Skip to comments.Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?
Posted on 01/26/2013 12:59:43 PM PST by Vince Ferrer
NEW YORK (AP) -- Faced with the high cost of caring for smokers and overeaters, experts say society must grapple with a blunt question: Instead of trying to penalize them and change their ways, why not just let these health sinners die?
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
So maybe, just maybe it was short people.
But have you ever sat in coach on a flight from West Palm Beach to Vegas with a real FAT lady with bad cologne next to ya??
Nanny State PING!
Nanny State PING!
When we penalize aids sufferers then we can talk.
But not until then.
Or, would Michael Moore willingly pay a fat-tax? I dont care if he is a zillionaire who can purchase all the concierge care he likes and probably will, hes now a burden on Obamacare!!
You are really on the right track! ...and, congratulations for being the first one to “shame” the most deserving of all liberals (badly in need of shaming). I can’t believe you beat me to it!!!!
They can’t [logically] have it both ways. They demand to force you into the system against your will, then they want to use the fact that you’re in the system to dictate your behavior. I’d STILL be OK with that (them choosing behaviors they wouldn’t insure) so long as the severance between you and the program is complete — you’re not eligible for benefits but you’re also exempt from paying IN on the cost/premium side. If they want to decide on a case by case basis whom to cover that’s fine, but they don’t get to withhold coverage and still expect you to pay for it.
Good think I thought it was stupid and ignored it, then!
But they don't GET to make that argument because the vast majority of Americans didn't want that and they forced ward of the state for medical care status upon us anyway. It was their idea, let them deal with the problems.
And of course it occurs to them to try to fix the SS problem, one caused by excessive government meddling and collectivism, with......government meddling and collectivism, instead of abolishing same. Oh, for an honest politician who tried first to find a way to solve a problem by returning freedom to the proper people rather than by stealing even more. D'oh!!
I was referring to the what the democrats see as the SS problem, we’re living too long.
How do the whole grain pastas taste (like for spaghetti)? Can you tell much difference?
When they start this crap they aren’t talking about picking and choosing their talking healthcare for all, it’s after they get it established or locked into it without an alternative they start with conditions and exclusions. A lot like “equality for all” that’s followed by “affirmative action.”
The George Orwell quote fits here “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal”
Well, ma’am, it’s one of those things you need to personal test out in order to understand. With a decent, heavy textured sauce, either tomato or dairy based, I have found that they are okay. They aren’t so wonderful in soups or in light salads where they are the principal feature of the recipe, but that may just be me.
lol...that’s kinda what I thought. Sounds like you have to cover up the taste of the pasta. Oh, well, I don’t have pasta that much, so I’ll stick with the regular.
Thanks for your opinion.
As was I. Scrapping SS fixes the fact that it’s a problem for SS that we live too long. Ergo, fix the problem with freedom, not another scoop of collectivist tyranny trying to paint over the inevitable flaws from the previous scoop.
Well, it’s more a texture issue today than a taste issue. Older whole wheat pastas used to often have a weird flavor. Whole wheat easily goes rancid, and so would the taste of anything made from the rancid product. That bug has been worked out by modern food processing practices. But trying to eat something like buttered whole wheat noodles, I was able to comprehend the secret of the universe as to why there are no fat termites!!
Thanks for the ping!
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. [read business-fable]
C. S. Lewis (1898 1963) British novelist and scholar
Massah sez y'all aint gonna be smoking no terbaccy, 'causn it slows you down an' you caint be choppin' dat cotton likes yuh should.
If smokers and the obese die younger, then they will use less of everything, saving the planet...(or some such BS).
Actually, you can find a reason, if you look hard enough, to demonize any group, right down to the fit and trim who have no bad habits (who make the rest of the population sad because they aren't as fit and trim, etc.).
When we start picking groups of people to penalize we open ourselves to the same sort of penalties.
If the right amount of research grant money is focused on an issue, some (however tenuously) related health problem will be found.
Personally, I find smokers and obese people generally less offensive than people who wear eye-watering amounts of fragrance (as it seems many do who wear any at all). I think the government just wants everyone skinny because they will be able to use food as a control device (just like in Africa).
If you have no 'onboard reserves', if you have no 'stash', if your preps have been seized, you won't last long in the labor camps.
Children have different nutritional requirements than adults, and everyone has different needs depending on their activity levels.
But the most scary part to me is that the BMI formula/charts have never shown me to be the "correct" weight, and always have shown me to be overweight to obese because they make no allowance for muscle mass vs. fat.
Yes, and absolutely, especially when the TV zombies watch slackjawed, not even realizing how they are being played.