Obese kids to be taken into care.

[DemonArchangel]

Soy doesn't kill you. Sugar doesn't kill you. Fat doesn't kill you, and neither does cholesterol, meat, veggies, processed foods, sodium or anything else considered food for that matter. The real problem is that a lack of restraint when it comes to eating, an imbalanced diet and unawareness of what is being eaten. That kills you. Just eat a balanced diet with a proper amount of proteins, fats and carbs, while getting plenty of exercise and you should be fine. Remember, being fat doesn't kill you, but plaque in your arteries will.

[Adrian II]

Just eat a balanced diet with a proper amount of proteins, fats and carbs, while getting plenty of exercise and you should be fine. Remember, being fat doesn't kill you, but plaque in your arteries will.

Agreed.

Decades ago when I was a sailing instructor I had four mates who were in Sports Academy together. They were very close, they graduated together and when they were called up (this was back in the days of conscription) they all applied to be paratroopers. Three were admitted straight away, the fourth was refused because acording to the regulations he was fourty pounds overweight. He challenged the recruiting officer to let him do a test: running, climbing, push-ups, weight lifting, the works. He passed with flying colours and they made an official exception for him.

I guess what it comes down to is this tautology: it's unhealthy lifestyles that are unhealthy.

[Andres]

Slightly off topic, but things like this always remind me of the answer my grandfather gave my father when he told him my mother was on a diet:

Diet? Why should she go on a diet? During the World War, there were no fatties and nobody went on a "diet". Ha! We ate eggs almost every day back than, because we were lucky enough to have chickens that weren't taken away by the Germans! And now that there is plenty of food, everybody goes on a diet? And they call me a crazy old fool because I say it's ridiculous? Idiots!

Or, in other words: we are really talking about luxury problems of a decadent western society... We should be very happy that we can actually worry about something like people being too fat.

Having the luxury of worrying about being too fat, aren't we all very lucky?

While half the world is starving to death, we have to put obese children in "fat camps"? Hilarious

But also very sad

People who are unlucky because they are too fat, should move to Ethiopia.

People who don't want to pay taxes for fatties, should also move to Ethiopia or another country were people are starving to death. It will probably be paradise for them, because they won't have to pay taxes for expensive healthcare of fatties over there. Good luck and send us some pictures

[Crazed Rabbit]

We will be a sick society if we stick to free marketeering concepts of individual health.

Sorry, but I must take issue with this.

The problem is not the ruthless cost-benefit analysis based on what's best for society, like a corporation deciding what departments to slash.

The problem is the theory of a parental society that has determined to provide all care for its citizens. Since society, or rather the government, now has to deal with the consequences of an individual's actions, the government starts to demand a say in how an individual acts, as in this case.

Part of it as well is the rise of the nanny state, which wants to control what you do for your own good.

Both are the opposite of individual liberty. If you want to stop kids being taken from their parents, don't rail against the tool being used, argue against the philosophy that has enabled it.

CR

[Papewaio]

Fat fight at children's hospital

Overweight teenagers had a higher risk of growing into overweight adults, with an increased chance of developing type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, arthritis, sleep apnoea and non-alcohol fatty liver disease, Dr Alexander said.

...

"It is amazing that it has got to this stage," Dr Brydon said. "I wish we could get funding to do the same thing because we are seeing a real increase in the number of overweight children, and obesity has a huge impact on cancer, diabetes and heart disease.

"All the improvements that have been made in combating these diseases is being wiped out by obesity."

Fat plus no exercise is not a good combination...

[rory_20_uk]

Sorry, but I must take issue with this.

The problem is not the ruthless cost-benefit analysis based on what's best for society, like a corporation deciding what departments to slash.

The problem is the theory of a parental society that has determined to provide all care for its citizens. Since society, or rather the government, now has to deal with the consequences of an individual's actions, the government starts to demand a say in how an individual acts, as in this case.

Part of it as well is the rise of the nanny state, which wants to control what you do for your own good.

Both are the opposite of individual liberty. If you want to stop kids being taken from their parents, don't rail against the tool being used, argue against the philosophy that has enabled it.

CR

That's the nub of the issue.

If you pay for your life you decide what you do.
If I'm paying for your life I decide what you do.

Since the Nanny state way requires layer after layer of checks and assessments I'd rather scrap most of it altogether. The savings would leave individuals fewer taxes to pay so they could choose how to sort themselves out.

[Adrian II]

The problem is the theory of a parental society that has determined to provide all care for its citizens.

The problem is finding a balance between this nanny state (which by the way doesn't exist except in totalitarian countries, although the tendency is quite marked in democratic countries like Britain) and your free-for-all health policy in which only the healthy can get health insurance and only the rich can get proper cures and therapies (a type of society that doesn't exist in pure form, although there are clear tendencies towards it in a country like the U.S.).

The private health insurers in your model want to control the behaviour of their clients just as much as the state does in the nanny model. Look at all the collective health schemes of companies these days, where they nanny their employees on behalf of the insurers. These companies have the exact same 'fat' policies, only in their case they have you fired instead of taking your kid away. Because profit instead of health is their main motive, doctors are unduly pressured by health insurance companies, etcetera. They're just as intrusive as said nanny state, wanting to act like interfaces between patient and doctor, which means privacy and confidentiality go out the door.

I believe the National Coalition on Health care's numbers nicely compliment the picture of a private health industry growing fat on its clients.

• In 2005, the United States spent 16 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care. It is projected that the percentage will reach 20 percent by 2016.
• Although nearly 47 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens.
• Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
• In a Wall Street Journal-NBC Survey almost 50 percent of the American public say the cost of health care is their number one economic concern.

We're not doing so badly in Europe with our 'socialised medicine'.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ah, but even private insurance gives you the choice of behaving in a healthy way or paying more. The Government does not. And I must say I haven't heard of a statistical significant number of people being fired for poor health.

Health care costs, like insurance premiums, are too high, but one way to fix that is to go the route Texas has, which has met with success; they've lowered insurance rates by putting a lid on malpractice suit payouts.

CR

[PanzerJaeger]

The mere expression 'morbidly obese' is a criminal misnomer. No classifications of weight or obesity correspond to an increased risk of premature death, serious illness or thwarted development.

Really?

[Adrian II]

Ah, but even private insurance gives you the choice of behaving in a healthy way or paying more.

So they decide what's healthy for you?

And I must say I haven't heard of a statistical significant number of people being fired for poor health.

It's been around since Henry Ford. Google a bit and you'll find examples.

The Cleveland Clinic has openly admitted that starting September 1st, 2007 if pre-employment screening finds nicotine in a potential employees system they will immediately be denied employment. A company called Clarian Health has sent notifications to it’s large pool of employees letting them know that starting in 2009 employees will be charged $5 per paycheck if they are found using tobacco. The charges don’t end there. Clarian has also stated that if tests show the employee has abnormal levels of cholesterol, blood pressure and a growing list of other tests they will be charged $5 on each paycheck for each occurrence of those criteria.

Link

Weyco Inc., a health benefits administrator based in Okemos, Mich., adopted a policy Jan. 1 that allows employees to be fired if they smoke, even if the smoking happens after business hours or at home.

Link

The Scotts Company did just that. They fired 30 year old Scott (obviously no relation!) Rodrigues of Bourne, Massachusetts, when a drug test came up positive for nicotine. Scott is now suing Scott for violating his privacy and civil rights. The company, a subsidiary of Scotts-Miracle Gro, Inc., instituted a policy early this year forbidding smoking, on or off the job. The policy has only been implemented in the 20 states that apparently allow it (which include Massachusetts). The company is upfront about the requirement. It's posted on the website for potential hires. They perform a post-hire test on all new employees for nicotine. Their stated goal is to promote healthy lifestyles and hold down insurance costs.

Link

Etcetera. The fact that you can't find a statistic doesn't mean it's not happening. And it's a wider trend, I suspect, because according to McKinsey health insurance expenses are the fastest growing cost component and will probably overtake profits by 2008.

link

[Caius]

People who don't want to pay taxes for fatties, should also move to Ethiopia or another country were people are starving to death. It will probably be paradise for them, because they won't have to pay taxes for expensive healthcare of fatties over there.

War is sweet for those who haven't experienced it, huh?

But seriously, I love how a democratical chosen by the people government takes away the freedom of their citizens.