AZ gov imposes "fat tax"

[tangent4ronpaul]

if you are overweight, smoke or are diabetic and on Medicaid - BZZZZTTT! - $50 buck fine! Per year!

If you have kids, you get off.

Aren't you glad the nanny state wants to take care of you? :rolleyes:

-t

[cswake]

I'm not happy, obviously; but I like how Stossel's guest summarized it (@5:30) : If the government forces me to pay your medical bills, then it's my business how you take care of yourself.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT2bp-G-BoI

I'm sure that, statistically speaking, the overweight, smoking, and diabetic (type II) should pay a lot more than a $50 fine due to their choices...

[fisharmor]

"We already stole money from people that have it specifically to pay for your medical expenses, but we don't have the money anymore, so this is the way we're going to do it now.
"We're still going to charge the other people, we're still going to blow that money, but now we're going to charge you for the free service we offer, based on some loose definitions we could apply to basically anyone. We're also not going to listen to anybody's ideas for how to bring health care costs down to the point where you might be able to just pay for it.
"In short, we're not going to stop digging the hole you're in, and when people with money start complaining about the pile of dirt, we're probably just going to throw it on top of you."

[MelissaWV]

Cute how people with children are exempt. I guess daddies gain weight even when it's the mommies that carried the babies?

Smoking while on Medicaid I get; if you can afford cigs you can afford the fine... right?

Diabetes, while linked to diet in a lot of people, is a medical condition resulting from other factors many times. Why exclude this if we're going to have Medicaid at all?

That last part is the obvious one. There just shouldn't be Medicaid to begin with, and then this wouldn't be an issue.

[heavenlyboy34]

Cute how people with children are exempt. I guess daddies gain weight even when it's the mommies that carried the babies?

Smoking while on Medicaid I get; if you can afford cigs you can afford the fine... right?

Diabetes, while linked to diet in a lot of people, is a medical condition resulting from other factors many times. Why exclude this if we're going to have Medicaid at all?

That last part is the obvious one. There just shouldn't be Medicaid to begin with, and then this wouldn't be an issue.
Type II diabetes is a lifestyle disease, and totally avoidable. The OP doesn't go into detail about that, but I'd wager the law would take that into consideration.

[ChaosControl]

If they are on medicaid and thus already receiving tax payer money, I have no problem regulating how they live to keep costs lower. They volunteer themselves to public control when they receive public money. Really though, no group should be excluded from this.

[Dr.3D]

If they are on medicaid and thus already receiving tax payer money, I have no problem regulating how they live to keep costs lower. They volunteer themselves to public control when they receive public money. Really though, no group should be excluded from this.

It's just too bad they didn't know everything in the contract they were entering into before they entered. Should it be possible to change a contract after it has been signed?

[Theocrat]

Cute how people with children are exempt. I guess daddies gain weight even when it's the mommies that carried the babies?

Smoking while on Medicaid I get; if you can afford cigs you can afford the fine... right?

Diabetes, while linked to diet in a lot of people, is a medical condition resulting from other factors many times. Why exclude this if we're going to have Medicaid at all?

That last part is the obvious one. There just shouldn't be Medicaid to begin with, and then this wouldn't be an issue.[Emphasis mine]

Oh, but if you take away Medicaid, then it might force young, irresponsible, and horny girls to think twice about getting pregnant, knowing that the government won't be there to pay for their hospital delivery bills (at the taxpayers' expense)...

[Diurdi]

I've been trying to tell my friends and family that public healthcare is a huge pandora's box that allows government to regulate almost all activity in the name of lowering healthcare costs. They pretty much just see it as something beneficial for gvt. to punish bad eating habits, alcohol and smoking.

[AcidReign]

Why stop there?

You have sex with lots of partners, you could get a venereal disease. Treatments cost money.
You like to ride a bicycle? Greater odds of being hit by a car. Then we all have to pay for your broken bones.
You like to ski? Frostbite or accidents.

You could do this with almost anything.

[FrankRep]

Keyword: Medicaid

Fat tax: Arizona’s Medicaid program looks at charging smokers, diabetics, obese $50 a year (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/fat-tax-arizonas-medicaid-program-looks-at-charging-smokers-diabetics-obese-50-a-year/2011/04/01/AFl5Z5HC_story.html)

Washington Post
April 1, 2011

[Dr.3D]

Why stop there?

You have sex with lots of partners, you could get a venereal disease. Treatments cost money.
You like to ride a bicycle? Greater odds of being hit by a car. Then we all have to pay for your broken bones.
You like to ski? Frostbite or accidents.

You could do this with almost anything.

That's right, they could make everybody buy and wear a hat to keep from getting skin cancer.

[MelissaWV]

Type II diabetes is a lifestyle disease, and totally avoidable. The OP doesn't go into detail about that, but I'd wager the law would take that into consideration.

I won't go into detail about it, either, but you're incorrect about it being strictly a lifestyle disease and totally avoidable.

Compounding that with poverty (which tends to push people towards little/no healthcare and a high-carb diet, not to mention that there aren't many gyms that cater to the poor/homeless...) means that it's going to get much, much worse.

If there's going to be Medicaid, then trying to make it a benefit for the health-conscious is ridiculous.

I'd still rather get rid of it, but this is silly.

And what is it in being a diabetic mother or father that makes it somehow better to get Government help? :p

[awake]

Every excuse to bully and steal. The black hole of socialism eventually draws everything in.

[Noob]

I'm not happy, obviously; but I like how Stossel's guest summarized it (@5:30) : If the government forces me to pay your medical bills, then it's my business how you take care of yourself.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT2bp-G-BoI

I'm sure that, statistically speaking, the overweight, smoking, and diabetic (type II) should pay a lot more than a $50 fine due to their choices...

If tax payers also pay for the medical bills of having a kids, than same reason can but use to restrict the amount of children you can have.

[TIMB0B]

If tax payers also pay for the medical bills of having a kids, than same reason can but use to restrict the amount of children you can have.

This is what I first thought. Mothers and fathers are exempt? So, the solution for those without children will just be to have kids, effectively adding even more people on medicaid and actually raising the cost to taxpayers more than what they'd propose to save. Once again, rather than fixing the problem, they just add more to it with "unintended consequences."

[heavenlyboy34]

I won't go into detail about it, either, but you're incorrect about it being strictly a lifestyle disease and totally avoidable.

Compounding that with poverty (which tends to push people towards little/no healthcare and a high-carb diet, not to mention that there aren't many gyms that cater to the poor/homeless...) means that it's going to get much, much worse.

If there's going to be Medicaid, then trying to make it a benefit for the health-conscious is ridiculous.

I'd still rather get rid of it, but this is silly.

And what is it in being a diabetic mother or father that makes it somehow better to get Government help? :p

Incorrect. That is why Type II is often called "adult onset diabetes". It's a symptom of insulin resistance brought on by poor diet and lack of exercise.

[Philhelm]

Smoking while on Medicaid I get; if you can afford cigs you can afford the fine... right?

No, because the government already imposes extra taxes on tobacco products.

[cswake]

If tax payers also pay for the medical bills of having a kids, than same reason can but use to restrict the amount of children you can have.

You're absolutely right, it's a gigantic slippery slope that logically could be followed to some pretty horrific things if the premise isn't questioned.

[Kregisen]

lol my government is ridiculous. I don't know how many of you saw the youtube video I posted about me interviewing one of the state reps who created the spice banning bill a couple months ago, but there was a funny quote where she goes "You don't think the government should impose infringements on your rights, at all?"

[Anti Federalist]

And so it begins...

And "reasonable" posters will denounce people like me as a "paranoid conspiracy monger" when I tell you, that in the next few years, you will have to swipe an ID card or pass a body part with implanted chip under a scanner to purchase anything.

Government is on the verge of taking control of every single transaction you make, and health and safety will, as always, be the excuse used.

You've filled a prescription for Prozac ten years ago - BZZZZT - No ammo sold to you, mundane.

You've been diagnosed with heart disease - BZZZZZT - No potato chips sold to you, fatso.

You've exceeded your monthly government travel ration - BZZZZT - No gasoline sold to you, prole.

What all these people said:


I've been trying to tell my friends and family that public healthcare is a huge pandora's box that allows government to regulate almost all activity in the name of lowering healthcare costs. They pretty much just see it as something beneficial for gvt. to punish bad eating habits, alcohol and smoking.


Why stop there?

You have sex with lots of partners, you could get a venereal disease. Treatments cost money.
You like to ride a bicycle? Greater odds of being hit by a car. Then we all have to pay for your broken bones.
You like to ski? Frostbite or accidents.

You could do this with almost anything.


That's right, they could make everybody buy and wear a hat to keep from getting skin cancer.


Every excuse to bully and steal. The black hole of socialism eventually draws everything in.


If tax payers also pay for the medical bills of having a kids, than same reason can but use to restrict the amount of children you can have.


You're absolutely right, it's a gigantic slippery slope that logically could be followed to some pretty horrific things if the premise isn't questioned.

[messana]

Arizona’s cash-strapped Medicaid program is considering charging patients $50 a year if they smoke, have diabetes or are overweight.

So when a health insurance company discriminate against pre-existing conditions everybody is up in arms, but when the state itself does it, then it's......ok?

[MelissaWV]

So when a health insurance company discriminate against pre-existing conditions everybody is up in arms, but when the state itself does it, then it's......ok?

Health insurance doesn't represent itself as healthcare for the poor and downtrodden.

Medicaid alleges to be a safety net. It's really not. It costs us money, and we're not even getting the bad idea that liberals adore (helping the poor).

[MelissaWV]

Incorrect. That is why Type II is often called "adult onset diabetes". It's a symptom of insulin resistance brought on by poor diet and lack of exercise.

It's often called that, but it's a misnomer. If you'd like to have a discussion about it sometime, we may. I've had it since I was 7, and went undiagnosed for many, MANY, many years because it was not something people looked for in children. I was not a victim of poor diet or a lack of exercise, that's for sure :p

The difference between Type 1 and Type 2 is not age. Age is an overlapping demographic for many Type 1 and Type 2 patients, but it should not be a factor in diagnosis.

Heredity is an interesting component being looked at as well, together with genetic damage. My father was the first person in his family to ever have diabetes or even the vaguest symptom of it. He went undiagnosed for years, too, and finally has gotten to the point he has to take insulin. It's funny that before he was in near constant contact with Agent Orange in Vietnam, he was a scrawny and perfectly healthy guy with no family history of any of the issues he's now developed. My sister has a rare form of Lupus, and I have my own hodgepodge of diseases that I've had since I was little... that young children are not supposed to get. There is no family history for any of them.

This is why when you read medical literature it talks about "mostly" lifestyle-related for Type 2, and "sometimes affects young children" for Type 1. There aren't absolutes in this. The idea that you have to be an unhealthy tub of lard to have Type 2 is dangerous, and I'm willing to bet a lot of people simply don't get diagnosed because it's not being looked for.

That did a good deal of damage to me which I still have to deal with. Daily.

/tangent.

[acptulsa]

Melissa's absolutely right, HB. And, hate to say it, but your cut-and-dried attitude is exactly the kind of attitude that gets behind 'liberalism' and turns it into 'tyranny', through one-size-fits-all laws like the one in the OP.

Plug 'hypoactive thyroid' in your search engine, educate yourself, then tell us how a person afflicted with it is making 'lifestyle choices'...

[dean.engelhardt]

Why stop there?

You have sex with lots of partners, you could get a venereal disease. Treatments cost money.
You like to ride a bicycle? Greater odds of being hit by a car. Then we all have to pay for your broken bones.
You like to ski? Frostbite or accidents.

You could do this with almost anything.

I fail to see a problem here.

[Dr.3D]

I fail to see a problem here.

Well, it's true, some people like to be kept as cattle.

[specsaregood]

This is what I first thought. Mothers and fathers are exempt? So, the solution for those without children will just be to have kids, effectively adding even more people on medicaid and actually raising the cost to taxpayers more than what they'd propose to save. Once again, rather than fixing the problem, they just add more to it with "unintended consequences."

Yeah, cuz having children is much less expensive than a $50 fine.

[LibertyRevolution]

My girlfriend doesn't work, thus she is poor. She is on MLIA (medicaid for low income adults).
Her insurance is the best coverage I have ever seen, everything is covered.
Free vision coverage including a pair of glasses every year.
Free dental, as many visits you want. Root canals, drill in fill, cleanings, all covered.
Free prescription drugs, no co-pay.
She has headaches, so they ran a few MRI's and EEG's and stuff, all free of course.

My mother works for the state and has one them great state worker benefit packages, and the MILA makes her coverage seem like major medical...

My Girlfriend says she would pay $50 to keep her coverage.

Figure the Brain MRIs were $3,500 a pop .. the neurologist office visits are $200/hr. so yeah $50 still be worth it.
I think shes upwards of $10,000 in free healthcare since January.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

LOL What stupid legislation is that? I hope they knock it down, because that's discrimination at its finest. There's plenty of overweight people healthier than people who weigh less.

[acptulsa]

LOL What stupid legislation is that? I hope they knock it down, because that's discrimination at its finest. There's plenty of overweight people healthier than people who weigh less.

Considering there are people with bones so sturdy that the government BMI index would consider their bare skeleton to be overweight compared to height...

Maybe I exaggerate. A little.

[Jack Bauer]

These people need to be good to those of us who smoke and are overweight.

We don't live that long you know.

[TIMB0B]

Yeah, cuz having children is much less expensive than a $50 fine.

You know what? You're right. Arizona should raise the fine to $500.

[acptulsa]

Just amazes me that liberals can ignore exceptions to their little rules, or demonize them unjustly, or somehow conclude that they're so exceptional that they don't count at all, and still be perceived by themselves and others as genuinely 'inclusive', 'tolerant' and 'concerned'.

[Pericles]

Just amazes me that liberals can ignore exceptions to their little rules, or demonize them unjustly, or somehow conclude that they're so exceptional that they don't count at all, and still be perceived by themselves and others as genuinely 'inclusive', 'tolerant' and 'concerned'.
If that mental defect could be cured, we would all be so much better off.

[Jack Bauer]

Just amazes me that liberals can ignore exceptions to their little rules, or demonize them unjustly, or somehow conclude that they're so exceptional that they don't count at all, and still be perceived by themselves and others as genuinely 'inclusive', 'tolerant' and 'concerned'.

That is one of the fundamental principles of the Frankfurt School philosophy.

In fact, one of their earlier members, explicitly states that the aforementioned fallacy must be "ignored" in order to not weaken their case.

[Kregisen]

Considering there are people with bones so sturdy that the government BMI index would consider their bare skeleton to be overweight compared to height...

Maybe I exaggerate. A little.

One of my friends is a body builder and recently got his health assessment results back: He is officially underfat and overweight. lol

[acptulsa]

One of my friends is a body builder and recently got his health assessment results back: He is officially underfat and overweight. lol

Somebody so doesn't fit the mold that he breaks both rules at once! Shame on him for making their greatness seem false foolish. How can he be governed if he refuses to embrace mediocrity?

[MelissaWV]

Yeah, cuz having children is much less expensive than a $50 fine.

Considering that the people we're discussing are already on Medicaid, having children might just be less expensive than a $50 fine. There are a number of programs to pay for your little bundle's every need, and you get to claim them on your taxes. You also get to trot out your poor parent sob story at every opportunity. I dunno; it's too close to call for me.

[brandon]

I'm sure that, statistically speaking, the overweight, smoking, and diabetic (type II) should pay a lot more than a $50 fine due to their choices...

I didn't read the whole thread, but a study published in the NYTimes today contradicts this. They found that non-obese non-smokers end up costing more in medical expenses because they live longer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

Everyone dies eventually, and the healthier you are the longer you will probably stick around barely hanging on in your elderly years.