NationStates Jolt Archive

I am of the opinion that smokers, drinkers, and obese people should be subsidisng the health system of which they perpetually clog with their self-inflicted shit.

It'd be simple. Just slap a health system levy on cigarettes and alcohol (Wouldn't matter how much you taxed, both commodities are nearly perfectly inelastic), and make anyone who is considered medically overweight pay a obese health-care levy, imposed directly by the government (tiered in relation to how morbidly fat they may be).

This way, it would be those who create problems for the health system (by choice) that subsidise it for the rest of us. Furthermore, it would be an incentive for these types to perhaps change their habits, to the benefit of the health system also. Either way, the health system wins.

I am of the opinion that smokers, drinkers, and obese people should be subsidisng the health system of which they perpetually clog with their self-inflicted shit.

It'd be simple. Just slap a health system levy on cigarettes and alcohol (Wouldn't matter how much you taxed, both commodities are nearly perfectly inelastic), and make anyone who is considered medically overweight pay a obese health-care levy, imposed directly by the government (tiered in relation to how morbidly fat they may be).

This way, it would be those who create problems for the health system (by choice) that subsidise it for the rest of us. Furthermore, it would be an incentive for these types to perhaps change their habits, to the benefit of the health system also. Either way, the health system wins.

I totally agree. But a lot of people won't. It has to do something with 'the right to decide what to do with your body'.

I totally agree. But a lot of people won't. It has to do something with 'the right to decide what to do with your body'.

I thnk it has something to do with the fact we're all subsidising the NHS already.

I totally agree. But a lot of people won't. It has to do something with 'the right to decide what to do with your body'.
Oh, they have the right. The can be as fat as they want, as long as they don't mind forking out for all of the health care they are going to need in years to come. If they don't want to pay, then they should lessen their odds of landing in hospital by losing some pounds.

Oh, they have the right. The can be as fat as they want, as long as they don't mind forking out for all of the health care they are going to need in years to come. If they don't want to pay, then they should lessen their odds of landing in hospital by losing some pounds.

Would you create an extra tax for annorexic people as well, then?

Edit : Interesting that there's no option in your poll to dump all smokers in Antarctica...

Yes, and we should punish cancer patients for all that expensive chemotherapy, and AIDS patients for all those blood transfusions. Also, we should force people in car accidents to pay a fee before being admitted to the emergency room, because it's their fault they are such bad drivers.

I wish a debilitating illness upon you.

I wish a debilitating illness upon you.

As do I.

Don't forget all those people who do sports. They choose to do sports, so they should be tax punished for all their injuries.

Oh, and people who work in ergonomically unsound positions, like computer users, they should be tax punished for their carpal tunnel syndromes and whatnots.

Oh, and people who live in houses, apartments and, well, homes overall. Most accidents happen in them, and they should be tax punished for choosing to have a home.

And so on, and so on.

Yes, and we should punish cancer patients for all that expensive chemotherapy, and AIDS patients for all those blood transfusions. Also, we should force people in car accidents to pay a fee before being admitted to the emergency room, because it's their fault they are such bad drivers.

I wish a debilitating illness upon you.

Lol. Were it not that there's a slight but subtle difference between deliberatly clogging up your veins and an accidental genetical defunct you have absolutely no control over.

Over course, if you have skin cancer due to overexposure to the sun it's a whole different story. Unless you're a construction worker.

See how difficult making legislation is? :(

Bah another stupid bias poll

Why the fuck do you bother with the poll when it is obvious you dont care what people think anyways.

Lol. Were it not that there's a slight but subtle difference between deliberatly clogging up your veins and an accidental genetical defunct you have absolutely no control over.

Over course, if you have skin cancer due to overexposure to the sun it's a whole different story. Unless you're a construction worker.

See how difficult making legislation is? :(

Well, I wouldn't call AIDS a genetic defunct, now, would you?

I am of the opinion that smokers, drinkers, and obese people should be subsidisng the health system of which they perpetually clog with their self-inflicted shit.

It'd be simple. Just slap a health system levy on cigarettes and alcohol (Wouldn't matter how much you taxed, both commodities are nearly perfectly inelastic), and make anyone who is considered medically overweight pay a obese health-care levy, imposed directly by the government (tiered in relation to how morbidly fat they may be).

This way, it would be those who create problems for the health system (by choice) that subsidise it for the rest of us. Furthermore, it would be an incentive for these types to perhaps change their habits, to the benefit of the health system also. Either way, the health system wins.
Dont forget people who drive cars ... look at all the deaths that happen from that activity

And all thoes sports injuries them too.

I am of the opinion that smokers, drinkers, and obese people should be subsidisng the health system of which they perpetually clog with their self-inflicted shit.

It'd be simple. Just slap a health system levy on cigarettes and alcohol (Wouldn't matter how much you taxed, both commodities are nearly perfectly inelastic), and make anyone who is considered medically overweight pay a obese health-care levy, imposed directly by the government (tiered in relation to how morbidly fat they may be).

This way, it would be those who create problems for the health system (by choice) that subsidise it for the rest of us. Furthermore, it would be an incentive for these types to perhaps change their habits, to the benefit of the health system also. Either way, the health system wins.
I think you are getting dumped on and rightly so!! :p

Well, I wouldn't call AIDS a genetic defunct, now, would you?
I was talking about the cancer. AIDS would be to difficult to make legislation about. Well, for me by myself.

You can certainly do it, but you would need to hire an administration equaling that of the White House to do it within a year.

Don't forget all those people who do sports. They choose to do sports, so they should be tax punished for all their injuries.

Oh, and people who work in ergonomically unsound positions, like computer users, they should be tax punished for their carpal tunnel syndromes and whatnots.

Oh, and people who live in houses, apartments and, well, homes overall. Most accidents happen in them, and they should be tax punished for choosing to have a home.

And so on, and so on.


Don't forget people who drive! Do you know you are more likely to be injured in a car accident than during ANYTHING else? People should have to sign a waver- if they get in a car, they are ineligible for medical care.

And since meat is bad for you, a tax on meat eaters!

Oh, and now that we're on the subject... if people with hereditary diseases procreate, we should instill a "burden on society" tax so they can start paying right away for the added burden taking care of their diabetic, or Crohnnie, or whatever child. Fines for drinking a beer! Jail time for eating cake!

/sarcasm

Don't forget people who drive! Do you know you are more likely to be injured in a car accident than during ANYTHING else? People should have to sign a waver- if they get in a car, they are ineligible for medical care.

And since meat is bad for you, a tax on meat eaters!

Oh, and now that we're on the subject... if people with hereditary diseases procrate, we should instill a "burden on society" tax so they can start paying right away for the added burden taking care of their diabetic, or Crohnnie, or whatever child. Fines for drinking a beer! Jail time for eating cake!

/sarcasm
Beat you to the driving!!!

I definitely believe there should be major taxes on cigarettes/cigars/tobacco in all forms and alcohol, but I think it's too far to go to ask obese people to do that. First of all, there are medical conditions that result in becoming overweight, and medicines that do the same thing. Secondly, I don't want anybody to be obese, but I also don't want people becoming anorexic/bulemic, which is as much a drain on our health system as being fat itself. There's a huge stigma to being fat already, don't you think it's enough?

If you're so hung up on the obesity problem, look at the cost of living and the cost of healthy food. Some of my clients subsist on fast food because it's the most food they can get for what little money they have. It's time for the U.S. (I don't know about other places) to stop marketing junk so much and start rewarding people who provide healthy alternatives. Also, workplaces should be mandated to provide time for their employees for exercise. Look at the Japanese work calisthenics programs! (I have no idea if they still do that or they ever did, I just heard about it somewhere.)

And for the record: I don't smoke, I do drink sometimes, and I'm not fat. I'm perfectly average for my height and weight.

Yes, and we should punish cancer patients for all that expensive chemotherapy, and AIDS patients for all those blood transfusions. Also, we should force people in car accidents to pay a fee before being admitted to the emergency room, because it's their fault they are such bad drivers.

I wish a debilitating illness upon you.

Oh, please, people have brains; they can stay off cigarettes, alcohol, and fatty food if they just push themselves. It's not a perfect plan, but something has to be done about the obesity problem in the US, at least. You know something's wrong when 65% of people are overweight.

I definitely believe there should be major taxes on cigarettes/cigars/tobacco in all forms and alcohol,
snip
There already are at least in the US there are some mighty hefty taxes

Oh, please, people have brains; they can stay off cigarettes, alcohol, and fatty food if they just push themselves. It's not a perfect plan, but something has to be done about the obesity problem in the US, at least. You know something's wrong when 65% of people are overweight.
Which in this case none of the proposed legislation really matters for

As we dont really have a state healthcare system ...

Would you create an extra tax for annorexic people as well, then?

Edit : Interesting that there's no option in your poll to dump all smokers in Antarctica...
Anorexic? No, they suffer from a mental ilness beyond their control. The same would apply to 'glandular' fat people, as that is beyond their control (mind you, many fattie claim to be glandular when they are indeed are not).

The poll did not include smokers or alcoholics, as I could not fit them in the word limit for each option.

Anorexic? No, they suffer from a mental ilness beyond their control. The same would apply to 'glandular' fat people, as that is beyond their control (mind you, many fattie claim to be glandular when they are indeed are not).

The poll did not include smokers or alcoholics, as I could not fit them in the word limit for each option.
Your poll lacked many things

Anorexic? No, they suffer from a mental ilness beyond their control. The same would apply to 'glandular' fat people, as that is beyond their control (mind you, many fattie claim to be glandular when they are indeed are not).

The poll did not include smokers or alcoholics, as I could not fit them in the word limit for each option.
Obesity is just as much a mental problem.

Yes, and we should punish cancer patients for all that expensive chemotherapy, and AIDS patients for all those blood transfusions. Also, we should force people in car accidents to pay a fee before being admitted to the emergency room, because it's their fault they are such bad drivers.

I wish a debilitating illness upon you.

You seem to have missed the point. People who suffer from ilnesses should not be charged any extra, nor should those who are victims of accidents. I argue that those who increase their odds of illness tenfold by their own choice, namely smokers alcoholics and fat people. Read the OP before you post.

Anorexic? No, they suffer from a mental ilness beyond their control. The same would apply to 'glandular' fat people, as that is beyond their control (mind you, many fattie claim to be glandular when they are indeed are not).

The poll did not include smokers or alcoholics, as I could not fit them in the word limit for each option.
That's one thing we should stop doing too. Considering every behavioral abnormality as a mental illness. Next thing you know they'll consider criminality a mental illness too.

Don't forget all those people who do sports. They choose to do sports, so they should be tax punished for all their injuries.

Oh, and people who work in ergonomically unsound positions, like computer users, they should be tax punished for their carpal tunnel syndromes and whatnots.

Oh, and people who live in houses, apartments and, well, homes overall. Most accidents happen in them, and they should be tax punished for choosing to have a home.

And so on, and so on.

Allow me to continue:

There should be a tax on people who have hereditary diseases and disorders who reproduce. If you know you carry a genetic defect that you could pass on to your child which would make him or her a burden on the state, and you choose to reproduce anyway, you should be taxed.

Further, women should have their pregnancies screened regularly. If it is determined that a child is going to have a disorder, such as Down's Syndrome, and she does not choose to abort, she should have to pay a tax to offset the eventual cost to the state of the child.

You seem to have missed the point. People who suffer from ilnesses should not be charged any extra, nor should those who are victims of accidents. I argue that those who increase their odds of illness tenfold by their own choice, namely smokers alcoholics and fat people. Read the OP before you post.

Actually, I take much greater risks to my health by driving than by smoking.
And even greater by engaging in, say, any kind of extreme sports. Yes, both would involve accidents, but then again, health problems caused by cigarettes or obesity are as much a gamble. Just because you smoke does not automatically mean that you'll cause your health insurance additional costs. Example? My grandfather. Smoked half a pack a day, drank about 0.5 - 1 liter of wine per day, lived till he was 93 and died in his sleep without having been on any long-term medication or seeing his doctor more than once a year.

That's one thing we should stop doing too. Considering every behavioral abnormality as a mental illness. Next thing you know they'll consider criminality a mental illness too.

Have you ever heard of kleptomania?

Do you suggest that a serial killer is a normal human being and mentally stable and healthy?

I am of the opinion that smokers, drinkers, and obese people should be subsidisng the health system of which they perpetually clog with their self-inflicted shit.

It'd be simple. Just slap a health system levy on cigarettes and alcohol (Wouldn't matter how much you taxed, both commodities are nearly perfectly inelastic), and make anyone who is considered medically overweight pay a obese health-care levy, imposed directly by the government (tiered in relation to how morbidly fat they may be).

This way, it would be those who create problems for the health system (by choice) that subsidise it for the rest of us. Furthermore, it would be an incentive for these types to perhaps change their habits, to the benefit of the health system also. Either way, the health system wins.
I can agree for smoking or drinking, so long as the health problems in question can be proven to be the result of the smoking or drinking, but I cannot agree for the obesity issue.

It is quite possible to be fat and healthy, and equally possible to be thin and unhealthy. Fatness or thinness are not reliable indicators of health, or of the "healthiness" of the choices the individual is making. Numerous studies also suggest that weight loss may NOT be a good way to improve health for many overweight people, so what you are then doing is telling people they have to pursue an UNHEALTHY course of action or else you will punish them with higher medical costs.

Don't forget all those people who do sports. They choose to do sports, so they should be tax punished for all their injuries.Sports, and an active lifestyle, saves more money than it incurrs. Whilst a higher rate of injuries arises from playing sport, the chances of developing a whole host of long term health problems decrease.

Oh, and people who work in ergonomically unsound positions, like computer users, they should be tax punished for their carpal tunnel syndromes and whatnots. By Law, these people must be shown the ergonomically correct and safe way to behave in their respective workplace (at least in Australia). It is hardly a widespread, monitorable, and comparaitively significant contributor to the clogging of hospitals.

Oh, and people who live in houses, apartments and, well, homes overall. Most accidents happen in them, and they should be tax punished for choosing to have a home.

And so on, and so on. Living in a house is not high-risk behaviour. Nor is it less favourable (healthwise) than living on the street.

I'm talking about the top dead-weights on hospital overburdening. Not every possible reason someone could possibly need healthcare, (after all, healthcare is supposed to be a service for those who need it). All I'm saying is that people who needlessly overburden the system as a direct result of their lifestyle choices should pay for it. You work in a hospital, no? Surely you must be pissed when you see all of the beds filled with smokers, junkies, and fat people. I would also propose you place similar levies upon illicit drug takers, if the drugs weren't illicit:p

smokers and drinkers subsidise the system by paying excessive taxes, but theres no special tax on fatty food. Although if you think about it, fat people have less sex, because they are unattractive, so they will be less likely to get STDs. They dont participate in sports so they are less likely to be injured that way. They are too ashamed to go out in the sun so they dont get skin cancer. Maybe it balances out the cost to the system.

Sports, and an active lifestyle, saves more money than it incurrs. Whilst a higher rate of injuries arises from playing sport, the chances of developing a whole host of long term health problems decrease.

snip
Care to provide stats for your assertations?

Bah another stupid bias poll

Why the fuck do you bother with the poll when it is obvious you dont care what people think anyways.
...to make a point?:confused:

...to make a point?:confused:
Could have done that without pretending to want to know peoples opinions

...to make a point?
You've made your point about despising people who don't follow your idea about how they should live their live perfectly clear, even without the poll...

I think you are getting dumped on and rightly so!! :p
I haven't seen any legitimate criticisms beyond those that criticise the 'kind' of idea that I'm proposing. Nothing specifically against the Op though...

I really hope that a lot of the people on Nation States don't have access to actually changing social issues in America.

I haven't seen any legitimate criticisms beyond those that criticise the 'kind' of idea that I'm proposing. Nothing specifically against the Op though...
If "legitimate criticisms" means "criticisms that I am prepared to listen to," perhaps.

And yes, people are also criticizing the "kind" of idea you are proposing, because it is the dumb kind of idea. People tend to criticize those.

I am of the opinion that smokers, drinkers, and obese people should be subsidisng the health system of which they perpetually clog with their self-inflicted shit.

It'd be simple. Just slap a health system levy on cigarettes and alcohol (Wouldn't matter how much you taxed, both commodities are nearly perfectly inelastic), and make anyone who is considered medically overweight pay a obese health-care levy, imposed directly by the government (tiered in relation to how morbidly fat they may be).

This way, it would be those who create problems for the health system (by choice) that subsidise it for the rest of us. Furthermore, it would be an incentive for these types to perhaps change their habits, to the benefit of the health system also. Either way, the health system wins.
Awwww! Look at da siwwy widdle tart! You are sooo cwute! Yes you are! YYyyyes you are!

*pulls out gun*
:mp5:
DIE BABY DIE!

I disagree with you and think you are a bias ass. Do you drink? I bet not. Do you smoke? I bet not. Are you fat? I bet not. If you don't qualify as any of them you have no right to decide how they are to be treated.

I haven't seen any legitimate criticisms beyond those that criticise the 'kind' of idea that I'm proposing. Nothing specifically against the Op though...

It may have been a bit much to pressume that you'd understand sarcasm. The point that I and most other posters here were making was that, no, lifestyle is a personal choice and should not be punished or taxed, be it risky or not.

I haven't seen any legitimate criticisms beyond those that criticise the 'kind' of idea that I'm proposing. Nothing specifically against the Op though...
That just means that the kind of idea you are proposing is worthless from the outset.

I really hope that a lot of the people on Nation States don't have access to actually changing social issues in America.
Meh. On the age of 18, everyone should just be dropped in the middle of the jungle for 2 weeks. Everyone that comes out alive is a suitable human being. Well, for manual labor in any case.

Ans those that don't come out, well....

You seem to have missed the point. People who suffer from ilnesses should not be charged any extra, nor should those who are victims of accidents. I argue that those who increase their odds of illness tenfold by their own choice, namely smokers alcoholics and fat people. Read the OP before you post.

I read your excuse for a post. By your flawed logic, we should punish people who develop injuries or illnesses through their own choices. Such as people who are hurt in car accidents because they chose to drive.

Meh. On the age of 18, everyone should just be dropped in the middle of the jungle for 2 weeks. Everyone that comes out alive is a suitable human being. Well, for manual labor in any case.

Ans those that don't come out, well....
The ones that have to be rescued will probably be the ones that become politicians.

Don't forget people who drive! Do you know you are more likely to be injured in a car accident than during ANYTHING else? People should have to sign a waver- if they get in a car, they are ineligible for medical care. Forgetting the overt slippery slope fallacy. I think you can see the difference between a practical means of transportation and a pointless killer like smoking and obesity. Furthermore, I'm not talking about deaths. I'm talking about long term health problems which clog our health system, whilst car accidents do indeed cause these, they hardly compare to drug abuse and obesity.
And since meat is bad for you, a tax on meat eaters! Do I need to rebut?

Oh, and now that we're on the subject... if people with hereditary diseases procreate, we should instill a "burden on society" tax so they can start paying right away for the added burden taking care of their diabetic, or Crohnnie, or whatever child. Fines for drinking a beer! Jail time for eating cake!

/sarcasm That would be unfair, as it beyond those people's control. They did not chose to land themselves a lifetime of hospital in the same way drug abusers do.

I read your excuse for a post. By your flawed logic, we should punish people who develop injuries or illnesses through their own choices. Such as people who are hurt in car accidents because they chose to drive.
And I think a person COULD make an argument for that. Now, I wouldn't personally agree with them, but at least they could be logically consistent and make a case for that sort of health care system.

However, what this chap is proposing is a system in which he would get to pick and choose which behaviors to punish. That's just self-righteousness and general jackassery.

I read your excuse for a post. By your flawed logic, we should punish people who develop injuries or illnesses through their own choices. Such as people who are hurt in car accidents because they chose to drive.

Well, his logic isn't totally flawed, you're just as well twisting it to fit your own needs. According to your use of his logic parents should also be held responsible for the actions of their off-spring.

I'm sure that wasn't his point.

It is quite possible to be fat and healthy, and equally possible to be thin and unhealthy. Fatness or thinness are not reliable indicators of health, or of the "healthiness" of the choices the individual is making. Numerous studies also suggest that weight loss may NOT be a good way to improve health for many overweight people, so what you are then doing is telling people they have to pursue an UNHEALTHY course of action or else you will punish them with higher medical costs.

Silly fat apologism if you ask me. I don't doubt that it is possible to be healthy if you're a few pounds overweight (such guidelines are, afterall, based on averages rather than absolutes). However, the studies clearly say that obesity is usually at least somewhat unhealthy, unless you subscribe to the school of thought that says the scientific community is actually a pawn of the diet industry (an argument I hear a lot), in which case, I could easily argue that the studies saying obesity isn't unhealthy are funded by the food industry.

Indeed, one not even look to studies to see that fat is unhealthy, when you think about it. Consider the fact that the human body evolved for million years in a food poor environment where obesity would rarely occur. It is optimally adapted for thinness and excess fat is an imbalance it simply hasn't evolved to cope with. Bad health is a logical outcome of such as situation.

Well, his logic isn't totally flawed, you're just as well twisting it to fit your own needs. According to your use of his logic parents should also be held responsible for the actions of their off-spring.

I'm sure that wasn't his point.

No, his point is that people who choose to be unhealthy should be punished for it. That's fine, as long as you're logically consistent with the position. Punish all people who engage in all risky behavior. The OP seems to only be picking on conditions he doesn't actually have and activities he doesn't actually engage in.

Obesity is just as much a mental problem.
:p

Allow me to continue:

There should be a tax on people who have hereditary diseases and disorders who reproduce. If you know you carry a genetic defect that you could pass on to your child which would make him or her a burden on the state, and you choose to reproduce anyway, you should be taxed.

Further, women should have their pregnancies screened regularly. If it is determined that a child is going to have a disorder, such as Down's Syndrome, and she does not choose to abort, she should have to pay a tax to offset the eventual cost to the state of the child.
Slippery slope fallacy. It's an easy response to give, but clearly doesn't address any of the points put forward by my arguement. Try telling me why people who choose to be unhealthy (smokers, fatpeople) should not fund their bills in advance.

Forgetting the overt slippery slope fallacy. I think you can see the difference between a practical means of transportation and a pointless killer like smoking and obesity. Furthermore, I'm not talking about deaths. I'm talking about long term health problems which clog our health system, whilst car accidents do indeed cause these, they hardly compare to drug abuse and obesity.
Do I need to rebut?

Actually, while cars may be practical, they are not necessary nor vital for transportation. You're talking to a clearly overweight woman in her 30s here who never even saw the need for a driver's licence. I walk, use my bike or take the bus. I don't indulge in any extreme sport, therefore my risk of accidents is reduced compared to the average public. Furthermore, I don't have nor do I intend to ever have children. Therefore, my health insurance won't have to cover for the additional checkups and treatments during a pregnancy. I neither drink nor smoke. I haven't seen a doctor in at least 5 years, the last time was a regular checkup while I was still at university, I think, and I'm perfectly healthy. I've never once been to hospital in my entire life.

Now, please provide me with an estimate how much health insurance you'd have me pay.

Slippery slope fallacy. It's an easy response to give, but clearly doesn't address any of the points put forward by my arguement. Try telling me why people who choose to be unhealthy (smokers, fatpeople) should not fund their bills in advance.
Nothing slippery slope about it. He's just applying your logic. You should agree with this or your a fucking hypocrite.

Actually, while cars may be practical, they are not necessary nor vital for transportation. You're talking to a clearly overweight woman in her 30s here who never even saw the need for a driver's licence. I walk, use my bike or take the bus. I don't indulge in any extreme sport, therefore my risk of accidents is reduced compared to the average public. Furthermore, I don't have nor do I intend to ever have children. Therefore, my health insurance won't have to cover for the additional checkups and treatments during a pregnancy. I neither drink nor smoke. I haven't seen a doctor in at least 5 years, the last time was a regular checkup while I was still at university, I think, and I'm perfectly healthy. I've never once been to hospital in my entire life.

Now, please provide me with an estimate how much health insurance you'd have me pay.

According to your story you don't even need health insurance.

Slippery slope fallacy. It's an easy response to give, but clearly doesn't address any of the points put forward by my arguement. Try telling me why people who choose to be unhealthy (smokers, fatpeople) should not fund their bills in advance.


So, you're trying to force people to pay more for, say, one meal at McDonalds per month, because it's clearly unhealthy?

Btw, would you start charging more from people with poor oral health for the cavity treatments they will need in the future?

Actually, I take much greater risks to my health by driving than by smoking.
And even greater by engaging in, say, any kind of extreme sports. Yes, both would involve accidents, but then again, health problems caused by cigarettes or obesity are as much a gamble. Just because you smoke does not automatically mean that you'll cause your health insurance additional costs. Example? My grandfather. Smoked half a pack a day, drank about 0.5 - 1 liter of wine per day, lived till he was 93 and died in his sleep without having been on any long-term medication or seeing his doctor more than once a year.
Lucky him. Clearly the exception to the rule, though. Remeber I'm not talking about death (if you're dead you hardly burden the health system) I'm talking about long term debilitating health problems requiring care. Car accidents, and extremes sports tend to produce fatalities and injuries. Thats completely different to the daily kidney dialysis required by an alcoholic, paid for by the taxpayer.

According to your story you don't even need health insurance.

And yet, I have it. I don't mind paying it, and I don't mind that some of it will be spent treating people who were dumb enough to see how long they could keep that firecracker in their hand before it exploded. Health insurance is for the benefit of all, not for those who you consider to be "deserving"

:p
This little smiley face tells us all that you know nothing about the causes of obesity.

"A brain protein already known to play a central role in the "feast or fast" signaling that controls the urge to eat has now been found to influence appetite in a second way. The discovery identifies a potential new target for drugs against obesity.

Earlier research has shown that this protein, called MC4R, is a receptor on neurons in the hypothalamus region of the brain and receives signals through at least two pathways about the status of the body's fat reserves. If fat stores are increasing, theses signals stimulate MC4R, triggering physiological responses that decrease appetite. If fat reserves are decreasing, these signals turn off, deactivating MC4R and increasing appetite."
http://pub.ucsf.edu/newsservices/releases/200410127/

Lucky him. Clearly the exception to the rule, though. Remeber I'm not talking about death (if you're dead you hardly burden the health system) I'm talking about long term debilitating health problems requiring care. Car accidents, and extremes sports tend to produce fatalities and injuries. Thats completely different to the daily kidney dialysis required by an alcoholic, paid for by the taxpayer.

That's why I pointed out that he wasn't on medication or any kind of long-term treatment.
And you're wrong if you assume that accidents don't cause long-term health problems. They can involve injury to the brain or spinal cord, injuries to internal organs and permanent disabilities.
I'll see if I can find statistics, but I wouldn't be surprised if road accidents put a bigger whole in the national health budget each year than health problems related to obesity.

I can agree for smoking or drinking, so long as the health problems in question can be proven to be the result of the smoking or drinking, but I cannot agree for the obesity issue.

It is quite possible to be fat and healthy, and equally possible to be thin and unhealthy. Fatness or thinness are not reliable indicators of health, or of the "healthiness" of the choices the individual is making. Numerous studies also suggest that weight loss may NOT be a good way to improve health for many overweight people, so what you are then doing is telling people they have to pursue an UNHEALTHY course of action or else you will punish them with higher medical costs.
I'm not talking about being 'fat' so much as I am talking about being clinically 'overweight' or 'obese'. The conditions are derived from comparing your weight to your height. It is not possible to be obese and healthy (at least, not for long). Obesity is a very reliable indicator of health (present and future). While it is true that being underweight can lead to health problems, this is nowhere near the deadweight on the health system that obesity is, and I'm not talking about taxing every little thing, just the big ones.

I'm not talking about being 'fat' so much as I am talking about being clinically 'overweight' or 'obese'. The conditions are derived from comparing your weight to your height. It is not possible to be obese and healthy (at least, not for long). Obesity is a very reliable indicator of health (present and future). While it is true that being underweight can lead to health problems, this is nowhere near the deadweight on the health system that obesity is, and I'm not talking about taxing every little thing, just the big ones.

Well, how big then?

smokers and drinkers subsidise the system by paying excessive taxes, but theres no special tax on fatty food. Although if you think about it, fat people have less sex, because they are unattractive, so they will be less likely to get STDs. They dont participate in sports so they are less likely to be injured that way. They are too ashamed to go out in the sun so they dont get skin cancer. Maybe it balances out the cost to the system.
While this is true, there is nothing directly tying these taxes to the health system. It is just the case that alcohol and cigarettes have an almost perfectly inelastic demand, so the government can (and should) tax whatever they please on these items. This is just a general revenue builder, however, and has nothing to do with the health spending. I was proposing having an additional and seperate health care levy on these goods.

While this is true, there is nothing directly tying these taxes to the health system. It is just the case that alcohol and cigarettes have an almost perfectly inelastic demand, so the government can (and should) tax whatever they please on these items. This is just a general revenue builder, however, and has nothing to do with the health spending. I was proposing having an additional and seperate health care levy on these goods.

I don't know about Australia, but in Germany these taxes are in fact linked to the health system.

Silly fat apologism if you ask me. I don't doubt that it is possible to be healthy if you're a few pounds overweight (such guidelines are, afterall, based on averages rather than absolutes). However, the studies clearly say that obesity is usually at least somewhat unhealthy, unless you subscribe to the school of thought that says the scientific community is actually a pawn of the diet industry (an argument I hear a lot).

Unfortunately, no, the studies don't necessarily show that. I don't believe in the wild conspiracy theories, but I do believe in reading peer-reviewed journals* directly instead of what the media spits out after chewing up said information and mixing it with a lot of sensationalism.

One study (I think it was by Paffenbager et al.) followed college alumni (something like 17,000 of them) and found not only that the highest mortality rates were among individuals with the lowest BMIs, but also that individuals who had gained weight since college had a significantly LOWER mortality rate than their slimmer classmates. Another study (by Wilchosky? Wilsosky? et al) found that weight gain is unrelated to mortality for women, and weight loss is actually associated with HIGHER mortality for men.

There's a nice paper that I looked up, Ernsberger and Koletsky 1999, in the Journal of Social Issues, that has this really amazing plot of BMI versus mortality...insurance companies set "ideal weight" between 20 and 25 BMI, but the lowest mortality rates were actually around 30-35 BMI. Kind of spooky, really.

Speaking more generally, if you read the literature about fitness and weight, what you find is that health will be improved if people eat better and exercise regularly...but this usually does not correlate with weight loss. In other words, fatness is not a reliable indicator of health, nor does it necessarily reflect improvements that a person has made. Some people will lose weight if they change their diet and exercise regime, but others may not, and those who do not lose weight have never been shown to be less healthy than those who do.

Also, even IF we were to assume that fatness is automatically bad (which is unsupported by the data), we are still left with unequivocal evidence that weight loss regimes are not an effective way to improve public health. For instance, a researcher at George Washington University recently did a study on weight loss programs which found that there is NO commerical or clinical program for weight loss that has been able to demonstrate significant long-term weight loss for more than a tiny fraction of the participants.

Another example would be when the American Cancer Society did a prospective survey of over 1 million people, and they found that individuals who reported that they had lost weight in the past 5 years were more likely to die from cardiovascular disease than those whose weight was stable. There are significant dangers in weight cycling and repeated weight loss failure, and as a result the majority of weight loss regimes actually end up being harmful to the majority of individuals who follow them.

To sum up:

1) Weight gain has not been conclusively linked to increased mortality. Being "too fat" has not be conclusively demonstrated to be any worse than being "too thin," and in many cases it appears that being overweight is preferable to being underweight (from a health standpoint).
2) Cyclic weight change or dramatic weight loss HAVE been linked to increased mortality. People who diet are MORE likely to die sooner than people who do not diet.
3) There is no existing weight loss program that has been shown to work for more than a small fraction of individuals. The vast majority of weight loss programs end up creating lots of people with cycling weight losses and gains, a situation that has been PROVEN to be harmful to one's health.


Indeed, one not even look to studies to see that fat is unhealthy, when you think about it. Consider the fact that the human body evolved for million years in a food poor environment where obesity would rarely occur. It is optimally adapted for thinness and excess fat is an imbalance it simply hasn't evolved to cope with. Bad health is a logical outcome of such as situation.
Unfortunately, this is a misconception about how the process of selection works. No, our bodies are not "intended" to be thin. Indeed, our bodies are DESIGNED to become fat, and to be able to maintain significant fat stores. Yes, the human body can be made thin in many cases, but this does not mean it is how the body is "supposed" to function. Biologically speaking, our bodies do much better if we have MORE fat than we need, as opposed to having too little fat.

This also overlooks the fact that our standard for physical fitness today is radically different even than our views of fitness 50 years ago. Anybody remember the movie "Titanic," and how there were all those reviews saying how Kate Winslet was so fat? Well, if Kate had been on the ACTUAL Titanic, looking the way she did in the movie, she would have been quarantined under the assumption that she was afflicted with consumption or something like it. Our current standard of "fat" has virtually nothing to do with the actual proportion of fat that is healthy for our species.

Basically, I think that weight CAN be a health problem, and IS a health problem for some people, but that it is not rational to conclude that body weight will correlate with individual health. It simply doesn't. It is also irrational to consider punishing people for not losing weight, when weight loss has been shown to be harmful in many situations. At least, it is irrational to consider that if your goal is to improve health...if you simply want to hurt fat people or punish them for being unattractive to you, then I guess you're being rational after all.


*I've done a lot of reading on this topic because I have a close family member who has been struggling with their weight for a long time, to the point where she was actually considering surgical options. I don't believe in pursuing any course of medical treatment without doing your homework, so I read a whole lot of papers and tried to help her break down the information in a clear manner. I recommend that NOBODY take my word for it on this...read the journals for yourself! Don't accept second-hand sources!

Care to provide stats for your assertations?
*moan*:( *grumble* ...
...
...
here
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4364.0Main+Features12004-05?OpenDocument
Look it up. Really, obesity and smoking, biggest burden on the healthcare system in Australia. Probably america too (not sure there).

I thnk it has something to do with the fact we're all subsidising the NHS already.

You win the thread.

Obesity is a very reliable indicator of health (present and future). While it is true that being underweight can lead to health problems, this is nowhere near the deadweight on the health system that obesity is, and I'm not talking about taxing every little thing, just the big ones.
Please provide citations. I am honestly interested in which journals or from which sources you are getting this information, since my examination of peer-reviewed journals has failed to turn up any conclusive evidence to support these claims.

I am of the opinion that smokers, drinkers, and obese people should be subsidisng the health system of which they perpetually clog with their self-inflicted shit.

It'd be simple. Just slap a health system levy on cigarettes and alcohol (Wouldn't matter how much you taxed, both commodities are nearly perfectly inelastic), and make anyone who is considered medically overweight pay a obese health-care levy, imposed directly by the government (tiered in relation to how morbidly fat they may be).

This way, it would be those who create problems for the health system (by choice) that subsidise it for the rest of us. Furthermore, it would be an incentive for these types to perhaps change their habits, to the benefit of the health system also. Either way, the health system wins.

Your oppinionated "Solution" is very poorly thought out. For it to even work, you need to:

1. Prove that the obese, smokers, drinkers, etc. individually take a larger than average piece of the healthcare pie than an average human in the system.

2. Prove that these groups' individual members use a larger than average amount of medical resources and doctor's time than an average human.

3. Prove that an early death from the sources above costs insurance/ medicare/ hospitals more than living an average lifespan before dying from an illness as a senior citizen.

4. Prove that existing taxes on commodities such as tobacco and alcohol has discouraged one human, let alone a significant number, from purchasing those products.

5. Similarly, prove that massive price gouging has prevented even the poorest junkies from using any means to accuire illegal narcotics.

6. Prove that monetary concern alone can force people to 'un-addict' themselves from habitual addictive substances.

7. Prove that 'Black Markets' would not choose to pursue an opportunity to make money by allowing consumers to purchase cheaper "tax free" products.

8. Prove that law enforcement proffesionals have the capability to effectively combat these illegal markets.

If you can answer these questions, and with verifiable fact instead of opinion, then intelligent debate on this matter is possible.

You've made your point about despising people who don't follow your idea about how they should live their live perfectly clear, even without the poll...
When did I give the allusion that I cared about what 'people' felt. I air these ideas so as to road test them against an audience of critical people. I'm looking for genuine criticism of the idea, the kind a poll can't offer. The poll is just an effective means of getting people to read the OP. I also took a lesson from Eutrusca and include very mild trolling in my OP/poll, so as to hook more people into replying with their brainless remarks and thus keep the thread alive. Then, whilst the thread is alive, the chance that I get some real food for thought increases ten-fold. That is why;)

When did I give the allusion that I cared about what 'people' felt. I air these ideas so as to road test them against an audience of critical people. I'm looking for genuine criticism of the idea, the kind a poll can't offer. The poll is just an effective means of getting people to read the OP. I also took a lesson from Eutrusca and include very mild trolling in my OP/poll, so as to hook more people into replying with their brainless remarks and thus keep the thread alive. Then, whilst the thread is alive, the chance that I get some real food for thought increases ten-fold. That is why;)

*rolfmao
In that case, congratulations. The trolling is just about mild enough to pass the mods scrutiny, yet offensive enough to entice an emotional debate :p

If "legitimate criticisms" means "criticisms that I am prepared to listen to," perhaps.

And yes, people are also criticizing the "kind" of idea you are proposing, because it is the dumb kind of idea. People tend to criticize those.
No, 'legitimate criticisms' means criticism that aren't based on a slippery slope fallacy, as opposed to the actual OP. The 'kind' of idea they criticise is that of discriminating tax policies.

No, 'legitimate criticisms' means criticism that aren't based on a slippery slope fallacy, as opposed to the actual OP. The 'kind' of idea they criticise is that of discriminating tax policies.
It's not about a "slippery slope falacy," it's about pointing out that you decided to set yourself up as the arbitor of who gets punished and who doesn't, and then you decided to give a BS line of reasoning for it. If your concern is about making individuals pay more for health care when they engage in "high risk" activities, then your conclusions are bunk.

Now, you could just give up the pretense about it having to do with "risky" behaviors, and simply say that you don't like people who smoke, drink, or get fat, and therefore you want those people to pay more for health care.

Slippery slope fallacy. It's an easy response to give, but clearly doesn't address any of the points put forward by my arguement. Try telling me why people who choose to be unhealthy (smokers, fatpeople) should not fund their bills in advance.

Sorry. I would have assumed you understood what I was saying.

The problem with your argument is that you isolate three examples of people choosing to be unhealthy to bill in advance of medical treatment and ignore many, many other groups of people who cost the medical system a lot of money. The fact is that if you are going to punish people for engaging in risky behavior, you must do it equally, punishing all people who engage in any sort of medically risky behavior. Otherwise, it is discrimination what you're suggesting.

Awwww! Look at da siwwy widdle tart! You are sooo cwute! Yes you are! YYyyyes you are!

*pulls out gun*
:mp5:
DIE BABY DIE!

I disagree with you and think you are a bias ass. Do you drink? I bet not. Do you smoke? I bet not. Are you fat? I bet not. If you don't qualify as any of them you have no right to decide how they are to be treated.
Imagine if that was indeed the way it worked! Take a look at your average polititian demographic: White, male, upper-middle class. Hardly representative of the population (and minorities) they make policies on. I am a 'bias ass', so are you, and everyone else. Perhaps you would like to sway my bias with your own? Out of interest, I do have the occasional drink and smoke, though do neither habitually.

That just means that the kind of idea you are proposing is worthless from the outset.
Why? :cool:

Unfortunately, this is a misconception about how the process of selection works. No, our bodies are not "intended" to be thin. Indeed, our bodies are DESIGNED to become fat, and to be able to maintain significant fat stores. Yes, the human body can be made thin in many cases, but this does not mean it is how the body is "supposed" to function. Biologically speaking, our bodies do much better if we have MORE fat than we need, as opposed to having too little fat.

Why? The human race never had to deal with rampant obesity until recently. Until the last century, most people simply couldn't afford enough food to become fat (and in fact, many people today still can't, such as in third world nations). There simply was no evolutionary pressure to adapt to excess weight. People usually died before excess fat would have a chance to hurt them, anyway. There is no logical reason that the human body would be designed to be fat given that the opportunity to be fat would almost never present itself.

By contrast, humans were consistantly thin due to the scarceness of food and difficulty in obtaining it (which is why hunter-gatherers can only sustain relatively low population densities). Adapting to the reality of thinness would surely take priority over the smaller possibility of excess weight. You need to remember, there were no McDonalds in prehistoric times. People had to hunt and gather everything they ate and that took a lot of energy. And of course, remember that being fat would be a huge problem for someone hunting large animals.

I read your excuse for a post. By your flawed logic, we should punish people who develop injuries or illnesses through their own choices. Not punish, tax. So as to fund the health system they will be far more likely to utilise. Such as people who are hurt in car accidents because they chose to drive.
First off, am not making a proposition of a new system of health care with across the board rules. I am proposing a specific policy in dealing with drug abusers, and obese people. Realistically that is all you should be criticising. However, for your own understanding I will explain why victims of car accidents and various injuries wouldn't be included:
1. They are victims of accidents, secondary to the task performed at the time of injury.
2. The results of car accidents are usually injuries/fatalities, not long term health problem which weigh down the health system.
3. They did not choose to have an accident as the smoker chooses to have lung cancer (more or less).

And I think a person COULD make an argument for that. Now, I wouldn't personally agree with them, but at least they could be logically consistent and make a case for that sort of health care system.

However, what this chap is proposing is a system in which he would get to pick and choose which behaviors to punish. That's just self-righteousness and general jackassery.
No it is not. Perhaps you misread the OP. What I was proposing was the taxing in advance of the two major self-inflicted health problems (which weigh down the health system), in advance by incurring a levy upon those groups before they develop the problems. I don't know where you got the idea of random behavior taxing:confused:

And of course, remember that being fat would be a huge problem for someone hunting large animals.

And a plump tasty meal for the large animals hunting THEM.

*snip*
And since meat is bad for you, a tax on meat eaters!
*snip*


And since vegetarians foul up the air with their constant gas, a tax on vegetables, too.

No food, in and of itself in moderation, is bad for you.

1. They are victims of accidents, secondary to the task performed at the time of injury.

The primary task of eating is sustainement, the primary taks of smoking or drinking is to enjoy or savour the experience. The resulting health problems are not the primary objective of anybody.


2. The results of car accidents are usually injuries/fatalities, not long term health problem which weigh down the health system.

The results of car accidents are brain dammage, permantent damage to internal organs or premanent disabilities of various kinds, most of which require lifelong treatment.


3. They did not choose to have an accident as the smoker chooses to have lung cancer (more or less).

The smoker didn't choose to have cancer, he chose to smoke and took the risk. People who have accidents don't choose to have them, but take the risk by using cars (not only putting themselves at risk, but even more others)

There is no logical reason that the human body would be designed to be fat given that the opportunity to be fat would almost never present itself.

until the possibility of overeating became the norm, a good woman was a round woman. She would thus be healthier, and better able to provide children.
obese is not the same thing as fat. our bodies are designed to hold fat so that when winter comes around, you don't starve to death.

No, his point is that people who choose to be unhealthy should be punished for it. That's fine, as long as you're logically consistent with the position. Punish all people who engage in all risky behavior. The OP seems to only be picking on conditions he doesn't actually have and activities he doesn't actually engage in.
No. The OP is picking on the two major conditions which act as a massive deadweight on the health system. It would be inefficient, unfair, impossibly hard to measure, and immaterial to tax all risky behavior. After all, all behavior comes with some kind of risk attached. If you read the post you would find that I am argueing specifically for the taxing of only obesity and drug abuse.

Smokers benefit public services, because they tend to die at around the end of their long productive working lives - after having paid all those taxes - instead of lingering around in care homes with chronic diseases for 25+ years.

Think about it, when you see all those old people in their medicare subsidised rascal scooters, spending their social security, and recieving thousands of dollars a month in medical care to keep them half-way continent, like as not they were probably not lifelong smokers. In other words, smokers benefit society.

Fat people on the other hand contribute nothing, and eat all the pies.

No. The OP is picking on the two major conditions which act as a massive deadweight on the health system. It would be inefficient, unfair, impossibly hard to measure, and immaterial to tax all risky behavior. After all, all behavior comes with some kind of risk attached. If you read the post you would find that I am argueing specifically for the taxing of only obesity and drug abuse.
And that's hypocritical.

No. The OP is picking on the two major conditions which act as a massive deadweight on the health system. It would be inefficient, unfair, impossibly hard to measure, and immaterial to tax all risky behavior. After all, all behavior comes with some kind of risk attached. If you read the post you would find that I am argueing specifically for the taxing of only obesity and drug abuse.

You failed to provide data supporting your claim that these two conditions are affecting the health budget the most so far.... So all we have is your word that these are the worst.

until the possibility of overeating became the norm, a good woman was a round woman. She would thus be healthier, and better able to provide children.

Yes, because they were rare and healthier than people who hadn't eaten in weeks because of the frequent famines and shortages.

Why?

Erm, I don't know if it would be a good idea for us to de-rail into an in-depth physiological discussion. I don't want to bore people (any more than I already do) with my nerd-speak. :)


The human race never had to deal with rampant obesity until recently. Until the last century, most people simply couldn't afford enough food to become fat (and in fact, many people today still can't, such as in third world nations). There simply was no evolutionary pressure to adapt to excess weight.

There are several things to consider.

For one thing, humans who have excess body fat are more likely to be fertile than humans who do not have excess body fat. From a purely selective standpoint, you can see why this might be significant.

As you said, most humans throughout history have not had access to the kind of surplus food that many of us have today. This doesn't mean that our bodies aren't designed for fat, it simply means that environmental conditions did not permit humans to accumulate as much body fat as they can now.

Also, keep in mind that human life expectancy now, during the "obesity epidemic," is higher than it has ever been in recorded history. Human life expectancy is HIGHEST in the nations that are being hit hardest with the "obesity epidemic." Remember also that obesity in modern humans has not been linked to increased mortality.


People usually died before excess fat would have a chance to hurt them, anyway. There is no logical reason that the human body would be designed to be fat given that the opportunity to be fat would almost never present itself.

Actually, it's more likely that the opposite is true. The human body is supposed to make and store fat. It is designed to try to do this even when it's not getting enough food. It is designed to save these fat stores even when it needs to burn energy; ask anybody who has tried to diet without exercising, and they can tell you about how the body consumes muscle BEFORE it goes after fat.

Indeed, throughout most of history the people who were "weeded out" by selection were the thin people. People with high metabolisms who did not gain weight easily were typically viewed as unhealthy and undesirable as mates. Selection favored individuals who were carrying as much pudge as possible.


By contrast, humans were consistantly thin due to the scarceness of food and difficulty in obtaining it (which is why hunter-gatherers can only sustain relatively low population densities). Adapting to the reality of thinness would surely take priority over the smaller possibility of excess weight. You need to remember, there were no McDonalds in prehistoric times. People had to hunt and gather everything they ate and that took a lot of energy.
This is what I am saying when I tell you that the body is designed to be fat. We are supposed to put on weight, and hold onto it. There is obviously an upper threshold for function, but our current evidence suggests that this threshold is MUCH higher than most people seem to think. BMI, likewise, is not reflective of the actual health threshold for human body weight.

Fat people on the other hand contribute nothing, and eat all the pies.

Hey, what's your problem? I baked that pie myself, I've a right to eat it!

Fat people on the other hand contribute nothing, and eat all the pies.

Yes, but fat people serve a valuable service as walking food-storage containers for when the apocalypse hits and we all turn to cannabilsm.

No it is not. Perhaps you misread the OP. What I was proposing was the taxing in advance of the two major self-inflicted health problems (which weigh down the health system), in advance by incurring a levy upon those groups before they develop the problems. I don't know where you got the idea of random behavior taxing:confused:
No, that is not what you are proposing. You have yet to demonstrate that obesity is the cause of the health problems in question, and you also have failed to show how individual choices cause the health problems that you claim are due to obesity. You are proposing to punish people who do things you don't like, under the false pretense that these choices have been "proven" to be unhealthy.

Actually, while cars may be practical, they are not necessary nor vital for transportation. You're talking to a clearly overweight woman in her 30s here who never even saw the need for a driver's licence. I walk, use my bike or take the bus. I don't indulge in any extreme sport, therefore my risk of accidents is reduced compared to the average public. Furthermore, I don't have nor do I intend to ever have children. Therefore, my health insurance won't have to cover for the additional checkups and treatments during a pregnancy. I neither drink nor smoke. I haven't seen a doctor in at least 5 years, the last time was a regular checkup while I was still at university, I think, and I'm perfectly healthy. I've never once been to hospital in my entire life.

Now, please provide me with an estimate how much health insurance you'd have me pay.
Hey, you're in a good position. Seeing as you don't drink or smoke, you would dodge the health levy included in the price of the said goods, and would only be subject to an additional health levy for you overweightness (if indeed you are actually overweight by medical standards). The amount that you paid would depend on how overweight (or obese) you are. I would imagine yours probably wouldn't be so large, due to all of the excersize you do. Injuries don't come into it, for reasons listed on several previous posts. Understand that being overweight, you constitute one of the primary groups whose condition leads to widespread over-burdening of the health-care system. However, despite this, you pay no more than a fit taxpayer with a statistically significantly lower chance of ending up in hospital.

Nothing slippery slope about it. He's just applying your logic. You should agree with this or your a fucking hypocrite.
Calm down. No need to swear;) . This thread has little to do with logic, as it is not philosphical. It is the propostion of a policy. So far no-one has really criticed the policy put forward for criticism. Instead, they insist on criticising the idea. Nevertheless, the logic behind the policy does stand, but that is not the issue. I have defended the post from slippery slope too many times and tire so of doing it. If you truly have a unique criticism, post it, but is you are going to go on about the taxing of hereditary illnesses and so forth, then just go back and read one of the many previous retorts to the multitudes of near replicate posts beforehand *gasp*:p

No. The OP is picking on the two major conditions which act as a massive deadweight on the health system. It would be inefficient, unfair, impossibly hard to measure, and immaterial to tax all risky behavior. After all, all behavior comes with some kind of risk attached. If you read the post you would find that I am argueing specifically for the taxing of only obesity and drug abuse.

The OP is discriminatory. We know what you're arguing specifically for. What you refuse to understand is that you can't just pick and choose which risky behaviors you can tax.

Your poll is a little biased there....

Anyways, no I don't. Heavier people already have plenty of issues which are punishment for being overweight. However, even if they had no extra issues then I don't believe they should be forced to pay extra.

For one thing, humans who have excess body fat are more likely to be fertile than humans who do not have excess body fat. From a purely selective standpoint, you can see why this might be significant.

As you said, most humans throughout history have not had access to the kind of surplus food that many of us have today. This doesn't mean that our bodies aren't designed for fat, it simply means that environmental conditions did not permit humans to accumulate as much body fat as they can now.

So? If that fat rarely reached extreme levels, then humans would rarely have to contend with excess fat and they would remain unadapted to it. How can we be adapted to something we didn't deal with in our evolution?

Also, keep in mind that human life expectancy now, during the "obesity epidemic," is higher than it has ever been in recorded history. Human life expectancy is HIGHEST in the nations that are being hit hardest with the "obesity epidemic." Remember also that obesity in modern humans has not been linked to increased mortality.

Due to radical advances in medical technology. Obesity has exploded, but so has cancer treatment, antibiotics, and so on. Only 200 years ago, people didn't even know about antiseptics and surgery was very risky. Also, note that the highest life expectancy is in Japan, as I recall, a nation not known for its obesity.

Actually, it's more likely that the opposite is true. The human body is supposed to make and store fat. It is designed to try to do this even when it's not getting enough food. It is designed to save these fat stores even when it needs to burn energy; ask anybody who has tried to diet without exercising, and they can tell you about how the body consumes muscle BEFORE it goes after fat.

Indeed, throughout most of history the people who were "weeded out" by selection were the thin people. People with high metabolisms who did not gain weight easily were typically viewed as unhealthy and undesirable as mates. Selection favored individuals who were carrying as much pudge as possible.

Yes, because food was so rare. Humans had to retain what little energy there was to survive and wasting it was dangerous. However, that does not mean that obesity was the norm by any stretch of the imagination. Far from it, it was almost certainly quite rare and humans normally had to make do with relative thinness.

Why is it that humans are designed to be fat, according to you, and not other animals? You don't see lions, wolves, etc. getting fat unless in captivity and lacking exercise, and for good reason; excess weight would interfere with hunting (just as it would with humans).

So, you're trying to force people to pay more for, say, one meal at McDonalds per month, because it's clearly unhealthy? Only if it affects their weight, and then only through a completely seperate government imposed healthcare levy.

Btw, would you start charging more from people with poor oral health for the cavity treatments they will need in the future? No, as this does not constitute a major dead weight on the health system, nor is it neccesarily the result of a pointless self-harming activity (except in the case of smokers, who are in a way included in this, as smoking tends to lead to oral problems. Though, it is not becauseof or through their oral health that they would be taxed).

And yet, I have it. I don't mind paying it, and I don't mind that some of it will be spent treating people who were dumb enough to see how long they could keep that firecracker in their hand before it exploded. Health insurance is for the benefit of all, not for those who you consider to be "deserving"
Agreed, healthcare is for all. Just those two grops who constitute a growing problem for the health system as a result of their self-inflicted lifestyle choices pay a little more, to compensate the added impact they will most like have.

Agreed, healthcare is for all. Just those two grops who constitute a growing problem for the health system as a result of their self-inflicted lifestyle choices pay a little more, to compensate the added impact they will most like have.

Now what if they lose the weight or quit smoking, without ever developing an illness of any kind? Do they get reimbursed for all the extra money they were forced to pay, when they'll obviously not be costing all that extra money?

This little smiley face tells us all that you know nothing about the causes of obesity.

"A brain protein already known to play a central role in the "feast or fast" signaling that controls the urge to eat has now been found to influence appetite in a second way. The discovery identifies a potential new target for drugs against obesity.

Earlier research has shown that this protein, called MC4R, is a receptor on neurons in the hypothalamus region of the brain and receives signals through at least two pathways about the status of the body's fat reserves. If fat stores are increasing, theses signals stimulate MC4R, triggering physiological responses that decrease appetite. If fat reserves are decreasing, these signals turn off, deactivating MC4R and increasing appetite."
http://pub.ucsf.edu/newsservices/releases/200410127/

True, and some obesity is of a glandular nature. However, the vast majority is as a result of bad nutrition choices paired with an inactive lifestyle. Those people who were the unfortunate victims of the above conditions would of course be exempt from the levy. The levy is not to be imposed on those who have no choice on the matter.

So? If that fat rarely reached extreme levels, then humans would rarely have to contend with excess fat and they would remain unadapted to it. How can we be adapted to something we didn't deal with in our evolution?

Obviously we could not have adapted to selection pressures we have not experienced. My point is that we STILL have not reached the point where fat is an "extreme" problem for us, contrary to the alarmism you may have encountered. There is no verified evidence that our current "obesity" levels are accurate reflections of a health crisis.


Due to radical advances in medical technology. Obesity has exploded, but so has cancer treatment, antibiotics, and so on. Only 200 years ago, people didn't even know about antiseptics and surgery was very risky. Also, note that the highest life expectancy is in Japan, as I recall, a nation not known for its obesity.

Again, there is no causative evidence linking currently-defined "obesity" with higher mortality. That's an assumption on your part. If you want to find research that supports it, I would be more than willing to read it, and I will be more than willing to stand corrected if you have some evidence I am not aware of.


Why is it that humans are designed to be fat, according to you, and not other animals? You don't see lions, wolves, etc. getting fat unless in captivity and lacking exercise, and for good reason; excess weight would interfere with hunting (just as it would with humans).
I think perhaps you are misunderstanding how selection and evolution work.

First, pretty much all mammals are "designed to be fat." Indeed, a great many mammals (including predators) have higher percentages of body fat than what we consider "obese" for humans.

Second, our bodies are designed to put on and to maintain fat. Our current conditions have created a situation in which we do not have as much pressure requiring weight loss, and thus we are seeing more humans who maintain higher body weights and fat percentages. This fits perfectly with selection. Within limits, there is no reason for people NOT to be fat, other than the societal disapproval that you are exemplifying. There is no physiological reason not to be fat, since fat and healthy are not mutually exclusive, nor are fat and fertility.

Well, how big then?
Jesus, I don't know! This is just a concept policy, there are no figures attached yet. Any such figures would have to be the result of econometric equations based upon the problems the policy was seeking to address. To guess, it would probably be a few percent higher than what the general public pay, depending on how overweight or obese you are.

If there's a government-sponsored universal healthcare, then people should pay a small tax for putting strain on that healthcare.

As it stands, in America we all pay for our own health insurance, so we already pay for our obesity and smoking and drinking consequences via said insurance. Premiums go up, too.

In an ideal society, people would be taxed 100% regardless, and everything would be given to them. Currency would be filed out, and bartering would take place more often than not. Free healthcare, free insurance, free food (to a point - rations and whatnot, groceries being delivered on a weekly basis, with extra expense being put upon those that request more food than the allotted rations - paid with what, you ask? Services. Output. Productivity.), etc etc.

But yeah. Go woo.

I don't know about Australia, but in Germany these taxes are in fact linked to the health system.
Thats a good idea, I think we should do it here too, not entirely, but to some extent.

Yes, but fat people serve a valuable service as walking food-storage containers for when the apocalypse hits and we all turn to cannabilsm.

if they're smokers too though, they'll be all black on the insides. that's not good eating. wait, i don't know that...

True, and some obesity is of a glandular nature. However, the vast majority is as a result of bad nutrition choices paired with an inactive lifestyle. Those people who were the unfortunate victims of the above conditions would of course be exempt from the levy. The levy is not to be imposed on those who have no choice on the matter.
How could you possibly seperate one from another?

if they're smokers too though, they'll be all black on the insides. that's not good eating. wait, i don't know that...

If they're smokers, they're probably not obese.

Smoking is supposed to make you thinner.

Of course, it's also supposed to turn the outside of your lung black... I wonder how it does that, since smoke goes into the inside only. But hey, I saw a black lung on an anti-smoking propaganda once. Must be true. :)

If they're smokers, they're probably not obese.

Smoking is supposed to make you thinner.

Of course, it's also supposed to turn the outside of your lung black... I wonder how it does that, since smoke goes into the inside only. But hey, I saw a black lung on an anti-smoking propaganda once. Must be true. :)

I think it just makes you thinner because instead of eating food by habit and/or boredom, you're smoking. You tend not to eat as much overall, also.

Obviously we could not have adapted to selection pressures we have not experienced. My point is that we STILL have not reached the point where fat is an "extreme" problem for us, contrary to the alarmism you may have encountered. There is no verified evidence that our current "obesity" levels are accurate reflections of a health crisis.

Let me reiterate: humans evolved in a state of thinness. Though our bodies struggled to store fat, they rarely stored a great deal because there simply wasn't much food around and we had to do a lot of work to get food, which took a lot of energy. What possible use would the ability to be healthy with a great deal of fat be if few people were really fat? Very little, and I doubt the body would adapt for such a rare circumstance.

First, pretty much all mammals are "designed to be fat." Indeed, a great many mammals (including predators) have higher percentages of body fat than what we consider "obese" for humans.

Please, you expect me to believe that wolves are 60% body fat? Of course not, they would never be able to hunt effectively with so much dead weight.

Second, our bodies are designed to put on and to maintain fat. Our current conditions have created a situation in which we do not have as much pressure requiring weight loss, and thus we are seeing more humans who maintain higher body weights and fat percentages. This fits perfectly with selection. Within limits, there is no reason for people NOT to be fat, other than the societal disapproval that you are exemplifying. There is no physiological reason not to be fat, since fat and healthy are not mutually exclusive, nor are fat and fertility.

Just because we can get fat doesn't mean we should get fat. The ability to put on weight is a holdover from the days when food was quite rare and living required a lot of energy. We had to be able to store energy, but I doubt this energy storage lead to 65% of people being overweight in prehistoric times. You think ancient peoples searched vast areas for berries and chased panicked beasts with beer bellies and constantly running out of breath?

Your oppinionated "Solution" is very poorly thought out. For it to even work, you need to:

1. Prove that the obese, smokers, drinkers, etc. individually take a larger than average piece of the healthcare pie than an average human in the system.About two posts before the one that I am now replying to has the link to the Australian Buruea of Statistics health review of 2004-5

2. Prove that these groups' individual members use a larger than average amount of medical resources and doctor's time than an average human.Again, the ABS link.

3. Prove that an early death from the sources above costs insurance/ medicare/ hospitals more than living an average lifespan before dying from an illness as a senior citizen. I am not talking about early death, so much as the health problems incurred by the said sorces.

4. Prove that existing taxes on commodities such as tobacco and alcohol has discouraged one human, let alone a significant number, from purchasing those products. The taxes don't discourage anyone, as the products possess an inelastic demand. However, the point of the tax is to funnel some money from the cause of the problem into the management of it.

5. Similarly, prove that massive price gouging has prevented even the poorest junkies from using any means to accuire illegal narcotics. Yeah, it doesn't. Inelasticity basically means you could double the price of cigarettes, and very few people would stop smoking (as opposed to, say, eggs). This is the reason why it is perfect to source money for the resolution of the problems it creates.

6. Prove that monetary concern alone can force people to 'un-addict' themselves from habitual addictive substances.see above. The idea isn't really to solve the problem, as it is to manage it more effectively.

7. Prove that 'Black Markets' would not choose to pursue an opportunity to make money by allowing consumers to purchase cheaper "tax free" products. Immaterial. The black market would be no worse than it is now. The whole idea is to source funds, not stop people from purchasing the goods.

8. Prove that law enforcement proffesionals have the capability to effectively combat these illegal markets. Apparently they do, not all too relevant to the proposed policy in the OP.

If you can answer these questions, and with verifiable fact instead of opinion, then intelligent debate on this matter is possible. Although I did answer your questions, I would argue that debates exist because the facts are disputed, or opinions disagree with interpretations of the facts. I all arguements required 'the facts' prior to commencement, there wouldn't be much to argue about. I think a more reasonable demand to place upon the commencement of an arguement would be a reasonable opinion based upon logic (although some consider even that too much:D)

*rolfmao
In that case, congratulations. The trolling is just about mild enough to pass the mods scrutiny, yet offensive enough to entice an emotional debate :p
I do what I can;)

I agree with Fass/Potarius et al on this one:

IF you're going to tax every vice, then you'd better be prepared to pay more... because there's not a human being alive who makes 100% healthy decisions.

Agreed, healthcare is for all. Just those two grops who constitute a growing problem for the health system as a result of their self-inflicted lifestyle choices pay a little more, to compensate the added impact they will most like have.

So, basically, you're telling me that despite the fact that I contribute to health care without making any use of it, and most likly not making use of it in the future, I still should pay even more because I'm obese?

It's not about a "slippery slope falacy," it's about pointing out that you decided to set yourself up as the arbitor of who gets punished and who doesn't, and then you decided to give a BS line of reasoning for it. If your concern is about making individuals pay more for health care when they engage in "high risk" activities, then your conclusions are bunk.

Now, you could just give up the pretense about it having to do with "risky" behaviors, and simply say that you don't like people who smoke, drink, or get fat, and therefore you want those people to pay more for health care.
You're getting closer, but still missing the mark. The arbitor or who recieves taxing is not relevant, as I only proposed two groups two recieve levies; obese people, and habitual drug users. This isn't based upon my feelings on the groups, it is based upon the fact that specifically these two groups are currently causing an overburdening of the australian health system with their largely self-inflicted health problems. Whilst I think it is important for everyone to recieve healthcare, I think that it is not only reasonable to source funding from these groups, but also clever. If it is, after all, such a large problem, then there should be plenty of money to be sourced from it in this method. By the way, I do have the occasional drink and/or smoke (I only smoke with my french friend though, his hand rolled french tobacco is magical!:D).

If we all lived out our optimum lifespans the health system would cease to function along with the pension system in the UK and thats pretty screwed anyway.

Japan would be even more screwed because they only have a birth rate of about 1.39.

Smokers do contribute more to the health system through tax on these products, along with drinkers although admitedly it doesn't go anywhere near to covering the cost

Sorry. I would have assumed you understood what I was saying.

The problem with your argument is that you isolate three examples of people choosing to be unhealthy to bill in advance of medical treatment and ignore many, many other groups of people who cost the medical system a lot of money. The fact is that if you are going to punish people for engaging in risky behavior, you must do it equally, punishing all people who engage in any sort of medically risky behavior. Otherwise, it is discrimination what you're suggesting.
That is correct, it is discrimination. So what? I am targeting the two largest groups who are causing the majority of the problem between them. You can't tax every single little risk group, because every activity has it's own degree of risk attached. Instead you have to draw the line somewhere. Tax policies are discriminatory in nature. They discriminate upon how much you earn, by what mean, what you purchase, how much you own, where you live, whether you own a business... My suggestion is to tax the two top contributors to an overburdened health system, and then funnel that money back into the system. The idea of an entirely equal tax policy is absurd (except in the case of the GST, which works well as part of a wider system, but not alone. Note that even the GST has exceptions).

I think it just makes you thinner because instead of eating food by habit and/or boredom, you're smoking. You tend not to eat as much overall, also.

Well, yeah.

And that's hypocritical.
No it's not, its discriminatory. This is the nature of tax policies.

All of the fat people in the world should be dumped in America. 'Nuff said!

You failed to provide data supporting your claim that these two conditions are affecting the health budget the most so far.... So all we have is your word that these are the worst.
No I posted it back on page three or four. :( Please don't make me fetch the link again:'(
Anyway, it is the National Health review for 2004-5 from the Australian Buruea of Statistics.

The OP is discriminatory. We know what you're arguing specifically for. What you refuse to understand is that you can't just pick and choose which risky behaviors you can tax.
I can't, but tax can, and tax does. You find me a tax which doesn't discriminate in some way.

I can't, but tax can, and tax does. You find me a tax which doesn't discriminate in some way.

VAT and National Health Contributions

Now what if they lose the weight or quit smoking, without ever developing an illness of any kind? Do they get reimbursed for all the extra money they were forced to pay, when they'll obviously not be costing all that extra money?
Now that is the first valid criticism I have yet recieved. I like it too. Hmm, let me see...
...I think yes. Yes they should, as the health problems from their previous habits haven't disappeared, they have just stopped stacking. Furthermore, this wouldn't be relevant for the smokers or drinkers, as they pay the tax through the purchase of their products. So it would only be possible for the overwieght types. Still, I would have to say no, what if they becam fat again? Do they owe all of the money back again? No, it makes sense to charge them the levy for whatever period of time they are 'over the limit'.

Now that is the first valid criticism I have yet recieved. I like it too. Hmm, let me see...
...I think yes. Yes they should, as the health problems from their previous habits haven't disappeared, they have just stopped stacking. Furthermore, this wouldn't be relevant for the smokers or drinkers, as they pay the tax through the purchase of their products. So it would only be possible for the overwieght types. Still, I would have to say no, what if they becam fat again? Do they owe all of the money back again? No, it makes sense to charge them the levy for whatever period of time they are 'over the limit'.
You still haven't answered the question about how to seperate people who simply overeat to people who actually have a disorder. Many people who are overweight are unaware that they even have a disorder.

If there's a government-sponsored universal healthcare, then people should pay a small tax for putting strain on that healthcare.

As it stands, in America we all pay for our own health insurance, so we already pay for our obesity and smoking and drinking consequences via said insurance. Premiums go up, too.

*snip*
Ah! This may be the root of the confusion. Australia does have a government sponsered healthcare system (Alongside a smaller sleeker private one).

You still haven't answered the question about how to seperate people who simply overeat to people who actually have a disorder. Many people who are overweight are unaware that they even have a disorder.

Further problem is defining what overweight is and how detremental it is to the body

(Probably already been said but I only just got here)

I agree with Fass/Potarius et al on this one:

IF you're going to tax every vice, then you'd better be prepared to pay more... because there's not a human being alive who makes 100% healthy decisions.
No I only proposed taxing obesity and habitual drug use. It's a tax, it can discriminate. All taxes do.

So, basically, you're telling me that despite the fact that I contribute to health care without making any use of it, and most likly not making use of it in the future, I still should pay even more because I'm obese?
I would argue that the stats are against that statemment, and you most probably will make use of it quite heavily for one or more of the many health problems which face obese people.

I would argue that the stats are against that statemment, and you most probably will make use of it quite heavily for one or more of the many health problems which face obese people.
You keep saying that ... while I am betting they do lean the way you state care to show us some of thoes stats?

You still haven't answered the question about how to seperate people who simply overeat to people who actually have a disorder. Many people who are overweight are unaware that they even have a disorder.
Let them test themselves. If they think that they should be exempt, let them prove it. If they are unaware, then the money would be added to the stack of 'unfair dollars earned by the tax dept. under misinformation'. This money would surely be backpaid, if it was proven the individual was indeed the victim of an ilness.

Let them test themselves. If they think that they should be exempt, let them prove it. If they are unaware, then the money would be added to the stack of 'unfair dollars earned by the tax dept. under misinformation'. This money would surely be backpaid, if it was proven the individual was indeed the victim of an ilness.
Time and money.

Further problem is defining what overweight is and how detremental it is to the body

(Probably already been said but I only just got here)
I would suggest going off the BMI (Body Mass Index), unless there is a more accurate measure in the medical world.

GreaterPacificNations: You've stated that anorexics and others with "mental illnesses" shouldn't be forced to pay extra for their burden on the health system, so what of smokers and alcoholics for whom their addictions have spanned generations in their families? It has been proven that addiction is something that is passed down genetically, so couldn't it be said that alcoholics, just as anorexics, "can't help" that a couple drinks led to a harmful addiction?

Also, you point out that your proposal wasn't intended to be a discussion of philosophical logic, yet you're very quick to point out the "slippery slope" logic of everyone else's posts. Why is that?

It seems to me that the factors involved in deciding what makes one person unhealthy, while allowing another to live a perfectly unafflicted life, are varied and inconsistent, so trying to apply a universal tax on these behaviors just wouldn't solve the problem. I would perhaps propose taxing those who have long-term diseases once they are diagnosed and their disease has been proven to have stemmed from their previous unhealthy choices. That would fairly eliminate any over taxing of people who, while taking part in "risky behavior", didn't do so in a way that resulted in a burden on the health system, but in a way that allowed them the freedom to enjoy themselves, while still remaining responsibly healthy.

You keep saying that ... while I am betting they do lean the way you state care to show us some of thoes stats?
Jesus! You already asked me once, and I posted them! The link is back on page 3-4. It is the national health review 2004-5, released by the Australian Buruea of Statistics.

Jesus! You already asked me once, and I posted them! The link is back on page 3-4. It is the national health review 2004-5, released by the Australian Buruea of Statistics.
Sorry missed it I will go back through

I would suggest going off the BMI (Body Mass Index), unless there is a more accurate measure in the medical world.

Problem with that is its based on the last generation and the fact that it doesn't take in fat/weight ratio and something as obvious as how broard you are. I'm not broard at all but i'm 6'2" (bout 185cm) and about 75kg (12 stone) and I'm still near the "underweight section". If I was the reccomended weight I would be fat but not "obese". The point is its such a contentious term that can set unrealistic targets

Jesus! You already asked me once, and I posted them! The link is back on page 3-4. It is the national health review 2004-5, released by the Australian Buruea of Statistics.
Well from what I can tell (I wish they would just publish raw data ... this stupid ass summary without stated assumptions that everyone seems to do nowadays really blows if you know how to do this yourself)

Not only do they (as far as I saw) fail to state "risky" and associated statistics with that but they make some grand generalizations without aperently checking the fit with something like an Adjusted R^2

Not your fault every survey seems to do this but this is exactly why these things often mean so fucking little

GreaterPacificNations: You've stated that anorexics and others with "mental illnesses" shouldn't be forced to pay extra for their burden on the health system, so what of smokers and alcoholics for whom their addictions have spanned generations in their families? It has been proven that addiction is something that is passed down genetically, so couldn't it be said that alcoholics, just as anorexics, "can't help" that a couple drinks led to a harmful addiction?
You cannot recieve an addiction to a substance genetically gentically, though it was a common problem 200 years ago in the slums of london (Where rum was cheaper than clean water) that there were some babies which developed alcoholism in the womb via the pregnant mothers alcoholised blood. I think we can rule this out.
Also, you point out that your proposal wasn't intended to be a discussion of philosophical logic, yet you're very quick to point out the "slippery slope" logic of everyone else's posts. Why is that?
Yeah, I pointed that out because I was sick of pointing out all of the slippery slopes.
It seems to me that the factors involved in deciding what makes one person unhealthy, while allowing another to live a perfectly unafflicted life, are varied and inconsistent, so trying to apply a universal tax on these behaviors just wouldn't solve the problem. I would perhaps propose taxing those who have long-term diseases once they are diagnosed and their disease has been proven to have stemmed from their previous unhealthy choices. That would fairly eliminate any over taxing of people who, while taking part in "risky behavior", didn't do so in a way that resulted in a burden on the health system, but in a way that allowed them the freedom to enjoy themselves, while still remaining responsibly healthy. While this would be more just of a system, I think that taxing the activity itself would be far more profitable, whilst not straying from the realms of reason. Furthermore, it that scenario, the only people who are paying the higher rate would be those currently using the facilities. The idea was to get these people to pay for most/all of their problems in advance.

Ok, Thanks all. I've got to go now, but thanks for tossing around a few ideas. I think I am going to keep this one though...I'll come past and check if we have anything new later. See you:D

You cannot recieve an addiction to a substance genetically gentically, though it was a common problem 200 years ago in the slums of london (Where rum was cheaper than clean water) that there were some babies which developed alcoholism in the womb via the pregnant mothers alcoholised blood. I think we can rule this out.
snip
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/03/20/TampaBay/Study_links_genetic_t.shtml

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p020256.html

http://worldwideaddiction.com/articles/addictiongenetics.htm

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro02/web1/trajan.html


those seem to contradict your idea that addiction is not genetic

While this would be more just of a system, I think that taxing the activity itself would be far more profitable, whilst not straying from the realms of reason. Furthermore, it that scenario, the only people who are paying the higher rate would be those currently using the facilities. The idea was to get these people to pay for most/all of their problems in advance.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see why it's necessary to place a tax on someone for a disease they don't even have yet, and when you're not even certain they will have one in the future. It just seems ridiculous to me, especially since you apparently agree that it's unjust. Not only is it unjust, but it's more trouble than it's worth. Writing someone a check years down the line for all the overpayments they've made to the health system? What would you say would be a fair age to determine their "risk" has passed, anyway? Upon death? How unfortunate it would be to receive a check for the thousands you've overpaid when you're not even alive to spend it.

I would argue that the stats are against that statemment, and you most probably will make use of it quite heavily for one or more of the many health problems which face obese people.

I'm well in my 30s by now, I've been obese for a good two decades, and I'm a completely healthy person. I'm the only obese person in my family, yet I'm the only one who's never had to be hospitalised and who's never been on medication for any prolonged period of time.
The only "health problem" if you want to call it that that I have is shortsightedness.
I'm reasonably fit (you may remember that I don't own a car), I eat healthy and live healthy.
Pray tell me what horrible costs I will cause the budget of my health insurance in the next 20 years, keeping in mind that I don't intend to live to old age.

To the best of my knowledge, there already are taxes on cigarettes & alcohol in Canada. Also, throughout the world there are groups of people making efforts to keep fast food away from children. This "fat tax" may not seem entirely unreasonable a few years in the future.

To the best of my knowledge, there already are taxes on cigarettes & alcohol in Canada. Also, throughout the world there are groups of people making efforts to keep fast food away from children. This "fat tax" may not seem entirely unreasonable a few years in the future.

You know, I'm all for taxing unhealthy food. I don't have the slightest problem with that.
But to force people to pay for not excercising enough, or for their general weight is an unwarranted intrusion on privacy, not to mention embarassing and impractical.

I am of the opinion that smokers, drinkers, and obese people should be subsidisng the health system of which they perpetually clog with their self-inflicted shit.

It'd be simple. Just slap a health system levy on cigarettes and alcohol (Wouldn't matter how much you taxed, both commodities are nearly perfectly inelastic), and make anyone who is considered medically overweight pay a obese health-care levy, imposed directly by the government (tiered in relation to how morbidly fat they may be).

This way, it would be those who create problems for the health system (by choice) that subsidise it for the rest of us. Furthermore, it would be an incentive for these types to perhaps change their habits, to the benefit of the health system also. Either way, the health system wins.

In the UK the tax on fags at least is more than they actually cost, and booze is almost as high, so its already pretty close. Except the money goes into MPs and Civil Servants £75,000 a year pensions...

I doubt the the EU would let us put a fat tax on either. In any case, the bureaucracy needed to enforce it would be terrible.

No I posted it back on page three or four. :( Please don't make me fetch the link again:'(
Anyway, it is the National Health review for 2004-5 from the Australian Buruea of Statistics.
Nowhere in that review is there any evidence for your assumptions that:

1) BMI or body weight is an accurate indicator of individual health
2) "Fat" individuals use up "more than their fair share" of health costs
3) Making fat people lose weight, or discouraging people from gaining weight, will reduce over-all health costs
4) People who are overweight are overweight because of their individual choices
5) People who are overweight can become "normal weight" by changing their diet and exercise regime

Instead, that review simply makes all the same assumptions you are making, without providing any support for them. Kindly provide a real reference.

I would suggest going off the BMI (Body Mass Index), unless there is a more accurate measure in the medical world.
BMI is in no way an accurate measure. For instance, the BMIs of most professional atheletes will qualify as "overweight" or "obese." Responsible medical professionals will NEVER use BMI to decide if a person is overweight or underweight...it's one measure that can be combined with many others to give an overview of a person's condition, but by itself it is essentially worthless to clinicians.

You cannot recieve an addiction to a substance genetically gentically, though it was a common problem 200 years ago in the slums of london (Where rum was cheaper than clean water) that there were some babies which developed alcoholism in the womb via the pregnant mothers alcoholised blood. I think we can rule this out.

Wait, are you claiming that fetal alcohol syndrome no longer occurs? Are you claiming that women never take addictive drugs while pregnant any more? Are you claiming that there are is no inherent predisposition to addiction that can be passed down from parent to child?

Because if you are, we're going to have to start over from scratch and do some serious educating here.

Oh, please, people have brains; they can stay off cigarettes, alcohol, and fatty food if they just push themselves.

And people can stop driving cars with a whole lot less effort. Auto accidents are responsible for more death and injuries than obesity, so why aren't we punishing people who drive cars?

Sure, driving a car makes life "easier" on people, but so what? It's easier to eat random ass food with no concern for diet, and easier to skip exercise in favor of lying around on the couch.


It's not a perfect plan, but something has to be done about the obesity problem in the US, at least.

Why?


You know something's wrong when 65% of people are overweight.
Why? So what? Nobody has yet provided any reason why obesity should be targetted, aside from making unproven blanket statements about fat being wrong.