Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It's a problem because inevitably non obese shell out billions of dollars to compensate for the incredible drain obese people are on our society.
And obese people fund on a daily basis, billions of dollars to compensate for the incredible drain that old people, smokers, children and adults with various disabilities, premies etc. are on the system. Especially so as they are less likely to live long enough to actually get to enjoy the benefits of their hard works.
But who am I to quibble it's easier to openly discriminate against old people than it is children and premies with lifelong disabilities.
The difference is "obese people" most likely can make a choice to not be obese. Just like a smoker can make the choice to not smoke. But old people and kids/people with many disabilities cannot do anything to change that. See the difference?
Go purchase life insurance---if you are older, have an illness, are overweight, etc, they charge you more or simply won't insure you. It's not discrimination, it's just how it works.
So while everyone should have access to healthcare, it's not unfair to expect some to pay more. I mean, if I purchase ACA plan now, at 50 I pay more than at 40, and it exponentially goes up until I turn 65 and can switch to medicare. They do charge me more because of my aging.
At the end of the day you might not like obese people, you may feel yourself morally superior to obese people, but the argument that they cost more to society than a premie, even if they manage to live independently, or an an old person who racks up millions of dollars (directly tax payer funded healthcare bills) in the last months of life.
Or the millions of people who make bad decisions every single day, and end up costing the system lots of and lots of money when a lifetime of bad decisions catches up with them.
That's life and the thing is maybe you get cancer and cost the system a lot of money and maybe it's because you chose to use pesticides on your lawn, combined with a bunch of other bad decisions you made over your life, like being a recreational drinker and being a woman, a few drinks a week, every week and in your youth you drank more than that, but you thought it was okay, because you maintained your weight and you worked out... but ooops now you have terminal breast cancer and... you want a few more months with the dogs and grands so you receive costly healthcare. Again argue you didn't cause your cancer all you want but if I follow your logic you did.
Do you judge cancer patients, the people who had herpes and it made them susceptible to lymphoma or HPV and now they have head and neck cancers? Do you judge the sober for 20 years mom who gets cirrhosis, you don't know she partied a little too hard in her youth, contracted Hep. They did something to cause their illnesses... they were participants in their eventual costly illnesses. No it's not so easy to judge them right, because they made bad decisions that one could argue had an element of immorality attached to them.
Like I said get back to me when you hit 55-65, and have outlived your genetic usefulness, or you get head/neck/oral cancer, breast, or lymphoma or something else. I'll send you some cyanide pills, if you care so much about tax dollars, and being a drain on society do us all a favor and off yourself.
Equating obesity with cancer is sole next level mental gymnastics.
No it's not at all. Both cost the system and that's the problem right, it's not that you don't like fat people because you think they are weaker to you, it's because they cost the system. Both cost the system and both can very much be self inflicted. That cancer is connected to lifestyle factors, many of which you can control isn't even up for debate. It's a fact. So now what? What is your problem with fat people? Do you not like to look at them, do you think they are lazy? They cost the system too much? Either your are a jerk with issues against obese people or you don't like the fiscal drain which at least has some logic to it.
But if your primary reason is the fiscal drain then you should take issue with people who have cancer, with premies and most certainly with the costliest group of all old people.
It's not mental gymnastics. I just don't have a moral objection to obese people, I don't see their medical condition as something that should be stigmatized anymore than the person who has throat or anal cancer because of sexual choices they made freely and with knowledge of the potential consequences.
It's kind of like smoking, once upon a time we didn't know it caused cancer but know we do, so no one should be smoking anything, same thing with sexually transmitted diseases many of which are endemic and carried by most of the population. Now we know they cause alter cells and cancer so shouldn't you be making different choices... abstinence is probably the safest choice. With modern reproductive tech no one needs to have sex do they, and if they must then certainly not with more than one partner over a lifetime? I mean I know sex is fun, and feels good, but you've got willpower and a hand don't you. Just like no one needs to eat cream puffs... or too many turkey sandwiches, I mean pick your poison right.
Not all obese people are into sweets some are into carbs. Just like not all sexually active people are into the same thing. But no matter what you are into there is a good chance your sexual partner is carrying something that given the right circumstances, hey maybe you are thin and in good shape but you like cold cuts or bacon, hey combine it with a case of the herps or warts and you too could land on a gurney at 35 with a chemo drip and colon cancer.
Just saying. If you are going to shame the obese why aren't you shaming all the 30-40 something young people coming down with head, neck, anal and colon cancer. No one needs bacon or intimate partner sex.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}