Correct. And to ensure that they don't we add extra taxes on playing hockey... Or not.Called acceptable side effects.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
Bookmarks