If fat fuck A doesn't have insurance and goes to the hospital as a result of his fatness, who pays? Everyone? Or does the hospital eat that cost because they are feeling charitable?Jay wrote:
A) I'm not obese and B) You aren't paying for jack shit so suck a dick.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
As long as I pay for your fatness through increased health costs and insurance premiums, you bet your morbidly obese ass I want the government to tell fat fucks to slow their jelly roll.Roc18 wrote:
The Government shouldn't attempt to control how much food I eat or have available to me. If people want to eat unhealthily that's their fucking choice, not the governments.
Besides, smokers and the obese end up costing less regarding medical bills than 'healthy' people do:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/healt … .html?_r=0Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it does not save money, according to a new report.
It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.
"It was a small surprise," said Pieter van Baal, an economist at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in the Netherlands, who led the study. "But it also makes sense. If you live longer, then you cost the health system more."
In a paper published online Monday in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that the health costs of thin and healthy people in adulthood are more expensive than those of either fat people or smokers.
Van Baal and colleagues created a model to simulate lifetime health costs for three groups of 1,000 people: the "healthy-living" group (thin and nonsmoking), obese people, and smokers. The model relied on "cost of illness" data and disease prevalence in the Netherlands in 2003.
The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
So what you're saying is that morbidly obese people are stealing a substantial amount of money from you though insurance and health costs so the government should control what everyone eats?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
As long as I pay for your fatness through increased health costs and insurance premiums, you bet your morbidly obese ass I want the government to tell fat fucks to slow their jelly roll.Roc18 wrote:
The Government shouldn't attempt to control how much food I eat or have available to me. If people want to eat unhealthily that's their fucking choice, not the governments.
Jesus Christ.
Fatness is literally killing our country from the inside out.
Joint Chiefs of Staff said so.
And government already controls what you eat.
Joint Chiefs of Staff said so.
And government already controls what you eat.
Fucking fat people.
More fat people just means more bitches for me.
What is a stereotypical Jew?Jay wrote:
He is a stereotypical Jew.Macbeth wrote:
Of the all the things to say about Bloomberg you have to call him a stereotypical Jew. You have Jew issues.
What is a stereotypical Puerto Rican?Macbeth wrote:
What is a stereotypical Jew?Jay wrote:
He is a stereotypical Jew.Macbeth wrote:
Of the all the things to say about Bloomberg you have to call him a stereotypical Jew. You have Jew issues.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
The government is controlling what people eat by having large beverages banned in restaurants? Does that mean the government controls how I travel because it requires me to have a drivers license?Roc18 wrote:
So what you're saying is that morbidly obese people are stealing a substantial amount of money from you though insurance and health costs so the government should control what everyone eats?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
As long as I pay for your fatness through increased health costs and insurance premiums, you bet your morbidly obese ass I want the government to tell fat fucks to slow their jelly roll.Roc18 wrote:
The Government shouldn't attempt to control how much food I eat or have available to me. If people want to eat unhealthily that's their fucking choice, not the governments.
Jesus Christ.
That's the first step. And bad comparison.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The government is controlling what people eat by having large beverages banned in restaurants? Does that mean the government controls how I travel because it requires me to have a drivers license?Roc18 wrote:
So what you're saying is that morbidly obese people are stealing a substantial amount of money from you though insurance and health costs so the government should control what everyone eats?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
As long as I pay for your fatness through increased health costs and insurance premiums, you bet your morbidly obese ass I want the government to tell fat fucks to slow their jelly roll.
Jesus Christ.
lol you are so fucking inane. engineering is one of the lowest employed degrees here in the uk. maybe we should euthanize engineering students!!!!!! oh yeah, what was that about healthy eating? i guess it's relevant. lol you are a desperate buffoon.Jay wrote:
We have thousands of out of work liberal arts grads in the city too. Should they put quotas on liberal arts programs?Uzique The Lesser wrote:
no one is saying they are trying to ban advertising. seems to me he is trying to push a drastic measure to solve a problem that isn't being solved any time soon through people exercising their intelligence and free will.Jay wrote:
They weren't banning advertising, they were selectively limiting the beverage size that adults were able to buy in places like restaurants and movie theaters.
what if it's the only step? How come for everything the government does it's the first step towards tyranny? You're talking to someone who is very skeptical of government, yet the only argument against this beverage ban is some libertarian idealism that the government should like, stay out of our lives, man!Roc18 wrote:
That's the first step. And bad comparison.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The government is controlling what people eat by having large beverages banned in restaurants? Does that mean the government controls how I travel because it requires me to have a drivers license?Roc18 wrote:
So what you're saying is that morbidly obese people are stealing a substantial amount of money from you though insurance and health costs so the government should control what everyone eats?
Jesus Christ.
Near universal employment here. The point is that there is always something to criticize someone else about, and if people are given power to do so, they will try to mold the world in their own image. They will turn everything into an argument 'for the greater good' or drum up a health crisis and tell people they are regulating their lives for their own good. It's about power, and in this case, being a fucking bully. How many times have we seen the words "I hate fat people" written on this very forum? Usually it's by the vain, self obsessed, self loathing people that do most of their posting in the workout and diet thread. That there are people in the world that are different from them, and make different life choices, bothers them, and in many cases they would, if given power, try to force people to conform to their own lifestyle choices. The guy that wrote this bit of terrible legislation runs marathons for fun. Fuck him.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
lol you are so fucking inane. engineering is one of the lowest employed degrees here in the uk. maybe we should euthanize engineering students!!!!!! oh yeah, what was that about healthy eating? i guess it's relevant. lol you are a desperate buffoon.Jay wrote:
We have thousands of out of work liberal arts grads in the city too. Should they put quotas on liberal arts programs?Uzique The Lesser wrote:
no one is saying they are trying to ban advertising. seems to me he is trying to push a drastic measure to solve a problem that isn't being solved any time soon through people exercising their intelligence and free will.
People guzzling down on soda doesn't hurt anyone but the person doing the guzzling.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
It's not libertarian idealism. You can't make a single argument that can be empirically verified, you're only in favor of it because you find fat people disgusting. I find short people with long hair disgusting, should I ban people with those traits from walking the streets or force them to wear stilts and cut their hair?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
what if it's the only step? How come for everything the government does it's the first step towards tyranny? You're talking to someone who is very skeptical of government, yet the only argument against this beverage ban is some libertarian idealism that the government should like, stay out of our lives, man!Roc18 wrote:
That's the first step. And bad comparison.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The government is controlling what people eat by having large beverages banned in restaurants? Does that mean the government controls how I travel because it requires me to have a drivers license?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
yes, except obesity kills you. consuming monster portions of drink and food - more than is necessary for any human being, of any size or gustatory bluster - is directly linked to heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure/cholesterol, and a host of other attendant illnesses and early-death-neato-surprises. a liberal arts education is not linked to anything 'harmful', despite your silly and asinine little fantasies/biases. you don't have a point. nobody is trying to "remodel the world in their own image", unless that image is of a healthy, functioning human being. eating to excess and stuffing your face like a fucking swine is a strange stake to put up your 'omg totalitarianism!' banner on. it's common sense - and sadly, common sense needs to be regulated. like a seatbelt.
can you just drop the painfully tangled rhetoric of 'it's like a liberal arts degree!' bollocks and accept that one has absolutely zero traction. i know all the talk of banning super-size colas and big macs makes you feel clammy and anxious, but at least form a fucking coherent argument in response.
can you just drop the painfully tangled rhetoric of 'it's like a liberal arts degree!' bollocks and accept that one has absolutely zero traction. i know all the talk of banning super-size colas and big macs makes you feel clammy and anxious, but at least form a fucking coherent argument in response.
again, shortness and questionable hair styling doesn't cause early death and a host of health complications. you don't have a point. you're talking about fatness as if it's a fashion choice, or a stylism-- something merely aesthetic and superficial. gluttony and over-eating are pathologies. most clinically obese people are also running a high risk of poor mental health, as well. there is no mind/body dualism here.Jay wrote:
It's not libertarian idealism. You can't make a single argument that can be empirically verified, you're only in favor of it because you find fat people disgusting. I find short people with long hair disgusting, should I ban people with those traits from walking the streets or force them to wear stilts and cut their hair?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
what if it's the only step? How come for everything the government does it's the first step towards tyranny? You're talking to someone who is very skeptical of government, yet the only argument against this beverage ban is some libertarian idealism that the government should like, stay out of our lives, man!Roc18 wrote:
That's the first step. And bad comparison.
So send people pamphlets. Everyone knows that excess sugar and fatty food is bad for your health. So is drinking excessive amounts of alcohol or doing drugs. It doesn't mean you have the right to ban their behavior, especially when it's only themselves they are hurting.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
yes, except obesity kills you. consuming monster portions of drink and food - more than is necessary for any human being, of any size or gustatory bluster - is directly linked to heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure/cholesterol, and a host of other attendant illnesses and early-death-neato-surprises. a liberal arts education is not linked to anything 'harmful', despite your silly and asinine little fantasies/biases. you don't have a point. nobody is trying to "remodel the world in their own image", unless that image is of a healthy, functioning human being. eating to excess and stuffing your face like a fucking swine is a strange stake to put up your 'omg totalitarianism!' banner on. it's common sense - and sadly, common sense needs to be regulated. like a seatbelt.
can you just drop the painfully tangled rhetoric of 'it's like a liberal arts degree!' bollocks and accept that one has absolutely zero traction. i know all the talk of banning super-size colas and big macs makes you feel clammy and anxious, but at least form a fucking coherent argument in response.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
There's absolutely no point talking to you.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
again, shortness and questionable hair styling doesn't cause early death and a host of health complications. you don't have a point. you're talking about fatness as if it's a fashion choice, or a stylism-- something merely aesthetic and superficial. gluttony and over-eating are pathologies. most clinically obese people are also running a high risk of poor mental health, as well. there is no mind/body dualism here.Jay wrote:
It's not libertarian idealism. You can't make a single argument that can be empirically verified, you're only in favor of it because you find fat people disgusting. I find short people with long hair disgusting, should I ban people with those traits from walking the streets or force them to wear stilts and cut their hair?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
what if it's the only step? How come for everything the government does it's the first step towards tyranny? You're talking to someone who is very skeptical of government, yet the only argument against this beverage ban is some libertarian idealism that the government should like, stay out of our lives, man!
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I'm just sayin, if I want an XXXL Shake and a Big Mac from McDonalds I'm gonna eat it and don't want the government to limit it to a "Large". It's opening a door that can go anywhere, because of some fatties. That's all I'm saying. They should stop giving free money to morbidly obese people.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
what if it's the only step? How come for everything the government does it's the first step towards tyranny? You're talking to someone who is very skeptical of government, yet the only argument against this beverage ban is some libertarian idealism that the government should like, stay out of our lives, man!Roc18 wrote:
That's the first step. And bad comparison.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The government is controlling what people eat by having large beverages banned in restaurants? Does that mean the government controls how I travel because it requires me to have a drivers license?
except drinking is regulated and legislated, and licensed and tightly controlled. and most drugs are banned. for most fat people, sugar/over-eating is their addiction - in quite a literal, mental sense. nobody thinks fat people are 'disgusting', and they want rid of them like an SS commandant wants rid of an undesirable. that's not the logic here, at all, despite your strange and rather melodramatic protestation of it. obesity is coming to be considered - in the west at least, where it is reaching epidemic levels - as something of a societal (and thus social) problem. as a pathology. as an addiction, or a disease. as something that must be medicinally or therapeutically 'solved'. just as there's a move in attitude from considering drug addicts as wasters/villains to people with a valid mental health problem, so there is too the shift from considering little johnny the cookie-dough boy from being a cute and benign little ball of blubber to something, just perhaps, something more worrying. alcohol and drug abuse kill, yes, undeniably. but isn't it time to start considering severe obesity in terms of 'food abuse'. it's just the same obsessive-compulsive patterns of behaviour, consuming a desired substance for personal release. booze, smack, sugar - what's the difference? these are people who do not have a healthy balance.Jay wrote:
So send people pamphlets. Everyone knows that excess sugar and fatty food is bad for your health. So is drinking excessive amounts of alcohol or doing drugs. It doesn't mean you have the right to ban their behavior, especially when it's only themselves they are hurting.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
yes, except obesity kills you. consuming monster portions of drink and food - more than is necessary for any human being, of any size or gustatory bluster - is directly linked to heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure/cholesterol, and a host of other attendant illnesses and early-death-neato-surprises. a liberal arts education is not linked to anything 'harmful', despite your silly and asinine little fantasies/biases. you don't have a point. nobody is trying to "remodel the world in their own image", unless that image is of a healthy, functioning human being. eating to excess and stuffing your face like a fucking swine is a strange stake to put up your 'omg totalitarianism!' banner on. it's common sense - and sadly, common sense needs to be regulated. like a seatbelt.
can you just drop the painfully tangled rhetoric of 'it's like a liberal arts degree!' bollocks and accept that one has absolutely zero traction. i know all the talk of banning super-size colas and big macs makes you feel clammy and anxious, but at least form a fucking coherent argument in response.
because i bring reason to your fucking ridiculous arguments? really? a dude who, two posts ago, said that legislating super-size junk food is the same as banning liberal arts degrees, is now saying "there is no point talking to you"? jay, you are a mediocre thinker.Jay wrote:
There's absolutely no point talking to you.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
again, shortness and questionable hair styling doesn't cause early death and a host of health complications. you don't have a point. you're talking about fatness as if it's a fashion choice, or a stylism-- something merely aesthetic and superficial. gluttony and over-eating are pathologies. most clinically obese people are also running a high risk of poor mental health, as well. there is no mind/body dualism here.Jay wrote:
It's not libertarian idealism. You can't make a single argument that can be empirically verified, you're only in favor of it because you find fat people disgusting. I find short people with long hair disgusting, should I ban people with those traits from walking the streets or force them to wear stilts and cut their hair?
relevant.
Uzi, you can try to justify it in any manner you wish. Fat people are an easy target. People are disgusted by them, and as a society we're constantly bombarded with 'get fit' commercials, and fad diets, and fad exercise equipment and everything else. We're told every day that we're disgusting if we don't fit into a certain body type and maintain a certain BMI. You don't give a fuck because legislation like this will never impact you, you're thin, you're the ideal. God forbid they ever do go after something that matters to you, because by allowing something like this, Pandora's Box opens and they can pretty much legislate their ideal lifestyle. Hope you don't mind your telescreen.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I'm a mediocre thinker? Ok. Solid argument there.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
because i bring reason to your fucking ridiculous arguments? really? a dude who, two posts ago, said that legislating super-size junk food is the same as banning liberal arts degrees, is now saying "there is no point talking to you"? jay, you are a mediocre thinker.Jay wrote:
There's absolutely no point talking to you.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
again, shortness and questionable hair styling doesn't cause early death and a host of health complications. you don't have a point. you're talking about fatness as if it's a fashion choice, or a stylism-- something merely aesthetic and superficial. gluttony and over-eating are pathologies. most clinically obese people are also running a high risk of poor mental health, as well. there is no mind/body dualism here.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat