Being Fat is Now Illegal in Japan

[Coach Sommer]

L1hqHo6lyUU

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

[Razz]

Crazy!! Will be exciting to see how it plays out..

[RatioFitness]

This is something that people don't realize is inevitable with socialized care. Eventually, costs will continue to rise and measures such as this, along with criminalization of certain types of food will begin to take place. It's very easy to justify under socialism because if the government is paying for your care then it seems natural that they should have the right to tell you what to do with your own body. Plus, the criminalization of drugs lends further credence to this position since the government can say, "We already don't allow you to ingest certain substances so why would it be a problem to extend that to ice cream?"

I find it to be an affront to liberty.

[Joshua Naterman]

I find this to be the most fantastic thing anyone has ever done since the 1200's. The ancient Celts had a similar law: Anyone with a waist over 34" had to pay extra taxes.

Outside of the inconvenience of not being able to walk around some people when going up the escalator (O_o) I can't help but have the following opinions:

1) When people are morbidly obese they are at enormously elevated risk for numerous diseases, both acute and chronic. The rising rate of disease is what is driving our insurance prices up, completely independently of any possible federalization of the system. Many people are sick and on medications that cost a lot of money, many have expensive surgeries and many people are going to the doctor far more than they would be if they kept themselves healthy. In my opinion it is an affront to MY liberty that someone should have the "right" to make themselves so fat and sick that I end up having to pay higher premiums just so the insurance company can justify the insurance of this fat person.

2) It is the responsibility of the FDA to protect our public from toxic substances and to look out for our general health. So far they have failed miserably for a variety of reasons, but the single greatest reason is the lack of regulation regarding CHRONIC toxins. This would mean everything from excess sugars to the gases used to sanitize nuts. People will eat whatever is cheapest, and right now the cheapest stuff is total crap. It's all fast carbs, trans fats and sugar (also a fast carb). Nothing is done regarding liver toxicity of foods over long periods of time, not even a warning that something called "non-alcohol-related cirrhosis" even exists and that it can come from excess carb and especially excess fructose consumption over a period of years or decades. In my opinion the US government is directly responsible for their own lack of investment in the public welfare.

3) We all know that, by and large, people will eat what they are used to and what they like and what is popular, not necessarily what is healthy. Whether we are socialized or not (and this is not an argument for socialized medicine, that's a separate issue that I have separate opinions about) we all end up paying for the rising cost of health care. It can't be avoided. We can't make the tests less expensive because we, the public, do not set the prices. What we CAN do, what we should do, and if necessary what we should be FORCED to do is make it easier and more affordable to eat healthy foods than it is to eat unhealthy foods.

The quality of life that people currently have would shoot through the roof. Everyone would be sexier, there would be less depression because there would be less people upset about how they look or the attention they are or are not getting, insurance would be cheaper, if you DID have a problem you could get treated MUCH faster because there wouldn't be so many people in line, and on the business side this would be a huge economic boost. Tons of water would be saved because corn and sugar cane are the two most water-intensive crops you can grow. Water problems solved (at least patially, and crops are the biggest part of this problem). New small businesses would open and grow into large chains, driving investment portfolios up as well as bringing more money into local communities. The existing chains could simply switch to better foods, as they are slowly doing anyways, and see the same or better profits (which is happening now as it is). There would be more small organic farms, producing more crops per acre. Eventually someone would actually start making high rise organic hydroponic farms and we wouldn't even NEED pesticides, even organic ones. Crop yield would rise, harvests would be far less weather dependent, and we would be able to plant trees and make beautiful places that could help stabilize the global environment as well as drive tourism. Hell, we would have space to start making eco-friendly cities that we can start moving people to from the coastal cities that WILL end up underwater as that process begins. The positives go on and on: financially, politically, economically and on a personal level these changes would be for the best.

Of course I know I am a dreamer, but I will keep dreaming. What we have become, as a people, is disheartening. I prefer what might be, no matter how unlikely it is to happen on a large scale, to what is and what most likely will be. That's all I can say.

[RatioFitness]

1) When people are morbidly obese they are at enormously elevated risk for numerous diseases, both acute and chronic. The rising rate of disease is what is driving our insurance prices up, completely independently of any possible federalization of the system.

Source: http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordp ... st-crisis/

Many people are sick and on medications that cost a lot of money, many have expensive surgeries and many people are going to the doctor far more than they would be if they kept themselves healthy. In my opinion it is an affront to MY liberty that someone should have the "right" to make themselves so fat and sick that I end up having to pay higher premiums just so the insurance company can justify the insurance of this fat person.

Under a socialized system this is the problem. When you are forced to be in the system it's really not unreasonable to claim that what other people do with their bodies is your business.

However, you are still free to opt out. So, I don't see it as an affront to your liberty. You are free to opt out and get a low cost major medical plan, supplemented by a HSA. This is the best course of action for young, fit folks such as yourself. Of course, the government is trying to make such options difficult.

[RatioFitness]

In my opinion it is an affront to MY liberty that someone should have the "right" to make themselves so fat and sick that I end up having to pay higher premiums just so the insurance company can justify the insurance of this fat person.

Here's an analysis of who pays for obesity:

http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.25.1.139

Some quotes from the article:

In this paper, we have emphasized that the classic Pigovian case for intervention— that social welfare can be improved if those who impose externalities on others are required to internalize the social costs—does not apply especially well to obesity. In employer-provided health insurance pools, being obese causes limited externality harm because obese individuals likely pay the costs of their body weight through reduced wages. In public health insurance, there is an implicit transfer from thin people to obese people, but this transfer is progressive and seems unlikely to induce substantial social loss.

...

[A] way in which the obese “subsidize†the thin is, presumably, by dying earlier and not claiming as much in Social Security benefits.

[Philip Chubb]

Not sure they die THAT much earlier considering how much has to be spent for every year they are alive. I will have to look at the graph on my computer but I doubt that the cost is that small either directly or indirectly. I agree with Sliz. I don't enjoy paying for people who don't take care of themselves. Why should my earned money that I spend half of taking care of my health go to someone who doesn't?

[Scott Malin]

I think it is a nice ideal, but I question the approach. My experience has been that the person loses the weight, not the body. McDonalds doesn't make you fat. Habits and attitudes do. What I've learned through helping individuals slim down is that humans and animals respond far better to incentive than penalty, and while this law may or may not work for Japanese culture, what benefit is there from potentially turning a part of the population into outcasts? It's easy to label someone "fat" and look down on them for how it may affect you financially. It takes something more to understand them and why they have arrived there and approach changing that. Treating someone as fat will rarely make them lose the weight. Treating them as a person will.

[Philip Chubb]

Treating someone as fat will rarely make them lose the weight. Treating them as a person will.

Everyone is different though, would you agree, some people will not get anywhere if you're taking this attitude. I have had clients with this issue and tried to be nice with them but no changes. But on the other hand, a good kick to the rear was exactly what got in in shape.

Poliquin wrote something great about this. It was about love. You either love doughnuts more than a flat and ripped stomach or you love abs that you could do your laundry on more than doughnuts. I think that holds true. McDonalds doesn't make you fat, but the love for it and decision to keep putting it into your body will.

[Scott Malin]

Everyone is different though, would you agree, some people will not get anywhere if you're taking this attitude. I have had clients with this issue and tried to be nice with them but no changes. But on the other hand, a good kick to the rear was exactly what got in in shape.

Poliquin wrote something great about this. It was about love. You either love doughnuts more than a flat and ripped stomach or you love abs that you could do your laundry on more than doughnuts. I think that holds true. McDonalds doesn't make you fat, but the love for it and decision to keep putting it into your body will.

My previous post wasn't aimed at you btw. Just happened to write yours same time. You can be nice and still have high expectations of a person. I'm by far not the cheerleader type. It's about how you deliver the kick to the rear, though. I had the philosophy that my clients shouldn't need me and be self sufficient after having worked together. What I've seen is that the people who lose weight because they've been treated like dirt with "tough love" gain it back as soon as the external force is gone.

I look at it more as how can a client learn to respect themselves if you do not respect them? The Poliquin article is a way of putting fancy words together, but really how does that help you with a client other than putting them down? It doesn't say why they love something; and in most clients I've had, they hate the habits and weight. Stating that they simply don't love washboard abs enough doesn't do anything towards changing.You might say more it's about helping them gain back control of their lives.

[Joshua Naterman]

1) When people are morbidly obese they are at enormously elevated risk for numerous diseases, both acute and chronic. The rising rate of disease is what is driving our insurance prices up, completely independently of any possible federalization of the system.

Source: http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordp ... st-crisis/

Many people are sick and on medications that cost a lot of money, many have expensive surgeries and many people are going to the doctor far more than they would be if they kept themselves healthy. In my opinion it is an affront to MY liberty that someone should have the "right" to make themselves so fat and sick that I end up having to pay higher premiums just so the insurance company can justify the insurance of this fat person.

Under a socialized system this is the problem. When you are forced to be in the system it's really not unreasonable to claim that what other people do with their bodies is your business.

However, you are still free to opt out. So, I don't see it as an affront to your liberty. You are free to opt out and get a low cost major medical plan, supplemented by a HSA. This is the best course of action for young, fit folks such as yourself. Of course, the government is trying to make such options difficult.

I have that, actually. The price still goes up as more people seek treatment. That picture is there in approximately zero actual explanation as to what "obesity-related costs" are. There is no arguing the increase in risk factors for all kinds of disease from cancer of all kinds to diabetes to heart disease. There are also hidden problems like the increased forces on the joints that make any dysfunctional movements (Which is made worse and sometimes is precipitated by excess bodyweight alone) much more damaging to the joints. Hip problems, knee problems, foot orthotics, injuries that come from the inability to handle one's bodyweight quickly enough to avoid a bad fall, the injuries that come when one is weak or unbalanced from diabetes or chemotherapy and the illnesses that come from the same. There are layers and layers, and we all know that what I am saying has truth in it. It is not the entire cost, but there is no reason for the increased cost of medical care that is not tied to the increased rate of disease. There are, of course, separate costs associated with new organizations involved with healthcare and the associated increase in paperwork. I am not denying that, nor denying that the many existing layers of paperwork are an enormous and to some extent unnecessary financial burden in and of themselves. That does have to be dealt with, but they are two separate issues. I can see how my initial statement could be taken to mean that I do not understand this. I do.

As for those statistics, regardless of what the truth is... the JUSTIFICATION, the REASON GIVEN is the rising cost of patient care. It is the excuse for everything from proposed socialist healthcare plans to the rise in private insurance premiums over the years.

If we take away that REASON by keeping ourselves fit and eating healthy food to keep a healthy weight (or more accurately a healthy BF %), the insurance companies will have no choice but to make up different excuses which can then be challenged and forced to be altered. Currently, the reason stated is the rise in patient care. Of course there are concerns regarding nationalization, which will require EVERYONE to be cared for, but the problem there is that the uninsured are the poorest and most obese part of the population. That puts them at extremely elevated risk for all sorts of problems... I'd raise my premiums too if I had to provide care to a known unhealthy population.

My ex-girlfriend is an insurance salesperson and as such gets trained on all this ona regular and on-going basis. I can tell you, for sure, that what I am saying is no exaggeration. Health care has steadily gotten more expensive year after year regardless of government policies. This is in line with the increase in disease, including obesity. If obesity were eliminated through lifestyle changes we would not have anywhere near the financial burden that we currently do as individual health care consumers.

On the doctor side, insurance providers wouldn't have to fight so hard to pay so little per patient if they weren't asked to pay for so many people who CLEARLY are going to need quite a lot of (usually) expensive treatment. The decrease in payouts does hurt physician income and patient quality of service, which in turn hurts patient compliance and treatment results and so we have all kinds of problems. The one thing that we, the people, definitely have control over is our obesity, diet and fitness status. I agree that there are more issues to be tackled but this is one thing that we CAN do on our own, without anyone else getting involved.

Cory is right, the approach matters, but fear incentives work. So do reward incentives, but when do you see people make changes? When they are told their liver is failing. When they have that heart attack. When their bones start breaking under their own weight. When they finally realize that they can no longer have the life they want until they change. They change because they are more afraid of the consequences of their continued path than they are afraid of the changes that must be made. A sad majority of people fall into this category. Some truly enjoy the benefits of being healthy, some just want to look cute (which is a fear of NOT being cute) badly enough to stay in reasonable condition, but most need a stronger fear factor. If they start facing job loss or pay reductions, or preferably a lack of continued insurance coverage without consistent results from whatever they have to do to lose weight (with appropriate assistance from their coverage to cover a lap band and exercise and a weight loss clinic if any or all of that is necessary), which I realize is not currently in place and probably won't be for as long as I am alive.

A combination approach is best, but people simply don't care about monetary rewards when compared to the brain chemistry that rewards the consumption of unhealthy foods! It is unfortunate, but fear of monetary penalty or social isolation is going to be an important component in the social change. I do think that there needs to be a strong positive component to this that is experienced as well but without the fear of loss being greater than the reward of eating garbage food, change will not take place for the majority of people who are currently obese or overweight.

The people who step into a clinic or training facility are the outliers, not the majority. If the reverse were true we'd see crowded fitness or weight loss centers on every corner and only a few people by comparison becoming or staying obese. I see the reverse on statistical maps as well as my local streets.

[Philip Chubb]

My previous post wasn't aimed at you btw. Just happened to write yours same time. You can be nice and still have high expectations of a person.

Oh of course, my friend. I am enjoying our conversation. Even though it seems there are two happening in one thread.

I find people don't really care when the issue can be put off. There is a gym (I forgot it's name) that charges members who don't come in at least once or twice a week. If you miss the week, you cough up an extra ten dollars. This rarely happens because they know if they don't make it in now, they are going to owe money. It is contrary to the people who are okay with putting it off. Apparently, this gym realized that people are afraid of consequences that are going to happen now. And not so much ones that will happen in the far future. It is similar to obese people now, if they are given an immediate incentive (positive or negative) to get the weight off and keep it off, then they will work harder to avoid it, or they won't and they will pay more to cover the cost of what their unhealthy habits are doing. Does this seem fair?

Or just let people live their lives how they choose to do so and keep your value judgments directed towards yourself. You don't have control on when you enter or exit (to an extent) this word, but you do have control of everything in between. It's always interesting when someone other than yourself attempts to take control of the "in between."

Humans by nature are not stupid. We (most) know that certain behaviors/habits come at some level of risk. If someone chose to be 400lbs and sit around playing video games their entire life - who cares? Why does it bother you so much.

Think of it this way, you go to work and you put in long hard hours doing something you don't completely enjoy doing. After two weeks, you get your paycheck AND your bills, you pay your bills with your check but wait, part of it got taken out to cover for people's care who aren't taking care of themselves. This could be money for you that you could use to improve yourself and make yourself happy. So it's okay for them to be happy and content but I am making less money because they don't take care of their bodies? If it didn't affect anyone else, no one would care. But since it does, people do. That is why it bothers me so much.

[Rafael David]

This is a nice thing IMHO. This law show how much Japan take care of their people. Is like a doctor saying to a patient: "Hey, you are sick and I'll give the medicine, no matter what, this is the law and that's for your wellness."

[griffdrc]

I think it's funny that it's always skinny people that are in favor of a 'fat' tax.

The way to do it is not to tax the individual... measures like waist circumference can be poor measures of health...

If you are in favor of an 'unhealthy' tax, then tax all items and activities that are deemed 'unhealthy'... it's only fair. Why punish the food industry?

[RatioFitness]

If you are in favor of an 'unhealthy' tax, then tax all items and activities that are deemed 'unhealthy'... it's only fair. Why punish the food industry?

You tell us... you're the one that just suggested it.

[Joshua Naterman]

I think it's funny that it's always skinny people that are in favor of a 'fat' tax.

The way to do it is not to tax the individual... measures like waist circumference can be poor measures of health...

If you are in favor of an 'unhealthy' tax, then tax all items and activities that are deemed 'unhealthy'... it's only fair. Why punish the food industry?

I agree, that's why I really think that yearly bod pod measurements would be awesome! But I wouldn't mind if we had to pay extra taxes if we didn't hit the gym twice a week for 30-45 minutes at least. I also wouldn't mind if I had to pay 4 bucks for a snicker's bar. I'm willing to bet I'm in the minority on both counts!

[RatioFitness]

I think it's funny that it's always skinny people that are in favor of a 'fat' tax.

The way to do it is not to tax the individual... measures like waist circumference can be poor measures of health...

If you are in favor of an 'unhealthy' tax, then tax all items and activities that are deemed 'unhealthy'... it's only fair. Why punish the food industry?

I agree, that's why I really think that yearly bod pod measurements would be awesome! But I wouldn't mind if we had to pay extra taxes if we didn't hit the gym twice a week for 30-45 minutes at least. I also wouldn't mind if I had to pay 4 bucks for a snicker's bar. I'm willing to bet I'm in the minority on both counts!

What a boon this would be for gyms. You aren't perchance a lobbyist for some kind of association of gym owners or something, are you?

As to the practical application of your workout taxes, how will you verify that people have gone to the gym? What if they just sit there for 30 minutes then leave? What about people who workout regularly but don't belong to a gym? Will you force them to plunk down cash every month for a gym membership and attend the gym or face fines?

[Philip Chubb]

Personally, I agree that people should take an interest in their own health and well being. However, if someone makes the choice not to, it's their prerogative. Who am I to judge?

Instead of blaming the individual, blame the system that caters and encourages unhealthy habits. The system is there, they simply use it. Same with welfare, same with many of these world aide groups that just throw food at the problem. Stop creating dependency and things will take care of itself.

When your actions affect other people, then the judging starts. I don't care what people do, as long as it doesn't directly cause bad issues for others.

Why blame the system? The system doesn't force food into your throat. If it is, then yes, it is their fault, but unless they are IVing sugar into you, you are the only one who puts that food into your body or decides whether or not to work out. Everyone wants to cast the blame everywhere else but them. People don't like to have to change their lifestyles.

I think it's funny that it's always skinny people that are in favor of a 'fat' tax.

The way to do it is not to tax the individual... measures like waist circumference can be poor measures of health...

If you are in favor of an 'unhealthy' tax, then tax all items and activities that are deemed 'unhealthy'... it's only fair. Why punish the food industry?

I wasn't always skinny. And sugar addiction is a huge thing for me as well. I still believe it would be a good idea.

As for the gyms, I am not sure if the people even have to work out, but if you spend all that time going there, you have a much better chance of working out than if you were at home. It isn't perfect but it is a good try. Just like Japan is doing. Personally, I wouldn't mind candy, cake, cookies, and sweets getting taxed more either.

[Ian Legrow]

There are a lot opinions on this matter. It is very hard for me to post the way I feel simply because i do not want to hurt any feelings and I sincerely hope that nobody does get there feelings hurt because that is not my intention.

Let me start off by saying this so you know what i look like. I posted two pics in "show me your best picture" topic and anyone who looks at those pictures is automatically going to say one of two things, "Lucky bastard!" or "It must suck being that skinny, its almost to thin." That is just the automatic reaction. I want to say my body fat% is less then 5 the last time I checked. I am 6'0 and 134lbs. I have been what a lot of Dr. call underweight, my whole life, as has my sister. Part of the reason i stopped body building was because of the crap I got from other body builders. My wife is 2 years younger then me, 20, and she has recently gained weight and is up to 116lbs i think and she is 5'7. Sometimes people just get genes like this.

That being said, since trying to be healthy I have tried many different ways of eating, and have finally found one that is not only wonderful when it comes to price (because i live near an Asian Market in Allen near Dallas) but it actually has kept me more awake. It is the essay Coach posted about his In-laws and what they eat. I recommend looking at it.

I have been on both ends of the spectrum. When I was 16 I ate McDonald's every day for lunch for a week and a half. As i got older I did not bother eating anything healthy and always ate lots of salt, chips, and fat. And at 16 i was about 105lbs, and that weight never changed. I was 17 and doing the same thing, but i was working as a laborer in a warehouse and i was constantly tired. I think i was drinking 7 cups of coffee at that point. But i was constantly tired. Why? Because i was eating all unhealthy food, and would go home and lye down in bed and watch tv for 5 hours until it was time to go to sleep.

I whole heatedly agree with SLizz . he was also able to say something that i could not. I don't have any scientific more mathematical proof about what obesity is doing to this country, but what i do have is my own experience. I am 22 now and have been an off and on smoker since i was 16, and i am recently begun the process of stopping again. When i was at a pack and a half a day of cloves (cigarettes with fiber glass in them) i was breathing hard, as you can imagine, when it came to doing anything, even sitting. Everyone always told me i was dumb for doing it. but the people who always told me were the same people who were 80-90lbs overweight and breathing just as heavy. I am not saying we should tax fat people, that would be counter productive, I agree that we should tax/ban the unhealthy food and the companies that make them. That way, overweight people have no choice but to eat healthy and will therefore lose the weight more effectively, rather then having people basically tell them your illegal because your fat so pay the government money.

My wife has eaten healthy her whole life, but i have not. Even today she always has more energy then me because i still struggle sometimes with not eating those things i used to. but i tell you what, i feel a lot better, both physically and mentally. I had been eating healthy with "snacks" in between for about a year. But since really following a couple of diets for the last 2 months, and finally settling on the one Coach said his in-laws do, i have to say that wonderfully enough i have not even had the urge to smoke. Just gotta get teh coffee from 3-4 cups to 1 cup a day...oi! :wink:

[RatioFitness]

One problem with fat taxes is you have to take into account the propensity of humans to combat weight gain.

If you make it more expensive to eat high calorie/low nutrient foods, people will compensate by becoming less physically active.

If you subsidize low calorie/high nutrient foods, people will use the savings to buy the junk food.

Furthermore, fat taxes are regressive, since they will increase the cost of feeding low-income families more so than high-income.

[Philip Chubb]

I don't think it's talking about taxing foods (like Denmark's tax of fat...) But taxing the obese person. So losing weight to combat the weight gain would help them pay less.

[Joshua Naterman]

I think it's funny that it's always skinny people that are in favor of a 'fat' tax.

The way to do it is not to tax the individual... measures like waist circumference can be poor measures of health...

If you are in favor of an 'unhealthy' tax, then tax all items and activities that are deemed 'unhealthy'... it's only fair. Why punish the food industry?

I agree, that's why I really think that yearly bod pod measurements would be awesome! But I wouldn't mind if we had to pay extra taxes if we didn't hit the gym twice a week for 30-45 minutes at least. I also wouldn't mind if I had to pay 4 bucks for a snicker's bar. I'm willing to bet I'm in the minority on both counts!

What a boon this would be for gyms. You aren't perchance a lobbyist for some kind of association of gym owners or something, are you?

As to the practical application of your workout taxes, how will you verify that people have gone to the gym? What if they just sit there for 30 minutes then leave? What about people who workout regularly but don't belong to a gym? Will you force them to plunk down cash every month for a gym membership and attend the gym or face fines?

HAHAHA! No, but that is a really, really good idea. There are clearly a number of practical issues that would currently be difficult, but I don't think it will be too many decades before we have digital partial DNA fingerprints or a digitized retinal pattern attached to our ID's to help combat the rise of fraud and identity theft worldwide. I realize that raises a whole new argument, and I am not in favor of Big Brother but let's be real: As technology grows in ability and accessibility the commonality of shared data access will require some sort of overarching system to limit the ability of would-be frauders. I don't like that idea at all, but from what I see happening I believe that is where we are going and that, despite whatever popular opinion there will be for or against, it will happen and we will have no choice but to accept it however grudgingly. At that point it would be a simple matter of using your driver's license or gym ID or whatever things end up being to check in, with the id having to be confirmed by fairly secure methods showing you are there.

The activity could even be monitored the same way, by sticking your ID in machines as you use them. Data on sets and reps could be recorded easily. Granted, that's probably 50-100 years off, but it can happen. It wouldn't even be that hard or disruptive. I don't think things will go that far on a mandate but look at Fitocracy... it's all about the delivery. Make it a game that people can play and win and they will do the work themselves.

There would also be the issue of maintaining healthy body fat % in addition to the gym activity, with specific goals per cycle (year, whatever) that are reasonable and attainable with moderate effort.

The gym membership would be a part of insurance fees, with costs covered by the savings in insurance payouts (which, by the way, there is data to support based on the average lifetime cost to cover healthy vs unhealthy people), and perhaps gym activity would only be mandated for people outside of acceptable bounds. If people have healthy vitals and healthy fat levels they can do whatever the hell they want, but if they are out of shape then what they are doing is clearly not good enough and they need to go somewhere structured.

I'm stopping this part of the discussion here, going too far into hypotheticals is silly. This is, however, a possible shape of the future.

[RatioFitness]

I don't think it's talking about taxing foods (like Denmark's tax of fat...) But taxing the obese person. So losing weight to combat the weight gain would help them pay less.

In the U.S. the debate is mostly around taxing or subsidizing food.

[Philip Chubb]

I don't think it's talking about taxing foods (like Denmark's tax of fat...) But taxing the obese person. So losing weight to combat the weight gain would help them pay less.

In the U.S. the debate is mostly around taxing or subsidizing food.

I am totally against that.I thought it was about the Japan one. Theirs is something I agree with.

[Joshua Naterman]

I don't think it's talking about taxing foods (like Denmark's tax of fat...) But taxing the obese person. So losing weight to combat the weight gain would help them pay less.

In the U.S. the debate is mostly around taxing or subsidizing food.

That would, indeed, be far less productive. Ah well, we ARE the king of making good ideas go bad!