Overweight patients have more health problems and eventually cause the state and tax payers more money. Should they be penalized for their unhealthy lifestyle? Is the writer correct in asserting that this unfairly punishes poor people (those who rely on state-funded health care and those who cannot afford healthy foods)? What should the role of government be in encouraging healthy lifestyles and good eating habits?
I must say that I also think that the problem of overweight but more importantly smokers who cost regular taxpayers a lot of money must be somehow solved. However, 50$ bill for unhealthy behaviour is not really a burden as author of article suggests and it would not fulfil governor’s plans. 50$ is not sufficient amount to cover the cost of medical facilities and it is also not incentive to slim down. Furthermore, the author suggests that this would influence only poor people. Even though I do not live in US I think that poor people and their diet is not on that bad level. It seems to me that this 50$ bill is only fast and desperately found solution which consequences were still not considered.
ReplyDeleteBetter idea present in this article may be primary prevention. I think that it is better to make people understand the topic and let them make a deliberate choice. It is worth considering the importance of children and parent education programs about overweight people. I think that this reasonable education is better than aggressive monetary fines for fat people and their bad decisions.
In addition, I would like to present ideas of my German teacher who told me that it would be great if health expenditures caused by smoking were financed by the tax earnings from tobacco. His idea was that every tobacco package would be additionally taxed and earning would finance the lung cancer and other health conditions caused by smoking. Similarly, we can imply this solution also to fatty food. For example, we would create a “fat border” for the food whose level of fat per gram is above the given quota. We would consider this food unhealthy and fat-making and they would be charged by higher fat tax. The earnings from this additional tax would be used to mend the expenditure caused by obesity.
Mojmir
Fat people pay the same prize for bus tickets as normal people. We all know that they weight more. The more heavy the vehicle is, the more energy it needs to work properly. Therefore more gas is required in the vehicles which are carrying fat people. Then why do normal people have to pay overpriced bus tickets for something they are not responsible for? It is just not fair. Even small children have cheaper bus tickets than adults. I do not think it is just because that they are less heavy than adults, but in any case, weight matters!
ReplyDeleteIn addition, it is a common truth that some fat people are fat because they consume lots of food. We know that in third world countries, people have a lack of food. Fat people, who do eat more than their body needs, seem to me slightly careless about poor people who cannot afford food. With actions like these, they are making the world unbalanced. Also, if someone consumes lots of food, it is probable that he consumes lots of meat too. It means that lots of innocent animals must be slaughtered without actual need. I do eat meat and I think it is normal to eat meat, but when someone eats really too much even when it is not necessary to eat that much, it is really against the nature. Therefore, fat people are destroying the Mother Earth by creating the unnecessary need to kill animals.
Meanwhile, I think that the Arizona’s Republican governor made a good step towards better health. If you have seen the movie WALL-E you know that the humanity consisted of only fat people who could move only their fingers. If we do not want to end up like this, we have to fight against the obesity. I think that when they make health care for fat people more expensive, lots of fat people would be forced to lose weight. Therefore they would be more healthy and also their children would be more healthy. It means that the society itself will become healthier and they would not have to pay lots of money to health care.
Tomáš Langer 3.IB
According to my opinion, first thing I found really weird is how (on the Earth) does overweight correspond with poorness? I know that some people just refer to "genetic inheritance", but as was cited in the comment bellow the article: " there is not a genetic abnormality in 40% of Americans". What I found logic is that overweight people have to eat more as in amount and also more times per day. That means that they spend more money on meals and therefore there is no logical connection between poorness and overweight.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I found the government decision right in some ways. The thing that is most interesting for me (and probably the most important) is that smokers have to pay the fine of 50 dollars annually. That is what I call a good step forward. My opinion is that however good smoking is, I would allow this habitude only in strictly reserved places. Not only smokers spend lot of money and are constantly decreasing the longitude of their lives - what is just their responsibility - but they force other people in their surroundings to passively smoke as well. And that is the most considerable point what smoking should be banned or at least restricted as much as it could be (it is individual decision indeed).
What about the overweight? I think that the Brewer´s fat line plan is just the right solution. It does not say everybody that does not get lighter than before would pay a fine. It says that it is necessary to take steps against the overweight problem in America. Everyone is compulsory to discuss the plan with his physician and then follow the plan.
On one hand, I found the idea with paying the fine rational but as was commented in the article, 50 dollars would not assure you health. It costs much more (what does not mean that people have to pay even more...). What is true being overweight is not a behavior and therefore there probably would be some people that just are not responsible for how they look like but I cannot see a real solution for this problem. They just should try to follow the doctor´s plan. It is a kind of cruel policy but something has to be done in this area of human entity.
What is true, diet does not necessary mean that you will get lighter permanently. As was cited: "weight fluctuations may be even more dangerous than being steadily overweight". But I think that try to do something without any noticeable result is still better than do nothing at all.
To conclude, my opinion is that this program (or how it should be called) is not necessarily bas step. At least more people would have to think over their decision and lifestyles. I think that the part about smoking is just more important (at least for me) but there is also lot of people that are still worried about their weight and there they have chance to change something. I hope for the success of this program.
I indeed agree with the claim of the author of the article that government should rather spend money on primary prevention. To me it sounds ridiculous to fine people for being obese. I can imagine fining them for smoking, because there is an incentive for doing that, but there is no incentive for being fat. I believe that nobody wants to be overweight and some people just have a problem to lose weight. And I believe that it costs more an individual to invest money in “losing weight” than to pay the fine of 50 dollars. For example, in Slovakia, fruits, vegetables and all the healthy food (and bio-food) are far more expensive than fast food. In addition, if these people want to go to gym regularly, they need to buy clothes for that and also have to pay for entrance, which is becoming costly as well. Therefore, I also agree with the writer that this tax will have rather a regressive effect than expansionary.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, to me it looks like they are violating human rights. It seems like they are creating discrimination against people, because the tax may actually encourage slim people to discriminate against fat people. And shouldn’t be elimination of discrimination the primary goal of country’s officials? I don’t think that this is ever going to help to make the society healthier. This way of solving problems seems that it is getting back to communism, where people have to obey everything and their freedom is limited. It all comes to one point that old people say: once we will be charged for even breathing air.