No, Bill Maher: Dr. Regina Benjamin's "claim to fame" is not advising Burger King;

Rather, it is her work in rural areas in the poorest regions of our country. That she is not as svelte as Dr. Nancy is because, like most of us, she is too tired and too busy to watch what she eats and to find time to exercise or a personal trainer. And her genetic background can contribute, too. There is nothing wrong with a surgeon general who looks like us.

And, no, Bill Maher, taxing "bad food," like taxing cigarettes, will take the toll on the poorest among us. How nice to be paid well so that you can select the healthiest food that usually are more expensive. Try to walk at the nearest Ralph's and compare the prices of processed food with that of fresh fruits and vegetables.

And, no, Bill Maher, don't assess a fee on the makers of medical devices and "boner" drugs. These companies do make products that save life. OK, not the "boner" drugs.. But do assess a fee on all the insurance companies that, as you correctly define, are nothing but "middle men."

And I don't remember who it was that said it, an excellent idea: let's break up Chase/JPMorgan, Wells Fargo/Wachovia, B of A/Merrill Lynch the way we did, generations ago with Standard Oil of Indiana, "Ma Bell" and others. This way, they will never be, again, "too big" to fail.

Last, I don't go out much. What are the "sexual connotations" of tea bags?

too many people in this country are too fat and too stupid, and there SHOULD be higher taxes on unhealthy "food"(for lack of a better word).

why should *i* have to pay a higher tax on crappy food because OTHER people abuse same food?

that's ridiculous.

generally speaking, there are few to none "bad foods". there are bad diets.

a diet consisting solely of brocolli would be terrible. so, would a diet entirely consisting of mcdonald's french fries.

junk food tends to be sodium and saturated fat laden, over processed, and lacking nutrients and fiber.

so what?

healthy people CAN incorporate junk foods and still be healthy. it's about moderation, balance, etc.

i shouldn't be punished because OTHERS abuse food. fuck that.

or shouldn't have to pay taxes for welfare. Sometimes we all have to pitch in and sacrifice to save lives.

crap.

i don't want my govt. telling me what to eat, and by imposing such taxes on certain foods, they are doing exactly that.

stay the fuck out of my bedroom and my kitchen.

food safety laws? all for it (with some exceptions, like i think people should not have to run from the authorities for daring to purchase raw milk or raw milk cheese, but i digress

increased labeling requirements? ditto. give me INFORMATION and allow ME the choice.

but it isn't.

even people who use the products in moderation pay the higher taxes to cover the societal costs.

the same should be true for UNHEALTHY food.

and yes- there's PLENTY of it out there.

because i draw a bright line between FOOD and DRUGS

so does the FDA. and the DEA for that matter (DEA only covers controlled substance drugs whereas FDA concentrates on OTC's and legend stuff)

food DOES have drug like qualities, in some respects, but it is FOOD not drugs.

i am also a firm supported of DSHEA and its freedom/liberty interests vs. the evil congressional campaigns (for example, against ephedrine)

... in this thread.

Bill was absolutely on target specific both to the problem with Obama's appointment - and he hit the bulls-eye with the taxing of unhealthy foods and beverages.

His arguments were cogent, well developed, and complete with precedents (e.g., alcohol and cigarettes).

As but one example and within the last month alone, the data specific to soft-drinks is overwhelming as to their adverse effects - no, make that: directly responsible for death.

I applaud Bill. As usual, he hit his target: fat people who employ all sorts of rationalizations and excuses for their obese state, except looking at their own behaviour.

Put down the fork and get on a treadmill... and save us all a billion or two a year in dealing with the results of your irresponsibility.

and their kids can really "get on a treadmill."

Maher's POV, and yours are based on a very narrow view of the world. Living comfortably in a "safe" neighborhood with enough money to spend on fresh food and vegetables, perhaps even eat out in a healthy restaurant, and have the time and money to go to the gym or even hire a personal trainer. Or even "walk around the block." May I suggest that you visit an inner city block in a major city and determine how likely you would be walking there?

This kind of judgment is the worst form of elitism and the one that eventually will kill any meaningful health care reform.

i have been poor. i have lived in bad situations. so, don't assume that this is based on some kind of lack of EXPERIENCE with "how it is in da hood". been there, done that

it is primnarily about discipline. for the first time in recorded history, the poor are fatter than the rich. it is VISIBLE. just drive around yer average poor area of the city and note the fat-assedness.

it does NOT take a lot of money or time to eat much more healthily and eat FEWER FRIGGING CALORIES (which is the primary reason people get fat. they eat too much)

it's not rocket science

I have always worked out at home

If you want that tax, how about a tax on cars that go over 70mph? The statistics are solid that the faster you go the more damage is done. How about a rising tax on the proof of liquor? Say $10.00 a can for anything over 3.2? And of course we must have $20 a pac cigarettes.

Then there is sex. Sex outside of marriage is the source of many diseases. So how about elimination of health benefits for those that engage in extramarital sex? I know Bill will support that.

It's also been proven that church goers and people with deep faith are healthier than those who don't. So maybe we could put a 10% tax increase for each month that you don't go to church?

Sounds a little crazy to me, but if you and Bill want to support this kind of equality in taxing, it's your right.

It's easy to suggest that what you see as your neighbor's sins should be punished, while your ignore your own. After all, if you are perfect, why should you be taxed?

A decent healthcare system works on prevention as much as cure.

will be to start telling people what is good for them. They will say that we are elitist, and this will be true, and will raise the specter of Bolshevism - where a neighbor was encouraged to spy on neighbor - and this, too, will be true.

and it's way past time for garbage 'food' to get the same treatment.

btw- there are also fines in place for speeding, that get higher the more you are over the speed limit- so the taxes are already there for that behaviour as well.

And let's see if we can set up a system for making sure that people use condoms. We could get your friends to rat you out if you are having sex that the government doesn't allow. Maybe cameras.

That's what we need - more government spying on citizens.

perhaps you might be able to explain that one...:shrug:

How will we know that citizens are not participating in health impairing sexual practices? Cameras in the bedroom. We must demonize those whose habits aren't like our own.

Or we could use a good health program to pay for education and a better distribution of healthy product. Read up a little on the causes for obesity due to poverty.

putting higher taxes on the shittiest foods will help the poor avoid them.

problem solved.

That's Maher's target audience. Have you read anything about nutrition and poverty? Have you worked with parents of poverty? Have you anything other than a quick from-the-gut reaction to back up any of your desire to go after the poor because they don't act like you want them to. Then when it is suggested that others may have habits that also create health problems, you label it ludicrous.

Taxing food is not the answer. Providing nutritional food at a good cost is an answer. But then we know how satisfying it is to bash others. Makes you feel sort of superior and cool. Maher has carved out this niche for his own. He can be funny, but to mistake him as wise or capable of understanding the heart of problems is exactly the sort of hey-me-to-dude reaction that he is going for.

so poverty in and of itself is not an excuse for eating crap.
putting higher taxes on the worst foods would help a lot of people to realize this and even alter their consumption behaviour.

Your statement is absolutely false. Even a cursory reading of the studies and literature on the subject of poverty and obesity will show you that you are talking out of your hat.

Your attitude is common among the middle class and middle income patrons of well-stocked groceries that vie for your business with aggressive pricing and variety. If you spent as much time in the poor neighborhoods as I do, you would find it necessary to change your statement.

Just google poverty and nutrition. Or maybe you thing the poor ought to just get in their SUV and ramble over to your part of town where the arugula is fresh and the organic dates are flown in twice a week.

that are scattered throughout the poor neighborhoods.
the produce isn't as 'pretty' as the stuff in the chain stores- but it's every bit as healthy, and a whole lot cheaper.

ignorance and laziness might be a realistic excuse, but poverty by itself is not an obstacle to healthy eating- nutritious food can be had for just as cheap, if not cheaper than the unhealthy fast food/pre-packaged&processed crap that passes for a "diet" for many people.

You don't want to become educated and your drivel is exposing your prejudices. Your every word is telling. I know that your opinion is the guy-on-the-street reading of what's happening, but you can know more if you want to learn.

if people can afford the crap at mcdonald's, then with a modicum of effort, they can afford real food.
it really is that simple.

You're embarrassing yourself and don't know it.

i've been there.

you're the one that seems to really need to try harder to understand it.

but then- it's not really my concern if you choose not to. :shrug:

is not understanding. You've just made a kind of gee-this-sounds-right statement and then spent several replies trying to back it up with no more than a "I know it's true because I think it sounds pretty good".

You haven't been there. If you had, you would know better. You may have thought you were there, but your experience "in the city" does not get it. Visit some shelters. Work with some of those in poverty. Take your smarmy little lines about the ignorant poor to the nearest shelter and try telling them all about it.

You simply don't know what you are talking about. Your little smilie shrugging his shoulders is a very apt choice. You don't know and don't seem to care. Just bash the poor and go eat a peach.

it's about the fat-asses subsisting on fast-food and pre-packaged crap because that's 'all they can afford' or 'that's all that's available to them'.

people who subsist on handouts from shelters and soup kitchens generally aren't obese- or at least not for long...and taxes on unhealthy food won't really have any direct effect on them, since they aren't paying for it.

do try to catch up...:hi:

You simply don't have the knowledge required to discuss this factually. You are operating out of prejudice and reflexive defense of your original silly statement.

I see you still favor little yellow symbols as a means of communication. The simple smile on the little guy is just what you would expect from someone who would believe he was waiting for the group while they have tired of waiting for him and gone one to actually do something.

I know it is a waste of time, but do you want a list of reading materials that could actually help you become informed before you pop off?

and it isn't exactly all that difficult to determine who the fat-asses are- anyone can do it :think:

if people want to spend their meager incomes on nutritionally meager foods, let'em- but tax policy should be used to try to steer them toward better options that are already there, and no more costly.

i just don't see why you find that so difficult to understand...:shrug:

Care to share the "empirical data"? Source? Just exactly what "empirical data" do you use to determine which poor person is a fat ass? If anyone can do it, can I get to decide who the fat ass is? Hmmm. Who shall I pick?

Why are you so big on taxing food? What is it that makes you like punishing people who aren't as well off as you are? Why wouldn't you want to use the program to support making healthy foods more affordable?

Again. I know it is a useless gesture but I can help you. You have already shown a strong tendency to avoid reading or learning. How about if we make it a game. You know. Sort of like your Wii.

Go to the store. Buy a nice wholesome chicken breast. Can you find an organically farmed one? Now locate some locally grown fresh produce - maybe some greens and a seasonal squash. Add up that purchase.

Now go to McDonalds. Buy a Big Mac Meal. You don't have to eat it; I know you are above such things.

Compare prices. Now add in the cost of preparing the meal. Make sure you add in the time because you will most likely be working two jobs at least and the food prep time will bite into that.

See the difference between us is that I do see why you find this so difficult to understand. At the center we have to combat mindsets like the ones indicated by your statements and the inherent classism that goes with it every day.

We will have citizens pointing out fingers on neighbors and co-workers that "this person eats too many McNuggets," and "drink too many super size cokes" and therefore should be denied medical care, or at least, be under some kind of restrictions.

I posted about it before and, I think, after another of Maher's observations.

Yes people live unhealthy life, don't get enough sleep, munch goodies while clicking away to post on... DU, instead of walking around the block. Oh, I forgot, my "around the block" in a nice, middle class suburb is different from many's "around the block" in the inner cities with broken sidewalks and drug dealing and gun shooting just for the fun of it.

No one chooses to eat too much that it is hard on the lungs, the joints and the feet; by the time people realize that smoking is bad for them, it is too late they are addicted. I am not sure, but I think that if one smokes, it suppresses one's appetite and you are no longer bothered by the fact that you don't have much to eat.

And it is this approach that could kill any meaningful health care available to everyone. Fearing that one's life style, one's eating, drinking and smoking habits will be scrutinized for one's "suitability" for affordable health care. What would be next? How many times and what positions should one have sex? Is "teabagging" healthy?

Promoting this approach is the epitome of elitism, in my opinion.

people wouldn't have to 'snoop' on other people's eating habits, because the fatties would be paying the extra cost up front.

I don't blame McDonalds either - they themselves, in their ads and promotions bill their food as a "treat" not a staple.

McDonalds is perfectly healthy once a month or so as a treat

And yes, if we taxed McDonlands and any other companies, this would help

It would possibly save us billions down the road through having healthier citizens.

How can you be a DUer with over 1000 posts and not know what the sexual connotation of "tea bag" is?

can you tell me? It is late enough, the kids are in bed..

OK, found it in the urban dictionary

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=teabagger

"teabagging sexual" and see what happens..............

even without the sexual in the definition

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=teabagger

Serves them right.

more aptly named?

I think not.

Did you ever see the routine Rachel Maddow and Ana Marie Cox did on the Teabaggers? It was hilarious, and I think you'd really enjoy it now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLsKt4O4Yw8

I don't think I would have laughed so hard had I not understood - now - the double meaning.

and they didn't have a damn clue.

Talk about disconnect.

I mean, google is your friend, right?

Nitwits.....................

is just wrong, wrong, wrong...................

Oh, that's - I'm laughing so hard, I should be slapped (AND SO SHOULD YOU!) - but that's just so sad...................

03 cents on a can of dye and corn syrup just isn't that much.

... and a good question, indeed.

I can make a clone McDonald's hamburger for .44 each. Yes it takes about 19 minutes to get everything together and cook the burger/slice the tomato & dice the onion, but it's less expensive and better tasting! People have just gotten lazy. It's easier to drive to MickeyD than to turn on the stove!

How a "welfare mother" had to get off welfare and the only job that she could get required some long hours commuting by bus. Meanwhile, the kids are on their own.

And, I am sure, coming home after a 12 or 14 hours work and commute, it is, yes, a lot easy to grab some McNuggets.

I think that the working poor don't have these extra 19 minutes when they come home, tired, to meet a few hungry kids. Unless... you, or someone, can train the teenager to prepare this.

But, again, you have to have the training, the background the initiative to think this way.

Beyond that, throwing a burger in a skillet, slicing a tomato, chopping an onion(if the kids even want them) and thowing it on a bun with some condiments sounds like something any teenager could do without much if any training!

If you think it really requires training, it would be far cheaper for everybody & healthier too, if the Gov't would just put instructions up on a web site for a humdreds of easy meals to fix, and print them for distribution at clinics, the PO, and other Fed. related places. If people dont think that far, then teach them.

a.) she lives in housing with a working kitchen. Many of the working poor live in motels because they can't afford the down-payment on an apartment. She may very well not have a freezer or anything bigger than a mini-fridge. And cooking burgers on a hotplate and then washing greasy pans by hand in the bathroom sink really sucks. Trust me, I've done it.

b.) that she has access to a grocery store where she can buy hamburger, edible vegetables and non-moldy buns. When I lived in New Jersey and didn't have a car, the closest grocery store was a 30-50 minute bus ride each way. It was a ghetto grocery store too where all of the produce was spoiled, the meat and dairy had to be used almost the same day and the cans were covered in dust and rat tracks. If she's lucky she lives near a convenience store that also sells meat, but at the prices she's paying there, she might as well just pick up a whole sandwich from the deli counter and be done with it.

So in addition to the 19 minutes at the stove, add three hours for grocery shopping, half an hour or washing dishes, and at least an hour of extra work to pay for the price difference between her burger and the McDonalds one. That's five hours of a working person's very packed schedule for a burger.

The government does distribute menu ideas for lower income people. The problem is that they don't have cooking facilities, don't have access to the ingredients and are completely exhausted from working two jobs and negotiating the local bus system's slashed service.

I can tell you, I cook my entire dinner on a griller. That's the thing that has a top like a maninni grill and can be used flat with two surfaces or put items in between and close the lid. If I had to live in a motel, that's the one thing I would get one way or another. You can make anything on it, including warming soup in an oven proof container or pan. People have to buy something for food. I can't guess what is available in every place in the US. If all else falils, but a bah of rice like the Japanese & Chinese do. IMO it's still more expensive to buy McDonalds.

because it's bigger than your sink. And then you have to either clean the shower or get grease on your feet the next time you want to wash yourself.

Plus, they're banned in motels because they're a fire hazard along with crock pots, hotplates, and rice cookers. You can be kicked out if the supervisor finds it. I had to beg to keep an electric kettle so I could boil water in the morning.

Try this as an experiment: work a graveyard shift and get off at 5am but then sit around in the break room trying to stay awake until 7 without drinking or eating anything caloric or caffeinated because the buses don't start running until then. Get home around 8:30 or 9:00 and crash, but get up again at 1:00 to catch the bus for your next shift on the other side of town. You have about forty minutes to take a shower, get dressed and prepare the whole day's meals (and do dishes by hand) because you won't be near a fridge or a stove for the next twelve to twenty hours.

Do that while eating nothing but white rice and tuna fish sandwiches and see how many days you make it before you snap.

And that once in a blue moon twenty-four hours without work? Obviously the first thing you're going to want to do is write meal plans for the three weeks until your next "weekend" and then hop on another goddamn bus for your five hour trip to the grocery store. Assuming you have the energy to get out of bed at all, which is pretty bloody unlikely considering you've been subsisting on nothing but refined carbohydrates and canned fish and getting four hours of sleep a night.

But yeah, the real problem is you're too lazy to make weight-loss a priority.

there are TONS of foods that take little to no time to prepare, are cheap, and are healthy.

instead of mcnuggets, you can eat some canned tuna, add some onions, celery and fresh garlic for various micronutrients and substrates, and an apple.

that's a meal that'll run you about .50

and takes little time.

enough discipline to satisfy your standards.

i could not care less what they eat. i just don't think it's anybody's fault but one's own, what one stuffs one's face with, and people need to live with the results.

there are few things in life we have greater control over than what we choose to eat.

people make choices, and they reap the rewards or pay the consequences. that's THEIR decision.

i choose to eat such that i can maintain a certain BF level (also because i am a weight classed athlete). often, it sucks. i am hungry at times, or at other times, i have to eat stuff when i am not hungry. i have to eschew stuff i like sometimes. other times, i've macked on a massive meal from McD's.

MY CHOICE. MY CONSEQUENCES.

THEIR CHOICE. THEIR CONSEQUENCES.

the idea that people are poor helpless victims to the evil fast food industry is patronizing rubbish. people can and do make choices.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Maru Kitteh, this is the best post I've read on DU for a week.

I don't have children. I can't pretend to know what it is like for a single parent working at least one job, trying to feed her kids, get the homework done, baths, clothes washed, and the millions of other things she does before she can collapse into bed every night. I also can't pretend to know what is like for her to feed kids on a very limited budget with a very limited amount of time.

There is no way in hell I'm telling that woman how to run her life, that's for damn sure. She's too busy spinning the plates already in the air. Those who continually proclaim the fact that THEY KNOW BETTER, despite the fact they've NEVER walked in her shoes, don't have the slightest idea how things really are. What's more, they never will.

Brava to you, and brava to those who keep going day after day with too much month and not enough money.

-MV

p.s. Didn't I read some kind of study recently that said to limit the amount of fish kids and pregnant women get because of the mercury content?

The recommendations on limiting fish intake by children and pregnant women refer to top predator species such as king mackerel and shark. Some species of tuna as well. But you are perfectly safe eating things like tilapia or catfish (which are much cheaper anyway).
Mercury is a biologically persistent toxin, meaning it hangs around in the tissues and is not eliminated.

Over time, that toxin accumulated in the tissues but the real problem is with fish at the top of the food chain, which can accumulate high levels of the toxin through bio-magnification. Fish at the top of the food chain eat other fish, each of which may have eaten other fish or organisms containing mercury, so the top predator fish then contains all of the mercury contained in all of the other fish it might have eaten. So you can eat as much fish that feed low on the food chain (like catfish, which are scavengers, or tilapia which primarily are farm-raised and are fed commercial fish feed, which contains little in the way of toxins).

So it is a myth that you must eliminate all fish because of mercury.

it's a baby/bathwater thang.

let me also say that farm raised fish CAN be good, but often is not, and often destroys the health (or alternative nutrients) benefits OF fish.

for example, farm raised tilapia has FAR more arachidonic acid than wild tilapia.

now, in MY estimation that's good. i seek out arachidonic acid, because of its benefits, but some others may seek to avoid excess of same, and wouldn't consider that FISH could be such a huge source

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...mercury to young people's body.

I like tuna, but it is starting to scare me.

My husband eats tuna every day for work, and a can of tuna alone is more than fifty cents.

sam's club or costco tuna.

or wait until it goes on sale (i have seen it at .33 cents a can (3 for $1)) at local stores in the past) and stock the #$(#$( up!

it keeps!

Even more so when you work three. Laziness isn't always the reason why people eat unhealthily.

True story - they coat the burgers with an oil that gives it beef like flavors, otherwise it would taste like, well, nothing.

I don't know why he has fans.

fuck him.

And by uberleft I mean anyone who thinks the Green Party has any sense

And yes, I realize the irony (Maher voted for Nader in 2000)

completely negates your first, you will stand by both? Would that make you a goldilocks Democrat - not too left, not too right. Juuuuuuuuust right.

And no, I just don't like the GP electing Republicans, that's all

I don't like Code Pink harassing Nancy Pelosi because on the second day of her term as Speaker, she hasn't shot Bush and Rove in the head

And to me, the Code Pink/Naderites/GP are just like the teabaggers: Ignorant on purpose

I'll let you in on a little secret: I voted Nader in 2000. And I will forever REGRET that decision. It was stupid. Maher realizes he fucked up too.

And so part of my anger at the GP is their utter deception and lying

Fuck em

I knew she had done a lot of clinic work in poor areas, but didn't really have details. She's done some amazing stuff, and I was impressed because a lot of what she was doing was the opposite of big corporate health care medicine. It's to bad she's overweight, but I'm not going to judge her on that considering all that she's done. She's really quite impressive from what I've read.

Possibly she thought she could change burger king from the inside. She probably recognized that too many poor and overweight people eat there already,

- Bill Mahar on the 2000 election between George W. Bush and Vice President Albert Gore.

Thanks Bill. That worked out, didn't it.

She certainly does make enough $$ to make better diet choices and has the knowledge to do so, she chooses to do otherwise. And what about "looking like us"? Seems to me that that is another choice. People with illnesses aside, if you're so busy that the 10 minutes difference between dinning on frankenfood and picking something real is too much, perhaps the better choice is to not eat and re-asses your life. Choices.

Virtually everybody with two connected neurons knows that smoking cigarettes is an addiction, a real physiological addiction, yet we have no problem taxing the millions of poor smokers to the point of choosing to feed their habit or themselves. There's two more choices for you, and wait a minute, where is the movement to outlaw tobacco altogether? How about just ending the subsidies? More choices.

Do you know that the pharmaceutical industry is the single most profitable industry on earth? Do you know that they are one of the major forces driving the cost of health care up? You advocate allowing them to continue to profit from needless deaths because the do some good. Your choice.

Bush, Obama, & Co. chose to bankrupt the nation to keep these behemoths alive and to subsidize their further expansion, instead of stepping in and doing their jobs. Their choice.

Our burden.

I don't recall any sort of public discussion about any surgeon general's weight or body type...until now. If she's qualified for the job, then why is it such a big deal all of a sudden? I've only seen a few pictures of her, but she didn't appear to be Taft-like.

Oprah's weight has been the topic of many public discussions over the years. Was it an issue when Dr. Phil put out his diet book? Fred Thompson & Mike Huckabee ran for president and they're both a little "meaty". Don't recall much fanfare over their size. Chris Christie is challenging Corzine for NJ governor and I've yet to hear anything in the media about his weight. There are also quite a few healthcare professionals who can't wear a size 2 or 34 waist...so what? That doesn't make them any less knowledgable about doing the right thing when it comes to their patient's health. If I need life-saving surgery, I'm not going to care about the surgeon's BMI and cholesterol level, I just want someone who knows what they're doing.

He could appoint Salk as SG and there would be some reason to object (besides the whole corpse thing).

I was merely pointing out the fallacy of the OP's conjecture about why she, and therefore other fat people, are not responsible for being fat. Personally, I don't care if people are fat or thin as long as I'm not their partner.

which is why this age was set as a retirement age. People live longer thanks to insulin shots, blood pressure medications, cholesterol lowering statins and many others. People with abnormal heart beats can have pacemakers and defibrillators being implanted in their bodies. Various scans can detect a blockage or a tumor that can be removed. Various micro lancets can be used for minimally invasive surgeries.

Who do you thing invented and developed the various drugs and medical devices? That they charge too much is another matter but I would put a fee on insurance companies before I would on the ones that actually provide health care products.

And, oh, how smug for you to pass judgment on people's weight. You probably have never been in a position to count calories, to exercise and to no avail. And, for Dr. Benjamin - if the choice is to see two more patients or to walk on the treadmill, I am glad that she chose the first.

And this is how health care reform will die: too many elitists like you and others who feel that they have the right to tell others how to live their lives, and to threaten to withhold affordable care from them if they don't. This will be the next battle cry of the right: they are going to turn us into a nation of spies and busy bodies.

After all, how many of us chuckled when we saw banners claiming that "this is my body" carried by, no doubt, anti abortion zealots?


So now the sides have reversed and we are the ones telling others how they should live and take care of their bodies?

I'm a skinny elitist that hates you because your fat? You have no idea what you're talking about and are flat out wrong on most of your points.

For-profit pharmaceutical and medical device companies are not the primary source of any innovation, to the contrary, they are the primary resistance to innovation as that makes their existing products obsolete and less profitable.

Oh, and I come from a notoriously fat family and was well on my way to joining them. This was not what I wanted so I have learned through years of experience how to stay reasonably slim. The largest factor was learning my body and simply eating to live instead of the great American tradition of living to eat.

You really need a new name, you question very little and are generally anxious to project your own feelings and motivations onto others.

He has proven himself ignorant of the facts often.

Dr. Benjamin is extremely qualified. His choice to focus on her weight is sad.

Maher is always an asshole. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's wrong, but the asshole status remains.

There is a simple concept which should be applicable to foods and other products that cause the health care system to be burdened: taxes on the front end to pay the health costs on the back end.

What products should be taxed to carry most of this burden?

*Booze
*Tobacco
*Automobiles
*Guns
*Toxic products
*Foods high in sugar, salt or fat

While not comprehensive, that list is a good start. Having a "health tax" on consumer items would reflect the level of burden such product places upon the health care system. The biggest burden on the health care system comes from what people stick in their mouth, whether it is booze, tobacco, or food.

but tell this to the ones who are allergic to either.

And, you forgot sex. Nuns are among the healthiest people around.

Last there is a choice, which, I hope, we, as liberals support: a choice of someone to lives his life as he chooses. He may live a short life but will enjoy it a lot more and perhaps be a more productive contributor to society than all the anals who just chew on alfalfa sprouts and soybeans and who exercise daily.

And if we want to limit access to health care on people who do not meet our "approval" this would be the epitome of elitism and should bring a desired end to any attempt to reform health care.

As the health issues or people with private insurance are not a financial burden on the taxpayer.

Why don't we tax risky behaviors that might lead to major injuries? A tax on Sky Diving, Skiing, scuba diving, etc etc?

BTW, the major cost to the health care system are an aging population and stress. Why don't we tax people that live beyond 65?

Beware of wagging the finger at us fatties. Do you know how much I've cost the health care system due to my chubbiness? $0.00

I also am surprised that many DUers are so quick to impose a regressive tax on food

i have all my own scuba equipment, and i can just go down to the ocean and hop in.

people with skis and a slope can do the same thing ski-wise.

ditto for people with parachutes and planes.

add the tax to a lift ticket for sking. charge a tax each time a scuba tank is filled, and charge tax in the fee to go up in the plane for sky diving. I'm not advocating said taxes, just pointing out that it would be simple enough to do.

it would simply drive people out of the country to enjoy their pursuits.

plus- there are still plenty of people who have their own equipment, so that fees are a non-issue. for instance- lots of sky-diving is done by clubs with privately owned aircraft, and if there was a huge tax involved in filling scuba tanks, more people/clubs would buy their own equipment for doing so.

besides, it's pretty much a red-herring anyway- the number of people/risk to society represented by the health problems encountered in those pursuits is abysmally small, compared to the number of fatt-asses and future diabetics being bred by the prevalence of crap posing as food.

And he is getting rich by making noise.