The fat tax

Sir Galahad

Christian Socialist Party
The Fat Tax
By Michael Arceneaux * TheRoot.com
Alabama tells its workers to slim down or pay. What's wrong with that?

Oct. 23, 2008--The state of Alabama has issued a warning to its state workers: Get fit or pay up.

In August, the Alabama State Employees' Insurance Board approved a plan that will charge workers an additional $25 to cover their insurance premiums, if they don't take advantage of free health screenings available to all state employees. The program, to begin in January, will require state workers to receive medical screenings for body mass index and health problems such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol and obesity.

Critics have panned this as a "fat tax" that unfairly punishes people for their genetic predispositions. Others argue that the measure amounts to lawful discrimination that infringes on the right of free will, much like the state's 2004 decision to offer a discount to non-smoking employees.

Nonsense. This is an opportunity, not punishment. It is an important step toward better preventive care at a time when health costs are soaring and Americans are in increasing denial about their ever-ballooning weight. And the state is offering a free—yes, free—jumpstart. Under the plan, state employees are being asked to go to a free health screening, and if necessary, a free doctor's consultation. If those screenings show that a person is predisposed to illness due to their weight or other conditions, they will be offered help to begin to address their health issues. Only if workers fail to take advantage of the free screening will they be charged the additional $25.

Alabamans are clearly in need. Varying reports place Alabama with the second or third highest rate of obesity in the country. The Birmingham News confirms this southern state has the country's highest rate of stroke and third-highest rate of infant mortality.

Americans shouldn't feel ashamed of owning up to their fatness. The war on obesity has gone international. In Argentina, the Senate recently passed an Obesity Law, declaring obesity and eating disorders as diseases eligible for treatment under the state's health-care programs. Meanwhile, Mexico is hard at work pushing "Vamos Por Un Million de Kilos" (Let's Lose a Million Kilos), a national campaign to get Mexicans to cut the country's collective weight by nearly two million pounds. The project is one of several new efforts to prevent Mexico from joining the United States as one of the world's fattest countries.

Of course, governments are not taking these steps out of mere concern. It makes sense for their bottom lines as health costs surge. But what's wrong with bottom-line motivations if it helps people? It may be a financial ultimatum, but it's not a state-mandated diet. It may affect individual choice, but it's being done to prevent an even heavier strain on an already burdened system that must cover many.

We already know that mass denial has resulted in rising obesity rates in both adults and children. Childhood obesity rates have soared—leading pediatricians to begin treating young patients with hypertension, sleep apnea, diabetes and orthopedic issues. As a nation, we are also pushing our neglectful lifestyles and habits off on our children. What is the point of promising a better life to our kids, if we are setting them up to be physically unable to enjoy it?

African Americans should be particularly concerned: The Center for Disease Control (CDC) says that nearly half of black women are overweight or obese, and black people overall are 1.4 times more likely to be obese than non-Hispanic whites. Now is not the time to resist efforts to make us healthier. Fat and happy is out. And in Alabama, at least, death and taxes are in, if in reverse order.

Michael Arceneaux is a regular contributor to The Root.
 
The opponents of this measure are the same factions that believe people should not, at any time, be personally held responsible for their actions and decisions. They will, of course, never ADMIT they do not believe in personal responsibility, but the issues they support (or oppose) show how they truly think. Liberty, it seems, can only be achieved when a person is absolutely free to act in any manner they desire, and the consequences of their actions must be accepted by all of society. SO if a person decides they want to live in ignorance of their current state of health, and then have high medical expenses when some treatable condition went untreated, then of course it is completely fair that the rest of society absorb the extra cost of such actions in higher premiums. How DARE anyone propose to make people who knowingly CHOOSE an unhealthy lifestyle actually PAY the additional costs of said lifestyle?
 
i see a lot of righteous anger at fat people lately. so, i'd go for this, but only IF, we refuse to single out one unhealthy behavior. we'd have to include them all.

that means if you smoke, you pay. if you drink beer, you pay. if you drink anything other than the safe one and a half glasses of red wine, and red wine only, per day, you pay. if you smoke but "only cigars" you pay. if you are thin but do not excerise, you pay. if you are unmarried, and therefore more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior, you pay. if you are not taking vitamins, you pay.

otherwise, it's a no go on this. cause i just kinda get irritated by i'm so holy and you're not people. i knew this woman, worked with her for three years who was big as the side of a barn. a real fat ass. we had a guy who worked there who developed a drinking problem. our boss sent him to rehab and paid for it. fatass went ballistic, just as she did about any kind of behavior she did not approve of, including sexual activity. ed was a loser. why should our boss pay? let him show some self control. i swear to god.

then one day she actually tells me this story about a friend of hers who ate a lot. but she was thin. and gail turns to me and snarls "you can't tell me it's not genetic".

she apparently missed all of the studies showing that alcohol abuse runs in families. everyone was at fault except for the fatties.

i smell that same thing here. let's hang the fatties, they have no self control. but my poison, that's different. i hate that.
 
Addiction to food, addiction to drugs, alcohol, tobacco, etc.

I have never known a truely obese person that did not eat far more than I do.
 
Addiction to food, addiction to drugs, alcohol, tobacco, etc.

I have never known a truely obese person that did not eat far more than I do.

me either, she was full of it. she had a million excuses for herself, but not one ounce of compassion for anyone struggling with an addiction other than food. and i see this same mindset here. they will all have a story why you can't charge smokers more, or recreational cigar smokers more, or unmarried higher risk individuals more, or drinkers more...but they have not one ounce of compassion for anyone who might have a different addiction than they do.

ftr, i am against this, for the simple reason that punishing people is not effective. education is. let's get the shit food out of our schools to begin with. there are a lot of other things we can do. i'm not into stigmatizing people though.
 
The single most dangerous bahavior is being a conservative. They should have their taxes at 1000.


And let's be honest. All this fuss over the obese is more because we hate fat people than any health consequnces. The consequences of obesity have been proven to be purposely overstated by the government, and now health companies are taking advantage of that. Fact is, oftentimes fatness is genetic.

So, black people are more likely to have illness than white people. So let's charge blacks an extra 25 dollars. And if you don't believe in that, THEN YOU JUST HATE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND FREEDOM ZOMG?!
 
The single most dangerous bahavior is being a conservative. They should have their taxes at 1000.


And let's be honest. All this fuss over the obese is more because we hate fat people than any health consequnces. The consequences of obesity have been proven to be purposely overstated by the government, and now health companies are taking advantage of that. Fact is, oftentimes fatness is genetic.

So, black people are more likely to have illness than white people. So let's charge blacks an extra 25 dollars. And if you don't believe in that, THEN YOU JUST HATE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND FREEDOM ZOMG?!

i agree with the bolded part especially.
 
Yep. Also banning unhealthy foods from the food stamps programs as well.
Food stamps should be abolished anyway. If a family is in need of food, give them decent, nutritious FOOD. Too many times I see people using food stamps to buy items considered a rare treat by families who do not qualify for food stamps. Then they bitch about how food stamps do not cover their minimum needs.

When I was growing up, we had a program called "Commodities". People on this program, twice a month, received food: rice, cheese, pasta, beans, ground beef, powdered milk, peanut butter, bread, canned vegetables, etc. It was nothing fancy, but it provided the basis nutrition needed. The results, because the food was pre-balanced for the family size, was far better than food stamps. With food stamps people most often run out and buy prepared foods and the like, much more expensive per food calorie, and often nutritionally unbalanced. And on top of that there are those who think of top sirloin as a meat "staple", then complain that their food requirements are 2-3 times what they receive in food stamps. Well, no matter WHAT your budget source, you're going to spend more when you shop stupid. Food stamps allow way to much shopping stupid.
 
Food stamps should be abolished anyway. If a family is in need of food, give them decent, nutritious FOOD. Too many times I see people using food stamps to buy items considered a rare treat by families who do not qualify for food stamps. Then they bitch about how food stamps do not cover their minimum needs.

When I was growing up, we had a program called "Commodities". People on this program, twice a month, received food: rice, cheese, pasta, beans, ground beef, powdered milk, peanut butter, bread, canned vegetables, etc. It was nothing fancy, but it provided the basis nutrition needed. The results, because the food was pre-balanced for the family size, was far better than food stamps. With food stamps people most often run out and buy prepared foods and the like, much more expensive per food calorie, and often nutritionally unbalanced. And on top of that there are those who think of top sirloin as a meat "staple", then complain that their food requirements are 2-3 times what they receive in food stamps. Well, no matter WHAT your budget source, you're going to spend more when you shop stupid. Food stamps allow way to much shopping stupid.

Umm that is pretty much what I said without going all rabid on it.

food stamps came acout because of capitalism. Retail stores made no money on commodities.
 
Back
Top