Should the Government Tax You for Being Overweight?

L

LanceOregon

Moderator
Some governments are now doing this, and there have been recent suggestions in the US Congress to do something similar here. Should people who are heavier be penalized by the government?

Such rules were recently implemented in Japan. There, if you are man and your waist measures over 33.5 inches, the government will impose a tax.

Tell me, if you lived in Japan, would you be taxed???

And if our country adopts a national health care system soon, will not something like this then become mandatory here too? The government will need to control costs, so why not tax those who are at greater risk for poor health??

Seems like this may be coming to our own country in a few years. And if so, will it be a good thing, or bad thing??

Here is a news report of what the Japanese government is now doing:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2008/06/23/kyung.fat.busters.cnn


.
 
Not only NO, HELL NO!

Where does it start and where does it end once started? How about too skinny ... deformities ... sickness ... age ...?
 
If we get socialized healthcare, wouldn't that be fair? If they're paying for your health, they should be able to tax you for being overweight, smoking, sleeping around, riding motorcycles, skydiving, going to the range, reloading, driving over the speed limit, not using sunscreen, not having annual physicals, swimming without a life jacket, not getting 8 hours of sleep, etc. Otherwise - NO!!
 
If you let government pay for and manage your healthcare, then they have the right to refuse you care if you are a smoker or are obese. That is what happens in Britain right now.

In New Zealand, certain procedures are not available for patients over 75 years of age. "oo expensive, old chap, and you aren't goving to live long enough to enjoy the benefit..."

"Free" government healthcare is anything but free, whether you are taling about money or rules. Damn bloody hoax, but they are getting away with it.
 
Nope. Like others have said, what about too skinny, smokers, lazy people etc. Once you open that can of worms....

Being overweight can lead to other health problems no doubt about it. But there are just as many "skinny" people who are just as unhealthy as those that are fat. Skinny people get heart disease, diabetes, etc. And what about genetics....some are predisposed to be heavy than others.

This is nothing more than discrimination based on looks.

If you let government pay for and manage your healthcare, then they have the right to refuse you care if you are a smoker or are obese.
Click to expand...

They arent paying for it... You are... with your tax money. And what if this is the only option to get healthcare??? Suddenly, because you dont fit into the BMI index standards (The "Body Mass Index" is a complete farce BTW) youre SOL for getting healthcare??
 
Tell me, if you lived in Japan, would you be taxed???
Click to expand...

Yep. Even when I was 220lbs of lean vegetarian muscle I wore a 36" waist. The height screws everything up, though. I don't know many 6'+ fellows who could wear a 33" waist without some kind of starvation diet and a forced march through the jungle. Maybe that's what the Japanese have in mind, it wouldn't be the first time.:D

But this is a stupid idea no matter how you measure it.
 
Yes, absolutely, and you should be taxed also if you are a Communist, a Jew, a Gypsy, gay, handicapped, have an IQ less than 125, were unemployed 6 months out of the last 5 years, have had children out of wedlock, or do not vote for the National Socialist Party in our next election.
 
If you let government pay for and manage your healthcare, then they have the right to refuse you care if you are a smoker or are obese. That is what happens in Britain right now.

In New Zealand, certain procedures are not available for patients over 75 years of age. "oo expensive, old chap, and you aren't goving to live long enough to enjoy the benefit..."
Click to expand...
+1. If the government - rather than you or your doctor - deems that you are ill, and the government - rather than you or your doctor - deems that you are worthy of treatment, please take a number and wait your turn ... and hope that during your wait the government doesn't reclassify you into a "no treatment necessary" status in the meantime as a cost-cutting measure. (I knew a guy to whom this happened over in the UK.)

Because the government is the payor, the government has a right to restrict your lifestyle choices because they now impact everyone else on the same system. Welcome to "free" healthcare.
 
If the government - rather than you or your doctor - deems that you are ill, and the government - rather than you or your doctor - deems that you are worthy of treatment, please take a number and wait your turn ... and hope that during your wait the government doesn't reclassify you into a "no treatment necessary" status in the meantime as a cost-cutting measure. (I knew a guy to whom this happened over in the UK.)
Click to expand...

You could turn this to describe the situation in the US. In this country for most people insurance companies get to decided if you are ill, what treatment they will pay for, for what length and in many cases will deny a person insurance because of past illness. To them it is a business decision. While we might have the best medical system in the world, the insurance companies control access to it. Still millions of people can not afford medical coverage because it is to expensive, and their job does not provide any medical care. Since they are able to work they do not qualify for state medical care. It sad to say the this country with the best medical system, millions go without medical coverage. This creates a huge burden on the medical system that have to treat these people without reimbursement. Which then raises the cost for all of us. In the long run I would not call our system fair either.

Now taxing people who are overweight is just plain stupid. The better option would to provide incentives to lose weight.
 
Should our government Tax obese people?

Sure! If the feds will give me tax credits for being trim and fit and for using fuel efficient motorized two wheel transportation. :rolleyes:
 
Your weight is between you and whoever is picking up the tab for your medical expenses. Obviously, under a socialized medical system, it makes more sense for the government to get a little more involved with your health decisions (since the public is picking up the tab for your decisions).

Hell, considering that obesity can lead to health issues when you get older, and that you'll (theoretically) be covered by Medicare eventually, it's not entirely unreasonable from a strictly utilitarian standpoint here.

Though really, I'd say any financial gain does nothing to offset the loss in freedom that would be involved. So yeah, I don't support this at all.

Especially that cutoff. 33 inches? Last time I wore a 33 waist I was seventeen years old.

On a side note, though, the wife actually gets a bonus at work for maintaining a certain body fat percentage or some such, not smoking, and a couple other check-offs. And it's a government job. So maybe not as far off as we'd hope.
 
You could turn this to describe the situation in the US. In this country for most people insurance companies get to decided if you are ill, what treatment they will pay for, for what length and in many cases will deny a person insurance because of past illness. To them it is a business decision. While we might have the best medical system in the world, the insurance companies control access to it. Still millions of people can not afford medical coverage because it is to expensive, and their job does not provide any medical care. Since they are able to work they do not qualify for state medical care. It sad to say the this country with the best medical system, millions go without medical coverage. This creates a huge burden on the medical system that have to treat these people without reimbursement. Which then raises the cost for all of us. In the long run I would not call our system fair either.
Click to expand...
Imperfect as our current system is, handing it over to the government will not make it better. Judging by the evidence of other U.S. government programs, it will get much worse. For example, there's that old statistic about 80 cents of every dollar that goes to Welfare is eaten up by administrative costs. Applying that inefficiency to healthcare will make things worse.

Judging by the evidence of foreign government healthcare programs, following those models will also make things worse. Remember John Edwards' tale of Nataline Sarkisyan, the 17-year-old California woman who died awaiting a liver transplant? Her insurance company, CIGNA, turned down her medical request because it considered the transplant unproven in its medical benefit and ineffective as a treatment. The procedure constituted an experimental use of a scarce organ. This decision was reviewed and upheld by an oncologist and a transplant surgeon. Sadly for Nataline, her condition proved fatal. However, at least in the U.S. she had a chance to be considered for a transplant. With the single-payer systems such as the UK model that Edwards favored, she would not have even been considered. According to a study published in 2004 in the journal Liver Transplantation, which compared the relative severity of liver disease in transplant recipients in the U.S. and U.K., the U.K. did not authorize transplants for patients in intensive care, whereas in the U.S. 19.3% of recipients were in intensive care. In the U.K., Nataline's slim hope would have been no hope at all.

The same study also found that in the period right after surgery, death rates were as much as 27% higher in the U.K. and Ireland than in the U.S.

When the costs rise, as they will inevitably do under a government-run system (name a government system where this hasn't happened), once again "millions [will] go without medical coverage." Only then, you will not be able to find a doctor on your own; the government will prohibit it.
 
Quoted by Forwardassist:
Now taxing people who are overweight is just plain stupid. The better option would to provide incentives to lose weight.
Click to expand...

I agree with the first statement. I'm sitting on the fence with the other. What examples do you have in the incentives department?
 
Also, if the incentives being discussed are financial, then what's the difference? Whether I tax you for being over or give you money for being under, the end result is that those who are over pay a higher tax rate (all else equal). It's still a fat tax, it just sounds nicer.

Besides, given the health incentives of being at a healthy weight (which, in the long term, become financial incentives as well) I doubt any incentives the government would offer would do the trick anyway.
 
Also, if the incentives being discussed are financial, then what's the difference? Whether I tax you for being over or give you money for being under, the end result is that those who are over pay a higher tax rate (all else equal). It's still a fat tax, it just sounds nicer.

Besides, given the health incentives of being at a healthy weight (which, in the long term, become financial incentives as well) I doubt any incentives the government would offer would do the trick anyway.
Click to expand...
+1 to both of those comments. At the end of the day, I try to stay healthy because I don't like being sick, not because the government wants to save money.
 
That nice and all.

WhyteP38
So what is your solution? I hear all the complaints about government provide medicine, and how it does not work. Much of it is true though some of it is clearly overblown by people who are loyal to the us system. Yet I fail to hear how we can fix it. In truth our system is just as bad if not worse than a government run system, since most people here who can not afford insurance do not get any medical coverage. In addition we give way to much power to companies that really have no incentive to provide quality care. No I do not remember Edward's story. But it does prove the point that the US system only cares about the bottom dollar. The poor girl died because people did not want to spend the money to save her. It disgusting that the Doctors sided with the insurance company. The Doctor should make the finial decision not the insurance company. The two doctors the reviewed the insurance companies decision might be working for that company. That is not only unfair but down right disturbing in a country such as ours. Then I am not so sure that in Britain they would have turned her down. That is speculative at best. I do not completely believe it. Please provide a link to your sources. Quality health care should be a right of the people. While government provide care is not the best option we have to come up with something other than what we have now.
 
The government should subsidize Twinkies and encourage people to take up smoking -- the increased healthcare costs would be more than offset by the savings in Social Security. (think about it) ;)
 
I favor a system of fat credits. Have the UN assigned a fat value to each humanoid and if you are below your assigned level you are free to market your fat deficit on a suitable fat exchange. Too big for your assigned numbers? Fair enough. Just go to the exchange and purchase a few fat credits. The beauty of my idea is the exchanges can collateralize the credits and create all kinds of special investment instruments. With a function market we can then worry about a national fat footprint. We can beat up on hypocritical politicians who talk a good game about sudden weight loss and how dangerous it is. Scientists will line up at the grant trough aping the financial systems lingo simply to get some of that free money.

Hey, makes as much sense as the global warming nonsense.

All of this nonsense can be avoided by simply making the assumption that goobermint has no bidness interfering in health care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top