Is it fair to fine fat people for not dieting?
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
In practice, this strikes me as being very difficult, if not impossible, to administer fairly. How is it determined whether a person is "fat" or "not fat"? BMI, body fat percentage, number of fat rolls? How is it determined whether or not the person is following their doctor's fitness plan?
Here's my prediction if this were implemented: Within the first year or so someone with a low to average body fat percentage but a large build and therefore high BMI will be assessed the fine. This person will be someone who is is good health, probably even rather athletic, but just of a larger body type. It will be challenged in court and struck down after a long expensive court battle.
Here's my prediction if this were implemented: Within the first year or so someone with a low to average body fat percentage but a large build and therefore high BMI will be assessed the fine. This person will be someone who is is good health, probably even rather athletic, but just of a larger body type. It will be challenged in court and struck down after a long expensive court battle.
And yet the national health systems in Europe manage not to discriminate against unhealthy behaviour. The principle of universal medical care means just that. It's universal. And it's been running for a long time.
You might want to read the whole first post at least before replying.
The only people this would impact are people who have already invited the government the hell into their business. The government certainly does get a say in how it handles its end of that business.
No, they should not. Forcing one to a different life-style really seldomly works, I´d say. Better start looking at where the real problem is... and thats a very complex one of the whole society (well the "first-world" ones at least...), as it includes relativ poverty, education, bringing-up, psychology, money-making industries and what not.
TerokNor
TerokNor
Food prices will rise in America if you suddenly changed the recipe, don't ask me how I know this, I just do, so that can't be changed with out complaint, and to make it, healthier, you're going to have to. now, America is bigger than where I live, and the poppulation is more, so the food will no doubt be differently mixed, to feed the masses through out the land, which includes many, many different climates.
When;
The food prices go up anyway, you know the poorest will have to rely on cheap, easy to get junk food, and that will impose a lot of treatment needed anyway, so the $50 fine sounds like a tax for health care, to me, a guy who doesn't really know what I'm saying who lives 5, 000 miles away anyway.
When;
The food prices go up anyway, you know the poorest will have to rely on cheap, easy to get junk food, and that will impose a lot of treatment needed anyway, so the $50 fine sounds like a tax for health care, to me, a guy who doesn't really know what I'm saying who lives 5, 000 miles away anyway.
Leaving them with less money to spend on garbage foods. That's the idea.
I'm not sure what to make of this. There's no question the government is responsible for the whole mess - they stood back and allowed the garbage food companies to take control of your lives and now you have fat mothers with fat kids who don't know how to cook, think preparing dinner is picking up some shit at KFC or Maccas, and don't understand why the government is fining them for doing what they have done for decades.
Any measure to combat this 'crisis' is good, but I think the real solution lies in your government hardening up and telling the fake food providers to either provide real food or fuck the hell off.
Pardon the language I feel strongly about this one
You have answered your own unasked question
There are no direct negative consequences to these bad habits. Drugs are awesome, alcohol gets you laid, and shit food tastes fantastic (expecially when you are drunk)
People are motivated to seek out pleasure for the most part ...
It is all well and good that these things cause ill effects over the long term. People can't see the wood for the trees. Right now, this shit feels awesome.
Now, if there were immediate and painful consequences to eating Mcdonalds or taking dope, just watch how quickly would people stop consuming these things.
Thankfully, God or Buddha gave us heartburn to ward off evil foods once we reach thirty.
The carrot-stick approach doesn't work anyway, not for complex problems requiring one to use one's brain. The only time carrot-stick works as a motivator is when it's a very simple, mechanical task. Otherwise it becomes a demotivator, especially among the poor. Money is not really a motivator.
It is an enabler though. Try getting fat without it
A
Amaris
Guest
Where I live, foods like pasta, bread, and rice are all cheaper than vegetables and fruit.
A
Amaris
Guest
I hope it's a new Admiral™ black and white television!
Well speaking as a fat, diabetic currently trying to get food stamps I don't think it is unreasonable to expect people getting their money from the government to have to spend that money in optimum ways. In America there is already a limit on what food stamps can be used for example no alcohol or tobacco. There are two caveats I have though.
1. I would hope that that diet is not based on current ADA recommendations for diabetics which for some reason still believe eating a lot of fruit and pasta is good for people who can't handle sugar.
2. I would hope that the mandate is accompanied by a real hands on counseling program to assist people in adhering to the diet. There are many, many reasons why adherence might be a big problem for people. It is well known that in America it is cheaper and easier to eat high-carb, processed food then natural food. Many poor people do not have access to facilities to cook food or store food which requires refrigeration. Unless someone is there to assist them I think the plan is doomed to fail.
1. I would hope that that diet is not based on current ADA recommendations for diabetics which for some reason still believe eating a lot of fruit and pasta is good for people who can't handle sugar.
2. I would hope that the mandate is accompanied by a real hands on counseling program to assist people in adhering to the diet. There are many, many reasons why adherence might be a big problem for people. It is well known that in America it is cheaper and easier to eat high-carb, processed food then natural food. Many poor people do not have access to facilities to cook food or store food which requires refrigeration. Unless someone is there to assist them I think the plan is doomed to fail.
This.
Giving a person who's already really poor less money will not make them slimmer. It might work if it meant that cheap food makes you slim, but that isn't the case. More often, it's the kind of stuff that will balloon your ass worse than anything.
Take $50 away from someone who can't afford it and vegetables will be the first thing coming out of the shopping cart. Because when you're faced with a choice between one healthy meal or three unhealthy ones that are cheap, the choice is easy.
Pasta isn't unhealthy, provided you don't eat too much of it at every sitting. If all you can afford is a tin of tomatoes with it, then that's even healthier and delicious. Rice is the same. You don't need to add much to it to make a good meal and it's good for you.
