Alabama Plans to Tax Fat Employees to Recoup Insurance Costs
If you read the article you get nice blurbs that are actually quite scary.
But there's a way to avoid the fee: Get a check-up at an in-office "wellness center," where nurses will check for diabetes and hypertension and measure blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose levels and Body Mass Index (BMI).
Let's take this apart. Apparently we are all yogis able to control the tiniest of bodily reactions. If you have high blood pressure, screw stress and every OTHER way to get it, screw that it may have absolutely NOTHING to do with a bad habit you don't have. You WILL bring it down, or you will be "punished" for it. Diabetic? You're that way because your fat, because we all know diabetes isn't genetic. How stupid are you? You'll be charged for it. BMI? Fuck that scientific bullshit that BMI is completely useless for the majority of people, meet it or pay. Can't lose weight, too fucking bad. Got a thyroid problem? Too fucking bad. YOU WILL DO IT OR WE WILL TAKE MONEY OUT OF YOUR PAYCHECK.
So it's $25 now. Sure, but would you feel the same way if it was you being charged for having a low white cell count? Why aren't they charging extra to folks with cancer? If I can control my glucose levels enough to bring them down because you say so, then shouldn't YOU be able to mentally squeegee the cancer out? You're just lazy and want folks to feel sorry for you, stupid cancer patient. We all know you can get rid of it. It's just that easy.
And hey, if you think you're weight is YOUR business, fuck you. You're a comany man. You're life is NOT your own. WTF were YOU thinking? No, when you signed up for a job, you signed up for life management baby. Your ass belongs to them and you're fucking retarded for thinking otherwise. Just because you don't get paid 24 hours doesn't mean that time is YOURS.
Charge women more because they can have babies, increasing risk of death and permanent medical issues. Put sky divers, horse back riders, people into sports on that list too. Sexually promiscous folks. Why don't YOU tell us all how many people you've fucked and if you used protection? If fat people get public weigh ins, then we get to know what a slut you are.
What I want is what happen to freedom? Freedom isn't real if you're being punished for it, no matter if it's fifty cents or $50,000. We can talk shit all day about you paying my "health" bills, but it doesn't matter when you even decide to stick your nose in MY food.
BTW, smokers told you it'd be the fat people next.
Posts
24 comments:
Isn't "freedom" just another word for "nothing left to lose"? :)
By the way, nice choice of the Incarnations of Immortality series on your bookcase there.
Comparing smokers to fat people is intellectually dishonest because there is no such thing as second-hand fat.
Great rant Jales!!!
Anonymous obviously has selective knowledge. It's been all over the news and in print media that FAT IS CONTAGIOUS (and that was reported in 2007 no less):
Note: you'll have to copy and paste the links as live links are not allowed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/health/25cnd-fat.html?_r=1
Obesity can spread from person to person, much like a virus, researchers are reporting today. When a person gains weight, close friends tend to gain weight, too.
Not only that but living near a fast food restaurant puts you at a higher risk of stroke and obesity:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Diet/Story?id=6914363&page=2
Living Near Fast Food Ups Stroke Risk
In a country where many of the risk factors for stroke are on a steady rise, the findings of the study may seem particularly relevant.
So, anonymous, I suggest you make sure you are making correct comments first. But then, that might explain why you are posting anonymously.
Be that as it may, smokers still pose a direct attack anyone who must walk through their poisonous gasses in order to go into work, stores, mass transit, &c., while the dietetically challenged do not. Your right to smoke ends where my respiratory passages begin.
Your right to smoke ends where my respiratory passages begin.
In that case, anyone's right to pollute the air with their car's exhaust, ends where everyone else's respiratory passages begin.
Now let's see just HOW concerned about 'health' you are.
There is a DISTINCT difference. Motorised vehicles provide a direct benefit to society, while sticking burning, poisonous leaves in your mouth most assuredly does not.
I'm sure Anon has indisputable science to back up every single claim?
Oh no, I know he doesn't since smoking has proven to lessen the chance of getting Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. Ouch, is that a benefit?
Of course, Anon must be talking about all those poor souls held at gunpoint to be around smoke..oh wait, no, because there's never been a single case of such a thing.
Gosh Anon, I'm willing to be you can't lay a single scientific reference (note, SCIENTIFIC, not anti-smoker, ASH does not count) claim that hasn't been thoroughly proven wrong using proper science and proper scientific method.
Call me when you have an arguement using references, don't come up talking sound bites. It just makes you look retarded. Oh and pack a lunch.
It also does NOT invalidate the fact that smokers were right and food/fat people were next.
[i]Oh no, I know he doesn't since smoking has proven to lessen the chance of getting Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. Ouch, is that a benefit?[/i]
[citation needed]
[i]Of course, Anon must be talking about all those poor souls held at gunpoint to be around smoke..oh wait, no, because there's never been a single case of such a thing.[/i]
If I can't eat because I can't go into the store because there's a toxic cloud at the door, and I can't afford to buy food anyway because I can't get a job because I can't go into work because there's a toxic cloud at the door, how is that any different from being held at gunpoint?
[i]Gosh Anon, I'm willing to be you can't lay a single scientific reference (note, SCIENTIFIC, not anti-smoker, ASH does not count) claim that hasn't been thoroughly proven wrong using proper science and proper scientific method.[/i]
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C00E6DD1031F93BA25753C1A960958260
[i]It also does NOT invalidate the fact that smokers were right and food/fat people were next.[/i]
Be that as it may, there is still a qualitative difference between the two. They are two different issues. Excessive measures on behalf of dietetic well-being in no way affect the justifiability of anti-smoking measures. Claiming otherwise is merely an appeal to emotion.
1. This wasn't an article about smoking, stay on topic, In fact, smoking was only mentioned twice. Leave it to an anti to miss the big point because they are too busy harping on ONE thing they can't see the bigger picture.
2. Citations? Don't pull citation requests on me, considering you didn't cite a single claim you made. YOU came to MY blog making claims, YOU have the burden of proof, not me. If you do not care to cite, then go away. You're only here to cause trouble.
3. They are smoking at the DOOR because jackasses like YOU took all their smoking rooms away.
We had separate areas, YOU took those areas away. We had smoking AND non-smoking places, YOU took those away. I'm glad you have to walk through smoke to get everywhere, YOU are the one that wanted that. YOU are the one that gave smokers nowhere else to go. YOU got what you asked for and you don't like it now, do you?
Thus the phrase, BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR, YOU MIGHT GET IT.
You want to have a scientific conversation about cigarette smoke, stick around. You want to make wild, unbacked, disproven claims, carry your ass. I'm not here to listen to your crap sound bites regurgitated from agenda driven pharma companies and thugs getting rich off lies.
IF you really cared about smoking going then you'd be pushing for the illegalization of cigarettes, manufacturing, and smoking. If you really really gave a shit, you'd ask why when ONE state wanted to make it illegal to manufacture, sell, or smoke cigarettes it was ANTI-SMOKING organizations that cried? Perhaps they saw all their pretty money disappearing....
Oh, and for the record, right is right. Did we say it would happen? Yes we did. There are no qualifications on that basic fact right there. WE WERE RIGHT. End of story.
Citations? Don't pull citation requests on me, considering you didn't cite a single claim you made. YOU came to MY blog making claims, YOU have the burden of proof, not me. If you do not care to cite, then go away. You're only here to cause trouble.
Did you not notice the cite I gave? Now it's your turn.
They are smoking at the DOOR because jackasses like YOU took all their smoking rooms away.
We had separate areas, YOU took those areas away. We had smoking AND non-smoking places, YOU took those away.
Having separate smoking and non-smoking sections of a building is like having separate peeing and non-peeing sections of a pool. If you allow smoking in part of a building, it will poison the air in the rest of the building. the end result is the same: non-smokers are unable to live in the world without you poisoning them.
I'm glad you have to walk through smoke to get everywhere, YOU are the one that wanted that. YOU are the one that gave smokers nowhere else to go. YOU got what you asked for and you don't like it now, do you?
What we wanted was to be able to conduct our lives free of second-hand smoke. Allowing smoking anywhere in public deprives US of our fundamental liberty.
IF you really cared about smoking going then you'd be pushing for the illegalization of cigarettes, manufacturing, and smoking.
That is the long-term goal. Until it can be achieved, the immediate objectives are:
1: to reduce the harm done to non-smokers, and
2: to reduce the number of smokers, both by getting smokers to quit, and by prevention efforts.
Oh, and for the record, right is right. Did we say it would happen? Yes we did. There are no qualifications on that basic fact right there. WE WERE RIGHT. End of story.
If a thousand murderers claim that arresting murderers will lead to shooting jaywalkers, and then they start shooting jaywalkers, does that make it wrong to arrest murderers?
ABC news? I said scientific, not journalists trying to make a buck who generally exaggerate every thing they type. I know anti's are a lot like creationists and think science is anathema, however if you want to get anywhere here, I suggest you relegate your arguments to that. Another post like the above and I'll remove your ability to post.
You're arguments don't even answer me, you just throw another off topic argument at me as if that proves something. Get this, you can't justify here. Facts are facts. Smokers said food/fat people would be next, they are, end of story. Again, there were no qualifications.
And you didn't answer the question as to why it was ANTI-smoking organizations that FOUGHT making everything to do with cigarettes illegal. Just think, any supposed deaths that occur are on YOUR hands. You are just as dirty as you claim smokers to be. MORE dirty.
ABC news? I said scientific, not journalists trying to make a buck who generally exaggerate every thing they type. I know anti's are a lot like creationists and think science is anathema, however if you want to get anywhere here, I suggest you relegate your arguments to that. Another post like the above and I'll remove your ability to post.
I thought I cited a New York Times article that referred to a scientific paper, "Preferential Formation of Benzo[a]pyrene Adducts at Lung Cancer Mutational Hotspots in P53" (Denissenko et al., 1996)
You're arguments don't even answer me, you just throw another off topic argument at me as if that proves something. Get this, you can't justify here. Facts are facts. Smokers said food/fat people would be next, they are, end of story. Again, there were no qualifications.
Fine. Smokers said food/fat people would be next. They were. What does that have to do with whether either one is justified?
And you didn't answer the question as to why it was ANTI-smoking organizations that FOUGHT making everything to do with cigarettes illegal. Just think, any supposed deaths that occur are on YOUR hands. You are just as dirty as you claim smokers to be. MORE dirty.
I don't know of any anti-smoking organizations that opposed tobacco prohibition, but I suspect any such groups fall into one of three categories:
1. those who want non-smokers to be able to conduct their lives entirely in a smoke-free environment, but do not care if smokers slowly kill themselves in private;
2. those who favour tobacco prohibition, but believe pursuing such now would be counter-productive;
3. groups which are lying about their motives.
Were you thinking of any examples in particular?
...when ONE state wanted to make it illegal...
Which state was it and when did this happen?
http://www.data-yard.net/10y/nd-ban.htm
You know, if you want a smoke-free world then it shouldn't matter about how counterproductive and you wouldn't care about smokers. Sounds to me like justification to keep the cash cow arollin'. Prohibition also hasn't stopped drug use, murder, and rape. Sounds like a piss poor reason to keep the #1 KILLER!!!!!eleventyone!!!!!! of all time going. If tobacco IS more dangerous than anything out there, then why should any of this stand in their way?
At a hearing where the House Finance and Taxation Committee voted 9 to 4 in favor of tobacco prohibition, a line up of anti-tobacco special interest groups denounced the bill in no uncertain terms. Given the chance to support their goal of a smoke-free society The American Lung Association, American Heart
Association, North Dakota Medical Association and North Dakota Public Health Association all spoke out against the ban on Tuesday, much to the dismay of some
lawmakers on the committee.
Even in written form their panic was palatable. How can this be? To oppose this bill is the only proof anyone needs that all the talk about health and reducing death rates is a complete lie. The anti-smokers are frantic that the cash flow they receive from cigarettes may come to an end. Their greed can their only motive
since, if what they have been preaching for years is true, allowing cigarettes to be legal means that those who permit it have blood on their hands.
And if you want to link something, directly link the scientific paper itself. If I wanted to read a journalists attempt to catch more readers I'd subscribe to a newspaper.
I, personally, favour prohibition. I don't doubt that some who opposed it were motivated by greed; however, that doesn't make public smoking bans less justified.
A summary of the paper in question can be found at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/274/5286/430
Motorised vehicles provide a direct benefit to society,
Just because motorised vehicles provide a direct benefit to society is NO good excuse for poisoning same society with the toxic fumes your cars emit.
Just to prove MY point that your car exhaust is more dangerous than our cigarette smoke, let's have a test: You can sit in your closed garage for an hour with your car running. And I'll sit in a closed box for an hour with a dozen smokers chain-smoking. Then let's see which one of us walks out.
You game?
Your car puts more carcinogens into the air than anything else, multiplied by the millions of cars on the road. So why blame smoking for YOUR ills?
When you give up poisoning the air, THEN you will have a right to complain like a pansie.....until then you just sound pathetic.
No, not a summary, link the SCIENTIFIC PAPER. I know you guys have an issue with reading the actual studies, I however quite enjoy it AND have the mentality for it.
I'm also not here to go dig up your research. If you want to prove something, then provide it to me, as I did. Until then, buy bye!!!
Just because motorised vehicles provide a direct benefit to society is NO good excuse for poisoning same society with the toxic fumes your cars emit.
Just to prove MY point that your car exhaust is more dangerous than our cigarette smoke, let's have a test: You can sit in your closed garage for an hour with your car running. And I'll sit in a closed box for an hour with a dozen smokers chain-smoking. Then let's see which one of us walks out.
You game?
Your car puts more carcinogens into the air than anything else, multiplied by the millions of cars on the road. So why blame smoking for YOUR ills?
Eliminating motorised vehicles would be catastrophic because modern society requires that people and goods be moved farther and more quickly than people or animals can walk. No similar catastrophe would result from eliminating smoking.
When you give up poisoning the air, THEN you will have a right to complain like a pansie.....until then you just sound pathetic.
Please try to remain civil.
No, not a summary, link the SCIENTIFIC PAPER. I know you guys have an issue with reading the actual studies, I however quite enjoy it AND have the mentality for it.
I would have if I could, but I couldn't find a link that didn't require a subscription. The full paper is available to Science subscribers at the page I referred to.
Eliminating motorised vehicles would be catastrophic because modern society requires that people and goods be moved farther and more quickly than people or animals can walk. No similar catastrophe would result from eliminating smoking.
OH, I see. As long as the elimination does not inconvenience the majority who hates the product anyway, it's perfectly alright to ban it. You know, it was exactly THAT kind of thought that moved our forefathers to create a "Republic" NOT a "Democracy". In a republic, the minority are also protected; in a democracy the mob rules.
I hate listening to dogs barking constantly (as they do in my neighborhood) so can I push to have them banned? They really serve no useful purpose.....you can't ride them, or eat them; they can't work, so why not just ban them so I don't have to listen to them or watch that I don't step in their business that their lovely owners allow them to do on my lawn.
Please try to remain civil.
Actually, that was quite civil. Given what I was really thinking at the time anyway.
OH, I see. As long as the elimination does not inconvenience the majority who hates the product anyway, it's perfectly alright to ban it.
It has nothing to do with inconveniencing the majority. If motorised vehicles disappeared, MANY other things would collapse, and life would quickly go back to being "nasty, poor, brutish, and short". If smoking disappeared, there would be no negative effects that I know of.
I hate listening to dogs barking constantly (as they do in my neighborhood) so can I push to have them banned? They really serve no useful purpose.....you can't ride them, or eat them;
Many people in Eastern Asia would dispute that.
...they can't work,
Many blind people and police departments disagree.
...so why not just ban them so I don't have to listen to them or watch that I don't step in their business that their lovely owners allow them to do on my lawn.
Dog are not poisonous. They do not kill one-third of all persons who own them.
Actually, that was quite civil. Given what I was really thinking at the time anyway.
I don't quite see how anyone can claim that it is "civil" to imply that someone lacks fortitude because they object to being poisoned for someone's momentary self-gratification. Did I misinterpret your comment?
I don't quite see how anyone can claim that it is "civil" to imply that someone lacks fortitude because they object to being poisoned for someone's momentary self-gratification.
Really? Did you read what you just wrote? Why would anyone object to another's "momentary gratification"? I have to tolerate everyone else's disgusting body odors, dirty hair, perfumes and colognes that make me want to puke, and usually for more than a moment because I'm on the bus or in an elevator. Yet when that person does as much if not more, damage to the air that everyone is forced to breathe because it cannot be avoided, you claim the cause of the poisoning is necessary to the survival of society. Be that as it may, serving a purpose is NOT justification for poisoning the air. Sorry.
You are NOT forced to enter any establishment that allows smoking, nor are you forced to work there. Us smokers quietly and politely took our smoking out of the movies, stores, offices because we realized it made sense and was fair. We may not have liked it, but it was a fair compromise we could live with.
Then you all got nasty and greedy. I see no reason why there can't be a few bars and restaurants, in proportion to the smoking population of a given area, that are smoking allowed. Why do you need every single place to be smoke free?
And by the way, there really is NO proof that "smoking kills" OR that "SHS kills". They MIGHT play a contributing factor to someone genetically pre-disposed to some particular disease, but that is the worst of it. Playing a small role is NOT ABSOLUTELY CAUSES. And before you try to tell me how deadly smoking and SHS smoke are....kindly explain how us baby boomers survived and how come not every smoker dies of your so-called "smoking related" diseases. Or why a good number of smokers, about half anyway, manage to outlive the average life expectancy?
Did I misinterpret your comment?
My best guess would be that I hit a little too close to the truth for your comfort zone, hence your taking umbrage with it. Trust me, you'll KNOW when I'm not being civil.
Why would anyone object to another's "momentary gratification"?
Because it poisons the air that I have to breathe.
I have to tolerate everyone else's disgusting body odors, dirty hair, perfumes and colognes that make me want to puke, and usually for more than a moment because I'm on the bus or in an elevator.
Those don't contain the vast plethora of toxic chemicals found in second-hand smoke.
Yet when that person does as much if not more, damage to the air that everyone is forced to breathe because it cannot be avoided, you claim the cause of the poisoning is necessary to the survival of society. Be that as it may, serving a purpose is NOT justification for poisoning the air. Sorry.
The effects of eliminating motorised transport would include a qualitative change in society, which would send us back to the Dark Ages, making everyone's life far bleaker. The effects of eliminating smoking on society as a whole would be entirely statistical (such as less disease). It would save many lives, but we would live otherwise the same way.
You are NOT forced to enter any establishment that allows smoking, nor are you forced to work there.
If someone has a family to feed, and there are few jobs available, then they might not have any alternative.
Us smokers quietly and politely took our smoking out of the movies, stores, offices...
...and put right in front of the door so you have to walk through it to get in.
And by the way, there really is NO proof that "smoking kills" OR that "SHS kills".
There's also no proof of anything else in science, but there's so much evidence that it's very unlikely to be false.
My best guess would be that I hit a little too close to the truth for your comfort zone, hence your taking umbrage with it.
Calling someone a "pansy" because they object to things that kill people and have no benefit to anyone isn't "close to the truth", it's just a mean, vicious insult. Hence my taking umbrage with it.
Those don't contain the vast plethora of toxic chemicals found in second-hand smoke.
So does your car's exhaust. Your point?
The effects of eliminating motorised transport would include a qualitative change in society, which would send us back to the Dark Ages, making everyone's life far bleaker.
OK, I surrender, you win! You are absolutely right. So what IF all that motorized transit is killing more people, causing more asthma in children, running up our health care costs.
The effects of eliminating smoking on society as a whole would be entirely statistical (such as less disease). It would save many lives, but we would live otherwise the same way.
Kindly show me the absolute proof of less disease without smoking. Since you still have the major cause of diseases, namely genetics, aging and air pollution, still around, I fail to see how eliminating smoke will lower disease by any significant amount. Save lives? You are now guaranteeing that everyone will live forever and never die? You MIGHT delay a death, but not by much.
But if it makes you feel better, I'll leave you with your dreams.
If someone has a family to feed, and there are few jobs available, then they might not have any alternative.
So again, ALL places must be smoke free "JUST IN CASE"? Where's your concern for all the workers in other dangerous, high-risk jobs? You know, like sky-scraper window washers. Since you are so concerned about the minimal long term risks of smoke exposure, where's your concern for the very real, HIGH level risks of other workers?
...and put right in front of the door so you have to walk through it to get in.
OMG the horrors! AS IF this poses any real injury or harm? Spare me, please.
There's also no proof of anything else in science, but there's so much evidence that it's very unlikely to be false.
Actually, most of the 'evidence' is weak. You really should stop listening to sound bytes you like and do some real research on your own....the internet is a wonderful thing. For example, the 2006 surgeon general's report is publically available online. IF you download the full PDF file, and browse all 727 pages of it, you will find conclusions at the end of each chapter. You would then notice that 85% of those conclusions all say the same thing "the evidence is INsufficiant". The other 15% only show a possiblity of risk, none exceeding risk ratios that are considered worthy of serious additional studying. In other words, that SG's own back up report does NOT support his announcement about smoking and SHS. HE LIED! PUBLICALLY! Go read it yourself. Just google surgeon general and you'll find the official government site....I'm sure you can handle finding the report from there.
Calling someone a "pansy" because they object to things that kill people and have no benefit to anyone isn't "close to the truth", it's just a mean, vicious insult. Hence my taking umbrage with it.
Oh, I'm sorry, I'll apologize for my assumption. However, I'd like to point out that there is NO right (constitutional OR god-given) to never feeling offended. IF you choose to take offense as something a stranger says, that is your right. You don't have the right however to tell me NOT to speak my mind or voice MY opinion.
Post a Comment