I can't. I'm not omniscient.
But it's generic enough to say most fat people were not fat to begin with. There are 'fat' people with genetic problems that disallow them from getting 'skinny' after a certain point in age. But many 'lacked' ability to keep themselves from getting fat. It just says that they have no self respect to themselves. In my life, I've experienced many with no self respect to be failures. Even when their crust seems appealing, their downfall was simple. Heart attack, heart disease, or liver cancer. You'd think you'd be productive even after those, but to people with no self respect, they always fail.

I don't see what self-respect has to do with people getting fat. I know plenty of overweight people who have tons of self-respect. They aren't sticking to a diet or fitting gym-time into their daily routines, but they still like who they are and are happy the way they are.

That's not self respect. That's simply misplaced pride. If they're fine with their eventual diabetes, their eventual high blood pressure, their eventual heart problems, their eventual stroke, and their eventual utterly painful demise... If they're fine with that, I don't think they're much self respecting as any other fat lazy bums.

Self respect is strictly 'loving' yourself. Letting you be out of shape, and let the one way trip express train to bad health go all the way? That's a horrible way to love you.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 3 2011, 9:01 am by BeDazed.

I see those as one in the same, but I guess I should have said "they still love who they are..." instead.

I didn't read all of the 8 pages of course.. But I did read the OP.

Putting a tax on high calorie foods won't work. First of all, it will be viewed as discriminatory, an second of all, the major corporations, such as McDonalds, will have your hides for that. Even if you just tax the suppliers, and that the corporations don't attack back, you'd simply make the fast food industry suffer.

I think a better approach would be to look into increasing community services for obesity, increasing education and awareness about obesity, and etc. It will help cure the one major cause of obesity, ignorance. Community programs can help not just children, but parents to decrease it.. and help them learn healthier recipes and etc.

I just skim read this entire topic. So kindly take a minute or two to read this, and bear with me.



What's painfully and most apparently clear is the outright discrimination and categorization of 'obese' or 'fat' people. Fat people have existed since the dawn of time, fat is an important element of our body's natural composition. The true 'obesity' problem is to do with television (surprise surprise) and mass media. The way this works is two-fold. Firstly, sitting in front of a television does absolutely nothing for your physical well-being. But, secondly, and more importantly, mass media (television, advertisements, posters, models, celebrities, glossy magazines, etc) are portraying this false image of what 'normal' people look like. Furthermore, the very lifestyle in which we exist, has been accepted as the 'normal' way. A 9 til 5 office job, an hour commute to work in a car, come home, have dinner sitting down, maybe stick the TV on for a while, go to bed, read a book, sleep and repeat. Now - I am not saying that this lifestyle applies to everyone, because, there are always exceptions to any rule. What I am getting at here, hopefully, is that this thread has so far been discussing dietary solutions and economic measures - when in reality, a solution or a 'cure' to tackling America (and other nations') obesity problem lies in changing lifestyles, not diets.

To return to my first point about the categorization/discrimination issue, there will always be fat people. Some people just don't enjoy exercising, some people have genetic makeup which alters their metabolism, some people endure mental health issues which affect their eating habits, and quite simply, some people simply like eating. My main argument here, is merely a hit on the language which is used, worldwide, when discussing 'obesity'. It is almost always referred to as a problem, or an issue - which implies that it needs to be fixed, or cured. I'll try not to derail into an angsty hatred of mass media here - but I'll just say a few things which hopefully explain my dislike of this kind of language. In chronological order, since the 1970s, these issues have come and gone: Climate change, Acid Rain, Global Warming, Mad Cow Disease, Foot and Mouth Disease, SARS, Bird Flu/H5 N1, Swine Flu - and a handful of others I can't remember off the top of my head. The media portrays these 'bigger pictures' for us, and it portrays them in the light of 'serious problems'. My promise to not derail this topic will continue so far as to say that 'serious problems', require 'serious fixes', which in turn results in capital exchange. If you live your life fearing these bigger problems, you will become swallowed up in the vast chasm of what capitalism truly is. If you want to continue down this line of thought, these videos are very insightful and thought-provoking - and display the issues I have highlighted - in a British point of view.

To return on topic, and to wrap up - let me say sorry, Cent. I live in blissful ignorance of American internal affairs and know nothing about medicare or medicaid. A quick wikipedia search revealed to me that it is simply a legislative measure to provide welfare to those who need it. We have something similar in the United Kingdom and it is abused to shit by the dregs and scum of society who refuse to get an education and get a job and instead spend their money on drugs and alcohol, spawning a generation of teenage pregnancies, which increases the number of people who qualify for this very same welfare which is bringing society down. It is a vicious cycle. But, a bit like fat people, there will always be these dregs of society, and I can't imagine a world where a government did not make a conscious effort to provide for people who needed it. There can be no half-measures, and whatever course of action is ultimately decided in the War on Obesity - will leave a lot of individuals feeling alienated, discriminated and put down.

My honest opinion is that there is no simple solution to obesity. Lifestyles must change, and for lifestyles to change, there must be an active shift in perceptions. However, there cannot be a shift in perception without an acceptance that the current mode of production is inherently flawed. With no alternative mode on the horizon, nor around the corner - there will be no shift in perceptions, no lifestyle changes and obesity (and many other problems) will still exist in all societies.

My best answer to the problem is one which stretches far to the right, borderline police-state territory. The head of every household (or every adult) is issued a card/electronic chip/high tech device with which they purchase all their food (caloric) items. They have a weekly (maybe daily?) limit on how much food they can purchase. So, the eventuality is that you can either go to MacDonalds and buy 2 cheeseburgers, or you can buy 4 apples, a pear, some rice and a turkey steak. This electronic chip/card/high tech device will also contain medical and fitness records per individual and by performing exercise (burning calories) you increase the total amount of calories you can purchase per week (or day).

Hopefully my best answer reflects my honest opinion in that there is no simple, quick and easy method to fix obesity (and the problems of society as a whole).

edit: I started to edit and add some points for clarification but it's late here. So I'll just answer any replies tomorrow.

I disagree with your solution, but not to the point that I want to argue with you (since your implementation is possibly more radical than mine).

I DO want to point out that you reneged on the issue; before, you mentioned that the government shouldn't interfere at all because them being fat hurt no one. I will also reiterate a few points which I have repeatedly emphasized yet you missed: First of all, the money from the taxation will go directly to the people in the form of other food subsidies (or whatever the government deems prudent). If you believe that all of this extra money will simply disappear, then... well, give me a reason for this to be true.

Secondly, changing of lifestyles to revolve around exercise is more difficult and more dubiously helpful than direct taxation on foodstuffs. The time spent on exercise will, at least in part, be deducted from time spent working daily, reducing the populations' productivity and funds available to government (to say nothing of the vast funds required to exact this change across the population). This will also be partly counterbalanced by the populations' hesitancy to exercise outside of their designated daily time. Taxes on unhealthy food, on the other hand, actually nets the government money while accomplishing a similar feat.

Actually I think there's some merit in the middle here. If a fat tax is instituted with the intent of providing the american public at large with the means to change their lifestyle rather than with the intent of discouraging purchase of fatty foods, I think it would do a great deal more good towards the health of the nation. Say this tax is implemented: use the funds to create a government health organization with a focus on exercise. Start with infrastructure: build a government gym on every street corner. This creates construction jobs right off the bat. Temporary jobs, but jobs nonetheless. A gym needs a staff; hire kinesiology majors and what not to help create long-term jobs. If there's a gym 2 blocks from your house, you can easily walk there, which means you're more likely to go. Since its government, the membership fee can be ridiculously low. Say, $5 a month. More people go to the gym, which means more people get exercise, which has numerous health benefits which I've already mentioned. They now have the opportunity to speak with someone about their diet, work out, run, ect ect, in a location that's conveniently close to home. In 20 years when there are no fat people left, the government can sell/privatize the gyms and their staff to Baileys (or multiple small businesses to create competition) or whatever and make some extra cash.

Basically, people aren't willing to do the hard work required to not be fat, so make it convenient for them by building the gym next to their house. Of course, this whole plan requires a massive investment, probably more than a single fat tax could sustain.

Yep. Sure, it's a good idea, assuming you have enough money to put... a gym on every street corner...

You'd be throwing tens of billions of dollars away on this. I'm waaaaaaaay opposed.

No, I'm more likely talking about a figure in the trillions. However, you'll never see massive wide-sweeping results without a massive investment. Fixing "fat people" is fixing what, 100,000,000 people? 1 trillion / 100 million = $10,000 per person investment. A simple fat tax won't do shit. People will just pay it to get their fatty foods. (I may have said before that people might be swayed not to buy foods from an excessive tax, but I don't believe that anymore).

Lol. They will be swayed to some extent. Let's not go down this road again. I, for one, will definitely not eat pizza if price went from $1.50 per slice to $4.50 per slice. And worst case scenario, gummint makes a shitload of cash.

Err... trillions investment to stop obesity? There are so many lower-hanging fruit we could grab with that money...

The idea I'm proposing is a solution to obesity specifically, even if it may have other beneficial side effects. The government making a shitload of cash is not an acceptable outcome if it does not fix the obesity problem.

Also, are you fat? If you aren't, then I'm not worried about you not eating a $4.50 slice of pizza. I'm worried about the 450lb guy behind you in line who will buy it. Theres no sense in catering a solution to a problem that doesn't exist (i.e. making you//healthy people healthy).

Also, on a less-serious-more-anecdotal note, have you ever been to Sbaros? It's like 4.50 a slice already...

Why is the government making a shitload of cash not an acceptable outcome? Governments need money. And... I'm not going to argue with you. If you think people love their fast food so much that they'll pay an extra $3.00 for it, then make it a 500% tax and make them pay $9.00 per slice. Or $20. Or $100. Whatever gets you off this pointless train of thought.

Quite correct. Look at what has happened with smoking in the UK - most of the price of a packet of cigarettes is tax yet smoking rates have not declined in the way the government has wanted them to. The only people who have stopped smoking are the educated middle classes who, ironically, could afford to pay extra for cigarettes if they wanted them. Though smoking has more than halved since 1974, working class smoking has actually barely declined at all.

So, the government has tried other measures which, though I hugely disagree with them, have worked up to a point. There is a complete ban on smoking "indoors", with that being defined as any space with a roof (i.e. including bus shelters) that is used by the public. In practice this applies to just about everywhere except for private homes. This has brought smoking figures down but I think it is an unnecessary restriction on civil liberties.

The same approach could be taken to food that is bad for you, but it will have slow results and again I am unhappy about possible restriction of civil liberties in this way.

I had a great idea once. And it doesn't restrict civil liberties either.

Governments would contract health insurances and make a certain 'health packages' which comes along with any other package. It would have to be the same for every health insurance company for it to work, and that is why a government should contract the insurances. For example, for each package insurance companies have, they would set a 'health goal'. They'd suggest lifestyles, meals, and daily routines to help people reach this 'health goal'. If this person reaches this goal, then let's say this person gets a discount for reaching the goal, and an additional bonus service for doing so. And if this person couldn't reach the goal by the deadline, then this person would have an additional fee to pay, and less service.
Why would this work? It directly complies with a health companies' purpose. The point for a health insurance is for the situations of 'maybe', in a situation where a person might have a problem that might require large sums of money should one have to pay it all. People contract insurances because of these situations that may happen to them. But for a non-obese, and healthy person with healthy lifestyle, this would happen less frequently. Insurance companies would not have to pay for these people as frequently as they would have to for unhealthy and obese people. It may hurt for some people to learn that obesity is directly related to heart disease, liver cancer, diabetes, HTN, and many other diseases that may be closely linked to obesity. One would be directly disassociating oneself from the major cause of many diseases should one be free from obesity. Reason enough for insurance companies to give discount, and more incentives.
To a more maximized effectiveness, the government could extend this package to internet and telecommunication companies, because it is the hub for the vast majority of people. There are only a few disconnected from such, and if one were to gain discounts for not being fat, then I'd be all for not being fat.

Though, It'd be sad for food industries if majority were healthy.

Vraels suggestion makes the most sense. 'Fat tax' simply won't create enough money to solve the problem, and as I tried to get the point across that the problem is deeper than just dietary habits, throwing money at it until it goes away is not a viable option.

The creation of public exercise facilities, gyms, swimming pools - in addition to media efforts to popularise health benefits, jogging, cycling and even walking... will have a much more definite and marked impact on increasing the health of an entire nation.


This sort of tongue in cheek, yet very well executed and factually correct video illustrates my next point very well.



Compare this table: If America spent 1% LESS on military budgets each year for 3 years, you would have a total of 19.5 BILLION dollars to allocate to Vraels proposal over 3 years. How about some legislation which scoops 1% of all money donated to charities - maybe have it run for 5 years - and devotes it to this proposal? That's a further 3 BILLION each year for 5 years. These ideas cost nothing to the public and are portrayed in an absolutely minimalistic sense. 1% alterations per year to two sectors of budget/spending can yield in excess of 30 Billion US Dollars. Just imagine what a 2% or 5% alteration could achieve. Let us hypothesise that each gym will cost $500,000 to construct - in 5 years, operating on a minimalistic hypothesis, enough capital will have been gained over 5 years to complete 60,000 gyms - which will mean an average of 1,200 gyms per state. I could go further into arguing the numbers here, but one final point - Vrael supposed that membership will cost $5 a month. Let us suppose each gym sustains an average of between 500 and 2000 memberships, of course factoring in peak-times, off-peak, membership discounts, etc. So, each gym will yield $12,500 each MONTH - supposing a 65% upkeep cost (paying staff, maintenance costs) - monthly gross profit of all the gyms per MONTH would yield 262.5 million dollars. This is a colossal amount and will more than pay for itself in the long run (jobs created at the gym, health and fitness of the general public, reinvestment, returning funds to charity).

Edit: My numbers might be misleading. I am under the impression that 1 American Billion = 1,000,000,000, or 1,000 millions?

Taxing fatty foods will in no way yield a fraction of these amounts. Unless the tax is so extortionate, in which case it will have adverse effects of damaging the economy.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Feb 1 2011, 12:36 pm by Cardinal.

That is, surprisingly, a pretty good idea, BeDazed. However, most arguments against government intervention in the form of increased taxes on certain foods apply to it as well. Health insurances don't typically do this on their own, and so, to implement this idea in any force, you'll need government subsidies for these companies. Again, it costs money, though less (and it probably won't be as effective as some other ideas mentioned, and the money from any "failures" goes into private hands, instead of public) than Vrael's idea.

Cardinal, if you think it viable to spend trillions (thousands of thousands of millions) on this idea, I'm not going to argue more on that issue. There's a reason the military budget is that large, and though it can be cut, one shouldn't speculate as to what should happen when it does with such conviction. Any cut in research will give the Chinese and Russians an edge, any cut in military bases would reduce American influence in that region, any cut in the two wars will increase the chances of a loss. It's easy to say "If we take 5% of the military budget, 1% of the education budget and remove the foreign aid budget, we can start implementing this", but not only would this not be enough for "trillions", but it isn't practical. Until the US has money pouring out of its ass, there's money to be better spent elsewhere. And last I checked, we were $14,000,000,000,000.00 in debt and growing.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Feb 1 2011, 1:04 pm by Centreri.

Noted, Centreri. The United States currently does not have the capacity to implement any project that large, nor projects even a tenth of the project Vrael suggests. The United States requires a cut in the military budget yes, by ending the current wars, and ending the service of super-carriers, which will soon end its era. Instead, the military budget should go to a more advanced MD systems, anti-satellite systems, anti-electronics and to anti-nuclear efforts. However, as noted, it is unwise to immediately cut budget, nor is it wise to increase budgets.
Well, that said, conclusion; the US does not need a 'better spent' elsewhere. My opinion is that the US requires less spending, and more debt paying- or risk a scenario similar to IMF crisis in Asia.

I don't think the US is in a position to pour money out of its ass anymore. The US requires a transition into a more logical, more modest way of spending money. US is in no position to pour money anywhere.

@Cardinal.
Every apostrophe switches the unit name.

I also want to point out that neither you nor me are qualified to comment on what in the budget can be cut and what can't, or more specifically what projects the military should discontinue.

BeDazed's idea is actually already implemented, just not by the government. Typically if you have health problems you pay a higher rate on your health insurance than a healthy person. I believe the ObamaCare actually wants everyone to pay the same based on the aggregate/average "healthiness" of the nation, instead of the incentive for being healthy method. If the past 30 years are any indicator, the health insurance incentive clearly doesn't work since the obesity rate has gone way up in that time. Besides, why not treat the actual cause of the problem if you want to fix the problem? It's a simple equation: Fat Growth = (Fat In) - (Fat Out). If Fat Out > Fat In, then Fat Growth < 0, which is what we want. We either need to make Fat In smaller, or Fat Out larger. Centreri's original proposal was aimed at reducing the size of Fat In, and my gym idea is aimed at increasing Fat Out.

Regarding the current ability of the U.S. to actually fix this problem, in the long-term view it might be more beneficial to focus on one thing at a time and get them fixed (i.e. cut 1 trillion from defense spending to build a million gyms nation-wide) so that a few years down the road we don't have these problems to waste money on anymore in a half-hearted attempt.

Also, $500,000 is way too low an estimate for a gym construction. Try like, $15 million. With 1 trillion dollars you could build 66,000 15-million dollar gyms. Allocate them based on population density and that might be enough.

I also want to point out that our congressmen aren't qualified to comment on what in the budget can be cut and what can't, or more specifically what projects the military should discontinue. But they do anyway.