Remember, we talked about this awhile back....

steveinaz

..watch out over-weight folk's, you might be the next tax windfall:

http://www.karlloren.com/diet/p69.htm

be careful who you target, you could be next---unless of course you are skinny, don't smoke, don't drink, have no physical activity that could be deemed as "dangerous", and don't own a motorcycle or ATV.

RuSsMaN

I'm suprised it's not more. I bet 75% of the population is diabetic in 10-15 years.

hearingimpared

These insurance companies will get us any way they can.

jdhdiggs

I don't know Joe, it's kind of like car insurance. If a kid is 16 and has 3 speeding tickets he should pay more than a 35 yo with a clean record. Same thing here, if someone is a higher risk than they ought to pay higher premiums. If I way 400 lbs, smoke 3 packs a day and down it with a fifth of jack danials, well why wouldn't I pay more for insurance and health costs than a 160 lb runner that doesn't smoke or drink? Just my thoughts...

steveinaz

Exactly my point---divide and conquer. Anyone that believes this stuff is done for your health and well-being is living in a fools paradise. They're selling you fear, hype and propaganda, period. They create mountains out of mole hills and watch the idiots climb on board.........to their benefit, and your loss of freedom(s).

My question is, when are the over-weight going to be taxed extra on soda, snickers bars, and fast food? Hell I'm sin taxed out the **** for smoking....

bobman1235

I've been waiting for this one.

I've made the argument that they'll come after fatties every time they try to restrict "risky" behavior under the guise that it is protecting us from ourselves (or even more dishonest, as this article says, alleviating the "tax burden" caused by those who are hospitalized due to risky behavior). First seat belts, helmet laws, smoking, and now eating. They've already banned transfats in some places, wait till they ban chocolate, or start rationing your junk food intake. Ban all non-sugar-free soda.

Brave New World indeed.

bobman1235

NOT TO MENTION that they're basing all of this right now off of BMI, which is a total joke.

jdhdiggs

Wait, are they making it illegal to pursue these activities or just making the participants offset their increased risk....

Ah yes, BMI.... Go tell any RB or LB in the NFL that they're obese...

steveinaz

jdhdiggs wrote: »

I don't know Joe, it's kind of like car insurance. If a kid is 16 and has 3 speeding tickets he should pay more than a 35 yo with a clean record. Same thing here, if someone is a higher risk than they ought to pay higher premiums. If I way 400 lbs, smoke 3 packs a day and down it with a fifth of jack danials, well why wouldn't I pay more for insurance and health costs than a 160 lb runner that doesn't smoke or drink? Just my thoughts...

The problem is, where exactly are these perfect human beings by which we measure? And where do we draw the line on what is considered "healthy activity" and non-healthy activity---

bobman1235

Uh, I just noticed that article was written in 2002....

steveinaz

When are Americans going to get it? We ALL do something that impacts one another. If we keep picking apart every goddamn thing, categorizing, taxing, and whatever; we all will pay in the end.

Live and let live for Christ sake.

jwhitakr

Yeah, I'm not sure I understand the point of this post. Are you trying to make a point about the government overtaxing us, or about insurance companies not playing fair ... or what?

steveinaz

jwhitakr wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not sure I understand the point of this post. Are you trying to make a point about the government overtaxing us, or about insurance companies not playing fair ... or what?

Awhile back we had a heated discussion about smokers being sin-taxed to death, and many felt that was just fine...(non-smokers, of course). People love to bring up the "your costing me in health care money" argument, to which I say ****. If every cigarette on the planet was ejected into space tommorrow--your healthcare wouldn't drop a cent.

My point is, before you get all holyer-than-thou, you better think about issues that may affect your personal preferences, habits, or hobbies.

Long story, short.

madmax

Audiophiles should have to pay more insurance for hearing tests and treatments.
madmax

steveinaz

There you go, Madmax the voice of reason illustrates perfectly. Huahhhhh Chuck!

jwhitakr

steveinaz wrote: »

Awhile back we had a heated discussion about smokers being sin-taxed to death, and many felt that was just fine...(non-smokers, of course). People love to bring up the "your costing me in health care money" argument, to which I say ****. If every cigarette on the planet was ejected into space tommorrow--your healthcare wouldn't drop a cent.

My point is, before you get all holyer-than-thou, you better think about issues that may affect your personal preferences, habits, or hobbies.

Long story, short.

Ahh, ok. That puts things into context. Thanks.

I also don't agree with the excessive taxes (or any taxes, really) on products like cigarettes, alcohol, etc. that people can choose whether or not they want to use. Government taxes should be used to pay for government services that we all use ... building roads, police and fire departments, elected government officials, etc.

When you bring in the cost of healthcare argument, you bring up a whole different set of issues and questions that, to me at least, don't relate to taxes. That's a whole different ball of wax ...

Shizelbs

jdhdiggs wrote: »

Wait, are they making it illegal to pursue these activities or just making the participants offset their increased risk....

Ah yes, BMI.... Go tell any RB or LB in the NFL that they're obese...

BMI is a joke when applied to non athletes too.