New York Obesity Tax

[quote name='mykevermin']I don't think it's always been a common phenomena - instead, a recent problem that's grown severely. If that's true, I'm very curious if the origin of its growth can be identified.[/quote]

I'm sure Level1Online can find us a google video linking obesity, peanut allergies, 9/11, the Amero and the gov't to globalization.

Then you'll have your proof!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm very curious if the origin of its growth can be identified.[/quote]

That's what SHE said!

:rofl:

:bouncy:

:roll:

:cry:
 
[quote name='Hex']I'm sure Level1Online can find us a google video linking obesity, peanut allergies, 9/11, the Amero and the gov't to globalization.

Then you'll have your proof![/QUOTE]

Funny. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if Peanut and Gluten Allergies have either been popping up because of shit in the air or GMO's. Big Pharma is WORSE then you expect imo. They're poisoning most people imo to get them in the hospitals and I think it's dispicable. It's amazing how greed might ultimately destroy our species by destroying our genome. If anyone thinks Gene Therapy will solve anything don't THINK they won't insert a bunch more diseases to keep their money flowing in that pop up in your Grandchildren or later. Seriously they're complete fucking Welfare Queens. It's enough for me to want to spit on them.
 
[quote name='Hex']I'm sure Level1Online can find us a google video linking obesity, peanut allergies, 9/11, the Amero and the gov't to globalization.

Then you'll have your proof![/QUOTE]

Heh. That and autism, right?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
dmaul, you're showing the huge difference b/w criminologists and sociologists with your individualism stampede in here. Does it take discipline? Sure. But so does obeying the law. Do you wholly ignore criminogenic elements in the social structure in favor of wholly individual explanations?
[/QUOTE]

Oh, society needs to change to. As I said earlier we need more education on healthy, more promotion of fitness. No tax on healthy/staple foods, taxes on crappy foods etc.

But at the end of the day, even with that stuff it comes down to discipline as the crappy food will still be there and it still takes time and motivation to exercise.

As for crime, sure they're are societal causes that give some areas high crime rates or help push a person to crime. But at the end of the day it's an individual choice to commit a crime. I wouldn't say it's a pure difference between criminologists and sociologists. Their are plenty of criminologists who take a more societal approach--I'm just not much one of the. I've never been much interested in studying effects of poverty, racial inequality etc. At the end of the day humans have free will and make their own behavioral choices. Societal things may affect them, but a really little more than excuses IMO. A crime's a crime regardless of you're upbringing or environment. Though of course we should do stuff to reduce criminogenic environments as part of crime prevention efforts, so I'm interested in that aspect a bit. But I don't give a criminal slack because they had a tough childhood or live in the ghetto. Just like I'm not going to cut an obese person slack because they live in America. Life is what you make of it. It's harder for some than others (live in a ghetto, have a slower metabolism etc.) but we still have free will to make the right decisions despite any obstacles in our paths.
 
Dmaul, if it's the individuals "choice" (and I hate using that word) to do all these things, then what inside them is making the choice? The "will"? The "conscience"? And how do these things know right from wrong?

See how silly it all sounds when you really lay it out.

People's actions come from the environment (mostly) and their biology. It's really not hard. You eat, act and do certain things because that's what you've learned. Short of completely removing yourself from where you live, it can be difficult to just overhaul your behaviors/personality.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Oh, society needs to change to. As I said earlier we need more education on healthy, more promotion of fitness. No tax on healthy/staple foods, taxes on crappy foods etc.

But at the end of the day, even with that stuff it comes down to discipline as the crappy food will still be there and it still takes time and motivation to exercise.

As for crime, sure they're are societal causes that give some areas high crime rates or help push a person to crime. But at the end of the day it's an individual choice to commit a crime. I wouldn't say it's a pure difference between criminologists and sociologists. Their are plenty of criminologists who take a more societal approach--I'm just not much one of the. I've never been much interested in studying effects of poverty, racial inequality etc. At the end of the day humans have free will and make their own behavioral choices. Societal things may affect them, but a really little more than excuses IMO. A crime's a crime regardless of you're upbringing or environment. Though of course we should do stuff to reduce criminogenic environments as part of crime prevention efforts, so I'm interested in that aspect a bit. But I don't give a criminal slack because they had a tough childhood or live in the ghetto. Just like I'm not going to cut an obese person slack because they live in America. Life is what you make of it. It's harder for some than others (live in a ghetto, have a slower metabolism etc.) but we still have free will to make the right decisions despite any obstacles in our paths.[/QUOTE]

This kind of mentality (that environmental causation = an excuse for individual behavior) is a scary thing for anyone to think, let alone a professionally trained researcher. It's a very lazy waving away at significant causal variables with no reasonable explanation.

Is race not worth looking at as a variable because it doesn't connote individual choice? Is race irrelevant in criminal justice studies?

C'mon. You know better than that.

Then again, you do believe in deterrence, so you may be on the David Farabee side of the fence. I trust you aren't a data-picking hack like him. ;)
 
Oh I believe environments have causal impacts for sure. I wasn't talking from a research or theoretical standpoint with that comment.

I was just saying that I'm not going to feel sorry for a murder who grew up in a bad neighborhood, faced racial discrimination etc. They're still a murderer and deserve a long prison term.

But that doesn't mean I don't think environments or racial discrimination matter, or that we shouldn't be fhinding ways to alleviate such criminogenic factors. They are key in studies and in inteventions, I just don't think we should cut individuals slack for behaviors for such reasons. Just like I'm not going to feel sorry for a fat person for livning in the US vs. a healthier society. Plenty of people manage not to get obese here, just like plenty of people in the ghetto don't become hardened criminals.

We need to change society in many ways, but that doesn't remove individual responsibility. I'm not waving away causal variables, just saying I don't feel sorry for people who make poor decisions regardless of their environments. We need to study and change the environments to be sure, but I'm not cutting people any slack in the meantime as people are responsible for their actions.

And I'm not much a believer in deterrence either. I work on broken windows stuff--but I don't necessarily buy it. And besides, that's not deterrence based but rather social control as the idea of Wilson and Kelling is that cleaning up the community will reduce fear and empower residents to begin reinstituting informal social control. Some of the actual police programs have taken zero tolerance approaches which are more deterrence oriented, but Kelling says vehemently that such approaches are not in line with his broken windows ideas.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We have to pay for obesity either way. At least this way, the people that get fat will be paying for their own health care indirectly.

Think about it. Those obese bastards don't all have great benefits from work so they go on Medicare. Tax funded Medicare.

The cost of living with that weight goes up astronomically once everything starts to shut down. Diabetes isn't cheap to live with. That heart transplant isn't cheap. How do you suppose we pay for it then?
 
[quote name='depascal22']We have to pay for obesity either way. At least this way, the people that get fat will be paying for their own health care indirectly.

Think about it. Those obese bastards don't all have great benefits from work so they go on Medicare. Tax funded Medicare.

The cost of living with that weight goes up astronomically once everything starts to shut down. Diabetes isn't cheap to live with. That heart transplant isn't cheap. How do you suppose we pay for it then?[/QUOTE]

The argument is where do we draw the line?

Some people clearly lead more dangerous lives than others, which in turn raises the risk/cost factor up much higher than others. So? Maybe we should tax stunt men too?

There are countless ways to make you a higher risk for health care. Literally - countless. Which of them should we start taxing if we are going to single out one?
 
I'll agree taxes probably aren't the best way. The governments role should largely be education, getting healthier food in school lunches etc. etc.

I think insurance premiums just need to be more risk based. If you're body fat is higher than the reccomended levels you pay a higher premium than people who are at healthy levels. Will help keep those of us who are healthy from paying more, and give a financial incentive to lose weight. Same with other high risk behaviors like smoking. Just have an annual physical that the insurance company pays for in full that measures these types of things and adjusts the persons premiums accordingly.
 
I can understand your logic, dmaul.

But it leads to other problems. You are assuming that being overweight is statistically more likely to lead to health problems (maybe it is). But if you want to start discriminating based on statistics you could also start getting race, gender, and even sexual orientation into these premium adjustments, and we both know that will never happen.

Now you can easily argue that being overweight is changeable, while the other things are not, and that is debatable. It's also debatable just how much fat on each person increases health risks to. I've known several fat people live into their 90's just like I've known smokers to live into their 90's.

But fat people, if forced to pay more based on how fat they are, will argue that there are other traits like those mentioned above that affect certain health risks as much or more than weight, statistically, and rightly so.

Now as for the obscenely obese, it's a different story. But the BMI scale is well known to be pretty flawed.
 
Premiums need to be less risk based.

Obesity is not always the fault of the fat bitch.

Health care should never become prohibitively expensive due to factors beyond the patient's control.

My sister can't get coverage because she has Chiari -- that's fucked up. She's sick, so she can't afford health care. If she were healthy, she could afford health care. That is extremely fucked up. We deny care to those who need it most.

An insurance company can't police what a person does, and factors like weight shouldn't be used because it isn't always by choice. Many people have glandular problems -- you want to raise their insurance premiums so that a higher percentage of them have no access to healthcare?



Nothing's wrong with taxing goods/services that society deems undesirable. The money doesn't disappear, so long as we don't send it overseas like dumbass war-hungry Bush. Tax fatty foods to subsidize healthy foods, nothing wrong with that, the net price of food remains the same.
 
You already mentioned it. People can exercise their way out of obesity. I can't run my way out of blackness.

Also, it's not that insurance premiums are higher. Medicare is free. This is what the government is most worried about. Every extra dollar that gets spent on the obese is a dollar that can't be spent somewhere else. If we want Medicare, then we have to accept that the government will do things to offset the cost.

You can argue that education would be more effective and I agree with that. I think we should have more comprehensive health (as well as financial) education in school. The problem is the parents at this point. We have a generation that was raised on sugar and it'll be hard to stop people from buying soda regularly. Kids drink what's in the fridge. You could get it out of the schools but if you go home and drink a couple glasses, you'll still be a lard ass.

EDIT -- If auto insurance is risk based, why can't health insurance also? Insurance companies are businesses and have the right to set up fees based on your risk. They will end up paying out so shouldn't they try to recoup their cost by getting the most money out of the people that they will end up paying for?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
But it leads to other problems. You are assuming that being overweight is statistically more likely to lead to health problems (maybe it is)..[/QUOTE]

Maybe it is? Heart disease? Diabetes? Sleep apnea? etc etc. I don't have the disdain for you that many here do, but jesus you've got to be one of the least informed people I've ever met. But I guess it makes sense with all your railing against education.....

Anyway, having risked based premiums could be a slippery slope. Any risk based premiums have to only tied to things that are 100% a result of behavior. Even with obesity, there should be exceptions for the minority of people who do have genetic problems, thyroid issues etc. that make it impossible for them to keep their body fat in the recommended ranges.

Things like smoking, liver problems related to heavy drinking, failing drug tests etc. Those types of things should trigger a higher premium.

But not genetic factors out of ones control that are statistically related to higher risks for diseases. Nor should people get penalized for pre-existing illnesses.

But I also don't have a problem with higher taxes on unhealthy foods, as long as that money is used to lower or remove taxes on healthy foods, pay for health education in schools and national campaigns etc. etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The thing is the cost has to be passed on to someone. I'd argue that insurance companies could make a little less profit but that's up to them.

If they can't raise premiums on some people then everyone has to pay slightly higher premiums. Which would you prefer? Paying a little more just so some huge guy doesn't have to get his act together to drop his premium?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Maybe it is? Heart disease? Diabetes? Sleep apnea? etc etc. I don't have the disdain for you that many here do, but jesus you've got to be one of the least informed people I've ever met. But I guess it makes sense with all your railing against education.....
[/QUOTE]

Well not that this is the first time, but my point went a good ten feet over your head. Anyway, intellectual snobery aside....

I pointed out in my post that with the obscenely obese, there is very clear health issues that are very easy to statistically predict. Nobody can be 450 lbs for very long without getting health problems, that's a given.Those people are not part of who I am talking about.

Let me illustrate my point by using you as an example, since you have more than once made it pretty clear that you feel you are a standard of physical fitness and health with your me vs them stance on this.

If you gain 10 pounds, do you honestly believe you are now at a higher risk of diabetes, sleep apnea, and heart disease? Is it enough of statistically measurable risk? Should that affect your insurance premiums?

How about if you gain 20 lbs?
How about 30?

If you had a genetic predisposition to diabetes, found through genealogical research or a genetic test, would that trump your weight where insurance is concerned? Why or why shouldn't it?

See where I'm getting? Who decides where the line is? Do you honestly believe the BMI based prediction charts?

If a 300lb man could prove that his arteries and organs are healthier than, say, yours (which is not impossible) - why should he be considered a higher risk to an insurance company and pay more?

It all goes back to the question of what is 'overweight'. Who decides? Should weight alone be the deciding factor in insurance cost, even if you pass every other health test with flying colors?

Are you going to measure weight alone or body fat?

If a person your height weighs 20lbs more than you but can out-run and out-lift you at the gym, should you or he pay more for insurance?
 
So I guess on top of being an unemployed conservative loser, you're also a fat? Choke on a dick and die

Your post is pointless. I mentioned body fat percentage. Has nothing to do with height, BMI (which is a poor measure) etc. Above a certain body fat % is unhealthy period. And I also mentioned the need for exceptions for the few who do have genetic reasons for being overweight as well. Now I'm not sure what the cut offs should be. They should be pretty high, no where near as strict as those silly BMI things. The typical recommended ranges is 15-18% for males and 20-25% for females, So I'd say maybe pop a penalty on their for people 10% or more above the high end of those ranges or something. It's not for people just a tad bit over weight.

But we shouldn't have to all pay more for insurance to subsidize those who eat crappy, don't work out, smoke, drink too much etc.

And I apologize for being an asshole in the remarks I deleted.....I was pissed off from having a bad night and took it out on you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']So I guess on top of being an unemployed conservative loser, you're also a fat? Choke on a dick and die[/quote]
I am unemployed (mostly because in my state, unemployment pays better than positions available to my skillset so far). More conservative than you, but don't consider myself a conservative (libertarian, remember), and not fat. Not in shape, for sure, but not fat.

It is interesting how much you continue to reveal about yourself the more you always subtly or not so subtly judge others.

Your post is pointless. I mentioned body fat percentage. Has nothing to do with height, BMI (which is a poor measure) etc. Above a certain body fat % is unhealthy period.
Click to expand...
Most of my remarks are based on the fact that I never saw you mention body fat percentage; I only saw you say "fat people" and "weight" which is extremely relative, and the root of all my remarks.

If you did mention body fat percentage, then I missed it from reading too fast, so sorry.

But we shouldn't have to all pay more for insurance to subsidize those who eat crappy, don't work out, smoke, drink too much etc.
Click to expand...
I sort of agree. However, my libertarian leanings make my biggest beef the bolded part by itself, rather than how it's carried out.

And I apologize for being an asshole in the remarks I deleted.....I was pissed off from having a bad night and took it out on you.
Click to expand...
Accepted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']How do you propose a scalable tax based on health? BMI's a really, really, really shitty metric, you know.[/QUOTE]

BMI sucks.

Body fat percentage doesn't though, that's a good metric. BMI is a useless approximation of body fat percentage as just doing height and weight doesn't factor in bone density, muscle mass etc.

Like I said, if they were going to do risk based premiums the insurance companies would have to pay for annual physicals that included body fat measurement. Would be a good thing anyway since it could improve preventative care by requiring annual physicals that most people don't get even though most plans will pay for an annual physical.
 
Under the BMI scale wasn't Arnold considered morbidly obese? I found that rather funny since fitness people like Arnold and Tom Cruise were considered Obese by the BMI scale when they very clearly were in shape.
 
Yep, all body builders would be morbidly obese on the BMI scale as they weigh a ton for their heights due to the huge muscle mass. BMI is useless since it can't account for muscle, bone size etc.

Body fat % is the only way to reliably measure whether someone is carrying an unhealthy amount of fat.
 
If you've had a heart attack before the age of 30 and you've developed Type II Diabetes, you need to pay higher premiums/taxes. It shouldn't be based on what could happen but what has happened. That way there isn't any argument. You've already proven to be a higher risk.
 
That would be a fine way to do it too IMO. Just like paying higher car insurance premiums when you have accidents and proven to be a higher risk.
 
Let's tax McDonalds 20% too. Call it a fat tax but in reality it's a suck tax. I'm tired of seeing women order five quarter pounders with three large fries and a DIET SODA to keep their girlish figure.
 
[quote name='Paco']Let's tax McDonalds 20% too. Call it a fat tax but in reality it's a suck tax. I'm tired of seeing women order five quarter pounders with three large fries and a DIET SODA to keep their girlish figure.[/QUOTE]

:rofl: I know, but I personally am guilty of this. But I don't order diet soda for the diet part.. I actually like the taste of diet sodas better. All of that sugar in drinks make me sick :(
 
I'm the same, when I do eat something crappy I usually still get diet soda as I'm just used to the taste of diet soda and don't like most regular sodas.

Exception is Dr. Pepper, prefer the diet but like the regular and will get it usually if they have it rather than getting diet coke/pepsi. But otherwise I go with diet as I can't stand regular coke/pepsi after only drinking the diet variety for years.
 
Diet soda makes me feel weird and disoriented. Though what bothers me is how aspertame is 125 times sweeter then actual sugar. I know that technically there is no weight in diet soda, but it just leaves me feeling weird and disoriented after drinking it.
 
[quote name='Paco']Diet soda makes me feel weird and disoriented. Though what bothers me is how aspertame is 125 times sweeter then actual sugar. I know that technically there is no weight in diet soda, but it just leaves me feeling weird and disoriented after drinking it.[/quote]

Phenylketonuric much?
 
[quote name='PhrostByte']Phenylketonuric much?[/quote]

I'd say it's more of my repulsion towards aspartame then any actual sickness. It just tastes like shit to me so I won't even drink it. Tried it only a few times in all honesty. After that I stopped drinking soda all together.

Though what bothers me is that so much of my family drinks HUGE quantities of diet soda. I always wonder how they can consume soda like it's water. But this is going away from why I find diet soda to taste like shit. It tastes nothing like the original soda that it is replacing and can actually qualify an alternate soft drink.
 
Agreed. Diet soda does taste like shit. I can't pinpoint why but there's just something about.. makes it taste twice as artificial.. dunno.
 
Some diet sodas are better than others. If you haven't had a sugary soda in awhile, Diet Mt. Dew tastes almost like regular mountain dew, and Sunkist orange soda (diet) tastes damn near the same as regular orange soda. IF you haven't had "regular" soda in while....thats the key.

By comparison, Diet Coke will never taste like coke, no matter how long you've sugar-starved yourself........
 
I thought diet soda tasted like crap when I first made the switch, but once you get used to it it's tough to switch back to regular.

Like I said earlier, Diet Dr. Pepper is the best imo.
 
Drinking a regular coke or, god forbid, pepsi....is like drinking a donut if you haven't had one in awhile. Its no wonder kids are waddling around playgrounds when they drink sodas at every meal and snack. Parents, these days, appear to be next to useless.....
 
Diet Coke is a different formula from coke... Coke Zero is the same formula but with artificial sweetener.

I drink a ton of soda so I only drink diet. I literally drink about 60 ounces with a meal -- I'll get no ice and drink three 20-ounce cups. With non-diet soda, that's around 200 grams of sugar... put into perspective, a fifth of a kilo, nearly half a pound, in a single meal. I can't taste the difference, not anymore.
 
Coke Zero, to me, tastes "about the same" as Diet Coke...which is to say, it tastes like ass..or rather, it tastes like its own animal. I recently picked up some Code Zero Vanilla..and it also tastes pretty bad.

Then again, I've drunk TAB and thought it was good (in a disgusting kind of way).

Coke gets its distinctive taste from sugar and caramel..or at least thats what I taste when I drink it, and so far there is no way to reproduce that in artificial form. But at least they finally seem to have improved the diet sodas from when they were using saccharin, which gave it a unique taste.

Hell I'm waiting for them to bring back NEW COKE....only now it would be RETRO NEW COKE....
 
Yeah, liquid calories are terrible for you, especially when full of sugar.

I generally have at most one diet soda a day, no calories or sugar but all the artificial sweetener just can't be good for you in large amounts. Plus I get enough liquid calories from my love of good beer. :D
 
The artificial sweeteners in diet drinks still kinda make me wary of drinking them. That stuff has had bad effects in test animals, large amounts can't be good for humans either i would think. Sugar may not be good for you, but i'm not too worried about getting a brain tumor form it either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top