Society/Culture Should the obese population have to pay a fat tax?

[Clay Davis]

I guess you didn't read the link, Andre or Jade's. Not surprising.

Sitting down in an office job all day had worse health effects than overeating or not exercising. From the article:

But what is fascinating is that the relationship between sitting time and mortality was independent of physical activity levels. In fact, individuals who sat the most were roughly 50% more likely to die during the follow-up period than individuals who sat the least, even after controlling for age, smoking, and physical activity levels. Further analyses suggested that the relationship between sitting time and mortality was also independent of body weight. This suggests that all things being equal (body weight, physical activity levels, smoking, alcohol intake, age, and sex) the person who sits more is at a higher risk of death than the person who sits less.

No cop out or crock. Actual science. Why no tax on sitting at work?

 

[Jade's]

I guess you didn't read the link, Andre or Jade's. Not surprising.

Sitting down in an office job all day had worse health effects than overeating or not exercising. From the article:



No cop out or crock. Actual science. Why no tax on sitting at work?

No mention of food in there

 

[Clay Davis]

No mention of food in there

Why does there need to be a mention of food?

I'd love to know what the actual, direct costs borne by the health system are caused by obesity, excluding whatever the normal costs are related to the general process of aging and death. As always, nanny staters get quite fast and loose with the truth and quote ridiculous indirect 'costs' like bereavement.

 

[Andre]

Sitting down in an office job all day had worse health effects than overeating or not exercising.

Interesting, from the article though:

So while it makes intuitive sense that being sedentary reduces energy expenditure, it is likely through the reduction of very light intensity physical activity (e.g. standing, walking at a slow pace), rather than by reducing the volume of what we typically think of as exercise. This may also help explain why the relationship between sedentary behavior and health risk are often independent of moderate or vigorous physical activity.

Increased Food Intake

In addition to reducing our energy expenditure, sedentary behaviors may also promote excess food intake.

Obviously if you are sitting down your total energy expended each day is less then if you are moving around - even if it's just standing behind a counter or cleaning floors. And that bone loss can be offset by exercise, particularly doing weights. So for a sedentary individual they are behind the 8 ball from the start in total caloric expenditure, whilst also likely eating more.

Heck, walking through the city each day I can see from how people are dressed that white collar job types are more prevalent in the overweight / obese ranks then the already high overall numbers.

Although prolonged sitting is frowned upon these days in theory anyway, with it recommended you at least stand up and have a stretch or the like every 15 minutes, so again you could argue if people hit problems due to it, it's through not doing actions they should, rather than like food an office job being unavoidably an evil that isn't anyone's fault.

 

[Jade's]

I'd love to know what the actual, direct costs borne by the health system are caused by obesity, excluding whatever the normal costs are related to the general process of aging and death. As always, nanny staters get quite fast and loose with the truth and quote ridiculous indirect 'costs' like bereavement.

So you believe that obesity causes minimal health issues that wouldnt already occur?

 

[Clay Davis]

Although prolonged sitting is frowned upon these days in theory anyway, with it recommended you at least stand up and have a stretch or the like every 15 minutes, so again you could argue if people hit problems due to it, it's through not doing actions they should, rather than like food an office job being unavoidably an evil that isn't anyone's fault.

How does a truck driver, taxi driver, air traffic controller, etc, do this? A number of jobs require long periods of sitting without breaks. I'm not sure the health costs of these careers need an extra tax imposed upon them because you don't like fat people.

So you believe that obesity causes minimal health issues that wouldnt already occur?

I think its effect is overstated. Australia currently has the second highest life expectancy in the world, yet we are constantly told about things that will give us heart attacks, cause cancer, make us fat, with urgings that the government do something about all these problems. There has rarely been a country healthier than Australia in human history, but reading the news or listening to government, you'd get an alternative impression. There are other agendas at play here - nothing to do with the country's overall wellbeing or health budget.

 

[Northalives]

Andre and Jade's: great contribution to this most pressing of issues.
Whilst it would be wonderful to be able to snap one's fingers and make the problem cease, as we all are aware, that's impossible.
The important thing in the future is for there not to be an obesity epidemic. What I'm trying to say is that prevention is far, far better than trying to cure this type of thing.
We have to start doing something as a nation now so that the next generation of citizens will not be struggling with the same epidemic as we are.
As I said previously, you cannot legislate for attitude. To change an attitude requires changing a behaviour in order to change an attitude.

 

[nicky]

What about implementing a 1 child policy for people on welfare?

 

[Donners]

What about implementing a 1 child policy for people on welfare?

Then we'd have to bump up immigration something fierce just to keep the population number stable, because they produce a fair portion of the nation's babies.

 

[Andre]

What about implementing a 1 child policy for people on welfare?

In what regard? I'm sensing sarcasm, but certainly implementing changes that discourage the 4th kid by the 3rd father wouldn't go astray. Social engineering to encourage more children by married working people and less by those whose sole income is welfare would pay long term dividends for the country in reduced youth crime, higher employment and a better trained workforce.

 

[Northalives]

What about implementing a 1 child policy for people on welfare?

How about eating fat rich kids?

 

[BarneyBent]

I think its effect is overstated. Australia currently has the second highest life expectancy in the world, yet we are constantly told about things that will give us heart attacks, cause cancer, make us fat, with urgings that the government do something about all these problems. There has rarely been a country healthier than Australia in human history, but reading the news or listening to government, you'd get an alternative impression. There are other agendas at play here - nothing to do with the country's overall wellbeing or health budget.

You don't think the fact that we have the money to fund ridiculously good healthcare programs and facilities has anything to do with that?

GDP is highly correlated with obesity, because more money = more food. GDP is also highly correlated with life expectancy, because more money = better healthcare. That isn't evidence that obesity doesn't negatively impact on health, because it doesn't show the cost of obesity to the healthcare system, which is wrapped up in the GDP - life expectancy relationship.

But, to try to sort through this relationship using VERY basic analysis, take a look at the top 5 countries for life expectancy according to Wikipedia: Japan, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Israel and Iceland.

Going off this source: http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/07/worlds-fattest-countries-forbeslife-cx_ls_0208worldfat_3.html

1. Japan - Ranked 163rd fattest in the world, out of 194, and alongside Singapore is the thinnest developed country by quite some margin.
2. Hong Kong - No stats there, presumably because it's a part of China, but I found a stat that had obesity rates at roughly 5% in 1995, which is only slightly above Japan. So very low as well. For argument's sake, 150.
3. Switzerland - ranked 63rd.
4. Israel - ranked 50th. Quite high, relatively speaking, but still very low when compared to its ranking in life expectancy.
5. Iceland - ranked 40th. Again, relatively high, but still very low overall.


So, not a particularly powerful analysis, but somewhat informative nonetheless, the ratios of life-expectancy rank to fatness rank for the top 5 countries in life expectancy are: 1:163, 1:~75 (estimate), 1:21, 2:25 and 1:8.

That produces an average ratio of about 1:20. Obviously, that doesn't tell you anything about the extent of the correlation between obesity and life expectancy, as the comparison is based on rankings, not raw data. What it does tell you, however, is that nations with a high life expectancy ranking are always lower on the ranking for obesity. Also keep in mind that this average ratio is hugely biased against my argument, as the difference when working out ratios between nations ranked 1 to 5 is gigantic, when the difference in actual life expectancy across these rankings is relatively small compared to the overall range.

You could group the top 5 together as essentially one, and then average out the obesity rankings, which produces an average ranking of 93 in the world for the top 5.

However you want to look at these stats (and I'm sure there are proper statistical analyses out there), one thing is clear: the fact that some countries have high obesity AND high life expectancy is not a valid argument against the proposition that obesity is damaging for health.

For the record, Australia is ranked 6th in life expectancy (according to that Wikipedia list), and 21st in obesity. Somewhat of an anomaly in the overall life expectancy: obesity rankings, which very much follow the pattern of the top 5, but still, the rank in obesity is much lower than life expectancy, and Australia has one of the best healthcare systems and is equipped with some of the best facilities in the world, helping curb the impact of obesity on life expectancy (at great cost to the taxpayer, which is what this whole fat tax is about).

 

[nicky]

I don't think anyone can argue that there are no health risks to being obese but taxing people for it is cruel.

The pollyana's in this thread who preach about diet and exercise and how great they are really need a reality check.

I'm open to the government enforcing a healthcare tax directly on fast food conglomorates. No need for them to put their prices up either. These companies are making the world fat. They take advantage of human's biological drive to maximise benefit and minimise effort, which means we're naturally more attracted to calorie dense foods when we're hungry.

 

[Old Skool]

I'd be interested to see any socioeconomic factors behind obesity.

The global obesity pandemic has been well-documented and widely discussed by the public, the media, health officials, the food industry and academic researchers. While the problem is widely recognised, the potential solutions are far less clear. There is only limited evidence to guide decisions as to how best to manage obesity in individuals and in populations. While widely viewed as a clinical and public health problem in developed countries, it is now clear that many developing countries also have to grapple with this problem or face the crippling healthcare costs resulting from obesity-related morbidity. There is also abundant evidence that obesity is socio-economically distributed. In developed countries persons of lower socio-economic position are more likely to be affected, while in developing countries, it is often those of higher socio-economic position who are overweight or obese. The aim of this paper is to briefly review the evidence that links socio-economic position and obesity, to discuss what is known about underlying mechanisms, and to consider the role of social, physical, policy and cultural environments in explaining the relationships between socio-economic position and obesity. We introduce the concept of ‘resilience’ as a potential theoretical construct to guide research efforts aimed at understanding how some socio-economically disadvantaged individuals manage to avoid obesity. We conclude by considering an agenda to guide future research and programs focused on understanding and reducing obesity among those of low socio-economic position.

http://dro.deakin.edu.au/view/DU:30003678

As usual, it's all about cost and education.

 

[nicky]

In what regard? I'm sensing sarcasm, but certainly implementing changes that discourage the 4th kid by the 3rd father wouldn't go astray. Social engineering to encourage more children by married working people and less by those whose sole income is welfare would pay long term dividends for the country in reduced youth crime, higher employment and a better trained workforce.

Great idea! The government could impose a heavy tax on unmarried women pregnant (who are on welfare) for every child after their first or offer them a free abortion. Or we (as the taxpayers) could threaten to withhold their centrelink payments.

I believe this gets to the heart of the issue as it would increase the overall average skills in Australia as well as indirectly improve the obesity pandemic, given that the problem is greater in low income families.

 

[Donners]

I'd be interested to see any socioeconomic factors behind obesity.



As usual, it's all about cost and education.

Is it really?

I think the cost argument can be easily shot down; it is not hard at all to obtain fresh fruit and vegetables at a very low cost.

As for education, while some people may lack the basic understanding required to read labels, I don't think many out there who do not realise that exercise and fresh food are better for them than idleness and processed gunk. It's very basic common sense, not to mention something which is constantly hammered home by the media.

I would think that lack of effort would be at least as much of a factor as those you mention, which may also go some way to explaining why some people remain trapped in those low socio-economic positions.

 

[Old Skool]

Good reply, but then we are confronted with the socioeconomic factors behind apathy.

 

[Pixies]

perhaps the tax should only be levied at the time of medical treatment?

i.e if the doctor determines that an illness is a direct result of obesity (obesity that cannot be attributed to genetics/other illnesses) then medicare will only a certain % of the costs and the remainder would have to be cover by the individual or their private health insurance.

this would still have the effect of encouraging people to get healthy so that they are not put in the position of covering medical expenses themselves, whilst not punishing those who may be classed as obese but are otherwise do not experience any weight related health problems.

 

[Donners]

If we are to punish people for behaviour which incurs medical costs, why single out obesity?

Those who spend too much time tanning should be taxed for skin cancers.
Those who are at fault in car accidents should be taxed for any resulting injuries.
Those who suffer household accidents should be taxed for their carelessness.
Those who are not obese but still suffer illnesses from lack of exercise/poor eating should be taxed.

Where would it end?

I would still advocate focusing on the source. Treat it like alcohol or cigarettes. Target saturated/trans fats.

 

[Clay Davis]

You don't think the fact that we have the money to fund ridiculously good healthcare programs and facilities has anything to do with that?

Well, according to the most recent survey by the UN, Australia ranks second in life expectancy, only behind Japan.

Australia scores spectacularly well on life expectancy with 82 years, second only to Japan, which has 83.

But in terms of health spending as a proportion of GDP, Australia is far down the list, not even making the top 20 in the OECD (Australia spends around 8.5% of GDP on health care. Japan spends only a fraction smaller).

Seems the 'outcomes' are as good as possible without any need to redress an overfunding of health care to reach those outcomes.

Those obesity stats are meaningless. We're healthy, and we're not paying obscene amounts of money to be healthy. Where's the need for a new tax?

 

[nicky]

I would think that lack of effort would be at least as much of a factor as those you mention, which may also go some way to explaining why some people remain trapped in those low socio-economic positions.

Wow, do you really believe that?

 

[nicky]

Is it really?

I think the cost argument can be easily shot down; it is not hard at all to obtain fresh fruit and vegetables at a very low cost.

As for education, while some people may lack the basic understanding required to read labels, I don't think many out there who do not realise that exercise and fresh food are better for them than idleness and processed gunk. It's very basic common sense, not to mention something which is constantly hammered home by the media.

I would think that lack of effort would be at least as much of a factor as those you mention, which may also go some way to explaining why some people remain trapped in those low socio-economic positions.

Wow, just wow..

Good reply, but then we are confronted with the socioeconomic factors behind apathy.

I also think there's a correlation between utter stupidity and right wing ideological tripe.

To suggest inherrant laziness is to blame for a low socio economic position is madness. It's cyclical.

I just found out (from my neighbours after enquiring about all the bogan fights coming from the flats behind my place) that there is ministry of housing right behind me - great!! So i get to hear some incredible fights, including, things being thrown from balconies, every swear word imagineable and little todlers crying, traumatised and confused about what's going on.

I was really upset when i could hear the kid involved and it dawned on me that the fighting parents would have experienced what this little kid was going through now. MOre than likely, in 20 years time that little kid will be having those kind of fights with a girl from a similar background.

To say that laziness, is the driving factor behind that life is naive, you have no idea what you're on about.

 

[Donners]

Wow, do you really believe that?

Yep. My grandparents were absolute working class, no money to spare, scraping and saving for the bare essentials.

They raised nine children, every one who is a professional, every one self-sufficient and successful in their field, and carrying on that trend through their children.

Merely having little money or wealth is not the same as being bogan and does not necessarily mean that children will be exposed to violence, abuse and the like. THAT is naive.

Even then, people can still break out of it. I have dealt with many people with horrific backgrounds. Some broke out of them through sheer force of will, and did far better than people with more privileged backgrounds (in the case of one of my closest friends, far better than her siblings who had the same upbringing - she simply had the insight and self-respect to not go down their path). Some didn't, of course, but to just write off people because of their background is offensive.

Is laziness the sole factor in maintaining a low socio-economic status? Of course not. Never suggested it was. Can determination and hard-work break people out of a cycle? Sometimes, yes. Can a lack of effort (possibly, but not always, resulting through a lack of hope) lead to being trapped in it? Absolutely.

 

[Docker Clint]

My brother would weigh 70kg dripping wet, is 185cm or so, and couldn't run a lap around an oval to save his life. Has been to hospital several times for whatever random illness his body decides to throw up at the time.

On the other hand, I have a BMI (bullshit way to measure if someone is overweight I know, but how else do you propose?) over 25, but ride 20km, walk 3km, and am constantly lifting heavy objects, every single day. I've never been to hospital for any illness.

Going to tax me over my brother?



Who's going to eat a nice fist sized dollop of mashed lard with their Steak?

Everyone has a story of a relative that smoked and drank till they were 100 years old with no ill effects, but the fact remains that obesity on the whole will lead to a variety of conditions that will shorten the lives of the majority. Should the dangers of binge drinking or smoking not be advertised because of the exceptions to the rule?

Anyway, a body fat test might be more applicable in your case than BMI. BMI tells us that body builders are obese, so it's not always a good guide of someone's health risks.

 

[Northalives]

Yep. My grandparents were absolute working class, no money to spare, scraping and saving for the bare essentials.

They raised nine children, every one who is a professional, every one self-sufficient and successful in their field, and carrying on that trend through their children.

Merely having little money or wealth is not the same as being bogan and does not necessarily mean that children will be exposed to violence, abuse and the like. THAT is naive.

Even then, people can still break out of it. I have dealt with many people with horrific backgrounds. Some broke out of them through sheer force of will, and did far better than people with more privileged backgrounds (in the case of one of my closest friends, far better than her siblings who had the same upbringing - she simply had the insight and self-respect to not go down their path). Some didn't, of course, but to just write off people because of their background is offensive.

Is laziness the sole factor in maintaining a low socio-economic status? Of course not. Never suggested it was. Can determination and hard-work break people out of a cycle? Sometimes, yes. Can a lack of effort (possibly, but not always, resulting through a lack of hope) lead to being trapped in it? Absolutely.

Your grandparents hey?
They were living in the years of full employment and although times were tough, there were things like sense of community, pride in working and helping each other out.
Fast forward half a century and it is now the law of the jungle. We have second and third generation unemployed, that is, parents and their parents were unemployed. We have the "new world order" where greed, materialism reigns supreme and "rip them off before they rip you off" and if you get away with crime, you are feted.

Multi and trans nationals run rough shod over our society and you try and place the same criteria as that of the 50's and 60's on todays population.