Is it fair to fine fat people for not dieting?
Replies
-
I don't see it so much as 'fining people for being obese', as I see it as the government taking back a little of the money they're giving them. I think it's reasonable to put a condition (following your doctor's orders) on free money. Hey, getting healthy never hurt anybody!0
-
I live in Canada and we have fully paid for health care. I totally have issue with the fact that my tax money goes to care for people who smoke, do drugs and yes, have health issues due to bad lifestyle choices (including lack of exercise and bad food choices). and before anyone says anything...I have no health issues...only see a doctor when I am very ill or normal check ups...(IE...normal care).
I would be totally fine with a tiered system here.0 -
My initial reaction upon reading the headline was, "The government has no need to meddle in an individual's personal health and lifestyle." HOWEVER, upon reading the article, it's clear that this would only apply to Medicaid recipients who ignore their doctor's orders. My view is that if it's a benefit paid for by the government, then it's fair for the government to impose fines for making them spend even more money when it could be avoided by following doctor's orders. '
Everyone is free to live as unhealthy a lifestyle as they wish. But when others have to pay for your choices, then it does become fair to step in and meddle. I believe you can be denied SSI benefits in the US if it is found that you are responsible for causing your own disability (through drug use, etc.). If you're responsible for your own unhealthy lifestyle and you can otherwise avoid it, then you should also be responsible for your own medical bills.
I agree 100%!! (My statements below are certainly not in disagreement...more stating a circumstance that would have to be taken into consideration)
The only question I would have at that point, is how will they determine if a patient is 'overweight'?
I'm 5'7", 187lbs. Sounds fat eh? Well...I don't know what my bodyfat percentage is precisely at the moment, but it's low enough I can see my upper abs, with the lowers starting to poke out. My main bodyfat is mostly on my sides lol. As you can see by my picture I'm not some huge bodybuilder either...just a 'stocky' (muscle wise) short guy lol. My weight is in my shoulders, chest, and thighs.
By the BMI index...I'm at 29.3!! That's borderline obese lol!!
Cris0 -
My initial reaction upon reading the headline was, "The government has no need to meddle in an individual's personal health and lifestyle." HOWEVER, upon reading the article, it's clear that this would only apply to Medicaid recipients who ignore their doctor's orders. My view is that if it's a benefit paid for by the government, then it's fair for the government to impose fines for making them spend even more money when it could be avoided by following doctor's orders. '
Everyone is free to live as unhealthy a lifestyle as they wish. But when others have to pay for your choices, then it does become fair to step in and meddle. I believe you can be denied SSI benefits in the US if it is found that you are responsible for causing your own disability (through drug use, etc.). If you're responsible for your own unhealthy lifestyle and you can otherwise avoid it, then you should also be responsible for your own medical bills.
I agree 100%!! (My statements below are certainly not in disagreement...more stating a circumstance that would have to be taken into consideration)
The only question I would have at that point, is how will they determine if a patient is 'overweight'?
I'm 5'7", 187lbs. Sounds fat eh? Well...I don't know what my bodyfat percentage is precisely at the moment, but it's low enough I can see my upper abs, with the lowers starting to poke out. My main bodyfat is mostly on my sides lol. As you can see by my picture I'm not some huge bodybuilder either...just a 'stocky' (muscle wise) short guy lol. My weight is in my shoulders, chest, and thighs.
By the BMI index...I'm at 29.3!! That's borderline obese lol!!
Cris
But it would be easier to controll it with foodstamps. If you qualify for medicaid you for sure qualify for food stamps.0 -
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 can see your point, but I strongly disagree with the above quote. We are all afforded many opportunities and people in these cases are afforded even more than others. Having a thrive to survive is not taught, you are basically born with it.
Making people on a government assistance(medicaid) eat a healthy balanced diet prescribed by a doctor is not punishment. It is only right when someone else is forking out the money for their doctor bills. Especially, when the doctor bills are being made because they are obese because they just don't care. This will hopefully force them to learn to eat proper meals. The better place to begin changing this would be limiting what they are allowed to buy on food stamps. Such as little debbies, chips, soda, etc. I think it would be harder to enforce imposing a fine.0 -
When someone else if forking out the money, they should have every right to tell them to follow their doctor's recommendation or be fined. It is the only form of socialized healthcare I believe in. If I am paying for my health insurance, my copays, my med bills, my meds, then I have every right to have a choice, but if someone else is paying them, I will do what I'm told and shut my mouth!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 -
Hmmm... it slides both ways. See, the people it is talking about are on Medicaid - they are getting free health care courtesy of the govt (don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the program, believe me I've had my times I've needed it too). And since obesity is linked to a whole gamut of health issues, which will then cost the government more, a fine seems reasonable.
Has anybody ever applied for private insurance? (Not through work). I bet they charge people more who are obese. Just like they charge smokers more, and other health issues.
But, since it's the government doing it, it does have an air of unconstitutionality. I wouldn't be happy if it was me... unless it got some people I love dearly to loose the weight they need to in order to be around for years to come. But, more likely, they'd just gripe about the unfair fine and keep eating the way they are anyway.0 -
I absolutely think it's fair. Fat people are fat because of themselves (obviously discounting those with medical conditions as the article did). Why is it fair that the average taxpayer has to pay for their hospital and medical bills because of their weight? At least they'd be subsidising it a bit. And giving them an incentive to lose weight.0
-
My initial reaction upon reading the headline was, "The government has no need to meddle in an individual's personal health and lifestyle." HOWEVER, upon reading the article, it's clear that this would only apply to Medicaid recipients who ignore their doctor's orders. My view is that if it's a benefit paid for by the government, then it's fair for the government to impose fines for making them spend even more money when it could be avoided by following doctor's orders. '
Everyone is free to live as unhealthy a lifestyle as they wish. But when others have to pay for your choices, then it does become fair to step in and meddle. I believe you can be denied SSI benefits in the US if it is found that you are responsible for causing your own disability (through drug use, etc.). If you're responsible for your own unhealthy lifestyle and you can otherwise avoid it, then you should also be responsible for your own medical bills.
I agree 100%!! (My statements below are certainly not in disagreement...more stating a circumstance that would have to be taken into consideration)
The only question I would have at that point, is how will they determine if a patient is 'overweight'?
I'm 5'7", 187lbs. Sounds fat eh? Well...I don't know what my bodyfat percentage is precisely at the moment, but it's low enough I can see my upper abs, with the lowers starting to poke out. My main bodyfat is mostly on my sides lol. As you can see by my picture I'm not some huge bodybuilder either...just a 'stocky' (muscle wise) short guy lol. My weight is in my shoulders, chest, and thighs.
By the BMI index...I'm at 29.3!! That's borderline obese lol!!
Cris
But it would be easier to controll it with foodstamps. If you qualify for medicaid you for sure qualify for food stamps.
Thats not true. I qualify for medicaid because of an illness, and after I exhausted my savings on medical bills. But couldn't get foodstamps.... No, excuse me, I was awarded $16 per month for myself and my child.0 -
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 can see your point, but I strongly disagree with the above quote. We are all afforded many opportunities and people in these cases are afforded even more than others. Having a thrive to survive is not taught, you are basically born with it.
Making people on a government assistance(medicaid) eat a healthy balanced diet prescribed by a doctor is not punishment. It is only right when someone else is forking out the money for their doctor bills. Especially, when the doctor bills are being made because they are obese because they just don't care. This will hopefully force them to learn to eat proper meals. The better place to begin changing this would be limiting what they are allowed to buy on food stamps. Such as little debbies, chips, soda, etc. I think it would be harder to enforce imposing a fine.
I would like to see where the veteran who lives behind the dumpster on McNichols and Woodward can find an oppurtunity. His name is Joe and because of budget cuts, he's back on the street. Again, you cannot lump everyone together like that. Have you ever lived in the ghetto? There are no oppurtunities. Even the teachers in the schools know that those kids won't make it past elementary school. The thrive to survive is what puts 7 year olds on the corner slanging rocks so he can get himself a bag of cheetos. Where are the social workers? In the suburbs those kids would be taken and put in foster care immediately, but not in the ghetto.
And, I would love to see someone tell my father that he can't buy his diet pepsi on his food card. That man worked manual labor his whole life and is now disabled, had 4 brain surgeries, 3 heart attacks, and a stroke. Meanwhile, he devoted 30 years to building up the city, cleaning up drug infested neighborhoods, and setting up programs in the public schools... all as a volunteer. Now he sits in a scooter in his apartment in a senior center and his one indulgence every evening is a diet pepsi. Tell me why he can't have that? Because some other idiot had 5 a day and a bunch of other crap and now needs to be taken care of? Does the time he devoted to his community without being paid count for giving him a liberty or two now that he can no longer take care of himself? Thats not fair. Not everyone on foodstamps is unhealthy. Not everyone is abusing the system. And paying taxes has been mandatory since the dawn of civilization. It doesn't mean that because you pay them now you get to dictate the lives of others. You can't force anyone to eat a healthy diet.And making someone with no money pay you for not eating a healthy diet is a punishment. Remember, no access to good food, no reason to expect anyone to be healthy. And have you ever been to a medicaid doctor? They push out double the patient load of a regular doctor because medicaid doesn't pay half of what is needed to cover expenses. These people ARE NOT getting decent care. We should be more worried about how our money is being wasted on these things than who is getting the crappy help. You have to go back to the source.0 -
We should be more worried about how our money is being wasted on these things than who is getting the crappy help. You have to go back to the source.
Well said, that's another subject entirely though.
This one is basically should the government be able to 'fine' people who are on government assisted medical coverage, who are incurring even more medical costs due to being willfully overweight. Depending on how they define 'overweight'...the simple answer is 'yes'.
The other ethical/moral obligations of our government could take 50 years to debate. For example, a court recently ruled that the children of a woman with stage IV breast cancer no longer be in her care/custody, and they were moved out of her town to live with their father. From my understanding, she was still able to care for them...and the scenario was a 'well, you won't be able to soon' type thing, and 'custody to the father'.
Complete BS.
Cris0 -
We should be more worried about how our money is being wasted on these things than who is getting the crappy help. You have to go back to the source.
Well said, that's another subject entirely though.
This one is basically should the government be able to 'fine' people who are on government assisted medical coverage, who are incurring even more medical costs due to being willfully overweight. Depending on how they define 'overweight'...the simple answer is 'yes'.
The other ethical/moral obligations of our government could take 50 years to debate. For example, a court recently ruled that the children of a woman with stage IV breast cancer no longer be in her care/custody, and they were moved out of her town to live with their father. From my understanding, she was still able to care for them...and the scenario was a 'well, you won't be able to soon' type thing, and 'custody to the father'.
Complete BS.
Cris
I agree, the simple answer is yes. But they are stricly targeting the poor and that opens a whole can of worms that can't continue to be ignored. My rant is more directed to the lady who thinks that poor people have no rights based on what she sees at her welfare office. It's this kind of sterotyping that ruins the simple answer. It went off topic.
And that story about the woman is the same reason I feel so passionately about things like this. It's time for the little guy to win one for a change! I'll always be supporting the underdog because I am the underdog.0 -
My initial reaction upon reading the headline was, "The government has no need to meddle in an individual's personal health and lifestyle." HOWEVER, upon reading the article, it's clear that this would only apply to Medicaid recipients who ignore their doctor's orders. My view is that if it's a benefit paid for by the government, then it's fair for the government to impose fines for making them spend even more money when it could be avoided by following doctor's orders. '
Everyone is free to live as unhealthy a lifestyle as they wish. But when others have to pay for your choices, then it does become fair to step in and meddle. I believe you can be denied SSI benefits in the US if it is found that you are responsible for causing your own disability (through drug use, etc.). If you're responsible for your own unhealthy lifestyle and you can otherwise avoid it, then you should also be responsible for your own medical bills.
I agree 100%!! (My statements below are certainly not in disagreement...more stating a circumstance that would have to be taken into consideration)
The only question I would have at that point, is how will they determine if a patient is 'overweight'?
I'm 5'7", 187lbs. Sounds fat eh? Well...I don't know what my bodyfat percentage is precisely at the moment, but it's low enough I can see my upper abs, with the lowers starting to poke out. My main bodyfat is mostly on my sides lol. As you can see by my picture I'm not some huge bodybuilder either...just a 'stocky' (muscle wise) short guy lol. My weight is in my shoulders, chest, and thighs.
By the BMI index...I'm at 29.3!! That's borderline obese lol!!
Cris
But it would be easier to controll it with foodstamps. If you qualify for medicaid you for sure qualify for food stamps.
Thats not true. I qualify for medicaid because of an illness, and after I exhausted my savings on medical bills. But couldn't get foodstamps.... No, excuse me, I was awarded $16 per month for myself and my child.
It is true where I am from. I don't have any saving, much in medical bills over 50,000.00, a brain tumor removed, undergoing testing for Luekemia or Lymphoma, and crappy insurance. I still don't qualify.0 -
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 can see your point, but I strongly disagree with the above quote. We are all afforded many opportunities and people in these cases are afforded even more than others. Having a thrive to survive is not taught, you are basically born with it.
Making people on a government assistance(medicaid) eat a healthy balanced diet prescribed by a doctor is not punishment. It is only right when someone else is forking out the money for their doctor bills. Especially, when the doctor bills are being made because they are obese because they just don't care. This will hopefully force them to learn to eat proper meals. The better place to begin changing this would be limiting what they are allowed to buy on food stamps. Such as little debbies, chips, soda, etc. I think it would be harder to enforce imposing a fine.
I would like to see where the veteran who lives behind the dumpster on McNichols and Woodward can find an oppurtunity. His name is Joe and because of budget cuts, he's back on the street. Again, you cannot lump everyone together like that. Have you ever lived in the ghetto? There are no oppurtunities. Even the teachers in the schools know that those kids won't make it past elementary school. The thrive to survive is what puts 7 year olds on the corner slanging rocks so he can get himself a bag of cheetos. Where are the social workers? In the suburbs those kids would be taken and put in foster care immediately, but not in the ghetto.
And, I would love to see someone tell my father that he can't buy his diet pepsi on his food card. That man worked manual labor his whole life and is now disabled, had 4 brain surgeries, 3 heart attacks, and a stroke. Meanwhile, he devoted 30 years to building up the city, cleaning up drug infested neighborhoods, and setting up programs in the public schools... all as a volunteer. Now he sits in a scooter in his apartment in a senior center and his one indulgence every evening is a diet pepsi. Tell me why he can't have that? Because some other idiot had 5 a day and a bunch of other crap and now needs to be taken care of? Does the time he devoted to his community without being paid count for giving him a liberty or two now that he can no longer take care of himself? Thats not fair. Not everyone on foodstamps is unhealthy. Not everyone is abusing the system. And paying taxes has been mandatory since the dawn of civilization. It doesn't mean that because you pay them now you get to dictate the lives of others. You can't force anyone to eat a healthy diet.And making someone with no money pay you for not eating a healthy diet is a punishment. Remember, no access to good food, no reason to expect anyone to be healthy. And have you ever been to a medicaid doctor? They push out double the patient load of a regular doctor because medicaid doesn't pay half of what is needed to cover expenses. These people ARE NOT getting decent care. We should be more worried about how our money is being wasted on these things than who is getting the crappy help. You have to go back to the source.
Are you telling me he doesn't choose to do any better for himself, does he choose not to apply for assistance(living, food, etc.) or does he choose to settle with it. Or could he have not taken the GI bill to go to school to become something else, or did he choose to settle for veteren pay for the rest of his life. It is unfortunate that the people that have fought for our country have to lose some of their pay, and I totally don't agree with, but that is another subject. The point is he had opportunities he never took. I have a good friend whose husband was seriously wonded in the war and he received wounded vet benefits, but made the choice to do something more with the resources he has. He has no legs and only one arm, and continued to work as a civilian and receive his benefits as he was allowed. He had a thrive to survive.
No I have never lived in the getto. Selling crack on the street corner for a bag of cheetos is a thrive to survive at that age. Not the best way, but possibly the best way he knows how. But, he is still using the resources he knows to get what he needs. You are definately right that is a thrive to survive for a starving 7 year old.
It is all great what your dad did, to volunteer. But, to volunteer is to do something to help others, not for self fulfillment or to be allowed to buy your diet pepsi when you become disabled and can't afford to pay for it. Being able to buy what you want on foodstamps is not a right, it is a privilege and it doesn't have to be so.0 -
That's the thing. SO many people making judgments on how people should or should not eat have NEVER been in the situation where they are forced to choose between healthy and starve for half the month, or unhealthy and survive. There are some who have, and they are generally more compassionate about it because they've been there.
If someone wants to buy diet soda, let them. Don't pass judgment when you've never been there. It would be like me judging the rich as all being stuck up and conceited because they're rich.0 -
It is easy to justify your case by saying I am sterotyping, or lumping eveyone together. Although, I have made it clear in several of my post, that there are exceptions.
BUT, I WILL ALWAYS BELIEVE IF YOU ARE RECEIVING GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE (MEDICAID, FOODSTAMPS, ETC.), NO MATTER WHAT IT IS, YOU DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT WHAT THEY SAY YOU CAN OR CAN'T DO, OR WHAT YOU MUST DO TO BE IN COMPLIANCE.0 -
It is easy to justify your case by saying I am sterotyping, or lumping eveyone together. Although, I have made it clear in several of my post, that there are exceptions.
BUT, I WILL ALWAYS BELIEVE IF YOU ARE RECEIVING GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE (MEDICAID, FOODSTAMPS, ETC.), NO MATTER WHAT IT IS, YOU DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT WHAT THEY SAY YOU CAN OR CAN'T DO, OR WHAT YOU MUST DO TO BE IN COMPLIANCE.
Actually, I find you're being very rude and appear to have a lot of resentment towards anyone who points it out to you. I sincerely hope that you're never in a situation where you find your rights being compromised by other people who have no idea what its like to have to live it.0 -
That's the thing. SO many people making judgments on how people should or should not eat have NEVER been in the situation where they are forced to choose between healthy and starve for half the month, or unhealthy and survive. There are some who have, and they are generally more compassionate about it because they've been there.
If someone wants to buy diet soda, let them. Don't pass judgment when you've never been there. It would be like me judging the rich as all being stuck up and conceited because they're rich.
I have been there and chose to buy real food and not the junk and we never starve for half the month. We did feed our faces full of junk food or soda either. But, we had 3 square meals a day and usually fruit for in between snacks.0 -
That's the thing. SO many people making judgments on how people should or should not eat have NEVER been in the situation where they are forced to choose between healthy and starve for half the month, or unhealthy and survive. There are some who have, and they are generally more compassionate about it because they've been there.
If someone wants to buy diet soda, let them. Don't pass judgment when you've never been there. It would be like me judging the rich as all being stuck up and conceited because they're rich.
I have been there and chose to buy real food and not the junk and we never starve for half the month. We did feed our faces full of junk food or soda either. But, we had 3 square meals a day and usually fruit for in between snacks.
Here's a question for you. I am on food stamps. I am overweight. Did I stuff myself full of junk or did I attempt to make healthy choices?0 -
It is easy to justify your case by saying I am sterotyping, or lumping eveyone together. Although, I have made it clear in several of my post, that there are exceptions.
BUT, I WILL ALWAYS BELIEVE IF YOU ARE RECEIVING GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE (MEDICAID, FOODSTAMPS, ETC.), NO MATTER WHAT IT IS, YOU DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT WHAT THEY SAY YOU CAN OR CAN'T DO, OR WHAT YOU MUST DO TO BE IN COMPLIANCE.
Actually, I find you're being very rude and appear to have a lot of resentment towards anyone who points it out to you. I sincerely hope that you're never in a situation where you find your rights being compromised by other people who have no idea what its like to have to live it.
I will say once again getting assistance from the government is not a right it is a privilege. If you are finding me being rude for expressing my opinion then don't read them. Go on about your business. I am entitlied to my opinion, it is my RIGHT!0 -
It is easy to justify your case by saying I am sterotyping, or lumping eveyone together. Although, I have made it clear in several of my post, that there are exceptions.
BUT, I WILL ALWAYS BELIEVE IF YOU ARE RECEIVING GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE (MEDICAID, FOODSTAMPS, ETC.), NO MATTER WHAT IT IS, YOU DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT WHAT THEY SAY YOU CAN OR CAN'T DO, OR WHAT YOU MUST DO TO BE IN COMPLIANCE.
Actually, I find you're being very rude and appear to have a lot of resentment towards anyone who points it out to you. I sincerely hope that you're never in a situation where you find your rights being compromised by other people who have no idea what its like to have to live it.
I will say once again getting assistance from the government is not a right it is a privilege. If you are finding me being rude for expressing my opinion then don't read them. Go on about your business. I am entitlied to my opinion, it is my RIGHT!
Hate to burst your bubble, but I never said you weren't entitled to your opinion. Calm down. I said that I found your phrasing to be rude. Guess what? That's my right. And technically speaking, if you've legally worked, then you've paid into the system via taxes, so it kind of is a right. Now kindly stop screaming at me :-)0 -
I don't know did you? If you didn't then it would not be an issue for you because you would be making healthier choices.That's the thing. SO many people making judgments on how people should or should not eat have NEVER been in the situation where they are forced to choose between healthy and starve for half the month, or unhealthy and survive. There are some who have, and they are generally more compassionate about it because they've been there.
If someone wants to buy diet soda, let them. Don't pass judgment when you've never been there. It would be like me judging the rich as all being stuck up and conceited because they're rich.
I have been there and chose to buy real food and not the junk and we never starve for half the month. We did feed our faces full of junk food or soda either. But, we had 3 square meals a day and usually fruit for in between snacks.
Here's a question for you. I am on food stamps. I am overweight. Did I stuff myself full of junk or did I attempt to make healthy choices?0 -
It is easy to justify your case by saying I am sterotyping, or lumping eveyone together. Although, I have made it clear in several of my post, that there are exceptions.
BUT, I WILL ALWAYS BELIEVE IF YOU ARE RECEIVING GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE (MEDICAID, FOODSTAMPS, ETC.), NO MATTER WHAT IT IS, YOU DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT WHAT THEY SAY YOU CAN OR CAN'T DO, OR WHAT YOU MUST DO TO BE IN COMPLIANCE.
Actually, I find you're being very rude and appear to have a lot of resentment towards anyone who points it out to you. I sincerely hope that you're never in a situation where you find your rights being compromised by other people who have no idea what its like to have to live it.
I will say once again getting assistance from the government is not a right it is a privilege. If you are finding me being rude for expressing my opinion then don't read them. Go on about your business. I am entitlied to my opinion, it is my RIGHT!
Hate to burst your bubble, but I never said you weren't entitled to your opinion. Calm down. I said that I found your phrasing to be rude. Guess what? That's my right. And technically speaking, if you've legally worked, then you've paid into the system via taxes, so it kind of is a right. Now kindly stop screaming at me :-)
Yes, you do pay taxes when you work legally. But, welfare is not the only thing your tax money pays for. It pays for bridge or road repairs and many other things that benefit everyone including yourself, to know the bridge is not going to callapse underneath you when you drive across it. That is another right. BTW, I was merely pointing out with excitement what a right is compared to a privilege.0 -
I don't know did you? If you didn't then it would not be an issue for you because you would be making healthier choices.That's the thing. SO many people making judgments on how people should or should not eat have NEVER been in the situation where they are forced to choose between healthy and starve for half the month, or unhealthy and survive. There are some who have, and they are generally more compassionate about it because they've been there.
If someone wants to buy diet soda, let them. Don't pass judgment when you've never been there. It would be like me judging the rich as all being stuck up and conceited because they're rich.
I have been there and chose to buy real food and not the junk and we never starve for half the month. We did feed our faces full of junk food or soda either. But, we had 3 square meals a day and usually fruit for in between snacks.
Here's a question for you. I am on food stamps. I am overweight. Did I stuff myself full of junk or did I attempt to make healthy choices?
It was, and is, a struggle every month to afford the healthier choices. Sure, if I cranked out some babies I couldn't afford I would get more and be able to afford healthier things until they started eating, but that just isn't worth it to me. I avoid the really bad, and make due with what I can afford. Just means that a lot of my veggies are frozen not fresh, and fruit is a summertime treat, or comes from "cans". Such is life. Doesn't mean I deserve to have a label stamped on me, nor does anyone else.0 -
Just a reminder: debate is fine, just keep it respectful. :flowerforyou:
Thanks,
Ladyhawk00
MyFitnessPal Forum Moderator0 -
I don't know did you? If you didn't then it would not be an issue for you because you would be making healthier choices.That's the thing. SO many people making judgments on how people should or should not eat have NEVER been in the situation where they are forced to choose between healthy and starve for half the month, or unhealthy and survive. There are some who have, and they are generally more compassionate about it because they've been there.
If someone wants to buy diet soda, let them. Don't pass judgment when you've never been there. It would be like me judging the rich as all being stuck up and conceited because they're rich.
I have been there and chose to buy real food and not the junk and we never starve for half the month. We did feed our faces full of junk food or soda either. But, we had 3 square meals a day and usually fruit for in between snacks.
Here's a question for you. I am on food stamps. I am overweight. Did I stuff myself full of junk or did I attempt to make healthy choices?
It was, and is, a struggle every month to afford the healthier choices. Sure, if I cranked out some babies I couldn't afford I would get more and be able to afford healthier things until they started eating, but that just isn't worth it to me. I avoid the really bad, and make due with what I can afford. Just means that a lot of my veggies are frozen not fresh, and fruit is a summertime treat, or comes from "cans". Such is life. Doesn't mean I deserve to have a label stamped on me, nor does anyone else.
And there is nothing wrong with that. I buy fresh and freeze it myself. People on foodstamps are no different then people paying with cash, as far as the budgeting issue. I have 100.00 a week to feed 2 adults and 3 teenagers. I have to clip coupons and get the good stuff in bulk when it goes on sale. We don't have the funds to eat out because of my med bills etc. and so on. I don't think there is anything wrong with using government assistance when you need it, but I also don't think there is anything wrong with them forcing people to make better choices. People just don't like change, especially when it is not in their favor. It really doesn't effect me either way, but it would some of my family. That is probably why I feel so strongly about this issue because I see how they use and abuse it. While I struggle to make it with serious med issues and trying to become healthy and continue to work full time and part time.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.
Just a quick note on the comment, "And if you qualify for medicaid you surely qualify for foodstamps,"
Not necessarily. I was in the process of paying for my own insurance when I found out I was pregnant. I was told by the insurance company that they would not cover any pregnancy costs, because it would be considered a pre-existing condition. I recieved Medicaid based on the fact that I was making just over minimum wage. However, when there, the social worker lady tried to sign me up for food stamps as a general practice, and then said I didn't qualify because my household income was too high. Which was fine with me, because I didn't want the food stamps to begin with. In the end, I got off Medicaid immediately following the birth of my son, who was covered under my then boyfriend's (now husband's) insurance. I went without coverage of any kind for almost 2 years, until I married my husband.
As far as fining people...it's a very slippery slope. I think that it opens the door to outrageous possibilities. Do we fine people who have an STD? On one hand, they should have been more careful to practice safe sex...on the other, there's no way to know the circumstances. Do we fine people for becoming pregnant? Do we fine people for depression? Anorexia? Skin cancer related to tanning?
If we're going to charge extra for certain things to people on public assistance, of any kind, it should, IMO, be things like illegal drug use, and things like Viagra. There are just too many factors relating to weight to be able to fairly determine who should be charged and who shouldn't. I'm no fan of the people on welfare and link and medicaid who have their nails done and drive Escalades and life a larger life than I do when I work long hours for crappy pay. But at the end of the day, it's not for me to judge them. And there is, again, IMO, too great a risk of decent people getting unfairly treated if we are only willing to help the "skinny," or the ones we deem "good enough."
However, I do think that for people NOT WORKING and recieving public assistance, there should be mandatory illegal drug testing, as well as mandatory programs that either have you learning a trade or volunteering at shelters, parks, etc. Something that has you "earning" the money. A public service of some sort, or something that will give you the tools you need to make a better life for yourself. That way, it's a step up instead of a handout.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.
Just a quick note on the comment, "And if you qualify for medicaid you surely qualify for foodstamps,"
Not necessarily. I was in the process of paying for my own insurance when I found out I was pregnant. I was told by the insurance company that they would not cover any pregnancy costs, because it would be considered a pre-existing condition. I recieved Medicaid based on the fact that I was making just over minimum wage. However, when there, the social worker lady tried to sign me up for food stamps as a general practice, and then said I didn't qualify because my household income was too high. Which was fine with me, because I didn't want the food stamps to begin with. In the end, I got off Medicaid immediately following the birth of my son, who was covered under my then boyfriend's (now husband's) insurance. I went without coverage of any kind for almost 2 years, until I married my husband.
As far as fining people...it's a very slippery slope. I think that it opens the door to outrageous possibilities. Do we fine people who have an STD? On one hand, they should have been more careful to practice safe sex...on the other, there's no way to know the circumstances. Do we fine people for becoming pregnant? Do we fine people for depression? Anorexia? Skin cancer related to tanning?
If we're going to charge extra for certain things to people on public assistance, of any kind, it should, IMO, be things like illegal drug use, and things like Viagra. There are just too many factors relating to weight to be able to fairly determine who should be charged and who shouldn't. I'm no fan of the people on welfare and link and medicaid who have their nails done and drive Escalades and life a larger life than I do when I work long hours for crappy pay. But at the end of the day, it's not for me to judge them. And there is, again, IMO, too great a risk of decent people getting unfairly treated if we are only willing to help the "skinny," or the ones we deem "good enough."
However, I do think that for people NOT WORKING and recieving public assistance, there should be mandatory illegal drug testing, as well as mandatory programs that either have you learning a trade or volunteering at shelters, parks, etc. Something that has you "earning" the money. A public service of some sort, or something that will give you the tools you need to make a better life for yourself. That way, it's a step up instead of a handout.
I agree with 99% of your post, and I love how your phrased it in a non-aggressive logical manner.
I think drug testing should be done for public assistance, but I disagree in having to "earn" the assistance in general. I worked my tail off at crappy jobs, until I couldn't work anymore. I paid into a system that pays out to those who never pay in, and never will. Now, when I need it, I have to fight tooth and nail to get it because it's so depleted from those who never paid into it to begin with.
Maybe set it up so that if you've *never* worked, and aren't classified as disabled then you don't qualify? Only downside to that is the children. It's a big ole chunky mess of poo IMO
Once again, thank you for being nice about it :-)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.
Just a quick note on the comment, "And if you qualify for medicaid you surely qualify for foodstamps,"
Not necessarily. I was in the process of paying for my own insurance when I found out I was pregnant. I was told by the insurance company that they would not cover any pregnancy costs, because it would be considered a pre-existing condition. I recieved Medicaid based on the fact that I was making just over minimum wage. However, when there, the social worker lady tried to sign me up for food stamps as a general practice, and then said I didn't qualify because my household income was too high. Which was fine with me, because I didn't want the food stamps to begin with. In the end, I got off Medicaid immediately following the birth of my son, who was covered under my then boyfriend's (now husband's) insurance. I went without coverage of any kind for almost 2 years, until I married my husband.
As far as fining people...it's a very slippery slope. I think that it opens the door to outrageous possibilities. Do we fine people who have an STD? On one hand, they should have been more careful to practice safe sex...on the other, there's no way to know the circumstances. Do we fine people for becoming pregnant? Do we fine people for depression? Anorexia? Skin cancer related to tanning?
If we're going to charge extra for certain things to people on public assistance, of any kind, it should, IMO, be things like illegal drug use, and things like Viagra. There are just too many factors relating to weight to be able to fairly determine who should be charged and who shouldn't. I'm no fan of the people on welfare and link and medicaid who have their nails done and drive Escalades and life a larger life than I do when I work long hours for crappy pay. But at the end of the day, it's not for me to judge them. And there is, again, IMO, too great a risk of decent people getting unfairly treated if we are only willing to help the "skinny," or the ones we deem "good enough."
However, I do think that for people NOT WORKING and recieving public assistance, there should be mandatory illegal drug testing, as well as mandatory programs that either have you learning a trade or volunteering at shelters, parks, etc. Something that has you "earning" the money. A public service of some sort, or something that will give you the tools you need to make a better life for yourself. That way, it's a step up instead of a handout.
You are right, that is a part of the babies can't wait here. They do up the cap on the medicaid. I didn't think about that. It seems to me fining them would be very hard to enforce because they probably wouldn't be able to pay anyway. I totally agree with "there should be mandatory illegal drug testing, as well as mandatory programs that either have you learning a trade or volunteering at shelters, parks, etc. Something that has you "earning" the money. A public service of some sort, or something that will give you the tools you need to make a better life for yourself. That way, it's a step up instead of a handout."
Especially if you are able.0 -
.....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