Fat Tax

[Beetlenut]

The next thing you know, we'll all be in standardized uniforms with barcodes and only allowed to do what our genetic code predisposes us to... and have to apply for permits for everything from skiing to having sex (because the risk of you procreating and carrying on your genetic code...oh my, the horrors!!!!!).

You mean we'll all become Chinese?

 

[Warp Daddy]

you mean we aren't already ?

 

[Warp Daddy]

Common sense is a RARE commodity today it seems

 

[deadheadskier]

I know what you mean, guys, but really, I'm for less government involvement and taxing than more. Isn't this supposed to be the land of the free? There are plenty of other risky things I'm sure you people do that put you in a bracket that you should pay more for health care/car insurance/whatever but you don't. It all evens out in the end, doesn't it? Why should government dictate what you eat? The next thing you know, we'll all be in standardized uniforms with barcodes and only allowed to do what our genetic code predisposes us to... and have to apply for permits for everything from skiing to having sex (because the risk of you procreating and carrying on your genetic code...oh my, the horrors!!!!!).

Common sense. That's all that's needed. And balance.

+1

I think it's all too difficult to define personally.

Breakfast: Three fried-egg sandwiches loaded with cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, fried onions and mayonnaise. Two cups of coffee. One five-egg omelet. One bowl of grits. Three slices of French toast topped with powdered sugar. Three chocolate-chip pancakes.

Lunch: One pound of enriched pasta. Two large ham and cheese sandwiches with mayo on white bread. Energy drinks packing 1,000 calories.

Dinner: One pound of pasta. An entire pizza. More energy drinks.

That's Michael Phelps' diet. He's most likely healthier than any single one of us in this debate, yet most would look at the above diet and say that individual must be 400 pounds and on the verge of a heart attack.

Yes certain behaviors are risky and can lead to a higher burden on the system, but even if you were to define certain activities such as skiing, there is still too much gray area. A never ever skier on a bunny slope probably has a greater risk of injury than an experienced skier going down Outer Limits.

Too many variables and too many special interest groups having a say. I vote NO on the fat tax :lol:

 

[jack97]

Breakfast: Three fried-egg sandwiches loaded with cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, fried onions and mayonnaise. Two cups of coffee. One five-egg omelet. One bowl of grits. Three slices of French toast topped with powdered sugar. Three chocolate-chip pancakes.

Lunch: One pound of enriched pasta. Two large ham and cheese sandwiches with mayo on white bread. Energy drinks packing 1,000 calories.

Dinner: One pound of pasta. An entire pizza. More energy drinks.

That's Michael Phelps' diet. He's most likely healthier than any single one of us in this debate, yet most would look at the above diet and say that individual must be 400 pounds and on the verge of a heart attack.

lol... that's a special diet, yeah heavy on the carbs and proteins. Problem is you wont see Phelps super sizing it at McD steakhouse. I hear that most fast foods are not healthy in general, rich in fat and carbs. Things a normal person (meaning non Olympic athlete) would not need for daily food intake

I still have a to pass an eye exam to get my driver's license. I say official weigh ins and fitness test. Pass the test and you get a tax break. Big government at its finest.

 

[severine]

Weight is not an indicator of fitness or health. There are a lot of studies out there that show people who are outside normal weight guidelines, but are healthier than those who are considered ideal weight. Too much gray area.

 

[Warp Daddy]

What will be amusing to watch the Big soda industry here in NYS start "cry assing" -- soon very soon

 

[Beetlenut]

What will be amusing to watch the Big soda industry here in NYS start "cry assing" -- soon very soon

Crank-up the lobbyists!!

 

[snoseek]

So I would assume you all oppose the current tax on liquor? Both liquor and unhealthy food can both be enjoyed in moderation but why tax liquor and not soda? Both have potentially negative effects and cost.

 

[deadheadskier]

lol... that's a special diet, yeah heavy on the carbs and proteins. Problem is you wont see Phelps super sizing it at McD steakhouse. I hear that most fast foods are not healthy in general, rich in fat and carbs. Things a normal person (meaning non Olympic athlete) would not need for daily food intake

I still have a to pass an eye exam to get my driver's license. I say official weigh ins and fitness test. Pass the test and you get a tax break. Big government at its finest.

It is, but breakfast sandwiches loaded with cheese and mayo, a full pizza. There's plenty of fat in there as well; not like fast food has, but a large pizza is a huge amount of fat for someone to be consuming in one day.

Fitness test maybe, but what are you going to test? How much someone can lift? How fast they can run a mile? Heart rates vary by individual as well. My father is 6'1", 172 pounds, doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, works out five days a week, yet he's been on high blood pressure medication for 15 years. Genetics do play a factor.

Weigh ins? A man who is 6'1" with a 'large' frame is supposed to weigh between 168 and 192. New England Linebacker Jerod Mayo is 6'1" and 242 pounds. Is he unhealthy? Doubtful

There's honestly no way to justly define the parameters across a population and have equitable taxing based off of it. There are far too many variables. It's not as simple as stepping up to a picture window and reading letters across a screen.

 

[Geoff]

It is, but breakfast sandwiches loaded with cheese and mayo, a full pizza. There's plenty of fat in there as well; not like fast food has, but a large pizza is a huge amount of fat for someone to be consuming in one day.

Fitness test maybe, but what are you going to test? How much someone can lift? How fast they can run a mile? Heart rates vary by individual as well. My father is 6'1", 172 pounds, doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, works out five days a week, yet he's been on high blood pressure medication for 15 years. Genetics do play a factor.

Weigh ins? A man who is 6'1" with a 'large' frame is supposed to weigh between 168 and 192. New England Linebacker Jerod Mayo is 6'1" and 242 pounds. Is he unhealthy? Doubtful

There's honestly no way to justly define the parameters across a population and have equitable taxing based off of it. There are far too many variables. It's not as simple as stepping up to a picture window and reading letters across a screen.

We've already covered this ground in this thread. Weight doesn't matter. Abdominal fat matters. You can measure that with a tape measure. The CDC numbers are probably a good start.... 37" is the "do not exceed" measurement for males. 40" is the flashing red danger lights. I'd bet a month of unemployment checks that Jerod Mayo, at 6'1" and 242 pounds, is far less than 37".

 

[deadheadskier]

We've already covered this ground in this thread. Weight doesn't matter. Abdominal fat matters. You can measure that with a tape measure. The CDC numbers are probably a good start.... 37" is the "do not exceed" measurement for males. 40" is the flashing red danger lights. I'd bet a month of unemployment checks that Jerod Mayo, at 6'1" and 242 pounds, is far less than 37".

It's probably a good goal, but probably still a somewhat arbitrary number. I'd imagine there are plenty of people with an abdominal measurement of 37 who are still in great shape.

I have no way of telling, but I bet Mayo's numbers are pretty close to 37. I just did a quick check on everyone's favorite big fit guy, the Governator and Arnold had a 34" waist during the prime of his lifting career. It's conceivable that Mayo has considerably more fat around his abdomen than Arnold did and I'd still make the argument that he's probably in better shape than 99% of guys on the planet. Maybe Dr. Jeff as a season ticket holder has he inside scoop on Mayo's measurement :lol:

I just think that there are far too many variables to come up with an equitable tax deduction based on health. I'll go with smokers paying more for insurance. I currently do not, but I have with a couple of insurers in my life time, $15 a month extra was the charge. I paid it, but it bothered me to see obese people who were far less healthy than I not have to pay extra. I still don't know how to come up with an equitable measurement of how to charge people extra for being obese. There are too many variables.

 

[tjf67]

So I would assume you all oppose the current tax on liquor? Both liquor and unhealthy food can both be enjoyed in moderation but why tax liquor and not soda? Both have potentially negative effects and cost.

I oppose the tax in general. What really steams my panties is the way they get it passed and what they actually do with the money.
If they took the taxes that they charge smokers and used it only for health care our health care system would be in far better shape today.
BTW yesterday was the anniversery of the Boston Tea Party.

 

[Geoff]

It's conceivable that Mayo has considerably more fat around his abdomen than Arnold did and I'd still make the argument that he's probably in better shape than 99% of guys on the planet. Maybe Dr. Jeff as a season ticket holder has he inside scoop on Mayo's measurement :lol:

I'll bet Mayo only has 5% body fat. If you don't have abdominal fat, you can't possibly have a waist measurement of 37".

 

[deadheadskier]

I'll bet Mayo only has 5% body fat. If you don't have abdominal fat, you can't possibly have a waist measurement of 37".

I guess I can't wrap my mind around the concept of 37" as the be all end all figure for measuring health risks. I bet there are plenty of people that have a waist measurement of 37" that are far healthier than those with a 32" waist. There is probably some merit to your argument, but I still say it's far too arbitrary to base tax and/or insurance rates off of.

 

[jack97]

Fitness test maybe, but what are you going to test? How much someone can lift? How fast they can run a mile? Heart rates vary by individual as well. My father is 6'1", 172 pounds, doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, works out five days a week, yet he's been on high blood pressure medication for 15 years. Genetics do play a factor.

Weigh ins? A man who is 6'1" with a 'large' frame is supposed to weigh between 168 and 192. New England Linebacker Jerod Mayo is 6'1" and 242 pounds. Is he unhealthy? Doubtful

Speaking of the pats, first week in training camp they make all players go thru a conditioning drill. Pass it and you get to practice in the grueling summer heat. Fail and you go on the stationary bike until you pass the test. I think more teams are doing this due to heat related deaths during camp.

Conditioning test and pass/fail criteria is based on the positions of the players but all of them has to do with running sprints and or longer with a time factor.


Back to the tax, not matter what type of test is involved you will get some that say it is fair and some not fair. Can say the same about taxes in general. But that is what big government is all about.

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

We've already covered this ground in this thread. Weight doesn't matter. Abdominal fat matters. You can measure that with a tape measure. The CDC numbers are probably a good start.... 37" is the "do not exceed" measurement for males. 40" is the flashing red danger lights. I'd bet a month of unemployment checks that Jerod Mayo, at 6'1" and 242 pounds, is far less than 37".

I agree with you..weight doesn't matter so much....my arms are big from pushing around tombstones and my legs are solid from skiing,,,but it's the beer gut that is the killer..and nobody wears their pants like Steve Urkel except my 82 year old buddy at the bar. I'm alot fatter than my pant size..:sad:

 

[deadheadskier]

Speaking of the pats, first week in training camp they make all players go thru a conditioning drill. Pass it and you get to practice in the grueling summer heat. Fail and you go on the stationary bike until you pass the test. I think more teams are doing this due to heat related deaths during camp.

Conditioning test and pass/fail criteria is based on the positions of the players but all of them has to do with running sprints and or longer with a time factor.


Back to the tax, not matter what type of test is involved you will get some that say it is fair and some not fair. Can say the same about taxes in general. But that is what big government is all about.

Fitness and health cost per citizen aren't 100% transferable entities. There are far too many variables to base insurance / taxes off of just because you run a faster lap at the track then your neighbor. Sure, it might be good for you, but what about if you have an autistic child? Are you going to have them compete, do their best athletically on an even playing field against other autistic children and say, yeah, you tried harder, you cost the hospital less money, you pay less taxes? A 3 day old kid today had a FOOT removed from his brain, probably cost a million dollars to do http://www.thedenverchannel.com/health/18297954/detail.html#-, but what if the dad had crap insurance because he missed his weigh in by a few pounds?

The point I'm trying to make is that there are far too many, genetic, physical and or mental variables to even come close to instituting equitable systems for a 'fat tax' or to base 'insurance rates' off of. Geoff says 37" fat stomach should be the cut off. You suggest athletic pursuits. Vince Wilfork probably has a 45 inch waist, but he could out run me and my 35 inch waist like the wind. By Geoff's standards, I'm the healthier guy because he looks at abdominal fat. By your standards, Vince is the man because he can sprint faster and run longer than me.

Obesity is but one of many health problems, we need to get healthier, but......

Offering monetary incentives is a stupid way to look at improving the nations health. If it succeeds, it tells me one thing. America has a greater addiction to money than it does cheese burgers and potato chips. I'm not sure which is worse.

 

[Geoff]

The point I'm trying to make is that there are far too many, genetic, physical and or mental variables to even come close to instituting equitable systems for a 'fat tax' or to base 'insurance rates' off of. Geoff says 37" fat stomach should be the cut off. You suggest athletic pursuits. Vince Wilfork probably has a 45 inch waist, but he could out run me and my 35 inch waist like the wind. By Geoff's standards, I'm the healthier guy because he looks at abdominal fat. By your standards, Vince is the man because he can sprint faster and run longer than me.

You forgot the other corner cases like Sumo Wrestlers.

I give up. Let the obese Walmart shoppers suck our healthcare system dry over an obscure exception like a friggin' NFL lineman. There's no point in having social policy that encourages people to get daily exercise and maintain a medically acceptable amount of body fat. As we spiral towards socialized medicine, the care for type 2 diabetes and heart disease is going to be tightly rationed anyways so those people will quickly die off. I'm going to boot up and get my daily exercise. I already ate my cup of eggbeater vegetarian omelette to control my body fat. I'm gonna live long enough to be a burden on society.

 

[severine]

I already ate my cup of eggbeater vegetarian omelette to control my body fat. I'm gonna live long enough to be a burden on society.

But you see, according to Nourishing Traditions/Weston A Price, you just cut your life short by not eating the egg as it was made. You cut out an essential part of the egg in the herd-minded mentality that that is healthier because cholesterol in must mean higher cholesterol in the body, forgetting that the egg was made perfectly balanced with the right fats/protein ratio and your body was made to process it that way...

See what I mean? What's considered healthy by one is not by another.

Once you let government in, it's awfully hard to get them to step out later... There are a lot of changes one should make for the greater good. But government impositions, penalties, and credits should not be the incentives to initiate that change. You end up with far greater consequences than imagined.