Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No it isn’t. And taking health cues from Cosmo is frightening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems as if you health nuts want to penalize overweight people for their choices. If that is the intent let's get right to the point and tax people on their BMI. On January 1st everyone reports to their local IRS office for a weigh in. Tax rate for the year is determined by BMI. Bingo, just what you wanted.

No, I want to penalize junk food companies for providing a toxic product, like we have successfully done for the tobacco companies and alcohol companies. I don't want to subsidize agribusiness, which is what leads directly to obesity.

Your definitions of junk food and toxic products are going to be different than my definitions so my BMI proposal is much cleaner and gets right to the heart of the matter.

So you are just an idiot. Since you are slow: Your personal definition of junk food is wholly irrelevant. Legislators come up with a standard definition, like they did for tobacco.

You seem totally ignorant of the legislative process, though, and I do not feel like educating you in science AND government. Man, though, your education failed you somewhere along the line.

My education was quite good we just disagree about the degree to which the federal government should be meddling in our lives. I don't want the Feds to be my Mom. Thankfully neither your junk food Tax or my BMI tax will ever be implemented.

Are you 13? You write like a kid who just read Ayn Rand for the first time.

In any event, eventually there will be taxation and much higher regulations on junk food, assuming there isn't a pill developed to "cure" obesity. There will just have to be another generation of people who die prematurely and terribly first. But sugar and junk food is going the way of tobacco.

There are many parallels to Big Tobacco here, and the pattern is the same (and agribusiness knows it). Eventually the number of people harmed by agribusiness will get to the point that it can't keep public opinion on its side. But it's going to take at least another generation of deaths.

Anonymous wrote:If you surround people with junk food and expect them against all odds hunt for better choices and make them.. that’s just no realistic, neither smart.

The way good habits are formed is by making the right choices easy and making bad choices more difficult.

For example, studies show that when sodas are replaced with water at checkout, people drank fewer sodas and more water.

Anonymous wrote:As I read through through some of the active threads on this forum, I can't help but see so much overlap in terms of judgment of other people if a particular problem doesn't impact them specifically. People deny that racism exists, blame parents for kids' mental health issues, and assert that anyone can be healthy and avoid being overweight if they try hard enough. Sure, most things can be accomplished if you prioritize that goal over all others, and healthy eating is one of those things. Yet most people have other demands in their life that need to be met that make it more difficult to prioritize health. Why are people so adverse to thinking about changes that would help more people adopt healthy lifestyles? In posts just today, we have people denying that racism exists, talking about how employers won't give them time to seek mental health treatment, despairing about how the health insurance coverage they and their employers pay for won't cover mental health treatment, and on and on.

Physical and mental health go together, and societal factors like low wages, long work hours, racism, lack of access to mental health treatment, lack of sleep, and many other factors make it more difficult to maintain good physical and mental health. Is it so horrible to think that as a society we can do better?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems as if you health nuts want to penalize overweight people for their choices. If that is the intent let's get right to the point and tax people on their BMI. On January 1st everyone reports to their local IRS office for a weigh in. Tax rate for the year is determined by BMI. Bingo, just what you wanted.

No, I want to penalize junk food companies for providing a toxic product, like we have successfully done for the tobacco companies and alcohol companies. I don't want to subsidize agribusiness, which is what leads directly to obesity.

Your definitions of junk food and toxic products are going to be different than my definitions so my BMI proposal is much cleaner and gets right to the heart of the matter.

So you are just an idiot. Since you are slow: Your personal definition of junk food is wholly irrelevant. Legislators come up with a standard definition, like they did for tobacco.

You seem totally ignorant of the legislative process, though, and I do not feel like educating you in science AND government. Man, though, your education failed you somewhere along the line.

My education was quite good we just disagree about the degree to which the federal government should be meddling in our lives. I don't want the Feds to be my Mom. Thankfully neither your junk food Tax or my BMI tax will ever be implemented.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please. Every tax has a value behind it. And this is one you can avoid, should you choose to do so.

Last time I checked, no one forced me to buy cookies or soda. That's entirely on me.

So we are in agreement that you are trying to impose your values on me.

No, because you choose what food to buy. Your own values at work!

Nope, you've influence my choices by manipulating prices through your luxury tax.

You mean the prices currently manipulated by big ag subsidies? Or does that value not concern you as much?

Not a fan of ag subsidies either. Let the market work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Candy and cookies” pretty much never appear at my kids’ schools. Halloween and valentines are candy free parties. And that’s pretty much standard.

That is a really great policy, but it is not the case in most schools. It wasn't until my child was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes that I was aware of how many treats were given out for birthdays and parties, and some teacher's lessons. I was really surprised.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems as if you health nuts want to penalize overweight people for their choices. If that is the intent let's get right to the point and tax people on their BMI. On January 1st everyone reports to their local IRS office for a weigh in. Tax rate for the year is determined by BMI. Bingo, just what you wanted.

No, I want to penalize junk food companies for providing a toxic product, like we have successfully done for the tobacco companies and alcohol companies. I don't want to subsidize agribusiness, which is what leads directly to obesity.

Your definitions of junk food and toxic products are going to be different than my definitions so my BMI proposal is much cleaner and gets right to the heart of the matter.

So you are just an idiot. Since you are slow: Your personal definition of junk food is wholly irrelevant. Legislators come up with a standard definition, like they did for tobacco.

You seem totally ignorant of the legislative process, though, and I do not feel like educating you in science AND government. Man, though, your education failed you somewhere along the line.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems as if you health nuts want to penalize overweight people for their choices. If that is the intent let's get right to the point and tax people on their BMI. On January 1st everyone reports to their local IRS office for a weigh in. Tax rate for the year is determined by BMI. Bingo, just what you wanted.

No, I want to penalize junk food companies for providing a toxic product, like we have successfully done for the tobacco companies and alcohol companies. I don't want to subsidize agribusiness, which is what leads directly to obesity.

Your definitions of junk food and toxic products are going to be different than my definitions so my BMI proposal is much cleaner and gets right to the heart of the matter.

So you are just an idiot. Since you are slow: Your personal definition of junk food is wholly irrelevant. Legislators come up with a standard definition, like they did for tobacco.

You seem totally ignorant of the legislative process, though, and I do not feel like educating you in science AND government. Man, though, your education failed you somewhere along the line.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems as if you health nuts want to penalize overweight people for their choices. If that is the intent let's get right to the point and tax people on their BMI. On January 1st everyone reports to their local IRS office for a weigh in. Tax rate for the year is determined by BMI. Bingo, just what you wanted.

No, I want to penalize junk food companies for providing a toxic product, like we have successfully done for the tobacco companies and alcohol companies. I don't want to subsidize agribusiness, which is what leads directly to obesity.

Your definitions of junk food and toxic products are going to be different than my definitions so my BMI proposal is much cleaner and gets right to the heart of the matter.