BF2S Forums tax fatty foods, so fat people won't eat so much?

Dilbert_X wrote:

No, because going out in the sun is a normal activity.
Being humogously fat is abnormal.

It's still high risk to go lay on the beach.  It is not normal to lay out for hours and hours.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-08-01 06:36:01)

mikkel wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

I thought that was an obvious sentiment, given the opening words of my post.

Well, that's precisely my point. Have subsidised healthcare for them (since they do pay taxes after all (if they do, the estimated cost to the economy of obesity in the UK is around £7 billion a year)) but make them pay top up fees for treatment because their treatment costs more than the norm. If they want to be fat, let them pay for the consequences of it.

If someone could work out a system of illnesses caused by poor diet, and charge accordingly, I'd be fine with that. Unfortunately I don't really see that being plausible, and any implementation would surely result in seas of paperwork, claims, counterclaims and absurd volumes of administrative overhead. Empirical evidence also suggests that nations with socialised health care programs tend to end up "solving" this problem through taxation and legislation.

I wouldn't give them a finger when history proves that they'll likely take an arm.

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

You do make me laugh.

Liberalism? You mean socialism. Get it right. In any case, that's not the same thing at all. Supporting those who cannot support themselves is very different from supporting those who choose to put themselves at risk. The difference being the element of choice. I'll admit the system is imperfect and fairly open to abuse, but welfare systems are not to support those who CHOOSE not to work. To claim benefits here you need to prove that you are attempting to find work (the system could do with being tightened up, but nevertheless the point remains) or that you cannot work (again, I think the rules surrounding this could do with being tightened up). Being overweight is a choice, maybe not a concious choice, but a choice all the same.

None of your extreme sports examples are remotely comparable - nor do they place anything like the same level of strain on the health service (or other tax funded services). Specialist extra large equipment isn't needed to deal with people who have sporting injuries, whereas the NHS spends millions each year on extra big equipment for fatties. The cost of the specialist equipment is a drop in the ocean compared to the overall cost of obesity to the NHS, a cost that is spiraling out of control. In 2001 obesity cost the NHS an additional £1 billion. In 2007 obesity cost the NHS £4.2 billion. Considering the fact that the total budget for the NHS is around £100 billion, that's a massive proportion and with spending on it rising at the rate of 70% each year (based on that 420% increase over 6 years). It is estimated that this cost will rise to £6.3 billion by 2015.
Were any extreme sports the cause of similar wastage of public money then I would recommend action be taken to address it (perhaps mandatory insurance cover for all who practice such sports). But none of them are (and nor are all of them put together).

It is only when something becomes a substantial enough drain on public resources that these sorts of concerns need to be addressed - clearly obesity is a big enough drain to be worth taking a long hard look at how public money is spent on it.

No one is talking about banning being fat. That's a choice people can make for themselves. But when they expect the public to shell out loads of money because of their overindulgence, that's when it becomes a public issue.

I already asked for links that proved that NO skinny people do not get sick, do not die young, do not get diabetes, do not get cancer, do not have heart attacks,etc....As well as links to prove that ALL fat people die young ALL fat people are diabetics, ALL fat people get cancer, ALL fat people hear attacks.

That's a fucking retarded argument (ignoring the double negative there, which turns your question into something else entirely).

There is never absolute data on anything. That's like claiming smoking doesn't have a negative impact on health because not everyone who smokes dies due to doing so.

I've already provided you with links demonstrating the increased, avoidable healthcare costs they burden the nation with. If you need to buy new equipment because some people are too fat to fit in/on it, that is a perfect example of completely avoidable costs. On top of that there is the increased cost of operations on fat people - they are more difficult, more likely to fail, require more staff and are far more time consuming (if you want any links for all these things let me know) - which leads to them costing far more.

lowing wrote:

If ont such data exists, than really when peeled away you are talking about legistating your own prejudices. How very Hitleresque of you.

What does that first sentence mean?

Clear data exists that shows the added cost to the tax payer that is caused by avoidable indulgence. Spiraling costs that are getting out of control. We need to do something about it to avoid ending up with a healthcare system that costs a ludicrous amount to maintain - like you've got in the US where your government healthcare spending is about 23x as high as in the UK, despite only having 5x the population.

It is not opinion or prejudice here. It's hard fiscal data. Fat people place an huge amount of unneccessary and avoidable financial strain on the tax payer? Why should the tax payer be forced to pay (and pay a lot - £100 per person on average) for fat people to indulge themselves. It's their own fault and their own choice. If they make that choice then the tax payer should not be forced to support them. If you can find other examples of massive strain on public spending that come about through peoples choices - then I would probably support finding ways of making savings in those areas too.

lowing wrote:

Also a question, when are your intention for the skinny people that do get diabetes, or cancer or have a heart attack? ( assuming you believe skinny people ever encounter such things) Are you really prepared to treat them and let the fat person die?

That's not what I've said at all. I wouldn't expect fat people not to be treated - but I'd expect them to be presented with a bill at the end.


Do you think it's fair that a person so fat they can barely leave their house should be transported to hospital in a specially hired extra large van, when an old woman with cancer has to get the bus to the hospital? That's the reality of the situation and the wastage on people who have become hideously obese, which is entirely their fault. If they are too fat to get to the hospital then they should have to pay for the specialised transport they require to get there.

Last edited by lowing (2009-08-03 06:46:32)

lowing wrote:

Fat people hurt no one except themselves.

lowing wrote:

I am pretty sure I said they do not HURT anyone else other than themselves. you being pissed because you have to share the armrest on a plane really does not qualify.

You are prejudice and you wantt to legislate your hatred. Period

lowing wrote:

Ever think fat people feel badly because they have to live around people such as yourself and not because they are fat?

If a skinny person had to put up with your abuse, they would feel bad as well.

Just face it, you are prejudice and it goes toward nothing more than just plain old hate

lowing wrote:

maybe you need to come to grips with your posts, maybe you did not mean to expose yourself like this, but hey you are honest. Time you should deal with your own honesty.