Hippy Hamburgers!

Ok, this is the way I see it. If Obama wants to put big taxes on fat people (like my incredibly sexy self), then why do hippies and college students get away? The sexually promiscuous tax the health care system just as much, so why not make hippies and college students pay a whore-tax? :beam: Really, think how much it costs to get them shots, diagnose their STDs, treat their STDs, and take care of other related health care problems. I guarantee you that if you set it high enough we could have a whole country of grumpy old conservatives.
Or, instead of just saving money, we could save AND make money at the same time! Obama could have all hippies and college students rounded-up, ground-up, and served-up! I bet that hippy burgers would be a big hit with conservatives! We could at least count on Dick Cheney to eat one!

Seriously though, if you are gonna tax the gluttons like me, then why not the really promiscuous people? Why not those who have a long history of accidents? Why not for those who work in dangerous occupations? Those who live in dangerous parts of the country? Those who play dangerous sports? Those who do not eat their 5 a day and get enough sleep? Those darned liberals? etc?! *pants*
And just so you know, the only time I have used health insurance is when I was skin and bones. I started getting fat after I developed tendinitis. I may be fat and like to eat a lot, but I have not taxed the health care system one bit. Why would I have to pay more?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

Ok, this is the way I see it. If Obama wants to put big taxes on fat people (like my incredibly sexy self), then why do hippies and college students get away? The sexually promiscuous tax the health care system just as much, so why not make hippies and college students pay a whore-tax? :beam: Really, think how much it costs to get them shots, diagnose their STDs, treat their STDs, and take care of other related health care problems. I guarantee you that if you set it high enough we could have a whole country of grumpy old conservatives.
Or, instead of just saving money, we could save AND make money at the same time! Obama could have all hippies and college students rounded-up, ground-up, and served-up! I bet that hippy burgers would be a big hit with conservatives! We could at least count on Dick Cheney to eat one!

Seriously though, if you are gonna tax the gluttons like me, then why not the really promiscuous people? Why not those who have a long history of accidents? Why not for those who work in dangerous occupations? Those who live in dangerous parts of the country? Those who play dangerous sports? Those who do not eat their 5 a day and get enough sleep? Those darned liberals? etc?! *pants*
And just so you know, the only time I have used health insurance is when I was skin and bones. I started getting fat after I developed tendinitis. I may be fat and like to eat a lot, but I have not taxed the health care system one bit. Why would I have to pay more?

---

Goes to make big long post on diabetes and obesity then decides its a waste of time.

the population of your country (and also mine and every other industrialized) is getting increasingly old due in part to the fact that lots of people nowadays don´t want to have kids...

so in a way sexual behaviour should be seen as a plus..

Vuk, a linky would be nice...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

Ok, this is the way I see it. If Obama wants to put big taxes on fat people (like my incredibly sexy self), then why do hippies and college students get away? The sexually promiscuous tax the health care system just as much, so why not make hippies and college students pay a whore-tax? :beam: Really, think how much it costs to get them shots, diagnose their STDs, treat their STDs, and take care of other related health care problems. I guarantee you that if you set it high enough we could have a whole country of grumpy old conservatives.
Or, instead of just saving money, we could save AND make money at the same time! Obama could have all hippies and college students rounded-up, ground-up, and served-up! I bet that hippy burgers would be a big hit with conservatives! We could at least count on Dick Cheney to eat one!

Seriously though, if you are gonna tax the gluttons like me, then why not the really promiscuous people? Why not those who have a long history of accidents? Why not for those who work in dangerous occupations? Those who live in dangerous parts of the country? Those who play dangerous sports? Those who do not eat their 5 a day and get enough sleep? Those darned liberals? etc?! *pants*
And just so you know, the only time I have used health insurance is when I was skin and bones. I started getting fat after I developed tendinitis. I may be fat and like to eat a lot, but I have not taxed the health care system one bit. Why would I have to pay more?

---

Because it's still socially accepable to discriminate against fat people. Persons who aren't white, or jewish, or female were lost 30 years ago. Physically disabled 15-20 years ago. Homosexuals and muslims are in the process of being added to the list, and will probably be completed in the next generation. That leaves fat people, and you's guy's chubby shoulders have gotta carry societies rage and angst. :whip: Have fun. :clown:

Big trees catch more wind deal with it bubba. Now I don't believe in taxing people into shape but obese people cost more money, so imho they should pay more insurance. Just as smokers should. Some people can't help being fat, doctor can diagnose. That might be cold but fair usually is. Better anyway than to be pushed into the sea by greenpeace, with the best inentions.

Because even with the negative aspects, sex is good for your health.

Very good in fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Big trees catch more wind deal with it bubba. Now I don't believe in taxing people into shape but obese people cost more money, so imho they should pay more insurance. Just as smokers should. Some people can't help being fat, doctor can diagnose. That might be cold but fair usually is. Better anyway than to be pushed into the sea by greenpeace, with the best inentions.

---

Come on Frag, you could say the same thing about Jocks! (or people who do dangerous work)
That is ridiculous. How is it fair when I don't cost the health care system a cent, yet will have to pay through my nose? That is hardly fair. I tell you what though Frag, if we make fat people and smokers pay more, how about drinkers? That causes a stew of health problems as well. And who is to determine what is too fat and what is not? How about the government sticking their noses out of things, and not trying to run health care?

And Frag, if it is about who costs more, what does it matter if they can help it or not if it is that simple calculation? What if one race had more medical problems than another, would you agree to making one race pay more? How about one sex? I think it is a slippery slope of discrimination.

But even if it does not get applied to things that people cannot help, such as race or gender, how is it 'fair' when you tax one thing that cost the system more, but not the other? That is discrimination. If you were going to be fair you would have to tax any one who had sex outside of a single, monogamous relationship. You would have to tax the heck out of martial artists, athletes, computer programmers (still haven't met one yet who has not developed either carpal tunnel or an eye condition), people who do not get their proper daily exercise and eat healthy foods, etc.

And yeah, that is a big thing. I eat a lot and have gotten fat, but for the most part, what I eat is very healthy (including lots of fruit and vegetables), which is why I have a good cholesterol level, good heart rate, good blood pressure, and am in all respects but weight extremely healthy. I know people though who are not fat, but eat very unhealthy foods, never exercise, choose to live very stressful lives, subject their ears to really loud music at concerts, some smoke dope, and all in all they are extremely unhealthy and abound with health problems. I on the other hand am fat and happy, but without those health problems. How is it fair then that I am healthy (comparatively) and they are not, they cost the system a lot and I don't, and yet I should pay through my nose and they should not? Old saying goes "it is not so much how much you eat as what you eat". The government cannot determine things like that (unless they are gonna monitor how often people eat at fast food joins and you will need a federal license to buy a Twinkie), so how can they ever make it fair? They will just make it more unfair.


Oh, and by the way, though my income some times has been below the poverty line :P, I have always paid my own medical bills. Seems pretty unfair that a guy like me should be taxed up the *** because Obama cannot figure out how to pay for gargantuan health care takeover.

EDIT: PARAGRAPHS! YIPEE!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

Come on Frag, you could say the same thing about Jocks! (or people who do dangerous work)
That is ridiculous. How is it fair when I don't cost the health care system a cent, yet will have to pay through my nose? That is hardly fair. I tell you what though Frag, if we make fat people and smokers pay more, how about drinkers? That causes a stew of health problems as well. And who is to determine what is too fat and what is not? How about the government sticking their noses out of things, and not trying to run health care? And Frag, if it is about who costs more, what does it matter if they can help it or not if it is that simple calculation? What if one race had more medical problems than another, would you agree to making one race pay more? How about one sex? I think it is a slippery slope of discrimination. But even if it does not get applied to things that people cannot help, such as race or gender, how is it 'fair' when you tax one thing that cost the system more, but not the other? That is discrimination. If you were going to be fair you would have to tax any one who had sex outside of a single, monogamous relationship. You would have to tax the heck out of martial artists, athletes, computer programmers (still haven't met one yet who has not developed either carpal tunnel or an eye condition), people who do not get their proper daily exercise and eat healthy foods, etc. And yeah, that is a big thing. I eat a lot and have gotten fat, but for the most part, what I eat is very healthy (including lots of fruit and vegetables), which is why I have a good cholesterol level, good heart rate, good blood pressure, and am in all respects but weight extremely healthy. I know people though who are not fat, but eat very unhealthy foods, never exercise, choose to live very stressful lives, subject their ears to really loud music at concerts, some smoke dope, and all in all they are extremely unhealthy and abound with health problems. I on the other hand am fat and happy, but without those health problems. How is it fair then that I am healthy (comparatively) and they are not, they cost the system a lot and I don't, and yet I should pay through my nose and they should not? Old saying goes "it is not so much how much you eat as what you eat". The government cannot determine things like that (unless they are gonna monitor how often people eat at fast food joins and you will need a federal license to buy a Twinkie), so how can they ever make it fair? They will just make it more unfair.
Oh, and by the way, though my income some times has been below the poverty line :P, I have always paid my own medical bills. Seems pretty unfair that a guy like me should be taxed up the *** because Obama cannot figure out how to pay for gargantuan health care takeover.

---

I personally feel we should also tax the lack of sections in very very large texts.

typical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I personally feel we should also tax the lack of sections in very very large texts.

typical.

---

Paragraphs are for hippy leftist scum! ~;)

In the UK, sexual health costs practically nothing compared to obesity; as has already been said sex in general is something that makes people feel better about themselves and the world whereas eating often can either lead to or be caused by depression. This then further causes a loss of production for the country.

Considering that a large cohorts of adults never reach a point where IMO they fit the definition of acting at an adult level (making informed decisions and then dealing with the consequences of these decisions) they require guidance to help support their future likely healthcare needs.

If you want to make it tax neutral, then have subsidies to healthy types of food, or spend the money on subsidised sports centres.

~:smoking:

Yeah, seriously, Vuk, learn to write. Has no one taught you about paragraphs - why else would you ignore me and Frag? Laugh all you want, but few are excited about reading your text when it is so poorly composed. If I were you, I would rather want people to read me, as opposed to ignoring. I for one, did not take the time to read that post. If a person does not care and/or respect enough the Backroom to write in reasonable grammar or structure (your case), then he is not worth wasting my time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Yeah, seriously, Vuk, learn to write. Has no one taught you about paragraphs - why else would you ignore me and Frag? Laugh all you want, but few are excited about reading your text when it is so poorly composed. If I were you, I would rather want people to read me, as opposed to ignoring. I for one, did not take the time to read that post. If a person does not care and/or respect enough the Backroom to write in reasonable grammar or structure (your case), then he is not worth wasting my time.

---

lmao, come off it AP. I wrote it in Notepad with paragraphs and when I pasted it here they were lost. I didn't bloody notice it. No offense but you are hardly one to be a grammar Nazi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

In the UK, sexual health costs practically nothing compared to obesity; as has already been said sex in general is something that makes people feel better about themselves and the world whereas eating often can either lead to or be caused by depression. This then further causes a loss of production for the country.

---

Another point is the kind of disease an activity leads to. Chlamydia is extremely cheap to treat, all it takes is a simple consultation for a test and then some pills, nothing more. Heart diseases, which sex(being a physical activity) reduces the likelihood of getting, can get very, very expensive...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Another point is the kind of disease an activity leads to. Chlamydia is extremely cheap to treat, all it takes is a simple consultation for a test and then some pills, nothing more. Heart diseases, which sex(being a physical activity) reduces the likelihood of getting, can get very, very expensive...

---

How 'bout things like AIDS?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

How 'bout things like AIDS?

---

Doesn't exist here ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Doesn't exist here ~;)

---

And there are no gays in Iran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Now I don't believe in taxing people into shape but obese people cost more money, so imho they should pay more insurance. Just as smokers should.

---

Smokers already pay huge tax when they buy cigarettes. I don't see why another should be added.

That would also be applicable to food. Heavy tax on unhealthy food, no more 3$ meals in McDonald's. If people were to pay 15$ for a meal, they wouldn't go there so much. Taxing fat people more is... complicated and can easily backfire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

And there are no gays in Iran.

---

Don't know how many gays there are in Iran, but there are somewhere around 100 cases of aids in total in Norway.

With a population of 4,8 million, that means it's non-existant for all practical purposes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Smokers already pay huge tax when they buy cigarettes. I don't see why another should be added.

That would also be applicable to food. Heavy tax on unhealthy food, no more 3$ meals in McDonald's. If people were to pay 15$ for a meal, they wouldn't go there so much. Taxing fat people more is... complicated and can easily backfire.

---

I agree with Sarmatian about smokers, but not about fast food. If you did that, no one would eat fast food (they eat it because it is cheaper than other food, which it no longer would be), and killing the entire fast food industry all at once like that would devastate the economy. The whole point of Obama's proposed tax is to pay for the health care system, but when the economy takes a blow like that, less people are working, and have less money to pay taxes, it would be a lot harder to pay for anything. (and what right does the government have to take all those jobs away from people)
Anyway, who is to say what is unhealthy? Even scientists disagree all the time on what is and isn't. The truth is that there are many aspects to things, and a lot that we don't know.

And like I said Sarmatian, think of the fairness. If you are going to do that, will you also put a large tax on hockey equipment? How about sex toys? What about extreme sports equipment? You know what I mean? It is unfair to tax one thing that adds to the cost but not the other. At the same time though it would be impossible to fairly tax everything that adds to the cost.
That is why I think that the government should not be trying to run health care. Small companies have a hard time being fair and taking care of themselves. When the government takes health care over it will be just a massive company with near absolute power, and 100 times the capacity for corruption and mismanagment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Don't know how many gays there are in Iran, but there are somewhere around 100 cases of aids in total in Norway.

With a population of 4,8 million, that means it's non-existant for all practical purposes.

---

I am talking about US policy, not Norwegian policy, so how is that relevant?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

How 'bout things like AIDS?

---

Numbers with AIDS compared to obese persons is tiny. These days most who are HIV+ve are relatively healthy.
HIV is not just a disease spread by sexual contact. It is also spread by any blood to blood or fluid to fluid contacts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Smokers already pay huge tax when they buy cigarettes. I don't see why another should be added.

That would also be applicable to food. Heavy tax on unhealthy food, no more 3$ meals in McDonald's. If people were to pay 15$ for a meal, they wouldn't go there so much. Taxing fat people more is... complicated and can easily backfire.

---

Cigarette smokers not only kill themselves, but those around them too. In the UK the tax could be said to be there to help the health service; in America since there is no National health I guess the governemt just pockets the money.

You've made the example with McD's rather simplistic. If they were informed that taxes go up with foods over a certain level of calories they'd most likely do something to reduce the calorific content; similarly if it was also percentage of fat they'd reduce this to avoid the $15 meal; since all other competitors have the same rules this would not unfairly penalise them - any more than selling the junk does in the first place.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Numbers with AIDS compared to obese persons is tiny. These days most who are HIV+ve are relatively healthy.
HIV is not just a disease spread by sexual contact. It is also spread by any blood to blood or fluid to fluid contacts.



Cigarette smokers not only kill themselves, but those around them too. In the UK the tax could be said to be there to help the health service; in America since there is no National health I guess the governemt just pockets the money.

You've made the example with McD's rather simplistic. If they were informed that taxes go up with foods over a certain level of calories they'd most likely do something to reduce the calorific content; similarly if it was also percentage of fat they'd reduce this to avoid the $15 meal; since all other competitors have the same rules this would not unfairly penalise them - any more than selling the junk does in the first place.

~:smoking:

---

lol, you know there are many scientists who say that second hand smoke is not the danger it is made out to be. It is just which opinion the government decides to base its policy on (whichever is more profitable for the government, whichever interest groups pay them the most).

I don't think that second hand smoke is dangerous. If a business owner thinks so, then he has the right to not allow smoking in his establishment, and if that is what majority of the people think, then business owners will do so because they will get majority of the business.

On an unscientific note though, I got my right lung torn when I was 16 (fell a great height without letting breath out. Try it some time, it is painful ~;)), and had to have my lungs examined. The doctor was concerned because he asked me if anyone in my family smoked and I told him my dad smoked 4 packs a day. He was suprised though because my lungs were in excellent condition. I have lived in close quarters with smokers for the first 3/4+ of my life. It wasn't until I was 15 and half when my dad died that I was not around smokers daily.

Don't mean to turn this into a 2nd hand smoking discussion, but I am just saying, that is another problem with the government making policies like that. Which scientists do you believe? How about giving people the freedom to make their own choices?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

Come on Frag, you could say the same thing about Jocks! (or people who do dangerous work)
That is ridiculous. How is it fair when I don't cost the health care system a cent, yet will have to pay through my nose? That is hardly fair. I tell you what though Frag, if we make fat people and smokers pay more, how about drinkers? That causes a stew of health problems as well. And who is to determine what is too fat and what is not? How about the government sticking their noses out of things, and not trying to run health care?

---

Because you already have a tax on alcohol? It's a wimpy one, but you never really got the catch on "sin taxes".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

And yeah, that is a big thing. I eat a lot and have gotten fat, but for the most part, what I eat is very healthy (including lots of fruit and vegetables), which is why I have a good cholesterol level, good heart rate, good blood pressure, and am in all respects but weight extremely healthy.

---

So as they're going to tax fatty food afaik, you're barely going to be taxed at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

Old saying goes "it is not so much how much you eat as what you eat". The government cannot determine things like that (unless they are gonna monitor how often people eat at fast food joins and you will need a federal license to buy a Twinkie), so how can they ever make it fair? They will just make it more unfair.

---

So by taxing fatty food you're not making people who eats a lot of fatty food reconsider their choises?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

Oh, and by the way, though my income some times has been below the poverty line :P, I have always paid my own medical bills. Seems pretty unfair that a guy like me should be taxed up the *** because Obama cannot figure out how to pay for gargantuan health care takeover.

---

Any decent health care reform would reduce your cost on average quite considerably. Going with the tax bill might cost you more when you're young and healthy, but will save you costs if/when you need it. You know, like this insurance thingy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

On an unscientific note though, I got my right lung torn when I was 16 (fell a great height without letting breath out. Try it some time, it is painful ~;)), and had to have my lungs examined. The doctor was concerned because he asked me if anyone in my family smoked and I told him my dad smoked 4 packs a day. He was suprised though because my lungs were in excellent condition. I have lived in close quarters with smokers for the first 3/4+ of my life. It wasn't until I was 15 and half when my dad died that I was not around smokers daily.

---

Then the million dollar question is... Did he smoke outside? Kitchen fan? Inside? At home? Only at work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

So as they're going to tax fatty food afaik, you're barely going to be taxed at all?

No, because I also eat fatty foods, just not the really unhealthy ones.

So by taxing fatty food you're not making people who eats a lot of fatty food reconsider their choises?

The main problem is actually not with the amount of fat, but the type of fat. I eat foods that can be heavy with olive oil or butter, but they still are not really unhealthy, just a little fattening. Thing is, that the fatty foods often taste the best. If you do this tax, all you are going to be doing is creating a class gap where the rich can afford the luxury of fatty foods, and the poor who cannot pay the taxes cannot. There are lots of foods that are not unhealthy, and that if eaten in moderation will not make you fat, but contains a lot of fat.


Any decent health care reform would reduce your cost on average quite considerably. Going with the tax bill might cost you more when you're young and healthy, but will save you costs if/when you need it. You know, like this insurance thingy.

Bah!

Then the million dollar question is... Did he smoke outside? Kitchen fan? Inside? At home? Only at work?
He smoked inside, outside, in the car, everywhere he went. So much in fact that the house was often filled with ciggy smoke like a barroom. It did no wonders for his health (he had incredibly unhealthy lungs), but it didn't seem to do any harm to my lungs.

---

You still have not adressed the question though, if you are going to do this, are you going to tax other unhealthy behaviors (like hockey) as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

I agree with Sarmatian about smokers, but not about fast food. If you did that, no one would eat fast food (they eat it because it is cheaper than other food, which it no longer would be), and killing the entire fast food industry all at once like that would devastate the economy. The whole point of Obama's proposed tax is to pay for the health care system, but when the economy takes a blow like that, less people are working, and have less money to pay taxes, it would be a lot harder to pay for anything. (and what right does the government have to take all those jobs away from people)
Anyway, who is to say what is unhealthy? Even scientists disagree all the time on what is and isn't. The truth is that there are many aspects to things, and a lot that we don't know.

---

Obviously I exaggerated when I said 15$, but some small increase in price (5, 10, 15%) wouldn't be bad. In the case of America, we're talking billions of dollars and people would eat junk food less. If the downside is that MCD and similar junk food restaurants earn less money, I certainly wouldn't cry a river.

It should be followed with emphasis on proper physical education of kids and education about food, naturally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

And like I said Sarmatian, think of the fairness. If you are going to do that, will you also put a large tax on hockey equipment? How about sex toys? What about extreme sports equipment? You know what I mean? It is unfair to tax one thing that adds to the cost but not the other. At the same time though it would be impossible to fairly tax everything that adds to the cost.
That is why I think that the government should not be trying to run health care. Small companies have a hard time being fair and taking care of themselves. When the government takes health care over it will be just a massive company with near absolute power, and 100 times the capacity for corruption and mismanagment.

---

And think of percentages and health issues. I've read that obesity is gonna surpass smoking as No.1 preventable cause of death in the US very soon, if it didn't already. Even if the principle is the same, dildo industry still doesn't strain health budget of the US.

It means more sick people which translates into less money and more spending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Cigarette smokers not only kill themselves, but those around them too. In the UK the tax could be said to be there to help the health service; in America since there is no National health I guess the governemt just pockets the money.

You've made the example with McD's rather simplistic. If they were informed that taxes go up with foods over a certain level of calories they'd most likely do something to reduce the calorific content; similarly if it was also percentage of fat they'd reduce this to avoid the $15 meal; since all other competitors have the same rules this would not unfairly penalise them - any more than selling the junk does in the first place.

~:smoking:

---

The fact remains that most of price of cigarettes is already tax. If the government decides to use that to build a bridge or finance war in Iraq, that's not my problem and I shouldn't be taxed again because of that. Also, in the US and most western European countries I've visited, smoking is forbidden in most public places.

It's not just the amount of calories or fat, it is also about type of calories and fat. If fast food restaurants adapt and start selling better food, the result would be less obese people and less health spending which solves the problem in a different, better, way. That's kind of the point of it all, just like the point of cigarette tax isn't to bring more money to the government but to make people smoke less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Obviously I exaggerated when I said 15$, but some small increase in price (5, 10, 15%) wouldn't be bad. In the case of America, we're talking billions of dollars and people would eat junk food less. If the downside is that MCD and similar junk food restaurants earn less money, I certainly wouldn't cry a river.

It should be followed with emphasis on proper physical education of kids and education about food, naturally.

And think of percentages and health issues. I've read that obesity is gonna surpass smoking as No.1 preventable cause of death in the US very soon, if it didn't already. Even if the principle is the same, dildo industry still doesn't strain health budget of the US.

It means more sick people which translates into less money and more spending.

The fact remains that most of price of cigarettes is already tax. If the government decides to use that to build a bridge or finance war in Iraq, that's not my problem and I shouldn't be taxed again because of that. Also, in the US and most western European countries I've visited, smoking is forbidden in most public places.

It's not just the amount of calories or fat, it is also about type of calories and fat. If fast food restaurants adapt and start selling better food, the result would be less obese people and less health spending which solves the problem in a different, better, way. That's kind of the point of it all, just like the point of cigarette tax isn't to bring more money to the government but to make people smoke less.

---

First off with the cigarette tax I agree that in the USA you're charged twice. But then the health system in the USA is not fit for purpose...

Yes, fast food joints need to adapt their menus. That's in essence what a tax on fatty foods would achieve! Most aren't going to just raise prices or loose customers. Their foods are fatty, salty and sugary as these are three things that humans are driven to have. Bunging them all together is a great way of getting customers - unless the cost would be prohibitive.
More exercise? Sure, no complaints there, but I did not mention that as it was not directly related to the issue being discussed.

~:smoking:

Inactivity is the single most important reason for unhealthy, obese people I think. Whether they move or not is their choice. It would cost the government nothing if the government did not run health care. Why not make people take responsibility? If their obesity makes them need medical attention, then they should pay out of pocket for it. That would motivate people to live healthier lifestyles without destroying industry, discriminating, or running the government dry. I mean seriously, do you think that I would not stay in better shape if I knew that I would not be able to pay for any medical complications? Of course I would. People can enjoy fatty foods without being obese (I used to), and depending on their lifestyle, can enjoy lots of fatty foods and not be obese. The problem is that people now adays are a bunch of pampered, lethargic, bums who do not like to move. A tax on fatty foods will not change that. It should be someone's choice if they want to stay trim and fit or be fat and lazy, and they should have to deal with the consequences themselves. People who are not creating a problem should not be made to give up foods with a certain amount of fat in them though because of the problems that others create.

While I am undecided about taxing the porkers, I can assure you, Vukky, that obesity, poor diet, and its related problems kill far more people and tax the healthcare industry than STDs, dangerous jobs, sex toys, whatever.

I would probably lean more towards a food-related vice tax thnt a tax on people who are fat, since high cholesterol, heart disease, diabetes etc happens in the skinnies as well.

your argument about a fast food tax killing the fast food industry and devastating the economy has one core fallacy: people still have to eat. The jobs would shift. Taxing things that are deep fried will creat jobs in an industry where things are chargrilled, or baked, or steamed, etc.

And you and I both know that taxing something won't deter people who really want to eat it any way. Fatty foods are addictive just like tobacco and alcohol.

But what really concerns me about you is that this is the second thread in a week where you advocate eating people you don't agree with, and in the first of which you advocated eating people who had poor language, writing, and reasoning skills, a group that one that one may argue you belong to for not using paragraphs. Just pointing that out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Smokers already pay huge tax when they buy cigarettes. I don't see why another should be added.

That would also be applicable to food. Heavy tax on unhealthy food, no more 3$ meals in McDonald's. If people were to pay 15$ for a meal, they wouldn't go there so much. Taxing fat people more is... complicated and can easily backfire.

---

not more tax, more costly insurance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

Inactivity is the single most important reason for unhealthy, obese people I think. Whether they move or not is their choice.

---

Correct. And to ensure that they don't we add extra taxes on playing hockey... Or not. :martass: Called acceptable side effects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

It would cost the government nothing if the government did not run health care.

---

Obesity costs society no matter what medical system you use (even none). Ever used or heard smaller piece from a larger cake rethoric to support tax cuts? Obesity makes the cake smaller.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

Why not make people take responsibility? If their obesity makes them need medical attention, then they should pay out of pocket for it. That would motivate people to live healthier lifestyles without destroying industry, discriminating, or running the government dry.

---

Why are generally students so stupid he asks. Why generally are smart people easily be made to believe in evolution he asks. People are generally able to draw long term conclusions using probabillity statistics, he concludes.
Obama's idea of making "decent" the default choise and letting people choose good and bad on top of that is freaking brilliant IMO (he's certainly not the first one), when you deal with large populations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

I mean seriously, do you think that I would not stay in better shape if I knew that I would not be able to pay for any medical complications? Of course I would.

---

Sure.... See above, most wouldn't. Are you fatter now because you consider yourself to be able to pay for any medical complications, while you didn't when you were younger?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

People can enjoy fatty foods without being obese (I used to), and depending on their lifestyle, can enjoy lots of fatty foods and not be obese. The problem is that people now adays are a bunch of pampered, lethargic, bums who do not like to move.

---

The problem is that the food has gone fatter, while the work and entertainment has gone lazyer. People have always been a bunch of pampered, lethargic, bums who do not like to move. But nowadays they don't have to. And that is evidently a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

A tax on fatty foods will not change that. It should be someone's choice if they want to stay trim and fit or be fat and lazy, and they should have to deal with the consequences themselves. People who are not creating a problem should not be made to give up foods with a certain amount of fat in them though because of the problems that others create.

---

A tax on fatty foods will change that. Well how much fatty food they eat that is. Which should be positive on general public health.
Generally these taxes are more of a decrease rather than a give up system, but that is always a question of the indiviual freedom vs the collective damage/benefit. Should heroin be legal? Some can surely handle it. Evidently you say that individual freedom triumph in the fatty food case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

He smoked inside, outside, in the car, everywhere he went. So much in fact that the house was often filled with ciggy smoke like a barroom. It did no wonders for his health (he had incredibly unhealthy lungs), but it didn't seem to do any harm to my lungs.

---

Fair enough. Training youth is the best lung recovering group though, when it comes to the general decline of lung capacity, so your mother would probably be a better test subject for that. Lost two grandparents to lungcancer and iirc both were secondary smokers (either that or smokers with with extra exposure from other family members), so I'm a bit biased on personal anectdotes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

Inactivity is the single most important reason for unhealthy, obese people I think.

---

Indeed!

Sex is an activity. A round in the hay roughly equals half an hour of running. You want to cut back on the sex? Why do you want people to be unhealthy, if I may ask?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

While I am undecided about taxing the porkers, I can assure you, Vukky, that obesity, poor diet, and its related problems kill far more people and tax the healthcare industry than STDs, dangerous jobs, sex toys, whatever.

I would probably lean more towards a food-related vice tax thnt a tax on people who are fat, since high cholesterol, heart disease, diabetes etc happens in the skinnies as well.

your argument about a fast food tax killing the fast food industry and devastating the economy has one core fallacy: people still have to eat. The jobs would shift. Taxing things that are deep fried will creat jobs in an industry where things are chargrilled, or baked, or steamed, etc.

And you and I both know that taxing something won't deter people who really want to eat it any way. Fatty foods are addictive just like tobacco and alcohol.

But what really concerns me about you is that this is the second thread in a week where you advocate eating people you don't agree with, and in the first of which you advocated eating people who had poor language, writing, and reasoning skills, a group that one that one may argue you belong to for not using paragraphs. Just pointing that out that out.

---

Just pointing that out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Correct. And to ensure that they don't we add extra taxes on playing hockey... Or not. :martass: Called acceptable side effects.

When there are safer alternatives and they still do it they should be taxed.

Obesity costs society no matter what medical system you use (even none). Ever used or heard smaller piece from a larger cake rethoric to support tax cuts? Obesity makes the cake smaller.

How does it hurt society if they pay for their own expenses? It hurts only them.

Why are generally students so stupid he asks. Why generally are smart people easily be made to believe in evolution he asks. People are generally able to draw long term conclusions using probabillity statistics, he concludes.
Obama's idea of making "decent" the default choise and letting people choose good and bad on top of that is freaking brilliant IMO (he's certainly not the first one), when you deal with large populations.

Translation please?

Sure.... See above, most wouldn't. Are you fatter now because you consider yourself to be able to pay for any medical complications, while you didn't when you were younger?

I am fatter now because I am inactive. I am in college now and have very little time to do anything, and I have tendinitis in both my arms, which means that I cannot do a lot of things. And no, I would not be over weight if I could not afford potential medical complications.

The problem is that the food has gone fatter, while the work and entertainment has gone lazyer. People have always been a bunch of pampered, lethargic, bums who do not like to move. But nowadays they don't have to. And that is evidently a problem.

They are pampered by their parents who never make them do any real work, then they waste four or more years of their life in college where they generally do not learn a lot anyway and still do no real work or get any real world experience, and then they spend the rest of their lives finding ways not to move. It is a societal problem that stems from the way that parents raise their kids, and not something that a government tax can fix.

A tax on fatty foods will change that. Well how much fatty food they eat that is. Which should be positive on general public health.
Generally these taxes are more of a decrease rather than a give up system, but that is always a question of the indiviual freedom vs the collective damage/benefit. Should heroin be legal? Some can surely handle it. Evidently you say that individual freedom triumph in the fatty food case.

As I said, the problem is with people not moving, not with fatty foods. The secondary problem is with unhealthy foods, not with fatty foods.

Fair enough. Training youth is the best lung recovering group though, when it comes to the general decline of lung capacity, so your mother would probably be a better test subject for that. Lost two grandparents to lungcancer and iirc both were secondary smokers (either that or smokers with with extra exposure from other family members), so I'm a bit biased on personal anectdotes.
Ok, granted, I surely do base my belief on my personal experience, but I think there is evidence enough out there to prove that second hand smoke is not the evil it is made out to be. Like I said, it is personal choice. If people do not want to breath it, then businesses will not allow smoking, and that is their choice.

---

There are problems, and they need solving, but the people of America need to solve them, not the government. They are societal problem, not policy problems.

Hardly anyone pays their own way when they get sick. It's the whole premise of the insurance industry, and why it only makes money because there are people who don't get sick. Insurance companies like the Blue Cross that began as non-profits that insured everyone could not keep in business because the fact that they insured everyone made their premiums skyrocket....people moved to the for-profits insurance companies because those companies could maximize profit by choosing who they covered based on risk, and had premiums that were lower. The whole premise behind why the Blue Cross started is ultimately what killed it and turned it for-profit.

People who get sick and have more health problems raise the cost of insurance for everyone who is insured with that company. People who get sick and have to rely on medicaid do the same thing.

I would actually argue that your two arguments here 1) no socialized medicine and 2)no fat tax, could be mutually exclusive.

I mean, if we end up with socialized medicine, there damn well better be a fat and sin tax or else the thing is gonna sink us quick. People will take less care of themselves, there will be a "why bother the guvment will take care of me" mentality

If we don't have socilaized medicine then there should be no fat tax as it will simply go to a general slush fund like social security always did and be spent willy nilly on what ever the fed wants.

So, Vuk, you're also advocating removal of taxes on cigarettes and alcohol?

It's the very same thing. If taxes are wrong on hockey equipment, why should cigarettes be special?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

When there are safer alternatives and they still do it they should be taxed.

---

Acceptable risks. You decide to ask why to allow anything dangerous, so I could ask why to forbid anything dangerous? Can also be noted that sport usually involve regulation or that the injuries occur due to accidents, while unhealthy food involves unintended consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

How does it hurt society if they pay for their own expenses? It hurts only them.

---

Sick people don't work, working people are productive members that pay taxes. Both the lack of production and taxes hurts society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

Translation please?

---

You see people act short sighted, stupid, easily influenced etc and complains about it, yet you expect them to do very advanced judgements about their future health.
People either don't get fat due to how they live, or because they like to train, or because they really want to avoid getting fat or to reduce weight. They don't do it because it might make them feel better in 20 years, but because they're are terrified on what they will be in 20 years. Kurkri, for example considers a lifestyle change because death has started to feel very real, not because of the potential medical costs.
It's simple direct thoughts that controls most people's life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

I am fatter now because I am inactive. I am in college now and have very little time to do anything, and I have tendinitis in both my arms, which means that I cannot do a lot of things. And no, I would not be over weight if I could not afford potential medical complications.

---

Such an easy slip. You expect that college will be your toughest part of your life considering working hours and (mental) work burden?

And you got that heart attack at 58 covered? You barely survived and by age 60 you can walk again, even if that speach impairment never really wanted to drop. And if you got it covered that if you start training again by 23 you'll avoid that? I'm impressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

They are pampered by their parents who never make them do any real work, then they waste four or more years of their life in college where they generally do not learn a lot anyway and still do no real work or get any real world experience, and then they spend the rest of their lives finding ways not to move. It is a societal problem that stems from the way that parents raise their kids, and not something that a government tax can fix.

---

No, it's mainly because they're humans, with different goals in life (some will never find that goal). Lazyness lies in our genes and will always be there due to its closeness to the essential relaxation mechanism. Why do work when you have everything you need? Perhaps they comfort themself from the guilt of not training (that's there due to societal pressures, because the training feels good or because they simply want to be in better shape), with saying that they don't have enough time and that their hands hurts. For some that will be enough to keep them from training until they find their next excuse, while some will adapt with time solving the worst problems and start to train after a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

As I said, the problem is with people not moving, not with fatty foods. The secondary problem is with unhealthy foods, not with fatty foods.

---

True enough, but most unhealthy food simply contains extra fat (and/or sugar) to make them taste better. Better food usually contains more to make them tastier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

There are problems, and they need solving, but the people of America need to solve them, not the government. They are societal problem, not policy problems.

---

What do you view the goverment as? They are after all supposed to be representing the people of America. What are you going to do when the problem is a large, systematic and structural problem and the free market system drives is towards the wrong direction? Inform the people and hope for the best? That is really working today, isn't it?
It is not a problem of America, but of the rich world. Just to give a hint of the size of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

I would actually argue that your two arguments here 1) no socialized medicine and 2)no fat tax, could be mutually exclusive.

I mean, if we end up with socialized medicine, there damn well better be a fat and sin tax or else the thing is gonna sink us quick. People will take less care of themselves, there will be a "why bother the guvment will take care of me" mentality

If we don't have socilaized medicine then there should be no fat tax as it will simply go to a general slush fund like social security always did and be spent willy nilly on what ever the fed wants.

---

First question: Why on earth would anyone expecting to be sick in the first place? :inquisitive:
Second question: Why haven't this mentality not really occured here, where we have socialized medicine and had it for decades?
Our leeches are asking question nr 1.

Quote:

---

I mean seriously, do you think that I would not stay in better shape if I knew that I would not be able to pay for any medical complications? Of course I would.

---

Man, that's just stupid. :inquisitive:

I would like to have sex and eat a cheeseburger at the same time.

Is there a silly name for that yet

quarter pounding?

Texas cheeseburger massacre?