Is it fair to fine fat people for not dieting?
Options
Replies
-
They could just put taxes on fast food like they do on cigarettes haha.... and the tax money could go to pay for healthcare. How they would decide what is fast food is another question.0
-
As a simple answer--NO. No one has the right to tell you what to do with your body. Dr.s will tell you to lose weight to help with health issues and what not and I get that, but if you do not listen and follow directions, you have no one to blame but yourself. Not everyone is going to conform to societal standards and they shouldn't have to. Should I become anorexic cause magazines tell me to? Why are women in fashion mags not getting fined for being just as unhealthy as an overweight person. When that happens, then sure, I'll support it. Just my 2 cents...
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.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.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.0
-
Technically, some states already do fine people for drinking and smoking, they're called taxes.
I actually am inclined to agree with the post up higher that says if you're on welfare, you should be required to follow the rules.
The best part? I'm on welfare. I manage to eat pretty healthy. I'm not starving.
It doesn't have to be organic to be healthier than cheetos. :-)0 -
Coming from the US and our love of shady agricultural subsidies I don't want the US government meddling with my food intake deeming what is and what isn't healthy. Judging by the existing recommendations of the USDA, I don't want Big Brother cramming 6-10 servings of "hearthealthywholegrains" and low fat chocolate milk (MMM! SUGAR!) down my or my future childrens' gullets any time soon. I've already seen news articles about schools removing whole vitamin D milk from their lunches because our wonderful government-sponsored nutritional twits, er, experts deem it "fattening" and "unhealthy." But like I posted above, that low fat chocolate milk sugar bomb is A-OK!
And seriously as much as I love giving advice (and obvious sarcasm) on what to eat, our diet should NEVER be a mandate enforced by government. Welfare recipient or no. As much as I hate seeing an Access card holder pay for a cart of Doritos, my Libertarian brain says, "hey wait, if they control what they're eating...then you, taxpaying slave, ARE NEXT!"
And in regards to our own welfare and Medicaid systems, I have a feeling no amount of reform will ever correct them. There are citizens out there that genuinely need the assistance. There are also a host of them who abuse the system and have more children that may continue to abuse the system. It paints a grim "Idiocracy"-like picture in my brain.
Even under private insurance, we're being more scrutinized these days. I am required to participate in a health management program. All I can say is that I'm damn happy I'm at a healthy weight and have good health markers. They generally leave me alone and everything is hunky-dory.
As an aside, how much healthcare assistance is given via government to birth-related expenses? Anyone know?0 -
Technically, some states already do fine people for drinking and smoking, they're called taxes.
I actually am inclined to agree with the post up higher that says if you're on welfare, you should be required to follow the rules.
The best part? I'm on welfare. I manage to eat pretty healthy. I'm not starving.
It doesn't have to be organic to be healthier than cheetos. :-)
You got it!
There's all kinds of good, frugal buys in the grocery store.
And as an aside...chips, soda, and convenience foods are expensive! $3 plus for a bag of Tostitos these days...and they don't last long or provide much for you.0 -
Pffft, what a load of bunkum. It's an unworkable idea which will never make policy even if it did stand scrutiny on ethical grounds.
I think that a small minority of obese people on benefits (welfare) are feckless and they don't really give a damn about getting healthy because they are supported by the state. They won't really care too much about a small fine.
I think the vast majority of obese people DO want to lose weight but lack the knowledge, means or access to solid information and resources to be able to do so (a concept known as "food poverty") Whilst I am a big fan of the medical profession generally, the majority of doctors aren't as well versed in diet and training as they should be. Pathology - wonderful, nutrition - not so great.
Therefore attaching a fine, in other words punishment, on a person who clearly struggles with their weight to begin with and then to have them assessed in a system which uses over generalised methods (I am overweight by BMI standards. I would like to see my doc outsprint me over 200m....) is a recipe for abject failure. Attaching feelings of guilt or failure to weight loss is exactly the opposite of what needs to be done.
Punishing the majority for the actions of a much smaller minority is daft.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.0 -
"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 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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 983 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions