Hippy Hamburgers!

[Ironside]

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. Called acceptable side effects.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[HoreTore]

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?

[Vuk]

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.

[Vuk]

Correct. And to ensure that they don't we add extra taxes on playing hockey... Or not. 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.

[Major Robert Dump]

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.

[Sarmatian]

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?

[Ironside]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?
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.

[Megas Methuselah]

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.

[Strike For The South]

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

Is there a silly name for that yet

[Major Robert Dump]

quarter pounding?

[Sarmatian]

Texas cheeseburger massacre?