So are they going to refuse to hire smokers? What about people who have a high fat diet, but don't happen to gain weight? Will they fire people for alcohol consumption?
There are both fat and thin people who have unhealthy lifestyles: it is genetics that determines whether those choices result in obesity. So it is discrimination.
If I have to pay more for being fat, I'd like proportionally more room to compensate. If I'm paying 50% more than a regular passenger, I want 50% more seat and 50% more legroom. Because this doesn't just punish fat people, it punishes tall people. And the disabled, who will no doubt have to pay extra for wheelchairs and oxygen tanks.
One of my friends had bone cancer and she used to post on her blog that she was going to "go all Chuck Norris" on the cancer. Chuck Norris read it, and contacted her. The next time he was in Iowa he met up with her and they had breakfast together. By all accounts, he was a really nice guy. So that's a true Chuck Norris story.
I'm guessing that 2% was taught, as I was when I was on the Knowledge Bowl team in high school: If you don't know the right answer, use the funniest answer.
I drank a lot of coffee at that age. My parents let me and my brother have decaf all the time. We never added sugar or cream, so decaf coffee was a much healthier choice than pop. Plus I think it amused my parents to watch waiter reactions when the kids order coffee.
America doesn't need to tax fatty food. The government just needs to stop subsidizing it.
As for other countries, like the UK, it could be a good idea. Obesity costs the National Health Service extra money, so it makes sense to raise tax money by taxing those things causing the increased cost. The same thing is done with cigarettes.
But that plan won't work in America because there is no point in taxing food that is subsidised at its source, and since everyone has to pay for their own healthcare, it's up to the individual how much they want to spend on it. (Granted, the US government doesn't mind making no sense. Tobacco farms are subsidised, and then cigarettes are taxed, to earn more money to subsidise tobacco farms.)
I remember an Irish friend who was living in Seattle and said that Americans are obsessed with work. He said, "it's all they ever do and all they ever talk about." I find that in a lot of ways he's not wrong.
I remember recently that Stephen Fry mentioned on QI that the employees at Disney World were informed that they would be fired the next time they heard anyone referring to the place as Mouschwitz. Disney is not a good company to work for.
It wouldn't be such a problem if they just stopped printing dollar bills. Bills wear out faster than coins. The bills will all be out of circulation in a few years, and people would have to use the coins.
When I was younger I was a die-hard conservative, and then after living in another country for a while and going through a lot of stuff, I consider myself a member of neither party, but with more liberal leanings. So are they actually trying to claim that it wasn't life experience that changed my views, but some random change in my brain structure? I don't think so.
There are both fat and thin people who have unhealthy lifestyles: it is genetics that determines whether those choices result in obesity. So it is discrimination.
As for other countries, like the UK, it could be a good idea. Obesity costs the National Health Service extra money, so it makes sense to raise tax money by taxing those things causing the increased cost. The same thing is done with cigarettes.
But that plan won't work in America because there is no point in taxing food that is subsidised at its source, and since everyone has to pay for their own healthcare, it's up to the individual how much they want to spend on it. (Granted, the US government doesn't mind making no sense. Tobacco farms are subsidised, and then cigarettes are taxed, to earn more money to subsidise tobacco farms.)