Is it fair to fine fat people for not dieting?

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 :-)

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.

Just a reminder: debate is fine, just keep it respectful. :flowerforyou:

Thanks,
Ladyhawk00
MyFitnessPal Forum Moderator

"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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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 :-)

You're right...when I was typing it, I was thinking people who are capable of working, and are not. Disabled people were not meant to be included. Thank you for pointing it out.

As far as the "earning" it thing, I meant it more in the way that if people "earn" their money through work (or volunteering, in this example), there is some sense of accomplishment. It may be a motivational tool, encouraging them to have a desire to better themselves. My brother was a kid and young adult who had absolutely no work experience, and no problem begging and borrowing (and stealing, if I'm honest) in order to do the things he wanted to do. When the ultimatum was made that he had to contribute to keep his free room and board, by doing things like dishes or mowing the lawn, he balked at first. However, once he started, he began feeling better about himself, and therefore had a new drive to continue to better himself. He now works, pays his way, and has become a functioning adult.

My experience, limited though it may be, is that a huge problem for some people is the fact that they get down to a point where self respect is non-existant. Doing something productive and feeling as though you are earning your keep has a way of building you up, making it easier to get back to a point where certain assistance is no longer necessary.

I know that in this economy, finding a job is not that simple. I just think that a big part of the problem is that people learn to have a sense of entitlement, and it becomes a vicious cycle. I also think that most people, when they first go on assistance, do not feel proud about it. Doing something to give back, or better themselves, may be a way to keep them motivated.

As far as the kids...I agree. They are always going to be the victims. There should be better options for everyone.

Thanks for thinking I'm nice! LOL. I try. Not always successful, I'll admit. Thanks.

Personally I don't think we should be blaming the people who are cheating the system, but the people running the system. I was a director of a child care center in which had 40 families on the subsidized program. Many of these families deserved to be on welfare and have access to the childcare subsidized program. A few families however did cheat the system. One parent even drove a Cadillac. A few other unmarried couples lied on their application saying that there wasn't a father. What bothered me the most was that in my state there was a 2 yr. Waiting list and I had many single mothers working two jobs whom were paying full price out of their pocket. I have to say that in my experience the majority of the people on welfare were hard working and deserved it.

Personally I don't think we should be blaming the people who are cheating the system, but the people running the system. I was a director of a child care center in which had 40 families on the subsidized program. Many of these families deserved to be on welfare and have access to the childcare subsidized program. A few families however did cheat the system. One parent even drove a Cadillac. A few other unmarried couples lied on their application saying that there wasn't a father. What bothered me the most was that in my state there was a 2 yr. Waiting list and I had many single mothers working two jobs whom were paying full price out of their pocket. I have to say that in my experience the majority of the people on welfare were hard working and deserved it.

I know that social workers have a lot on their plate. I have a few friends from college whom are social workers. They are doing the best they can with what hey have. The government however really needs to figure out a better way to filter the
system.
I meant to write : that we shouldn't only be blamin
Agree and disagree I think the blame should be on both sides. But, unfortunately, do to so many cases, social workers don't have time to truly investigate weither they are telling the truth on there apps.

Fatties seem singled out here though they did mention diabetics and smokers as well it's still pretty much pointed at the fatties... There are plenty of thin people who have very high triglycerides due to poor diet. There are thin people who have hypertension and exacerbate it with too much sodium intake. If the thin people are also penalized because their food choices are impacting their health then I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.

Also, I wonder what the protocol would be for doctors to demand that people diet? Would it be based on bmi or based on some co-morbidity. I have ideal blood pressure, ideal blood sugar, good cholesterol levels. I go to the doctor only for my regular physical or to the endocrinologist to have my thyroid medication adjusted. I'd have a serious problem if I was penalized because I am fat but a thin person with very high triglycerides and high blood pressure can down cheeseburgers with impunity.

Lastly I have to question how the doctors will be able to prove if you've been following their prescription? Do they smell your breath? Search your trash?

Implant. Or stalker doctor... :laugh:

Fatties seem singled out here though they did mention diabetics and smokers as well it's still pretty much pointed at the fatties... There are plenty of thin people who have very high triglycerides due to poor diet. There are thin people who have hypertension and exacerbate it with too much sodium intake. If the thin people are also penalized because their food choices are impacting their health then I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.

Also, I wonder what the protocol would be for doctors to demand that people diet? Would it be based on bmi or based on some co-morbidity. I have ideal blood pressure, ideal blood sugar, good cholesterol levels. I go to the doctor only for my regular physical or to the endocrinologist to have my thyroid medication adjusted. I'd have a serious problem if I was penalized because I am fat but a thin person with very high triglycerides and high blood pressure can down cheeseburgers with impunity.

Lastly I have to question how the doctors will be able to prove if you've been following their prescription? Do they smell your breath? Search your trash?

Excellent points. The BMI system is so flawed. I know a guy whose BMI is 33, but he is a body builder. It's all solid muscle and he is huge! Plus, in my experience, when I started gaining weight, the doctors blew it off. I was all over it asking to see a nutritionist, cooking all of my meals, following their stupid food pyramid, and power walking 30+ minutes per day. They kept medicating my symptoms with meds that had side effects of weight gain. Before you knew it, I was 200 pounds from 120 in just 4 years. So, how will doctors have to change to support this rule? Maybe spend more than 3 minutes per patient and possibly listen to them? Maybe put the perscription pad away and use the intelligence and education that thay have in the human body?

And you are right, how will they prove someone is following orders? I followed orders and wound up 200 pounds. I'd be pissed if I were fined.