Well, it's a fine, not mandated gastric bypass surgery. What would you propose for enforcement?
LOL... and ElNoKnow says I'm extreme...
Well, it's a fine, not mandated gastric bypass surgery. What would you propose for enforcement?
I think there's a major distance between a fine and mandated castration... feel free to disagree...
I haven't looked, but I'll bet there is a correlation between sunscreen sales and obesity.
There you go lying again. Paraphrasing my words wrong is an effective lie. Stating I have a position that is false is a lie.
Please show me any post to support your allegation that I support castration.
You are pathetic ElNoKnow.Definition of CASTRATE
a : to deprive of the testes : geld
b : to deprive of the ovaries : spay
People harm themselves because they have no self control.
I've mentioned a junk food tax a couple of times on this board as something that could be used to help with healthcare costs. (tax junk food and redistribute revenues to taxpayers via HSA accounts) So I'm with you on that one. Another thing the government could do is restrict food stamps to prohibit them being used to purchase junk food/soda/candy.
I can't go along with criminalizing obesity though. The results of criminalizing drugs are underwhelming, I don't see why criminalizing being fat would turn out any better.
1. I disagree.
2. Even if that were true, it's still not an excuse for never getting off the couch to go exercise. Last time I checked anyone can exercise for free.
See on the many sites how much intense exercise it takes to burn 500 calories.
I'm not against exercise at all, but it's an unreliable, unsustainable, even unavailable method for weight loss/maintenance for the majority.
Diet is the only realiable, sustainable, universally available method. And it's certainly diet that causes the overweight/obes y epidemic and attendant diseases, not lack of exercise.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 05-10-2012 at 09:28 AM.
I probably would not go for jail time but fines might work. I agree with you on the food stamps restrictions. I was at a Valero the other day in a poorer part of SA and I saw little green signs indicating which candy, chips and other snacks could be purchased with food stamps. Made me sick.
A hardcore public health insurance option with serious bonuses (reductions) per year for people who are measured to be in good health. Maluses/penalties are not acceptable. The "penalty" for being measurably "life-style unhealthy" would be paying 100% of your insurance premiums.
This would spawn an industry of health testing, which should be cheaper than spending $8K/year per each of 300M+ for sick-care.
no , it also takes very little money/effort for a small vegetable garden, even on an apartment patio.
New Study Highlights The Need For Health Education Programs To Ward Off Childhood Obesity
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/245096.php
Controlling Obesity Will Save Over Half A Trillion Dollars
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/245079.php
castrate
1. To remove the testicles of (a male); geld or emasculate.
2. To remove the ovaries of (a female); spay.
3. To deprive of virility or spirit; emasculate.
virility
1. The state or quality of being virile; manly character, vigor, or spirit; masculinity.
2. The power of procreation.
Shut up, liar.
Very Simple
1. Tax the out of redmeat
2. tax the out of anything with sugar
3. Tax the sht out of grease
4. Give tax breaks to those woh purchase fruits greens and lean meat
A huge problem I have with ElNono's idea is that weight and fitness aren't as correlated as one would think. I remember a few years ago I was hiking a pretty strenuous trail in Grand Teton and I saw this woman who by all social standards would be considered a pig who zipped by me on the trail and started going up switchbacks on it like they were nothing. She was heavy as with floppy s and a gut but still faster than me or any of the other people I ran into on the trail.
No kidding. I don't particularly care for a "junk food tax," but I would never go for criminalizing fatness. I think people should be responsible for themselves.
Why do people want the government to protect them form themselves?
ElNoKnow... Why don't you just ask them to put you in a strait jacket and padded room, so you can't hurt yourself. Since it appears you think the authoritarian approach to protect everyone from everything is the solution.
"studies have shown" that greasebags who anyway exercise can obviate nearly the negatives of greasebagginess. iow, fat can be fit.
Now I would go along with only allowing healthy purchases on the tax payers dime.
Food stamps having only limited purchases...
Oh yea... No chips, soda, candy, etc.
Not only that, but some people just are genetically fat.
"Why do people want the government to protect them form themselves"
more specifically, govt should protect society from the greatly elevated health costs of the greasebags, which everybody else pays (hiked for-profit premiums for the insured, and taxpayers reimbursing health care for the uninsured).
Precedent is for-profit insurance companies makes smokers and driving violators pay more.
And let's not hear that obese people have uncontrollable "nothing I can do" medical/genetic problems. 99% of them simply overeat.
That's why I can grudgingly go along with a junk food tax.
Seriously, does anyone else see if the obamacare or the healthcare industry as we know it now charging by the pound in the near future. God bless
Not really, but I think "all you can eat" buffets should do that.
Great take! Obesity is so much more of a quan y of food issue than it is a quality of food issue. We as a society just consume WAY more calories than needed for our level of activity, which progressively declines with each generation.
Has anyone tried places like My Fit Foods, Nutrisystem, etc? You are eating a bunch of crap really but because you limit your portions and caloric intake per day, you lose weight doing it. And you don't give up the short-term gratifications of eating unhealthy food either.
I'm guessing most Americans are in the 2500-3000 a day calories consumed range when based on their caloric expenditure they should be in the 1800-2300 range...
BTW, it is actually better to eat 3-4 times a day than 1-2, but eat smaller portions. If you only eat 1-2 times a day but have really big meals, your metabolism is slower than if you eat more often but are spreading the calories out throughout the day. It's easier to ac ulate undesirable body fat from only eating 1-2 X a day because your body will raid its own lean muscle mass for energy more often than if you spread your meals out.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)