Glenn Beck says "Let fat people die", Alan Grayson was right!

So Glenn Beck says to let fat people die. Remember Alan Grayson just one year ago:



Alan Grayson was right in the first place, just as all of us Progressives knew. The Conservatives like Glenn Beck would prefer people just die, and any scumbag that agrees with that kind of crap is just trash, they are your fellow human being Beck. Why don't you try a charity to help raise funds to fight obesity, you Conservatives are always talking about how important charity is instead of the government.

Glenn Beck, advocating for a death panel. Any surprise? Everytime I think he can't sink any lower he proves me wrong.

Glenn Beck and his chalkboard, again.

Isn't he the epitome of health and vitality?

Did Glenn skip a dose of his Cymbalta? Did he get his scripts mixed up? We're hating Muslims this month. Fat people are slated for next April...

And the irony of Beck harping on the heavy!

reply to post by Misoir


Beck is making the point that if we have socialized healthcare, the government assumes the power to tell us what to eat.

Since everyone pays for fatties under a socialist system, the government will justify the power necessary to make them "un-fat".

Obesity will no longer be a personal problem, it will be a community problem, since we all pay for it.

I shudder to think what government would do in order to cut obesity rates.

reply to post by Misoir


So Glenn Beck takes Michelle Obama politely asking restraunts to minutely and gradually alter their menus to create healthier menus...and turns it into government tyranny.

great.

Is Glenn Beck an idiot?
Riots won't happen because fat people are incapable of running fast enough or throwing molotovs far enough silly.

He cracks me up every time I see him working that chalk board. What he said was politically incorrect. That was a bad choice of words and sentences. I sort of see where he was heading, but as fast as he got there, it ended in a horrible train wreck. Extremely obese people shouldn't be allowed to die to punish them for their terrible decisions, but on the other hand people who clearly expose themselves to deadly habits need to take responsibility for the way they end up..... ESPECIALLY if the public must bare the cost of their decisions.

Of course what are we going to do with an 800 lbs. human being who's got no job and no way to pay for the medical costs that keep them alive? We can't just let them die. The next best thing is to educate the country and promote healthier living,... maybe getting rid of all that corn syrup and excess sugar in our food. Americans, I gotta tell ya, you guys put way too much sugar into everything. I remember when I immigrated to this country and tried candy-bars and sweets. I nearly collapsed from the sugar overdose! There is no need for this much sugar in anything. Things will still taste great (and even better) with less sugar. Hell, you may be able to taste the other ingredients in your food when you half the sugar in products!

I believe you are wrong in that aspect. He is not advocating death panels or anything of that nature. What he is stating is that people have to take personal responsiblity for their actions and their health.
Let me give you a scenerio: You live in an apartment building, and have neighbors all around, this is possible for many of us, as they do happen. Now the one person way down at the end of the hall is doing something bad and illegale, that too is very plausible. Now is it right that all of the people be punished for the actions of the one individual who broke the law?
Now if a person decides to eat at fast food resteraunt for 3 meals a day, 7 days a week for years, why should the rest of us be denied the right to visit that place? That is what the point is, the government is trying to regulate what we eat and how we live. They are right now on a kick of stating that people are too overweight and not looking at the bigger picture as to help the people. The cheap simple solution is to simply ban the junk food, punishing all of the people. The other part of that clip that you did not play, is where he got into how they tried this once before, and did it with Prohibition, the banning of alcohole, only to end up repealing it several years later, when it became apparent that it was only causing more problems than what it was to solve.
Health care has to start with the person, if you want to have a healthier society, then people have to care about their health. You can not regulate how a person will live or what they will eat or drink. It has to be a personal choice, and for the government to get involved is just wrong on that aspect. The healthy food that the government advocates is not cheap or easy to get. So here is the problem, they ban fast food, and people who rely on such will find a way to get such.

oh noes!!! its the goblin king!

reply to post by Misoir


Okay, so I'm about to do something crazy here.

I agree, in a sense, with Beck.

If you were fat when you were 20, fatter when you were 30, tremedously obese when you were 40 and die when you're 50...why should I care?

I mean seriously, it comes down to the matter of personal responsibility. Now, I don't think it's wrong for society as a whole to uplift a few within, but only when its truly out of their hands like the elderly or truly sick. And no, obesity is not a disease like we are saying it is, it's a bunch of fat [poeple] who can't stop eating or choose to eat properly. For the people who are naturally big, well guess what? They are naturally big. They can't change. They may even eat healthy. But it's fine for them. The fat people who aren't "naturally" fat though, they're just fatasses with no control.

Why should they become my responsibility? I can tell them not to do that. I can show them how to be healthy, but not only should I not need to be forced to help them, no one should have the ability to stop them.

I smoke, amongst other things. I know it isn't particularly healthy. Can ads be put on boxes telling the risks? Sure. But when you start forcing people, either through financial means or legal means, to stop smoking, that is tyranny.

reply to post by tracer7


hahaha

I don't think they get it yet.

What Beck is saying is that you could be FINED or INSTITUTIONALIZED or PENALIZED for being fat.

Since everyone is paying for your fatness, government will claim the right to make you pay your fair share.

It will do that through coercive violence.

Either by increasing your tax rates, fining you, or simply holding a gun to your head an literally forcing you to eat less. There are no bounds on what government could mandate in the name of reducing obesity since it would now be a public rather than private issue.

If you don't think that is possible, just wait until the currency explodes and healthcare costs increase at 2000% per hour.

We don't have to look any further than smoking to see some of the outrageous violations of personal rights the government thinks it is free to engage in - all in the name of your health.

Well I guess we can say tootls to Rush Limbaugh!
Oh yeah.
Beck is an amazing idiot. Just amazing.

reply to post by mnemeth1


See, the misnomer here is the term "socialized medicine". What actually has occurred is that we will all be forced to patronize the already existing insurance companies.

They did this with auto insurance a long time ago - are the insurance companies crying foul about having to pay out for all these wrecks? Well, a little, but they aren't kvetching about the premiums, only the payouts.

Give it a few years and there will be some sort of health scale based deductible program - and people who smoke, or overeat, for example, will have to pay a higher premium for their insurance.

"Obamacare" was written by the insurance companies in their own best interests and they are going to love the unhealthy because that's where their profit margins are going to get padded.

At least that's how I see it.

I think private industry health care does this too. If you are obese, if heart disease runs in your family, if you have asthma, etcetc, your rates are way higher. I don't see why it would be different in a socialized healthcare system. It makes sense - if you are bringing up everyone else's rates (or in this case, taxes) by being irresponsible and not treating your body healthily, you should be fined. In a socialized system though, it allows for all the people who can't help it - people with asthma, who have heart disease running in their family, or other genetic things they can't control - to get health care instead of being screwed by the private industry.

I don't understand Glenn Beck.

Is he advocating his own death or something, he is a pudge muffin himself.

reply to post by Misoir


A charity fund to fight obesity??!! It's called personal choice, personal responsibility. Just as another person posted with people who choose to smoke cigarettes. Why are you not concerned about them and fighting for their rights to smoke? Or how bout the drunk that ruins his whole life because of drinking? Personal choice, if you choose to eat fatty foods that are bad for you everyday why is it my responsibility to then bend over backwards and feel bad for you? Yes if anyone of the above seeks help, realizes I need a lifestyle change and is denied then that would be a sad thing I agree. The government needs to back out of peoples life's let people fail, it's the natural way of life it's what keeps the world balanced. Perhaps you want other people to make decisions for you I do not. And if the decisions I make affect me in a negative way, then lesson learned. If you bothered to watch the whole show you might understand where he was coming from, but your avatar explains it all and your mind is set in that manner so I suppose there is no use in trying to explain it to you as your mind has already been made up. It's kinda funny how desperate you people are getting to slam Beck at every turn. What a waste of energy.

Let's keep in mind Beck was speaking of the morbid obese, not those with a few extra pounds. Those that are so heavy others bring them their food - sorta like someone brining alcohol to an alcoholic or bringing cigarettes to a smoker. If people want to do these things fine but others should not contrbute to the problem by handing them their addiction. Health care funds go into a pot and distributed to those that qualify - if we do our share in not conforming to those that are overweight or those with other addictive health care issues we could cut the numbers down a bit. IMO

reply to post by mnemeth1


Jumping to conclusions once again, aren't we?

Fear knows no bounds and I'd love to smash Glenn over the head with that chalkboard.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


A drugged-up, pudge muffin.

Did he snort too much crack before he gave that talking point?

I feel a little torn. When these people experience health problems and have to get treated in the emergency room, someone still has to pay for it. Would it be cheaper to intervene or deal with it later and which one would really be more "right?"