Great. First Hillary care, and now pay-by-the-pound government. Can we please stop trying to find more ways to spend my money? I'd be willing to bet a quarter pounder with cheese that the people who advocate this are the same people that have brain seizures when they hear the words "tax cut." I have no desire to pay some schlep to go on a diet. Go on your own damn diet and leave me and my wallet alone.

A properly structured incentive program could end up saving you money. Fewer overweight people equals fewer people going to the doctor and lower medical costs.

How about if insurance providers stopped covering smokers, alcoholics, overeaters and helmet-free motorcycle riders? It would lower their risk. Maybe that would lower my premiums.

By the way, I'll repeat what I said before. I have no desire or need to pay some jag to lose a few pounds. The government does not need to redistribute my tax money for those that go to Weight Watchers. How about they just give me my tax money back rather than dishing it out to someone else that decided to go on a diet this week?

/* begin sarcasm

While we're at it, let's go ahead and let people with excess credit card debt work it off themselves. Those subprime idiots who got in on those loans? Let's kick them to the curb. And the Taiwanese? They can fend for themselves if China gets in their face. Tibetans? They had a good run, but the time for feudalism is at an end. Did you not save enough money for retirement? Sucks to be you

end sarcasm */

OK. YOU send off checks to people for going on diets. I'd rather keep my own money, thank you.

I thought it was that the obese were going to be penalised by the pound in a negative incentive for medical expenditures related to health issues from their obesity? Not the other way around. Why would anyone be compelled to lose weight when you could just keep gaining it back and get paid more for the next bought of weight loss?

"While we're at it, let's go ahead and let people with excess credit card debt work it off themselves. Those subprime idiots who got in on those loans? Let's kick them to the curb."

Actually, yes, I think they should work it out themselves; no sarcasm included. If someone uses a credit card and doesn't understand that they have to pay for the stuff at some point in time, they deserve to nailed by interest rates. It is rather amazing that the first people who clamour for their personal rights and freedom of choice are the very first to want others to bail them out for their own poor judgement.

FordTruck5Speed:

OK. YOU send off checks to people for going on diets. I'd rather keep my own money, thank you.

I think this is known as the "I've got mine--fuck everybody else" attitude. You know, the kind that makes for a solid democracy.

It's not undemocratic to suggest that it might be a bad idea to reward people for having made dumb mistakes in the past.  I can just see all the cash strapped teens that will take up smoking just so they can stop and make easy money.  This shouldn't be handled by the government.  The only way this could work is if the insurance companies directly offered to lower rates for people that lost weight or stopped smoking (which I guess they already do) and then companies that paid for health insurance for their employees passed that on (which they don't).  That way they aren't making anything that people that didn't make the same dumb mistake aren't already getting.
And as for homes, yes if you bought a house you can't afford, you deserve to lose it.  That's how money works.  You don't get to own things just because you want them.  The government ought to ensure people have food, and shelter, and a certain amount of comfort, but I don't think a house in the suburbs is included.  Boy, as a 22 year old I can tell it's just going to be a blast bailing out all the 65 year olds that have never saved a penny in their life and are $200000 in debt from buying a house.

pxtot:

FordTruck5Speed:

OK. YOU send off checks to people for going on diets. I'd rather keep my own money, thank you.

I think this is known as the "I've got mine--fuck everybody else" attitude. You know, the kind that makes for a solid democracy.

No, it's a "I'm not going to pay you to take care of yourself like you're supposed to" attitude. Besides, obviously they have theirs. If you're overweight, it ain't because you miss a whole hell of a lot of meals. I'm not screwing anyone by refusing to pay them to be the responsible adults that they're supposed to be anyway.

My only assumption here is that you're a socialist. Your attitude has the distinct appearance of, "If you keep anything for yourself, you're hoarding it from the rest of us." Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

Ford5, et. al, what if instead of paying the obese to lose weight, people received a tax credit for being in a healthy weight range?

I'm trying to understand if the objection is to incentivising health, or to the method.

Sir, thou makest too much sense.

You really believe that, don't you!

The people that you mention in your first paragragh have rights as citizens also.

Chicago, what if we all just got a nice big tax cut and were allowed to keep more of our money? Then we could still make our own decisions without the government playing mommy and daddy, and maybe afford to buy that triple bypass surgery when we choose to live off of McDonald's.

How's this for incentivising health? If you eat 9 Big Mac's a day, you'll die of a heart attack before the Patriots win their next Super Bowl. If you eat a carrot or two, you might live long enough to see the Detroit Lions make the payoffs. Problem solved.