"Your freedom is likely to be someone else's harm," said Daniel Callahan, senior research scholar at a bioethics think-tank, the Hastings Center.
"When you eat yourself to death, you're pretty much just harming yourself," he said.
But that viewpoint doesn't factor in the burden to everyone else of paying for the diabetes care, heart surgeries and other medical expenses incurred by obese people, noted John Cawley, a health economist at Cornell University.
They own us as property now through health care, we have very few rights left. And yes, it was intentional from the beginning.
If it’s a sum of money mandated by government...Federal,state of local,,,it’s a *tax*,damn it!
Given the fact that alcoholics and meth addicts are coddled as having a disability, punishing the obese and nicotine addicts makes absolutely no sense at all. The liberal mind is really capable of embracing diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive notions at the same time. People are either accountable for a weakness in their character or they’re not. Picking and choosing isn’t fair.
Susan B. Anthony’s father was in the insurance racket.
Do penalties for smokers and the obese make cents?
People better watch out about which groups they impose penatlies and taxes on or they might find themselves in the next such group.
Like Randy Newmann said,
Fat people got no reason to live
Nanny State PING!
Nanny State PING!
When we penalize aids sufferers then we can talk.
But not until then.
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.
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.
Going to hit the Dim base harder than any other...many EBT folks are downright chunky and also indulge in the vices.
Lefties tend to try punishment first, then rewards.
I’m sure this will end up with us paying smokers and obese people not to smoke or be overweight.
Then they’ll pay people NOT to own guns.
I'm honestly thinking about it, along with a lot of other people.