<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>fat ass belly buster slobbering chaffing thighs triple chinned sweaty behind the knee diabetic onslaught you make me sick<p><hr></blockquote><p>You sound as though your married to one! Either that or you spend way too much time observing them.<br><br>Besides with a name like yours and, I assume an attitude to go with it, you should be cheering on the fat ones as they will be part of your flock before too long.<br><br>
#144977 - 03/07/0409:41 AMNo such thing as fat free ;-)
Obesity costs a lot of money, money unfarily shared by non-obese tax payers and obese ones. By choosing to live the obese lifestlye, they choose to burden our private, state and federal health systems. Canadians and people from practically every other rich nation should be even more concerned since there system is 100% tax-payer funded. Even in America where a nice deal of health-care is "private" (its semi-private, a significant portion of healthcare is state/fed payed) it costs money to the non-obese since the price of treating obese people, and the price for hospitals to upgrade beds, all that stuff to treat obesity is passed to not just the obese, but some of it to the non-obese in higher insurance premiums.<br><br>Yes, I know a few people are genetically obese, but please, this is not even close compared to the the portion of the US population that is obese. So this is a choice. After all, we are the fattest country in the world, although some countries are getting there.<br><br>I think ideally we need an obesity tax on any citizen that chooses that lifestyle. If they opt for government health care, then they should be paying more, just as those who use smokes pay more with private health-care. However this is highly unlikely, since I can see the Oprahs of the world uniting and saying "that's discrimination" .<br><br>What's more likely, although not as fair, but still much better than the current system, is a tax on fatty foods. We need this quick, and we need it now. Tax foods like McDonald's at higher rate then normal food (yes I know since it already is taxed, that's a higher rate than say groceries, but I'm talking about even higher rate, and lower the taxes to healthier food alternative stores, whose products are say 90% healthy). Even in the "worst" case scenario of people still eating the same amount of junk food, that's fine, since the tax would pay for the medical cost of obesity. Its very similar to the taxes on smoking.<br><br>As for anyone that eats McDonald's constantly, and then wants to sue them. Well, if our judges had the slightest sense in their mind, they would throw out the case out-right and say "go get some Slim-Fast" . But we know how some judges can be, writing the law, instead of interpreting it. I don't blame the lawyers though, they are soulless capitalists, they exist to enrich themselves and have no other view of existence, like a robot without any moral compass . Those who enable the lawyers, pro-trial law politicians like "the people's" John Edwards, deserve the blame.<br><br>
Loc: the ancient forests of MiddleE...
an 11 year old alcoholic?<br>that is an expert in beer?<br><br>glad you admitted you weren't an expert at marriage but then if you have been out scouring the streets for a Foster's stubby you would not have had time to watch mum and dad.<br><br><br><br>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.