Is it fair to fine fat people for not dieting?

Why does everyone think "THEY" are Gods.......In my book "THEY" don't even rate a piss ant....

Why not smokers get "fined" by way of outrageous taxes, and both are certainly lifestyle choices so I say go ahead. Smoking can kill you and so can being overweight. Spread the wealth.

Thin edge of the wedge; I will just give the beginning of the quote because it's somewhat of a cliche, and in paraphrase 'when they came for the obese I did nothing for I was not obese..........'. When you have private for profit health insurance running your Health system, as many Americans refuse to understand, their only aim is their profits. Not your health!

reply to post by JakiusFogg


Nope. That wasn't my point and you should know that if you read what I wrote.

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. 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.

Should an MP / Senator / Congressman be fined for being overweight? or any civil servant for that matter. They too receive public funds.

Is it fair to fine fat people for not dieting?

I don't think so.


Is it fair to fine fat people for not dieting while they use tax money for their medical expenses?

That's something different. Beggars can't be choosers, like they say.

Its an obscene bill and it is only Codex Alimentarus. People on assistance, just need to be equalized, and then butt out, because they count too. Retraining and help for those who need it and butt out. I'm sick of all these anti poor threads and anti fat threads. I am anti fasicsm and anti pyramid dog eat dog economics.

And weight is no one else's business. The people who judge others weights should turn themselves over for abuse counseling, they need to be in therapy, perhaps some odd diet is causing their brains to be judgmental and childish, perhaps they need medication.

reply to post by LadySkadi


So by that are you saying you advocate a stipulation in the terms and conditions benefit issuance from a system that you most likely have paid into, that you must maintain a state approved BMI? Or at least weight.

What about people that are short and muscular. They can be heavy, yet still very fit. Or would this whole thing include a battery of physical tests in order to determine you suitability, which in turn would use more public funds that could be put to better use by bombing libya! (last part is sarcastic)

I present this as partial evidence m'lud www.washingtonmonthly.com... some form of single payment is necassary.

you know what isn't fair? the fact that it's easier and cheaper to eat garbage that makes you fat and unhealthy. maybe the gov should put a larger effort in abolishing the junk food that makes people obese as opposed to allowing it and then charging them for being suckers for falling for their evil money making trick

reply to post by bsbray11


Only and ONLY if it can be shown that their condition is DIRECTLY related to their physical condition.

However by that method any person that gets lung cancer can be refused treatment if they smoked. or maybe working in a place where they were subjected to smoke. Or maybe builders who were exposed to asbestos.

Its all lifestyle choices. And I vehemently oppose any regime that would refuse a person that has paid into a system their right to take out of it when they need it.

if that is the case, then those that risk being refused, should refuse to pay. simples.

Originally posted by MikeyBones
you know what isn't fair? the fact that it's easier and cheaper to eat garbage that makes you fat and unhealthy.

Everyone opting to do what's easiest for them is the reason why our leaders have been able to get away with so much in the first place. If everyone stopped buying fast food then the market would be forced to close. So while you keep giving them your money and crying "it's too easy to do this!", you have only yourself to blame.

Originally posted by Under Water
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.

We have free and nearly free healthcare and none of these draconian rules. Go figure that collective rights to have a civilized world that equalizes doesnt mean allowing them to own anything. They're just employees and that is our money, and collective power. Social programs and fascism are separate issues.

reply to post by bsbray11


Sometimes, in the UK at least, you are not given much option. you can buy GM crap at cheap prices or "Organic" range for 4 x the price

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
Its all lifestyle choices. And I vehemently oppose any regime that would refuse a person that has paid into a system their right to take out of it when they need it.

One solution to that would be to abolish all government health care, stop collecting taxes from people, and have them spend what they would have paid in taxes on their own health care. Of course I realize this would only work in a more ideal society and not with a band of thieves and murderers in the halls of Congress as we actually have.

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
Sometimes, in the UK at least, you are not given much option. you can buy GM crap at cheap prices or "Organic" range for 4 x the price

It's unfortunate it's come to that but we still have options. If you don't have the money, why not have some free knowledge? I can walk outside and eat out of my backyard, and it would all be much more nutritious than even organic greens at the supermarket. The reason is because aside from being organic, what's in my back yard is also raw and immediately fresh. If you make yourself 100% dependent on commercialized food then that is a problem in itself. Most of the world, for most of history, has fed itself directly from nature.

I don't live off my back yard but I do eat out of it every now and then, but I watch everything else I eat too. Also you can learn what is genetically modified and what is not. Not everything is GM yet. Also there are lots of other toxins that you can learn about and consciously avoid.

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
reply to post by bsbray11

 

Only and ONLY if it can be shown that their condition is DIRECTLY related to their physical condition.

However by that method any person that gets lung cancer can be refused treatment if they smoked. or maybe working in a place where they were subjected to smoke. Or maybe builders who were exposed to asbestos.

Its all lifestyle choices. And I vehemently oppose any regime that would refuse a person that has paid into a system their right to take out of it when they need it.

if that is the case, then those that risk being refused, should refuse to pay. simples.

Surely as in the UK, they assess your National Insurance contributions and judge your welfare case accordingly? So you get out more if you have been working for most of your life.

If your obesity was glandular or something along those lines it would be fairly easy to provide a doctors reccommendation for you not to work. If your just a fat and lazy not so easy.

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
reply to post by LadySkadi

 

So by that are you saying you advocate a stipulation in the terms and conditions benefit issuance from a system that you most likely have paid into, that you must maintain a state approved BMI? Or at least weight.

You're either failing to comprehend my point, or intentionally putting words into my mouth to further your point... I'm guessing it's the latter, in which case - there is no further need for me to continue to address this.

reply to post by bsbray11


That might work in the US, in the UK however we have the NHS, where care is guaranteed free at the point of use.

Every working man and woman pays into the system by way of tax and national insurance.

Some use it, some don't but it is accepted that every does just in case. and now, and it has been seen happening, they are refusing certain treatments in certain cases.

Really it is a slippy slope.

If there is no regulation or legistlation against a certain act. they when a persin needs treatment, be it from their own life style. Although irresponsible, they have broken now law, have paid into the system, so should be able to expect adequate care.

In the case of people claiming unemployment benefits, or other state benefits. It should not be up to the government to stipulate what weight they should be!

But maybe this is why there is a bill going through the house right now for the UK to withdraw from the European convention on Human Rights!! didn't know that did you?

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
Should an MP / Senator / Congressman be fined for being overweight? or any civil servant for that matter. They too receive public funds.

They are employees who are supposed to do something for their funds (even if that varies, many arguments here.) These people are getting free money for doing nothing, literally. They are already a drain on society. If you want to live like a fat slob, get a job and pay for it yourself. You are FREE to get a job. Go for it.