• Arizona to fine obese people on welfare if they don't follow their doctors diets
    203 replies, posted
It's not hard to make healthy food Bag of veggies+oil+vinegar+pepper= tasty salad you can add carrots and shit in too fuck
[QUOTE=larrylumpy;29902123]It's not hard to make healthy food Bag of veggies+oil+vinegar+pepper= tasty salad you can add carrots and shit in too fuck[/QUOTE] You can't live off that, you need protein and fruit both of which are extremely expensive in many areas Also, a bag of veggies costs like $7 and you'll get at most 2 or 3 meals out of it, for the same price you could eat at McDonalds 5 or 6 times There's a reason why being poor is linked to bad health and it's because junk food is cheaper, don't try to fucking deny it
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29902144]You can't live off that, you need protein and fruit both of which are extremely expensive in many areas Also, a bag of veggies costs like $7 and you'll get at most 2 or 3 meals out of it, for the same price you could eat at McDonalds 5 or 6 times There's a reason why being poor is linked to bad health and it's because junk food is cheaper, don't try to fucking deny it[/QUOTE] if you're obese, i think you can survive without your welfare being spent on mcdonalds everyday [img]http://www.davidmixner.com/images/2007/07/17/working_poor_2.jpg[/img] this is where welfare should go to, they look like their starving obese people? i think they can survive without more fries and burgers
Zeke is right. And if you want to stop obesity, you'll have better luck attacking the roots of the problem, because this isn't going to gain you shit. [QUOTE=lolwutdude;29902322]if you're obese, i think you can survive without your welfare being spent on mcdonalds everyday [img_thumb]http://www.davidmixner.com/images/2007/07/17/working_poor_2.jpg[/img_thumb] this is where welfare should go to, they look like their starving obese people? i think they can survive without more fries and burgers[/QUOTE] You obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about.
[QUOTE=Rubs10;29902346] You obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about.[/QUOTE] i have a clue that some fat people can't stop stuffing food in their mouths with people's tax money then blame it on something else or debate semantics to explain their mcdonald diet. if they're doing it with their own money, then it's alright with me, it's their choice. but this is welfare, it's different.
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;29902418]i have a clue that fat people can't stop stuffing food in their mouths with people's tax money then blame it on something else or debate semantics to explain their mcdonald diet. [/QUOTE] wow you really hate poor people don't you unhealthy food is cheap and widely available. if you don't understand that, you are mentally defective
[QUOTE=Sanius;29902425]wow you really hate poor people don't you[/QUOTE] yes, cause I don't support [b][i]obese[/i][/b] people whose stomach is already bloated getting fatter even more with our tax money with welfare while starving people whose arms look like sticks could use it more obviously means i hate poor people
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;29902439]yes, cause I don't support [b][i]obese[/i][/b] people whose stomach is already bloated getting fatter even more with our tax money with welfare while starving people whose arms look like sticks could use it more obviously means i hate poor people[/QUOTE] I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with large fast food restaurant chains exploiting poor people through advertising or anything of the sort
[QUOTE=Sanius;29902453]I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with large fast food restaurant chains exploiting poor people through advertising or anything of the sort[/QUOTE] it sure does have to do something with weak filled people continuing to make welfare look like a total damn joke, they're fucking obese for god's sake, they can lay off food and conserve money. who do you think needs to get fed? this guy [IMG]http://i588.photobucket.com/albums/ss327/jess_mullaly/weird-people-fat-guy-eating-huge-ha.jpg[/IMG] or this [img]http://www.bailoutmainstreetnow.com/home/images/stories/news/business/US%20Poverty.jpg[/img] i think the answer is obvious
it's obvious that you hate black people
[QUOTE=Sanius;29902499]it's obvious that you hate black people[/QUOTE] i'll chalk this up as a win
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;29902511]i'll chalk this up as a win[/QUOTE] white power
I personally think this is a good idea.
I do agree with the idea of fining people who blatantly disregard their doctor's orders while under support by the government. The problem is, as Zeke said, the cost of eating healthy. I wouldn't know, as I don't do the groceries around here, so I won't pronounce myself anymore on that. Though not all obese people are poor.
I'm for a tax on unhealthier food, with that money used to subsidize fruit and the like.
[QUOTE=Contag;29907040]I'm for a tax on unhealthier food, with that money used to subsidize fruit and the like.[/QUOTE] Make the lives of poor people even more difficult. Great idea!
Wow, this is a rather interesting new diet motivation: taxing people for not following a prescribed diet plan. If nothing else, it'll bring in troves of ducats.
[QUOTE=Sanius;29907348]Make the lives of poor people even more difficult. Great idea![/QUOTE] What the fuck are you talking about? No, really, what the fuck are you talking about?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29901140]Habitual drinking is no different than habitual eating, if you support this why wouldn't you support it for drinkers too[/QUOTE] what made you assume that I don't want this applied to drinkers [editline]wef[/editline] just to make myself more clear, I do want this applied to drinkers as well, all I said was that I'm not sure whether this stretched to cover alcoholics
[QUOTE=Cmx;29897191]one problem I see with this is the healthier food is more expensive...[/QUOTE] dumb
I don't agree with the fine. I do agree with that people who are more at risk for disease should receive less coverage, especially in cases where people smoke. But I don't think these people should be fined, I just think there should be incentive to be healthier because you are more likely to get better coverage. I do believe that people who are legitimately not able to change a health issue should not receive less benefits. There are real diseases which make it very difficult for people to lose weight and the weight of these people should not be a real factor if a doctor verifies that they really don't have a lot of control over it. [quote]"It's a silly idea. Overweight people are motivated to lose weight but it's very hard. Only 5% of people lose weight and keep it off for five years. [B]The state would be wiser to change the conditions driving obesity rather than penalising people that have it.[/B]"[/quote] I completely disagree with this because that interferes with choice and the ability of businesses to choose what the serve. I don't agree with any calorie bans, or any legislation against fast food. I'm all for making forcing regulations that would make the consumer aware of what they are eating, but this would need to be across the board. We shouldn't regulate any market and force them to serve healthier food, but we should get out information that would make the market want to server healthier food (which is happening, a lot of fast food places are cashing in on this).
[QUOTE=Pepin;29908886]I don't agree with the fine. I do agree with that people who are more at risk for disease should receive less coverage, especially in cases where people smoke. But I don't think these people should be fined, I just think there should be incentive to be healthier because you are more likely to get better coverage.[/QUOTE] lol how the hell are you going to create a system of "lesser care for certain people" without doing something morally repugnant? [editline]18th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Contag;29907414]What the fuck are you talking about? No, really, what the fuck are you talking about?[/QUOTE] maybe he's suggesting that "those fat, lazy poors" isn't exactly the right way to characterize welfare recipients
clearly none of you have ever had to fucking provide for yourselves otherwise it'd be pretty fucking clear to you that the food in the supermarket that's actually healthy - whole meat, fresh vegetables - is fucking expensive as shit. A whole piece of broccoli (which will provide fiber and is healthy as shit) is about 2 bucks, meat is 3-4 dollars per pound. Proper protein intake for an average person is 80grams per day which is roughly a pound of chicken or turkey. 5.50 for a healthy meal - but that's not even balanced yet. In order to actually get proper nutrition you'll need more vegetables - carrots, for instance, which will set you back maybe a buck per carrot (large carrots, not baby carrots). That's 6.50. Welfare families have upwards of 4 people in them often, so that's 25 dollars per day spent on food. When you can quite easily go to a fast food joint or even a subway or some shit (which is nowhere near as healthy as people make it out to be) which will be 10 dollars to feed your family. anyone who thinks that poor health isn't correlated with less wealth is fucking balls to the walls idiotic
Unhealthy food is cheaper, 5 greasy bargain toad in the holes for 4 quid? forget about it! but the problem is as stated, laziness - you can eat unhealthily as long as you compensate with exercise. Does this mean though that their welfare is based on them being too fat to work, meaning they have to abide to the diets put down (claiming benefits all the while) untill they are fit for work again? Thats a pretty nifty motivation and return to work scheme
[QUOTE=TheHypnotoad;29909570]but the problem is as stated, laziness - you can eat unhealthily as long as you compensate with exercise. [/QUOTE] Damn poor people need to get off of their asses and buy gym memberships instead of scraping the bottom of the barrel to feed their families
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;29909263]lol how the hell are you going to create a system of "lesser care for certain people" without doing something morally repugnant?[/QUOTE] How is it morally repugnant? The amount of insurance granted is based on risk, and this is a process that makes sense. I think you'd agree that someone who smokes tobacco is at more risk for having health issues as opposed to a non smoker, and because of this risk it is completely fair to charge them more. I don't see weight is any different because it is a proven risk. I don't agree with the government giving less benefits to conditions that cannot be changed, but for the most part, people will lose weight if they stick with their doctors recommendation. I can assume that you find it immoral because you believe that health care is a right. A quick rebuttal to this is that you don't have a right to a service. I've seen people try to health care is a right, but I've never seen a decent argument for that. One a logical level, if you disagree that riskier people should not receive less health insurance (assuming that these risks can be reduced), then you should also support the notion that riskier drivers should not receive less health insurance. I don't think you'd agree with that, so I'm interested to hear you make your argument as to why it is immoral.
[QUOTE=Sanius;29909593]Damn [del]poor[/del] [b]obese people refusing medial advice and claiming benifits[/b] need to get off of their asses and [del]buy gym memberships[/del] [b]Go for a jog[/b] instead of scraping the bottom of the barrel to feed their families[/QUOTE] The doctors diet advice will probably consist of "eat healthily" which is hard without funds, but excersise costs nothing. Lose weight to regain benefits, and continue looking for a job.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;29909263] maybe he's suggesting that "those, fat lazy poors" isn't exactly the right way to characterize welfare recipients[/QUOTE] Ah okay, that makes sense with the other posts, in that he didn't really read it, because I never characterized them as such, other than that they are, you know, poor, or would just get liposuction and prance about with their rich friends. The subsidization of healthier foods (or even healthier packaged foods) means that more people will eat healthier, and will give poorer (and with the state of the economy, that's most people) people much better access to healthier food.
Looks like the Heart Attack Grill will be out of business in no time. :frown: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbKRSYAuSNg[/media]
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;29909484]clearly none of you have ever had to fucking provide for yourselves otherwise it'd be pretty fucking clear to you that the food in the supermarket that's actually healthy - whole meat, fresh vegetables - is fucking expensive as shit. A whole piece of broccoli (which will provide fiber and is healthy as shit) is about 2 bucks, meat is 3-4 dollars per pound. Proper protein intake for an average person is 80grams per day which is roughly a pound of chicken or turkey. 5.50 for a healthy meal - but that's not even balanced yet. In order to actually get proper nutrition you'll need more vegetables - carrots, for instance, which will set you back maybe a buck per carrot (large carrots, not baby carrots). That's 6.50. Welfare families have upwards of 4 people in them often, so that's 25 dollars per day spent on food. When you can quite easily go to a fast food joint or even a subway or some shit (which is nowhere near as healthy as people make it out to be) which will be 10 dollars to feed your family. anyone who thinks that poor health isn't correlated with less wealth is fucking balls to the walls idiotic[/QUOTE] Whey protein is cheap as shit and it's perfectly fine to get your protein in every day. A cheap multivitamin can replace a lot of the vitamins you get from fruits and vegetables as well. Losing weight isn't about eating healthy, it's about eating less. There is no possible scenario in which losing weight would cost more money than gaining weight. [editline]18th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Sanius;29909593]Damn poor people need to get off of their asses and buy gym memberships instead of scraping the bottom of the barrel to feed their families[/QUOTE] Cuz you need a gym membership to do some pushups or go running.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.