If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Time)   I say, old chap, but the Nanny State would like to politely ask that you go be fat someplace else. Cheerio   (newsfeed.time.com) divider line 106
    More: Interesting, nanny state, British Medical Association, smart cards, subsidized housing, Westminster City Council, fat  
•       •       •

8745 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jan 2013 at 12:51 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



106 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-08 12:37:07 PM
There was an article on here a couple of days ago about the worlds fattest man who lost loads of weight. In that article it mentioned how obese people who refused to exercise would be at risk of losing their benefits. A perfectly rational idea if you ask me. We need to pay people less to be a drain on society, but let's at least give them a chance to mend their ways.
 
2013-01-08 12:50:05 PM

Slaxl: There was an article on here a couple of days ago about the worlds fattest man who lost loads of weight. In that article it mentioned how obese people who refused to exercise would be at risk of losing their benefits. A perfectly rational idea if you ask me. We need to pay people less to be a drain on society, but let's at least give them a chance to mend their ways.


Do people who use tobacco risk losing their benefits? I know there are quit-smoking programs but that isn't the same as insisting they quit. What about people who can't control their alcohol abuse? Who decides the goal weight?

Also it sounds like this is only for welfare recipients, who are also the people less likely to have access (proximity or affordability) to healthy food  - so if you have money you are allowed to be fat?
 
2013-01-08 12:55:57 PM

Gig103: Slaxl: There was an article on here a couple of days ago about the worlds fattest man who lost loads of weight. In that article it mentioned how obese people who refused to exercise would be at risk of losing their benefits. A perfectly rational idea if you ask me. We need to pay people less to be a drain on society, but let's at least give them a chance to mend their ways.

Do people who use tobacco risk losing their benefits? I know there are quit-smoking programs but that isn't the same as insisting they quit. What about people who can't control their alcohol abuse? Who decides the goal weight?


In North Carolina, state employees (I myself am a teacher) do have to attest that they don't smoke and have to be below a target BMI (I believe it's 38%), or else they have to pay more for health insurance.
 
2013-01-08 12:56:31 PM
Sounds like an excellent social experiment.
 
2013-01-08 12:58:13 PM
 
2013-01-08 12:58:31 PM
How many calories in a cheerio?
 
2013-01-08 12:58:33 PM

jbhall3636: Gig103: Slaxl: There was an article on here a couple of days ago about the worlds fattest man who lost loads of weight. In that article it mentioned how obese people who refused to exercise would be at risk of losing their benefits. A perfectly rational idea if you ask me. We need to pay people less to be a drain on society, but let's at least give them a chance to mend their ways.

Do people who use tobacco risk losing their benefits? I know there are quit-smoking programs but that isn't the same as insisting they quit. What about people who can't control their alcohol abuse? Who decides the goal weight?

In North Carolina, state employees (I myself am a teacher) do have to attest that they don't smoke and have to be below a target BMI (I believe it's 38%), or else they have to pay more for health insurance.


Same in Tennessee as of a couple of years ago.
 
2013-01-08 12:59:41 PM
i758.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-08 01:00:18 PM
We're not going to push the idea too hard here in the US since BMI has a direct effect on GNP.
If you think I'm lying, go to Walmart and watch the store entrance for an hour.
 
2013-01-08 01:00:23 PM
Interesting... what other things can become contingencies to justify modifying public benefits?

Unemployment benefits contingent on actively seeking gainful employment or at least volunteering at a qualified charity?

Disability payments dependent on engaging in work that accommodates the disabilities?

Child welfare credits contingent on being on an effective birth control regime?

Public health services not covering illegal drug issues other than cessation courses?

All according to the Golden Rule: He who has (provides) the gold (funding), makes the rules.
 
2013-01-08 01:01:25 PM
FTFA: As Charlotte Cooper wrote in the Guardian, "If body weight was a choice solely mediated by eating less and exercising more, we would all have lost weight ages ago."

But it is. And no, we wouldn't. We're farked because no one has any god damn self control.
 
2013-01-08 01:01:32 PM
We have differing ife insurance and in some cases health insurance rates for smokers and non-smokers, I wonder if our obesity problem in the US would be impacted by differing rates for obese and non obese?
 
2013-01-08 01:02:43 PM

jbhall3636: Gig103: Slaxl: There was an article on here a couple of days ago about the worlds fattest man who lost loads of weight. In that article it mentioned how obese people who refused to exercise would be at risk of losing their benefits. A perfectly rational idea if you ask me. We need to pay people less to be a drain on society, but let's at least give them a chance to mend their ways.

Do people who use tobacco risk losing their benefits? I know there are quit-smoking programs but that isn't the same as insisting they quit. What about people who can't control their alcohol abuse? Who decides the goal weight?

In North Carolina, state employees (I myself am a teacher) do have to attest that they don't smoke and have to be below a target BMI (I believe it's 38%), or else they have to pay more for health insurance.


Or, in other words, it happens here too, but because the UK is famously thought of as "Nanny State", it gets laughed about here.

/Of course, we have dumbasses who think Stephen Hawking would be dead in the NHS, when it was really the only thing keeping him alive.
//Advantage, Britain.
 
2013-01-08 01:03:08 PM

Cluckity: FTFA: As Charlotte Cooper wrote in the Guardian, "If body weight was a choice solely mediated by eating less and exercising more, we would all have lost weight ages ago."

But it is. And no, we wouldn't. We're farked because no one has any god damn self control.


It really really is. The laws of thermodynamics can't be broken, but these posts will inspire someone to point out a very rare condition where over the short term these laws can be bent.
 
2013-01-08 01:04:20 PM
They should periodically issue them nutrition loaf in premeasured quantities for dietary needs topped with government cheese-like substance and one regulation feed dispenser in each household.
 
2013-01-08 01:05:35 PM
I'd like to point out that the genetically inferior are also a huge drain on society's resources.

As well as the last couple weeks of a person's life.
 
2013-01-08 01:06:53 PM
This is what is happening here in Canada, with unemployment benefits. I don't see the problem, as I've been on pogey a few times, but I wasn't sitting on my butt eating Cheetos all day long, I was looking for work, or going to school. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/canadians-using-employment-in surance-feel-pinch-stricter-rules-204046056.html
 
2013-01-08 01:09:00 PM
Photo in article reminds me of

www.donspage.com
 
2013-01-08 01:10:09 PM

plausdeny: Interesting... what other things can become contingencies to justify modifying public benefits?

Unemployment benefits contingent on actively seeking gainful employment or at least volunteering at a qualified charity?

Disability payments dependent on engaging in work that accommodates the disabilities?

Child welfare credits contingent on being on an effective birth control regime?

Public health services not covering illegal drug issues other than cessation courses?

All according to the Golden Rule: He who has (provides) the gold (funding), makes the rules.


Works for me, though you forgot my favorite: Drug testing for welfare recipients and elected officials.
 
2013-01-08 01:10:52 PM
If you come for our fat, 1776 will commence again. We will not relinquish our doughnuts, do you understand?
 
2013-01-08 01:11:31 PM

Gig103: Slaxl: There was an article on here a couple of days ago about the worlds fattest man who lost loads of weight. In that article it mentioned how obese people who refused to exercise would be at risk of losing their benefits. A perfectly rational idea if you ask me. We need to pay people less to be a drain on society, but let's at least give them a chance to mend their ways.

Do people who use tobacco risk losing their benefits? I know there are quit-smoking programs but that isn't the same as insisting they quit. What about people who can't control their alcohol abuse? Who decides the goal weight?

Also it sounds like this is only for welfare recipients, who are also the people less likely to have access (proximity or affordability) to healthy food  - so if you have money you are allowed to be fat?


As a starving college student, I declare this certified bull shiat, just because you can't get healthy food at a farking drive through doesn't mean it isn't available at a cheap price.
 
2013-01-08 01:13:01 PM

Gig103: Also it sounds like this is only for welfare recipients, who are also the people less likely to have access (proximity or affordability) to healthy food - so if you have money you are allowed to be fat?


If you have money you are allowed to do many things that impoverised people can't do. This is a long standing precident.
 
2013-01-08 01:15:58 PM

jbhall3636: Gig103: Slaxl: There was an article on here a couple of days ago about the worlds fattest man who lost loads of weight. In that article it mentioned how obese people who refused to exercise would be at risk of losing their benefits. A perfectly rational idea if you ask me. We need to pay people less to be a drain on society, but let's at least give them a chance to mend their ways.

Do people who use tobacco risk losing their benefits? I know there are quit-smoking programs but that isn't the same as insisting they quit. What about people who can't control their alcohol abuse? Who decides the goal weight?

In North Carolina, state employees (I myself am a teacher) do have to attest that they don't smoke and have to be below a target BMI (I believe it's 38%), or else they have to pay more for health insurance.


Oh hooray. Then maybe they can decide that all public employees shouldn't touch alcohol either. And if you think Boehner cries a lot now...
 
2013-01-08 01:16:02 PM
Look at a documentary from the 1970's.  View the crowd shots, the man in the street shots.
no fat people.  True no ADA but still, no fat people.
What's changed is our food.
Factory farms are putting out crap and we're buying it hand over fist.
 
2013-01-08 01:16:35 PM

gunsmack: plausdeny: Interesting... what other things can become contingencies to justify modifying public benefits?

Unemployment benefits contingent on actively seeking gainful employment or at least volunteering at a qualified charity?

Disability payments dependent on engaging in work that accommodates the disabilities?

Child welfare credits contingent on being on an effective birth control regime?

Public health services not covering illegal drug issues other than cessation courses?

All according to the Golden Rule: He who has (provides) the gold (funding), makes the rules.

Works for me, though you forgot my favorite: Drug testing for welfare recipients and elected officials.


Florida tried drug testing for welfare recipients. It was a bust. Turns out very few people tested positive for drugs and the amount of money they spent on screening was far greater than what they saved in denied benefits.
 
2013-01-08 01:17:24 PM
Cheerios?
img594.imageshack.us
How about Froot Loops?
 
2013-01-08 01:18:43 PM
Oink Oink.
 
2013-01-08 01:19:02 PM

Marcintosh: Look at a documentary from the 1970's.  View the crowd shots, the man in the street shots.
no fat people.  True no ADA but still, no fat people.
What's changed is our food.
Factory farms are putting out crap and we're buying it hand over fist.


GIS for "1950 class photo"

No fatties that I see at first glance.

Link
 
2013-01-08 01:19:46 PM

Day_Old_Dutchie: Cheerios?
[img594.imageshack.us image 400x600]
How about Froot Loops?


I want to fark it, but I won't drink the milk.
 
2013-01-08 01:20:31 PM
maybe the world will stop "Amerifat" now
 
2013-01-08 01:21:24 PM

plausdeny: Interesting... what other things can become contingencies to justify modifying public benefits?

Child welfare credits contingent on being on an effective birth control regime?


Another article on the same site: Octomom On Welfare: 'My Choice To Go Back On Assistance Is Only A Temporary One'

So yeah, pretty sure that one would be justified.

Also, because it only relates to those on welfare, it might get some of those lardasses off their butts and looking for work too.
 
2013-01-08 01:22:42 PM
I always thought these kinds of laws and insurance regulations were a dumb cash grab. I mean is a 500 lb person an additional expense to an insurance system while he is alive? Of course. But the real expense for society is health care costs for people who live into their 80's, 90's and beyond and no way is an insurance company for a 500lb person ever going to have to deal with those costs.
 
2013-01-08 01:23:17 PM

Slaxl: There was an article on here a couple of days ago about the worlds fattest man who lost loads of weight. In that article it mentioned how obese people who refused to exercise would be at risk of losing their benefits. A perfectly rational idea if you ask me. We need to pay people less to be a drain on society, but let's at least give them a chance to mend their ways.


Blah, blah, blah. Yeah it will end up just like everything else. For example unemployment benefits, you are supposed to apply for a minimum of two jobs a week and you self report. Most people just fake that shiat and nobody checks it out.

I imagine a requirement to exercise for public benefits would amount to the same, a form you fill out that lists the minimum of 15 minutes twice a week that nobody checks on and everybody fakes.
 
2013-01-08 01:24:39 PM
Why not follow Japan's lead?

Or just put narrow doors or weight based trap doors at the entrance to the Welfare Offices.
 
2013-01-08 01:26:24 PM
*grabs parchment and quill, brushes out mutton chop, straightens monocle*

"barruhm!"

Dear Sirs:

I am vexed - most considerably vexed! - at the literal physical transformation of the lumpen proletariat into actual lumps. It is of no value to the Empire to have the Lesser Classes -- from which many of the frontline soldiers and sailors are drawn from -- to be incapable of servicing the needs and whimsys of their Betters. We of the Ruling Class must ensure that this situation is corrected straightaway lest we be forced to learn tasks that are best left to those inhabiting the bottom of our Great Pyramid of Society.

Sincerely,
William J. Starchshirt, Esq."
 
2013-01-08 01:27:51 PM

mechgreg: I always thought these kinds of laws and insurance regulations were a dumb cash grab. I mean is a 500 lb person an additional expense to an insurance system while he is alive? Of course. But the real expense for society is health care costs for people who live into their 80's, 90's and beyond and no way is an insurance company for a 500lb person ever going to have to deal with those costs.


One of the dregs on society is choosing to be a fat ass and cost us more. The other is choosing not to die. They aren't equal choices so discouraging one of them using financial incentive is appropriate.
 
2013-01-08 01:28:31 PM

TheGreatGazoo: Why not follow Japan's lead?

Or just put narrow doors or weight based trap doors at the entrance to the Welfare Offices.


Try it motherfarker, I have a second amendment solution to that shiat.
 
2013-01-08 01:30:58 PM

Slaves2Darkness: TheGreatGazoo: Why not follow Japan's lead?

Or just put narrow doors or weight based trap doors at the entrance to the Welfare Offices.

Try it motherfarker, I have a second amendment solution to that shiat.


We're talking about the UK, not the USA.
 
2013-01-08 01:31:12 PM
i.imgur.com

/Obligatory
 
2013-01-08 01:31:32 PM

jbhall3636: In North Carolina, state employees (I myself am a teacher) do have to attest that they don't smoke and have to be below a target BMI (I believe it's 38%), or else they have to pay more for health insurance.


Wow...38 is stage II (severely) obese. In contrast the USAF requires a BMI of not more than 27 (mildly overweight) to join, and 30 (clinically obese) to stay in.
 
2013-01-08 01:31:47 PM

jst3p: mechgreg: I always thought these kinds of laws and insurance regulations were a dumb cash grab. I mean is a 500 lb person an additional expense to an insurance system while he is alive? Of course. But the real expense for society is health care costs for people who live into their 80's, 90's and beyond and no way is an insurance company for a 500lb person ever going to have to deal with those costs.

One of the dregs on society is choosing to be a fat ass and cost us more. The other is choosing not to die. They aren't equal choices so discouraging one of them using financial incentive is appropriate.


But if someone chooses not to be fat the odds of them living to 90, and spending a bunch of time in the hospital because of a broken him, dementia or any other age related medical conditions increases significantly. Not to mention things like social security and old age pensions. If an obese person dies at 55 does his family get reimbursed for the fact that society will not have to pay out any of those expenses?
 
2013-01-08 01:31:59 PM
b.vimeocdn.com

This is compLEEETEly unacceptable
 
2013-01-08 01:32:18 PM

Marcintosh: Look at a documentary from the 1970's.  View the crowd shots, the man in the street shots.
no fat people.  True no ADA but still, no fat people.
What's changed is our food.
Factory farms are putting out crap and we're buying it hand over fist.


That, and people are doing way less physical activity. We're driving our kids to their friends' houses a few blocks away, rather than encouraging them to ride their bikes. We're choosing using riding lawn mowers rather than old-fashioned push mowers. Our jobs have become much more sedentary than they once were. People didn't go out of their way to exercise much in the 70s, but they were still more active in day-to-day life than most people are today.
 
2013-01-08 01:33:18 PM
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-08 01:34:29 PM

HMS_Blinkin: Marcintosh: Look at a documentary from the 1970's.  View the crowd shots, the man in the street shots.
no fat people.  True no ADA but still, no fat people.
What's changed is our food.
Factory farms are putting out crap and we're buying it hand over fist.

That, and people are doing way less physical activity. We're driving our kids to their friends' houses a few blocks away, rather than encouraging them to ride their bikes. We're choosing using riding lawn mowers rather than old-fashioned push mowers. Our jobs have become much more sedentary than they once were. People didn't go out of their way to exercise much in the 70s, but they were still more active in day-to-day life than most people are today.


A lot of that is related to suburbs and urban sprawl. I live in a neighborhood that was built in the mid 1960's and you can kind of tell since the local elementary school and the library and a grocery store are all within a 5 minute walk. I have co workers who live in newer more suburban neighborhoods and you can't go anywhere without driving.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-01-08 01:34:51 PM
criticalmas.com
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-01-08 01:36:56 PM

jtown: Florida tried drug testing for welfare recipients. It was a bust. Turns out very few people tested positive for drugs and the amount of money they spent on screening was far greater than what they saved in denied benefits.


This is *always* a program to try to get money into the hands of corporate buddies (or in the case of Florida, Gov. Scott himself). It was in Indiana (where it also failed).
 
2013-01-08 01:37:15 PM

mechgreg: I always thought these kinds of laws and insurance regulations were a dumb cash grab. I mean is a 500 lb person an additional expense to an insurance system while he is alive? Of course. But the real expense for society is health care costs for people who live into their 80's, 90's and beyond and no way is an insurance company for a 500lb person ever going to have to deal with those costs.


I was talking with my doctor last month during my checkup. Anyway, he remarked at one point that total health costs are about the same for both those who live exemplary lifestyles and live long lives as those who die young from weight/smoking/alcohol/etc abuse. Weird how that works out.
 
2013-01-08 01:39:09 PM

mechgreg: HMS_Blinkin: Marcintosh: Look at a documentary from the 1970's.  View the crowd shots, the man in the street shots.
no fat people.  True no ADA but still, no fat people.
What's changed is our food.
Factory farms are putting out crap and we're buying it hand over fist.

That, and people are doing way less physical activity. We're driving our kids to their friends' houses a few blocks away, rather than encouraging them to ride their bikes. We're choosing using riding lawn mowers rather than old-fashioned push mowers. Our jobs have become much more sedentary than they once were. People didn't go out of their way to exercise much in the 70s, but they were still more active in day-to-day life than most people are today.

A lot of that is related to suburbs and urban sprawl. I live in a neighborhood that was built in the mid 1960's and you can kind of tell since the local elementary school and the library and a grocery store are all within a 5 minute walk. I have co workers who live in newer more suburban neighborhoods and you can't go anywhere without driving.


Yeah. I was appalled when I learned that a lot of these new suburbs (at least those being constructed in the late 90s and early 00s) were being built entirely without sidewalks. It's like there was a conspiracy to keep a whole generation of kids from ever travelling outdoors unaccompanied. I'm starting to look at places to live after I'm done with school, and I agree with you about older suburbs---they are way more walkable, and usually closer to city centers/workplaces anyway. Sure, the lots and houses are smaller, but I really think that's an east trade-off for living in a walkable/bikable area.
 
2013-01-08 01:39:19 PM

mechgreg: jst3p: mechgreg: I always thought these kinds of laws and insurance regulations were a dumb cash grab. I mean is a 500 lb person an additional expense to an insurance system while he is alive? Of course. But the real expense for society is health care costs for people who live into their 80's, 90's and beyond and no way is an insurance company for a 500lb person ever going to have to deal with those costs.

One of the dregs on society is choosing to be a fat ass and cost us more. The other is choosing not to die. They aren't equal choices so discouraging one of them using financial incentive is appropriate.

But if someone chooses not to be fat the odds of them living to 90, and spending a bunch of time in the hospital because of a broken him, dementia or any other age related medical conditions increases significantly. Not to mention things like social security and old age pensions. If an obese person dies at 55 does his family get reimbursed for the fact that society will not have to pay out any of those expenses?


I see your point, but some things are worth paying for. Some guy choosing to be a super fat ass isn't one of them. And in most cases the most expensive year of a persons life is the last one. This is true, generally, if you are 90 or a fatass and die at 60. I also think you are underestimating the costs of fat ass on society. It isn't like they just live fat with no additional medical burden their entire fat ass lives, then keel over and die in an inexpensive heart attack.
 
Displayed 50 of 106 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report