Most ridiculous thing I heard today

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by slah
In a perfect world where everybody made good, intelligent and informed decisions I would agree 100% with you, unfortunately we aren´t living in that world.

We are living in a world where people KNOWINGLY start a habit that is extremely unhealthy for themselves and those around them, and in addition to that it costs the state untold millions of dollars every year.

We criminalize drugs, and things like theft, murder, drunk driving and so on and son because those are things that are undesirable for the people they affect, and because it is undesirable for the society as a whole.

I don´t see the point of having a \"hands-off\" point of view just because we´re dealing with smoking or obesity - those two things are just as undesirable for the society and individuals as most of the other things I mentioned.

And in a perfect world, in which people ran for government to better their societies, rather than for personal gain, I might agree with you.
In a world where people let people make their decisions and face the consequences instead of thinking that they know what\'s better for others, and try to \"help\" them (read interfere with their lives) I might agree.

\"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron\'s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.\"
- C.S. Lewis

Illegal immigrants do a great deal of harm to our health care system. We do nothing.
We pay for it.

Buying houses that you can\'t afford helped shatter the economy. I\'m paying for those fool\'s mortgages as well.

It\'s all about precedents. What you may agree with now, will be the same manner in which they come for something you do not agree with. What we let them do to A, they will do to B, and C and so forth.
Someone is always willing to take the side that something you do is \"harmful\" to society. Someone is always willing to justify.

Look at the D&D scare of the 70\'s and 80\'s, what if some government official had gotten a bug up his ass that D&D was \"harmful\" to society, or our hobby?
Let\'s be blunt, our hobby has a lot of overweight, unhealthy people in it. One could correlate that there is link between our hobby and such \"harmful\" behavior.

Don\'t be naive. This is nothing as altruistic as \'helping\" society. This is a pure money grab, they are merely justifying it in a way you happen to agree with...this time. Next time you probably won\'t agree with it, or the next time after that, but by then it\'s too late.

 

[freakinacage]

Originally posted by airhead
Arguing that the statement made that

nothing causes more death and associated disease than smoking

I won\'t say that they are not bad for you. I quit several years ago and promptly put on 40 lbs. If this obesity tax goes into effect, I may take up smoking again to lose weight. All a matter of which taxes I want to pay as neither are healthy for me.

Entirely off topic. I\'m sorry.

no it\'s not! it\'s a good point. the reason why you put on weight after quiting is usually twofold; firstly quitters often eat more, both as something to take their mind off it and because smoking is an appetite suppressant
secondly, smoking decreases the intestine\'s ability to absorb nutrients (but you will be absorbing more good stuff such as vits and minerals too)

 

[WeR138]

This thread has the all the potential of becoming extremely entertaining.

And by \"entertaining\" I mean quite ugly.

 

[generulpoleaxe]

Originally posted by Avelorn

@generulpoleaxe: Are the scandinavian countries peaceful and prosperous? do they have large government?

you have smaller goverments, it\'s not just the number of elected officials within goverment, it\'s the civil servants, quangos, fake charities, blatant lobby groups hired within council commitees just for starters.
the UK goverment and hangers is so over bloated it\'s ridiculous (it\'s why we have more stealth taxes than any other western country currently)

 

[slah]

Originally posted by Evil Dave

And in a perfect world, in which people ran for government to better their societies, rather than for personal gain, I might agree with you.

Illegal immigrants do a great deal of harm to our health care system. We do nothing.
We pay for it.

Buying houses that you can\'t afford helped shatter the economy. I\'m paying for those fool\'s mortgages as well.

It\'s all about precedents. What you may agree with now, will be the same manner in which they come for something you do not agree with. What we let them do to A, they will do to B, and C and so forth.
Someone is always willing to take the side that something you do is \"harmful\" to society. Someone is always willing to justify.

Look at the D&D scare of the 70\'s and 80\'s, what if some government official had gotten a bug up his ass that D&D was \"harmful\" to society, or our hobby?
Let\'s be blunt, our hobby has a lot of overweight, unhealthy people in it. One could correlate that there is link between our hobby and such \"harmful\" behavior.

Don\'t be naive. This is nothing as altruistic as \'helping\" society. This is a pure money grab, they are merely justifying it in a way you happen to agree with...this time. Next time you probably won\'t agree with it, or the next time after that, but by then it\'s too late.

It´s true that some politicians are corrupt (allthough I´m fairly sure that there are almost none of them in Denmark), but even if the politicians who put forth the proposal are corrupt and lining their own pockets it´s irrelevant when discussing the validity of the idea of a tax on \"unhealthy\" goods.

I also think it´s irrelevant to say it´s a bad idea to allow such a tax because of fear of what they´ll tax next. If they wanna tax lefthanded people with a shoesize above 43, I´ll scream bloody murder, (I´m blond with a shoesize of 39), but until I think they cross the line I´ll support any legislation I find to be reasonable.

Your point about D&D is valid, BUT the \"problem\" is that with smoking and obesity it´s not a \"touchy-feely\"/values-debate, but based on hard-core science that says that these things are BAD for you ( and smoking is also bad for your environment), and economic analyzes that clearly show that the public expenses caused by these are massive. Also fat D&D players are fat because they eat to much and work out to little - not because they play D&D.

And I´m not being naive. I can ofcourse only speak for the danish taxes, but the revenues garnered by these taxes won´t be in an amount that would make me think the state is \"milking\" us. However, at the same time, I understand and accept the fact that the state has to have some way of getting the money it needs to run. As long as this is done in a sensible fashion I´m happy to pay - also if the tax isn´t \"altruistic\" constructed.


Note: Just to clarify, I would only support taxing certain foodgroups, sugars, cigarettes and such. Taxing obese people directly is ofcourse amoral!

 

[slah]

Originally posted by generulpoleaxe

Originally posted by Avelorn

@generulpoleaxe: Are the scandinavian countries peaceful and prosperous? do they have large government?

you have smaller goverments, it\'s not just the number of elected officials within goverment, it\'s the civil servants, quangos, fake charities, blatant lobby groups hired within council commitees just for starters.
the UK goverment and hangers is so over bloated it\'s ridiculous (it\'s why we have more stealth taxes than any other western country currently)

In Denmark 30% of all employees are employed by the state. The average in the EU is 17%.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by slah


It´s true that some politicians are corrupt (allthough I´m fairly sure that there are almost none of them in Denmark), but even if the politicians who put forth the proposal are corrupt and lining their own pockets it´s irrelevant when discussing the validity of the idea of a tax on \"unhealthy\" goods.

I also think it´s irrelevant to say it´s a bad idea to allow such a tax because of fear of what they´ll tax next. If they wanna tax lefthanded people with a shoesize above 43, I´ll scream bloody murder, (I´m blond with a shoesize of 39), but until I think they cross the line I´ll support any legislation I find to be reasonable.

Your point about D&D is valid, BUT the \"problem\" is that with smoking and obesity it´s not a \"touchy-feely\"/values-debate, but based on hard-core science that says that these things are BAD for you ( and smoking is also bad for your environment), and economic analyzes that clearly show that the public expenses caused by these are massive. Also fat D&D players are fat because they eat to much and work out to little - not because they play D&D.

And I´m not being naive. I can ofcourse only speak for the danish taxes, but the revenues garnered by these taxes won´t be in an amount that would make me think the state is \"milking\" us. However, at the same time, I understand and accept the fact that the state has to have some way of getting the money it needs to run. As long as this is done in a sensible fashion I´m happy to pay - also if the tax isn´t \"altruistic\" constructed.


Note: Just to clarify, I would only support taxing certain foodgroups, sugars, cigarettes and such. Taxing obese people directly is ofcourse amoral!

Ah, you\'re Danish then?
Different world view, different forms of government, different view on what government is supposed to be.
I find the Danish tend to accept themselves as one big happy family, one common group.
I\'d like it if Americans saw themselves the same way.
We do not. We have too many hyphenated Americans. Italian-Americans, Armenian-Americans, African-Americans, and whatnot.
All our politicians play up to groups of people, representing groups, rather than the whole. The melting pot is turned off and the contents are not jiving together if you get my meaning.

Edit:
And it\'s not a fear of the tax, it\'s a fear of a liberal translation of the justification of the tax.

Edit edit:
Also, remember the sheer size of the US, the cultural divide between say Louisiana and California is just as big as between Denmark and England.
This is why the states were supposed to be strong in the US and the Federal Government subservient to them. Jim Bob, the Louisiana governor knows far more about the things we face than Billy Bob, the legislator from Illinois.

 

[generulpoleaxe]

Originally posted by slah

Originally posted by generulpoleaxe

Originally posted by Avelorn

@generulpoleaxe: Are the scandinavian countries peaceful and prosperous? do they have large government?

you have smaller goverments, it\'s not just the number of elected officials within goverment, it\'s the civil servants, quangos, fake charities, blatant lobby groups hired within council commitees just for starters.
the UK goverment and hangers is so over bloated it\'s ridiculous (it\'s why we have more stealth taxes than any other western country currently)

In Denmark 30% of all employees are employed by the state. The average in the EU is 17%.

the uk is at 50% and increasing (within a couple of months it went from 40% to the current 50%) for public sector employees.

and don\'t believe that most of your taxes go to good use, if you realy found out how your money got spent you would probaly want your politicians done for fraud (the uk politicians are that corrupt i won\'t most of them publicy hanged)

 

[slah]

Originally posted by Evil Dave

Originally posted by slah

Originally posted by Evil Dave

And in a perfect world, in which people ran for government to better their societies, rather than for personal gain, I might agree with you.

Illegal immigrants do a great deal of harm to our health care system. We do nothing.
We pay for it.

Buying houses that you can\'t afford helped shatter the economy. I\'m paying for those fool\'s mortgages as well.

It\'s all about precedents. What you may agree with now, will be the same manner in which they come for something you do not agree with. What we let them do to A, they will do to B, and C and so forth.
Someone is always willing to take the side that something you do is \"harmful\" to society. Someone is always willing to justify.

Look at the D&D scare of the 70\'s and 80\'s, what if some government official had gotten a bug up his ass that D&D was \"harmful\" to society, or our hobby?
Let\'s be blunt, our hobby has a lot of overweight, unhealthy people in it. One could correlate that there is link between our hobby and such \"harmful\" behavior.

Don\'t be naive. This is nothing as altruistic as \'helping\" society. This is a pure money grab, they are merely justifying it in a way you happen to agree with...this time. Next time you probably won\'t agree with it, or the next time after that, but by then it\'s too late.

It´s true that some politicians are corrupt (allthough I´m fairly sure that there are almost none of them in Denmark), but even if the politicians who put forth the proposal are corrupt and lining their own pockets it´s irrelevant when discussing the validity of the idea of a tax on \"unhealthy\" goods.

I also think it´s irrelevant to say it´s a bad idea to allow such a tax because of fear of what they´ll tax next. If they wanna tax lefthanded people with a shoesize above 43, I´ll scream bloody murder, (I´m blond with a shoesize of 39), but until I think they cross the line I´ll support any legislation I find to be reasonable.

Your point about D&D is valid, BUT the \"problem\" is that with smoking and obesity it´s not a \"touchy-feely\"/values-debate, but based on hard-core science that says that these things are BAD for you ( and smoking is also bad for your environment), and economic analyzes that clearly show that the public expenses caused by these are massive. Also fat D&D players are fat because they eat to much and work out to little - not because they play D&D.

And I´m not being naive. I can ofcourse only speak for the danish taxes, but the revenues garnered by these taxes won´t be in an amount that would make me think the state is \"milking\" us. However, at the same time, I understand and accept the fact that the state has to have some way of getting the money it needs to run. As long as this is done in a sensible fashion I´m happy to pay - also if the tax isn´t \"altruistic\" constructed.


Note: Just to clarify, I would only support taxing certain foodgroups, sugars, cigarettes and such. Taxing obese people directly is ofcourse amoral!

Ah, you\'re Danish then?
Different world view, different forms of government.
I find the Danish tend to accept themselves as one big happy family, one common group.
I\'d like it if Americans saw themselves the same way.
We do not. We have too many hyphenated Americans. Italian-Americans, Armenian-Americans, African-Americans, and whatnot.
All our politicians play up to groups of people, representing groups, rather than the whole. The melting pot is turned off and the contents are not jiving together if you get my meaning.

I do, and I know that a lot of your cynicism (if I can call it that) come from seeing a society that could be so much more be so little. At least that´s the impression I get from keeping up with the current events that gets the attention of the danish media.

The danish society has some clear benefits compared to the american ( in my opinion at least), mostly securities in the ordinary day - when living in Denmark you are secure in the fact that the state will help you when something goes wrong. If you get sick you can get free medical help, and some form of work-comp while sick, if you get fired there are different forms of financial help until you get back on your feet. Stuff like that.

However there are also disadvantages - like the fact that we are all so even, that if you rise above the crowd we have a tendency to smack you down again - hard -, plus for the last 10 years a feeling of xenophobia has crept in. It´s as if we have enough in ourselves, and fail to see the good things that the international community has to offer, and when it comes to refugees and immigrants we are VERY unforgiving these days.

But it´s only natural that with me coming from a country where the most right wing politician would most likely be labeled as a \"bleeding liberal\" where you´re coming from, that we don´t see yey to eye, and because our countries are so different our startingpoints has to be different as well. You see the state as intrusive and \" shifty\" while I see it (mostly) as helping and honest.... But I do like the dicussions - they´re very refreshing

so back on topic:

Regarding the fear of the liberal translation of the justification of the tax as you say I don´t really fear some kind of domino-effect in general. I generally think that the population (or at least the media/opinion-formers) can differentiate between legislation that is unpopular because it´s hard/strict, and when it´s just wrong (biased/randon/unnecessary).

Also regarding taxes in particular there is nothing that indicates (here in Denmark at least), that these taxes are meant to be a way of increasing the public finances, but merely a small way of rethinking the way we pay taxes. In Denamrk we actually have a \"skatte-stop\" (tax-stop), which literally means that the state can´t increase a tax (or make a new one) unless they decrease another one (I actually think this is a demented politic, but that´s another discussion)

Originally posted by generulpoleaxe

the uk is at 50% and increasing (within a couple of months it went from 40% to the current 50%) for public sector employees.

and don\'t believe that most of your taxes go to good use, if you realy found out how your money got spent you would probaly want your politicians done for fraud (the uk politicians are that corrupt i won\'t most of them publicy hanged)

That does seem like a very big increase! did the state take over some kind of former private sector?

regarding how money are spent I would say again that in Denmark corruption is almost zero, BUT there are inept people of course. These people might be doing a bad job, but most do a good job, and without the state the job wouldn´t get done at all (as in we would have no security at all). I just prefer having to deal with a bit of ineptitude and waste and have what we have, instead of not having it at all.

 

[Avelorn]

@Evil Dave:

I think social cohesion it\'s more due to ideology then ethnicity.

In fact my own research on the subject for Europe (I can\'t believe that we finally got to a subject were I can use authority haha) shows that neither religious, ethnic or lingustic heterogeneity matters much in Europe for social cohesion. For example the massive immigration into Sweden has done little to affect our belief in the good nature of people. This non-relationship has been acknowledged in other recent articles on the subject. The Dane Christian Bjornskov for example found no effect of \"cultural\" heterogeneity on social trust in 104 countries (measured in the percentage of people in a country answering yes to the question if you can trust people in general or if you cannot be too careful in dealing with people).

The heterogeneity I found to have an impact was economic heterogeneity through income inequality but the largest effect on how we judge the moral standards of other people was through wealth and good government. That wealth is so important is easy to understand because you have so much more to loose in trusting people when you are poor. The levels of social trust increased in germany from a 9 percent level of 1948 to a 45% level in 1993. The cultural foundartion of trust is weak and patchy.

In U.S. the effect of ethnic heterogeneity on social trust can be found on a state level (At least according to a study by Robert D. Putman) but it ties into another discussion that surrounds deservingness criterias. In the political rethoric all sharp boundaries between people can be used by populist politicians to frame for example welfare recipients as undeserving. \"We\" contribute to the society \"they\" parasite on what we have contributed. Segregation is thus very problematic, both geographical and socio-economical. Framing people as not deserving of help, or that help is not the solution, or even social darwinism, is one way for some politicians to find arguments for deconstructing the welfare state or to stop new benefits to the needy as they do not really \"deserve it\". We humans seem to have an in-built dispositiong for justice that can be both employed in good and bad purposes, depending on the way it is used.

Therefore the deservingness card is played frequently around here as well, not seldom by PR companies with relations to big business. Recently they claimed that 90% of the Swedes are cheaters.. which was due to the fat that most of us sometime in our life either had accepted or payed someone to do black labour.. including a couple of bucks to a neighbor kid for mowing lawns In fact, internationally we are very trustworthy and seldom cheat. They don\'t care about that as they want the taxes down for their employers and that is best done by having people mistrusting each other. Things like \"everybody truly only thinks about themselves\" or \"there is no such thing as genuine altruism\" is ideology and not something proven by science. The truth is we are complex, but above all, we are group animals but we are forced to become more and more individualistic.

Values are important. In U.S. many people say it\'s the person\'s own fault if they end up in poverty, while in Sweden, for example, we more generally have the view that the society can be blamed - through for a certain level of determinism related to social class. This can be quite ironic as Sweden really is the country of opportunity as we have so much that is publically funded. But values are not often related to the actual reality but how it is percieved. Related is also that most people don\'t here mind the high taxes (sky-high comparing to U.S.) as long as we see that it goes to the right hands. The Scandinavian countries all have very low levels of corruption. Nespotism, lobbyism, particular institutions are all detrimental to social cohesion, welfare etc.

@gpa: The taxes are lower in UK, the social spending is lower, the employment in public sector is around 20% not 50% I think you have been mislead by some site or something or just mean something else.

 

[AinuLainour]

On the original topic. .

The tax itself is puzzling.. why would you tax something that isn\'t necessarily a person\'s fault? In 2007 researchers found that a person\'s genes regulate fat differently; this research taken into accountability, it is hard to credit the tax as it has little more sense than taxing big business owners the same as small business owners. While the situations are alike, the differences are there. People do overeat, and the USA is known to be worse for that. That doesn\'t make it right to tax fat people.

I\'m extremely tired right now, hope that makes some sense.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by AinuLainour
On the original topic. .

The tax itself is puzzling.. why would you tax something that isn\'t necessarily a person\'s fault? In 2007 researchers found that a person\'s genes regulate fat differently; this research taken into accountability, it is hard to credit the tax as it has little more sense than taxing big business owners the same as small business owners. While the situations are alike, the differences are there. People do overeat, and the USA is known to be worse for that. That doesn\'t make it right to tax fat people.

I\'m extremely tired right now, hope that makes some sense.

This is a valid point. However, in the US there are also a large group of ignorant people who think that all fat people must be lazy. Some of them are even doctors.

This really hits close to home, because my wife is severely overweight.
A few years after we met, she ballooned suddenly to 300 lbs.
She eats mainly chicken a (usually grilled), fish (usually grilled) and vegetables and is always, always on the run.
We went to her doctor to see what was wrong and the doctor tried, diets, dietitians, medicines all to no avail. After some research on the internet. My wife asked the doctor to send her to an endocrinologist. The doctor refused and due to our insurance we would not be covered if she went without being recommended. (State Employee Insurance, by the way, as we work for a university.)
For seven years she kept asking the doctor to recommend her to an endocrinologist. let me reiterate that: Seven God Damned Years.
For seven years she was wracked by depression, despair, crying fits.
Her last visit to the doctor, the doctor threw a signed stomach staple procedure at her and told her to sign it.
We walked out and took the hit monetarily for an Endocrinologist. Six months ago.
Immediately, the endo noticed something was wrong and did the blood work.
It turns out that she had a resistance to insulin which is a precursor to Type II diabetes.
They put her on a new medicine immediately and has lost 50 pounds in the last six months without changing how she eats or her activities, and is steadily loosing weight. The medicine she needs cost $400 a month, not covered by the State insurance. We went up in our monthly payments with a decent insurance policy but I consider it worth it, well worth it. Not for my sake, I could care less about her weight, for hers, because she can feel normal.

This has led me to quite a few discoveries.
1.) People are a lot ruder to fat people when they think they can\'t hear them.
2.) They apologize quickly when said fat girl\'s husband overhears them and goes to kick the crap out of them.
3.) Those with a group of friends often try to back talk rather than lose face, this usually ends up in either the smack talker being embarrassed further as he picks himself off the ground, or a couple of loud mouth punks end up picking themselves up.
4.) Cops in this area are very forgiving to those who smack around punks that verbally assault people.
5.)Taxes won\'t work when even some doctors won\'t accept that sometimes it\'s genetic, sometimes it\'s a symptom.
6.) State sponsored insurance sucks, even the one\'s you pay into. I won\'t even go into the VA system, either.

Edit: I have no doubt that our less than honest politicians will do anything in their power to promote laziness, and sugary drinks as the only cause in order to get their tax money.
Hell, it works with class warfare, create more villains to tax.

 

[supervike]

Originally posted by AinuLainour
On the original topic. .

The tax itself is puzzling.. why would you tax something that isn\'t necessarily a person\'s fault? In 2007 researchers found that a person\'s genes regulate fat differently; this research taken into accountability, it is hard to credit the tax as it has little more sense than taxing big business owners the same as small business owners. While the situations are alike, the differences are there. People do overeat, and the USA is known to be worse for that. That doesn\'t make it right to tax fat people.

I\'m extremely tired right now, hope that makes some sense.

It makes perfect sense. It\'s an astute observation.

Just a point about America being the \'fattest country\' in the world. We aren\'t.

According to the WHO, America is 9th.

When you look at Obesity charts for America, state by state, you\'ll find that the highest rates are in the poorest states.

Poor diet, education, genes, and MANY factors go into obesity.

This would be nothing more than a tax on poor people.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by supervike
It makes perfect sense. It\'s an astute observation.

Just a point about America being the \'fattest country\' in the world. We aren\'t.

According to the WHO, America is 9th.

When you look at Obesity charts for America, state by state, you\'ll find that the highest rates are in the poorest states.

Poor diet, education, genes, and MANY factors go into obesity.

This would be nothing more than a tax on poor people.

Exactly, but I guess as I lean towards the right I\'m supposed to be for that right?lol

Another reason the poorest are often the most obese is also a very simple factor.
Unhealthy foods are often significantly cheaper than healthy foods.

Dollar menu at McDonald\'s anyone?

Taxing unhealthy foods more will not have near the effect as subsidizing and lowering the costs of healthy foods.

But, that would be the solution if they were really trying to help.
Taxing punishes those fat people, and we get some money out of it all while looking like we\'re doing something.

 

[AinuLainour]

@vike - There 74.1% of Americans over 15 who are overweight. The fact the US isn\'t number one doesn\'t appear to be very important given the circumstances.

Originally posted by Evil Dave

Taxing unhealthy foods more will not have near the effect as subsidizing and lowering the costs of healthy foods.

But, that would be the solution if they were really trying to help.
Taxing punishes those fat people, and we get some money out of it all while looking like we\'re doing something.

Couldn\'t have put it better myself...

 

[slah]

Originally posted by AinuLainour
On the original topic. .

The tax itself is puzzling.. why would you tax something that isn\'t necessarily a person\'s fault? In 2007 researchers found that a person\'s genes regulate fat differently; this research taken into accountability, it is hard to credit the tax as it has little more sense than taxing big business owners the same as small business owners. While the situations are alike, the differences are there. People do overeat, and the USA is known to be worse for that. That doesn\'t make it right to tax fat people.

I\'m extremely tired right now, hope that makes some sense.

I completely agree with this one. There are a lot of reasons why people are fat, and overating/eating unhealthy foods are only one of them. That´s why the tax should be on the cause of the condition (the unhealthy food), and not on the people themselves.

This would also make it possible to avoid paying extra taxes because changing your diet is possible from day to day, while dropping 100 kgs of weight can take years.

Originally posted by Evil Dave
This is a valid point. However, in the US there are also a large group of ignorant people who think that all fat people must be lazy. Some of them are even doctors.

This really hits close to home, because my wife is severely overweight.
A few years after we met, she ballooned suddenly to 300 lbs.
She eats mainly chicken a (usually grilled), fish (usually grilled) and vegetables and is always, always on the run.
We went to her doctor to see what was wrong and the doctor tried, diets, dietitians, medicines all to no avail. After some research on the internet. My wife asked the doctor to send her to an endocrinologist. The doctor refused and due to our insurance we would not be covered if she went without being recommended. (State Employee Insurance, by the way, as we work for a university.)
For seven years she kept asking the doctor to recommend her to an endocrinologist. let me reiterate that: Seven God Damned Years.
For seven years she was wracked by depression, despair, crying fits.
Her last visit to the doctor, the doctor threw a signed stomach staple procedure at her and told her to sign it.
We walked out and took the hit monetarily for an Endocrinologist. Six months ago.
Immediately, the endo noticed something was wrong and did the blood work.
It turns out that she had a resistance to insulin which is a precursor to Type II diabetes.
They put her on a new medicine immediately and has lost 50 pounds in the last six months without changing how she eats or her activities, and is steadily loosing weight. The medicine she needs cost $400 a month, not covered by the State insurance. We went up in our monthly payments with a decent insurance policy but I consider it worth it, well worth it. Not for my sake, I could care less about her weight, for hers, because she can feel normal.

This has led me to quite a few discoveries.
1.) People are a lot ruder to fat people when they think they can\'t hear them.
2.) They apologize quickly when said fat girl\'s husband overhears them and goes to kick the crap out of them.
3.) Those with a group of friends often try to back talk rather than lose face, this usually ends up in either the smack talker being embarrassed further as he picks himself off the ground, or a couple of loud mouth punks end up picking themselves up.
4.) Cops in this area are very forgiving to those who smack around punks that verbally assault people.
5.)Taxes won\'t work when even some doctors won\'t accept that sometimes it\'s genetic, sometimes it\'s a symptom.
6.) State sponsored insurance sucks, even the one\'s you pay into. I won\'t even go into the VA system, either.

Edit: I have no doubt that our less than honest politicians will do anything in their power to promote laziness, and sugary drinks as the only cause in order to get their tax money.
Hell, it works with class warfare, create more villains to tax.

Well this is just messed up, and to me seems like the doctor just wasn´t doing his job. Even I - without a medical degree - knows that sudden weightchanges without a change in diet or regular routines are a sure sign of a physiological \"disease\", and that a gastric bypass/stapling only alleviates the symptom, and won´t remove the cause. This doctor didn´t know what he was doing! I´ve heard that the health-system/insurance in the states also \"reward\" doctors who don´t refer patients up in the system - is this true, because that could also be a cause for just doing a relatively cheap symptom-fix instead of going all the way and try and get to the bottom of the patients problems!?

The prejudice that all fat people are lazy is true (it´s true that there is prejudice - NOT that all overweight people are lazy!)- it´s the same in Denamrk where we also have a steady rising in the numbers of very overweight people, BUT it is \"understandable\" to a certain point - because there are SO MANY of the serious overweight that are overweight because they eat unhealthy, and sit in fromt of the telly all day - that it´s relatively easy to make the assumption when you meet one that he or she must be lazy and fat because of it (I´m not saying that it´s allright to think - just saying that it´s easy to accidentally think that way).

Making a serious effort to at least stop the obesety caused by simple eating wrong, and thereby drastically reducing the number of people who are obese because of their diet would make it that much harder just to brush off the people who are genuinely sick by calling them lazy. It would also - eventually -lead to an adjustment in the attitude of the general public if the percentage of obesity caused by eating wrong were to drop drastically.

Originally posted by Evil Dave

Originally posted by supervike
It makes perfect sense. It\'s an astute observation.

Just a point about America being the \'fattest country\' in the world. We aren\'t.

According to the WHO, America is 9th.

When you look at Obesity charts for America, state by state, you\'ll find that the highest rates are in the poorest states.

Poor diet, education, genes, and MANY factors go into obesity.

This would be nothing more than a tax on poor people.

Exactly, but I guess as I lean towards the right I\'m supposed to be for that right?lol

Another reason the poorest are often the most obese is also a very simple factor.
Unhealthy foods are often significantly cheaper than healthy foods.

Dollar menu at McDonald\'s anyone?

Taxing unhealthy foods more will not have near the effect as subsidizing and lowering the costs of healthy foods.

But, that would be the solution if they were really trying to help.
Taxing punishes those fat people, and we get some money out of it all while looking like we\'re doing something.

Here I really agree with you - there can be no discussion that the poorer you are, the worse you eat, and that unhealthy food is generally cheaper than the good stuff. I can see this clearly in Denmark, and my impression is that in the states this trend is even more clear. If it´s so bad that the poorest won´t have the means to feed themselves, then it would also be necessary to lower the cost of the healthy foods.

I do think your point - that only lowering the price on the healthy foods would be more effecient - is wrong. All studys show that if you have to influence peoples ways and habits, then giving them an incentive to save money is not enough, you generally have to take something from them to make them change.

 

[freakinacage]

Originally posted by generulpoleaxe
you would probaly want your politicians done for fraud (the uk politicians are that corrupt i won\'t most of them publicy hanged)

i do!

 

[freakinacage]

Originally posted by slah

Originally posted by AinuLainour

Here I really agree with you - there can be no discussion that the poorer you are, the worse you eat, and that unhealthy food is generally cheaper than the good stuff. I can see this clearly in Denmark, and my impression is that in the states this trend is even more clear. If it´s so bad that the poorest won´t have the means to feed themselves, then it would also be necessary to lower the cost of the healthy foods.

I do think your point - that only lowering the price on the healthy foods would be more effecient - is wrong. All studies show that if you have to influence peoples ways and habits, then giving them an incentive to save money is not enough, you generally have to take something from them to make them change.

aye look at smoking (sorry to go back to that) we know it\'s bad for you and costs a fair bit but people still do it. of course, it\'s more addictive but then so are sugary, fatty foods to a certain degree.

i also agree that healthy, decent foods are more expensive. having said that, growing food is much cheaper but not many people have the space or time

 

[Harok]

If tobacco, obesity or car crashes is not going to kill you, hey, something else will. Vikings, plague, or any of those things that killed people in the middle ages.

I know I will never be able to buy my own house because years before I could even think about it, prices were being artificially inflated.
I\'m not getting myself a 50 years mortgage. Who knows? I could die tomorrow. Or worse, I could die a couple of months after finishing paying said mortgage. It\'s ridiculous.

Don\'t drink soda if you don\'t like it. Don\'t smoke if it feels you sick. Don\'t eat a hamburger if you prefer to stay in shape rather than a shot of endorphines in your brain.

If something feels good to you, do it. Life\'s way too short to care about what others think is bad.

 

[generulpoleaxe]

@Averlorn, don\'t go off the UK goverment stats, they are lies and have been proved as such, much to the embarassment of our current goverment. (they are caught blatantly lieing on a weekly basis at the moment, that is how corrupt the UK goverment currently is)

@the anti smokers and fat people, lots of things are bad for people, taxing the living shit out of people doesn\'t work, it just makes problems bigger.
obesity as has been mentioned is partly to do with genes, some people will generaly be fatter than others naturaly.
it\'s also to do with diet, cheepr diets are lower in protein and higher in carbohydrates as well as overall calories.

the obesity problem is also due to modern life styles, people travel further, and as such use cars more often, thus less excercise.
they are more likely to be sat at a desk all day, thus less excercise.
the cost of living compared to wages in a lot of countries is higher, hence longer working days behind the desk, thus less excercise.

a lot of the things that are highlighted as realy bad and thus should be taxed are brought about by lobby groups attached to goverment.
they provide the statistics that the goverment wants so that the goverment can be seen to be acting in a positive way.
they don\'t seek to ban the things that would make them unpopular.

ever noticed how the more a goverment wishes to spend, the more \"justified\" taxes come about.
the bigger the public sector slowly gets and the more intrusive the state becomes.