Guns v. Obesity, The Christie Plan
 

As brought up in another thread the odds of a child being shot and killed in a school shooting in a given year is 1 in 15 million. I was interested in the odds of being shot and killed by a firearm, regardless of circumstance, over a lifetime and found those odds according to the National Safety Council to be surprisingly low IMO at 1 in 340.

At the top of the list of causes of death at 1 in 7 is a tie between heart disease and cancer. Since the chance of dying from either of the top two is 48 times greater that of dying by a firearm, I suggest we institute a pseudo anti-gun plan complete with a registration process for obese individuals and call it the Christie Plan. With the implementation of Obamacare coupled with the ever present Medicare/Caid and SS disability, all taxpayers have an interest in the health of the country.

We tax cigarettes (in Chicago $7.17 a pack) in an attempt to prevent cancer, why not also tax obesity in an attempt to prevent heart disease?

35.9% of the U.S. population over the age of 20 is obese. That equates to roughly 90 million. By taxing each of the registered obese $1,000 dollars per year it would equate to $90 billion in new tax revenues, offsetting, in part, the cost of heart disease. That number would hopefully decrease year after year but curing the obesity problem, not raising tax revenues is the intent of the Christie Plan. For those considering the plan is too extreme consider that $1,000 a year tax comes to just $2.73 a day or the tax on 8 cigarettes.

The US Center of Disease Control places the cost of heart disease per year at $108.9 billion. By lowering the obesity rate we can certainly lower the $108.9 billion number making it a win (individual health), win (lowering cost) situation without even flirting with violating the Constitution, the predicament gun laws always seem to face.

In addition, ancillary benefits the Plan would introduce include a decreased enrollment in Medicare/Medicaid and SS disability, a more able bodied work force, parents more concerned with obesity, less diabetes and overall a fitter, happier country.

Of course there will be people that just pay the $1,000 and continue gorging just as there are still smokers. But that $1,000 will more fairly offset the cost of heart disease incurred by the 64.1% who are not obese.

Surely, we need to change the incentives.

Health should serve as enough incentive. The relief from not being forced to pay the $1,000 tax is the carrot (donut, twinkee etc.) on the stick.

Pretty much the same incentives given to a smoker averaging 8 cigs a day.

And while we're at it - maybe undergo a real study, you know, by someone not funded by ADM and Monsanto, to understand what role all of this GMO/Hormone-ladened crap that is passed off as food these days plays in the obesity epidemic.


Jus' Sayin'


Funny how we never heard the phrase "gluten intolerant" until modified organisms were injected into wheat to double the yield. I'm sure there's nothing to the gluten epidemic either. Just like how places that ban GMO's don't have an obesity problem. It's just lazy Americans eating poorly.

I have no problem going after ADM or Monsanto in addition to taxing the obese who are fortunately still a 1/3 minority of the US population.

Another ancillary benefit of the tax would be a loss of their customer base as the obese become more responsible in what foods and quantities they take in. I suppose bicycle manufacturers and exercise related businesses would also realize an increase in business.

i'd imagine a lot of people claiming to be gluten intolerant...aren't.

That's not a judgement I'm prepared to make about someone else's life.

There are way too many cases, while anecdotal, of people that have sworn off wheat and wheat flour due to the unpleasant side effects here in the US, that can enjoy those same products, at will, in Europe:

http://www.motherearthnews.com/real-...z13aszmar.aspx

You can't modify a plant to increase it's yield 200+% without impacting the by-product (Gluten, easily digested carbohydrates, etc) amounts of that same yield. It's common sense. Too bad every study on the subject is funded by the people that get paid to grow it.

i just know i read an article not long ago in slate, discussing people and their 'gluten intolerance'. rather interesting.

Turn your PC filter lower.

How many obese people you see biking and or jogging?

when an orange costs more than a candy bar what do you expect?

oh, let me guess. more of the 'how poor are our poor when they're fat'? yes, because we all know fat people are eating a nutritious diet.

last I knew neither christie or the mayor of toronto were poor

Oranges at an average price of 1.40/lb. with 3 oranges per pound comes out to 47 cents per orange. Average price of a candy bar is 75 cents so in reality you can buy 16 oranges for the same price as 10 candy bars.

Thanks for the input and support.

Based on poor individual menu choices evidenced by the price of oranges compared to candy bars.

Since we're paying to feed them, Dr. them and everything else how easy would it be to take the simple step and more control their food choices?

Again PC filter/blinks off.

true. i'm sure ford's problem is the munchies. after all, he did say he had plenty to eat at home. hehe

It had more to do with your convoluted logic in getting to the thrust of your point. I'll summarize: "You have a 1 in 340 chance of being killed by a gun, therefore, fat people should be taxed."

Seriously, how does Glenn Beck have a career in entertainment and you don't? You could totally go toe-to-toe with him. There really is no justice in this world. I would watch the sh*t out of your show, Dell.

It has to do with prioritization. We are bombarded with how dangerous guns are and why we need to outlaw, register, tax, insure, complete with endless lawsuits, all for something that you have a 1 in 340 chance of dying from.

Meanwhile, why we address cancer with crazy taxes we ignore obesity, the greatest cause of heart disease and the 1 in 7 odds of dying from it, not to mention the added costs of heart disease and diabetes especially among the poor, who are 100% covered by the taxpayer. Actually the taxpayer's credit. Michelle Obama calling for people to move just doesn't cut it. A $1,000 dollar obesity tax would do, will do far more than say, outlawing assault rifles. It's all about the bottom line.