Page 1 of 2 1 2 Last

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? 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?

Reply

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

Reply

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..

Reply

Vuk, a linky would be nice...

Reply

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. Have fun.

Reply

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.

Reply

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

Very good in fact.

Reply

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!

Reply

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

typical.

Reply

Paragraphs are for hippy leftist scum!

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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...

Reply

How 'bout things like AIDS?

Reply

Doesn't exist here

Reply

And there are no gays in Iran.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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

Reply

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.

Reply

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?

Reply

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


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

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

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.

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

Reply

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?

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

not more tax, more costly insurance

Reply

Page 1 of 2 1 2 Last