One mans quest for a "fat tax"

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Oh why, you cursed. You really showed me.

Psychological addiction and physical addiction can both result in very strong compulsions, and both are initiated by the individual to begin with.[/quote]
Now if only could could notice the rest of the post and not Shaq. You cannot hold someone in any way responsible for the psychological problems of individuals. Period. If you kill yourself through water intoxication is Dasani to blame now? Physical addiction doesn't have to do with the craving, it has to do with the side affects from quitting a substance as it leaves your body. As in actual symptons, not just "Gee, I really want a Big Mac." Such as if you quit alcohol after a life of regular use you are subject to headaches, shaking, difficulty sleeping, and even the possibility of death. Tell me, what are the withdrawal symptoms of someone denied french fries that aren't obviously psychosomatic?

[quote name='camoor']It's either time to make fatty food companies pay their share, either that or we just let fat people with no health insurance die in the streets...[/quote]
Why is it that in your skewed world view "Tax the overweight person who can't control themselves" isn't an option?
 
[quote name='Quid']Why is it that in your skewed world view "Tax the overweight person who can't control themselves" isn't an option?[/quote]

It's just not a practical solution (neither is letting fatties die in the streets).

There is no way you can measure the body fat of every American citizen accurately and then punch that into the tax code without massive corruption and lying. Besides, it really isn't the government's business to track how fat/short/white/black/asian/etc it's citizens are.
 
Creating a tax on junk food wouldn't be very productive. For example, Joe X is skinny and enjoys eating potato chips, and occasionaly going out to fast food places. There is no reason why Joe should pay extra for something he enjoys when it is:
1. Not harming anyone around him. Eating a hamburger will not cause anyone within the near proximity to gain any weight, it will only effect the person eating that hamburger.

Some people are suggesting taxing all food that is "unhealthy" or that may lead to a person getting fat or increasing their chances of illness. So does that mean we should tax all food with sugar, salt, and fat? Sugar is known to increase obeisty; salt is known to lead to an increase in hypertention and strokes; and fat also obviously leads to obeisty.

Then there are even more finer lines. For example, many people think carbs are one of the main reasons why people are getting fat. So does that mean we tax anything containing carbohydrates? See where I'm getting at?

Then let's just say the government decides to only tax fast food places, junk food (chips, candy) companies, and soda companies. Those companies (especially the ones which are trying to make a name for themselves) will see dramatic profit losses. That wouldn't be too much of a problem though--frito lays could just monopolize the chip market, thats not too bad.

Or what do we do with this extra money the government recieved from all these people? Give the money to companies who cater organic foods? It can be argued that organic food will effect your body very little because of all of the food our body intakes which is inorganic and filled with pesticides etc. which will cancel out any positive effects of whatever organic food we eat. Should we give the money to a health program, like a government national issued health care program? That would be nice, but it's not very feasible because everyones taxes would basically be double in order to give away free health insurance to all people.

Now, why don't we also tax people who do "dangerous" activites. This activites may include, riding a motorcycle, parachuting, driving a sports car, playing high risk sports etc.? We need to stop infringing on other people's natural rights and look at the bigger picture.

Does being obiese contribute to higher health care costs? Sure does, but so do other things, such as smog, indoor and outdoor air pollution, chemicals, herbicides and pesticides, formaldehyde, natural disasters, mental conditions etc. There are many, many, other more important things we should care about instead of the "fat" guy sitting next to you trying to enjoy his meal.
 
[quote name='dmpolska']Creating a tax on junk food wouldn't be very productive. For example, Joe X is skinny and enjoys eating potato chips, and occasionaly going out to fast food places. There is no reason why Joe should pay extra for something he enjoys when it is:
1. Not harming anyone around him. Eating a hamburger will not cause anyone within the near proximity to gain any weight, it will only effect the person eating that hamburger.

Some people are suggesting taxing all food that is "unhealthy" or that may lead to a person getting fat or increasing their chances of illness. So does that mean we should tax all food with sugar, salt, and fat? Sugar is known to increase obeisty; salt is known to lead to an increase in hypertention and strokes; and fat also obviously leads to obeisty.

Then there are even more finer lines. For example, many people think carbs are one of the main reasons why people are getting fat. So does that mean we tax anything containing carbohydrates? See where I'm getting at?

Then let's just say the government decides to only tax fast food places, junk food (chips, candy) companies, and soda companies. Those companies (especially the ones which are trying to make a name for themselves) will see dramatic profit losses. That wouldn't be too much of a problem though--frito lays could just monopolize the chip market, thats not too bad.

Or what do we do with this extra money the government recieved from all these people? Give the money to companies who cater organic foods? It can be argued that organic food will effect your body very little because of all of the food our body intakes which is inorganic and filled with pesticides etc. which will cancel out any positive effects of whatever organic food we eat. Should we give the money to a health program, like a government national issued health care program? That would be nice, but it's not very feasible because everyones taxes would basically be double in order to give away free health insurance to all people.

Now, why don't we also tax people who do "dangerous" activites. This activites may include, riding a motorcycle, parachuting, driving a sports car, playing high risk sports etc.? We need to stop infringing on other people's natural rights and look at the bigger picture.

Does being obiese contribute to higher health care costs? Sure does, but so do other things, such as smog, indoor and outdoor air pollution, chemicals, herbicides and pesticides, formaldehyde, natural disasters, mental conditions etc. There are many, many, other more important things we should care about instead of the "fat" guy sitting next to you trying to enjoy his meal.[/quote]

I usually drink 1 beer or 1 glass of wine when I drink, occasionally (maybe every month or two) I'll drink 2. I've never had more than 3, and that was only a couple times. When I'm out I usually don't drink, or drink a while before I'm going to have to drive again (ie. beginning of a show)

Why should I have to pay a liquor tax? I'm not hurting anyone, or myself. In fact, studies show I may be even reducing health care costs, due to the positive effects of moderate alcohol consumption.

It can be argued that organic food will effect your body very little because of all of the food our body intakes which is inorganic and filled with pesticides etc. which will cancel out any positive effects of whatever organic food we eat.
Click to expand...

Bad argument. It's like saying the benefits of drinking a glass of water is cancelled by drinking a glass of beer, so I might as well drink 2 beers. You're still adding to the problem.

Should we give the money to a health program, like a government national issued health care program? That would be nice, but it's not very feasible because everyones taxes would basically be double in order to give away free health insurance to all people.
Click to expand...

We pay more in health care per capita than any other country, so that's unlikely.

Though if you really want bang for your buck, tax all junk food and then put all the money into preventive health care of all forms.
 
^^ as long as the government is going to attempt to control our entire lives through taxation under your plan, here are some more things to add:

- extra tax if you don't drink the recommended 8 glasses of water a day.
- extra tax if you don't eat your 5 portions of vegetables and 4 of grain and 3 of dairy (or whatever the hell they are now) a day
- extra tax if you do anything dangerous, like driving a car or crossing the street, or perhaps jumping on a trampoline or swimming, climbing trees, or especially contact sports!
- extra tax if you don't brush your teeth every morning, noon and night
- extra tax if you are an atheist (after all, studies have shown that religious people live longer)
- extra tax if you lift heavy things (you might hurt yourself)

Wow, I can think of a whole lot more. What a healthier country we'd be! :roll:
 
[quote name='elprincipe']- extra tax if you are an atheist (after all, studies have shown that religious people live longer)[/quote]

Not true, you're more likely to end up dying in a foreign desert (only the rational and truly spiritual people live longer).

However athiests are taxed more - they don't have tax-exempt business opportunities like churches and mainstream church publications.
 
[quote name='camoor']Not true, you're more likely to end up dying in a foreign desert (only the rational and truly spiritual people live longer). [/quote]

Um.... elprincipe is right. And religious people are happier. Being very rational isn't going to increase longevity, it's more likely to shorten your life. And overly rational people often face problems in dealing with life.

Depressed people, when the average is compared to the average non depressed person, have more accurate understanding of themselves, their interactions with the world, and how much power they have in the world. They are more realistic.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Depressed people, when the average is compared to the average non depressed person, have more accurate understanding of themselves, their interactions with the world, and how much power they have in the world. They are more realistic.[/quote]

Depressed people, self-labeled "rationalists", and religious conservatives are generally very boring, uninspired drones ("happy" or not).

The really interesting, dynamic, and world changing people would probably be classified by modern psychology as manic or megalomaniacal, yet their go-for-broke attitude turns out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
 
[quote name='camoor']Depressed people, self-labeled "rationalists", and religious conservatives are generally very boring, uninspired drones ("happy" or not). [/quote]

Depressed people and rationalist are often very logic and rational. Being very conservative in outlook (not necessarily political) is often found in the extremely rational, serious, logical people. But that doesn't necessarily mean they're religious conservatives.

The really interesting, dynamic, and world changing people would probably be classified by modern psychology as manic or megalomaniacal, yet their go-for-broke attitude turns out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Click to expand...

Actually they wouldn't, since those terms aren't used anymore. But many are classified as biplar (formerly manic depressive). Many succesful people are narcissistic and have grandiose thoughts (formerely megalomania), but that alone doesn't really propel people to the same heights that bipolar can. Though people with narcissistic personality disorder (it is pervasive throughout their life) have difficulty maintaining social relationships, and usually leave a trail of broken ones wherever they go. They don't fit the description you provided too well. The success they do is "all about me". They'll get the nobel prizes, but wouldn't normally become the civil rights leaders.

People with bipolar disorder have extreme highs and extreme lows. When they're high they're often extremely creative, productive people. When they're low they're depressed, even to the point of suicidal (and they have high rates of suicide). It has nothing to do with a go for broke attitude, it has to do with the high they get. Many people with bipolar disorder, particular among artists, stop taking medication because they find that to really excel they need that high. The problem is they eventually come crashing down, and sometimes don't survive the crash.

Though I just stumbled on this and figured I'd post it since you mentioned psychology. If anyone wants a good laugh, read this bit on "psychology is a satanic religion": http://home.earthlink.net/~thogmi/psych/psych.html . Not really sure if it's funny, or funny only if you're into psychology. This is only a small piece of it:

Devotees of Satan’s schools of psychology spiritualize their lost and damned clients, they enhance their trade with white witchcraft, such as Hypnotism and Palm reading.
Some Pentecostals leave God, and turn to the satanic cult of Psychology, but cannot find for themselves or others inner peace.


To see female college professors of Psychology who are full of the Devil, tag male students who disagree with their distorted doctrine fail her class proves, Satan rules in her class.

Universities deliberately hire female instructors of Psychology to feminize, and mentally castrate men in their classes.
Female instructors of Psychology, are programmed to emotionally cripple male students, and emasculate them.
Click to expand...
 
Psychiatry should be limited to fixing schizo's, ppl unable to function, and extreme grief counseling, but these days it's used to normalize the general population and distribute ritalin / extra SAT test time to rich kids who can afford to pay the profession's current bribery rates.

If you are desperate to appear absolutely normal by conventional societal standards then getting drugged up by a psychiatrist is a fine way to go, but a lobotomy is cheaper and more effective.

Now psychology the science is quite a different matter, as you have a much wider range of perspectives from bland predictable Skinner to the inductive and fascinating Jung (no bias here ;) )
 
[quote name='camoor']Psychiatry should be limited to fixing schizo's, ppl unable to function, and extreme grief counseling, but these days it's used to normalize the general population and distribute ritalin / extra SAT test time to rich kids who can afford to pay the profession's current bribery rates.[/quote]

Anyone can benefit from therapy, and it is actually enjoyable if you don't have any serious problems. Either way, they will work with you to achieve the results you want to achieve. The only exceptions are cases where you are forced to go (ie. criminals or those dangerous to themselves). I'm not sure whats so wrong with improving things that you don't like about yourself. It has nothing to do with "normalizing" the population, it's goal is creating a psychologically healthy population. About 20% of people have a diagnosable issue in their lifetime but most never seek treatment. If they wanted a statistically normal population, instead of an emotionally healthy population, then they'd put homosexuality back on the list of psychological disorders.

Psychiatrists have PHD's, go to med school and go through 2 years (I believe that's the norm) of residency. I'm not sure what you want them to charge. And when you have a private practice, I'm not sure how they can be expected to pay for everything, charge 30 bucks an hour, and still make a decent paycheck.

But if you don't want medication then don't take it, and if you want to avoid suggestions of taking it then don't go to a psychiatrist. They don't always suggest medication anyway, but they tend to believe biological functioning is the main issue more often. Psychologist can't prescribe medicine, and have nothing to do with issues you described.


If you are desperate to appear absolutely normal by conventional societal standards then getting drugged up by a psychiatrist is a fine way to go, but a lobotomy is cheaper and more effective.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if that's a joke, since a lobotomy would make you appear extremely abnormal. And people who recieve drugs are people with bipolar disorders, anxiety disorders (like obsessive compulsive disorders) etc. Most issues can be treated with therapy, though there are a few that have very low success rates unless treated with both therapy and medication. Rarely is simple medication the solution.

Also, the "drugged up" people are usually the ones who don't listen to instructions. For example, a person with an anxiety disorder recieves medication. Instead of taking it whenever an excessive amount of anxiety starts, as suggested, they take it at even the slightest amount of anxiety. They don't even have normal anxiety levels anymore. That's there fault, not the medications or the psychiatrists.

Now psychology the science is quite a different matter, as you have a much wider range of perspectives from bland predictable Skinner to the inductive and fascinating Jung (no bias here ;) )
Click to expand...

But those people are important due to their historical legacy. Jung particularly so. You wouldn't do well if you attemped to use there approaches to therapy.

Personally I favor therapy whenever possible, but there are some illnesses that really don't respond well to a pure therapeutic approach. They really need both medication and therapy, and a select few don't respond to therapy. Though the only way I'll ever be able to prescribe medication is if they pass laws they are proposing allowing psychologists to do so, provided they take a couple extra courses. I don't like biology enough, and I don't do very well in it, so I have no interest in becoming a psychiatrist, even though it provides you with the most options for treating patients.
 
I think the problem is people are free to become a thousand pounds yet if you threaten suicide your taken away .

If your eating till you cant get out of bed your trying to kill urself and somewhere before that point u should be dragged out of ur house in hand cuffs to a place where they make u loose some of the weight and become healthy before u leave.

Tax money shoudlnt go on letting people destroy themselves it should go to preventing it .

Ive seen programs on tv where they have these 'hospitals' where the obease may go and they sit around eating chips and cookies with 24/7 care it made me sick.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Anyone can benefit from therapy, and it is actually enjoyable if you don't have any serious problems. Either way, they will work with you to achieve the results you want to achieve. The only exceptions are cases where you are forced to go (ie. criminals or those dangerous to themselves). I'm not sure whats so wrong with improving things that you don't like about yourself. It has nothing to do with "normalizing" the population, it's goal is creating a psychologically healthy population. About 20% of people have a diagnosable issue in their lifetime but most never seek treatment. If they wanted a statistically normal population, instead of an emotionally healthy population, then they'd put homosexuality back on the list of psychological disorders.[/quote]

Chris Rock says it best when he's talking about the people running happy through the fields, and then suddenly you realize it's a drug ad but you have no idea what the drug is actually supposed to do. Half of it is marketing and half of it is modern society's way of limiting the effect of those who would progressively transform the conservative values landscape of modern America (so-called political liberals are just as much to blame as conservatives on this point)

It's not just psychiatry but American attitudes as a whole - if you talk to Jesus then you can become president but conversations with any other religous figure who no longer has a corporeal form will result in psychiatric evaluations, jail, or a National Inquirer headline if you're famous. You want anecdotes - I got 'em! True story: a work counselor had a mandatory group session at my mom's work where it came up that my mom cuts the tags out of the back of her dresses/shirts - and the counselor said that's a serious sign of OCD - earth to counselor, they are itchy! Another one: in elementary school I remember a counselor sent this kid to speech therapy because she was born in Australia and had an Australian accent.

What you call "psychologically healthy" I call zombification.

As for the last point, I just thought it was funny that the usual suspects (fundie and baptist xians) were denoucing psychology as a whole - it would be similar to christians denouncing biology when they really meant to target Darwin's theory of evolution.
 
[quote name='camoor']Chris Rock says it best when he's talking about the people running happy through the fields, and then suddenly you realize it's a drug ad but you have no idea what the drug is actually supposed to do. Half of it is marketing and half of it is modern society's way of limiting the effect of those who would progressively transform the conservative values landscape of modern America (so-called political liberals are just as much to blame as conservatives on this point)[/quote]

You're confusing drug companies with psychiatrists.

It's not just psychiatry but American attitudes as a whole - if you talk to Jesus then you can become president but conversations with any other religous figure who no longer has a corporeal form will result in psychiatric evaluations, jail, or a National Inquirer headline if you're famous.
Click to expand...

I really doubt many people are having actual, full blown conversations with jesus. If someone was then that may be an issue, at least if they think jesus is conversing with them. That would be a hallucination, which is a sign of schizophrenia, though not definate. I doubt Bush really meant it in that way. Besides, that really has nothing to do with psychiatry or psychology.

You want anecdotes - I got 'em! True story: a work counselor had a mandatory group session at my mom's work where it came up that my mom cuts the tags out of the back of her dresses/shirts - and the counselor said that's a serious sign of OCD - earth to counselor, they are itchy!
Click to expand...

These anecdotes are weak. If a counselor things cutting the tags out of dresses is a sign of OCD then the therapist should never have gotten out of psych 101, let alone get a masters (which I assume the therapist had). You can't say there's a problem with psychiatry and psychology as a whole by pointing out whats true in every profession, some members are incompetent.

Now if your mother spend a significant amount of time a day cutting out tags, and if she didn't she became extremely anxious, then there could be an issue.

Another one: in elementary school I remember a counselor sent this kid to speech therapy because she was born in Australia and had an Australian accent.
Click to expand...

Accents are often impedements later in life when children become adults. I wouldn't send the kid to speech therapy, but it could have benefits if the parents wanted it. The way you speak makes an impression that is often difficult to overcome.

What you call "psychologically healthy" I call zombification.
Click to expand...

Well, it seems the patients would disagree with you since they're the ones who seek help. Somebody with an anxiety disorder is normally aware of the issue, hates that part about them, yet you would want to make them live with that because you think therapy so they could normal levels of anxiety would be a form of zombification.
 
It's a shame that psychiatry and mental health disorders are so marginalized. After four years of medical school, psychiatrists have to complete a four-year residency, one year being an internship in internal medicine which is hardly a cakewalk. In addition, many choose to do an additional 1-2 years of fellowship training so you're talking about up to 6 years post medical school after accruing a six-figure debt. Psychiatry is among the lower paying specialties, especially considering it's among the highest in malpractice risk. It's not just dispensing Prozac; they have to deal with the most difficult to treat patients in any medical specialty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top