Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The new NFL -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (12287)	1/11/2006 4:03:51 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89622

OT You're dreaming. Holly and I were just discussing this and the word is STAND BY! Fat? Your incidence of numerous diseases, including diabetes and all its complications, is significantly higher among the obese. This may not increase an employee's health cost, but it does increase the employer's cost. This gives the employer reason to discriminate against the obese. An argument that obesity does not affect the non-obese is absurd if it drives up their health care costs or lowers their wages because the employer assumes the increased cost. The same argument that was used against 2nd-hand smoke applies with even more force here. From CNBC earlier: Maryland is considering a bill to force WMT to force WMT to offer health insurance to all employees. WMT says it will challenge the law. HERE WE GO! npr.org washingtonpost.com wakeupwalmart.com About 10% -15% of obese will develop diabetes among the young. 72.14.203.104. dpa.ca.gov (same article) Note that incidence increases sharply with age. Also, obese blacks and hispanics are far more likely to develop it than obese whites- -a reason health insurance costs can be used as an excuse for racial discrimination. You can argue Libertaria all you want. The real world is marching by. Note: The above should be taken as an analysis, not that I approve of the implied changes.

To: TimF who wrote (12287)	1/11/2006 4:21:16 PM
From: country bob	Respond to of 89622

Tim, my point is that the government is ALWAYS going to target SOMEBODY! Second hand smoke made the tobacco industry an easy target. The increasing amount of vehicles on the road made alcohol an easy target. Once there are enough holes poked in these targets they will pick a new one. Lawyers STILL have to make a paycheck! Municipalities will STILL depend on fines! Whether they are hurting anyone else or just themselves doesn't matter - fat people will be the next target! We will be deluged with enough statistics on a regular basis until we actually believe that they are the foundation of the decline of the American way of life, they are the cause of high medical and life insurance, and the reason for rising food costs. Doctors and pharmaceutical companies will make a fortune with weight loss pills and programs, lawyers will have their calendars full, insurance companies will jack up their premiums, and who knows who else is going to want their piece of the pie. This won't be a cakewalk like we saw with the tobacco and alcohol industries because the churches (and the voters they control) have no reason to jump on board. Alcohol and tobacco drains ones disposable income which, of course, should be going to the churches, so that was different. I wouldn't wait for them to come to anyones defense though, because the government has to make up all the lost tax revenue and the churches CERTAINLY don't want it to come out of their outside interests! The other side of the coin is that there are no lobbyists here to slow down the process by throwing campaign money around like the alcohol and tobacco industries were famous for. Bottom line: Do I like it? NO! Do I think it's right? NO! Is it really going to happen? YOU BETCHA! The groundwork is already being laid.