so paying people to quit doing things they shouldn't be doing anyway (smoking, not exercising, eating way too much) works. fantastic! we've found an effective method of improving public health.

but what about those of us who have managed to stay away from those vices on our own or whose vices don't cost money to the society overall? can i get paid for continuously working out regularly since i was 12?

What about people who max out their credit cards and declare bankruptcy, or people who get a subprime loan and get bailed out by the government, what about the ones who buy the extended warranties? Should we not be paying for their idiocy too?

Would companies just have to hire less fat people, as an incentive to get in shape? They already do credit checks to see if you're a responsible person, perhaps a weigh-in would be a good idea too.

You're already being paid with a longer life expectancy, better quality of life, and other non-monetary benefits. Perhaps you should rest on those laurels when you're not up and running on your treadmill.

Disclaimer: I am actually not overweight, and I pay my fixed rate mortgage on time. I am trying to be sarcastic, but it may not be obvious enough.

Pretty sure this is already in effect. For example, I pay more for health insurance because i smoke. If my insurer wanted to raise non-smokers costs and then "pay" them because they don't smoke it would be the same in the end. This is more of a question of whether people are motivated by being rewarded or punished. Either way, it is the same in the end.

You can make the same argument about practically any realm of public works or gov't spending.

E.g., why should I, as a hulking young male, built like a 4/5-scale NFL lineman, and adept with various weapons and forms of combat, have to pay the same in taxes as the elderly, women, or average men? Virtually any criminal would view me as a hard target, most assuredly not worth the risk, and move on to someone softer. I do not require police protection in any way, shape or form. Yet every year, a significant portion of my taxes go to funding state and federal law enforcement agencies.

That's one example, there are obviously hundreds of others. I think the answer is that this is simply the price one pays for buying into the social contract, to paraphrase Locke. At the end of the day, if the measure proposed will result in a net savings due to decreased costs in public health care, then there is a very real chance that, at some point, you will somehow reap some portion of the benefit. It may not be direct, but if the alternative is to fight it just because someone else is getting more, then I think you're essentially cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Maybe we can pay you to be less whiney and irritating.

I f

there is no reson to get money from the government since one is in perfect health perhaps a walmart voucher or gift card to spend on good for you products should go to these usa citizens for the saem amount o f

moeny as the smoker is getting for quitting and the fat person is getting for getting slim. .

ymca song on the internet

since i met you baby

my whole world has changed and everybody tells me that i am not

the same

a song on the internet

fools rush in

where wise men never go

but wise men never fall in love

so how are they to know

that since i found you

that is when my life begin

so open up your heart and let

this fool rush in

a song on the internet

just want to be

your teddy bear

a song by elvis on the internet

i wear a grat big initial his great big a inital

everywhre i go

so theworld can se

that he belons to me just me

i war it the record shop iwar it to the soda shop

i ear it when we go to jym i wear it when we take our swim

i wear a great big itinal his grat big itinal

eveywhere i go

so the world can se that he belongs to me

just me

a song on the interenet

do not come home a drinking with loving on you rmind

a song on the interent

for our love could never be

he holds the bottle more than me

many hapy hang overs to you

may your life be filled with more than a few

do not drink too much ot get a hang over and do not drink and drive

What did I just read......?

A song on the "interent" I guess..

I really dont think its the benefit of the American taxpayer to allow the goverment to pay people to lose weight. I understand it could, could being the operative term, cut insurance costs but theres no guarantee that it would. Meanwhile our tax dollars would be wasted on getting some people to slim down. Whos fault is it that they are that way? I certainly didnt force them to eat that extra box of chocolates nor did I force them engage in other bad eating habits. I understand the idea of money incentives in order to stimulate a desire to lose weight. Well I say reverse it. Make them pay the government for being fat. After al someone might be more inclined to do this if they are being forced to pay out. If they lose the weight they will eventually not have to pay at all. How about using negative reinforcement instead of positive reinforcement in this case? Now before you go out and scream that my proposal is unfair. What about those of us that do maintain our weight and eat healthy? Isnt paying fatties to lose weight unfair to us? What are we being rewarded with? Increased taxes to pay for the fat proposal.

did you just post the exact same thing in every thread? Thanks for wasting my time reading your drivel so many times.

parker:

did you just post the exact same thing in every thread? Thanks for wasting my time reading your drivel so many times.

says the person that couldnt so much as post one valid thought in any thread.