Is it fair to fine fat people for not dieting?
Replies
-
Thank you. It still angers me though that people are lumped together as a "whole". If you're on welfare, then you're overweight and irresponsible, and therefore should be fined until you conform. Conformity, even a $50 conformity "incentive", is dangerous.Did anyone read the artical at all? They are talking about people who get FREE health care from the state and welfare.Not people that pay for there own insurance or get it through work.
They want to fine them 50 bucks a year to help pay back some of the costs.
I think that is GREAT why should I have to pay for all of their health care when I can not even afford it for myself?
I'll tell you why. I'm overweight still even though I'm working hard at it and have lost 26 lbs. I'm on state aid, not because I'm lazy. I work two jobs and go to college. I'm on state aid because my husband of 15 years left me and our two children for another woman to breed with. My two jobs don't offer insurance, hence me going to school so I can get a better job to provide that for them. I don't get child support...in fact I'm owed $46,000 in it right now. This article (is how the word is spelled) would fine my *kitten* $50 for being overweight. I can't pull another $50 out of thin air if I tried. I also want to point out that I didn't get overweight from being lazy, nor am I a crack addict or some foodstamp *kitten* that makes babies to make money...nor did I get on the system to make your life more miserable. I did it so my children can get their school shots or, for when my oldest got mono..I wouldn't have to sell a kidney on the black market to take care of him.
THIS is why the article is wrong.
But look at you. You are down 26 amazing pounds. You have stepped out of that zone. You are wanting to make a wise decision that will help you. You wouldn't be fined the fifty bucks.
If I read it correctly, I don't believe the idea is to fine you just b/c you are overweight. I believe the fine is for those that are overweight AND have been instructed by a doctor to lose weight AND choose to ignore that advice. My sister was on state aid for many years for the exact reasons you stated above...deadbeat dad behind in child support, etc. And she is not lazy, she has worked her butt off to do right by them, but sometimes you need extra help. I don't think the idea is to further make those already in trouble MORE in the hole, but for those who choose to ignore the advice to help them get better. Again, I only read it through once, but that is how I took it.
A good way for the government to get their money back is if Child Support Enforcers actually ENFORCED. lol I know of several, several people who wouldn't need aid at all if the dead beats just paid their bare minimum payments a month.0 -
I totally understand where you're coming from. I have a degree in social work and worked in the field for a while. I saw first hand how many of my clients abused the system. Very sad. I also saw first hand clients who really really needed the help and were trying to get out of the situation. Heart breaking for me....some nights I didn't sleep. Anyway, while I understand your frustration, I don' t think it would do any good to place a fine on people needing aid....I honestly don't. I think some the other ideas many have listed here would be better. Either way....it involves government action.
I agree with everything execpt this last little bit,,,,,,,,,, It involves government action. I would put it this way,,,,,,,,,,,, it's CAUSED by government action. IMO
I see your point.....its all becoming one big tangled mess:)) so now what do we do??? Other than changing what's in the grocery stores and schools....I can't think of anything. Though for this to happen...wouldn't government have to regulate that ( just curious really) That's what I mean by government involvement:)) your thoughts 0 -
Health Insurance companies "sort of" already do it...they reward healthy people with lower premiums and charge people with higher risks more money0
-
Health Insurance companies "sort of" already do it...they reward healthy people with lower premiums and charge people with higher risks more money
Really:)) I didn't know that. Learn somethin everyday :happy:0 -
Frankly it's just another way of blaming the poor for the fiscal woes of the country. The fact is that most people in poverty don't have as much availability to healthy foods. It's not coincidence that as SES lowers, waist line increases. Sure many people can manage to buy healthy foods while staying in a strict budget, but it takes a lot more work and often going to multiple stores (a produce store/farmer's market/etc.) which might not be difficult if you have a car, but for someone who has to walk or rely on public transit, it's a problem.
My family eats healthy on a very small grocery budget,you do not need to buy organic.I worked for about a year as a chashier at wal mart.this is what I saw when it came to the people with food stamps,a few would come in and buy lotts of canned or frozen veggies,lots of chicken.you can get a 10 pound bag of chicken breast at wal mart for 10 bucks.Most everyone else would come in buying 5 twelve packs of soda,chips,ice cream,hostess,bulk packages of hamburgers,frozen french fries,gallons of chocolate milk (a gallon of chocolate milk here is 3 something regular milk 2)
My neighbour who is on state aid says that atleast where I am at they offer nutriton and bugeting classes here,but it does not change anything.
There are many many people on aid who are doing the right thing and they are struggling to try and better their lives and the lives of their children,but there are just as many who are not and are milking the system for all its worth.Its very frustrating.It is just to easy for people to take advantage.
Last christmas I volunterred for a charity that is similar to toys for tots,we provided new toys to families that were on aid or low income.we couldnt help everyone,yet there were people that showed up to pick up toys in their brand new cars sitting in line with Iphones and Ipads and I couldnt help wonder how many children we were not able to help who deserved it because of the ones that took advatage of it.
I'll start by saying that I'm not currently, nor have I ever been on government aid, although I currently qualify as I'm working and putting myself through school. I have to say, shopping healthy on a budget is difficult. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's very, VERY difficult. ESPECIALLY when you're taught that junk food is an acceptable and cheaper alternative. I myself only have about 20-30 dollars to spend a week on groceries (in the state of TX a person on food stamps would probably get 200 a month so about 50 per week). I spend a good hour and a half in that groccery stores assessing what I should get, what I can afford, and what will nutritionally give me the most bang for my buck. I'd say most people don't have there heads into nutrition like I do NOR do they have an hour and a half to wander about the store making selections.
To put it into a bit of perspective... A person in TX on foodstamps gets $200 (maximum) a month. Now say that person eats 3 meals a day, and eats 30 meals a month. That's 90 meals. That means each meal needs to have cost them no more that $2.22 to prepare (assuming they have time and the means to prepare food). I'm sure you can understand how challenging that is, even for someone who is skilled at budgeting and educated about nutrition.
My point in all of this is that people who consistantly make poor choices, probably arn't doing it because they don't want to make good ones, they may not know how, or have the means to do so.
To speak to your experience working with the charity, there needs to be a great deal of government aid reform, and refunding of programs. Until that happens there will continue to be cracks int eh system through which people fall, and from which people take advantage. Honestly though, I have an iphone, an xbox 360 kinect, and a brand new laptop, and a lot of very nice body jewelry. I still make less that anyone I know (except for my jobless friends). I didn't pay for any of the nice things that I have, they've come to be through gifts and circumstance, but on the outside looking in, I'm doing pretty sell for myself. You never really know.0 -
I totally understand where you're coming from. I have a degree in social work and worked in the field for a while. I saw first hand how many of my clients abused the system. Very sad. I also saw first hand clients who really really needed the help and were trying to get out of the situation. Heart breaking for me....some nights I didn't sleep. Anyway, while I understand your frustration, I don' t think it would do any good to place a fine on people needing aid....I honestly don't. I think some the other ideas many have listed here would be better. Either way....it involves government action.
I agree with everything execpt this last little bit,,,,,,,,,, It involves government action. I would put it this way,,,,,,,,,,,, it's CAUSED by government action. IMO
I see your point.....its all becoming one big tangled mess:)) so now what do we do??? Other than changing what's in the grocery stores and schools....I can't think of anything. Though for this to happen...wouldn't government have to regulate that ( just curious really) That's what I mean by government involvement:)) your thoughts
I would love to see incentives for healthy living. We get told how awful we are for eating terrible foods and not exercising, but aren't given the tools to make change in our lives. I live in a small agricultural town. Our market wants to sell locally-grown, organic produce...but farmers can't or won't sell to her (money is already tight for small family farms and they wouldn't make a profit here - though she does have some stuff in the summertime). We have to import produce to a town that grows produce for other places. It makes no sense. What if there was an incentive for farmers and stores to provide their communities with locally grown food? Perhaps a tax break? How about taking some of the money that's spent on corn and soy beans and putting it towards community-supported agriculture? The bottom line is money and it always will be. Make things more affordable and available (so I don't have to drive an hour to buy produce that was grown in my town) and you'll start to see change.0 -
I don't think the solution is to fine people.
But I do think that if the government is "handing out" money, food stamps, insurance, etc.... that they should monitor the people that are getting it, and be sure they are using it properly.
If the government is giving you aid, then they have every right to tell you how you can/can not spend it. Because someone else (taxpayers) are the ones who are paying for it.
What if food stamps were only good on certain products? fruits and vegetables, meats, whole grain products, etc...
They simply should not be valid on the purchase of soda, alcohol, tobacco, candy, etc...
If you're getting welfare, then someone needs to follow up with you to make sure you're TRYING to find a job. If you honestly can't find a job, because there are no jobs, then this person should be doing community service in exchange for their welfare check.
Adding more fines just tangles the web further.
But I do agree, those people that would have been fined per the article, should be suffering some form of consequence. Just not in a fine, but in the area of losing the aid that they are being irresponsible with.
But I do think that there are people on the "system" who legitimately use it how it is intended. The problem is finding a way to seperate out the responsible, and the irresponsible.0 -
Thank you. It still angers me though that people are lumped together as a "whole". If you're on welfare, then you're overweight and irresponsible, and therefore should be fined until you conform. Conformity, even a $50 conformity "incentive", is dangerous.Did anyone read the artical at all? They are talking about people who get FREE health care from the state and welfare.Not people that pay for there own insurance or get it through work.
They want to fine them 50 bucks a year to help pay back some of the costs.
I think that is GREAT why should I have to pay for all of their health care when I can not even afford it for myself?
I'll tell you why. I'm overweight still even though I'm working hard at it and have lost 26 lbs. I'm on state aid, not because I'm lazy. I work two jobs and go to college. I'm on state aid because my husband of 15 years left me and our two children for another woman to breed with. My two jobs don't offer insurance, hence me going to school so I can get a better job to provide that for them. I don't get child support...in fact I'm owed $46,000 in it right now. This article (is how the word is spelled) would fine my *kitten* $50 for being overweight. I can't pull another $50 out of thin air if I tried. I also want to point out that I didn't get overweight from being lazy, nor am I a crack addict or some foodstamp *kitten* that makes babies to make money...nor did I get on the system to make your life more miserable. I did it so my children can get their school shots or, for when my oldest got mono..I wouldn't have to sell a kidney on the black market to take care of him.
THIS is why the article is wrong.
But look at you. You are down 26 amazing pounds. You have stepped out of that zone. You are wanting to make a wise decision that will help you. You wouldn't be fined the fifty bucks.
If I read it correctly, I don't believe the idea is to fine you just b/c you are overweight. I believe the fine is for those that are overweight AND have been instructed by a doctor to lose weight AND choose to ignore that advice. My sister was on state aid for many years for the exact reasons you stated above...deadbeat dad behind in child support, etc. And she is not lazy, she has worked her butt off to do right by them, but sometimes you need extra help. I don't think the idea is to further make those already in trouble MORE in the hole, but for those who choose to ignore the advice to help them get better. Again, I only read it through once, but that is how I took it.
A good way for the government to get their money back is if Child Support Enforcers actually ENFORCED. lol I know of several, several people who wouldn't need aid at all if the dead beats just paid their bare minimum payments a month.
I knoooowwww!!! It's terrible!!! My sister in law and best friend pretty much just gave up trying to collect any child support. What both of their ex fellas did is found work where they could get paid under the table......sad
0 -
Frankly it's just another way of blaming the poor for the fiscal woes of the country. The fact is that most people in poverty don't have as much availability to healthy foods. It's not coincidence that as SES lowers, waist line increases. Sure many people can manage to buy healthy foods while staying in a strict budget, but it takes a lot more work and often going to multiple stores (a produce store/farmer's market/etc.) which might not be difficult if you have a car, but for someone who has to walk or rely on public transit, it's a problem.
My family eats healthy on a very small grocery budget,you do not need to buy organic.I worked for about a year as a chashier at wal mart.this is what I saw when it came to the people with food stamps,a few would come in and buy lotts of canned or frozen veggies,lots of chicken.you can get a 10 pound bag of chicken breast at wal mart for 10 bucks.Most everyone else would come in buying 5 twelve packs of soda,chips,ice cream,hostess,bulk packages of hamburgers,frozen french fries,gallons of chocolate milk (a gallon of chocolate milk here is 3 something regular milk 2)
My neighbour who is on state aid says that atleast where I am at they offer nutriton and bugeting classes here,but it does not change anything.
There are many many people on aid who are doing the right thing and they are struggling to try and better their lives and the lives of their children,but there are just as many who are not and are milking the system for all its worth.Its very frustrating.It is just to easy for people to take advantage.
Last christmas I volunterred for a charity that is similar to toys for tots,we provided new toys to families that were on aid or low income.we couldnt help everyone,yet there were people that showed up to pick up toys in their brand new cars sitting in line with Iphones and Ipads and I couldnt help wonder how many children we were not able to help who deserved it because of the ones that took advatage of it.
I'll start by saying that I'm not currently, nor have I ever been on government aid, although I currently qualify as I'm working and putting myself through school. I have to say, shopping healthy on a budget is difficult. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's very, VERY difficult. ESPECIALLY when you're taught that junk food is an acceptable and cheaper alternative. I myself only have about 20-30 dollars to spend a week on groceries (in the state of TX a person on food stamps would probably get 200 a month so about 50 per week). I spend a good hour and a half in that groccery stores assessing what I should get, what I can afford, and what will nutritionally give me the most bang for my buck. I'd say most people don't have there heads into nutrition like I do NOR do they have an hour and a half to wander about the store making selections.
To put it into a bit of perspective... A person in TX on foodstamps gets $200 (maximum) a month. Now say that person eats 3 meals a day, and eats 30 meals a month. That's 90 meals. That means each meal needs to have cost them no more that $2.22 to prepare (assuming they have time and the means to prepare food). I'm sure you can understand how challenging that is, even for someone who is skilled at budgeting and educated about nutrition.
My point in all of this is that people who consistantly make poor choices, probably arn't doing it because they don't want to make good ones, they may not know how, or have the means to do so.
To speak to your experience working with the charity, there needs to be a great deal of government aid reform, and refunding of programs. Until that happens there will continue to be cracks int eh system through which people fall, and from which people take advantage. Honestly though, I have an iphone, an xbox 360 kinect, and a brand new laptop, and a lot of very nice body jewelry. I still make less that anyone I know (except for my jobless friends). I didn't pay for any of the nice things that I have, they've come to be through gifts and circumstance, but on the outside looking in, I'm doing pretty sell for myself. You never really know.
The wal mart I worked at in TX used to make us highlight the remaining food stamp balance on the recipts,alot of these people were getting 500 to 700 dollars a month I think alot of it depends on how many kids you haveAtleast thats how it was 2 years ago it may have changed at that time.
As for the people who have the iphone ipads brand new cars ect even if they were gifts ,mabey its just the way I think but if I could not afford to buy my kids clothes or christmas presants that stuff would be going straight to pawn.But your right you never really do know. It just sucks and frustrates me that because my husband makes a good mount of money before taxes but then loses half of it to taxes I cant afford healthcare for my kids.For us to get healthcare from my husbands job we would have to pay 600 a month,,he is a car salesman which is pure commision so some months he might make 5000 and then some months 1000,we cant run the risk of him having a bad month and losing his whole check to health insurance.The system is very screwed0 -
I totally understand where you're coming from. I have a degree in social work and worked in the field for a while. I saw first hand how many of my clients abused the system. Very sad. I also saw first hand clients who really really needed the help and were trying to get out of the situation. Heart breaking for me....some nights I didn't sleep. Anyway, while I understand your frustration, I don' t think it would do any good to place a fine on people needing aid....I honestly don't. I think some the other ideas many have listed here would be better. Either way....it involves government action.
I agree with everything execpt this last little bit,,,,,,,,,, It involves government action. I would put it this way,,,,,,,,,,,, it's CAUSED by government action. IMO
I see your point.....its all becoming one big tangled mess:)) so now what do we do??? Other than changing what's in the grocery stores and schools....I can't think of anything. Though for this to happen...wouldn't government have to regulate that ( just curious really) That's what I mean by government involvement:)) your thoughts
I would love to see incentives for healthy living. We get told how awful we are for eating terrible foods and not exercising, but aren't given the tools to make change in our lives. I live in a small agricultural town. Our market wants to sell locally-grown, organic produce...but farmers can't or won't sell to her (money is already tight for small family farms and they wouldn't make a profit here - though she does have some stuff in the summertime). We have to import produce to a town that grows produce for other places. It makes no sense. What if there was an incentive for farmers and stores to provide their communities with locally grown food? Perhaps a tax break? How about taking some of the money that's spent on corn and soy beans and putting it towards community-supported agriculture? The bottom line is money and it always will be. Make things more affordable and available (so I don't have to drive an hour to buy produce that was grown in my town) and you'll start to see change.
LIKE!!! 0 -
about 13 years ago I was on welfare in CA,I was a young single mother.They started making it mandatory that the people on welfare that were not working or going to school attend job classes,nutrition classes,they would help you learn how to act in interviews they would provide nice interview clothes,and even provided child care. They even helped people get interviews with companys.People raised a stink about being made to do these things,and they stoped.The services were still there for those that wanted to use them but it was not required to go to keep your welfare.0
-
Frankly it's just another way of blaming the poor for the fiscal woes of the country. The fact is that most people in poverty don't have as much availability to healthy foods. It's not coincidence that as SES lowers, waist line increases. Sure many people can manage to buy healthy foods while staying in a strict budget, but it takes a lot more work and often going to multiple stores (a produce store/farmer's market/etc.) which might not be difficult if you have a car, but for someone who has to walk or rely on public transit, it's a problem.
My family eats healthy on a very small grocery budget,you do not need to buy organic.I worked for about a year as a chashier at wal mart.this is what I saw when it came to the people with food stamps,a few would come in and buy lotts of canned or frozen veggies,lots of chicken.you can get a 10 pound bag of chicken breast at wal mart for 10 bucks.Most everyone else would come in buying 5 twelve packs of soda,chips,ice cream,hostess,bulk packages of hamburgers,frozen french fries,gallons of chocolate milk (a gallon of chocolate milk here is 3 something regular milk 2)
My neighbour who is on state aid says that atleast where I am at they offer nutriton and bugeting classes here,but it does not change anything.
There are many many people on aid who are doing the right thing and they are struggling to try and better their lives and the lives of their children,but there are just as many who are not and are milking the system for all its worth.Its very frustrating.It is just to easy for people to take advantage.
Last christmas I volunterred for a charity that is similar to toys for tots,we provided new toys to families that were on aid or low income.we couldnt help everyone,yet there were people that showed up to pick up toys in their brand new cars sitting in line with Iphones and Ipads and I couldnt help wonder how many children we were not able to help who deserved it because of the ones that took advatage of it.
I'll start by saying that I'm not currently, nor have I ever been on government aid, although I currently qualify as I'm working and putting myself through school. I have to say, shopping healthy on a budget is difficult. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's very, VERY difficult. ESPECIALLY when you're taught that junk food is an acceptable and cheaper alternative. I myself only have about 20-30 dollars to spend a week on groceries (in the state of TX a person on food stamps would probably get 200 a month so about 50 per week). I spend a good hour and a half in that groccery stores assessing what I should get, what I can afford, and what will nutritionally give me the most bang for my buck. I'd say most people don't have there heads into nutrition like I do NOR do they have an hour and a half to wander about the store making selections.
To put it into a bit of perspective... A person in TX on foodstamps gets $200 (maximum) a month. Now say that person eats 3 meals a day, and eats 30 meals a month. That's 90 meals. That means each meal needs to have cost them no more that $2.22 to prepare (assuming they have time and the means to prepare food). I'm sure you can understand how challenging that is, even for someone who is skilled at budgeting and educated about nutrition.
My point in all of this is that people who consistantly make poor choices, probably arn't doing it because they don't want to make good ones, they may not know how, or have the means to do so.
To speak to your experience working with the charity, there needs to be a great deal of government aid reform, and refunding of programs. Until that happens there will continue to be cracks int eh system through which people fall, and from which people take advantage. Honestly though, I have an iphone, an xbox 360 kinect, and a brand new laptop, and a lot of very nice body jewelry. I still make less that anyone I know (except for my jobless friends). I didn't pay for any of the nice things that I have, they've come to be through gifts and circumstance, but on the outside looking in, I'm doing pretty sell for myself. You never really know.
The wal mart I worked at in TX used to make us highlight the remaining food stamp balance on the recipts,alot of these people were getting 500 to 700 dollars a month I think alot of it depends on how many kids you haveAtleast thats how it was 2 years ago it may have changed at that time.
As for the people who have the iphone ipads brand new cars ect even if they were gifts ,mabey its just the way I think but if I could not afford to buy my kids clothes or christmas presants that stuff would be going straight to pawn.But your right you never really do know. It just sucks and frustrates me that because my husband makes a good mount of money before taxes but then loses half of it to taxes I cant afford healthcare for my kids.For us to get healthcare from my husbands job we would have to pay 600 a month,,he is a car salesman which is pure commision so some months he might make 5000 and then some months 1000,we cant run the risk of him having a bad month and losing his whole check to health insurance.The system is very screwed
Totally understand your frustration
My husband lost his job a year ago this Friday when the company he worked for downsized. We lost our healthcare at midnight that night ( a year ago). We have a 2 yo and a 9 yo.....so TRUST me....I get it
Thank God we have bounced back and both are employed now; however.....still no health coverage. Luckily no one has been sick:)) I wish you and your family the best.....honestly:flowerforyou: I know it can make you want to scream and cry all at the same time.
At any rate, I love the incentive idea and careful monitoring idea presented by the previous posters.0 -
The article states that those with kids or have gained weight due to medication will NOT be fined.Well, I don't think it is fair to fine a person for being overweight or for smoking. After all we have the right to make those choices...however, refusing to follow a dr's advice is expensive to the tax payer. So perhaps instead of fining them it would be better to lower the coverage of person who refuses to comply...but then, in order to do that, they would have to provide couseling to help people stop their self destruction. Smoking cessation classes and eating disorders can be expensive.... So, I guess, my opinion is its wrong, but I see their point?! LOL
What about the people on certain medications who gain weight or people who find it hard to lose after having babies or ppl who suffer depression and eat a lot its not fair to reduce their coverage on insurance if we look at them and assume they don't comply0 -
If someone actually has no desire to take care of themselves with their own time and money, they shouldn't expect to have the state bail them out. Same obviously goes for smokers, drinkers, drug addicts etc.
It shouldn't be about your BMIr though, if there's going to be some kind of penalty system I reckon there have to be factors used which point directly to a lack of interest in healthy living rather than just being a bit overweight, since there are plenty of skinny people who take no care of themselves.
Eeven in the UK with the NHS, prescription costs financially penalise those who require medication, whether for something self-inflicted or out of their control. A better way to do it would be for the doctor to require those who they consider to have been the cause of the illness needing medication to pay for the drugs, and let the state take the cost of genuine medical cases when the person has done what they should for their health.
I don't think requiring everyone to exercise 5 times a week and eat a certain amount of fat per day is helpful, but I'm sure there comes a point with most health indicators (blood pressure, cholesterol etc) where the doctor can happily say that the cause is obesity/smoking/drugs etc. Why should NHS money be used for that rather than on truly needy cases?
It sickens me that the NHS can provide people with obesity, drug and smoking related semi-urgent surgery faster than they can provide some life-saving and career-saving operations. I say that as someone who was put on an 18 week waiting list for physio post knee op, by which point I had needed another op due to not having been taught to walk again properly. Currently I am on a waiting list to save my professional career as a violinist because the NHS can't afford it, but they can afford to give an alcoholic a liver transplant...completely self-inflicted whereas my case is a disorder from birth which I have done everything in my power to help.
Actually what needs to happen is for there to be REAL preventative measures put in place by the NHS to break the cycle. If people with addictions (and I include food in that category) were helped in a more active way, rather than only if they sought help, a lot of times they could learn to help themselves and save their health.0 -
I agree and disagree...
If the state is made mandatory, through the socialized health care bill that was passed, to give EVERYONE health care, then if you are making unhealthy lifestyle choices, ie drugs, smoking, excessive drinking, eating, etc then I think it is the Health care industries right to charge you more, after all they are going to end up paying more for you in the long run if your actions dont change.
However! I think there are too many variables to this equasion, how would they know that you were following their advice, how would they know you were trying to change?
I know in washington they have started putting a higher tax on junk food. I think maybe they should do that instead for unhealthy things all across the board. Tanning and smoking and liquor are outrageously taxed, why cant soda and candy bars and chips and deep fried anything be taxed too? It would keep people from buying it, and that would cause people to make healthier choices or spend more money paying the taxes.
the taxes could then go towards the health care programs...
IMO the government should have never implimented the socialistic health care in the first place. So if this law passes I blame The obama presidency.0 -
Most of my patients are on my floor because of poor choices. But only half if less are obese. Most never exercise, eat the wrong foods, sit in front of the boob tube all day and have poor genetics.
You can't clump people into groups and have them all be the same. I am overweight but I eat healthy, exercise regularly and except for my weight am very healthy. Most of the people on this board are the same way. Why should I have to pay more for my insurance? because genetically my family all are heavy?
I have patients who everyone in their family has heart attacks while they are young. It costs their insurance company more to monitor their health closely, should we charge them more? Some people have diabetes in their family, lets charge them more. Some people drink themselves silly every weekend, charge them more? Some people drive and text. It goes on and on. When they start regulating all these things it becomes a way to just control how we live our lives. When would it end? Personally, I prefer to make my own choices, not let some government or insurance company tell me what to do.0 -
I would personally put a scale anywhere food was purchased and the more you weigh the more tax you pay on the food. I mean that's what we (the US) does for income tax anyway. The richer you are the more you pay. So carry it over to food and say the fatter you are the more you pay. (yes, this post was written with some sarcasm)0
-
I've not had the time to ready EVERY single post on this thread, tho I've read the great majority. So if someone suggested this already, my apologies. I think that America needs a sensible health-care program that covers ALL citizens. And if that were the case, in order to off-set the cost I would not have a problem with them taxing things that are bad for you with a luxury tax. The same way they tax the hell outta cigarets (which I'm all for - raise the cost to $20/pack for all I care). Tax sugar & starched flour. Tax heavily processed foods. Go for it - I think it's great. But do NOT TAX FAT PEOPLE! Do you really think we need yet ANOTHER reason to stigmatize us?? I'm 5'5 and 42 years old. The insurance charts (which are the charts posted in Doc offices) say I should weigh no more than 150. When I told my primary care physician (back in the glorious 90's when I had insurance) that I wanted to be on an appetite suppressant called Meridia she asked how much I wanted to weigh. I told her 150. She grabbed me by the wrist and said "If you try to get down to 150 I will have u hospitalized!! See this wrist? Use your other hand and try to make a circle around it with your thumb & pointer finger." So I tried. I couldn't make it - the wrist was too thick. She said "You are BIG BONED. You would not be healthy at that weight. You be happy with a number that starts with 1." So there's no "golden #" that people should aim for based on height. Even using BMI is a fallacy - it was never intended to be used the way it is. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index )0
-
I totally understand where you're coming from. I have a degree in social work and worked in the field for a while. I saw first hand how many of my clients abused the system. Very sad. I also saw first hand clients who really really needed the help and were trying to get out of the situation. Heart breaking for me....some nights I didn't sleep. Anyway, while I understand your frustration, I don' t think it would do any good to place a fine on people needing aid....I honestly don't. I think some the other ideas many have listed here would be better. Either way....it involves government action.
I agree with everything execpt this last little bit,,,,,,,,,, It involves government action. I would put it this way,,,,,,,,,,,, it's CAUSED by government action. IMO
I see your point.....its all becoming one big tangled mess:)) so now what do we do??? Other than changing what's in the grocery stores and schools....I can't think of anything. Though for this to happen...wouldn't government have to regulate that ( just curious really) That's what I mean by government involvement:)) your thoughts
I know sounds bites are cool, but I also know it's complicated. Survival of the fittest is a good rule of thumb. Let the insurance companies insure who and how they want, and the government can provide a bare bones basic safety net, that is very, very, very tuff to get access to. If people had to pay for their health, they might take better care of it, if not they will weed themselves out of the gene pool. I know I’m a cold hearted B, but why should I care about their health if they don’t care about it themselves?0 -
I've not had the time to ready EVERY single post on this thread, tho I've read the great majority. So if someone suggested this already, my apologies. I think that America needs a sensible health-care program that covers ALL citizens. And if that were the case, in order to off-set the cost I would not have a problem with them taxing things that are bad for you with a luxury tax. The same way they tax the hell outta cigarets (which I'm all for - raise the cost to $20/pack for all I care). Tax sugar & starched flour. Tax heavily processed foods. Go for it - I think it's great. But do NOT TAX FAT PEOPLE! Do you really think we need yet ANOTHER reason to stigmatize us?? I'm 5'5 and 42 years old. The insurance charts (which are the charts posted in Doc offices) say I should weigh no more than 150. When I told my primary care physician (back in the glorious 90's when I had insurance) that I wanted to be on an appetite suppressant called Meridia she asked how much I wanted to weigh. I told her 150. She grabbed me by the wrist and said "If you try to get down to 150 I will have u hospitalized!! See this wrist? Use your other hand and try to make a circle around it with your thumb & pointer finger." So I tried. I couldn't make it - the wrist was too thick. She said "You are BIG BONED. You would not be healthy at that weight. You be happy with a number that starts with 1." So there's no "golden #" that people should aim for based on height. Even using BMI is a fallacy - it was never intended to be used the way it is. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index )
I only have one question for people with this mentality, Who decides what is healthy? Tax animal fat? Tax wheat? Tax apples? I bet every food you can think of I can find someone, some study, that says it's bad for you?0 -
I've not had the time to ready EVERY single post on this thread, tho I've read the great majority. So if someone suggested this already, my apologies. I think that America needs a sensible health-care program that covers ALL citizens. And if that were the case, in order to off-set the cost I would not have a problem with them taxing things that are bad for you with a luxury tax. The same way they tax the hell outta cigarets (which I'm all for - raise the cost to $20/pack for all I care). Tax sugar & starched flour. Tax heavily processed foods. Go for it - I think it's great. But do NOT TAX FAT PEOPLE! Do you really think we need yet ANOTHER reason to stigmatize us?? I'm 5'5 and 42 years old. The insurance charts (which are the charts posted in Doc offices) say I should weigh no more than 150. When I told my primary care physician (back in the glorious 90's when I had insurance) that I wanted to be on an appetite suppressant called Meridia she asked how much I wanted to weigh. I told her 150. She grabbed me by the wrist and said "If you try to get down to 150 I will have u hospitalized!! See this wrist? Use your other hand and try to make a circle around it with your thumb & pointer finger." So I tried. I couldn't make it - the wrist was too thick. She said "You are BIG BONED. You would not be healthy at that weight. You be happy with a number that starts with 1." So there's no "golden #" that people should aim for based on height. Even using BMI is a fallacy - it was never intended to be used the way it is. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index )
I only have one question for people with this mentality, Who decides what is healthy? Tax animal fat? Tax wheat? Tax apples? I bet every food you can think of I can find someone, some study, that says it's bad for you?
That's a great point. I bet the gov't could spend YEARS in committee on that one! I mentioned sugar & starched flour since they're in most things that are stumbling blocks to me. But since this is a "FREE COUNTRY" (giggle giggle) I guess it's best we leave everyone the right to buy what they want. ;-)0 -
After reading this article, I would say this sounds like a horrible idea. The person who said "This proposal targets only the working poor and elderly..." has it right. Why would we fine only the people on Medicaid and not everyone else. I think it's stupid to fine people for being unhealthy in the first place, but this idea is even worse. And how can we fine poor people for being unhealthy? They can't afford to eat the fresh produce, it's too expensive. They have to buy the frozen and canned food, which isn't always a good choice.
I also think it's a bad idea to fine people for being overweight and then reward them for meeting their slimming goals...how are we saving money if we just spend it again? That's just absurd.0 -
How about the government just stays out of our lives? As free individuals we have the right to choose what we eat, it is up to the individual to decide what they put in their mouths. If I want to waste away on McDonalds (YUCK!) that is my choice or if I want to eat organic fruits and veggies that is my choice as well. The only place where the government should have a say is if it is a program they fund, for example school lunches. Now those need to be made healthier.0
-
How about the government just stays out of our lives? As free individuals we have the right to choose what we eat, it is up to the individual to decide what they put in their mouths. If I want to waste away on McDonalds (YUCK!) that is my choice or if I want to eat organic fruits and veggies that is my choice as well. The only place where the government should have a say is if it is a program they fund, for example school lunches. Now those need to be made healthier.
Hallelujah! Amen! Where's the freakin LIKE button??!! lol :-)0 -
How about the government just stays out of our lives? As free individuals we have the right to choose what we eat, it is up to the individual to decide what they put in their mouths. If I want to waste away on McDonalds (YUCK!) that is my choice or if I want to eat organic fruits and veggies that is my choice as well. The only place where the government should have a say is if it is a program they fund, for example school lunches. Now those need to be made healthier.
Hallelujah! Amen! Where's the freakin LIKE button??!! lol :-)
The government does control medicaid... That is a government ran program, that people get for FREEEEEEE! that is the whole deal. myself and millions of others are paying out our back sides for people to have gastric bypass surgery, get obesity caused diabetes medication and other medical things for free. The same thing goes with liver and lung transplants for those who smoke and drink away their organs. they should have to pay extra back into the system if they are unwilling to make a lifestyle change. that is what this article and bill is all about. They are watching out for those who are paying taxes to take care of those who refuse to take care of themselves.0 -
Maybe it shouldn't be so much in fining the people who are overweight at rewarding the people to exercise, eat right and take care of themselves. I rarely go to the Dr. and am not on any kind of maintenance medications. Why should I have to pay the same insurance premiums as others who do not take care of themselves. Maybe if you reward people by offering them a discount for good behavior that might help.
Amen!! I actually try very hard to stay healthy. I seldom ever go to the doctor...Yet do I have health insurance?...No. Why?...because I cannot afford it. I cannot afford to have me family protected and we're all active. Now if premiums dropped because we're active and healthy that be different. I also believe that the school systems need to do more about making sure kids are educated to the extreme on life style choices and activities and nutrition. The younger the better!!! Also I agree natural foods should be much cheaper and easier to come by instead of processed chemical "foods." It is a choice we all make-Yes- but low income families can go farther with a dollar at Wendy's than they can at Whole Foods. If produce was cheaper though may parents would make the healthier choice AT LEAST for their childeren! So then they don't ahve childhood obesity and health problems and learn from the beginning how to eat correctly and stay active.0 -
Glad to see you're all keeping the debate respectful (continue to do so, please :bigsmile: ).
Just a reminder to try to keep the political arguments out of it. If it gets too political, we'll have to shut it down.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Ladyhawk00
MyFitnessPal Forum Moderator0 -
just to throw another log on the fire here
If its right to fine FAT people cos they can not or will not diet
how about people with eating disorders ? that can not or will not eat.
And before you say it, yes i do understand that people with non eating disorders will say they are ill etc...... but some one with an OVER eating disorder could say the same???
thoughts?0 -
just to throw another log on the fire here
If its right to fine FAT people cos they can not or will not diet
how about people with eating disorders ? that can not or will not eat.
And before you say it, yes i do understand that people with non eating disorders will say they are ill etc...... but some one with an OVER eating disorder could say the same???
thoughts?
If they are getting gov assistance that the tax payers pay for,and refuse all help offered yes.Same for smokers drinkers.I wish I could get some kind of assistance for medical,it breaks my heart when my kids get sick and I have a hard time paying for their medican.or paying 100 dollars for a dr vist at urgent care,and then another 100 to 200 hundred for perscriptions.I would gladly pay 50 dollars a year in fines.But I also would have no problems accepting the help and making the effort to quit smoking ect0 -
just to throw another log on the fire here
If its right to fine FAT people cos they can not or will not diet
how about people with eating disorders ? that can not or will not eat.
And before you say it, yes i do understand that people with non eating disorders will say they are ill etc...... but some one with an OVER eating disorder could say the same???
thoughts?
If they are getting gov assistance that the tax payers pay for,and refuse all help offered yes.
and thats the point ! if hey refuse help... then it must be classed as "self harm" and you are responsible0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions