• 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!

Julian Robertson Gonna Put You on a Diet, Fatty

I would be for his..eh..er, program…with this caveat. Find another way of determining obesity. The BMI index that insurance companies use don’t work when a person does a lot of strength training.

bioelectric impedance is a much better measure of % of body fat than a BMI.
 
He's gonna pump *clap* you up!
 
The article i referenced pertained to a pigouvian solution, in which taxation is used to "internalize the externality". How much does obesity cost taxpayers on a yearly basis? Why not push the costs off on those who enact such a..... way of life.

How much does making dangerous treks into the mountains that result in massive rescue operations cost taxpayers? How much does driving race cars cost American taxpayers? Parachute jumping? Swimming across the ocean to break a record? Aerobatics? Smoking? Drinking? Any one of thousands of risky occupations or behaviors? Why not push the costs off on them? Because it doesn't make sense.
 
How much does making dangerous treks into the mountains that result in massive rescue operations cost taxpayers? How much does driving race cars cost American taxpayers? Parachute jumping? Swimming across the ocean to break a record? Aerobatics? Smoking? Drinking? Any one of thousands of risky occupations or behaviors? Why not push the costs off on them? Because it doesn't make sense.

Actually, it would (with the exception of smoking and drinking, due to the addiction involved making the situation more complicated). Especially considering that those activities are usually taken on for entertainment purposes.
 
Actually, it would (with the exception of smoking and drinking, due to the addiction involved making the situation more complicated). Especially considering that those activities are usually taken on for entertainment purposes.

I actually agree with you that those activities should carry a burden directly on those engaging. You acknowledging that smoking/drinking is a different colored horse, however, is partly my point. Over-eating is, in fact, an addiction. Not 10 or 20 pounds, of course, but morbidly obese individuals are dealing with much more than just the amount and kinds of food they eat. They are dealing with an addiction just as surely as if they were shooting up.
 
I actually agree with you that those activities should carry a burden directly on those engaging. You acknowledging that smoking/drinking is a different colored horse, however, is partly my point. Over-eating is, in fact, an addiction. Not 10 or 20 pounds, of course, but morbidly obese individuals are dealing with much more than just the amount and kinds of food they eat. They are dealing with an addiction just as surely as if they were shooting up.

It might very well be. I have been losing wieght lately and the more weight I lose, the less hungry I seem to feel.
 
How much does making dangerous treks into the mountains that result in massive rescue operations cost taxpayers? How much does driving race cars cost American taxpayers? Parachute jumping? Swimming across the ocean to break a record? Aerobatics? Smoking? Drinking? Any one of thousands of risky occupations or behaviors? Why not push the costs off on them? Because it doesn't make sense.

For the most part, those activities do encompass greater costs. For example, you will have to pay more for life insurance if you add a clause that allows you to hang glide, parachute from an airplane, etc....
 
Critical in for understanding the basis of my argument.
 
At the end of the day, the answer to your question is, "Yes, they do."
Then if I may adopt the attitude that many people seem to have, "Why should I have to pay for their bad choices?"
 
The quickest way to fight obesity, is to put more people back to work.
 
Then if I may adopt the attitude that many people seem to have, "Why should I have to pay for their bad choices?"

Unless we are willing to live in a Nanny Nation, people will always have the right to be stupid at the expense of others.
 
Of all the freedoms I dislike, the freedom to be obese is the freedom I like least.

If the government wants to take that freedom away, then by all means let them.
 
why don't we ask ourselves...WHY does liposuction cost so much? How much does it cost to knock someone out on a table, and cut their fat off, seriously?
 
why don't we ask ourselves...WHY does liposuction cost so much? How much does it cost to knock someone out on a table, and cut their fat off, seriously?

Well…if the doc doesn’t know his biz, said patent has a new nickname; lumpy.:2wave:
 
We could always allow price discrimination.
Better than some federal agency devoted to fighting obesity.

How about we start with a 10% pigouvian tax on sugar, fast food, and processed food?
 
How about we start with a 10% pigouvian tax on sugar, fast food, and processed food?

No because not everyone who uses that stuff is overweight.

I use sugar for my coffee regularly, it isn't fair for me to subsidize fat people like that.
It's more fair to go directly to the source, Medical insurance.

Why go around your elbow to get to your ass?
 
No because not everyone who uses that stuff is overweight.

Of course not. But i am willing to assume that your consumption of sugar products is not at a level which would force you into substitution.

I use sugar for my coffee regularly, it isn't fair for me to subsidize fat people like that.
It's more fair to go directly to the source, Medical insurance.

You wouldn't be subsidizing fat people, just paying 10% extra for a good who's consumption is known to lead to cavities and diabetes. Smokers already tend to pay more for health care and life insurance, so i really have no objection to this. But.... More than 60% of adults are overweight or obese; so it might be hard to get something like that to fly without some sort of legislation.
 
Of course not. But i am willing to assume that your consumption of sugar products is not at a level which would force you into substitution.

I just don't see the point when a more precise level of discouragement could be leveled on the individual who is actually over weight.

You wouldn't be subsidizing fat people, just paying 10% extra for a good who's consumption is known to lead to cavities and diabetes. Smokers already tend to pay more for health care and life insurance, so i really have no objection to this. But.... More than 60% of adults are overweight or obese; so it might be hard to get something like that to fly without some sort of legislation.

I'd think that be true with any form of increased taxation.
 
I just don't see the point when a more precise level of discouragement could be leveled on the individual who is actually over weight.

Half of all health care expenditures are paid for via federal, state, and/or local governments. A bit of a dated source, but none the less:
Children covered by Medicaid are nearly six times more likely to be treated for severe obesity than children with private insurance, a research firm said.

The company's data, from government and employer records, showed that 1,115 of every 100,000 children covered by Medicaid were treated for obesity. In contrast, 195 of every 100,000 privately insured children were treated for that diagnosis.

"Medicaid children have, on average, a bigger disease burden," said Bill Marder, general manager for Thomson Medstat, the research firm.

Some experts said the finding wasn't surprising.

Medicaid children tend to be less healthy in general, so they are more likely to need medical treatment, said Ken Thorpe, a professor of health policy at Atlanta's Emory University.

I'd think that be true with any form of increased taxation.

Yep.
 
Back
Top Bottom