There are those that are fat, there are those that smoke and those that need behavior modification. So it is any wonder when we read the highlights of the Obamacare law, we begin to understand what is in the law and why? It is any wonder why Mayor Bloomberg of New York City tried the concept of controlling soda in take, salt on the food and then there is Michelle Obama and her food program. It all begins to come into full view. Read here for the full 2 page essay courtesy of Jonathan Gruber.
Gruber became the healthcare expert on behavior modification that was core in the construction of the Obamacare law. Gruber wrote a book and a detailed essay which is found here. 
Every day young people engage in risky behaviors that affect not only their immediate well-being but their long-term health and safety. These well-honed essays apply diverse economic analyses to a wide range of unsafe activities, including teen drinking and driving, smoking, drug use, unprotected sex, and criminal activity. Economic principles are further applied to mental health and performance issues such as teenage depression, suicide, nutritional disorders, and high school dropout rates. Together, the essays yield notable findings: price and regulatory incentives are critical determinants of high-risk behavior, suggesting that youths do apply some sort of cost/benefit calculation when making decisions; the macroeconomic environment in which those decisions are made matters greatly; and youths who pursue high-risk behaviors are significantly more likely to engage in similar behaviors as adults.
Taxing Sin to Modify Behavior and Raise Revenue
Jonathan Gruber, PhD, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
U.S. policymakers have long used taxes on tobacco products and alcoholic beverages – so called “sin taxes” – both to moderate consumption of these products and to generate revenue. There is a pronounced inverse correlation between cigarette tax rates and cigarette consumption (Figure 1), and numerous studies have credited tobacco taxes as being the single most effective strategy in achieving our country’s dramatic reductions in smoking. 1 More recently, similar taxes on products linked to obesity have been receiving increased attention, with the Institute of Medicine recommending this strategy as a weapon against childhood obesity, 2 several states and localitites flirting with significant new taxes on sugary sodas, and an early proposal to use a soda tax as a financing source for national health reform. A just-released longitudinal study showing that a 10 percent rise in the price of sweetened soft drinks was associated with a 7 percent decline in daily caloric intake from sodas, lower overall calorie consumption, lower weight, and improved insulin resistance lends new support to a sin tax on sugary soda.3 States now facing severe budget shortfalls may also find these taxes hard to resist. Estimates produced by the Yale University Rudd Center suggest, for example, that California could raise over $560 million in 2010 alone by taxing sugary beverages at a rate of 3 cents per 12 ounces. 4 Despite this allure, the case for sin taxes is not clear cut. In this essay I review the arguments for and against sin taxes and describe how these considerations play out for cigarettes and alcoholic beverages. I then offer some thoughts on using sin taxes to combat rising obesity rates.
