Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
Article on "Fat Faye"
Surgoshan:
But the things that cause their lower lifespans (diabetes, heart disease, cancer) are damn expensive while they're still alive.
evernew:
Surgoshan said exactly what I was gonna say. Unhealthy people don't just drop dead like they were shot. They decay and it's messy and there's a lot of blood and mucousy substances involved. It's not pretty.
I am from Germany (it was relevant a few posts ago). We don't have as many big people as the States if you can believe those fancy-schmancy statistics but we're getting there. All the signs are there. Shops catering exclusively to obese people. I've witnessed a fatass getting preferential seating on a plane because he couldn't fit into any other damn seat on the entire plane.
Enough of that, though.
One of the reasons why I'm so pissed off about fat people and smokers getting treatment out of the public healthcare is that they are a) aware that they're submitting themselves to health risks and b) that they choose to incur these risks individually but as soon as disaster strikes they want it to be paid by the public.
Hell, I like dangerous and unhealthy stuff, too. But I know that a snowboarding injury will come out of my pocket. (We also have a substantial private healthcare system which is pretty important.)
Now instead of discussing whether snowboarding is actually better for you than being fat or smoking I'll propose that either _all_ of the treatments for those lifestyle-related health risks should be covered under public healthcare - or _none_ of them.
Smokers cost a lot of money. But it remains legal (even though smokers are getting cornered increasingly these days) because they also make a lot of money for poppa federal budget.
Again I'm going knee-deep into that individual choice vs. social costs debate.
My brother and me once discussed a 'license for dangerous living' which you have to apply for and, once you pass medical and psychological exams etc., you are allowed to speed, do soft drugs etc. It's a beautiful concept because it accounts for people having different tolerances for addiction etc. It fails in reality because all the dangerous things you could do potentially affect other people as well (best example is speeding). This is the case with smoking and, more and more so, this is the case with obesity.
Instead of rambling out seemingly random thoughts on the issue, I'll stop now. Maybe 10 to 20 years down the road I'll write a book about it. "What Evernew Thinks About Smoking, Being Fat And Other Dangers To Society." Keep your eyes peeled.
brew:
--- Quote from: Surgoshan on 09 Jul 2008, 17:45 ---But the things that cause their lower lifespans (diabetes, heart disease, cancer) are damn expensive while they're still alive.
--- End quote ---
Old people get those things too; they just get them later. Fat people still cost less overall when you look at their lifetime health care, though it may be more concentrated.
Whether or not this is relevant is another story, as it depends on how much they're contributing themselves to the costs. But I don't think it's so cut-and-dry that they're draining our tax dollars.
Is it cold in here?:
Here's an attempt to put numbers on lifetime health costs of obesity:
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029&ct=1
Back to Faye, I see her in the range of 25-30% body fat, with a weakness for comfort food (#214, #470).
Rocketman:
--- Quote from: roxie_vinyl on 15 Jul 2008, 09:22 ---If you're a little overweight like Faye, I don't see an issue. However, people I know who are significantly overweight and endangering their health bother me. I want to tell them that this decision to eat just to eat has significantly shortened their lifespan--was it really worth those extra sandwiches ?
--- End quote ---
Sure. You only lost the crappy years at the end anyway. :-P
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version