No soup for you!

[Blitzkommando]

Mississippi is considering a bill that would make it illegal for restaurants to serve obese people. Any establishment with a permit to serve food, the bill says, would “not be allowed to serve food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health”—and if it did, the state could pull the restaurant’s permit.

On the one hand, there truly are people that don't need to be eating so much damned food but on the other it's their right to kill themselves by eating two pounds of fried chicken, ice cream, and Diet Coke. I myself feel pity for the sweatpants covered patrons for their poor choices in diet and exercise.

However, I don't feel it is the job of the government to tell people they can't eat, even if it is for their health. In the end it is those peoples' responsibility to take care of their bodies. If they can't do that then I'd say there's not much sense in trying to force it.

http://www.chow.com/grinder/4760

[VioletSkye]

That's absolutely outrageous. I won't get into partisan politics but I think we all know which side of the camp that legislation came from. Just more attempts to erode the freedoms of the American people. Since when was it the Governments job to play babysitter? http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_disapprove.gif

[Jife_Jifremok]

Why do laws like this show up in restaurants before they show up at beaches?

Okay seriously, it's the fatasses' right to kill themselves, but obesity *IS* a problem...but shouldn't society itself be dealing with this and not the government? Start making smaller chairs for them to sit on. <_<

[ABDUR101]

It's been the governments job to play babysitter when a majority of people eat themselves and everyone else into expensive healthcare.

America's lifestyles are very sedentary, I think rather than looking at this as "oh noes they be taking away our right to eets" as "Well atleast they're looking out for everyone's best interest". Honestly, I would'nt want to flip the healthcare bill for a nation of fatties either, and what nation would honestly say "Do what you want to yourselves, we'll cover every disease, operation and health condition. Have at it!"

Besides, what are the odds of it even going through? Maybe it'll get everyone thinking atleast.

Wasn't too long ago people were issueing lawsuits because McDonalds or other fast food places made them fat. Yeah, Micky D sat your fat ass down and made you eat a triple-decker burger, a large fry and a large diet soda. Every day, for eight years. Try again fat ass.

It's frivolous lawsuits like that which piss me off. Right up there with the dumbasses who spill hot coffee on themselves as they attempt to hurry their asses to work and fondle their cell phones on the highway. "Dur look loophole, I can sue because they did'nt put a warning label on my coffee that it'd be hot."

People that make lawsuits like that, their attorneys, and the judges that don't have them beaten to an inch of their life on the courthouse steps are part of the reason this country needs a nice enema.

If you'll excuse me, I need to go throw myself down a flight of steps at the local mall and sue, because there isn't a sign at the steps that lets me know gravity is still in effect while at the stairs.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ABDUR101 on 2008-02-11 22:00 ]</font>

[VioletSkye]

Honestly, I don't see why it is even society's responsibility to deal with it either. People need to start taking control of their own lives and stop blaming everyone and everything else for their issues. They need to take responsibility for themselves and their actions. As a part of society, I'm not at the homes of others forcing food down their throat, so why do I need to make their weight problem, my problem? I have enough "things on my plate" (bad pun I know lol) to worry about, I don't need to add everyone elses issues to it http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wink.gif

[Blitzkommando]

On 2008-02-11 21:44, Jife_Jifremok wrote:
Why do laws like this show up in restaurants before they show up at beaches?

Okay seriously, it's the fatasses' right to kill themselves, but obesity *IS* a problem...but shouldn't society itself be dealing with this and not the government? Start making smaller chairs for them to sit on. <_<


You mean like chairs that break after a certain weight?

[Sord]

I run lines similar to Abdur, however, I say let the fat uncontrollable slobs be fat, but revoke their healthcare. It certainly isn't a right, go back far enough and national health care didn't even exist in the US. If someone is going to blatantly abuse their health in full knowledge of doing so, then they shouldn't be entitled to treatment paid by others.

[VioletSkye]

That's just the problem, it shouldn't be Government's problem to foot the bill for them either. People won't stop eating just because restaurant x, y or z doesn't serve them. True, they may not be able to scarf down the same grimace portions at home as they would say at an all you can eat buffet, but I still think my point is valid. A healthy lifestyle is just that, a lifestyle. Do you want Government telling us we need to go out and jog x amount of time every so often to stay healthy also? Sure, it would be good for many of us, but I don't want Government legislating my spare time curriculum.

Don't you see that many of our rights are being taken away under the guise of being "in our best interests"? I don't need them legislating my best interests, and as I mentioned earlier, I don't see why it is their responsibility to foot the bill for people who choose to eat themselves to poor health. Too many people run to the Government for every problem they have and expect them to fix it and I just don't think that it was the founding fathers' idea that Government should work that way. The Government has a hard enough time trying to run itself let alone our lives.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: VioletSkye on 2008-02-11 22:04 ]</font>

[Blitzkommando]

I have to say, the best way I've heard it is that, "For every law signed in, a personal right is signed off." That has been the base of much of my thinking and is why I am generally against making new legislation. I could elaborate on this in extreme detail, but I feel that one paraphrase is easy enough to get the gist.

[VioletSkye]

On 2008-02-11 21:52, ABDUR101 wrote:
Wasn't too long ago people were issueing lawsuits because McDonalds or other fast food places made them fat. Yeah, Micky D sat your fat ass down and made you eat a triple-decker burger, a large fry and a large diet soda. Every day, for eight years. Try again fat ass.

It's frivolous lawsuits like that which piss me off. Right up there with the dumbasses who spill hot coffee on themselves as they attempt to hurry their asses to work and fondle their cell phones on the highway. "Dur look loophole, I can sue because they did'nt put a warning label on my coffee that it'd be hot."

People that make lawsuits like that, their attorneys, and the judges that don't have them beaten to an inch of their life on the courthouse steps are part of the reason this country needs a nice enema.

If you'll excuse me, I need to go throw myself down a flight of steps at the local mall and sue, because there isn't a sign at the steps that lets me know gravity is still in effect while at the stairs.
I agree with you on that. Our court system needs a complete overhaul.


On 2008-02-11 22:08, Norvekh wrote:
I have to say, the best way I've heard it is that, "For every law signed in, a personal right is signed off." That has been the base of much of my thinking and is why I am generally against making new legislation. I could elaborate on this in extreme detail, but I feel that one paraphrase is easy enough to get the gist.

To a large extent I agree with that as well.


As a libertarian, I really think Government needs to back off on the role it plays in our everyday lives. Unfortunately, the exact opposite is happening and shows no signs of changing. As a nation I believe we have become far too dependent on the Government and they in turn have been only too happy to take us under their wing to keep us dependent on them. The more dependent we are on them, the more shots they can call and the more control they have over individual liberties.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: VioletSkye on 2008-02-11 22:52 ]</font>

[Sord]

reminds me of all those various quotes paraphrasing Franklin, the first of which I heard as "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security." History textbooks, oi.

[Zorafim]

Um... What? Can they do that? And, besides, don't fat people need to eat too? What is this?

[Sinue_v2]

Honestly, I would'nt want to flip the healthcare bill for a nation of fatties either

Actually, fat people generally put less of a burden on the healthcare system as they tend to die of heart disease or other weight related complications long before healthy people do. While it's more expensive to take care of them in the short-term, in the long run, they are far less likely to grow old and become a sustained burden to the healthcare system.

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029

I say, let them eat their way into their graves if they so wish. The last thing we need is some inefficent and futile Governmental beauracuracy telling us when, what, and how much to eat. What's next? An enforced national bedtime to keep drowsy drivers off the road? Hey, they already do it for truckers! Enjoy filling out your DOT logs everytime you get in your car.

Edit: Link added.


reminds me of all those various quotes paraphrasing Franklin, the first of which I heard as "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security." History textbooks, oi.

Benjamin Franklin was obese as well, I might add.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sinue_v2 on 2008-02-11 23:49 ]</font>

[Sord]

On 2008-02-11 23:36, Sinue_v2 wrote:

Honestly, I would'nt want to flip the healthcare bill for a nation of fatties either

Actually, fat people generally put less of a burden on the healthcare system as they tend to die of heart disease or other weight related complications long before healthy people do. While it's more expensive to take care of them in the short-term, in the long run, they are far less likely to grow old and become a sustained burden to the healthcare system.

well, it may be somewhat morbid, but not providing them any healthcare at all even on short-term, they would die that much quicker and use up that much less.

[Sinue_v2]

Well why stop there? If we really want to save money, we could just kill retirees as from that point on - they generally become more of a burden than a financial asset. We could like, hold award ceremonies for them for their contributions to their companies and to the economy, give them a little trophy - then take them out behind the building and shoot them. This plan can also be extended out to affect perpetual homelessness and vagrants.

[Sord]

On 2008-02-12 02:52, Sinue_v2 wrote:
Well why stop there? If we really want to save money, we could just kill retirees as from that point on - they generally become more of a burden than a financial asset. We could like, hold award ceremonies for them for their contributions to their companies and to the economy, give them a little trophy - then take them out behind the building and shoot them. This plan can also be extended out to affect perpetual homelessness and vagrants.


there's a diffrence between killing someone and a person slowly killing themselves of there own volition.

[Sinue_v2]

Everyone here kills themselves of their own volition in various ways. Gaming certainly isn't good for you, and the lack of exercise/activity not only stifles productivity but can shave a few years off your life. There's those who overuse table-salt, or have unprotected sex, work around chemicals or toxins without adequate protection, drive too fast, or that take any number of unnessasary risks every day which could result in injury or trauma that would simply be a burden on the medical system. All of their own volition. Should we cut medical care off to them as well? What about sports? Sports injuries are extremely common. Should we regulate that people must stick to low-impact aerobic excersise or else risk getting their health care revoked?

Obesity and Smoking are two of the largest, and most obvious forms of this, but it happens every day in thousands of different ways - and while I agree that something should be done to encourage healthy living in the broader population - I don't feel as though legislature will get the job done, nor do I feel that "monetary reasons" are a valid excuse for taking up the banner of this cause.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sinue_v2 on 2008-02-12 03:11 ]</font>

[Sord]

On 2008-02-12 03:09, Sinue_v2 wrote:
Everyone here kills themselves of their own volition in various ways. Gaming certainly isn't good for you, and the lack of exercise/activity not only stifles productivity but can shave a few years off your life. There's those who overuse table-salt, or have unprotected sex, work around chemicals or toxins without adequate protection, drive too fast, or that take any number of unnessasary risks every day which could result in injury or trauma that would simply be a burden on the medical system. All of their own volition. Should we cut medical care off to them as well? What about sports? Sports injuries are extremely common. Should we regulate that people must stick to low-impact aerobic excersise or else risk getting their health care revoked?

Obesity and Smoking are two of the largest, and most obvious forms of this, but it happens every day in thousands of different ways - and while I agree that something should be done to encourage healthy living in the broader population - I don't feel as though legislature will get the job done, nor do I feel that "monetary reasons" are a valid excuse for taking up the banner of this cause.


in my honest opinion, yeah, we SHOULD cut medical care from those things as far as the government is concerned. Not that I've ever heard of government paying for video game related life shortening (aside from perhaps seizures I suppose.)

Private and coorporate owned insurances companies however are entirely free to cover clients. In fact, I would suggest the government take an indirect approach and put pressure on companies to back their employees rather than the government backing the people themselves.

While you give sports as an example, truth be told, if someone did get severely injured while playing, and they are a big shot, their company or sponsor will want them up and running ASAP again. Companies want people living, because that's where they get their money from as well as a workforce. Is this system perfect? Hardly, it elevates the more intelligent or physically fit, but leaves a lot of others in the gutter, inlcuding people that may have had no say in the matter of being handicapped (such as being born mentally retarded or physically impaired.) Though it is possible for private or non-profit organizations to form for such cases and such organizations do exist currently. They could also be seen as "special cases" and evaluated to see if they should recieve some form of compensation.

Anyways, as i said, the system sure as hell isn't perfect, but I'd much rather have that then an economy spiral out of control and nearly everyone go down the gutter. Of course, economics is tricky business, and I would be a fool to sit here and say YEAH, THAT'S WHERE WE ARE HEADED RIGHT NOW because frankly I don't know to much about the nitty gritty economics and how the stock market works into it as well and so on and so forth, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out we have a huge deficit and a large chunk of it is coming from government paid medical care.

And I do agree that "monetary reasons" alone certainly isn't the best reason, just the fact that it's good moral should be, but in todays world, about the only thing that seems to turn people's heads in politics is money. Morals were thrown out of the office a long time ago. But that's a whole other issue for another time.

[Sinue_v2]

in my honest opinion, yeah, we SHOULD cut medical care from those things as far as the government is concerned. Not that I've ever heard of government paying for video game related life shortening (aside from perhaps seizures I suppose.)

Considering you fall into those categories, which I'm sure you are guilty of a few or similar detrimental activities - and the wide, and growing, range of conditions under which you cannot be fully or even partially covered by private insurance companies, would you want to risk your health and safety by keeping government completely out of the picture? By allowing them to limit how much aid they can give to hospitals to treat the uninsured? And do you honestly think that Health Insurance premiums will decrease across the board with the advent of these new laws which regulate healthy activities from unhealthy activities?

As for videogames, they can cause a wide array of problems. Carpal Tunnel syndrome from one, and as you mentioned - seizures in some people. Playing too much can restrict bloodflow in your lower body, which can increase the likelyhood of clots forming. (Although that can also be attributed to many factors, such as sitting in an office, sitting down in front of the TV, etc. Videogames don't help). Videogames take up time in ones schedule which could be better occupied by physical activities - contributing to poor health and hygene patterns, obesity, skin problems, social inadequacies, depression, athesma, etc. And then, of course, there's really serious problems - as there have been reported cases of videogames consuming some people's lifes (especially MMO's) to the point where they are less productive at work, their homelife falls apart, and in rare cases - even death. And that's just touching the tip of the iceberg. None of these factors are anywhere near as strong as the link between obesity/smoking on heart disease or cancer, but they certainly are not healthy for you. And therefor, you are (in an extreme example) liable to get reduced or canceled health care.

And whether or not it comes from the Government or Private insurance companies is moot, imo. Signing your freedoms away to a political process or signing them away to a private institution is still signing your freedoms away. The only difference is that in one, you're doing it because your elected representatives tell you to - in the other, it's out of fear of the repricussions of what will happen if you are not covered. So from my point of view, the government should have no say to private insurance companies in who or who not to cover - but likewise, Government should offer a safety net for those who cannot be covered by insurance.


While you give sports as an example, truth be told, if someone did get severely injured while playing, and they are a big shot, their company or sponsor will want them up and running ASAP again.

Not all those who play sports do so professionally. I wasn't referring to Barry Bonds, but to your average every day schmuck. His company most certainly will not pay for his injuries to be treated unless they were incurred at work (workman's comp). In which case, playing football while he's on the clock is likely grounds for termination.


Anyways, as i said, the system sure as hell isn't perfect

I agree, and if we were to try to replace it - any system we put in place won't be perfect either. All we can do is work to improve upon what DOES work in our current system, and junk that which doesn't work.


but I'd much rather have that then an economy spiral out of control and nearly everyone go down the gutter.

I don't see the correlation between caring for Obese people or those who's medical issues come from "fallacious" activities and an out-of-control economy. Especially when our Economy is already on the rocks, not because of healthcare issues - but because of a poorly thought out and greedmongering sub-prime housing market. You don't HAVE to raise taxes to increase spending. You simply have to cut funding to other departments. The current government does have quite a lot of fat to be trimmed. Pork projects, as they call it. Earmarks. And that's just one source.


but it doesn't take a genius to figure out we have a huge deficit and a large chunk of it is coming from government paid medical care.

A far larger chunk, which absolutely dwarfs healthcare costs, is coming from the war effort. It doesn't help that we send arms and munitions over to Iraq only to end up having them either lost or stolen (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6407177) with no accountability, but the US military (US Tax payers, I shoudl say) footing the bill.

There's always more than one way to look at the numbers. Say, for example, remember those particularly strong El Nino's which hit between the 1980's and throuthout the 1990's? In 1997/1998, the US Government payed out over $4 Billion in relief and reconstruction efforts after 18 declared emergencies. Seems like quite a lot, and a sign of the burden that Global Warming will have on our economy. However, the effects of the El Nino producing extremely mild winters also produced a net savings for the United States greater than that which went out in relief. Factors such as states saving on road plowing/maintinences, longer growing seasons for farmers, greater ease of travel in commerce, reduced heating costs, reductions in flooding damage caused by snow melting (a problem seen again recently in my own state), increased construction, less people calling in to work or arriving late, a higher rate of consumerism... etc. A net savings of 15.3 billion (est.) according to Stan Changnon, former head of the Illinois State Water Survey in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society in September, 1999.

So there's a lot more to look at in the numbers than just assuming you'll be "heafting a larger load to carry the fatties".

[SabZero]

Right, next step is to give out food stamps, so everyone only has access to X amount of food. Hm, where did that ahppen already, oh yea COMUNISM, which us amreicans are supposed to hate.

Anyway, this is against human rights. Great "democracy", Mr. Bush!

[Rashiid]

LOL....

"How should we stop obesity?"
"Don't feed them, and if they still eat, then throw `em in jail! That should teach their metabolism a lesson!"

[Blitzkommando]

The entire DoD doesn't even account for 1/6th of the national budget. If you want to cut fat, eliminate the social programs that suck up 60% of the 3 trillion dollar budget. We already pay out the wazoo for those programs, including the various health care. Insurance is through the roof because lawsuits are through the roof. Sure you can make some nice money as a doctor, but you can also pay into the six figures just for annual insurance, even if you've never made a mistake which brought a suit against you. Last I remember there was a measured risk involved whenever you underwent surgery. Just because something went south, just like was possible and which you knew about beforehand, doesn't suddenly mean you're entitled to half a million because the surgeon did what he was supposed to do. Again though, that comes back to personal responsibility. People think that because they take a risk and it goes sour that they're entitled to compensation. Well, your compensation is the rest of ours raise in insurance rates.

[Kylie]

...o_O Wow, that's my neighbor state... just wow.

[ljkkjlcm9]

all I have to say to everyone in this room is... it's a STATE issue. The NATIONAL government has nothing to do with it. Don't say, great job President Bush. Don't say anything about the national budget regarding this issue. It's purely a state issue.

Do I agree with it? Mute point, it's not my state, and I don't agree with many of the laws passed in a number of states, but they don't really affect me.

THE JACKEL

[omegapirate2k]

On 2008-02-12 07:43, Kylie wrote:
...o_O Wow, that's my neighbor state... just wow.


You're next.

[Solstis]

Oh, whatever, I'm not going to argue with Libertarians on the Internet.

Carry on.

(Yeah, the law is a stupid idea)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Solstis on 2008-02-12 08:58 ]</font>

[Rashiid]

Nonsense. Say what you had to say.

What's the point of a forum if idiots don't argue?
Only reason not to post is fear of failing. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wink.gif

[SabZero]

On 2008-02-12 07:54, ljkkjlcm9 wrote:
all I have to say to everyone in this room is... it's a STATE issue. The NATIONAL government has nothing to do with it.


Ok. Still the government has no say in this whatsoever? The US is weird.

And I have a better one still: outlaw any processed food. That'll show them. Oh wait, the big companies make that, nm, carry on. (incredible, no whistling smilie)

[ljkkjlcm9]

On 2008-02-12 10:02, SabZero wrote:

On 2008-02-12 07:54, ljkkjlcm9 wrote:
all I have to say to everyone in this room is... it's a STATE issue. The NATIONAL government has nothing to do with it.


Ok. Still the government has no say in this whatsoever? The US is weird.

And I have a better one still: outlaw any processed food. That'll show them. Oh wait, the big companies make that, nm, carry on. (incredible, no whistling smilie)


if the bill hasn't been passed yet, why should the national government get involved. It's not a law or anything yet. If it gets passed, then the national government can step in if they disagree with it. But otherwise, there's no point in getting involved yet.

Like the drinking age can be determined by the state, but the national government will not give monetary support for infrastructure such as roads, if the drinking age is lower than 21.

THE JACKEL

[Sord]

it's more of just a pure debate thing. Most likely the bill will just get voted down, never become popular enough to make it into national law. Would probably be challenged in the Supreme Court even if it did pass through. However, the occurence of the bill brings about various opinions on things which are tied to other things (if you care about state government, well, then logically you are probably going to care about national government as well.) One thing leads to another, etc, etc. Obviously there will be diffrences in opinion, and points debated, but so long as it doesn't develop into a flame war you might as well let it continue. For the most part the bulk of this thread is me an Sinue, but it's not like we're shouting swears at one another or wanting to bash each others heads in, nor is anyone else, so there isn't much reason to warrant stopping it.

I remember someone saying that people who follow console wars are very similar to people who follow sports teams. I'd say this is similar, though the subject matter is far heavier.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sord on 2008-02-12 13:32 ]</font>

[Spacepest]

Hmm, I doubt this law would even be effective if it DID pass.

1. Fat people would stop eating at restaurants, restaurants would lose money. Yeah, I don't see this working out.

2. Said defined fat person would go to their doctor, complain, and then have a special type permit issued to them so they could go eating again like crazy. All they would have to do is get some special permit saying they have an "eating" or "metabolism" disorder, just like we give out disabled/handicapped placards to people for their cars so they could go parking in handicapped spaces in parking lots. (ooops, did I discover a loophole here already?)

3. Obese women would just have to claim they were "pregnant" and they could go eating like normal. No restaurant is going to dare deny a "pregnant" woman food (alcohol might be a different story though).

4. I'm sure some commission on civil rights and discrimination would love to tie up this bill for years in court.

I'm not to worried about it...I doubt this will pass and even if it did, it wouldn't effect me getting food in restaurants.

[ljkkjlcm9]

On 2008-02-12 14:12, Spacepest wrote:

2. Said defined fat person would go to their doctor, complain, and then have a special type permit issued to them so they could go eating again like crazy. All they would have to do is get some special permit saying they have an "eating" or "metabolism" disorder, just like we give out disabled/handicapped placards to people for their cars so they could go parking in handicapped spaces in parking lots. (ooops, did I discover a loophole here already?)


Did you know being obese can get you one of those handicapped placards already? Yeah, so the fat people don't have to walk as far to get into the store... how is that suppose to help them?

THE JACKEL

[Sinue_v2]

it's more of just a pure debate thing. Most likely the bill will just get voted down

Exactly. Even the author of the bill recognizes it's absurdness and is only introducing it to bring light to what he sees as a very serious problem with obesity that he feels has been glossed over. It's more of a public awareness measure, and not a real bill.

[Spacepest]

On 2008-02-12 14:17, ljkkjlcm9 wrote:

On 2008-02-12 14:12, Spacepest wrote:

2. Said defined fat person would go to their doctor, complain, and then have a special type permit issued to them so they could go eating again like crazy. All they would have to do is get some special permit saying they have an "eating" or "metabolism" disorder, just like we give out disabled/handicapped placards to people for their cars so they could go parking in handicapped spaces in parking lots. (ooops, did I discover a loophole here already?)


Did you know being obese can get you one of those handicapped placards already? Yeah, so the fat people don't have to walk as far to get into the store... how is that suppose to help them?

THE JACKEL



Yes, I know, and it disgusts me.

I work in a very busy public place, and everytime I see some huge fat person get out of a handicapped spot and then have to watch a REAL disabled person have to park further down the lot because all the disabled spots are taken, slowly making their way out of their vehicle on crutches or in a wheelchair, while fatty just waddles a few feet to the front door, it just really pisses me off.

[Nai_Calus]

ITT: Ignorant people who are probably the kind of people who couldn't *gain* weight if they tried.

It's cute with the little debate disguise, but it's blatantly obvious that half of the people here are just here to whine about people who are overweight.

And what would they use to determine this shit, anyway? BMI? BMI is the biggest crock of undiluted shit in existence. Especially for women. I've seen pictures of 'obese' women who aren't even remotely fat. Guess Sally who's 40lbs overweight can't order her meatless, cheeseless salad with fat-free dressing on the side going out to lunch with her co-workers, but it's OK if Mona who weighs 20lbs wants a triple quadruple fatburger with extra grease, while Angie over there has to go stand on the scale and get measured because she looks borderline. The shit kind of dumbass non-logic is that?

Guess what. Not everyone can magically stay skinny. Me, it doesn't fucking matter if I eat nothing but carrot sticks and run a goddamned marathon six times daily. I don't lose more than 20lbs from anything. Am I fat? Yes. Am I unhealthy? Only when I worked at Wal-Mart. Every other time in my life, no. Now that I'm not there anymore, no. I don't get sick. I don't have trouble going anywhere. I'm stronger than a lot of the skinny people I know. Yeah, sure, blah blah blah diabetes blah blah blah cancer etc. You know what? The one skinny person in my family is the least healthy. She's had six tons of surgery and is missing a good portion of her colon. Eats like a rabbit because stuff goes right through her. Stays at home all the time because she's too sick to go out. Batfuck insane from all of that. I'd rather be fat and have my damned health. Oh fucking no, I need the seatbelt extension on an airplane. Hey, at least I'm healthy enough to go on one. (We're fat back at least five generations, probably more, by the way. I guess all our ancestors were shovelling down cheeseburgers too, huh, nevermind they they didn't exist back then. Guess working in the fields all day wasn't good enough exercise.)

Though a lot of it is all the processed food garbage floating around these days. THAT needs to go first and foremost. Garbage and chemicals that just sit there and don't even fill you up and people just keep eating it and eating it. 20 ounces of coke with high fructose corn syrup makes me thirstier. 8 ounces of coke with real sugar leaves me satisfied. 20 ounces of VitaminWater has less sugar than 12 ounces of Mountain Dew Code Red and I only drink about half the bottle at a time when I have it. Hey, this thing called water does a fabulous job.

Problem is, anything pre-made that isn't garbage costs more than stuff that is garbage - Good cereal that isn't filled with shit with rice milk costs more than HFCS-y garbage shit with cow milk. And a lot of people don't have time to cook. Or for that matter know how. Nor do they know *what* they should eat. And that food pyramid crap is BS.

There is a healthcare crisis, but it's not fat people and denying them health insurance wouldn't do fuckshit. In fact, it would just worsen the problem, because millions of people *already don't have* the stuff. If people could get preventative care, or see a goddamned doctor when they get a sinus infection or whatever, god knows how much money it'd save. Stuff would get detected and taken care *before* it got to the point where it costs tens of thousands of dollars to fix. Say a woman gets breast cancer. Isn't it going to be cheaper, be less likely to kill her, and leave her with more dignity if it's detected early on as a tiny lump and removed and she's monitored to make sure it doesn't come back, than later on when it's spread throughout her entire breast, spread to other parts of her body, and she loses her entire breast, has to have more surgery for the other sites, etc etc etc. But people can't afford to go to the doctor until it's too late, or they can't afford to go at all and end up in the Emergency Room with no way of ever paying the bill. Fat people. Thin people. People with a bit of chunk. People who are literally staving to death.

Hey guess what maybe if that fat person had been able to see a doctor when they first noticed something wrong they could have had a biopsy and gotten treatment before it turned into major cancer, or gotten an antibiotic for their infection before it turned into pneumonia, etc etc. Hey, maybe if they had insurance it'd cover weight-loss surgery, or at least seeing a dietician for some advice and support and they wouldn't be fat anymore. Hey, some people actually DO have medical conditions that lead to teh fat, I'm sure that if they could get that fixed up they'd fucking cream their jeans.

This thread seems to be working with the idiotic presumption that anyone who is fat is fat because they want to be, because they're actively trying for it, and because they're disgusting slobs who do nothing but eat all day. Bullshit. Utter fucking bullshit. Every fat woman I know is on a hopeless diet that will ultimately fail her. Most of them work out. I barely eat and when I do I try not to eat crap because it makes me feel terrible. I don't exercise religiously, but I'm not totally sedentary either. None of us are getting any skinnier. I live with my dad, who's on diet pills, barely eating and doing the best they can to eat right instead of shit, walks at least a mile a day. It's doing nothing. 'Put down the cheeseburger you fat fuck' is a totally ignorant mentality. I did. Dad did. We might as well go out and drink the fry grease at Burger King instead of eating plain lettuce, for all the good the latter does.

There's a huge fucking crisis with health in this country, hell yes, but it isn't just the fat people, or even mostly the fat people. It's the uninsured. The people who don't have any resources. The ones clogging emergency rooms with colds. Deny fat people insurance, and then even the ones who would have been able to afford it are going to go right where the homeless and the low-income people go: Your friendly local emergency room that can't turn them away. Thus putting even more of a burden on the economy, thus feeding the vicious cycle even more.

(And there's different levels and kinds of fat. Mines lower body rather than upper, and while I might be fat I still see people who are eight inches shorter than me with thinner bones who weigh more than me. Stupid to judge something as a unit that has so much variance)

*shrug* I'm gonna get flamed for this, or get a ton of idiotic backpedaling 'well we didn't mean people who really do have medical problems!' or whatever, so I'm not even going to bother with this ignorant bashing thread anymore after this. I know where it's going, read it before elsewhere. Zzzzz. Now if you'll excuse me, it's off to my daily stair climbing.

I'll do it for you: tl;dr