Should the Government Tax You for Being Overweight?

I wonder if a constitutional amendment will be proposed, to add the right to health insurance to the bill of rights?

One wonders how people got by without health insurance back then.

.
 
I would say yes, even if I have to pay the tax as well. Overweight people are unhealthy, they take up room on airplanes (been hit in the face with many a wide posterior trying to get down the aisle ) They give our country a very bad name with the rest of the world, we are already seen as a flabby, weakening, fast food nation and it will only get worse.

I am not talking about any massive tax, just a few dollars more to be put towards orphanages or something like that. I think that the overweight standards should be set by body fat %.
Click to expand...
Where in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, or our nation's entire judicial history is it written that every citizen has a duty to be healthy? If there is no such duty, on what constitutional grounds do we base this tax? Or have we now gone from being citizens to being subjects, with the government mandating what's good and bad for us?

In fact, if we are taxing people because they are unhealthy, why not tax parents of children who are born with health problems? After all, those unhealthy children take up medical resources and many will never be fully functional adults who contribute to the system. There are many ways to be unhealthy; why tax only one way of being unhealthy?
 
Last edited:
Hey, if my whiskey and cigars can be taxed, MacDonald's crap can be taxed extra also!!:p

Seriously - no - just keep letting heavy people know they are hurting themselves. That's all we can do IMHO.
 
Everyone should go back and read carefully post #37, by Bruxley. Good post!

People are getting confused between making good choices, and the terrible implications of enforcing these choices via Big Government.

We have gone pretty far down the path of socialism, see how many people in this thread already buy into the "insurance" mindset (we must be protected from all risk), and now that the costs are too high, Big Government must step in to take over. Even knowing that government will be 10x more inefficient, and the service will stink; they still clamor for it! Why?

I think so many of these folks are already attached to the Big Government teat in some way, so just adding more perks... requires no further adjustment in mindset.

Even though Big Government never knows when to stop.

Example: I just talked with my neighbor, who employs some local homeless guys on her farm, out of a spirit of charity. They live in a hobo camp by the beltline, out of choice, their addictions keep them from maintaining any kind of rental housing.

One guy got passed out drunk, and tipped over a kerosene lantern on himself last winter, and burned his leg. He consumed about $50k in free government medical care getting treated for that. Now he has a disability! Social workers come on out to the hobo camp, and have now arranged for him to have a free apartment, with utilities paid! We're all trying to help the guy by pitching in furniture, but suspect he won't be able to keep from trashing what is being given to him by Big Government.

We have numerous social workers with monthly credit lines who do nothing but cater to the homeless addicts. It's kind of a running joke in the hobo camp.

As I said, Big Government never knows when to stop. :(
 
As I said, Big Government never knows when to stop.
Click to expand...
+1. Once you start taxing people who are obese because they are unhealthy, why stop there?

If I like to rock climb, and one day I fall and break my leg, why not tax me (and other rock climbers) for voluntarily making myself unhealthy?

Studies have shown that women who do not bear children have a higher risk of breast cancer. Why not tax women who do not bear children for voluntarily making themselves unhealthy?

People with known family histories of certain illnesses and syndromes often voluntarily have children and pass along those illnesses and syndromes to them. Why not tax these parents for voluntarily having unhealthy children?

Some people are voluntarily obese, and others are obese due to inherited problems or their thyroids go bad. Why tax the involuntarily obese who can't help being that way? Not only do they have a problem they don't want, but they have to pay extra for it. Just as important, our system is founded on "innocent until proven guilty." So we'll need to test each person who is obese to see what caused the problem, and then tax only those who are voluntarily obese. So who is going to pay for all of these tests of millions of people? And will the tax be high enough to cover those expenses?

A tax on overweight people and other unhealthy people is fine as long as you don't value individual liberty.
 
Here's an easy one. Let everyone pay their own doctor's bills or health insurance. That's the only "health tax" that's needed. OK? It will serve the same purpose.
 
Well one major thing driving Health costs is Lawsuit Insursurance, or Malpratice Insurance. If we could do some tort reform, that might allow the cost of Malpractice Insurance to drop therefore loweing the cost of care.

How about Medical Savings accounts, non taxed, but only to be used for medical procedures. Paying your own way as it were, people would shop smarter for procedures, they would keep themselves healthier and if the dont use the money it can return to them at some point. A know a novel concept paying your own way, but hey lets try something radical for a change.

Yukonkid, ever hear of Jim Fixx. Now I am not saying heavy people dont have the same problems that you mentioned but being thin is not the end all be all of health either. But that is for each person and thier family to deal with.

As for the rest of the world, they can stick thier opinion of us and our health condition where the sun does not shine. As for thier opinion of us in regards to anything else that goes on within our borders they can cram that up there as well. I dont care how much Russians drink or how many snails the French eat, personally it is none of my damn bussiness, so it is none of their business how many cheeseburgers we eat.

Life, liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, to form a more perfect union and all that stuff. Keep the goverment out of our lives as much as possible and watch the incredible things we will do.
 
"The socializing of anything is to make the populace subjects of the high government."

This from the same guy who started another thread with

"Let's Socialize Legal Representation"

Sheesh.

Tim
 
The socialize legal representation thread was attempt to illustrate how ridiculous socializing a need is. The point there was to point out, using the same arguments used to socialize medicine and industry, that just because there is a life altering need doesn't mean it is owed to you from the pocket of others.

In short it was a an analogy to illustrate the premise's invalidity. It's often easier to point out atributes when the colored lens is removed.

To quote Hillary Clinton in her consession speech:
Now, the journey ahead will not be easy. Some will say we can’t do it, that it’s too hard, we’re just not up to the task. But for as long as America has existed, it has been the American way to reject can’t-do claims and to choose, instead, to stretch the boundaries of the possible through hard work, determination and a pioneering spirit.
Click to expand...
She's RIGHT. Her entire campaign of 'we will do it for you' was wrapped up with the conservative message that the America we live in enables YOU to get it for YOURSELF if you REJECT can't-do-claims and instead work hard, be determined, and have a pioneering spirit.
 
Japan is fining companies that have overweight employees. They have a form of socialized healthcare I believe. For the most part socialized medicine crap, and don't think the government is paying for it. Taxes will double or triple to pay for it. So you will be taxed for it anyway. I don't think the government should be able to impose weight limits. If people want to be fat and nasty, let them. What next? You have to have the same haircut as everyone else? Government imposed shower schedules? It will never end.
 
I don't think the government should be able to impose weight limits. If people want to be fat and nasty, let them. What next? You have to have the same haircut as everyone else? Government imposed shower schedules? It will never end.
Click to expand...

I don't see how your haircut or shower schedule can cost your neighbors (and the rest of your fellow taxpayers) money. Your being overweight can, and likely will. At least, assuming that your country has any form of socialized healthcare, which even the US does (again, I point at Medicare).

This doesn't mean I support the idea (again, I think the negative outweighs the positive) but as soon as the government is ever picking up the tab for your doctor visits I'd say they have a compelling interest in making sure you do your part to keep the costs down. It takes some pretty big leaps to get the same from a haircut.

I'd think a more analogous law would be seatbelt or helmet laws.
 
It isn't fat people that are costing tax payers all the money. It's all the worthless dirt bags that don't have jobs or didn't plan for retirement that cost the most. Get real.
 
people who are overweight but active with good cardio (VO2 rate) are less likely to develop heart disease than skinny inactive people.

Edit: Note i said skinny, not fit. if they were atheltic yet inactive about 2/3 the time they were active, there would be greater risk. However someone who is naturally thinner due to possibly genetically driven higher metabolism has a greater risk of HD than someone who is active but overweight (maybe by as much as 15 - 20 lbs over weight). Comfortable body fat composition is 15%-20% bodyfat. My ideal weight at 15% bodyfat would be 192 and change. My 0% bodyfat would be 166 I believe. Did these calculations last semester and the class covered all this stuff. kinda neat.
 
"I'd think a more analogous law would be seatbelt or helmet laws."

Yes, my insurance costs went almost to nothing when California instituted its helmet law. Oh, wait. No they didn't.

Tim
 
This entire thread is based on a flawed premise:

That Americans have a right to healthcare.

In order to have a "Right" to something tangible (a thing, if you will) in cases where a person cannot provide it for themselves, then society must provide it for them. That, in a nutshell is the premise behind subsidized healthcare. The problem with this is that in order for it to be provided, someone else must have their property confiscated in order to pay for it.

Proposing a tax on anyone to pay for this means that you are forcing that person to be your slave for the period of time it takes to earn the money you have confiscated. In effect, you are talking about slavery. You feel that people should be your slave because they are fat. How about a tax on poor people? After all, poor people are poor because they screw around instead of earning a living.
 
In order to have a "Right" to something tangible (a thing, if you will) in cases where a person cannot provide it for themselves, then society must provide it for them. That, in a nutshell is the premise behind subsidized healthcare. The problem with this is that in order for it to be provided, someone else must have their property confiscated in order to pay for it.
Click to expand...
+1. In addition to that, making healthcare a "right" means that someone has to be the doctor in order for you to exercise your right to receive healthcare.

If you want to voice your political opposition to your government, the 1st Amendment recognizes your right to do so. It does not mandate that people set up newspapers, broadcasting stations, Internet websites, or any other medium for you to to exercise your right of free speech. If need be, you can set something up yourself, use something that someone else has voluntarily created for that purpose, or simply stand in a municipal park somewhere and speak your mind. Same with your 2nd Amendment right to bear arms; some people make their own, some make them for other people to buy, but no one compels anyone to make them for you to exercise your rights.

But what happens if people who would be, say, proctologists decide they don't want to go through the required years of study just to practice that kind of work for what the government pays? How can you exercise your right to receive treatment from a proctologist if there are no proctologists?

Think it can't happen? From what I've read, the UK system has a doctor shortage. A shortage means "not enough doctors to take care of patients" or even "no doctors at all to take care of certain types of illnesses." The UK imports a lot of its doctors. Jolly good, eh?

In the private sector, someone will likely step in to serve that need if they are getting paid comensurate with the demand. But if healthcare is a right, and government takes over, how can you exercise that right when there's no one willing to provide it?
 
"In order to have a "Right" to something tangible (a thing, if you will) in cases where a person cannot provide it for themselves, then society must provide it for them."

So since I have a right to keep and bear arms, presumably tangible ones, society must provide me with them if I cannot provide my own? I don't think so.

Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top