• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Need for Regulation: Fighting the Obesity Epidemic

What do you think we should do about the Obesity Epidemic?


  • Total voters
    68
I don't necessarily want to demonize fat people, either. Some of my favorite people in the world are fat as ****. If the actual goal is to provide a weight loss incentive, then taxing excess weight is the most efficient means of doing so.

Simply allow insurance companies and medical care providers to levy that "tax" by raising their rates, then only the sickly obese would be made to pay, not those that cost society nothing. ;-)
 
That is the reasoning behind putting the responsibility of the shoulders of individuals, as opposed to putting it on society as a whole. I can't force someone to live a healthy life, but I can refuse to pay for their bad habits, and let them bear that burden of responsibility. It's just like when my son was being a 17 year-old ****head. I refused to indulge his stupidity, and let him learn from the life, the greatest of all teachers, that stupidity doesn't pay as a good lifestyle choice.

Problem with this attitude is that it can be used on pretty much everything and is highly egotistical. "I" refuse to pay for the war in Afghanistan.. and the US military, and FBI and roads over 100 miles from me.. How far you think you would get with such an attitude? :)

But saying that, I understand your frustration and share it.. but where we differ is how to correct the problematic behaviour.. leaving it up to "personal responsibility" is a cheap cop out and wont help both the people involved but society as a whole and yes that includes you and I.

That is why taxing bad things is a good behaviourally method instead of outright banning stuff. It can be used in pretty much anything.. from cars with bad mileage to banks that dont play by the rules and so on.
 
Interesting. If you were to implement this, how do you think you'd begin. Also, what do you think fair percentages would be?

I don't know what percentages, exactly. I'd have to do a lot of research. I know men would have a lower threshold than women and that's about it.
 
Simply allow insurance companies and medical care providers to levy that "tax" by raising their rates, then only the sickly obese would be made to pay, not those that cost society nothing. ;-)

Why not. They already do this with smokers, right?
 
Simply allow insurance companies and medical care providers to levy that "tax" by raising their rates, then only the sickly obese would be made to pay, not those that cost society nothing. ;-)

Dangerous as hell. Why stop at obese? Why not smokers, people with cancer in the family, people who drink alcohol... I mean any at all. How about people who had unprotected sex 20 years ago? Or left handed because they have a higher risk of some illness? Redheads because they have a higher risk of skin cancer? Where do you draw the line, and you know very well that if the insurance companies get an inch then they take a mile if they can get away with it.
 
Actually you cant refuse to pay for their negligence....... when they show up in the ER with health problems due to a bad diet, then what do you do.. say sorry but no treatment because you cant afford it and you are negligent since you ate too many twinkies?

The point on taxing "bad" foods is to push people to more healthy alternatives but not deny them the ability to buy and use the bad foods if they can afford it. Now it is not the foods themselves that should be taxed, but the bad parts of the foods and of course the amounts of the bad parts. You can actually make a fried chicken that is not 4000 calories, and you can make a healthy evening meal that is not 4000 calories. I mean one of the more popular foods at fairs in the US... is deep fried butter... come on....

They are actually trying this in Denmark now, and it has its success but also its annoying realities. For example the tax hit healthy non sugar jam because of one of the preservatives in the jam was on the tax list. It also hit some our national foods, which was not too popular hehe.

Unlike alcohol and tobacco ''sin" taxes, food is not an option, so you will tax the non-obese, as much, perhaps more than the obese. The obese, after all, may gain more fat from the same caloric intake simply because they do not burn the same amount of calories through work and exercise, as the non-obese.
 
Last edited:
Problem with this attitude is that it can be used on pretty much everything and is highly egotistical. "I" refuse to pay for the war in Afghanistan.. and the US military, and FBI and roads over 100 miles from me.. How far you think you would get with such an attitude? :)

But saying that, I understand your frustration and share it.. but where we differ is how to correct the problematic behaviour.. leaving it up to "personal responsibility" is a cheap cop out and wont help both the people involved but society as a whole and yes that includes you and I.

That is why taxing bad things is a good behaviourally method instead of outright banning stuff. It can be used in pretty much anything.. from cars with bad mileage to banks that dont play by the rules and so on.

Not only that, but at the end of the day we will pay for it for them, no matter whose is responsible. We won't turn them away at the er door, their missed work days won't be not paid for, and the effect will reach beyonf the individual.
 
Unlike alcohol and tobacco ''sin" taxes, food is not an option, so you will tax the non-obese, as much, perhaps more than the obese. The obese, after all, may simply retain more fat from the same caloric intake simply because they do not burn the same amount of calories through work and exercise, as the non-obese.

So what? Point is to lower the consumption of the bad foodstuffs which will eventually lead to a less obese population over all. Sure it hits non obese people, and so what? They most likely dont eat the bad foodstuffs any ways in the amounts of the obese.. just as non-alcoholics dont drink the same amounts as alcoholics.
 
Last edited:
That is the reasoning behind putting the responsibility of the shoulders of individuals, as opposed to putting it on society as a whole. I can't force someone to live a healthy life, but I can refuse to pay for their bad habits, and let them bear that burden of responsibility. It's just like when my son was being a 17 year-old ****head. I refused to indulge his stupidity, and let him learn from the life, the greatest of all teachers, that stupidity doesn't pay as a good lifestyle choice.

I just don't see it the same way.

If we promote the bad behavior, we create the mindset and fight tooth and nail to support it, then those same people must pay the consequences.

If you lead the brigade in allowing people the smoke massive amounts of nicotine, it's wrong and unfair for that same marching band to flee as fast as they can from supporting the very destructive behavior they deliberately set in motion.
 
It boggles my mind that someone could look at an overweight person and instead of thinking, "Hey that person should take some responsibility for their life and lose some weight," they think, "Man, we should have some government intervention for that fat person. Perhaps a sin tax?" So I should pay more for a delicious sugary treat because the guy next to me can't stop wolfing them down for dinner? It's a ridiculous argument to make. Now, should that person pay more for their health care? Heck yes, that's why bad drivers pay more for car insurance. Should we as a society be doing more to curb obesity? Yes, try encouraging your kids to go outside and play, not sit around the house all the time. Start a community fit club, donate time to your local school kids and get them to exercise, but for the love of all that is holy, keep the damn government out of it!
 
Wait. Hold on a sec.

If we can sin tax nicotine and alcohol, why not also tax truly unhealthy pre-made foods like doughnuts?
 
So what? Point is to lower the consumption of the bad foodstuffs which will eventually lead to a less obese population over all. Sure it hits non obese people, and so what? They most likely dont eat the bad foodstuffs any ways in the amounts of the obese.. just as non-alcoholics dont drink the same amounts as alcoholics.

The extra taxes on certain foods won't do anything to curb obesity, just like the extra taxes on alcohol don't do anything to curb alcoholism.

The example you provided of something that gets an extra tax is also evidence that the primary premise for increasing the tax is false.
 
Wait. Hold on a sec.

If we can sin tax nicotine and alcohol, why not also tax truly unhealthy pre-made foods like doughnuts?

God, I love dounuts. Haven't had one in years, but I do love donuts. :(
 
Dangerous as hell. Why stop at obese? Why not smokers, people with cancer in the family, people who drink alcohol... I mean any at all. How about people who had unprotected sex 20 years ago? Or left handed because they have a higher risk of some illness? Redheads because they have a higher risk of skin cancer? Where do you draw the line, and you know very well that if the insurance companies get an inch then they take a mile if they can get away with it.

Hold on there skippy. As you said, if GIVEN an inch, they make take a mile. We allow this practice for auto insurance now, yet limit the factors to an INCH, and refuse to yield them the MILE. They may RIGHTLY use age, gender, zip code, marital status and past driving history to set rates, but they may NOT use race, hair color, weight or familiy history to set rates. I simply suggested that the gov't allow obesity to be used, not that I would limit any other restrictions on basing rates to be lifted.
 
Last edited:
We can. And if our goal is to exploit the addicted for extra tax revenue, it's a great idea.

That's one way to look at it. Another would be to pay for the care and preventive measures we could use to get him off dounuts.
 
That's one way to look at it. Another would be to pay for the care and preventive measures we could use to get him off dounuts.

If that's what the money went to, sure. But that's never what the money goes to. It goes to a bunch of pointless bull****.
 
If that's what the money went to, sure. But that's never what the money goes to. It goes to a bunch of pointless bull****.

Which is why I said that would be the only way I'd support it. I do believe it is possible to limit the money use to just that issue. Whether we will or not is largely up to how much we keep the pressure on elected officials to do just that.
 
Which is why I said that would be the only way I'd support it.

I missed where you said it was the only way you would support it. Where did you say it, exactly, because you didn't say it in the post I responded to?

I do believe it is possible to limit the money use to just that issue. Whether we will or not is largely up to how much we keep the pressure on elected officials to do just that.

I don't have any faith in that ever happening.
 
Wait. Hold on a sec.

If we can sin tax nicotine and alcohol, why not also tax truly unhealthy pre-made foods like doughnuts?

This is where things get cloudy for me. Sin tax on nicotine, yet subsidies for tobacco farmers. But that's a different argument. There is already tariffs placed on natural sugar which forces companies to by HFCS, which has been shown to be extremely unhealthy and has been a big part of the rising obesity rates. So, the government makes is easier for companies to make products that are more unhealthy for us, just so they can put a sin tax on said products? Sounds like a lot of b.s. just to squeeze some more money out of me.
 
That's one way to look at it. Another would be to pay for the care and preventive measures we could use to get him off dounuts.

A) Since when is it a good idea to make this the responsibility of the government and B) want to take bets that the money the government collects from the sin tax goes to something else that has nothing to do with obesity, or even health care in general?
 
A) Since when is it a good idea to make this the responsibility of the government and B) want to take bets that the money the government collects from the sin tax goes to something else that has nothing to do with obesity, or even health care in general?

AGain, I would not support them taking the money for anything else, so some build in protection would have to be part of it. As for government's role, well, looking to pay for what it has to do is a good idea. We know we will not turn anyone away at the ER. We know obese people are likley to end up there, as well as present other societal problems. being practical and planning ahead is not a bad idea.
 
So what? Point is to lower the consumption of the bad foodstuffs which will eventually lead to a less obese population over all. Sure it hits non obese people, and so what? They most likely dont eat the bad foodstuffs any ways in the amounts of the obese.. just as non-alcoholics dont drink the same amounts as alcoholics.

Let me slow this down for you. What is a "bad" food? Is a cookie a "bad" food yet a granola bar is not? Is sugar a "bad" food? Is "salt" a bad food? My point, is that caloric intake ALONE is not bad, regardless of the source of those calories. What is "bad" is consuming more calories than you burn, as the balance (a portion of it anyway) is stored as body fat, over time, continuing this, this makes you obese. I can eat 8000 calories, one or two days a year, and suffer no ill effect, yet if I eat more than I burn (from ANY source) on a long term basis then I will gain body fat. An athlete or construction worker (in perfect shape) will need much more caloric intake than a desk worker (in perfect shape) yet the desk worker gets a tax break, simply because they need to eat less. It is not that the foods are "bad" it is strictly a matter of not consuming more calories than your body burns, on a regular basis. Taxing "birthday cakes", will have no effect whatever, except to generate revenue as both the obese and non-obese will still buy ONE.
 
I missed where you said it was the only way you would support it. Where did you say it, exactly, because you didn't say it in the post I responded to?



I don't have any faith in that ever happening.

I said it earlier. When the issue of taxing was first brought up. As for faith, I don't es[pouse to anyone relying on faith for anything. I suggest build in protection under law. Word it properly.
 
I said it earlier. When the issue of taxing was first brought up. As for faith, I don't es[pouse to anyone relying on faith for anything. I suggest build in protection under law. Word it properly.

Neither of us are likely to be the ones wording the law, so you are definitely espousing a reliance on faith. Faith in our politicians to word it properly. I have no faith in that occurring.
 
Back
Top Bottom