Is it fair to fine fat people for not dieting?

page: 1
33
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+1 more 
posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Is it fair to fine fat people for not dieting?


www.bbc.co.uk

Overweight welfare claimants in the US state of Arizona face paying $50 (£31) fines if they don't follow a dietary regime laid down by their doctor. Is that fair?
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
theweek.com
www.lisajohnsonfitness.com
www.latimes.com




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Interesting story this. Do we force people who refuse to look after themselves to do so?

Is it a requirement of society to stay healthy and fit?

Should people have the freedom of choice to eat and drink and abuse their bodies as they see fit - ignoring the advice of health care professionals without fear of reprisals from the health system?

Is this an opportunistic tax - and what are the implications of this thing going further, across the whole of the states?

Also - whats next? Extra tax on smokers? Drinkers? People with a sweet tooth? Where does it end?




www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
If there were no smokers or fatties taxes would have to be a whole lot more.

Think about how much tax people pay on their smokes...it far outweighs what it costs for smoking related illness and death. I think its something like £10 billion a year in tax on ciggys in the uk and the bill for smokers on the NHS is something like £2 billion.

They really dont know what to fine you for next
Its time people grew a back bone and stopped these tyrannical dictators from ruining our lives and our futures lives. If we dont stop this bull[snip] now our kids arent going to be able to fart without being fined a months wages!



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
This is an extremely slippery slope where do you draw the line? Do people then lose their right to refuse treatment? Do people lose their right of conscious all because it isn't for the benefit of state? To me anyways it is important to look after yourself but that is not for the state to decide. In fact that is not a right of state in the US, they do not have that power according to the US constitution. This will be challenged and they meaning AZ will lose in court.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
It's not fair. That is always how it starts. Taking away our liberties, freedom of choice, one law at a time.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
WOO HOO!

Yes, it is fair! You know why?

Because I was handed to "them" for being a smoker, now they are coming for the fatties! I am so happy, I could cry.

Get ready to defend your rights, though it will be futile. You are hurting others with your fat, insurance premiums etc...

Just like me and my passive vrauchen!



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
This is complete bs. Those who want free health care, guess what.... nothing is free. Put government in charge of health care, and they will tell you what to eat, how much to sleep, what pills to take, when and how to exercise.....etc. All in the name of healthcare. And we'll still be forced to gobble down those gmo salads and if the heart disease and diabetes from being overweight doesn't kill us, surely the cancer will.

Wait till you have to put your bmi on your license and then show your id to buy cake and donuts. BMI too high? Well, no cake for you then.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
What's fair?

This is the nanny state. Anything you say or do or don't do will be held against you for the greater good.

At least that's always the excuse.

The reality is that to gov just wants your money and it doesnt care how it has to justify or rationalize it.

Just have to keep the majority in line with it and they can get away with anything so they focus on attacking the minority and scapegoating the thing they wish to use as justification as the bane of all the majority.

Sometimes it's more ridiculous than other times.

In degrees of absurdity from least to most *note all excuses to steal your property are wholly absurd*

See that filthy smoker? We can get money from him.
See that guy with the truck? We can get money from him.
Seatbelts save lives. Lets make money off that.
Big house collects a lot of rain. Big house means money. We can get some of that.

You get the idea.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
no

control over basic human actions should not be matters of the state

this is a brave new world order

filled with lies deceit and treason

remember remember the 5th of november



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Ohh tricky one... I definitely think fat people who require two seats on any form of transport should pay extra. Also if they are morbidly obese maybe a different baggage weight fee when they fly?

I suppose if it affects their ability to get a job, therefore requiring them to stay on benefits then maybe. But the ensuing depression from lower funds could just exacerbate the situation. In the US you have a completely different healthcare system to the UK. Over here we have both fat people on benefits and using tax funded healthcare provision, without contributing themselves, or taking any personal responsibility to improve their situation and thus reduce their dependency.

Like I say a tricky one...

Just thinking with the weight issues the US has, if Obama's health reforms come into affect you folks are in for a bumpy ride.
edit on 17-5-2011 by Big Raging Loner because: To add sentence.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
What about people with hyperthyroid problems?



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


It's not fair, but then - neither is life. If anyone hasn't learned by now, then they should understand quickly: if you don't want to be held to the demands/stipulations of others or the state, do not put yourself (or allow yourself to remain) in a situation in which you are beholden to others or the state. Simple philosophy, but harder for those of a certain character...

edit on 17-5-2011 by LadySkadi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Of course its not fair.
The Master to Slave relationship is never going to be one of fairness.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 

Please tell me just how exactly does being overweight make one beholden to the state?



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


If adults want to eat themselves to death so be it......

but let's tax them if they dare have overweight kids who suffer the consequences of their parent's poorly chosen eating habits!
edit on 17-5-2011 by bluemirage5 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by JakiusFogg
 


The article stipulated Welfare recipients...



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 




So true. Don't owe anybody anything, if you can avoid it!!!



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


Or glandular problems! yeah lets tax everyone for everything.

For what purpose??? what would that acheive apart from putting more money into the hands of people that will misappropriate it!



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
@ least the recipient is buying food and not illegal drugs.....

Or trading in the food stamps for beer....

We give them a certain amount if they choose to eat instead of smoking crack we should punish them.....
edit on 17-5-2011 by Zaanny because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


OK so can you demonstrate a link between BMI and claiming benefits? Has it stated that their weight makes them unfit for work? and that is the reason for their claim

Again I say, what about people with a chronic glandular disorder?





new topics
top topics
 
33
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join