Why is being fat/obese socially acceptable?

Sapsorrow

AARRRGH wrote: »

Because Ireland cannot afford it?

Because the obese/smokers/alcoholics are clogging up an already stretched healthcare system?

Because "innocent" people cannot get hospital beds because they are already taken by people who spent their life making bad decisions?

Because we should focus on those who deserve it the most? (Yes, I think someone who spent their life making bad decisions should not be treated equally to someone who got unlucky and got cancer/whatever).

Because I'm a big believer in personal responsibility and think it is wrong to expect other people to clean up your mess?

Etc.

Ok so if you end up in a car accident due to careless driving, get cancer (at least 50% related to diet), some form of heart disease etc we can all assume that you're going to be paying for that out of your own cash then ya? I'd be interested to see how your self rightious philosophy stands up when you get older and start becoming more at risk of developing chronic disease. The way you're banging on you'd swear you were superman or something!

drkpower

AARRRGH wrote: »

I think we should consider dropping free healthcare for those who have spent their lives making bad decisions, e.g. smoking, drinking heavily, being obese.

So what does the relative numbers of people with smoking/drinking related illnesses have to do with it then?

Great; so what about bowel cancer (lifelong poor diet/low fibre), cervical cancer (early and many sexual contacts), skin cancers (prolonged exposure to sun) and many many more?

Sapsorrow

AARRRGH wrote: »

Stop trying to fight. If you are unhappy it's not my fault.

That is so totally uncalled for, leave your personal issues with the other poster out of the discussion (you seem to be unable to help yourself from making snide comments in nearly every post), no one here is interested it's totally irrelevant to the discussion and you're making yourself look really really childish (especially saying you showed it to your work colleagues and they all agreed with you jesus christ like!).

AARRRGH

drkpower wrote: »

1. Can we afford to treat those with melanoma, bowel cancer, gastroenteritis, Road Traffic Accidents ....etc etc.... or anything caused by engaging in bad decisions?
2. How does that differ in respect of hospital's clogged up by people involved in RTAs, gastroenteritis, bowel cancer, cervical cancer etc....
3. How does that differ in respect of hospital beds taken by people with melanoma etc?
4. Why is it 'unlucky' to get bowel cancer from years of a low fibre diet, but not unlucky to get cirrhosis from excess alcohol?
5. How does that differ in respect of personal responsibility of people involved in RTAs, gastroenteritis, bowel cancer, cervical cancer etc....

Is there a point anywhere in your post?

OK, I'll try once more. I understand you want to disagree with whatever I type, but please take a deep breath and spend a few seconds thinking about what I am saying. Here goes...

There are health problems which are are caused by certain lifestyles, i.e. cancers caused by a lifetime of smoking, cancers and organ failures caused by a lifetime of drinking, health disease and cancers caused by being obese.

The government recognises this so are trying to get people to stop making these lifestyle choices. They have advertisements on TV and in magazines in an effort to stop people making these lifestyle choices.

They focus on these three issues because the health problems associated with them are expensive to treat and clog up our hospitals.

They are seen as long term lifestyle choices, unlike, for example, getting food poisoning while on holiday.

I agree with you that it is difficult to decide where we should draw the line (e.g. someone who spent their life sunbathing and develops skin cancer), but our current system of making the tax payer pay for someone else's long term lifestyle choice is unfair.

AARRRGH

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Ok so if you end up in a car accident due to careless driving, get cancer (at least 50% related to diet), some form of heart disease etc we can all assume that you're going to be paying for that out of your own cash then ya? I'd be interested to see how your self rightious philosophy stands up when you get older and start becoming more at risk of developing chronic disease. The way you're banging on you'd swear you were superman or something!

I have made an effort to be healthy and financially well off (and I also pay for private health care), so I don't expect any tax payer to pay for my mistakes.

It is wrong that I should have to pay to fix Mary's heart because she chose to eat McDonalds every day for 40 years.

RolandIRL

AARRRGH wrote: »

Because we should focus on those who deserve it the most? (Yes, I think someone who spent their life making bad decisions should not be treated equally to someone who got unlucky and got cancer/whatever).

what you're talking about is segregation of the health system. because someone was unlucky enough to get diabetes, and become obese, they shouldn't receive healthcare?
that's just wrong, and this isn't the type of world we live in today. everyone should have equal rights regardless of who they are or their lifestyle choices.

i'm not saying being obese is okay, but they should get help if they want it.

AARRRGH

whiteman19 wrote: »

what you're talking about is segregation of the health system. because someone was unlucky enough to get diabetes, and become obese, they shouldn't receive healthcare?
that's just wrong, and this isn't the type of world we live in today. everyone should have equal rights regardless of who they are or their lifestyle choices.

i'm not saying being obese is okay, but they should get help if they want it.

I am not saying they shouldn't get help, I am saying they shouldn't get free help.

By all means eat yourself to an early grave, but make sure you are paying for private healthcare at the same time.

AARRRGH

Btw, to everyone who thinks it is terrible that I think people who spent years making bad decisions shouldn't get free healthcare... I suppose you think it is right we are bailing out the banks? Cause, you know, that's pretty much the same concept.

Sapsorrow

AARRRGH wrote: »

I am not saying they shouldn't get help, I am saying they shouldn't get free help.

By all means eat yourself to an early grave, but make sure you are paying for private healthcare at the same time.

Well I hope for your sake you don't ever end up broke for some reason, I'm guessing that if you did you'd be standing by your principles even then? This conversation has turned into screw to obese to screw the obese and the poor, FFS have a bit of f*cking humanity for christs sake!

drkpower

AARRRGH wrote: »

I agree with you that it is difficult to decide where we should draw the line (e.g. someone who spent their life sunbathing and develops skin cancer), but our current system of making the tax payer pay for someone else's long term lifestyle choice is unfair.

You are tellling me that you believe that only these 3 issues should warrant withdrawl of free healthcare; you have done nothing to tell me why.

That was my first question; pages have passed; and yet you are no closer to defending your position.

Sapsorrow

AARRRGH wrote: »

Btw, to everyone who thinks it is terrible that I think people who spent years making bad decisions shouldn't get free healthcare... I suppose you think it is right we are bailing out the banks? Cause, you know, that's pretty much the same concept.

That is so stupid words are failing me....

AARRRGH

drkpower wrote: »

You are tellling me that you believe that only these 3 issues should warrant withdrawl of free healthcare; you have done nothing to tell me why.

That was my first question; pages have passed; and yet you are no closer to defending your position.

I think you need to go back and read my post.

AARRRGH

khrystyna100 wrote: »

That is so stupid words are failing me....

No, it's not, you just don't understand what I wrote.

Think about it for a second before immediately hitting the reply button and posting an emotional response...

drkpower

AARRRGH wrote: »

It is wrong that I should have to pay to fix Mary's heart because she chose to eat McDonalds every day for 40 years.

You still dont get it; you are telling us why you believe you shouldnt pay for other's bad decisions; you have not yet made any argument as to why it is just certain bad decisions, and not all bad decisons.

Jazzy

put down the fork fatties

Jaxxy

AARRRGH wrote: »

Because Ireland cannot afford it?

Because the obese/smokers/alcoholics are clogging up an already stretched healthcare system?

Because "innocent" people cannot get hospital beds because they are already taken by people who spent their life making bad decisions?

Because we should focus on those who deserve it the most? (Yes, I think someone who spent their life making bad decisions should not be treated equally to someone who got unlucky and got cancer/whatever).

Because I'm a big believer in personal responsibility and think it is wrong to expect other people to clean up your mess?

Etc.

"Innocent" people? What the hell are you going on about. Who are you to decide who is "innocent" and who is not? Just because someone smokes, drinks or is overweight they're not entitled to the same treatment and healthcare? So only the people who adhere to your strict guidelines regarding personal hygiene, health and diet deserve to get a bed in a hospital?

That's a fairly strange notion. By your logic then a pedophile could possibly deserve healthcare more than an overweight individual, purely because aforementioned individual only gave out sweets to children instead of consuming them him/herself. It's a harsh example sure, but it brings up the point others before me have been trying to make; where the hell would you draw the line?

What criteria would one have to meet to deserve a hospital bed and treatment in your world? People willingly smoke, drink and eat, yes, this is true. But people also willingly sit out in the sun. Should the people who decide they want a tan automatically be refused treatment if they develop skin cancer just because it was a decision they made, while well aware of the possible consequences?

This is the point people are trying to make, and this is the point you are continuously missing.

AARRRGH

Funny this, but I want to go to the gym before it closes, so I have to stop replying now.

Arguing on the internet is retarded anyway.

RolandIRL

excuse me, but the R word is a horrible word to use. use a different word like stupid. have some consideration for people with mental conditions

AARRRGH

JaxxYChicK wrote: »

"Innocent" people? What the hell are you going on about. Who are you to decide who is "innocent" and who is not? Just because someone smokes, drinks or is overweight they're not entitled to the same treatment and healthcare? So only the people who adhere to your strict guidelines regarding personal hygiene, health and diet deserve to get a bed in a hospital?

That's a fairly strange notion. By your logic then a pedophile could possibly deserve healthcare more than an overweight individual, purely because aforementioned individual only gave out sweets to children instead of consuming them him/herself. It's a harsh example sure, but it brings up the point others before me have been trying to make; where the hell would you draw the line?

What criteria would one have to meet to deserve a hospital bed and treatment in your world? People willingly smoke, drink and eat, yes, this is true. But people also willingly sit out in the sun. Should the people who decide they want a tan automatically be refused treatment if they develop skin cancer just because it was a decision they made, while well aware of the possible consequences?

This is the point people are trying to make, and this is the point you are continuously missing.

I think you've misread my posts.

I have never said they don't deserve healthcare.

I said free healthcare. You know, paid for by the tax payer because they decided to be a bit of a **** up.

As I said earlier, it is the same concept as bailing out the banks. Or repeatedly paying for someone to do college degrees because they can't make up their mind what they want to do with their life. Or letting someone claim the dole for the rest of their life.

If you think about what I am saying in a non-emotional way it will make more sense.

But I really have to run now. Happy posting!

AARRRGH

whiteman19 wrote: »

excuse me, but the R word is a horrible word to use. use a different word like stupid. have some consideration for people with mental conditions

LOL

RolandIRL

AARRRGH wrote: »

LOL

no don't LOL. it's a horrible word to use for these situations.

EDIT: i was referring to the R word he used in an earlier post

Jaxxy

AARRRGH wrote: »

I think you've misread my posts.

I have never said they don't deserve healthcare.

I said free healthcare. You know, paid for by the tax payer because they decided to be a bit of a **** up.

As I said earlier, it is the same concept as bailing out the banks. Or repeatedly paying for someone to do college degrees because they can't make up their mind what they want to do with their life. Or letting someone claim the dole for the rest of their life.

If you think about what I am saying in a non-emotional way it will make more sense.

But I really have to run now. Happy posting!

A non-emotional way? Where did you get that impression? Just because I asked you what the hell you were going on about and told you that your notions were strange doesn't mean I'm emotional.

Ugh. Weak jabs left, right and center.

So what happens if an overweight person suddenly has a heart attack. They can't afford healthcare (because in your perfect world, overweight people, drinkers and smokers have to pay for their healthcare) and they're dying on the side of the road.

Should they be left there to die because they're overweight and broke?

LOL. You're funny.

Scarinae

AARRRGH wrote: »

Or repeatedly paying for someone to do college degrees because they can't make up their mind what they want to do with their life.

Er... This is slightly off the main thread topic, but can I just point out that the government does not repeatedly pay for college degrees? If I did a year in one degree, and then decided that it wasn't for me and dropped out to do another degree, I would have to pay for the first year of tuition of the new course. You make it sound as if people can just keep trying new courses and have the government pay for it, which is not the case

Sapsorrow

I'm beginning to understand why you're called AAARRGH!!

Sapsorrow

JaxxYChicK wrote: »

LOL. You're funny.

Ya in the way that makes you want to kill yourself in the hope that you'll be reincarnated into a more decent species.

PeakOutput

i will say one thing in the defence of the pro fat side and that is that arguing that fat people shouldnt have access to public healthcare is retarded

you choose to pay for private healthcare and you are lucky enough to be able to afford it

everyone (on the planet imo not to mind ireland) should have access to adequate free healthcare good education and a social welfare system that stops them from being on the streets, be they fat slim or otherwise

the companies who make these ****e foods and market them should be ones that are taxed to **** to pay for the increased load on the health service(and this is coming from someone who most here would call a heartless right winger)

edit and in turn these companies will charge more to their customers so the people who eat the most crappy food pay more taxes, according to freakonomics radio(a podcast so i cant cite it you will have to listen yourself) every single cheeseburger sold in the us adds $1.50 to the long term costs of the healthservice that is a shocking amount and for it to stop being such a problem you gotta hit people in the pockets

drkpower

AARRRGH wrote: »

I think you need to go back and read my post.

I did; and nowhere in any of them did you explain why certain bad decisions, and not all bad decisons, warrant withdrawl of free healthcare. Looks like noone else agrees with what you are saying...

Perhaps you should show this thread to your workmates aswell...:)

PeakOutput

drkpower wrote: »

I did; and nowhere in any of them did you explain why certain bad decisions, and not all bad decisons, warrant withdrawl of free healthcare. Looks like noone else agrees with what you are saying...

Perhaps you should show this thread to your workmates aswell...:)

i am sympathetic towards argggh's point(not that he cares either way im sure) dont get me wrong in the current system it costs us way too much and it is the personal irresponsibility of these people that is causing it and their refusal to change their behaviour(as a group not individually individuals get healthy all the time) that forces me to believe that goverment intervention and higher taxes for things like that is the only way forward.

dark crystal

PeakOutput wrote: »

again thats not what he said but whatever

Although it's nice you feel the need to defend the posters comments, please don't tell me that I'm reading his post wrong. If you see some other meaning in what he said, fair enough, but I know exactly where he was coming from.

Again, I don't see how someone clearly stating that they are better than someone else is justified. I'm afraid you will not convince me otherwise.

vicecreamsundae

in response to the title of the thread, i would argue that it's actually not that socially acceptable. obese people are often the subject of meanspirited jokes and comments and obese people are less likely to be hired and promoted than their slimmer and more attractive counterparts. while there may not be open discrimination of larger people, we're not living in some lovely little utopia where nobody ever judges anyone negatively based on their size.

i think the idea that larger people should be outcast is disgusting. first of all, not all people who are large are going to be a strain on the health system. of course obesity increases your risks of certain diseases, but there are plenty of large people out there who will not have any health problems related to their weight.

and obviously [or i would have thought it was obvious] not all people who are overweight are so through their own fault. and even for those who are lazy and eat too much -because sure they exist, i'm lazy and eat too much junk and it's only pure luck that i'm not obese -that's their own business.

arguing that "it's not their business, i have to pay their heart surgery bills!" is ridiculous.. should we also outcast skinny people who look like they might have an eating disorder? and people with AIDS because you know, that was their fault too. and as many posters have commented, the many other diseases which can be caused by "life styles"?

but then of course, people with bowel cancer or AIDS probably walk past you every day unbeknownst to you, so they don't bother you. whereas you see obese people every day..walking around being all obese, like they have every right to be obese and in public!:rolleyes:

i think the fact that obesity is something you have to actually SEE and look at, as opposed to other financially-draining conditions people have is what really bothers you. maybe you're just disgusted that some people aren't concerned with being the size you think they should be.