Is it fair to fine fat people for not dieting?
Replies
-
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
-
No.
Here's why: the costly obesity related illnesses such as high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol, exist in people who are not obese. Conversely, you may be considered overweight and even obese according to the BMI, and be fit, active, and of good health. The tax would essentially be on people who have a *risk factor*, not a behavior! It would unfairly penalize those who have a certain build or shape despite taking care of themselves.
If you want to tax soda, fast foods, and other "unhealthy" foods, think again. Read some of the threads here on MFP - a majority of them are arguments about which type of food is healthy. The "clean" eaters disparage those who go for Lean Cuisine and Skinny Cow because its processed, and they believe processed food is bad. The paleo people believe whole grains and beans are lethal. People who ascribe to evidence based nutrition eschew high fat and especially high saturated fat eating, while other people chose fat as their main source of calories. There is simply no consensus on what "bad" food is. Odds are, something you eat would be taxed.
Think about how people spend their money now - compared to 100 years ago, food is relatively really cheap (ALL of it, not just the processed stuff), as is technology, clothing. Health care is much more expensive, as is housing and education. Goods (for the most part) take up less income while services cost more. That's because, in the west, labor intensive jobs have been mostly outsourced to parts of the world where labor is cheap. So people work desk jobs now which is part of the problem, the services such as health care cost more because salaries for that work are high, and food is very available and cheap. Passing the burden on to obese people is a band -aid, it doesn't address the multi-factoral cause of the problem.0 -
Had to read it....they want to charge the disadvantaged, absolutely NOT! Too many loop holes and Doctors who don't have time to support patients anymore....
They have more advantages than the working person! They don't pay taxes on money they have worked hard for. They effing sit at home and are taken care of by my hard earned money. Some may be an exception, but the majority of people I see coming out of my welfare office, is women with 3 or 4 kids who don't know how to keep their legs shut and each child has a different dead beat dad. Some people believe they have some many children just to live off of welfare and yes I am a believer.
Statistically, the average woman on welfare has LESS children than women not on welfare (statistically averages out to 1.9 rather than the 2.4 of women not receiving welfare). There are often state laws that prohibit women from collecting more money if they have children while receiving assistance. Also, federal law states that they have to be working within a small window of time before they lose their benefits. There is also a federal lifetime cap of 5 years of TANF assistance able to be received by any one person. Total of 5 years in their entire lifetime. Many people hop on and off welfare rolls quickly as they get back to work from dead-end minimum wage job to the next, especially in this economy. And yes I am a believer because I see this EVERY SINGLE DAY and also worked 40 hours a week for TWO YEARS while receiving TANF assistance before I could get a better job.
That is just TANF. I am talking about medicaid and foodstamps. There is only a maximum income cap on it and you could stay in that range for the rest of your life working a small part time job, living in low in income project housing, and never making a change. I know several people here in my little small town that has been and does. And don't get me wrong I did say there is some exceptions. I had to live in the projects for a little while, have medicaid, foodstamps you name it. But, some people without anyone forcing them to change will continue to live that way till they die. And I am sure there are a lot of people that are on welfare because of illness, or disablity, well of course this rule would only help them. I didn't say all women on welfare did this, I said the majority I see in my local welfare are like this. It could just be a popular thing where I live. And I guess I hold a little resentment about it, because a few years ago my husband broke his back, and we had no food in the house and my income barely paid the electric and water bill, and we applied for assistance and was turned down. But, there was a woman in the lobby with 4 children talking on her cell phone, all kinda gold all over here fingers and neck, tell someone " I'm at the welfare office for my six month review for my foodstamps. And get this she was driving a new car.
There's also questionable (unreported) income and tantamount debt / bankruptcy cases in some of these examples - you see a family on welfare that's "comfortably" able to afford luxury items such as smartphones, high-end automobiles, etc. May point to illegal income.0 -
But the biggest problem with that is they don't pay for it anyway. We the people that do work an honest job, do. And we are already being punished by what they do, with taxes. Because they sit around, eating all the bad food not doing anything and having to go to the doctor every other month because they won't take an active approach to doing something about it, other than, making an appointment, seeing a doctor, and taking a pill, that is all paid for by someone else. And if you qaulify for medicaid you surely qualify for foodstamps, so then someone elses is paying for you to overeat and make poor food choices time and time again. And unless something is brought about to try and change the issue, it will only continue or get worse."But the problem is that we have to pay for what you are deciding to do to your body. It mentioned in the article that 83% of the doctor costs are for overweight or obese people, so your decision to eat that fried chicken is costing me money. "
So add taxes to the "bad" foods like soda and fast food joints like they do on cigs and booze. Then ALL the people that eat the "Bad" stuff (skinny or FAT) will pay for their decisions.
As a once super morbidly obese person I also PAID for my decisions. I pay and have been paying for my health insurance, co-pays, deductables and yearly out of pocket expenses. On that same note....we are paying for the hypocondriac that goes to the ER for going to the ER at the slightest sniffleseveral times a month.0 -
I guess I can really see it from both sides of the fence. But I get upset when people go off on how we're just living off of other people and blah blah blah. Do you think I enjoy having food stamps? HELL NO. It is embarrassing. Do I like it being implied that I just don't want to work? No, it really irks me. Do you think I like being compared to people who DO live off of the system? NO. But that's judgment for you.
I am on foodstamps. I can't work because of disability, and I CHOOSE to buy healthier choices. I choose to try to better my physical health. Just don't lump us all together, ok? :-)0 -
Boy! What a heated topic this could be.
I think it is rediculous and absurd. These people are on medicaid because they don't have enough income to provide thier own healthcare. IF you don't have money to provide your own healthcars and are likely recieving other benefits, ie food stamps and cash assistance (via disabily, ss and/or unemployment) how the heck are you going to pay a fine? that just shifting money around, like the government is used to doing. They would probably get a better response if they offered to pay people who successfully follow their doctors advice and then they would save money from improving health care. I'm not saying they should pay people to follow their dr's advice, I'm just saying they would probably be more successful.0 -
I guess I can really see it from both sides of the fence. But I get upset when people go off on how we're just living off of other people and blah blah blah. Do you think I enjoy having food stamps? HELL NO. It is embarrassing. Do I like it being implied that I just don't want to work? No, it really irks me. Do you think I like being compared to people who DO live off of the system? NO. But that's judgment for you.
I am on foodstamps. I can't work because of disability, and I CHOOSE to buy healthier choices. I choose to try to better my physical health. Just don't lump us all together, ok? :-)
If you are talking about me because of my previous post, I want you to be sure you read my post carefully because it clearly states there are some exceptions, including disability. But, in this case, does Arizona have the right, yes I believe they do, even for the ones, that are disabled. They are the ones that need to be making healthier decisions anyway. Because being overweight only causes more health problems for them. No one is lumping you together, it is just that the mass majority of people here that I have seen that are on welfare, are not disabled or can work. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind at all helping someone that truly needs the help. But, don't be spending our tax money, having a bunch of kids, smoking weed and cigs., or whatever getting medical bills paid for and food bought when you can do better if you only try. (not directed at you, just a general statement). And not allowing them to continue eatting unhealthy food is great start to help with the problem, but a better start would be drug testing for all people on welfare, no matter what their situation is. Unfortunately, I think it will be nearly impossible for Arizona to enforce the whole eat healthy or be fined, but I hope the best for them.0 -
lol you are probably right!Boy! What a heated topic this could be.
I think it is rediculous and absurd. These people are on medicaid because they don't have enough income to provide thier own healthcare. IF you don't have money to provide your own healthcars and are likely recieving other benefits, ie food stamps and cash assistance (via disabily, ss and/or unemployment) how the heck are you going to pay a fine? that just shifting money around, like the government is used to doing. They would probably get a better response if they offered to pay people who successfully follow their doctors advice and then they would save money from improving health care. I'm not saying they should pay people to follow their dr's advice, I'm just saying they would probably be more successful.0 -
I would like to make another statement that may or may not apply. IT IRKS THE HELL OUT OF ME, BEING BEHIND SOMEONE IN THE GROCERY STORE, THAT IS PAYING WITH FOODSTAMPS, BUYING ALL THE NAME BRAND JUNK, WHILE I AM BUYING THE STORE BRANDS TO AFFORD THEM, BUT THEN THEY WHIP OUT THEIR MONEY TO BUY THEIR CIGARETTES AND BEER.0
-
You know, I think when you're on public assistance of any kind, you should only get what's good for you. I've been on WIC, never used food stamps, though we have qualified a few times (but Texas is like that, need medicaid but able to feed your family? Here's some food stamps! That's just what I need). On WIC, you're only allowed certain foods, you don't just get a charge card on the governments dime. I think food stamps should be the same way. Only allow whole grain breads (unless a dr. recommends otherwise), veggies, no chips, no ridiculous bakery items (not like, no rolls, but no donuts or cupcakes)..
You can't control what people eat, and I don't think you should; but I also don't want to be paying taxes (and I don't think anyone else should either) to literally make people fat. If you want to eat crap, you'll find the money to do so.0 -
To fine fat people for not dieting is [to me] like saying that fat people don't have self discipline. Add that to the headlines on the news this week that scientiest have found a rogue gene that is the "smoking gun" for obesity I would have to say "no". If we fined fat people for not dieting what would be next? Fining alcaholics for drinking a beer and fining smokers for buying cigarettes? Those things are not good for you but just like food, buying alcahol and cigarettes are not illegal.
Cigarette smokers ARE essentially fined by the huge tax that was put on the purchase of them. In Hawaii, they're $10 per pack. In California, they're about $5 per pack. I think in the UK they're about $20 per pack. Less than 20-years ago, they were less than a dollar per pack. Thankfully, I kicked that habit. I think if smokers can pay the price, so should obese people who are being lazy (not disabled). Though, I don't understand why the fine wouldn't go out to people with children (as stated in the article). They should be teaching their children how to eat healthy as well. But, it would help if the food industries had not made pre-packaged food ("just add hot water" foods) cheaper than healthy vegetables. I paid almost $8 for a yellow pepper last year and $6 for a dozen eggs. That's just insane.0 -
On WIC, you're only allowed certain foods, you don't just get a charge card on the governments dime. I think food stamps should be the same way. Only allow whole grain breads (unless a dr. recommends otherwise), veggies, no chips, no ridiculous bakery items (not like, no rolls, but no donuts or cupcakes)..
I agree with this. Its like my prepaid medical expense card. It is set up so it only works with particular items and the other stuff has to come out of your own pocket if you want it. Take the chips, Little Debbie's and soda off the card and see how many people stock their shelves with it.
Ounce for ounce crap-food is more expensive than buying healthy. Potatoes fill you up better and longer than a bag of chips for way less money.0 -
I paid almost $8 for a yellow pepper last year and $6 for a dozen eggs. That's just insane.
WOW !!!!! And I was pissed when green peppers jumped from $.25 each to $1.0 -
So, what you are saying is, that people with lower incomes who are on public assistance programs should have less rights than you? That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. The question here is whether or not the government should be able to dictate to us how fat we are allowed to be... Plain and simple, it is an infringement upon our civil rights. Which is why politicians can blow smoke up their constituent's @$$es to gain votes, and then the things they "promised" never come to fruition.
Yes, it is obnoxious to see big fat women with their Gucci bags standing in line at Wal-Mart buying name brand junk foods with their food stamps card ... but these people are the exception. I've done a lot of volunteer work in public assistance, and there are good, hardworking people who are just trying to make ends meet but can't. Have you ever tried to do the math on an income of $7.15 an hour? That's the minimum wage here in Florida. It's nearly impossible. And I'll tell you, I run a home daycare and my husband had a good job working as a speech therapist assistant, and when he got laid off when the business went under, we were very nearly screwed. But because of the option of public assistance, we qualified for food stamps, and my husband went back to school so that we don't have to be in that rut our whole lives... Now he has a great job part-time until he finishes school next spring and you know what? There are more families like us using food stamps to make positive changes in their lives than there are the people using the system and being dishonest, so think about the generalities that you toss around. We don't smoke or use drugs, or drive new cars either. We have 2 11-year-old cars. And sure, I'm fat - but I was fat long before food stamps. I use coupons and buy what's on sale and make that benefit stretch as far as I can, my kids eat well and are healthy and I'm working hard to lose all of this weight. I think that there is too much self-righteous attitude coming from people who really do not know what they are talking about. And furthermore, the government has no business being that involved in our lives. You let them dictate to you how much you should weight... see what comes next. Ever read 1984? It's not a joke. Tyranny is a slippery slope.
I'll step off my soapbox now....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 -
So, what you are saying is, that people with lower incomes who are on public assistance programs should have less rights than you? That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. The question here is whether or not the government should be able to dictate to us how fat we are allowed to be... Plain and simple, it is an infringement upon our civil rights. Which is why politicians can blow smoke up their constituent's @$$es to gain votes, and then the things they "promised" never come to fruition.
Yes, it is obnoxious to see big fat women with their Gucci bags standing in line at Wal-Mart buying name brand junk foods with their food stamps card ... but these people are the exception. I've done a lot of volunteer work in public assistance, and there are good, hardworking people who are just trying to make ends meet but can't. Have you ever tried to do the math on an income of $7.15 an hour? That's the minimum wage here in Florida. It's nearly impossible. And I'll tell you, I run a home daycare and my husband had a good job working as a speech therapist assistant, and when he got laid off when the business went under, we were very nearly screwed. But because of the option of public assistance, we qualified for food stamps, and my husband went back to school so that we don't have to be in that rut our whole lives... Now he has a great job part-time until he finishes school next spring and you know what? There are more families like us using food stamps to make positive changes in their lives than there are the people using the system and being dishonest, so think about the generalities that you toss around. We don't smoke or use drugs, or drive new cars either. We have 2 11-year-old cars. And sure, I'm fat - but I was fat long before food stamps. I use coupons and buy what's on sale and make that benefit stretch as far as I can, my kids eat well and are healthy and I'm working hard to lose all of this weight. I think that there is too much self-righteous attitude coming from people who really do not know what they are talking about. And furthermore, the government has no business being that involved in our lives. You let them dictate to you how much you should weight... see what comes next. Ever read 1984? It's not a joke. Tyranny is a slippery slope.
I'll step off my soapbox now....
Well said, thank you.0 -
To fine fat people for not dieting is [to me] like saying that fat people don't have self discipline. Add that to the headlines on the news this week that scientiest have found a rogue gene that is the "smoking gun" for obesity I would have to say "no". If we fined fat people for not dieting what would be next? Fining alcaholics for drinking a beer and fining smokers for buying cigarettes? Those things are not good for you but just like food, buying alcahol and cigarettes are not illegal.
Cigarette smokers ARE essentially fined by the huge tax that was put on the purchase of them. In Hawaii, they're $10 per pack. In California, they're about $5 per pack. I think in the UK they're about $20 per pack. Less than 20-years ago, they were less than a dollar per pack. Thankfully, I kicked that habit. I think if smokers can pay the price, so should obese people who are being lazy (not disabled). Though, I don't understand why the fine wouldn't go out to people with children (as stated in the article). They should be teaching their children how to eat healthy as well. But, it would help if the food industries had not made pre-packaged food ("just add hot water" foods) cheaper than healthy vegetables. I paid almost $8 for a yellow pepper last year and $6 for a dozen eggs. That's just insane.
Thank God I kicked the habit too!!0 -
So, what you are saying is, that people with lower incomes who are on public assistance programs should have less rights than you? That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. The question here is whether or not the government should be able to dictate to us how fat we are allowed to be... Plain and simple, it is an infringement upon our civil rights. Which is why politicians can blow smoke up their constituent's @$$es to gain votes, and then the things they "promised" never come to fruition.
Yes, it is obnoxious to see big fat women with their Gucci bags standing in line at Wal-Mart buying name brand junk foods with their food stamps card ... but these people are the exception. I've done a lot of volunteer work in public assistance, and there are good, hardworking people who are just trying to make ends meet but can't. Have you ever tried to do the math on an income of $7.15 an hour? That's the minimum wage here in Florida. It's nearly impossible. And I'll tell you, I run a home daycare and my husband had a good job working as a speech therapist assistant, and when he got laid off when the business went under, we were very nearly screwed. But because of the option of public assistance, we qualified for food stamps, and my husband went back to school so that we don't have to be in that rut our whole lives... Now he has a great job part-time until he finishes school next spring and you know what? There are more families like us using food stamps to make positive changes in their lives than there are the people using the system and being dishonest, so think about the generalities that you toss around. We don't smoke or use drugs, or drive new cars either. We have 2 11-year-old cars. And sure, I'm fat - but I was fat long before food stamps. I use coupons and buy what's on sale and make that benefit stretch as far as I can, my kids eat well and are healthy and I'm working hard to lose all of this weight. I think that there is too much self-righteous attitude coming from people who really do not know what they are talking about. And furthermore, the government has no business being that involved in our lives. You let them dictate to you how much you should weight... see what comes next. Ever read 1984? It's not a joke. Tyranny is a slippery slope.
I'll step off my soapbox now....
If they are forking the money out for it, then they should definately dictate what is allowed to be bought. If you read my post carefully, it says there are exceptions too. I have also had to use welfare to get back on my feet and was very glad to get it and if they put the stipulation that I could only buy healthy food, not junk, that would have been just fine with me. They are not dictating how much you weigh as much as how unhealthy you are and if a person is trying to do better, they certainly would not mind eating a proper diet with the assistance the are given.0 -
I guess I can really see it from both sides of the fence. But I get upset when people go off on how we're just living off of other people and blah blah blah. Do you think I enjoy having food stamps? HELL NO. It is embarrassing. Do I like it being implied that I just don't want to work? No, it really irks me. Do you think I like being compared to people who DO live off of the system? NO. But that's judgment for you.
I am on foodstamps. I can't work because of disability, and I CHOOSE to buy healthier choices. I choose to try to better my physical health. Just don't lump us all together, ok? :-)
If you are talking about me because of my previous post, I want you to be sure you read my post carefully because it clearly states there are some exceptions, including disability. But, in this case, does Arizona have the right, yes I believe they do, even for the ones, that are disabled. They are the ones that need to be making healthier decisions anyway. Because being overweight only causes more health problems for them. No one is lumping you together, it is just that the mass majority of people here that I have seen that are on welfare, are not disabled or can work. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind at all helping someone that truly needs the help. But, don't be spending our tax money, having a bunch of kids, smoking weed and cigs., or whatever getting medical bills paid for and food bought when you can do better if you only try. (not directed at you, just a general statement). And not allowing them to continue eatting unhealthy food is great start to help with the problem, but a better start would be drug testing for all people on welfare, no matter what their situation is. Unfortunately, I think it will be nearly impossible for Arizona to enforce the whole eat healthy or be fined, but I hope the best for them.
No no no, I wasn't talking about you at all. I read a lot of articles in newspapers about the healthcare stuff, and that is where I usually see it. It's just very frustrating to have an invisible illness, which is classified as a disability, but not enough to get anything more than food stamps and some healthcare. I am thankful for my healthcare, but the cost of this help is being told indirectly that I *should* be working because "I don't look sick" by the general public in my state. Oregon kinda sucks for this sort of thing.
It's a messed up system we're living in, and for the record, no ONE president caused it (but that is an entirely different rant about power structure) I just don't see how to really fix it. I do not think that eliminating all help will make things better because it will force a lot of people who have reasons for not working into jobs they hate, and will not perform well in, and take jobs away from people who will appreciate them more.
It isn't a right or wrong, black or white issue. Perhaps when we stop trying to solve it like one we will discover a solution that works better for everyone.
Cheers!0 -
So, what you are saying is, that people with lower incomes who are on public assistance programs should have less rights than you? That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. The question here is whether or not the government should be able to dictate to us how fat we are allowed to be... Plain and simple, it is an infringement upon our civil rights. Which is why politicians can blow smoke up their constituent's @$$es to gain votes, and then the things they "promised" never come to fruition.
Yes, it is obnoxious to see big fat women with their Gucci bags standing in line at Wal-Mart buying name brand junk foods with their food stamps card ... but these people are the exception. I've done a lot of volunteer work in public assistance, and there are good, hardworking people who are just trying to make ends meet but can't. Have you ever tried to do the math on an income of $7.15 an hour? That's the minimum wage here in Florida. It's nearly impossible. And I'll tell you, I run a home daycare and my husband had a good job working as a speech therapist assistant, and when he got laid off when the business went under, we were very nearly screwed. But because of the option of public assistance, we qualified for food stamps, and my husband went back to school so that we don't have to be in that rut our whole lives... Now he has a great job part-time until he finishes school next spring and you know what? There are more families like us using food stamps to make positive changes in their lives than there are the people using the system and being dishonest, so think about the generalities that you toss around. We don't smoke or use drugs, or drive new cars either. We have 2 11-year-old cars. And sure, I'm fat - but I was fat long before food stamps. I use coupons and buy what's on sale and make that benefit stretch as far as I can, my kids eat well and are healthy and I'm working hard to lose all of this weight. I think that there is too much self-righteous attitude coming from people who really do not know what they are talking about. And furthermore, the government has no business being that involved in our lives. You let them dictate to you how much you should weight... see what comes next. Ever read 1984? It's not a joke. Tyranny is a slippery slope.
I'll step off my soapbox now....
If they are forking the money out for it, then they should definately dictate what is allowed to be bought. If you read my post carefully, it says there are exceptions too. I have also had to use welfare to get back on my feet and was very glad to get it and if they put the stipulation that I could only buy healthy food not junk, that would have been just fine too. They are not dictating how much you weigh as much how unhealthy you are and if a person is trying to do better, they certainly would not mind eating a proper diet with the assistance the are given.
As for the idea of only buying "health food" the definition of "health food" varies from philosophy to philosophy, so there is no good way to determine what is "healthy" from a governmental standpoint, which honestly makes this entire subject matter moot and void because it will never come to fruition, as I said.0 -
I guess I can really see it from both sides of the fence. But I get upset when people go off on how we're just living off of other people and blah blah blah. Do you think I enjoy having food stamps? HELL NO. It is embarrassing. Do I like it being implied that I just don't want to work? No, it really irks me. Do you think I like being compared to people who DO live off of the system? NO. But that's judgment for you.
I am on foodstamps. I can't work because of disability, and I CHOOSE to buy healthier choices. I choose to try to better my physical health. Just don't lump us all together, ok? :-)
If you are talking about me because of my previous post, I want you to be sure you read my post carefully because it clearly states there are some exceptions, including disability. But, in this case, does Arizona have the right, yes I believe they do, even for the ones, that are disabled. They are the ones that need to be making healthier decisions anyway. Because being overweight only causes more health problems for them. No one is lumping you together, it is just that the mass majority of people here that I have seen that are on welfare, are not disabled or can work. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind at all helping someone that truly needs the help. But, don't be spending our tax money, having a bunch of kids, smoking weed and cigs., or whatever getting medical bills paid for and food bought when you can do better if you only try. (not directed at you, just a general statement). And not allowing them to continue eatting unhealthy food is great start to help with the problem, but a better start would be drug testing for all people on welfare, no matter what their situation is. Unfortunately, I think it will be nearly impossible for Arizona to enforce the whole eat healthy or be fined, but I hope the best for them.
No no no, I wasn't talking about you at all. I read a lot of articles in newspapers about the healthcare stuff, and that is where I usually see it. It's just very frustrating to have an invisible illness, which is classified as a disability, but not enough to get anything more than food stamps and some healthcare. I am thankful for my healthcare, but the cost of this help is being told indirectly that I *should* be working because "I don't look sick" by the general public in my state. Oregon kinda sucks for this sort of thing.
It's a messed up system we're living in, and for the record, no ONE president caused it (but that is an entirely different rant about power structure) I just don't see how to really fix it. I do not think that eliminating all help will make things better because it will force a lot of people who have reasons for not working into jobs they hate, and will not perform well in, and take jobs away from people who will appreciate them more.
It isn't a right or wrong, black or white issue. Perhaps when we stop trying to solve it like one we will discover a solution that works better for everyone.
Cheers!
Oh, okay I guess I am a little on the defensive side because it is an issue I feel so strongly about. I have very few issues like that. But, I understand your situation and really do have sympathy for you and your situtation. Best of luck to you!0 -
So, what you are saying is, that people with lower incomes who are on public assistance programs should have less rights than you? That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. The question here is whether or not the government should be able to dictate to us how fat we are allowed to be... Plain and simple, it is an infringement upon our civil rights. Which is why politicians can blow smoke up their constituent's @$$es to gain votes, and then the things they "promised" never come to fruition.
Yes, it is obnoxious to see big fat women with their Gucci bags standing in line at Wal-Mart buying name brand junk foods with their food stamps card ... but these people are the exception. I've done a lot of volunteer work in public assistance, and there are good, hardworking people who are just trying to make ends meet but can't. Have you ever tried to do the math on an income of $7.15 an hour? That's the minimum wage here in Florida. It's nearly impossible. And I'll tell you, I run a home daycare and my husband had a good job working as a speech therapist assistant, and when he got laid off when the business went under, we were very nearly screwed. But because of the option of public assistance, we qualified for food stamps, and my husband went back to school so that we don't have to be in that rut our whole lives... Now he has a great job part-time until he finishes school next spring and you know what? There are more families like us using food stamps to make positive changes in their lives than there are the people using the system and being dishonest, so think about the generalities that you toss around. We don't smoke or use drugs, or drive new cars either. We have 2 11-year-old cars. And sure, I'm fat - but I was fat long before food stamps. I use coupons and buy what's on sale and make that benefit stretch as far as I can, my kids eat well and are healthy and I'm working hard to lose all of this weight. I think that there is too much self-righteous attitude coming from people who really do not know what they are talking about. And furthermore, the government has no business being that involved in our lives. You let them dictate to you how much you should weight... see what comes next. Ever read 1984? It's not a joke. Tyranny is a slippery slope.
I'll step off my soapbox now....
If they are forking the money out for it, then they should definately dictate what is allowed to be bought. If you read my post carefully, it says there are exceptions too. I have also had to use welfare to get back on my feet and was very glad to get it and if they put the stipulation that I could only buy healthy food not junk, that would have been just fine too. They are not dictating how much you weigh as much how unhealthy you are and if a person is trying to do better, they certainly would not mind eating a proper diet with the assistance the are given.
As for the idea of only buying "health food" the definition of "health food" varies from philosophy to philosophy, so there is no good way to determine what is "healthy" from a governmental standpoint, which honestly makes this entire subject matter moot and void because it will never come to fruition, as I said.
I felt you were touching on points I had written in earlier post, so I certainly got defensive. My last comment was uncalled for, you are right. Sorry about that! I just know a lot of people like what I am discribing and some are family members. That is why I feel so strongly about this issue. There a way to stop them from being able to buy junk food, like little debbies, cookies, chips, just like they do with deli or hot meals other none food products, but Arizona's way seems a bit impossible. I used to have something called Flexspending, it allowed me to buy certain medical items, but there were items that weren't allowed. Something like that would be better suited for this situation.0 -
So, what you are saying is, that people with lower incomes who are on public assistance programs should have less rights than you? That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. The question here is whether or not the government should be able to dictate to us how fat we are allowed to be... Plain and simple, it is an infringement upon our civil rights. Which is why politicians can blow smoke up their constituent's @$$es to gain votes, and then the things they "promised" never come to fruition.
Yes, it is obnoxious to see big fat women with their Gucci bags standing in line at Wal-Mart buying name brand junk foods with their food stamps card ... but these people are the exception. I've done a lot of volunteer work in public assistance, and there are good, hardworking people who are just trying to make ends meet but can't. Have you ever tried to do the math on an income of $7.15 an hour? That's the minimum wage here in Florida. It's nearly impossible. And I'll tell you, I run a home daycare and my husband had a good job working as a speech therapist assistant, and when he got laid off when the business went under, we were very nearly screwed. But because of the option of public assistance, we qualified for food stamps, and my husband went back to school so that we don't have to be in that rut our whole lives... Now he has a great job part-time until he finishes school next spring and you know what? There are more families like us using food stamps to make positive changes in their lives than there are the people using the system and being dishonest, so think about the generalities that you toss around. We don't smoke or use drugs, or drive new cars either. We have 2 11-year-old cars. And sure, I'm fat - but I was fat long before food stamps. I use coupons and buy what's on sale and make that benefit stretch as far as I can, my kids eat well and are healthy and I'm working hard to lose all of this weight. I think that there is too much self-righteous attitude coming from people who really do not know what they are talking about. And furthermore, the government has no business being that involved in our lives. You let them dictate to you how much you should weight... see what comes next. Ever read 1984? It's not a joke. Tyranny is a slippery slope.
I'll step off my soapbox now....
If they are forking the money out for it, then they should definately dictate what is allowed to be bought. If you read my post carefully, it says there are exceptions too. I have also had to use welfare to get back on my feet and was very glad to get it and if they put the stipulation that I could only buy healthy food not junk, that would have been just fine too. They are not dictating how much you weigh as much how unhealthy you are and if a person is trying to do better, they certainly would not mind eating a proper diet with the assistance the are given.
As for the idea of only buying "health food" the definition of "health food" varies from philosophy to philosophy, so there is no good way to determine what is "healthy" from a governmental standpoint, which honestly makes this entire subject matter moot and void because it will never come to fruition, as I said.
True, but you have to admit, there are somethings everyone knows is totally not healthy, such as little debbies, chips, cookies, cokes, etc. etc. if they just stop them from being able to purchase these things, they possibly would see a better result.0 -
So, what you are saying is, that people with lower incomes who are on public assistance programs should have less rights than you? That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. The question here is whether or not the government should be able to dictate to us how fat we are allowed to be... Plain and simple, it is an infringement upon our civil rights. Which is why politicians can blow smoke up their constituent's @$$es to gain votes, and then the things they "promised" never come to fruition.
Yes, it is obnoxious to see big fat women with their Gucci bags standing in line at Wal-Mart buying name brand junk foods with their food stamps card ... but these people are the exception. I've done a lot of volunteer work in public assistance, and there are good, hardworking people who are just trying to make ends meet but can't. Have you ever tried to do the math on an income of $7.15 an hour? That's the minimum wage here in Florida. It's nearly impossible. And I'll tell you, I run a home daycare and my husband had a good job working as a speech therapist assistant, and when he got laid off when the business went under, we were very nearly screwed. But because of the option of public assistance, we qualified for food stamps, and my husband went back to school so that we don't have to be in that rut our whole lives... Now he has a great job part-time until he finishes school next spring and you know what? There are more families like us using food stamps to make positive changes in their lives than there are the people using the system and being dishonest, so think about the generalities that you toss around. We don't smoke or use drugs, or drive new cars either. We have 2 11-year-old cars. And sure, I'm fat - but I was fat long before food stamps. I use coupons and buy what's on sale and make that benefit stretch as far as I can, my kids eat well and are healthy and I'm working hard to lose all of this weight. I think that there is too much self-righteous attitude coming from people who really do not know what they are talking about. And furthermore, the government has no business being that involved in our lives. You let them dictate to you how much you should weight... see what comes next. Ever read 1984? It's not a joke. Tyranny is a slippery slope.
I'll step off my soapbox now....
If they are forking the money out for it, then they should definately dictate what is allowed to be bought. If you read my post carefully, it says there are exceptions too. I have also had to use welfare to get back on my feet and was very glad to get it and if they put the stipulation that I could only buy healthy food not junk, that would have been just fine too. They are not dictating how much you weigh as much how unhealthy you are and if a person is trying to do better, they certainly would not mind eating a proper diet with the assistance the are given.
I wasn't specifically directing my comments at you, no need to be so defensive. Way to keep it respectful, by the way. Appreciate that. :sick: As for the idea of only buying "health food" the definition of "health food" varies from philosophy to philosophy, so there is no good way to determine what is "healthy" from a governmental standpoint, which honestly makes this entire subject matter moot and void because it will never come to fruition, as I said.
I felt you were touching on points I had written in earlier post, so I certainly got defensive. My last comment was uncalled for, you are right. Sorry about that! I just know a lot of people like what I am discribing and some are family members. That is why I feel so strongly about this issue. There a way to stop them from being able to buy junk food, like little debbies, cookies, chips, just like they do with deli or hot meals other none food products, but Arizona's way seems a bit impossible. I used to have something called Flexspending, it allowed me to buy certain medical items, but there were items that weren't allowed. Something like that would be better suited for this situation.
I totally understand your sentiment, I just think that there is a lot of unfair stigma surrounding public assistance recipients. But here in FL you cannot buy a lot of "luxury" items like soda but you CAN get certain prepared foods. For example, a grocery store here makes deli subs like Subway, and you can purchase those with FS. But you couldn't get like, prepared fried chicken from the deli. I guess because a sub is not a bad "choice." I think that my concern with regulating what is and is not "healthy" is so iffy that it would be difficult to determine what is and is not. For example, the government has websites that try to explain why Hugh Fructose Corn Syrup is not "bad" for you, but any amount of research or discussion with a physician will tell you otherwise. HFCS is linked to diabetes and other health problems, and not only that - but it is an unnecessary additive. Why on Earth is there HFCS in BREAD? I have to literally seek out and buy bread that is No HFCS for my kids! But, the government subsidizes farmers, and when their corn doesn't sell.... guess what happens to it? The government makes deals with companies to subsidize the farmers, they get the corn for a cheap price and waa-laa .... it's in EVERYTHING. So of course, if the gov't were to start regulating foods for people on assistance, they would not DARE disallow them to buy products with the HFCS in them, even though HFCS is bad for you... they have to keep the economy rolling somehow. Even if it is with fake numbers and fake products. Also, processed foods are cheaper so as a FS recipient, you can buy twice as much food if you buy processed junk instead of good, clean, products. It's a whole multi-layered issue really.0 -
That tis true! If you ask me it is all just one big political game, anyway. And the only one not affraid of losing the votes is Arizona's. But, we really won't go there!So, what you are saying is, that people with lower incomes who are on public assistance programs should have less rights than you? That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. The question here is whether or not the government should be able to dictate to us how fat we are allowed to be... Plain and simple, it is an infringement upon our civil rights. Which is why politicians can blow smoke up their constituent's @$$es to gain votes, and then the things they "promised" never come to fruition.
Yes, it is obnoxious to see big fat women with their Gucci bags standing in line at Wal-Mart buying name brand junk foods with their food stamps card ... but these people are the exception. I've done a lot of volunteer work in public assistance, and there are good, hardworking people who are just trying to make ends meet but can't. Have you ever tried to do the math on an income of $7.15 an hour? That's the minimum wage here in Florida. It's nearly impossible. And I'll tell you, I run a home daycare and my husband had a good job working as a speech therapist assistant, and when he got laid off when the business went under, we were very nearly screwed. But because of the option of public assistance, we qualified for food stamps, and my husband went back to school so that we don't have to be in that rut our whole lives... Now he has a great job part-time until he finishes school next spring and you know what? There are more families like us using food stamps to make positive changes in their lives than there are the people using the system and being dishonest, so think about the generalities that you toss around. We don't smoke or use drugs, or drive new cars either. We have 2 11-year-old cars. And sure, I'm fat - but I was fat long before food stamps. I use coupons and buy what's on sale and make that benefit stretch as far as I can, my kids eat well and are healthy and I'm working hard to lose all of this weight. I think that there is too much self-righteous attitude coming from people who really do not know what they are talking about. And furthermore, the government has no business being that involved in our lives. You let them dictate to you how much you should weight... see what comes next. Ever read 1984? It's not a joke. Tyranny is a slippery slope.
I'll step off my soapbox now....
If they are forking the money out for it, then they should definately dictate what is allowed to be bought. If you read my post carefully, it says there are exceptions too. I have also had to use welfare to get back on my feet and was very glad to get it and if they put the stipulation that I could only buy healthy food not junk, that would have been just fine too. They are not dictating how much you weigh as much how unhealthy you are and if a person is trying to do better, they certainly would not mind eating a proper diet with the assistance the are given.
I wasn't specifically directing my comments at you, no need to be so defensive. Way to keep it respectful, by the way. Appreciate that. :sick: As for the idea of only buying "health food" the definition of "health food" varies from philosophy to philosophy, so there is no good way to determine what is "healthy" from a governmental standpoint, which honestly makes this entire subject matter moot and void because it will never come to fruition, as I said.
I felt you were touching on points I had written in earlier post, so I certainly got defensive. My last comment was uncalled for, you are right. Sorry about that! I just know a lot of people like what I am discribing and some are family members. That is why I feel so strongly about this issue. There a way to stop them from being able to buy junk food, like little debbies, cookies, chips, just like they do with deli or hot meals other none food products, but Arizona's way seems a bit impossible. I used to have something called Flexspending, it allowed me to buy certain medical items, but there were items that weren't allowed. Something like that would be better suited for this situation.
I totally understand your sentiment, I just think that there is a lot of unfair stigma surrounding public assistance recipients. But here in FL you cannot buy a lot of "luxury" items like soda but you CAN get certain prepared foods. For example, a grocery store here makes deli subs like Subway, and you can purchase those with FS. But you couldn't get like, prepared fried chicken from the deli. I guess because a sub is not a bad "choice." I think that my concern with regulating what is and is not "healthy" is so iffy that it would be difficult to determine what is and is not. For example, the government has websites that try to explain why Hugh Fructose Corn Syrup is not "bad" for you, but any amount of research or discussion with a physician will tell you otherwise. HFCS is linked to diabetes and other health problems, and not only that - but it is an unnecessary additive. Why on Earth is there HFCS in BREAD? I have to literally seek out and buy bread that is No HFCS for my kids! But, the government subsidizes farmers, and when their corn doesn't sell.... guess what happens to it? The government makes deals with companies to subsidize the farmers, they get the corn for a cheap price and waa-laa .... it's in EVERYTHING. So of course, if the gov't were to start regulating foods for people on assistance, they would not DARE disallow them to buy products with the HFCS in them, even though HFCS is bad for you... they have to keep the economy rolling somehow. Even if it is with fake numbers and fake products. Also, processed foods are cheaper so as a FS recipient, you can buy twice as much food if you buy processed junk instead of good, clean, products. It's a whole multi-layered issue really.0 -
SORRY!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 -
Funny thing. I am reading about post-depression era goodness for U.S. History right now. It was interesting to find out that the birth of all of the public assistance was from that era. Also interesting was the idea that grain was "necessary" wasn't popular until the 1950's when there were a lot of mouths to feed. The programs really haven't changed since then, but the world around them has. While I can buy soda with food stamps (I don't anymore), I cannot buy anything from the "hot" case, like those precooked chickens or whatnot.
I think the system needs an overhaul to match up to current demands, but I also think that the New Deal subsidies that are still being used for farms need to stop. Corn isn't the answer, while cheap and easy to make, not as good for you when they turn it into syrup. :-)0 -
OK, so I read the article and I agree and disagree.
First off, fining people with nothing is pretty dumb. Just a revolving door. Most urban cities have high concentrations of poor people and low concentrations of grocery stores and farms. Here in Detroit, there is not a single large chain grocery store which forces people to take thier food cards to convenience stores and buy what is available. I run a group about food, (currently on hold) and there are many campaigns here in the city to educate people on how to eat. These are private organizations and volunteers. It's hard to reach the people who most need the help. They may seem lazy and dishonest, but everyone has a story. If you are raised by deadbeat parents, never taught how to be a functional adult, in schools run by people who profit while you flunk, and you can't go too far unless your in a gang or slanging rocks.... how do you turn 18 and suddenly become responsible. You don't and you don't know any other way. Period The cycle continues. How do you punish someone for that? Why not first educate, then you have a leg to stand on after you've attempted to change the situation.
I know someone collecting extra food stamp money (almost $700 per month that she then sells for vicodin) because she is claiming her minor brother who turned 18 2 years ago and has been in prison for 3 years and before that lived in Florida where he also collected aid while she was collecting on him here. Make you mad? Me too. But why is it that this person makes everyone else look bad and nobody sees the ignorant mistakes made by the people running the system? Hmmmmmm.... double standard? Maybe case workers who don't properly educate their clients and who make huge errors like this should be fined too.
As for the article:
I can get down with this IF AND ONLY IF proper solutions were offered. Like a nutritionist, not a stupid copy of the food pyramid and a threat to make it work. Access to real food in places that don't have anything. And how abot accountability for workers and gov. officials that implement programs that they then allow to be abused because they, too, get lazy and don't bother to follow protocol. What about all the programs that start and get cut because of funding. How can people be consistant if they don't have consistancy in their options?
I'd prefer the idea of taxing the crap food. But remember, the FDA and USDA say that Pop Tarts are an acceptable breakfast for schoolage children and that is what is served. Those same foods that make us fat, line the pockets of our gov. officials and keep our economy, what is left of it, moving along. It would be hard to tax foods that schools purchase and feed to our children. They can barely afford to buy the garbage they serve now. I suppose you could stick to taxing soda, chips, and cokies and cakes... but those industries have lobbyists whose main job is to prevent things like that from happening. At any cost, including the American people. The food industry is far bigger than the tobacco industry, and look how messy that was. And how do you differentiate between Cupcakes in the grocery store and cupcakes made by a local mom and pop bakery? Do you tax the independent, healthy restaraunts? Where do you draw the line between what is your version of health and mine?
If you ask me, we need to educate ourselves and educate those around us and stop relying on someone else to do it. Including those lazy people. If you don't like whats going on around you, do something about it. Get involved. I can't make anyone live the way I do, but I can live the way I do as an example to others without judging those who live differently. I can take my group to urban farms and learn how to spread it to other communities. I can write to my representitives and tell them whats going on and what needs to be done. Or I can sit around and complain about people I don't know, whose stories I don't know, and whose lives I can't even possibly imagine.
Thats my opinion, not yours.0 -
wow i may have to read this later0
-
No free society should be that intrusive. But socialized healthcare will force a state to take more and more action as costs rise.
Couldn't have said it better myself, except it begs the question of whether socialized healthcare has any place in a free society.0
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