How (and why) to Ramble on your goat sideways
08-16-2010, 03:39 PM
#2621
Doppelganger preaching the truth. It is nothing short of pathetic that people do not have the common sense or the reserve to control themselves. Obese people really should be quarantined and violently forced to lose weight. I agree 100% that obese people are more of a public burden than MANY other stereotypes. They are slow, clumsy, incapable of practicing proper hygiene and smell foul.
Reply
0
0
08-16-2010, 03:40 PM
#2622
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,494
Total Cats: 4,080
I mean, there are more obese people than smokers, yet smokers are taxed more and more and shunned into corners and banned in even reasonable areas from smoking. It's gotten so bad that years ago a "small" meal at your favorite fast-food join netted to a real, small drink. Now today's "small" is like a "large" from 10 years ago. It's completely preventable and only one's motivation can be blamed.
free health care, cheap mcdonalds. life is good.
Doppelganger preaching the truth. It is nothing short of pathetic that people do not have the common sense or the reserve to control themselves. Obese people really should be quarantined and violently forced to lose weight. I agree 100% that obese people are more of a public burden than MANY other stereotypes. They are slow, clumsy, incapable of practicing proper hygiene and smell foul.
I eat a pretty regular diet of "take-out" food, and I've lost 30 lbs over the last year.
cliffs: **** the government
Reply
0
0
08-16-2010, 04:18 PM
#2626
See how easy that is? When you don't let the government incentivize/subsidize things it considers valuable, then you don't have to tax/disincentivize people to counteract that original incentive.
Reply
0
0
08-16-2010, 04:20 PM
#2627
There's no need to tax it. There's already a natural consequence -- poor health, which typically results in either (and often both) poor quality of life, and increased medical bills (which results in poor quality of life).
See how easy that is? When you don't let the government incentivize/subsidize things it considers valuable, then you don't have to tax/disincentivize people to counteract that original incentive.
See how easy that is? When you don't let the government incentivize/subsidize things it considers valuable, then you don't have to tax/disincentivize people to counteract that original incentive.
Reply
0
0
08-16-2010, 04:44 PM
#2628
The government has interfered with the fat market (or food and health markets), and just like every other market totally fucked it up.
We are not designed to eat the way we eat...and you can thank food subsidies for that. Our behavior is also shaped by a lack of real consequences for our actions, and you can thank government health care for that.
End the end we all end up paying for the choices of others.
We are not designed to eat the way we eat...and you can thank food subsidies for that. Our behavior is also shaped by a lack of real consequences for our actions, and you can thank government health care for that.
End the end we all end up paying for the choices of others.
Reply
0
0
08-16-2010, 04:50 PM
#2629
The government has interfered with the fat market (or food and health markets), and just like every other market totally fucked it up.
We are not designed to eat the way we eat...and you can thank food subsidies for that. Our behavior is also shaped by a lack of real consequences for our actions, and you can thank government health care for that.
End the end we all end up paying for the choices of others.
We are not designed to eat the way we eat...and you can thank food subsidies for that. Our behavior is also shaped by a lack of real consequences for our actions, and you can thank government health care for that.
End the end we all end up paying for the choices of others.
Reply
0
0
08-16-2010, 04:52 PM
#2630
There's no need to tax it. There's already a natural consequence -- poor health, which typically results in either (and often both) poor quality of life, and increased medical bills (which results in poor quality of life).
See how easy that is? When you don't let the government incentivize/subsidize things it considers valuable, then you don't have to tax/disincentivize people to counteract that original incentive.
See how easy that is? When you don't let the government incentivize/subsidize things it considers valuable, then you don't have to tax/disincentivize people to counteract that original incentive.
We must also disambiguate "for the people" and "for the people's vote"....but since that generally seems to be the difference between two major political parties, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Reply
0
0
08-16-2010, 04:55 PM
#2631
The worst thing for a country is politics. Plain and simple. I don't want to start a massive political debate, but when has it ever been a Peoples' Government where the People manage the Government as a mass. It's apparent that it should really be called for what it is: A small group of people who form the Government and govern the People.
Reply
0
0
08-16-2010, 04:56 PM
#2632
So what? As long as I'm not paying for their medical bills, more power to them. They are making a decision -- the immediate gratification of gluttony is more valuable to them then the later years of their life, their money, and their ability to not sweat on relatively mild days.
Reply
0
0
08-16-2010, 05:02 PM
#2633
So what? As long as I'm not paying for their medical bills, more power to them. They are making a decision -- the immediate gratification of gluttony is more valuable to them then the later years of their life, their money, and their ability to not sweat on relatively mild days.
Reply
0
0
08-16-2010, 05:05 PM
#2634
We must figure out how to re-ambiguate "the government" and "the people", because, If I'm not mistaken, we're supposed to be a government by the people, and for the people, no? If we the people, in majority, find obscenely obese people to be a negative impact on our lives (be it healthcare costs, or airplane seating, or generally lacking in economic benefit relative to economic costs) then shouldn't being fat be illegal?
We must also disambiguate "for the people" and "for the people's vote"....but since that generally seems to be the difference between two major political parties, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
We must also disambiguate "for the people" and "for the people's vote"....but since that generally seems to be the difference between two major political parties, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
The whole thing is....they are people too.
They have the freedom to be fat, and their vote counts just as much as mine does.
I don't agree with our Canadian friend with the gay sigpic...they shouldn't die, or be forced to be healthy. They should however have to face natural consequences...and like Brain said, shouldn't receive special treatment, by airlines, by the government, etc.
I do agree that airlines should charge by pound. It's not discriminatory, it's simple logistics...we ARE nothing but weight to them, and their job is to move weight. Flat rate flying is kind of ridiculous in reality, but the USPS does flat-rate too...and last I heard they were doing great
McDonalds is cheap. Now ask yourself WHY?
Artificial food prices. Their whole menu is BUILT on the five most subsidized food crops. It is not in their best interest to provide us with healthy food...but to turn a profit. If a market, affected by government intervention, allows them to sell arguably tasty food at something well below what a trip to the store costs, all while being much more convenient, then it's NO WONDER whole slews of Americans have changed their eating habits.
Who can you blame? Lobbyists, congressmen, etc.
Now fast forward a decade. Joe Fatass now has diabetes/heart problems/thewholeotherslewofrealhealthproblemstracedtoobesi ty and is at the hospital debating which taxpayer funded treatment option is best for him.
Blame the same people...
Yes, you can blame the obese for their poor choices...but admit that it's not a natural choice being made. Easier method to getting fat, with lessened consequences.
Welcome to the land of the free*...
*just not free from an obese government
Reply
0
0
08-16-2010, 05:05 PM
#2635
So what? As long as I'm not paying for their medical bills, more power to them. They are making a decision -- the immediate gratification of gluttony is more valuable to them then the later years of their life, their money, and their ability to not sweat on relatively mild days.
Insurance companies spread the cost of the few expensive people among the majority of the less expensive people...put another way, If it weren't for people that had to have triple bypass surgeries, and diabetes supplies, and....and....and..., your health insurance premiums would be substantially lower. You would also be paying far less in taxes to support medicare...
Reply
0
0
08-16-2010, 05:09 PM
#2637
But you ARE paying for their medical bills....Unless you don't have health insurance, and aren't paying taxes for medicare/medicaid.
Insurance companies spread the cost of the few expensive people among the majority of the less expensive people...put another way, If it weren't for people that had to have triple bypass surgeries, and diabetes supplies, and....and....and..., your health insurance premiums would be substantially lower. You would also be paying far less in taxes to support medicare...
Insurance companies spread the cost of the few expensive people among the majority of the less expensive people...put another way, If it weren't for people that had to have triple bypass surgeries, and diabetes supplies, and....and....and..., your health insurance premiums would be substantially lower. You would also be paying far less in taxes to support medicare...
Insurance companies do discriminate based on health factors like weight and lifestyle by charging different rates.
And before government made it a healthcost subsidization program, insurance companies were allowed to reject new coverage for potential clients they considered too much of a risk.
Reply
0
0
