It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is it fair to fine fat people for not dieting?

page: 3
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
Really it is a slippy slope.


This slippery slope is why many Americans did not want healthcare to be put in the hands of the government in the first place. Putting all your eggs in one basket (making everything the government's responsibility) comes with some pretty bad catches once you get people in there that don't really have your best interests at heart. It seems Americans are much more paranoid of their government than people in the UK are. Whether or not you are paranoid seems to have little impact on how corrupt our leaders all are anyway. Our leaders are not reminded often enough where their loyalties are expected, by duty, to reside.




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


Not at all I am challenging you to be specific

You said



My point (again) is if someone does not want to be told what to do, how to live, what they can or must do to receive Welfare from the state, then they should ensure they either do not accept it or do not remain beholden to the state for any length of time.

meaning if someone does not want these rules to apply to them, then don't do it in the first place. no?



You want autonomy and control of your life, then claim it and don't ask or accept state handouts. If you do, you get what they give you along with the rules that come with it.


I think that says it all. You just handed the gov a blank cheque to control you life completely

Whatever happened to the government being public representatives? or public servants even?

Has the machine gone so far now that people just blindly accept what the government say they should or should not do without question? seriously really??



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
People on welfare can't afford to eat healthy. They can either eat cheap processed food that makes people overweight or they can starve.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You do have some points that I completely agree with, but they are in ideal circumstances and aren't necessarily factoring in everything. You mention your ability to go into your back yard and pick organic food. I do not have this luxury. Millions of people don't have back yards, and are not in a position to just move somewhere to make this a possibility. I think we all should have access to such a thing, but I did not create this environment that I am having a hard time leaving (I would love to live back in the country, but have no means to do so yet). You also mentioned that everyone makes their own decisions and therefore is responsible for them, but again this is not necessarily true. For example, I didn't start making decisions on my diet until my teenage years. Most people are forced by their parents to eat what they eat. So if you are raised off of garbage, you most likely have built up an addiction to such crap and may need assistance be withdrawn from the world of junk food.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Not right...I mean who decides if a person is not eating properly according to current nutrition standards? I'm overweight not because of poor eating habits but because of health issues that wrecked my thyroid. If I was on welfare would I get a pass or suffer additional consequences beyond the medical condition?

I'm all for encouraging weight loss/proper diets but lets do it through education or incentives rather than threats.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


We're (still) in a depression. what if there are no jobs for that person.

What if they have (for the 5th time) a glandular disorder.

Are we to become a third world nation, where people are cherry picked for jobs, and the "defective" or undesirables are left to beg on the streets!!

Hell while we're at it lets just fire Auschwitz back up, we can send them all there!!

Madness!!

NO THIS IS SPARTA!!

they killed defective people too (at least according to the film)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Although we currently live in a society and system that is failing and is obvious that it does not work and something does need to be done. I think it is also obvious that the current system that we live under will soon change in one way or another. That being said, whatever is done, the only system that works is one where everyone pulls their own weight which does not happen in the US with all the entitlements.

I do not think it is fair to necessarily fine people, but at the same time I do not think it is fair for healthy people to have to pay for unhealthy people when it is by choice that they are unhealthy. I believe in natural consequences and those that choose to eat McDonalds everyday should be the ones that suffer the consequences whatever they may be. What happened back in the day when people did not work or do their part before all the government handouts, they did not eat, fair enough for me. The same should apply today and if an individual chooses not to take care of themselves, then that person and that person alone is responsible for their choice, they were warned, now they can pay the price.

For situations where people have medical issues that cause obesity is something else, and should be open for discussion as to how best to handle it. But only after it is proven that the individual has made all the appropriate lifestyle and diet changes first.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by kinglizard
 


THANK YOU Finally someone with the idea!



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by JakiusFogg
 


I was kidding.....

however I sick and tired of fat and overweight parents making their children the mirror image of themselves



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Skewed
 


I agree with what you are saying, although it is a US centric position, which is fine for the way things are in the US.

However, who is to say that the reason a guy is claiming welfare / benefits is due to him / her being overweight?

This is what I don't get.

If they have paid their social security / NIPs / FICAS whatever! they in their time of need they have RIGHT to access that fund. if not. Don't pay.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Sometimes people are fat because of the medications they take. Ever try to diet when you spend more time on prednisone than you do off of it?

edit on 17-5-2011 by grumpydaysleeper because: spelling



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Not to mention this is just a way for the FAT beast of a Government we have
to keep feeding itself!

Someone has to pay for the gluttonous beast!

As long as they can find a way to make new fines, new taxes to stuff in
the mouth of the bloated obese monster, they will.
edit on 17-5-2011 by burntheships because:
spelling



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


Me too, but that is

1, lack of education, which is a failure of not only the family unit, but the state school system
2, lack of real food choices. and by that I mean real food. not crap stuffed with preservatives and chemicals. prepackaged and shelved until it is ready to rot before it is sold*
3, Mass availability of "time saving options. The whole technology thing that was designed to give us more leisure time to pursue self development, has just given us more time to sit on our arses and become consumers.

Are people responsible? In the main, yes.
Is the state responsible? yes
Are the food manufacturers and marketers responsible? yes.

So why is it that the consumer is the one who gets kicked.

two words

Cash Cow



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by grumpydaysleeper
 


Then that is where we as a people need to start filing lawsuits against the companies that say these medications are "safe". There has to be another answer to all these so-called wonder drugs. As it is now, there is no incentive to change their ways, and the companies have never REALLY been challenged as to the safety. Simply, because we are warned of all the side-affects that could and do occur from taking them seems to make them exempt from any blame what so ever. That needs to change, we have the intelligence and we have the technology in most cases, so lets start using it properly.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
It seems to me if they are going to enforce it on one group of people.....in a certain financial status....then...they should pass a law that includes everyone (not just poor people on welfare).....

All fat people have to lose weight or...their taxes will go up!....lol



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeyBones
You also mentioned that everyone makes their own decisions and therefore is responsible for them, but again this is not necessarily true. For example, I didn't start making decisions on my diet until my teenage years. Most people are forced by their parents to eat what they eat. So if you are raised off of garbage, you most likely have built up an addiction to such crap and may need assistance be withdrawn from the world of junk food.


This is a touchy subject because it is dependent upon a lot of circumstances. Small children are subject to choices, for better or worse, by their parents, etc. For this reason it's hard for some people to be able to effectively take responsibility of certain situations in their lives. But as far as still trying to do something about it, we eventually do have to take some responsibility, or else we would never have any say at all. We have to get creative and use everything at our disposal, and in accordance with our own judgment. This is where "knowledge is power" comes into play. The more we know, the more options we see that are available to us, and the more comfortable we are. My heart goes out to those who are not in a situation to exert any power on their circumstances. But for those of us who have gotten to the stage of realizing our problems and wanting to do something about it, we will have to find some entry point, some way of getting leverage and taking control of whatever we can, to change things for the better. I can't offer any more specific suggestions than that due to how widely circumstances vary.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by FanarFanar
People on welfare can't afford to eat healthy. They can either eat cheap processed food that makes people overweight or they can starve.


Sounds like we are heading toward a "Twinkie Tax" for the portly like the smokers have on their cigs. People eat unhealthy foods because they are more affordable? Then the people that consume them will have to start paying high taxes on them. Let's then see if those taxes get back to the systems that are overburdened by the problem that the tax money should be subsidizing.

That would not make healthy food any more affordable but it should eliminate the need to eat poorly because one cannot afford to eat otherwise. And those who do not eat do not gain weight. Win-win.


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



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
There was a study out a while ago that showed that obese people and smokers cost less on average than normal, healthy people. So take from this, what you will


It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.

"It was a small surprise," said Pieter van Baal, an economist at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in the Netherlands, who led the study. "But it also makes sense. If you live longer, then you cost the health system more."


Smokers and the obese cheaper to care for, study shows
edit on 17/5/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
For those of you who apparently don't know the cost of obesity:
Obesity in the United States now carries the hefty price tag of $147 billion per year in direct medical costs, just over 9 percent of all medical spending, experts report. In fact, people who are obese spend almost $1,500 more each year on health care -- about 41 percent more than an average-weight person. They cost an extra $1500 a year, and you want to complain about $50?

And note that people whose obesity is due to a medical condition are exempt from the $50 fine so please stop asking questions about that.

Originally posted by kinglizard
I'm all for encouraging weight loss/proper diets but lets do it through education or incentives rather than threats.
I don't see $50 as much of an incentive, or much of a threat, but it's enough to get the issue on some people's radar screens where it needs to be, but currently it's not. I advise reading the article, as it talks about both sides of this issue, the pros and the cons.

It's not just an issue for recipients of money from the state, but employee obesity at private employers is an issue for them also.

Exactly how we get this issue more visibility is a matter of debate, but it doesn't seem to be debatable that the matter of obesity needs more visibility. The article says that 61% of doctors don't even have time to counsel their patients about weight loss. That's part of the problem right there.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by JakiusFogg
 


Lack of education? But alot of fat and overweight people are not stupid and many are reasonably educated. Nope, I say their too bloody lazy to cook a decent well balanced meal because it means more than 5 mins in the kitchen!



new topics




 
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join