When the government tells you that you can and can't eat, then a revolt is a highly recommendable option.
If medicare and medicaid are too expensive, the state should try to become exempt from the programs rather than forcing totalitarian laws.
Most Americans would agree it's not fair for healthy people to subsidise unhealthy people, she says, but unhealthy people who work for the state and get state health insurance aren't subject to this proposal.
Basically, you're being threatened. "If you don't work for us, we will limit you rights."
It's also stated that almost a quarter of Americans are obese. This is utter bull****. BMI (body mass index) is used to determine if someone is over weight. The problem with BMI is that it does NOT take into consideration muscle. Muscular people are often considered over weight when they are, in fact, healthier than everyone else around them. There are also many people who are in the recommended weight zone that are unhealthy because their muscle has turned to fat. Muscle is heavier than fat.
When I walk outside, a quarter of everyone I see are not fat. There are a lot of fat people, but the number falls drastically short of 25%.
If you want medicare and medicaid, then you need to accept that these systems will be very expensive. If you want medicaid and medicare bad enough to where you'll allow the government to fine you for eating unhealthy, then there's a definite problem.
It's also stated that almost a quarter of Americans are obese. This is utter bull****. BMI (body mass index) is used to determine if someone is over weight. The problem with BMI is that it does NOT take into consideration muscle. Muscular people are often considered over weight when they are, in fact, healthier than everyone else around them.
Honestly, nemo, how many people do you think have a high BMI because they are muscular and not overweight?
And since you are nitpicking here:
It's also stated that almost a quarter of Americans are obese. This is utter bull****. BMI (body mass index) is used to determine if someone is over weight.
Obesity is defined as having a BMI of over 30. Therefore by definition, a quarter of Americans are obese. Your objection lies in the fact that BMI is a normalised measurement that will have a number of outliers. But on the flip side, that BMI is a normalised measurement means that the outliers are relatively few, and this should not at all be grounds to be skeptical of the rising prevalence of this so-called "obesity", or more importantly, its implications.
Going back to the original law (which I would also consider dumb), even if a person had a BMI of over 30, any competent doctor is well versed with the limitations of its usage and would do a minimum of waist to hip ratio, blood serum lipids and a host of other health checks (blood pressure, fasting blood glucose, family history, alcohol and dietary history, maybe even ECG, stress test if indicated etc.) to gain a fuller picture of a patient's health before recommending any kind of dietary or lifestyle measure.
All this is kinda moot anyway. That the US doesn't have a public health system was already a demonstration of the general culture: I hardly would think that enforcing statutes that make listening to somebody mandatory would make somebody actually willing to listen. All the hoo-haa about the public health system results from the push occuring too fast: it's the culture and the self-destructive individualism that should have been addressed before trying to cram America into an infrastructure that requires a mindset that the country as a whole isn't used to thinking about.
When I walk outside, a quarter of everyone I see are not fat. There are a lot of fat people, but the number falls drastically short of 25%.
Yeah, and I work in a hospital located in a low socioeconomic status area, and well over half the people there are grossly obese. What does that tell you?
I'll admit I was being a bit nit picky about BMI, and I am aware that obesity is on the rise, but I believe the scale of the obesity problem has been exaggerated. I understand that obesity is still a problem, but as you pointed out, I was being nit picky.
Yeah, and I work in a hospital located in a low socioeconomic status area, and well over half the people there are grossly obese. What does that tell you?
I have never personally experienced this, therefore I suppose I could be ignorant as to the severity of the obesity problem.
You also mentioned that a doctor would not assign a diet to a person strictly based on their BMI.
So I'll admit, I was wrong to bring BMI up and use it as any sort of justification for not supporting the law.
Although in principle it does actually look like a good idea I think that it is far to controlling and breaches peoples rights. Maybe it could be used in really extreme cases
Not wanting to sound like a typical American but...wouldn't this just basically violate our freedom? I mean you can't fall much farther when you can't eat what you want, however much you want, etc, even if it's bad for you, it's your choice. As for the BMI thing, true, professional athletes and the like are misplaced by the BMI thing, but then, it's pretty obvious who's the exception and who's not.
When I walk outside, a quarter of everyone I see are not fat.
Though it's a bit of a dropped subject, I've noticed this changes depending on where you are, like Strop said, a low socioeconomic area. Where i live now, I barely see 1 obese person a day.
As for the fat fine... It's pretty dumb. For one thing, how could you examine whether Patient A has been following his Doctor's dietary regimen? Even though asking that is a little pointless -- It's violating peoples rights to whatever they'd like to eat -- and if this gets any more serious I'm sure we'd just end up adding it to the Constitution as an amendment to defend our fatty goodness.
Good -Keep people healthy -More govt. money -Keep people's records in check (Prob) -Stricter and more careful doctors (Prob) -Change Bad -Freedoms violated -Fat people have to pay (Obv) -Change
Obv = Obviously Prob = Probably
I put change in twice because some believe in it, whilst others don't.
Hmm... for those who have problems with fat people being fined.. how would it be if it was more of a contribution? It could be less than 50 dollars, but on a regular basis, if the obese aren't even trying to loose weight. It still sounds weird but maybe less like a rights violation.. That, or you have to make it obligatory for obese people to follow some kind of treatment, like weekly exercise session. This would allow to fine them for not going there, now the problem is, would such obligatory treatment be just as bad as the fine alone?
I'm not sure how I'm standing towards fines for overweight.. one could say it's their problem that they're fat, but I don't think so; if they're fat, they have a bad metabolism, or don't eat correctly according to their metabolism, and many also have psychological troubles like depression or such (not the heavy stuff, but still). So it's kinda wrong to fine them, but doing nothing is just as stupid. So you have to do something about it, and what if they don't want to?How do you handle that? Because I'm sure you have to do something, be it only for their own good (I consider obesity as negative influence to life quality).
I believe people have a right to make unhealthy decisions.
Totally agree, I also want to be able to drink alcool or eat fatty things when I want to. Question is, would the obese people also make the same decisions if they'd be in perfect physical form? Or is it lazyness and habits? Maybe they would want to be able to do anything against it, and simply can't motivate themselves? Since even if you answer this with yes, this doesn't justify to apply it to everyone, but I want you to think a bit more about it.
I have never personally experienced this, therefore I suppose I could be ignorant as to the severity of the obesity problem.
I think you were supposed to infer that different areas had different obesity rates, and therefore going outside in your area was no way to gauge obesity or its prevalence.
it's the culture and the self-destructive individualism that should have been addressed before trying to cram America into an infrastructure that requires a mindset that the country as a whole isn't used to thinking about.
I kind of agree. Self-destructive individualism is no good. I'd rather see constructive individualism. That is, rather than attempting to adopt a culture of collectivism, do what we can to become better individuals. Rather than finding their place, I'd like to see people find their own way.
Totally agree, I also want to be able to drink alcool or eat fatty things when I want to. Question is, would the obese people also make the same decisions if they'd be in perfect physical form? Or is it lazyness and habits? Maybe they would want to be able to do anything against it, and simply can't motivate themselves? Since even if you answer this with yes, this doesn't justify to apply it to everyone, but I want you to think a bit more about it.
Education is the answer to that. Just be sure to properly educate kids about the risk of being overweight, healthy alimentation, and that kind of stuff. Then if they still become obese, there will be no reason to feel bad, they knew the risks.
