Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, let's parse the citizenry, examine the who/what of everyone, then tax/restrict those that 'cost' more to treat, then refuse them needed health care to keep them out of the program.
So, let's parse the citizenry, examine the who/what of everyone, then tax/restrict those that 'cost' more to treat, then refuse them needed health care to keep them out of the program.
I've been to their website and can't find the actual study and I'd like to see it before accepting anything it says as valid. On the face of it, it sounds like the same kind of junk science behind the anti-smoking crusade.
I'm particularly interested in seeing how they came to this conclusion (from the link above):
"Obese workers cost US employers 73.1-billion dollars a year, much of it due to "presenteeism," or being less productive on the job due to health problems..."
Presenteeism? That's a new one for me and I'd like to know how they define it and how they measured it.
Not to mention health care costs. Excellent modern healthcare can keep obese folks alive for 20 more years but at huge expense. Evolution/nature normally would eliminate these wide-loads at about age 55.
So self-sufficiency advocates must turn an angry eye at the obese, they essentially become charity cases later in life.
So, let's parse the citizenry, examine the who/what of everyone, then tax/restrict those that 'cost' more to treat, then refuse them needed health care to keep them out of the program.
Yeah, that sounds like a real health care plan!
No, let's give significant tax breaks to those of us who aren't fat, don't smoke, and are in good health.
Not to mention health care costs. Excellent modern healthcare can keep obese folks alive for 20 more years but at huge expense. Evolution/nature normally would eliminate these wide-loads at about age 55.
So self-sufficiency advocates must turn an angry eye at the obese, they essentially become charity cases later in life.
... as harsh as this sounds...
Are the only people being treated in hospitals obese? Wide loads? Are you in junior high?
Why would self-sufficiency advocates turn and 'angry eye" at anyone? I suspect they are worried about their own sufficiency and not that of others. thus the "self" part. Do you have proof that everyone who is obese becomes a "charity case" or is this more projection assuming that no one can do without the money of others?
Looks like another attempt to divide the American people. No one advocates for obesity but to attack one group that may not move as fast (another assumption) over others who may not move for a variety of reasons, is unproductive in and of itself.
No, let's give significant tax breaks to those of us who aren't fat, don't smoke, and are in good health.
Why? Do you really produce more than you consume? Does your tax return prove it and net worth prove it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
