Illegal To Serve Fat People
It has actually happened. Lawmakers have proposed legislation that forbids restaurants and food establishments from serving food to anyone who is obese (as defined by the State). Under this bill, food establishments are to be monitored for compliance under the State Department of Health and violators will have their business permits revoked.
This is House bill 282 in the state of Mississippi where 30% of residents are obese. What is this country coming to?
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/01/no-fat-people-allowed-only-slim-will-be.html
Should this pass, scales will appear at the door of restaurants, people with BMIs of 30 or higher won't be allowed to be served. And to comply with government regulations, restaurants will have to keep records of patrons' BMIs.
This is House bill 282 in the state of Mississippi where 30% of residents are obese. What is this country coming to?
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/01/no-fat-people-allowed-only-slim-will-be.html
Should this pass, scales will appear at the door of restaurants, people with BMIs of 30 or higher won't be allowed to be served. And to comply with government regulations, restaurants will have to keep records of patrons' BMIs.
0
-
roll on the world revolution when people take back their lives and are allowed to make their own choices!! 0 -
I heard on the radio last week that in England, where they have Socialized Medical care, there is a movement to restrict who is eligible. DOCTORS are lobbying the govt. to say that people w/unhealthy lifestyles will not be treated for illnesses that occur as a result. This reportedly will include smokers, (alcohol) drinkers, drug users, the obese. And the elderly who's health is bad enough to require a level of care that burdens the system. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
Pretty soon the government is going to dictate when the leaves can fall from the trees.
The micromanagement grip is all around us.[xx(]
Seems like all around us they are establishing the precedent that they own us, and tell us what and what not to do. Very very bad.
This law is not going to affect most people, and isn't going to make anyone go hungry, but i am worried about what comes next when they determine they can control people to this extent and no-one flips out.0 -
quote:Originally posted by select-fire
define fat. Are they cutting out the buffets?
I wouldn't think so ... buffets are self-serve [:o)]0 -
(looking around) I think that us fat folk are not a minority.
...and that we will make a real good source of soylent green!
Just as soon as all the regulations are in effect, so that they don't have to provide any services for those who aren't as skinny as Anne Coulter, they will fire up the scoop trucks.0 -
There's something to this. Group health insurance is based on the concept of equalizing risk, but, in reality, why should my reasonable life style cost be the same as that of an obese smoker?
Government subsidized "assistance" must be equally available to all citizens. However, since my tax dollars pay those costs, should I (logically) be taxed as heavily as the obese smoker?
I feel the same way about this as I do many other entitlement programs; I don't mind helping the poor/unfortunate, but only so long as they do their part to become not poor/unfortunate.
This is a very poor attempt to level the playing field, but it is an effort.0 -
fatstrat....this should be an easy program to initiate as they have a built in guide book provided by germany in the 1930's 0 -
Re: Reasonable lifestyle- reasonable to WHO? Yeah, I am older, moderately sedate, smoker. I will NOT have someone who mountainbikes on weekends look down their nose at me- have helped with the rescue of the spinal cord injured, fractured wrist, closed head injury youngster for too many folks with a "healthy" lifestyle. As far as the proposed legislation, would like to propose a law prohibiting the election of people to public office that are TERMINALLY STUPID. Don't ask me to subsidize your decisions, but your decisions should be yours to make. Next thing you know, all you people that have this RISKY LIFESTYLE of owning firearms will have your evil, risky behavior changed. Along with the risks of dating several partners, consuming alcohol, eating red meat, fishing (sharp objects there, ya know) or driving a car (we have professional drivers for the buses). See also definition of NANNY STATE. Now please pardon me, have a date with a grandkid at the firing range. 0 -
"Reasonable lifestyle- reasonable to WHO?"
"Don't ask me to subsidize your decisions"
Those questions are the crux of the issue.0 -
It will be a tyranny of the majority, this is a democracy after all. Whatever the ruling class (politicians and media) can convince the majority of the voters is a good idea will be forced on general population.
As far as subsidizing other peoples risky or unhealthily life styles
From those with the means to those with the needs
from each according to his ability to those according to his needs
Except for the rich and powerful with the power to protect what they have.
They will be very careful so that it does not get bad enough to start a revolution until they have eliminated or controlled all of those capable of committing a revolution.
Glad I will be long dead before the worst comes and the newer generation will not care because they will already be brainwashed.
Prosperity has a very high price, you have to be happy to live in a gilded cage
Now a brief political message. John McCain is the one presidential candidate who is enough of a rebel to break with his party on some of that party's stupid ideas. To get elected he has toned down some of his rebellion but it is still in his nature to say "that is stupid" when his party is wrong.
Understand that both parties have good ideas and bad ideas and ideas that are good for some and bad for others and that is how they manipulate for a majority so someone who will not support that party's bad ideas is a step in the right direction.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dtknowles
It will be a tyranny of the majority, this is a democracy after all. Whatever the ruling class (politicians and media) can convince the majority of the voters is a good idea will be forced on general population.
This is a myth, and it is exactly why a straight democracy can lead to bad things.
We have a constitutional republic, where the rights of the minority are protected just as well as those of the majority.
We elect our leaders by democracy, but our governmental system is a constitutional republic.0 -
quote:Originally posted by lpaalp
There's something to this. Group health insurance is based on the concept of equalizing risk, but, in reality, why should my reasonable life style cost be the same as that of an obese smoker?
In reality, you know the real world, my choices should not effect you at all if I want to walk around smoking a fat bean burrito its none of your damn business!
quote:Originally posted by lpaalp
Government subsidized "assistance" must be equally available to all citizens. However, since my tax dollars pay those costs, should I (logically) be taxed as heavily as the obese smoker?
Government has not business subsidizing ANYTHING! Government SHOULD provide ZERO assistance, so your argument is ass backwards right from the beginning!
quote:Originally posted by lpaalp
I feel the same way about this as I do many other entitlement programs; I don't mind helping the poor/unfortunate, but only so long as they do their part to become not poor/unfortunate.
I MIND, use your own money then you can worry about who your supporting, but dont you worry your little heart about me cause i dont want your damn money, I WANT you and your government to choke on a chicken bone!
quote:Originally posted by lpaalp
This is a very poor attempt to level the playing field, but it is an effort.
First thing I agree with, it was VERY POOR! The government and people who think like you need to be abolished!0 -
ya ya im a fat man but i never eat out so to HELL with them all..[xx(][xx(] 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
43 comments