Discussion: Fat People

[Paradoxium]

So I was skimming through some of Poliquin's old blog archives, and I came across this little gem:

* It costs more money to carry extra weight by bus, train, cabs, planes and elevators. The rampant obesity levels are increasing pollution just because it requires more fuel to carry.

* Major cities have to constantly change seat position and upgrade the shock absorbers on their buses just to accommodate rampant obesity.

* Cops even had to upgrade calibers on handguns to shoot obese felons. Most police forces dropped the 9 mm cartridge in favor of the 0.40 or the 0.45 so that the ammo could pierce through the fat.

* A study involving 359, 387 subjects (T. Pischon et al. New England of Journal of Medicine (2008) concludes that in men, a normal BMI, a 40 inch waist is twice as likely to die than a 34 inch waist. In women, a normal BMI, a 35 inch waist is 79% more likely to die than a 29 inch waist.

* All the junk food eaten does not only raise health care insurance, but what do you think it does to the cost of dental insurance?

The government issues a fit and healthy license, the same way you get a drivers license. You submit to fitness tests and blood work. You need to get a minimum score to get the healthy and fit certification card.

The test can be done very cheaply with low cost excellent predictors of health. I will address the test in a future blog.

If you are a holder of the card, you automatically get these benefits:

1. Automatic $5,000.00 tax deduction. Over a lifetime, a fit citizen is less likely to have extensive health care needs as they age
2. You get to deduct gyms memberships, personal training fees and supplement costs. Not only are these proven health benefits, but they help stimulate the economy
3. A premium rate on health insurance. The fitter you are, the greater the discount.
4. Discounts on all means of transportation.
5. Discounts on car insurance. Fit people have better reflexes, vision and so on.

Obviously for a libertarian or the libertarian-esque reader, the answer would be along the lines of: well this is a great argument for government to get the hell out of the way; we wouldn't be entertaining this notion then. I am not disagreeing with you here. So with that bit resolved, I was wondering for the bigger-government-lets-regulate fans here, what do you think of this? Help the environment, raise tax revenues by increasing taxes and cut health care costs. Seems like win win idea for some of you.

Well? t:

 

[Violet Lantern]

The government can encourage and help people become healthier(for the reasons you mentioned).

They can't force people to do it though. All they can do is help provide people with information and resources. The will to lose weight has to be there.

 

[Paradoxium]

Why not, get tax revenue to pay for more spending and help the environment. It's an "investment" like Obama likes to put it. It's made of win. Not like fatness is on the same level of being born a race or sexuality. Nope.

And besides, you get the pleasure of knowing Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh will be taxed for something they can easily prevent but can't. t:

 

[chaseter]

Obesity is the #1 killer in the US. And people want Universal Healthcare?

 

[Paradoxium]

Not liberals, progressives. "Liberals" hijacked that term, peeves me. At least thinkprogress is honest about it, I give them that.

Really what is wrong with the idea - especially from a big government perspective. You are encouraging them to be healthy - I updated the first post with more quotations. Tax deductions for fit people and discounts on transportation. So for bus riders who are fit, cheaper prices! Saving the environment while being fit.

 

[Violet Lantern]

Really what is wrong with the idea - especially from a big government perspective. You are encouraging them to be healthy - I updated the first post with more quotations. Tax deductions for fit people and discounts on transportation. So for bus riders who are fit, cheaper prices! Saving the environment while being fit.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it.

 

[chaseter]

Not liberals, progressives. "Liberals" hijacked that term, peeves me. At least thinkprogress is honest about it, I give them that.

Really what is wrong with the idea - especially from a big government perspective. You are encouraging them to be healthy - I updated the first post with more quotations. Tax deductions for fit people and discounts on transportation. So for bus riders who are fit, cheaper prices! Saving the environment while being fit.

So more government to monitor who is fit and who is fat?

People can do whatever they want. If they want to eat McDonalds everyday then that is their choice. Instead of giving fit people tax credits, start charging fat people more for the same services.

I am all however for monitoring entitlement programs like Welfare. You shouldn't be able to use Welfare money on pizzas and soda. Food stamps shouldn't let you buy sugary foods. So I will agree that it would be beneficial for people receiving government funds to be more highly monitored.

 

[Paradoxium]

You know there are a host of food that some here consider as healthy I would put down as horrible. The easiest example would be apples. I wouldn't touch that with a pole. Food is a tricky subject with a lot of the disinformation, corporatist influence (Statins), and more recent contrary studies from the Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Most notably a lot of the myths surrounding saturated fat. So the whole food stamp thing is a tricky bit.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I love apples.

 

[chaseter]

The food stamp thing isn't tricky. Say all you can buy are milk, eggs, cheese, water, bread, fruit, raw meats, and produce. Not frozen pizzas and candy. It's not hard to put together a small list of items that you can buy on food stamps or prepaid cards like we have here called Lonestar card. They can buy ****ing any food at a grocery store with a Lonestar card. People can even pay cell phone bills with the Lonestar card...it's ridiculous.

 

[SuBe]

Government shouldn't be able to dictate any rules "just for fat people" or "just for healthy people". Government should secure freedom, not build boxes around people.

 

[Kelly]

I understand that SuBe...but when "fat people's" health problems start making my health plan go up in price.......somebody better do something, or I'm going to go around stepping in fat people's boxes myself....

 

[Tao43]

The problem I see with something like this is they will just base it on some body-mass index that is not reliable. For example, a co-worker has to have an annual flight physical due to him being an altitude/rescue technician. He works out religiously, trains for mixed martial arts, and is ridiculously muscular and cut. However, due to the government standards, he is considered overweight because of his height/weight ratio and body/mass index. Another thing that will be over-looked is genetics. All people are built different. My brother is two years older than me and he has always been a big guy. We ate the same food growing up, have similar diets today, and he has always been bigger than me. However, to this day he can out run me, has lower blood pressure, and lower cholesterol than I do. He outweighs me by about 65 pounds, yet I'm taller. He is very healthy, yet he would be considered overweight by government standards. That is ridiculous.

 

[The Mast]

I just don't understand why fat people (Because they're fat and they're people, it's not abusive) have the same luggage allowance as me on airplanes.

Someone needs to get on sorting that out. It's not fair. A comedian made a joke about it, but it's genuinely not fair.

Also, the best way to help these people is to wake them up. They're not fat because someone is secretly injecting pure fat into all the salads they eat. Someone needs to tell them that they're fat because they eat too much.

It's science. You can only blame genetics so much. If you are born and become bulimic or anorexic in your teens, despite coming from a traditionally fat family, you won't be a fat person. You don't just become fat. You certainly do not just BECOME obese. If you notice that you pack pounds on a little easier than someone else, then adjust your diet accordingly. Anything else is just asking for it, and then they wanna act like it's not their fault.

I'm not saying be mean, but you have to risk upsetting these people if you mean well enough to try saving their lives. If they won't help themselves, why should anyone else?

 

[SuBe]

I understand that SuBe...but when "fat people's" health problems start making my health plan go up in price.......somebody better do something, or I'm going to go around stepping in fat people's boxes myself....

Why is your health plan tied into the health of another individual? The Bigger question is why Government controls these plans in the first place?

 

[Violet Lantern]

The problem I see with something like this is they will just base it on some body-mass index that is not reliable. For example, a co-worker has to have an annual flight physical due to him being an altitude/rescue technician. He works out religiously, trains for mixed martial arts, and is ridiculously muscular and cut. However, due to the government standards, he is considered overweight because of his height/weight ratio and body/mass index. Another thing that will be over-looked is genetics. All people are built different. My brother is two years older than me and he has always been a big guy. We ate the same food growing up, have similar diets today, and he has always been bigger than me. However, to this day he can out run me, has lower blood pressure, and lower cholesterol than I do. He outweighs me by about 65 pounds, yet I'm taller. He is very healthy, yet he would be considered overweight by government standards. That is ridiculous.

GREAT points. This is the problem, IMO, with the government trying to do this. It's a bit hard to determine who really needs this help and who doesn't, other than on a purely individual, case-by-case basis.

 

[SuBe]

Me and VL actually agree on something here.

I bet out solutions will be different, however.

 

[dudamundo]

government shouldn't be able to dictate any rules "just for fat people" or "just for healthy people". Government should secure freedom, not build boxes around people.

amen!

 

[Violet Lantern]

Me and VL actually agree on something here.

I bet out solutions will be different, however.

I'm not so sure about that. I favor government getting involved where I think it can work & genuinely help. I don't really see that it can in this case. The most they can do is encourage people and provide information & resources.

 

[C. Lee]

If the government should impose financial penalties against fat people to get them to change or institute some kind of monitoring of them to make sure they don't gain weight because this causes financial problems for the non fat.....then why shouldn't they also...

...require daily drug test of every single person to make sure they aren't using illegal drugs or overusing legal ones, or not taking the proper amount of prescribed ones because it causes financial problems for not only the non drug user but for the other drug users as well.

...require monthy health checkup of every single person so that certain diseases and problems can be detected in early stages and medical help can be started at the optimum time because it causes the insurance rates of everyone to go up to pay for those who didn't properly maintain thier health to begin with...and so that existing problems are being properly taken care of by both the medical professional and the patient.

...require monthly psychiatric care of everyone so that they can get everyone with a mentaly or emotionally unstable problem the proper care they need because people without proper treatment makes financial problems for those who do not actually have the mental and emotional problems themselves.


This can go on and on.....

 

[Violet Lantern]

If the government should impose financial penalties against fat people to get them to change or institute some kind of monitoring of them to make sure they don't gain weight because this causes financial problems for the non fat.....then why shouldn't they also...

...require daily drug test of every single person to make sure they aren't using illegal drugs or overusing legal ones, or not taking the proper amount of prescribed ones because it causes financial problems for not only the non drug user but for the other drug users as well.

...require monthy health checkup of every single person so that certain diseases and problems can be detected in early stages and medical help can be started at the optimum time because it causes the insurance rates of everyone to go up to pay for those who didn't properly maintain thier health to begin with...and so that existing problems are being properly taken care of by both the medical professional and the patient.

...require monthly psychiatric care of everyone so that they can get everyone with a mentaly or emotionally unstable problem the proper care they need because people without proper treatment makes financial problems for those who do not actually have the mental and emotional problems themselves.


This can go on and on.....

I have to agree. Good intentions here but it's too hard to implement and too much of a slippery slope IMO.

 

[GhostPoet]

the last thing we need is MORE government involvement. We need LESS government.

 

[Paradoxium]

BMI would not be the solution, Body Fat Percentage would be. Getting blood tests as well. Yea I weight train and train too, so my weight would fall in overweight, but my body fat percentage is another story.

This would probably make a lot of "skinny-fat" types end up in the unhealthy range. I am gonna love all those soy fan's reactions. Granted male and female bodyfat are not the same thing since female are predisposed to more for biological reason (child rearing). They need to re-adjust cholesterol thresholds to actual optimals as oppose to the ones for Statin shills.

As for the small government types, I am not disagreeing with you, I want to see how far progressives will go for idealogical consistency when it collides with their own feely touchy political correctness. t:

 

[Kelly]

Why is your health plan tied into the health of another individual? The Bigger question is why Government controls these plans in the first place?

My health care plan is tied into the Teacher's health plan for Texas teachers....

For those not in a coop type of program, Medicare is an example....and Universal Health Care will definitely see the impact.

 

[The Mast]

We need LESS government.

You mean, involved in this...or completely?