ryan bill is causing an uproar among seniors... largely because of misinformation and fearmongering from the democrats. (not exclusive to the democrats.... but on this issue...) 

Seniors are uneffected by the plan.  Which makes sense.  Nobody should be effected except those who already don't have their 20 years in.

F) Well that's bound to happen whenever the government stops spending money... hell it's already creating a new housing bubble in an attempt to get construction jobs back up.  Governments only create bubbles.  Those Keynes vs Hayek rap battles probably draws the best comparison... compairing the spending to drinking to get rid of your hangover... from over drinking.

In otherwords... your basic premises are flawed.

In trying to create stability... the government instead only ends up causing MORE insecurity.

Afterall, fat taxes don't go to pay those peoples medical bills in the future... they go to pay for peoples medical bills now... and any other money left over goes to pay for other stuff.

As for why this is problematic... well... see Social Security and it's emminent collapse.

The difference is... Insraunce companies spend the extra money on profitable ventures that increase their holding long term... while the goverment spends on projects that provide them no benefits... and often provides more overhead in terms of maintaining the program with those extra funds or no longer available or maitenence.

In theory, a fully rational government may be able to do things cheaper then the free market.  However the government is far from fully rational.  Far less rational then the indivdual.

Well, they tax tobacco, which by now is banned all over the place and second hand smoke complaints are not the norm. So that's a tax on personal choice right there. If health spendings due to obesity are nearing those due to smoking, there isn't much of a difference in taxing, at least as far as this justification goes. 
Of course one could still pass second hand smoke to family etc living together, but then again they can also feed them chocolate and coke.

I'd be fine with both C and D tax options! (And not extremely fine with heavily taxing selected food venues, because it's perfectly easy to bloat on supermarket shopping). Yeah, there are going to be some fat people who won't necessarily require those medical costs. Well, it's the same for smokers, shorter life cuts a lot of spending on meds and care, but some live long and might need more. It's just a risk profile, any type of insurance, state or private, is about pooled risk.

Well yeah.  The taxing of Tobacco is wrong too if you ask me.

Second hand smoking laws aren't however since it's directly effecting other people... however individual establishments should be able to make the choice.

i dont see any problem taxing unhealthy food and using the income to subsidize the cost of healthy products.  most people are really stupid and have no concept that doing certain things can have harmful impacts on themselves or society.  

...wow. That is actually abysmal.

This is the sort of crap I would expect from Labour, not a "sensible" Conservative government.

It's none of the government's business what people eat. Yes, the government is funding the NHS, but we're funding the government, aren't we? >_>

I don't see how eating unhealthy food impacts society.

Firstly, in moderation, it does nothing at all. Secondly, in large amounts, it hurts you, and you only. The USA has no nationalised healthcare, so there's not even that excuse.

Alcohol is different. That can damage society. It's also significantly more harmful than a fair few illegal drugs. Cigarettes are intended to kill the customer, so taxing those is fine. Unhealthy food is nothing like either of those two.