Bloomberg's Soda Ban...

kk

That's entirely the problem, if you get the operations free if you can't afford it, then there's no incentive for them to work or earn money. If we're talking about extremely fat people, there's no way they'd be earning money anyway, so even if they had to 'pay' for an operation, the money would end up coming from the state anyway.

Well, if perhaps in Denmark, I still think it wouldn't happen here. It would be nice if someone had the guts to do something like that, but many people here are fanatical in support of the NHS, so any move away from universal healthcare I'm certain would be met with extreme anger, and the press would rip them to shreds.

Yes, quite, but then what if the parents are doing the same?

Of course there's still an incentive to work and earn money. It's not like government unemployment benefits are totally awesome and provide you with plenty of money for that new plasma-tv or the vacation to Provence.(luxury in general)
Their situation would have to be assessed(spelling?) by the state and if they're declared unfit to pay, the state will pay for them, though they will then have to sign up for a mandatory "rehabilitation"(not really the right word, but the closest I can come up with) programme. If they can pay themselves they aren't forced to enter any programme.
Extremely fat people doesn't just get fat overnight, and they will likely have health problems before they are unfit to work(unless their job is very physically demanding, in which case it's unlikely that they will become fat because of the exercise.)

One of the cons about democracy I guess... I've been having a flirt with meritocracy for quite a while now, and this is one of the reasons...(not that I seriously consider it the better option, but it's not a terrible alternative)

Forced removal of children? I really hate it when parents act irresponsibly...

I could support this mandatory rehabilitation (I can't think of a better word either).
My original argument was that banning large amounts of food and drink, basically limiting freedom, should be the first line of defence against obesity, as well as promotional campaigns and education, all of which try to prevent obesity being such a big problem, reducing the amount of obese people.
Then, I suppose, any people still in need of treatment could either pay for their own operations, or have it paid for them, and go on a compulsory programme to treat their overeating problem. My main point here is that it must be a compulsory programme, people would need to understand the state will not just give them free treatment, that they would need to resolve and be helped to turn their lives around.

The reason I support the first measures would be that 'rehabilitation', and operations to help obesity, are both extremely expensive, so those first points are there to reduce the amount of people needing operations or a programme of treatment.

Yes, democracy is not a perfect system, but it suddenly appears wonderful when you look at the alternatives.
Having said that, I don't support changing our upper house here in the UK to an elected house, but instead to have it composed of distinguished figures from various branches of society, such as prominent doctors, judges, officers, businessmen etc.

Well I'm sure social services would get involved if my scenario was true, I wasn't exactly being serious.

Well I'm against limiting the freedom of choice unless it hurts others or have a negative effect on society. People should be allowed to by a lot of soda/beer and other unhealthy food as long at they are willing to accept the consequences and deal with it themselves.
I think it's better to educate children in school(like you said) about the dangers of obesity and an unhealthy lifestyle instead of taking the choice and responsibility away from them. It's preferable to enlighten people than restricting them and it works far better in the long run. People are far more likely to understand, continue and succeed if they make the conscious decision.
Taking the a potentially dangerous choice away from the population is like telling a kid that they can't play a potentially dangerous game. It's far better to explain the dangers to a kid(if they're old enough) and then let them learn to act carefully and responsibly when doing the thing than forbidding a child to do it, which is something it would never learn from.(I'm awful at making metaphors...)

Well I can see your point, but I don't think it's alright to restrict the entire population based on the actions and poor decisions of a few. Most people can certainly handle the choice themselves and they don't need government intervention. Like I said, it's better to educate.

Well then the upper house is kind of a meritocratic system(as long as the nobility isn't allowed) because it simply means that rule is based on merit and not popularity, though being a doctor doesn't really qualify you to rule...

I think this works for the majority of the populations.
However, people already know about heart problems, yet they still overeat, people know about liver problems, yet they still drink too much, and people still smoke, although they know about lung problems.

I would not restrict people too much, but I believe the law can have an important role to play in changing attitudes. For example, in very few cases has the illegality of rascim actually stopped someone being racist or holding racist views, but over time the attitudes of people change towards racism, which is why today it is far less common than in the past.
I believe the law could have a similar effect with obesity.

I agree, but I think we need a different appoach with those few in the population unable to think of concequences, who place such a burden on society.
I actually think this is one of the weaknesses of the welfare state we have in Europe, the stupidity of a few can affect many others.

Well you might as well just knight the people you put in the house, it is the House of Lords after all. Perhaps create a new type of honour, given only to those who can sit in the house of lords.
Also, you can't say the nobility aren't allowed, but they should have to get entrance through the same methods of everybody else. Anyway, our upper house only has the power to block laws, not to make them, and this could stay the same in the future.
Although I find it hilariously brilliant we still have hereditory peers in the upper house.

You would be surprised of how stupid people are when it comes to health. It's just as much about educating parents as it is about educating their children.

That's a way to simplistic explanation for the complex social development of post-WWII Europe and I don't think it really supports your argument unless you can bring sources to back your claim. The lessening of racism in Europe is more based on the fact that anyone with mildly racist views is almost always stigmatised and socially excluded or even bullied.(Not that I like racism, I actually hate it.)
Racism can't really be compared to obesity and overeating regardless of the impact of anti-racist legislation.

And that different approach should be collective punishment and restiction of personal decisions? That doesn't seem like the right way to me and I believe that the you can avoid it by using other solutions than these essentially authoritarian measures. Putting special taxations on foodstuffs which contain a large amount of fat, sugar etc. could help reduce mass consumption where the big health problems usually start.

When 35% of your population is obese, you have a MAJOR problem. The saddest thing is its 35% and GROWING.
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2007/wang_adult_obesity.html

Are you sure it's my problem? None of my family are part of that percentage in my country, and I doubt it would be your problem if your people were obese.

Wat?-_-

Having 35% of the population obese is a problem for the country as a whole. This reduces the life expectancy as a whole, which on a whole, reduces the population. Also, if 35% of your people are obese, and if we are assuming that most of those obese people can not or will not partake in the difficult manual labor jobs, that means that a quarter of the population is automatically unable to do those jobs.

Irrelevant to me and my family. Thanks for providing concrete evidence.

I disagree.

So just because you and your family isn't obese, you have no problem whatsoever if everyone else gains 200 pounds?

You know, he never mentions what exactly was in the Lunch. Was it a delicious gourmet salad? Probably not. Actually it was probably a box of candy. More over from that, he exaggerates like the government actually believes that chicken nuggets are healthy. No, it just happened to be what was for lunch that day. And it's not like the "government" was there to force her to eat chicken nuggets. It was some stupid Lunch Aid who doesn't know what personal space is.

This video was made on completely false pretense.

Also, he eats that cupcake in the most savage way possible. I'm amazed he didn't cut out its still beating heart and hold it towards the Sun first.

SACRAFICE! SACRAFICE! SACRAFICE!

If its candy its her mother's choice. In America it is free choice to east what you want.

You are free to choose to eat shit in candy form that your mother chose for you?

Yeah, and you don't have to eat your lunch if you do not want to.

Let's just kill all fat people and feed them to all those poor starving people around the world, two birds with one stone.

This is the problem with obesity in America:
"We know not all Americans are fat. It's just a lot of the ones that are eat a lot of the ones that aren't."
-Steve Patterson