"Daddy" knows best: Obesity ratings for every American

All part of the profiling and control as to who gets what treatment.

I would be interested in knowing what the penalty for a BMI above 30 might be. Food rationing, wearing an ankle bracelet and GPS tracking?

If the government allows the murder of babies in the womb and "death with dignity" why am I not allowed death by Big Mac?

HankD

 

Dang, I am in trouble. The Lord over the years has moved all my super muscles to my mid-section.

 

Exactly. Why else would they even "need" this info? Looks like they are preparing to ration health care according to who benefits society the most. (Who does this remind us of?) Get rid of the extra babies, old folks, and anyone else who "drains" their system. What's next, people with MS, Downs Syndrome, or other costly conditions? Heaven forbid they go after the smokers as long as Barry inhales his cancer sticks.

Why don't they ask welfare queens if they've had their tubes tied?

 

Obesity is a product of a sinful, gluttonous lifestyle. Unless, of course, there are medical reasons for it.

Considering that thought, shouldn't we as Christians support a government regulation regarding this sin just as we do abortion, homosexuality issues, etc? Just throwing that out there.

Our body is the temple of the holy spirit...to abuse it to the point we are overweight is sin, plain and simple.

 

No, just playing the devil's advocate here. Although I firmly put overeating, obesity, etc. in the same list as any other sin. It's wrong. However, when's the last time anyone heard of Christians getting on their soap box about this subject? As a child, I recall a revival preacher that would come to town regularly and preach in our church. Fantastic preacher, but he was HUGE. No different to me than smoking or drinking too much booze or any other number of behaviors that negatively affect our bodies.

I guess my point was just to play the devil's advocate here is all.

 

Haven't been reading the BB much lately, have you Jason? We've had MANY lively debates over this issue within the last year or so.

It's not the government's job to prevent daily sin in my life. That's the Holy Spirit's job. I'm not talking about crime, like murder or theft, but daily sin we all commit like gossip, spending too much money, losing our temper, eating too much sugar, salt, cholesterol, or junk.

By your rationale, we should support government regulation of these as well since they are considered sin. If we let that happen, we would have a dictatorship for government.

 

Let's talk about that. Why does government regulate some sins, or crimes, but not others?

 

Why do they regulate some sins?

In a word - greed.

They regulate what they think will bring in the tax money - or get votes.

And why or why would anyone want the government regulating sin?

They are for abortion - for gay marriage - ok with porn - ok with alcohol consumption (as long as it brings in taxes) - ok with smoking (as long as it brings in taxes) - you name it.

 

Well, I agree with that to a point. However, I also think in more pure terms as well. Government deems some sins crime to regulate society, to keep it safe. Murder, assault, theft, robbery, etc. etc. are all sins that society regulates. There are crimes gov regulates because it impacts others, and there are personal behaviors gov regulates because by impacting yourself it impacts others. I contend that overeating and the subsequent health issues related to that puts a strain on our healthcare system and thus increases costs for all. I would support a system that takes into account ones healthy lifestyle or lack thereof and adjust our insurance premiums accordingly. No sense charging me (I work out almost daily, eat correctly, and am very healthy) the same premium that an unhealthy person is charged.

 

Isn't that something to take up with the insurance companies - not the government?

And actually the government is going the opposite direction that you wish - in that they are forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions.

So it you don't like subsidizing someone else to the extent that they are a little less fit than you are - wait until you see the premium hike when you start subsidizing people who are signing up with an existing major illness like cancer or AIDS.

 

No real need to include the BMI. BMI is a function of height and weight, so if they have those two they already have BMI

 

>Why does government regulate some sins, or crimes, but not others?

Same reasons we hear sermons on some sins and not others. We hear sermons on sins the preacher and the congregation don't commit. Same as this list.

 

Really??

The government wants to regulate obesity - because they are not fat?

What bizzaro world are you living in?

 

Hi Jason,

In a word "CONTROL".

We are being moved in the direction of a socialist oligarchy.

Do some google work on Ezekiel Emanual (Rahm's brother).
He is a (maybe "the") medical advisor to the President and the silent medical czar.

Look up his name with the word "eugenics" added to the string and you will be in shock and awe as to his ideas.

"Survival of the fittest" in a word. Only the healthy should get medical attention (prevention) to keep them that way.

Once you become a burden to society (You take more than you give in terms of $$) , it's off to the hospice where you are "offed"
in a kind way ("death with dignity") of course you are counseled to do it as an act of good will towards the rest of mankind.

This includes the elderly, yes the administration wants to "kill grandma", with her permission of course.
That is unless she is deemed incompetent by the socilaist state to make the decision for herself, then guess what?

It could happen.
In fact it happens in WA and OR.
At least Oregon calls it what it is "assisted suicide".
In Washington State it's called "death with dignity".

HankD

 

I think they are partial to people with blond hair & blue eyes....no wait....