I agree with Scott about the costs of insuring unhealthy people. There are pitfalls here too though. It would be impossibly unfair to make people with genes for expensive diseases uninsurable.

Unrealist42 wrote

As far as being overweight goes, that is in its infancy as a socially undesirable behavior and is more a biological problem for many people than a strictly behavioral problem. Not everyone is naturally skinny.

There is a theory that over-eating is a naturally evolved predisposition in some populations. This is because genes for over-eating were life savers for populations at risk from unpredictable and frequent famines. Body fat was a store of nutrients. Even now fat people are more prized as spouses, labourers, and parents than thin ones in such societies.Among some populations the genes persist.It's therefore more difficult to eradicate over-eating than smoking or even alcoholism.

I think you are right, Dewey. But we cannot make up our collective mind until we know the facts. Alethia is right, and we should all cook and bake helathy food, therefore cookery and household management should be taught to all.Therefore, the powers of the multinationals should be curbed by central government because the multinationals are often detrimental to our health and the sustaining environment.The Nanny State need to exist in proportion to the dangers to those many citizens ill-equipped to deal with the dangers to health in modern living.

The Nanny State is easy to legislate for, quantify and qualify, but the dangers to gullible citizens have to be quantified and qualified too and this is not so simple especially when the multinationals and nationals do such efficient lying for PR.I hardly have to provide examples of lies, seductiveness,suggestiveness, and exaggerations within current advertisements do I?

It is not equitable for efficient people who are capable of prudent decisions about eating, smoking and exercise to financially support the inefficient people. However in a civilised society that does not countenance killing off the inefficient people as it is immoral and unlawful for the efficient not to give some support to the inefficient.

There are several causes of fatness. It is unlikely that any fat person chooses to be fat. I understand that common causes of fatness are the ignorance that often accompanies poverty, and physical predisposition to be addicted.

The able among us have a moral duty of care to the less able in which case the more able do what we can and the less able take what they must take.It is not equitable but life is not equitable.

The practical choice that able slim non smokers have is how much and where to distribute aid to the less able, bearing in mind that it is to everyone's advantage that the less able be empowered as much as is possible for them(us!!!)

It is also inequitable that equality of opportunity is insufficient to address the problem of the disabled people among us. Disabled people will also want and need some equality of outcome. Tough but true.

Prismatic wrote:(Nested quote removed.)


Sounds like part of the Republican platform.

I know it does. Prismatic. What the Republican platform ignores is that efficient people have a moral responsibility to protect and aid the less able according to their needs.

Grotto wrote:

If all people live in the manner which is most efficient we would have no individuality or freedom. Is there no point at which freedom trumps economy? Is it necessary that we all become members of a giant rationalized production factory? And to what end, what good is more production and efficiency when life is devoid of flavor and spirit? Do we really need more money to buy more things we don't need?

I don't think that individuals' freedom trumps efficiency. I think that equality has to trump efficiency if we are to be morally responsible for helping the less efficient members of society. Freedom for individuals is a great thing but it has moral limits in a civilised society.

Jjpregler wrote:In the same thought then, we should tax person who participate in "risky" behavior such as sky diving, or race car driving, tax those in a risky career like police officer or fireman. Then we can start taxing parents who allow their children to play high school sports, as they get injured more than non-athletes.

To each according to their needs; from each according to their ability, covers how taxes should be raised and spent.

It does not harm to make people pay extra for thrills that they enjoy such as horse riding etc. Liability Insurance is aready mandatory for driving cars as it should be for other risks.But driving cars and riding horses are not diseases of society or of personal physiology as are addictions such as over eating and addictive recreational drugs where the costs that users incur should be paid for by people who are not burdened by over eating or other addictions.

True, car driving and horse riding are addictive for some people, if so such people should either pay for the risks that their addictions incur if they can afford the money to do so, or if they are so poor that they cannot afford to insure themselves for personal injury and public liability while persisting in dangerous activities they should be educated in prudential behaviour at taxpayers' expense. This should have been done while they were children in education anyway.

People such as firemen and police who do dangerous work make such contributions to the public good that they deserve proper remuneration for their risk taking, not re-education or incurring extra expenses.

But one has no right to climb a mountain without proper equipment and health insurance. Moreover if the mountaineer is risking others' wellbeing such as mountain rescuers, the mountaineer should be in a position to recompense the rescuers in some way, perhaps by doing his stint of mountain rescue. There is no freedom without responsibility.

Grotto wrote:

You want to climb that deadly mountain for kicks, fine, but if you die it is not my problem (hire your own rescue helicopter with your own funds before going). You want to take strolls through dangerous areas at night and you get mugged, again not my problem if the neighborhood has acceptable police coverage. Your a workaholic and your constant stress is giving you heart attacks and high blood pressure, then buy some life insurance with all that money you just had to have.

Grotto says in effect that if some person wants to take risks let her do so but at the same time understand that she is opting out of the care of others when her risk taking, perhaps compounded by her stupidity, leaves her with a broken leg up a mountain. Is this scenario likely? I don't think so. I think that most people understand that other human beings will rescue them out of a spirit of perfectly ordinary human sympathy, no matter how selfish or how stupid the adventurers are. One sees health workers and police doing this sort of rescue everyday. They do not stop to ask 'is this individual deserving of saving or not?'

it is a shame that poor people are being deprived not only of decent food and decent education but also of good leisure activities including risky activities. True, certain activities are always too costly for any but rich people to enjoy but there are other risky leisure activities that poor people should be enabled to enjoy e.g. access to wildernesses, skiing, rock climbing, sailing tall ships. Providing for the needs of everyone in a society does not stop with food and shelter but includes also education and leisure.

True, in recession conditions there is not much money in the bank, but the solution is not further deprivation of the poor or ignorant bad eaters and druggies but reducing the wealth differential so that the available money in the bank is spent upon welfare including well rounded education for leisure as well as for work, plus therapy or social support for people who are disabled by addictive personality disorder and other illnesses. The trickle down from a welfare supported work force really does exist.

Grotto wrote:

This is true, but the altruism of others is not grounds to enslave everyone in order to limit the need of that altruism. Altruism needs to be voluntary, or else it is a mode of slavery. Taking away everyone's right to live life in the name of forced altruism is not noble, it is a vulgarity both to the spirit of life and the spirit of giving, it violates both.

Implies an over- optimistic view of human nature. Altruism does not survive distances and huge numbers except for the occasional saint. Altruism must be legislated for and accounted for by reason .

I see no problem whatsoever, Grotto. The opportunities for individual altruism are legion and will never go away in this troubled world.

Grotto wrote:

That is for certain. I was just thinking about it today, what a difference it would make if it were possible that the givers and receivers met. The simple but awesome power of a genuine "thank you" and a genuine "your welcome". I think it makes a huge difference for the giver to see the good that is done, and the receiver to see the giver willingly helping. I think it empowers both parties.

It does , and it doesn't. We surely don't want Lady Bountiful to be a conceited bird for us to watch and admire. We don't want to view poor peasants extruding gratitude. So yes, to the suggestion, but only minimally and as a sop to human frailty .After all the very difficult goal of not allowing our left hand to see what our right hand is doing is ethically best. It should rather be a matter of the money-richer person feeling ashamed of the differential which gives her an unfair advantage.

When it comes to the rich distributing money to the poor of the world there is no need for either pride of giving or gratitude of receiving. The poor are poor , in this today's global village , only because the rich are rich because the poor are or were exploited by the rich. This comes about because of inherited money or because of contemporary exploitation and downright dishonesty.

When the gift is given from a position of honestly achieved strength such as good health, or expertise in some employment, it is a matter of common courtesy to thank the giver, so making the giver stronger to give in the future, and honouring the giver's expertise. Like thanking the bus driver before alighting, or the doctor for the therapy.The common courtesy is good for receiver and giver and does not entrench an unfair system.


Relating all this to fat people who eat too much and to smokers, such people are not strong, they are weak and require help. Obesity and smoking are diseases not crimes and should be treated not punished. Fat people and smokers who accept help should thank the helpers but may not because of ignorance. Ignorance is also a sort of disease.

Grotto wrote some days ago;

You want to climb that deadly mountain for kicks, fine, but if you die it is not my problem (hire your own rescue helicopter with your own funds before going). You want to take strolls through dangerous areas at night and you get mugged, again not my problem if the neighborhood has acceptable police coverage. Your a workaholic and your constant stress is giving you heart attacks and high blood pressure, then buy some life insurance with all that money you just had to have.

True, However not everybody is wise enough to insure against accidents. I well remember when I was young and foolishly confident that nothing bad would happen to me.