Thread: Obesity

Watched the Wall Street Journal show today, where Paul noted that one in three Americans are obese. So, healthy-minded folks in America, do you want to pay for these lardbutts who get diabetes and heart disease and whatever? We have many in Canada, too. Can't be blamed on thyroid probs, methinks, as I see them eating a week's worth of my diet in one sitting.
Would it be fair to tax sodas, candy and fast foods, which may deter some but would burden all?

Why not, they tax tobacco and alcohol. Sugar can be just as addictive and destructive over the long term.

ciggies = cancer
beer = behavioural problems
sugar = diabetes

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Watched the Wall Street Journal show today, where Paul noted that one in three Americans are obese. So, healthy-minded folks in America, do you want to pay for these lardbutts who get diabetes and heart disease and whatever? We have many in Canada, too. Can't be blamed on thyroid probs, methinks, as I see them eating a week's worth of my diet in one sitting.
Would it be fair to tax sodas, candy and fast foods, which may deter some but would burden all?

Here's a clue...

'Insurance' is an action that covers a wide range of people regardless of their specific problems. If you think that you will always be healthy and won't need health insurance at all then go ahead and don't pay your premiums but if you realise that you are part of the general population who at some time of their lives will need healthcare then carry on paying your premiums.

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Watched the Wall Street Journal show today

the one on FIX news?

Originally Posted by lysander

'Insurance' is an action that covers a wide range of people regardless of their specific problems. If you think that you will always be healthy and won't need health insurance at all then go ahead and don't pay your premiums but if you realise that you are part of the general population who at some time of their lives will need healthcare then carry on paying your premiums.

True, but should I carry my fat neighbour's health costs? Guess we do anyway, in some form, altho insurers always have the checklist of Qs to determine your premiums..

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Would it be fair to tax sodas, candy and fast foods, which may deter some but would burden all?

Lardasses who can't push away from the table would just find another way to get their fat fix with hamburgers, milk shakes, pizza, etc.. A recent study found that obese people spend 42% more for their health care than others. Their premiums should reflect this cost to society. For most obese people, stuffing their pie-holes is preventable behavior. If fat people were put in higher risk classes for insurance premium purposes and they had to contribute part of the true cost (whether for private or government insurance) half of the USA would take up jogging and sales of junk food would plummet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/he...28obesity.html

^ Understood. Strange that you get dinged for ageing. Many American friends pay for alot of treatments so their premiums don't increase. That stinks, but it's the same with car, house, whatever insurance.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

So to answer your question Jet, I don’t want to pay for other peoples habits/addictions…….but I do think the insurance company’s already works that into their costs (eating habits) when determining how much to charge a person for insurance.

I don’t think a special tax for candy (god forbid don't tax my M&M's) and fast foods are needed. I think the insurance company’s work that into their premiums, already.

How so? Did any questionnaire ask you how much you eat? What kind of foods, and how much saturated fats you eat? How much and what kind of candy, etc...?

They do not.

The only issues I have with taxing unhealthy eating habits, is that those tax revenues most likely will not get put to alleviate the extra costs that obese people cause, and how they impact others. How would you, in fact, defer those costs to the appropriate use?

^ No. They do ask if you smoke.

Originally Posted by DaffyDuck

How so? Did any questionnaire ask you how much you eat? What kind of foods, and how much saturated fats you eat? How much and what kind of candy, etc...?

I think the blood pressure (and blood) test they did before they provided me with insurance told them what they needed to know about my eating habits. Remember I stated they took blood from me also (I think they look for a variety of things,.STD’s, Cholesterol, are a couple I know of),….I am not a doctor, but I think they can find out a lot with those two tests I have mentioned, about my eating habits.

The also did the height and weight thing. I was in front of their doctor, at his office during the testing. I think his questioning (and report) would have told the insurance company what they needed to know about my eating habits (generally speaking).

Also every year I go into to see the doctor for a yearly check up now. If there was something that changed (blood pressure/weight/smoking habit/cholesterol) the doctor would have put that in his report and I am sure in time the insurance company would have found out and raised my rates accordingly.

And your last question to me (about deferring those costs to the appropriate use),……….I don’t know.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

I think the blood pressure (and blood) test they did before they provided me with insurance told them what they needed to know about my eating habits. Remember I stated they took blood from me also (I think they look for a variety of things,.STD’s, Cholesterol, are a couple I know of),….I am not a doctor, but I think they can find out a lot with those two tests I have mentioned, about my eating habits.

The also did the height and weight thing. I was in front of their doctor, at his office during the testing. I think his questioning (and report) would have told the insurance company what they needed to know about my eating habits (generally speaking).

Also every year I go into to see the doctor for a yearly check up now. If there was something that changed (blood pressure/weight/smoking habit/cholesterol) the doctor would have put that in his report and I am sure in time the insurance company would have found out and raised my rates accordingly.

Granted, that's a peripheral inspection, but overall, it does not tell them if you eat healthy or not - BP, and cholesterol can have, sometimes, other factors as well (albeit, in 99% of cases, yes, it's obesity -- no matter what whiny fatties whine on about 'gland conditions' and other apologist crap.)

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Would it be fair to tax sodas, candy and fast foods, which may deter some but would burden all?

I thought right-wingers were supposed to be for lower taxes?

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Would it be fair to tax sodas, candy and fast foods, which may deter some but would burden all?

I think so, and for the same reason Alc & ciggies are taxed.
Unfortunately, this was proposed by the Obamites, but thrown out on the basis it would disproportionately affect the lower socioeconomic strata. By the Libs, I think, as well as the oldboy Sugar lobby.

Well, I don''t have to agree with everything do I?

Thanks to a powerful southern Lobby group, the US pays about twice the world price for sugar. It's one of their protected markets, along with several others like aviation and media.

Ironic really, because the US are by far the largest per capita consumers of sugar in the world. Unsurprisingly, the biggest lardasses too.

^ But cig taxes also affect the lower-income folks, so they say. Let them all smoke. They die younger, so less healthcare costs.

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

^ But cig taxes also affect the lower-income folks, so they say. Let them all smoke. They die younger, so less healthcare costs.

But smoking is an expensive habit. Very expensive health care costs for diseases, etc.

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

They die younger, so less healthcare costs

^ Actually a study done by The Economist concluded just that, and therefore that smokers were being loaded with an unfair tax burden, at least on a market basis.

They should do something to help change the way America and the world is going healthwise. Some people don't have the problem but many do in fact more and more every year. Being addicted to food is much worse than cigarettes and alcohol because you must eat to live. But any addiction is horrible to the person affected. No one wants to be fat that's for sure. Things are out of control so the government should get involved. Taxes or other ways to improve the food choices people make would help. I agree that the taxes should be applied only for health or medical uses. Just banning pesticides and limiting chemical fertilisers might make a difference. Labeling calories on the packaging of fast foods might help. For example, listing 800 calories in big letters on the wrapper of a BigMac might make some people think.

The health problems out there come from much more than food though. The medical system we created has allowed a lot of people who would otherwise have died to live on. Fat and thin people who walk the streets live on and may even be a burden to society. What I am saying is we help the weak live on when they would have died in the old days. Society is burdened by them. All the preemie babies would have died in the old days. We spend shitloads on those little f#ers! We can save money in lots of areas. Health involves much more than fat people. Fat probably is the number one health problem nowdays. We need famine, plague, earthquakes, and war to cull the weak and improve the gene pool. The DNA mix out there is all f*ed up.

Tell that to this person.

Oh dear. Her arms are on backwards.

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Tell that to this person.

Does this American Eagle fly?

More of my taxes go for STD's and Aids than Cigs and Suger.

Maybe 400 per cent surcharge for sex perverts that visist Whores even once.

Not sure what you're arguing for or against. Under private health plans today numerous unhealthy lifestyles are subsidised by others in the plan. If people want to eat themselves to death, smoke themselves to death or drink themselves to death what concern is that of government? Isn't that the conservative mantra, less government interference?

Originally Posted by S Landreth

My premiums are based on that general information. If I had been smoking (like in years past) or overweight, my premiums would have reflected that.

You probably have an individual policy. The problem is that the vast majority of insured Americans get health insurance through their employer or through the government (Medicare and Medicaid). These people usually don't pay a penalty for unhealthy habits. I've worked for two Fortune 500 companies and my contribution to the health care cost (employees typically pay a portion these days) was the same as the 300-pound blob sitting down the hall. The only thing that changed the premium was the number of family members included in my policy. I'm glad that your insurance company rewards good habits, but for well over 90% of the insured this isn't the case.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Not sure what you're arguing for or against. Under private health plans today numerous unhealthy lifestyles are subsidised by others in the plan. If people want to eat themselves to death, smoke themselves to death or drink themselves to death what concern is that of government? Isn't that the conservative mantra, less government interference?

Whether one believes in government health care or private health care, making fat people bear the costs of their lifestyle by hiking their premiums isn't so ideological. I don't think it's a liberal-conservative issue, although it might have some conservative overtones because it makes people take personal responsibility for their behavior.