Desmond wrote:

"obese people cost everybody higher medical costs, and insurance."

I don’t mean to be pedantic Desmond, but on average fat smokers are least burdensome to taxpayers. It's true their medical costs are higher but:

--Taking lifetime medical expenses and cigarette taxes into account, very roughly, for every dollar in extra medical expenses they pay $20 in cigarette taxes.

--They tend to die relatively quickly so they are less likely to need the types of long term expensive care that eg dementia patients require.

--Most importantly, they tend not to be around long enough to collect much in the way of old age pensions.

Fatties who don’t smoke don’t pay cigarette taxes and live a bit longer than fat smokers so the position is less clear. I SUSPECT that, on average, they are less of a lifetime burden than their leaner compatriots because of savings in dementia care and old age pensions.

NB: This may sound counter-intuitive. On average fatties are MORE likely to get dementia than lean people.

However fatties' shortened life span means that fewer of them make it to the age where dementia is a problem. Also, once they have dementia, they are likely to die faster than lean people with dementia.

Note I am talking about really fat people (BMI* > 30) not merely people who are a bit overweight. (BMI between 25 and 30). There is some evidence that the bar has been set a bit too low so that people with BMI of 25-29 are quite healthy while people with BMI < 20 should put on a few pounds.

BMI is a rough measure. It may be that waist measurement is more important than BMI.


*See: http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/body-fat-measurement for discussion of BMI and body fat.

Blaming a food supplier or taxing them won't do a thing, the solution has got to come from within.
Desmond, you're right. However, authorities are due for blame just as much as, after all, it is via the authorities that control economics that much decent nourishment is prohibitive in cost to many. let's face it, the reason why junk food is a multi billion $ racket is because people can afford it. Just go to a delicatessen (which btw Is standard food in other parts of the world) with $ 20 in your pocket & look at the prices. Then look at the prices of junk food & see what you can get for your 20 bucks. It doesn't get any clearer than that I'm afraid.

When BMT tax gets to around 400% of the current prices, as with tobacco taxes, our omniscient health professionals should see enough revenue to continue funding their medical experiments now that most sensible tobacco consumers have left the country for more civilised places or died from health-industry-induced poverty.

It is now well known that the purpose of eating is not to gain energy from the kilojoules per dollar, but to look the part with our basket full of 97% fat free gourmet tv dinners at the checkout and starve ourselves for the sakes of our children and our fellow taxpayers. Less is more?

When the monthly health insurance instalments collected by our friendly drive-thru MacDonald's attendants for a weekly happy meal, fries, and small pepsi finally make it to around $300 per month, (as is the taxation on normal tailormade tobacco products over a month in Australia now), and everybody learns to accept such a draconian system of taxation apartheid as the normal Aussie way of life, then we can start raising the taxes on petrol in the same way.

That should be easy, since we know that the smoke from petrol and diesel engines cause far more smoking-related diseases as well as crash deaths and long-term injuries than tobacco ever could, and driving the kids to school in a car is far more likely to make them get fat than telling them to walk or ride a push-bike.

In fact, the best thing we could do to help the health professionals get their deserved income would be to just tax EVERYTHING at 400%, as it has proven such a clever money-spinner for tobacco.

Why not ban TV remotes, or the internet or the other 'necessary' diversions that cause adults to say "I'm too busy now" to children who want to be taken out to play?

Better still, tax or ban the know alls who have nothing better to do than tell us all how to live and nag, nag, nag.

That is a thought, has anyone ever done any research into the health effects of controlling SOBs and their continual nagging? Must add up to billions every year and probably why so many others drink, smoke and take up other dangerous pursuits.

forget tax...use whips...

how dare people think..they got a choice..just pay ever more tax..you dumb goyum...fuc ever more tax/..use whips...that works in hell

quote
http://www.angelfire.com/ne/newviews/gonewest2c.html#2c16

“My master was delighted..by the success of these operations,..and I urged him on to attempt..something similar..against a young priest whom he hated.

This man had denounced him..as being in league with the Devil,..which was largely true,..and therefore angered my master the more.

“We plagued him,..but though we caused him much annoyance..by disturbing his sleep and so forth,..we failed to hurt him much.

Then I inspired one of the prettiest village maids to fall desperately in love with him...This refused,..I turned her love to anger,..and she spread all sorts of ugly rumors..concerning him.

“Then we attacked him again more fiercely.

We scoffed at his religion..and told him it was false,
or else the good God..would not allow us to come to him.

We told him he was about to be disgraced,..and we urged him to escape the consequences of his evil life..by suicide.

“(The poor devil had had a remarkably innocent life,..as a matter of fact,..and was not quite such a fool..as not to know it.)

“We persecuted him like this for weeks until,..at length one night he cried,..‘I believe you are sent..by that wretched old man whom I denounced..as in league with the Devil.

I’ll go and tell him what I think of him now.’

“At once we urged him to do so,..for,..once there,..it would be strange...if our master could not finish him off....

oh..the whip thing..scroll up

as usual the left display double standards. They blame the advertising of the 'evil' corporations who employ thousands of people for obesity and then deny the promotion of porn has any affect on people. The way our current Government has mismanaged taxes it is a very bad idea to give them any more.