Childhood Obesity -- Should it be a crime?

not saying that the school could justifiably do that, but there are ideas out there.

Yeah that's my thing.

Hoo, that pizza sounds good, please tell your mom to invite me over... again. (ZING!)

LOL

But seriously, schools aren't going to do that. But if they do, that pizza would pass the test. One thing's for sure though... Pizza Hut will NOT do that!

I think it must have been discussed here but I missed it, but has the topic of a "fat tax" been brought up here?

on fat food or people?

I think it must have been discussed here but I missed it, but has the topic of a "fat tax" been brought up here?

Whole thread on it:
http://www.redskinswarpath.com/parking-lot/20352-fat-tax-what-next-big-brother.html

As for this thread, I do not think the government should have the right to intrude upon anyone's privacy b/c they have fat children.

My concern is that to create a situation where having an obese child is prima facia evidence of criminal behavior would seem to me to give the government probable cause to search and seize anything relating to the child's obesity. IMO,the causes of childhood obesity are far too wide-ranging to create the legal assumption that a fat child equals abusive parenting.

I think there are sufficient laws on the books to punish those who are abusive to children both directly and indirectly. While childhood obesity is a problem that costs us millions of dollars in unseen expenses, they are costs I am willing to pay to keep the cops and DSS out of my house just b/c junior is on a Whopper binge.

I like the idea of a fat tax, in concept. If you eat more fast food, you're more likely to need medical care, and you're most likely to need it when you're 65 and on Medicare (heart trouble), which the government pays for with our tax dollars. So if you're more likely to make use of the government's healthcare plan, you should be paying more to the government.

But now that food prices are skyrocketing, it's impractical to impose that tax. With food prices going up, people without means are going to work even harder to keep their food costs down, and rely even more on McDonald's and such. Taxing them on top of it would probably break the camel's back.

That whole last page of discussion sums up exactly why my children take their own lunch to school. They buy occasionally but they pretty much "brown bag it" every day. The irony is that my children are the ones who told me that they would rather pack a lunch than buy that junk. In my day we loved it when we could get pizza and burgers in school. This newer generation is obviously learning from our mistakes. Tear.

I like the idea of a fat tax, in concept. If you eat more fast food, you're more likely to need medical care, and you're most likely to need it when you're 65 and on Medicare (heart trouble), which the government pays for with our tax dollars. So if you're more likely to make use of the government's healthcare plan, you should be paying more to the government.

But now that food prices are skyrocketing, it's impractical to impose that tax. With food prices going up, people without means are going to work even harder to keep their food costs down, and rely even more on McDonald's and such. Taxing them on top of it would probably break the camel's back.
Well lets tax skinny people who eat high fat food and have high colestoral, smokers (they are allready taxed), drinkers, etc... we could go on and on. How about people who do risky sports like sky diving? If they die their family receives SS from them or if they become disabled they qualify for several social programs. I'd say fat people are less likely to draw off our system because they die before age 65. Think about it how many older fat people do you see out and about. I can't think of any really older people who are real fat.

I like the idea of a fat tax, in concept. If you eat more fast food, you're more likely to need medical care, and you're most likely to need it when you're 65 and on Medicare (heart trouble), which the government pays for with our tax dollars. So if you're more likely to make use of the government's healthcare plan, you should be paying more to the government.

I don't know whether those who live unhealthy lives actually end up costing taxpayers more than those who live healthy lives. The people who exercise, eat right and who don't drink or smoke are likely to live longer lives than those who do not and, therefore, put a bigger strain on our Social Security Systems. Moreover, it might be less costly for someone to suffer mild health problems and die of a Big Mac-induced heart attack at 60, than live to be 95 and encounter many of the ailments that tend to affect the elderly.

I'd like to see some independent studies conducted into these kinds of economic issues. I read one a few years back that indicated that smokers actually SAVE taxpayers money by dying young. I have no problem with the government taxing goods that are costly to taxpayers. I have a serious problem with the government taxing goods that are unpopular and unhealthy (e.g., cigs) but end up saving taxpayers money. Why the hell should the government encourage me to live a certain life (e.g., by taxing and not taxing goods) if the net impact of my lifetsyle doesn't adversely affect society?

I don't know whether those who live unhealthy lives actually end up costing taxpayers more than those who live healthy lives. The people who exercise, eat right and who don't drink or smoke are likely to live longer lives than those who do not and, therefore, put a bigger strain on our Social Security Systems. Moreover, it might be less costly for someone to suffer mild health problems and die of a Big Mac-induced heart attack at 60, than live to be 95 and encounter many of the ailments that tend to affect the elderly.

I'd like to see some independent studies conducted into these kinds of economic issues. I read one a few years back that indicated that smokers actually SAVE taxpayers money by dying young. I have no problem with the government taxing goods that are costly to taxpayers. I have a serious problem with the government taxing goods that are unpopular and unhealthy (e.g., cigs) but end up saving taxpayers money. Why the hell should the government encourage me to live a certain life (e.g., by taxing and not taxing goods) if the net impact of my lifetsyle doesn't adversely affect society?

I sell insurance and we do sell life ins. If someone is over weight, smokes, etc... they charge a higher premium because their tables say that they will die at an earlier age. They have the numbers and can tell you if they write 1,000 policies for a healthy male age 35 they can tell you how many of them will die over the years. So they could say that in the first year ___ amount will die year two ____ amount will die etc... They know the numbers thats how they develop the rates. So if they charge a higher rate because they die earlier in life then we could assume they they are less of a cost to SS and other programs. My grandmother lived until age 97 and she cost the tax payers a bunch but she lived a pretty healthy life.

There has been talk of a "fat tax" in this thread. New Jersey lawmakers are considering something similar, with proceeds of the tax possibly benefiting hospitals. They're calling it a "sin" tax.

wcbstv.com - New Jersey Lawmakers Consider Tax On Fast Food (http://wcbstv.com/local/fast.food.tax.2.712510.html)