President Obama is stirring up negative public sentiments by toying with the idea of putting a tax on soda to lower the cost of health care.

Although he is correct in the correlation between soda and obesity, there are numerous other factors raising health care costs in America, and a tax on soda alone would not be able to cover these rising fees.

"By itself it would probably not really directly impact health care costs because there are so many other foods in addition to pop that has had an impact on the increase in obesity in the country," said political science professor Don Vermillion. "If you really want impact on health care you would probably attack not just pop but snack foods in addition. Also, the Center for Disease Control talks about how it's not just food and drink we have a problem with but lack of exercise, which impacts obesity and health care costs."

Professor of dietetics Fran Angelo agrees, poses the question why tax one obesity factor and leave out the other?

"How about doughnuts and chips? Will these be taxed someday?" Angelo said. "This becomes a philosophical dilemma that each person must resolve in their own mind."

One potential reason Obama targeted the soda pop industry was the possibility that the public would accept this tax the same way they accepted tax on alcohol.

"Because beer has been taxed over the years, the thought may be that since people have accepted tax on beer and alcohol that maybe tax on soda pop would be something the public could accept if there was a feeling it could reduce rising health care bills in country," Vermillion said.

But comparing the pros and cons resulting on the American public from this tax show that the biggest hit would be to lower income households. In these economically challenging times this is not what citizens are looking for.

"Already they've had spokesmen saying how damaging of an impact this would be on the soda industry and making a big case that the people most hit by this would be those with lower incomes," Vermillion said. "Therefore it would not be a wise way to fund health care initiatives."

Along with hurting lower-class budgets, Obama's potential soda pop tax, known by many as a "sin tax," has American citizens upset for one main reason: the word tax.

The deal Obama made with Americans was a promise of no new taxes and proposing this idea seems to counter that.

Yet all this conflict may be trivial considering this is one of many proposals Obama has developed to lower health care costs.

"I think he's trying to find any way that he can to fund the health care proposal being debated in Washington," Vermillion said. "And I'm thinking this was an idea that he threw out to see what kind of reaction there would be.

"I don't think he has even thought this through; he just threw it out as one idea, but there are number of ideas being floated around in Washington as to how we pay for this new health care proposal being discussed," Vermillion said. "No one has an easy answer, and they don't want to increase the deficit, so they're trying to find new ways to come up with funding sources to not make the deficit worse."

And when Obama put two and two together, seeing the need for lowering health care costs and rising obesity rates, the possibility seemed to make sense.

"Obama was commenting on the fact that it's a known fact that Americans are more obese and maybe helping the health care reform package could possibly decrease the obesity we're seeing in the country," Vermillion said. "But a soda tax by itself is not going to be able to stem that tide. It's going to take much more than a soda tax to be able to turn this situation around in America."

Angelo agrees it will take more, and for her the way to stifle the obesity spike is by getting to the core of it: education.

"Taxing may be considered," she said, "but education of all age groups on the benefits of healthy eating and exercise will be the key to solving this problem."