Should we penalize smokers and the obese?

[dblack]

Employers and insurance companies already penalize them.

The question is, should the government? Which is an entirely different issue.

 

[KissMy]

This is the problem when government gets involved in our lives. Now, through universal health care, the government is itching to tell us what we may do with our bodies.

That didn't take long.

What will the penalty be for disobedience, I wonder? Fines, initially. Then when that doesn't work, it's just another ploy to justify herding people into containment.

You nailed it there. Every since EMTALA & PPACA we have to pay for others bad habits, lack of will power, addictions, sex, sedentary video games, TV, disease, etc. Banning these things sucks balls. Taxing poor fat people & smokers who have nothing to tax is useless.

However taxing cigarettes has dramatically wiped out smokers. Taxing bad food will do the same for fat people. There are activity based video games & out door games, so taxing sedentary video games is not depriving anyone. You can still smoke, eat, drink & be merry but in moderation unless you can afford to pay the true health cost instead of burdening us with it.

It is not an undue tax on the poor because they can drink water, tea, sugar free soda, etc. They can eat good food instead of junk food. They don't have to smoke. They can do these luxury things if they have earned enough to pay the true cost for them.

If we have to choke on the neighbors smoking, tolerate being squeezed by them in ball game, bus & airline seats, pay extra to haul them around, pay for their self inflicted illness, the least they could do is pay us back some tax before they do these things.

Yes us payers have been saddled with the cost of the nanny state. There is no reason we can't make the takers pay for their excessive luxury burdens by taxing them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Employers and insurance companies already penalize them.

The question is, should the government? Which is an entirely different issue.

The FDA and the Meat Inspection Act, etc, are in force because they are good legislative acts.

So the question is if not if, but why?

 

[KissMy]

Employers and insurance companies already penalize them.

The question is, should the government? Which is an entirely different issue.

The FDA and the Meat Inspection Act, etc, are in force because they are good legislative acts.

So the question is if not if, but why?

A tax penalty is one thing, but the FDA flat out bans things people want. They flat out ban raw milk. They should tax it if it is bad for people, but instead they will seize your operation & jail people for selling it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Producers of goods and services have no protected right to threaten the health and welfare of their customers.

 

[Ava]

"Should we penalize smokers and the obese?"

No, they will expire sooner than later, of their own choices, thus saving the taxpayer medical expenses, should that really be your main concern. The government need not take away the freedom of choice, in the interest of "saving" anyone, anything, which is my main concern.

Let life and death evolve of it's own fruition. Nature makes no mistakes, it is said, and to which I ascribe.

 

[Queecho Feecho]

Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?

... Annual health care costs are roughly $96 billion for smokers and $147 billion for the obese, the government says. These costs accompany sometimes heroic attempts to prolong lives, including surgery, chemotherapy and other measures.

But despite these rescue attempts, smokers tend to die 10 years earlier on average, and the obese die five to 12 years prematurely, according to various researchers' estimates...

Some have said they don't like the ACA because they can no longer get their health care for free. Should the rest of us have to pay for smoker's and the obese higher health care costs? If not, how do we make them responsible for their own higher health care costs? Or, does their right to smoke and be fat negate our right to not have to pay those extra costs.

And, yes, the extra costs do fall to the entire society to pay.

Instead of worrying about women's health insurance paying for birth control, maybe its time we forced smokers and the obese to pay higher premiums.

"We" don't need to do anything in terms of penalizing anybody. All that "we" need to do is get the government out of healthcare and healthcare financing (aka health insurance, which is really a blend of pre-paid medical and actual health insurance), and let people, doctors, and would-be insurers engage in voluntary transactions.

Without the government in the way, the insurer could underwrite based on peoples' healthy/unhealthy behaviors.

----edited to add----

Oh yeah, and get rid of laws that foist the costs of one person onto another person.

 

[Againsheila]

This is the problem when government gets involved in our lives. Now, through universal health care, the government is itching to tell us what we may do with our bodies.

That didn't take long.

What will the penalty be for disobedience, I wonder? Fines, initially. Then when that doesn't work, it's just another ploy to justify herding people into containment.

You nailed it there. Every since EMTALA & PPACA we have to pay for others bad habits, lack of will power, addictions, sex, sedentary video games, TV, disease, etc. Banning these things sucks balls. Taxing poor fat people & smokers who have nothing to tax is useless.

However taxing cigarettes has dramatically wiped out smokers. Taxing bad food will do the same for fat people. There are activity based video games & out door games, so taxing sedentary video games is not depriving anyone. You can still smoke, eat, drink & be merry but in moderation unless you can afford to pay the true health cost instead of burdening us with it.

It is not an undue tax on the poor because they can drink water, tea, sugar free soda, etc. They can eat good food instead of junk food. They don't have to smoke. They can do these luxury things if they have earned enough to pay the true cost for them.

If we have to choke on the neighbors smoking, tolerate being squeezed by them in ball game, bus & airline seats, pay extra to haul them around, pay for their self inflicted illness, the least they could do is pay us back some tax before they do these things.

Yes us payers have been saddled with the cost of the nanny state. There is no reason we can't make the takers pay for their excessive luxury burdens by taxing them.

I do think perhaps, making lean meats and fresh fruits and vegetables cheaper would help. Taxing fatty meats and foods might discourage the poor from buying them but then they are priced out of buying any meats and foods. During our 3 years of hell, we went to the foodbank. Every week, we got tons of bread an pastries. Seldom meat, and when we did get meat, it was in a can with a whole lot of fat. Sometimes we got fresh vegetables and sometimes a can of corn or green beans. Hardly enough to provide for a family of 4 for a week, and certainly not a good diet. We didn't qualify for foodstamps. You wouldn't believe how much fattening food the food banks give out. I never ate so many pastries in my life. If you donate to the foodbank, I highly recommend cash with a note that it goes for food only, otherwise they can spend it on anything. If you are donating food, I recommend canned vegetables or canned white chicken. Something that is good for them. I say canned because the food bank doesn't like to accept perishables, they don't have a lot of ways to store perishables.

 

[Againsheila]

The question is, should the government? Which is an entirely different issue.

The FDA and the Meat Inspection Act, etc, are in force because they are good legislative acts.

So the question is if not if, but why?

A tax penalty is one thing, but the FDA flat out bans things people want. They flat out ban raw milk. They should tax it if it is bad for people, but instead they will seize your operation & jail people for selling it.

I think the world's gone nuts. If you have a cow and extra milk and your neighbors are poor and can't afford milk and you give them your extra milk, you can go to jail.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is the problem when government gets involved in our lives. Now, through universal health care, the government is itching to tell us what we may do with our bodies.

That didn't take long.

What will the penalty be for disobedience, I wonder? Fines, initially. Then when that doesn't work, it's just another ploy to justify herding people into containment.

You nailed it there. Every since EMTALA & PPACA we have to pay for others bad habits, lack of will power, addictions, sex, sedentary video games, TV, disease, etc. Banning these things sucks balls. Taxing poor fat people & smokers who have nothing to tax is useless.

However taxing cigarettes has dramatically wiped out smokers. Taxing bad food will do the same for fat people. There are activity based video games & out door games, so taxing sedentary video games is not depriving anyone. You can still smoke, eat, drink & be merry but in moderation unless you can afford to pay the true health cost instead of burdening us with it.

It is not an undue tax on the poor because they can drink water, tea, sugar free soda, etc. They can eat good food instead of junk food. They don't have to smoke. They can do these luxury things if they have earned enough to pay the true cost for them.

If we have to choke on the neighbors smoking, tolerate being squeezed by them in ball game, bus & airline seats, pay extra to haul them around, pay for their self inflicted illness, the least they could do is pay us back some tax before they do these things.

Yes us payers have been saddled with the cost of the nanny state. There is no reason we can't make the takers pay for their excessive luxury burdens by taxing them.

I do think perhaps, making lean meats and fresh fruits and vegetables cheaper would help. Taxing fatty meats and foods might discourage the poor from buying them but then they are priced out of buying any meats and foods. During our 3 years of hell, we went to the foodbank. Every week, we got tons of bread an pastries. Seldom meat, and when we did get meat, it was in a can with a whole lot of fat. Sometimes we got fresh vegetables and sometimes a can of corn or green beans. Hardly enough to provide for a family of 4 for a week, and certainly not a good diet. We didn't qualify for foodstamps. You wouldn't believe how much fattening food the food banks give out. I never ate so many pastries in my life. If you donate to the foodbank, I highly recommend cash with a note that it goes for food only, otherwise they can spend it on anything. If you are donating food, I recommend canned vegetables or canned white chicken. Something that is good for them. I say canned because the food bank doesn't like to accept perishables, they don't have a lot of ways to store perishables.

Great advice.

 

[KissMy]

This is the problem when government gets involved in our lives. Now, through universal health care, the government is itching to tell us what we may do with our bodies.

That didn't take long.

What will the penalty be for disobedience, I wonder? Fines, initially. Then when that doesn't work, it's just another ploy to justify herding people into containment.

You nailed it there. Every since EMTALA & PPACA we have to pay for others bad habits, lack of will power, addictions, sex, sedentary video games, TV, disease, etc. Banning these things sucks balls. Taxing poor fat people & smokers who have nothing to tax is useless.

However taxing cigarettes has dramatically wiped out smokers. Taxing bad food will do the same for fat people. There are activity based video games & out door games, so taxing sedentary video games is not depriving anyone. You can still smoke, eat, drink & be merry but in moderation unless you can afford to pay the true health cost instead of burdening us with it.

It is not an undue tax on the poor because they can drink water, tea, sugar free soda, etc. They can eat good food instead of junk food. They don't have to smoke. They can do these luxury things if they have earned enough to pay the true cost for them.

If we have to choke on the neighbors smoking, tolerate being squeezed by them in ball game, bus & airline seats, pay extra to haul them around, pay for their self inflicted illness, the least they could do is pay us back some tax before they do these things.

Yes us payers have been saddled with the cost of the nanny state. There is no reason we can't make the takers pay for their excessive luxury burdens by taxing them.

I do think perhaps, making lean meats and fresh fruits and vegetables cheaper would help. Taxing fatty meats and foods might discourage the poor from buying them but then they are priced out of buying any meats and foods. During our 3 years of hell, we went to the foodbank. Every week, we got tons of bread an pastries. Seldom meat, and when we did get meat, it was in a can with a whole lot of fat. Sometimes we got fresh vegetables and sometimes a can of corn or green beans. Hardly enough to provide for a family of 4 for a week, and certainly not a good diet. We didn't qualify for foodstamps. You wouldn't believe how much fattening food the food banks give out. I never ate so many pastries in my life. If you donate to the foodbank, I highly recommend cash with a note that it goes for food only, otherwise they can spend it on anything. If you are donating food, I recommend canned vegetables or canned white chicken. Something that is good for them. I say canned because the food bank doesn't like to accept perishables, they don't have a lot of ways to store perishables.

The tax on the bad food can be used to subsidize the good food keeping it affordable. I totally agree on the food bank food. However if they don't give you enough to ever eat then it is not bad for you. Sugar & fat are energy dense & if you burn more energy than you eat then you wont get fat.

I donate to food-banks that take wild game meat. Hunters on my farm kill at least 10 deer a year. They don't really want the meat, so my family & I butcher, grind & bag it all. We can only eat a couple of deer a year so we donate at least 8 deer worth of meat to the food-banks. Protein calcium & vitamins are good for building strong bones, muscles & brains.

 

[rightwinger]

We need to start with obese smokers and work our way down

 

[Underhill]

The FDA and the Meat Inspection Act, etc, are in force because they are good legislative acts.

So the question is if not if, but why?

A tax penalty is one thing, but the FDA flat out bans things people want. They flat out ban raw milk. They should tax it if it is bad for people, but instead they will seize your operation & jail people for selling it.

I think the world's gone nuts. If you have a cow and extra milk and your neighbors are poor and can't afford milk and you give them your extra milk, you can go to jail.

If you give it to them? I know it's illegal to sell, but giving it to them I don't see how the FDA can regulate that any more than giving a friend a venison steak.

 

[Againsheila]

A tax penalty is one thing, but the FDA flat out bans things people want. They flat out ban raw milk. They should tax it if it is bad for people, but instead they will seize your operation & jail people for selling it.

I think the world's gone nuts. If you have a cow and extra milk and your neighbors are poor and can't afford milk and you give them your extra milk, you can go to jail.

If you give it to them? I know it's illegal to sell, but giving it to them I don't see how the FDA can regulate that any more than giving a friend a venison steak.

No, apparently you cannot give away unpasteurized milk, at least not in this state.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Underhill, that makes sense if it is done in a private mode with the milk being sold.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think the world's gone nuts. If you have a cow and extra milk and your neighbors are poor and can't afford milk and you give them your extra milk, you can go to jail.

If you give it to them? I know it's illegal to sell, but giving it to them I don't see how the FDA can regulate that any more than giving a friend a venison steak.

No, apparently you cannot give away unpasteurized milk, at least not in this state.

Does your state consider it a health hazard?

 

[Againsheila]

If you give it to them? I know it's illegal to sell, but giving it to them I don't see how the FDA can regulate that any more than giving a friend a venison steak.

No, apparently you cannot give away unpasteurized milk, at least not in this state.

Does your state consider it a health hazard?

Yes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bad law.

 

[dblack]

Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?

... Annual health care costs are roughly $96 billion for smokers and $147 billion for the obese, the government says. These costs accompany sometimes heroic attempts to prolong lives, including surgery, chemotherapy and other measures.

But despite these rescue attempts, smokers tend to die 10 years earlier on average, and the obese die five to 12 years prematurely, according to various researchers' estimates...

Some have said they don't like the ACA because they can no longer get their health care for free. Should the rest of us have to pay for smoker's and the obese higher health care costs? If not, how do we make them responsible for their own higher health care costs? Or, does their right to smoke and be fat negate our right to not have to pay those extra costs.

And, yes, the extra costs do fall to the entire society to pay.

Instead of worrying about women's health insurance paying for birth control, maybe its time we forced smokers and the obese to pay higher premiums.

"We" don't need to do anything in terms of penalizing anybody. All that "we" need to do is get the government out of healthcare and healthcare financing (aka health insurance, which is really a blend of pre-paid medical and actual health insurance), and let people, doctors, and would-be insurers engage in voluntary transactions.

Without the government in the way, the insurer could underwrite based on peoples' healthy/unhealthy behaviors.

----edited to add----

Oh yeah, and get rid of laws that foist the costs of one person onto another person.

Exactly. I don't quite get the reasoning behind the argument that the unintended consequences of regulation like EMTALA justifies dictating to us how we finance our health care. If these are genuine arguments, and the thing that really has the reformers peeved is freeloaders pushing their health care costs off on the rest of us, then we should attend to the real problem - the regulation that makes it possible. Repeal it or change it to prevent the negative effects.

 

[dblack]

I think the world's gone nuts. If you have a cow and extra milk and your neighbors are poor and can't afford milk and you give them your extra milk, you can go to jail.

If you give it to them? I know it's illegal to sell, but giving it to them I don't see how the FDA can regulate that any more than giving a friend a venison steak.

No, apparently you cannot give away unpasteurized milk, at least not in this state.

They have to do it that way. Otherwise the laws banning sale are relatively easy to get around. What if I was 'giving' away unpasteurized milk and accepting charitable contributions from the recipients of my gifts? Where do you draw that line? That's why commercial regulation of this nature is so poisonous. It inevitably violates our rights and needlessly inserts the authority of government into personal, private decisions.

Seriously, is this what government's for? To tell us how to eat?