Obese blamed for the world's ills, page 6

privacy

Pages: << 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times

reply posted on 19-5-2008 @ 03:42 PM by Cuauhtemoc

So far I have seen many posts suggesting a tax on people that are classified as 'obese'. The idea itself isn't terrible, but it is still a negative incentive. Why not offer a positive incentive such as a tax break or federal bonus for anyone who get's below (and stays below for a certain period of time) that limit.

Obesity is once again a socio/economic issue, in my opinion. Due to many factors, a few being; the removal of home ec. from most schools, increase in saturated fats, sugar and salt in most packaged foods, the increased consumption of 'fast food' and precooked meals. There are so many issues surrounding obesity that one can't simply call some lazy or unmotivated. We all must take a look at our diets. Companies are sold, mandates change and once reliable, organic farms become industrial machines in a matter of months (on occasion).

Like an alcoholic though, no one can force someone else to quit, or change their behaviour. It is up to the individual to do as they please to their own body, providing it is not doing harm to anyone else.
It may be 'sad' to see parents raise their child(ren) in an unhalthy environment, but there is not much power we have over that person (that is how I like it anyway). Which none the less comes back to our individual rights to live and raise our children as we see fit (with in reason), without government interference. Governments can legislate higher nutritional standards, take candy machines out of schools, and so forth, but their reach should not enter into one's home.

Just a few thoughts on the topic...

-Cuauhtemoc

reply posted on 19-5-2008 @ 05:10 PM by TrekFan

reply to post by TheRedneck

I'm guessing next it'll be people who have more than two kids. Think about it: Each additional kid uses tons of resources, food, medicine. and OMG disposable diapers. Not to mention having more than two kids means you pretty much have to get a gigantic mega minivan. And with more than six million people in the world...

no i'm not advocating taxing anyone because of number of kids or whatever. I'd rather not live in another china.

reply posted on 19-5-2008 @ 05:58 PM by TrekFan

reply to post by Lilitu

you're opinion on the west's eating habits are totally hypocritical. If your part of the world didnt have so many freakin kids and didnt have a burgeoning population into the billions then maybe people wouldnt starve. It takes way more to feed ten kids than two. Your part of the world is being selfish by having so many children.
And lets not forget that alot of regions lack food because of poor farming practices, lack of technology and politics.

reply posted on 19-5-2008 @ 06:17 PM by jca2005

For someone being obese, they are responsible for it. Some people get depressed about things, and want to try to do a majority of things to get it off there minds, eating is one of them as well as not eating. People get real nervous about things and use eating as a way to calm them down, or just to do it. Some people don't have hope or to much to look forward to except for eating. Some people eat out of anger or sadness to try and calm their selves down or make them selves happy.

Some people do not have the motivation, they lack the confidence or the importance to do things, like losing weight.

reply posted on 19-5-2008 @ 09:56 PM by jackinthebox

reply to post by jca2005

Some people do not have the motivation, they lack the confidence or the importance to do things, like losing weight.

Actually, the lack of motivation is most often chemically induced, through the foods that people eat. Even fresh foods purchased at the supermarket, not just fast food. This is a part of the reason that America in particular is suffering from obesity. Americans didn't suddenly decide to become lazy in the last few years. The chemicals are in the water we drink (fluoride) and the foods we eat. The lack of motivation and energy is the chemically induced cause of obesity.

Did you really expect people to suddenly become motivated after they've been drugged?

[edit on 5/19/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply posted on 20-5-2008 @ 04:21 AM by wytworm

reply to post by Cuauhtemoc

Obese people don't already pay taxes?

reply posted on 20-5-2008 @ 11:04 AM by Rockpuck

reply to post by Extralien

"fat people eat more food then skinny people"

OMIGOSH NO WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, all you fatties out there.. save some rice for the poor 3rd worlders gosh.

We could always ship fat people to poor countries and feed them this way!

reply posted on 20-5-2008 @ 12:22 PM by jackinthebox

If everyone is really so concerned about the global food shortage, I suggest we look at ALL of the possibilities for addressing the issue...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply posted on 20-5-2008 @ 01:43 PM by TheRedneck

reply to post by TrekFan
Thank you for your support of my simple position: that taxing someone due to a lifestyle choice, any lifestyle choice, is counter to capitalism and freedom. I wonder what the feedback on here would be if someone were to suggest a tax on homosexuals? They do have a higher risk of AIDS, leading to increased health care costs. What about drinking coffee? Surely coffee is bad for you, and therefore adds to the chance that your medical bills may be higher than normal. Shouldn't that be taxed? Oh, wait, red meat increases cholesterol (supposedly), so there's a nice section of the population that needs to be taxed.

No. None of the above, not someone who is a bit overweight, and not smokers. Enough is enough. America is built on capitalism, not communism. My use of resources does not diminish your ability to use resources, it requires that I pay for those resources. In a short 200 years, this system took us from a rag-tag group of freedom fighters to the strongest nation on earth, with the greatest economy and highest technological advances in recorded history. In the last 50 years, a continuous move to deny that heritage has turned that into a nation teetering on the brink of economic collapse, unable to effectively fight a war, and at odds with much of the civilized world (not to mention an education system that is dismal, and a non-existent industrial base).

On another note, there is right now a move by the Medical Review Board of the FMCSA to require commercial drivers with a BMI of 30 or more to undergo sleep apnea testing, at the driver's expense of course, to maintain their CDL. This test would be required yearly, despite the fact that there is little evidence to connect sleep apnea to BMI and the fact that BMI is itself not always an accurate measure. Muscle weighs more than fat, always has, always will. According to the BMI definition, when Arnold Swartzenegger was Mr. Universe, he was morbidly obese.

This does not directly affect me, as my BMI is about 23.1. But it does in the sense that if one of us is chained, none of us are free. Info on this move can be found right here.

TheRedneck

reply posted on 20-5-2008 @ 03:28 PM by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by TrekFan
On another note, there is right now a move by the Medical Review Board of the FMCSA to require commercial drivers with a BMI of 30 or more to undergo sleep apnea testing, at the driver's expense of course, to maintain their CDL. This test would be required yearly, despite the fact that there is little evidence to connect sleep apnea to BMI and the fact that BMI is itself not always an accurate measure. Muscle weighs more than fat, always has, always will. According to the BMI definition, when Arnold Swartzenegger was Mr. Universe, he was morbidly obese.

TheRedneck

Can i just ay thank you so much for bringing up that little point. The BMI is a poor measure of healthy weight and it's a poor measure or general health. I've known stick thin people who are horribly unhealthy and couldn't outrun your average 50 year old, then you look at a rugby player and despite being quite large they're extremely fit.

Whilst i dislike anyone being obese becuase i think it's a clear sign of lazyness, they pay taxes on the fod they consume already. They shouldn't be further taxed for this reason, for an extra reason it's just the idea of a slippery slope. Today extra tax on fat people, then the smokers, then anyone involved in a high risk sport (skydiving, scuba diving, mountaineering etc). Once you open the flood gates to the idea that anyone harming themselves or putting themselves in harms way has to pay more, it's a never ending cascade of lifestyle invasions.

reply posted on 20-5-2008 @ 06:33 PM by kindred

What a truly sad state of affairs. Get me off this planet, humanity is now officially mad. To tax people simply because they are fat is absolutely ridiculous. If a fat person is working, then they have as much right as anyone else, to do with their money as they please. If there is one group of people who use up the most resources, it's the rich. They considerably use up more resources than your average person and there's also the fact that they do everything in their power to avoid paying taxes. I think it's safe to say that it's stupidity and ignorance that is contributing to the world food crisis and climate change. Most people are just not willing to take responsibility for the mess we are making, but instead pass the buck by blaming someone else.

reply posted on 20-5-2008 @ 06:41 PM by the titor experience

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
I hear what you're saying Deadline, and I agree with a lot of it, but what business is it of yours? Are you not free to grow as fat or smelly as you would like to? You can't seriously believe that taxing fat people would bring any benefit to society. It would just create an underclass of people and the societal blowback would be immeasurable. It's the slippery slope. Yes, we should encourage a healthy society. But that cannot be done through taxation. Isn't there enough of that? Even taxing Mickey D's or BK won't do the job. Taxing liquor and smokes sure hasn't stopped people from smoking and drinking. Can you really justify political action against fat people based on the pretext of environmentalism?

This is easily answered - the business it is of mine to believe people are not free to grow obese, lazy and consume so much more than what is healthy is as follows. In Australia, i pay taxes. Part of those taxes go towards our health system which is clogged with obese and overweight people - they use up so much MORE of our health systems resources than most people and are a drain on the system. I on the other hand use far less of the health systems resources but pay just as much tax as them. Fairness, in my eyes, dictates they should be paying more tax than me. While they are constantly being admitted for heart problems or illness associated with their obesity, i am outside keeping fit.

reply posted on 20-5-2008 @ 07:02 PM by ImaginaryReality1984

reply to post by the titor experience

I am in the UK and we have the NHS, a national insurance system that comes from taxes and treats everyone. Your argument isn't quite true because the fat people pay mor etaxes by buying more food. Furthermore if you start arguing as you are then before long we'll be in a system wher eyou ahve to prove you're healthy before you can be treated and then before you know it we're in a private system where we each pay our health insurance.

I hate the private system teh americans have and other countries also, it's truly awful and i don't even want to risk it becoming a reality.

reply posted on 20-5-2008 @ 07:07 PM by the titor experience

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by the titor experience

I am in the UK and we have the NHS, a national insurance system that comes from taxes and treats everyone. Your argument isn't quite true because the fat people pay mor etaxes by buying more food. Furthermore if you start arguing as you are then before long we'll be in a system wher eyou ahve to prove you're healthy before you can be treated and then before you know it we're in a private system where we each pay our health insurance.

I hate the private system teh americans have and other countries also, it's truly awful and i don't even want to risk it becoming a reality.

Too late for us - over here private health insurance is being pushed big time - both our education and health system is well into the process of "Americanisation".

Fat people are not taxed more because they buy more food. Firstly, they CHOOSE to eat more food whereas tax is something people have no choice over. Secondly, it is cheaper to eat poorly (junk food is cheaper than healthy food) so those who actually look after themselves pay MORE for their food.

Lastly, in an ideal world sure all of us would be able to get a hospital bed. But in a situation where you have a non-smoker who has excercised their whole life and in a healthy weight range, and an obese person who has crammed their body full of crap for 30 years - if both these people present to a hospital with heart pains but only 1 bed is available who deserves the bed?

reply posted on 20-5-2008 @ 07:21 PM by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by the titor experience
Too late for us - over here private health insurance is being pushed big time - both our education and health system is well into the process of "Americanisation".

I have to say i'm rather sad that i hear this is happening in Oz, really i never expected it of you people, i have such respect for your country.

Originally posted by the titor experience
Fat people are not taxed more because they buy more food. Firstly, they CHOOSE to eat more food whereas tax is something people have no choice over. Secondly, it is cheaper to eat poorly (junk food is cheaper than healthy food) so those who actually look after themselves pay MORE for their food.

Firstly i should point out that whilst it seems cheaper to use fast food it's quite wrong, i've done the figures so i know. Secondly i can speak only of the UK, the more you eat the more tax you pay as food is taxed quite often. Although cerain foods aren't taxed, look up the Jaffa cake court case for the tax issue

Originally posted by the titor experience
Lastly, in an ideal world sure all of us would be able to get a hospital bed. But in a situation where you have a non-smoker who has excercised their whole life and in a healthy weight range, and an obese person who has crammed their body full of crap for 30 years - if both these people present to a hospital with heart pains but only 1 bed is available who deserves the bed?

Well i know only one doctor as a friend and she would treat the person in most need. That's the simple arguement for treatment, who needs it most. Surely that's how we want our health systems to be, to treat those in the most obvious and urgent need.

reply posted on 20-5-2008 @ 07:53 PM by the titor experience

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by the titor experience
Too late for us - over here private health insurance is being pushed big time - both our education and health system is well into the process of "Americanisation".

I have to say i'm rather sad that i hear this is happening in Oz, really i never expected it of you people, i have such respect for your country.

University degrees can now be bought - which means marking of assessment is less stringent because each student is contributing money to the university which in turn means the quality of the skills being produced suffers.

Private health is becoming a "must have".

It is a sad state of affairs.

Originally posted by the titor experience
Fat people are not taxed more because they buy more food. Firstly, they CHOOSE to eat more food whereas tax is something people have no choice over. Secondly, it is cheaper to eat poorly (junk food is cheaper than healthy food) so those who actually look after themselves pay MORE for their food.

Firstly i should point out that whilst it seems cheaper to use fast food it's quite wrong, i've done the figures so i know. Secondly i can speak only of the UK, the more you eat the more tax you pay as food is taxed quite often. Although cerain foods aren't taxed, look up the Jaffa cake court case for the tax issue

I do not dispute foods are taxed. But you have ignored the point that people can CHOOSE to buy food, whereas income tax people have no choice over. That being the case, it is ENTIRELY the obese persons decision as to whether they buy more food and become the drain on the health system which they are. But i have NO choice as to the tax i pay for the health system - my income is taxed automatically......they use more of our medical resources and in turn should pay more tax for this.

Lastly, i hesitate to take seriously your assertion that "you have done the figures". That will not cut it for me - show me research and i will take you more seriously.

Originally posted by the titor experience
Lastly, in an ideal world sure all of us would be able to get a hospital bed. But in a situation where you have a non-smoker who has excercised their whole life and in a healthy weight range, and an obese person who has crammed their body full of crap for 30 years - if both these people present to a hospital with heart pains but only 1 bed is available who deserves the bed?

Well i know only one doctor as a friend and she would treat the person in most need. That's the simple arguement for treatment, who needs it most. Surely that's how we want our health systems to be, to treat those in the most obvious and urgent need.

But this is the point - in a situation X such as above, where both people need it equally urgently, who deserves it? I say the healthy person.

reply posted on 20-5-2008 @ 07:58 PM by TheRedneck

reply to post by the titor experience
Your post adds an exclamation point to the argument against socialized health care. In such a system, restrictions must eventually be placed on people due to their lifestyles, or the system will collapse. Therefore socialized medicine is incompatible with individual liberty. Thank you for being my advocate on this, although I realize that probably was not your intention.

TheRedneck

reply posted on 20-5-2008 @ 08:01 PM by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by the titor experience
But this is the point - in a situation X such as above, where both people need it equally urgently, who deserves it? I say the healthy person.

Your examples were a smoker who exercises and an obese person who doesn't. Picking between them is rather difficult, i would say they're on equal footing. Smoking is very damaging, obesity is also damaging but in different ways.

I think these two kinds of peopel are quite equal, and i f you start choosing between then you're going to end up with a very biased health system.

As for me providing evidence on healthy eating, well i'm currently working on it, i actually have a rather long reserach project and i will post in future about it when i have the energy. You'll have to forgive me but i'm rather unwell and i have to take breaks very often to rest.

reply posted on 20-5-2008 @ 08:13 PM by the titor experience

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

my example was a non-smoker who excercises.