42 replies to this topic

[Rov Judicata]

^

But US does have a point... national health care gives the gov't a near-legitimate excuse to tell people how to eat, among other things. Remember this in 2004.

[Laoise]

^ There are people, though, who like health care enough to be willing to sacrifice some things to have access to it.

[Delvo]

usmarox, on Jun 9 2003, 08:38 PM, said:

People say "oh, well, never mind" and carry on regardless.  Preventable coronary death remains at a constant level, however, the NHS actually has enough money to treat it all now.

Wow! Look at that! Free money just appeared from nowhere! It's magic!

Every penny brought into the government this way is money that people would otherwise have spent somewhere of their own choosing, and is thus a penny taken out of the economy, like all money the government confiscates. Maybe some sectors of the economy would be harmed more than others, but it won't just be the fat people (whom it's apparently OK to pull stunts like this on).

Edited by Delvo, 10 June 2003 - 02:01 PM.

[Delvo]

Laoise, on Jun 9 2003, 02:11 PM, said:

What better way to convince people to stop harming themselves than a good kick in the wallet?

Would that same method of behavior modification also be a good way to get sanctimonious patronizers who think like this to get their hands OUT of the wallets of people who don't do things just they way THEY have declared we're all supposed to? (Hint: Your "factual" definition of "harming themselves" is actually just based on your PERSONAL weighing of the pros and cons here, and many people obviously don't feel the same weights to them...)

[G1223]

Well next up after this maybe they canget around to making folks take medication to alter their personalities to a single cookie cutter frame of what is seen as Correct speak or thought after all not doing so is a sign that the person needs help.

[usmarox]

Quote

just based on your PERSONAL weighing of the pros and cons here

It's been a long time I did anything on human health and disease (at least, that didn't involve viruses).  So, for the benefit of my slightly leaky mind, remind me again what the societal and personal benefits of obesity are?

I'm genuinely curious.

[Rov Judicata]

Laoise, on Jun 9 2003, 07:54 PM, said:

^ There are people, though, who like health care enough to be willing to sacrifice some things to have access to it.

Lao-- That's a false dichotomy; national health care or none. I maintain that the free market is better suited than a pondrous gov't bueracracy to provide health care.

[Delvo]

usmarox, on Jun 9 2003, 09:09 PM, said:

remind me again what the societal and personal benefits of obesity are

Not benefits of obesity. Benefits of some things that lead to it... like enjoyment of food, and not enduring the discomfort of excercise. For someone who has no interest in athletics, being (at least to some extent) out of shape is fine if that's what it takes to be able to live the life one wants to live instead of constantly denying onesself the pleasures of the foods one likes and constantly forcing onesself through physical activities suspiciously reminiscient of the hard work that modern technology was supposed to allow us to escape from! In other words, there's a reason why so many people don't eat right and don't excercise. It's unpleasant stuff to do. They don't like it. It would be a detriment to their quality of life.

[Laoise]

Delvo, on Jun 9 2003, 09:46 PM, said:

usmarox, on Jun 9 2003, 09:09 PM, said:

remind me again what the societal and personal benefits of obesity are

Not benefits of obesity. Benefits of some things that lead to it... like enjoyment of food, and not enduring the discomfort of excercise. For someone who has no interest in athletics, being (at least to some extent) out of shape is fine if that's what it takes to be able to live the life one wants to live instead of constantly denying onesself the pleasures of the foods one likes and constantly forcing onesself through physical activities suspiciously reminiscient of the hard work that modern technology was supposed to allow us to escape from! In other words, there's a reason why so many people don't eat right and don't excercise. It's unpleasant stuff to do. They don't like it. It would be a detriment to their quality of life.

Becoming obese, though, is also a detriment to the quality of life of the rest of the people in their country.  Systems like the NHS need money to run on, and if obesity releated diseases are taking the money out of the system, then even those who aren't obese will suffer.

The health risks associated with being obese aren't personal opinions either.  They do exist.

[Bad Wolf]

^

and it's STILL not the government's business.

[Laoise]

IMO, when the government is footing the health care bill, the health of the population *is* the government's business.

If it was the government in the United States talking about this, it would be different.  The weight, and the weight-related health problems, of its population isn't the government's business.  But the tax would be in the UK, and there, in my opinion, it is the government's business.

[shadowmagegalen]

All this talk about junk food made me hungry.  I'm getting some ice cream.      

SmG

[Bad Wolf]

Laoise, on Jun 9 2003, 09:20 PM, said:

IMO, when the government is footing the health care bill, the health of the population *is* the government's business.

If it was the government in the United States talking about this, it would be different.  The weight, and the weight-related health problems, of its population isn't the government's business.  But the tax would be in the UK, and there, in my opinion, it is the government's business.

Wrong.

Citizens already pay through the nose in taxes for nationalized health care (which btw, from what I was told on my recent visit SUCKS).  They are ALREADY paying for it.


The government doesn't have carte blanche to dictate personal decisions like whether to choose the carrot or the oreo.

[Delvo]

Laoise, on Jun 9 2003, 10:20 PM, said:

IMO, when the government is footing the health care bill, the health of the population *is* the government's business.

But charging people a separate amount based on an assessment of their individual risks is something private companies do, which is supposed to be the problem that a government-run system is supposed to solve by distributing the costs so they don't pile up too much on certain individuals while others don't pay at all.

How much more a fat person costs than a skinny one is an amount that it'll be impossible to really calculate correctly, and it would be different from individual to individual, so ANY attempt to fix inequities in the system will only create other inequities. And you'd still miss the inequities involving people more likely to cost the system money because of behaviors such as risky stunts, aggressive driving, hiking/hunting, sports, travel to low-hygiene plague-suffering countries, living far from work and/or travelling the wrong way to get there, living and working in buildings with stairs instead of a single story, working in certain physically intense professions, and a bunch of others I can't even think of offhand.

A government program is a money redistribution scheme, which means accepting the fact that some people will always end up paying others' bills if you're going to accept such a system. In fact, having some pay others' bills is the entire purpose. If you'd rather have people paying for their own health care costs, you'd let private companies run it, and they'd base the individuals' charges on a formula that would include weight and other information. But then those who want government to run things would complain that the businesses were being unfair to charge people different amounts, and demand that government step in to equalize things. Within a system designed to equalize and distribute, when there are so many possible ways to separate and distinguish, singling out fat people as the lone group to take more money from is prejudiced.

[Laoise]

No one is forcing an obese person to pay extra. No one would be paying a tax based on their weight.  The tax would have nothing to do with one's weight.

[Bad Wolf]

I suggest you re read the first post in this thread:

Quote

Well, I think it's pretty well agreed that obesity costs society lots of money in direct healthcare. So, a group of British doctors has proposed that the Goverment start charging VAT on high fat foods - the ones quoted were biscuits, cakes etc. For those of you who don't know, VAT is a general sales tax levied on most things at 17.5%. Food (except eat-in at a restaurant) is currently VAT-exempt.

And if the tax doesn't have anything to do with obesity then there goes the argument that it's a good thing because it promotes the government's concerns about weight.

You can't have it both ways.

[Nick]

Delvo, on Jun 10 2003, 06:54 AM, said:

singling out fat people as the lone group to take more money from is prejudiced.

Yeah it's prejudiced, tho I don't see anything wrong with it.  I'm a young male driver.  I pay double what my mother pays for her insurance.  Why?  Because the insurance companies need to be profitable to not go out of business, and everyone in my demographic were charged my mother's rate, the company would go under.  Because regardless of how responsible I *claim* to be, many other young males get in horribly destructive and deadly accidents out of stupidity and drunkenness (see also: stupidity).

So I have to pay because I'm a risk factor.

If someone needs lots of medical treatments, obese or otherwise, they should pay more.  They're costing more.

Although, taxing twinkies isn't the way to do it.

-Nick

[AnneZo]

Una Salus Lillius, on Jun 10 2003, 02:43 AM, said:

I agree with you on one thing.

GROSS over simplification.

The government has no right to tell people how to eat.

No matter how they spin it, this is the critical point.   They do not have the right and shouldn't.

You know who gets nailed to the wall on this one?  People who can't afford private insurance.  Whether it's here or in the U.K., there are those who would need "national health" and those who have money who choose their healthcare privately and whose doctors aren't going to be nagging them about this stuff.  It's always the poor who get nailed.

Plus which, it's just wrong, okay?


Anne, tempted but trying to refrain from pointing out the hypocrisy of a
bunch of overweight, smoking, drug-doing doctors and legislators telling
the population they should eat more beets.

[Bad Wolf]

^

You GO girl.

BTW, at my favorite restaurant, Plouf they have this little salad.  It's beets, with this yummy vinagrette and spinach greens and it comes with two croquests made of goat cheese and walnuts and it's just about the most heavenly thing on earth.  

[AnneZo]

Una Salus Lillius, on Jun 10 2003, 09:02 PM, said:

^

You GO girl.

BTW, at my favorite restaurant, Plouf they have this little salad.  It's beets, with this yummy vinagrette and spinach greens and it comes with two croquests made of goat cheese and walnuts and it's just about the most heavenly thing on earth. 

^

Okay, beets (the unpickled variety) are yummy.  

I'm just saying. I have trouble picturing my post-heart-attack physician with the pot belly and the nicotine-stained fingers narcing on me for my eating habits, smoking habits, or weight.