Overweight/Obesity tax in a country where the country funds the health care.

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 07:11 AM
link   
As you can see, we are not talking about USA. We are talking about a system, where the country uses their tax income to supervise and fund the healthcare system.

I made this thread as such an idea has come up several times in the media. I personally would support such idea.

How? It would take into account BMI and fat %, maybe even some other factor I am not aware of to give as good evaluation as possible. Also age and different diseases that affect weight are taken into account.The limits would be set quite high, so there would not be a question whether one is overweight or not.

Why? Smokers are being taxed, alcoholics are being taxed. Yet overweight kills even more overally. So why should healthy taxpayers pay the hospital bills of people who do not take care of their health.

Benefits? More personal responsibility over one´s health. If you live unhealthy, it may be your choice, but you have to pay more for it. The extra funds might be used for building more bike roads, public stadiums, campaigns and information on healthy living. Overally everybody would win from it.

Alternatives? Another possibility would be taxing very fatty foods, although it would affect the overall economy much more and also normal consumption would suffer.As we know normal consumption of several unhealthy foods and sweets is good for health, when not overused.

What is your opinion on the matter?




posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Sounds like a good idea, kinda makes sense if u ask me. Only the rich would be able to afford Mcdonalds on a regular basis...... It would bring a new meaning to the term "Fat Cat"



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 


I am from the USA and actual support socialized Health Care-

And I oppose your idea.

-Everyone's lifestyle has risk...A healthy guy who water-skies or jogs faces more of a risk of injury (and needing care) than a fat guy who works at home... People who walk on the sidewalk risk being hit by a car or spraining their ankle (especially in bad weather) and weight lifters face injury to their muscles.
One of my good friends is an MMA fighter (he is really good-) and he is a health nut...here is his FB page www.facebook.com... please note he is heading off the doctor for (possible) knee surgery he received from training.
Here is another friends page- www.facebook.com... he too was a Helthy guy (not overweight, non smoker, light drinker)- He was killed in a Motorcycle accident last year and racked up some serious bills before passing.
Me? I drink moderately, smoke and eat steak. I have had far less in medical bills than the two people I listed regardless of my less than healthy lifestyle.

-This can be "spun" in sop many different ways- People who commute to work have a FAR higher risk than someone who works from home...We would also have to increase their rate (through a by the mile...) since they risk higher health care costs due to accident.

-Simply, we would need a 4000 Page "checklist" of everything you do in life to determine who has the most risk... I know some really crazy people (who should by all rights be dead) who continue on and have acquired almost zero bills while "Vegetarian health Nuts" I know live some crazy (in other ways) lives seeking adrenaline rush's and putting themselves at risk.

-We need to live and let live... Personally health care costs are insane. If I stay inside and smoke and eat sugar am I at more risk than someone who eats health but "drag races"- IDK, but I think there is no way to figure these things out and picking on people for lifestyle choices does not really do much unless we pick on everyone doing everything.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Do you ever stop to think that overweight people spend more on food than the average joe, so fatties pay more tax than the average joe by a huge margin, same goes for smokers...here in the UK a 20 pack of fags costs around £6.50..around 70% of that is tax, so if a average smoker say, smokes a twenty pack a day that's around £46 a week adding £30+ per week in tax towards the state,, spread that over a lifetime and you are talking a serious amount of tax payed more than a non smoker for instance....

Why dont we tax non fatties and non smokers for not paying their fair share...after all they must have the money with the savings they make from not participating in Nicotine and Fat consumption.....

Dont get me started on non drivers....bloody tax dodging scallywags the lot of them...




posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 

Now youre making sense, a fat tax!

Because lets be 100% clear about something, the State or government has NO money. Its either tax payer's money or they "borrow" it which is then repaid by whom? You guessed it, taxes ie the tax payers.

As long as I'm paying your health care costs, I'm fine with a fat tax and thats just for starters.

Versions of this are already in place. If you smoke or drink, depending on how much you exercise will all be factored in.

The State has already started drug testing of welfare recipients.

Once you give up control of your lives to the State, they become master.

edit on 12-3-2013 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloprotocol
 


Interesting take on things, cant say ive ever thought of it that way...... Great point.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 

You can't ration/deny healthcare based on lifestyle choices otherwise you have to consider all the "healthy" activties which are actually dangerous and result in broken limbs, torn ligaments etc.

How about a mandatory insurance scheme where you pay x% of your income to the government and it funds a national healthcare system. We have that its called National Insurance and the NHS.

You might have noticed it works fine over here and nobody has to worry ever no matter what happens to them. Brilliant.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   
-Another point.

I am not sure if your nation has anything akin to Social Security (national Retirement plan or something?) but anyone with a "risky" lifestyle is saving you money from that end since they WILL die earlier, correct? So that is money saved.

Also, everyone dies from something, and "end of life" care is going to be there for us all- So how much is being saved in reality once the Social Security (or equivalent) is factored in against a health persons "end of life cost(s)"



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   
My opinion is that it's thinly disguised discrimination against fat people. Replace the words fat, obese, and overweight with Negro, American Indian, Hispanic or Oriental and see how far you go here.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ntech
My opinion is that it's thinly disguised discrimination against fat people. Replace the words fat, obese, and overweight with Negro, American Indian, Hispanic or Oriental and see how far you go here.
Agreed,it's not only fat people who don't healthely thin people do it too.
Just another idea that would penalise the poorest who have no choice but to eat cheap food which isnt good for you.
There was a story in todays Daily Mail about an NHS think tank suggesting that people who eat healthely and go to the gym should be able to jump the que in front of people who don't.
What kind of idiots are on these think tanks?Surely it should be based on need.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by glen200376

Originally posted by ntech
My opinion is that it's thinly disguised discrimination against fat people. Replace the words fat, obese, and overweight with Negro, American Indian, Hispanic or Oriental and see how far you go here.
Agreed,it's not only fat people who don't healthely thin people do it too.
Just another idea that would penalise the poorest who have no choice but to eat cheap food which isnt good for you.
There was a story in todays Daily Mail about an NHS think tank suggesting that people who eat healthely and go to the gym should be able to jump the que in front of people who don't.
What kind of idiots are on these think tanks?Surely it should be based on need.

Did they quote who was on this think tank...my bet is NO.....I'm surprised people still read and believe the Daily mail....it's a rag full of Government propaganda.....havn't you noticed.....a think tank said this, a poll said that...and we are supposed to believe the Crap they churn out on a daily (mail) basis......dont be fooled by MSM...they have a agenda, trust me.


Think Tank??...Ahahahahahahahahahahah....stops for breath....Ahahahahahahahahahahaha..



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 08:20 AM
link   
In this post it was stated that you can not be denied a healthcare service based upon a lifestyle. That is a complete lie.

I asked to be placed in a pain management program for my back. This was a non narcotic program that uses epidurals etc to help heal the back without surgery. I am 4' 11" and weigh 94lbs. I exercise everyday and am a vegetarian. I was not allowed to join the program because I smoke. To be accepted, I would have had to sign a contract that I would quit smoking in 2 months. Each weekly visit the doctors would take blood to check my nicotine levels and verify they were dropping each week until they were at zero. (so you could not even switch to e-cig)

Safe to say that I chose not to join the program. Funny to say that most of the other patients (as well as nurses and doctors) were overweight.

Again this was a public hospital run clinic. So I agree that if one lifestyle choice is to be singled out is ridiculous.

Being overweight is extremely hard on one's back and legs, So why not make overweight people sign a contract that they have to lose weight in the pain management system or they can't remain there also????



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Well gosh. Then lets not stop there!

Blacks and only blacks have sickle cell anemia.

And more Europeans have arthritis than any other, so everyone with blonde hair and blue eyes.

Oh, and blacks tend to have the corner on the market for hypertension, too.

And stupid people have more accidents.

We could just create all types of subclasses, and tax them all to death, couldn't we? In the end, I am certain we can find one YOU fit in.

Perhaps I already have...



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Canada Reporting In.

This will not work.

1) Fat people are NOT always unhealthy. Overweight/Obese is different matter.

2) Fat people don't always means they are sick and have to use the health system often.

3) Getting Fat is not always food related, it could be hormonal imbalance, slow metabolism.

If they do implement such thing, then those people that are overweight should be Forced, yup forced to go to Gym and other activities if they have time and are not disabled.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cabin

How? It would take into account BMI and fat %


BMI is a bunk stat. My BMI is 31 which is obese and I can out run and out work most kids half my age.

Body fat is a poor indicator of overall health as I know many men who have a BF% in the high teens to low 20s who are able to out run and work others - usually they are in the US military Special Forces branch. Also see pro football or construction/farm workers.

Being healthy is not a simple measurement.

I know plenty of skinny people who are flabby and unfit. Actually, based on the weight standards we have in America any woman who is remotely athletic in build will be obese in BMI. Same with a man - they evidently think Justin Bieber is the pinnacle of manhood developmentally while size 4 is normal for women. Skinny women are hideous with all the bones sticking out. Soft and curvy baby...


Originally posted by Cabin

What is your opinion on the matter?


I say if you live somewhere the government provides your healthcare - move. Government runs nothing efficiently.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
i disagree completely.

for one thing some "obese" people are that way due to things like the medicine that keeps them alive, one such drug is prednisone. everyone i know who has been on that drug has become "obese" within a few months of taking it. my mother went from a skinny athletic person to gross obesity, and nothing she tried would reduce her size. she had to try to ignore disgusted stares and comments about her size yet not only did she eat healthy her PORTIONS were SMALLER than most people eat. a co-worker was put on it for a couple months for a "skin condition" and yet again she went from being a rather skinny flat chested lady to a large, large breasted lady, at least twice her original size, and even after stopping the medication she did not regain her original skinniness, and SHE was a HEALTH/HEALTH-FOOD FREAK.

then there is also seemingly a genetic issue as well, i had an ex girlfriend who's whole family was rather large, both tall and broad. yet again they not only tried to eat as healthy as they could, and yet they ate less than me who is rather skinny. i have also know LARGE VEGANS, LARGE DIETITIANS (the really annoying ones who lecture you about what /how much you eat), people who spurn things like pop and fast food, processed food etc. yet THEY ARE STILL OBESE. i also know of skinny people that eat things like 2 big mac combos large sized at a time that are skinny as heck. that seems to tell me that it is NOT necessarily WHAT YOU EAT or even HOW MUCH you eat that is the problem.

then there is people who seem to gain weight because of things like their job. my father drove a bus, he put on weight as seems to happen to a great many people who drive for a living, yet not all of them do, regardless of what they eat. bus drivers, truck drivers etc. why do SOME gain the belly yet others don't even the ones who eat the exact same things at the same places and the same portions?

heck I used to eat fast food every day, i even drank about 4 liters or so of Coke a day, yet that did not make me fat. in fact the ONLY time i became "fat" was when i DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH TO EAT, one partial meal a day type not enough food. my waist size went up SIX INCHES during that time, and went right back down as soon as food become more plentiful again. explain that to me please?
(seriously it has driven me bonkers trying to figure out why without food i got fat).

the other normal claim for obesity is being the proverbial "couch potato". yet again i know many obese people who are extremely active, up to the point of wearing over 100 pounds of armor and fighting for a couple hours every couple days (they would even do it longer and more if someone was willing). i see "obese" children that are JUST AS ACTIVE as those kids who are NOT obese. i see skinny kids who just sit in front of the tv all day.

all in all it would be rather unjust to "tax" people over something that may not be their fault and in all fairness not even REALLY understood by the "professionals" who just seem to come up with reasons that SEEM to MAKE SENSE, and put the blame onto the "obese" person.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 09:57 AM
link   
I personally am not a proponent of taxes to penalize legal activities. Mostly because the government keeps the money for their evil purposes and largess, as opposed to earmarking it for the cause at hand. As stated in so many posts above, obesity is a subjective thing and is not clearly defined by any measure we use, and is a drop in the bucket of things we could tax.

My previous employer came out with a company-wide no smoking policy for working hours and on company property. I asked the GM what the intent was for the policy and he said it was for the well-being of the employees. On that premise, I asked why we didn't have a company policy against obesity, motorcycle driving, and many other things that are equally or more dangerous, including many sports. Imagine the response.

This is one reason I can't stand socialism. It infringes on personal liberty and choice and puts decision making in the hands of the government. History has shown (in the US anyway) that the government is very bad at making decisions people should make themselves.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by lynxpilot As stated in so many posts above, obesity is a subjective thing and is not clearly defined by any measure we use, and is a drop in the bucket of things we could tax.


Indeed...
.
This is how the government handles health care issues.

By spending money...that is after all easy when the money is not thiers.



I was heretofore unaware that floor coverings had such a high fat content.


Can I haz my 1.5 million back. Fat lesbians really...


I don’t want them to have one dime of mine if they think fat lesbians is an issue of “high public health significance”.

Oh really, exactly how many lesbians are there – some estimates say about 4% of the population are gay if we just go 50/50 that means 2% - extrapolate that to the general population of 300 million and you get what 6 million lesbians – 4 million of whom are obese.

Then again this is a gold mine....let’s have a lesbian tax to cover this impending health crisis. See how that flies.

Perhaps we can go through the different races like someone else said and levy a sickle cell anemia tax – # I will never get it why should I have to underwrite the poor racial health of blacks….etc.

Fat people are the only group it seems are fair game for this kind of treatment in the world nowadays.

Here is the article to go with the graphic:


Obesity is one of the most critical public health issues affecting the U.S. today,” the description of the grant reads. “Racial and socioeconomic disparities in the determinants, distribution, and consequences of obesity are receiving increasing attention.”

“[H]owever, one area that is only beginning to be recognized is the striking interplay of gender and sexual orientation in obesity disparities,” it states. “It is now well-established that women of minority sexual orientation are disproportionately affected by the obesity epidemic, with it continues.

“In stark contrast, among men, heterosexual males have nearly double the risk of obesity compared to gay males.”
cnsnews.com...


Seems gay men should get a rebate for thier ability to make skinny jeans "work". Then again they get AIDs more than the general population so perhaps we can levey a "bath house AIDs" tax or one on IKEA or Peir One...

This is why government intervention in things is...to channel the 80s - GAY!
edit on 12/3/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
Canada Reporting In.

This will not work.

1) Fat people are NOT always unhealthy. Overweight/Obese is different matter.

2) Fat people don't always means they are sick and have to use the health system often.

3) Getting Fat is not always food related, it could be hormonal imbalance, slow metabolism.

If they do implement such thing, then those people that are overweight should be Forced, yup forced to go to Gym and other activities if they have time and are not disabled.



Canada also taxes junk food (but not regular food) and doctors are encouraged to send people to nutritional counseling if they have health problems from being overweight

I watched a documentary on the way doctors are paid in the US, and they get paid for operations and prescribing pills, and get no pay for getting people healthy. Its a for profit system. People need to stay sick. Run by insurance companies.

Canada's doctors are paid by the government (mostly) and are encouraged to get people healthy through proper lifestyle choices. Plus we don't have enough doctors, so the ones we do have are already too busy. They don't want more patients, so we need to stay healthy, or the system doesn't have time or space for us.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowspirit
Canada's doctors are paid by the government (mostly) and are encouraged to get people healthy through proper lifestyle choices.


Cause -


Originally posted by snowspirit
Plus we don't have enough doctors, so the ones we do have are already too busy. They don't want more patients, so we need to stay healthy, or the system doesn't have time or space for us.


Effect -

I see the correlation.

Being a doctor is a challenging career choice not to be undertake lightly. It is a lifetime commitment.

No wonder you are short doctors - it simply doesn't pay.



new topics
top topics
 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join