Would it be fair...

Yep. I would have to assess them all with my special measuring stick. If you know what I mean...

>>138714374
I've thought about this too OP actually.

I think the Fat tax should be tied to how much the data shows you're likely to cost more then average person of your demographic/age/etc.

Then add in incentives: the fat tax can give exemptions to people who prove they are working to reach a healthy weight.

>>138714374
Better yet, no tax and let the market decide

>>138714374

from 10 to 40%.

>>138714906
>Then add in incentives: the fat tax can give exemptions to people who prove they are working to reach a healthy weight.
unnecessary loophole that would also require extra bureaucracy

>>138714374

Completely irrelevant. Should just force every fat person into a forced water fasting camp. Once they reach a good weight they are released, if they don't control themselves they end up back in it.

Problem solved.

>>138714374
Japan has a fat tax for businesses. guess how fat Japan is?

>>138714705
Hahha Yassssss!

Sure, if there is universal healthcare. Those at risk pay in way more than those that are healthy.

>>138714986
Well, as things are, most fat people are also poor and probably won't have the means to treat themselves, but they will get medical care anyway, which is going to end up being paid by someone who is not them.

>>138714374
in Germany this is actually what many insurers do. The private insurers at least. I mean they cannot request taxes but higher fees.

>>138714374
nah, because you're punishing someone arbitrarily based on something indirectly linked to what you want to stop

I understand where you're coming from, but really it should just take the form of higher costs for emergency services, and higher deductibles for insurance

that way, fat people who weigh down the medical system pay more, but ones who don't, don't

>>138715343
whats a good weight?

>>138714374
I guess so.
People with diseases that cause them to bloat up have to be excluded by it, though.
That's like 0.001% of all fat people so you won't really lose anything.

>>138714374
Maybe you should do something about porky fattening and dumbing down your country?

desu anything below and including 40% in what OP posted was fine afaik.
Also, some of what OP posted are literal bones, and hell, Western Societies could put the 100% tax female to shame by how big some of "us" (I don't consider fat people people, but more along the lines of dumb, talking boulders) are.

>>138714374
>being anorexic is healthy

Great plan OP.

>>138715648

A BMI of 23 or 24 at most.

>>138714906
>Letting the government decide how much you should be taxed based on arbitrary numbers such as weight of an individual

Sweden tier.

>>138714374
Sounds like some commie gobbiltygook shit. Why not let the free market decide on these things, for example, I know that the cost of life insurance is more if you smoke.

>>138715856
BMI is not really the most accurate metric. It would be alright for most people but it will also classify weightlifters and such as overweight sometimes.
I personally prefer using bodyfat %. It's not as easy as taking your height and weigh and using a formula to calculate a number, but it's the better metric.

>>138715991
>but it will also classify weightlifters and such as overweight sometimes
Most are pretty degenerate, so be it.

>>138715946
>Letting the government decide how much you should be taxed based on arbitrary numbers

As opposed to what? Taxes are always completely arbitrary, it's not like they have some long term plan and then adjust taxes to make sure that the expenses are covered.
They just raise them as much as they think they can get away with and then find something to blow the money on.

>>138715991
>but it will also classify weightlifters and such as overweight sometimes.

Which is why medical organizations like the BHS specifically say NOT to use it for people who lift weights.

>>138715856
in pounds??

>>138714374
Yes.
>>138715461
Just eat less. It actually costs less to eat healthy. Ie not drinking soda or sweet drinksat all. Junk food is same. Not smoking is also cheaper.

>>138715461
>poor
>lower middle class is poor

>>138715345
>>138714374

Yep. We already do this here. Mandatory health annual checkups measure waist size with being overweight resulting in having to pay more.

>>138714374
or have completely private healthcare system and don't care about that?

>>138714906
Mises' price problem, there's no way to determine "how much you are going to cost", because you have no way of measuring that. Because you don't have a healthcare market, you just have a monopoly run by the government.

>>138715522
Private insurers blow the fuck out of the Gesetzliche anyway.

>actually get an appointment when I need one rather than having to wait weeks
>Doc actually takes time to listen to the symptoms you list rather than making a diagnosis after your first couple words and then sending you away with a prescription
>living healthy is actually rewarded, you often get back multiple monthly fees if you didn't have to use your insurance for a longer time

People shit themselves about the fact that they can get super expensive when you get older, but honestly, they are forced by law to offer plans on the same level as the Gesetzliche. If it becomes too expensive just switch into one of those plans and you're back on the same level. Just that you got to enjoy the advantages in the meantime.

>>138715991

Yes, but it doesn't exactly take an expert medical professional to be able to look at a weightlifter and a lardass who both have a BMI of 32 and distinguish which one is the unhealthy variety.

Problem
>Obesity

Tool
>Economic penalty

Assessment of success
>(1 - X_after/X_before)
where
X_before = obese % of population before
X_after = obese % of population after

I feel like you are trying to solve
>a branch of a problem.
with
>a shallow tool

Why not aim for the root of the problem with a proper tool?

>>138714374
The Gauls had a fat tax. They'd tax you by however many (whatever they used similar to centimeters) your belly was over/out from your waistbelt.

>>138716557
Of course, but if you need to point out "...but he's a weightlifter" it's a shitty metric. There should be something that can be universally applied to all people.

>>138715540
We already have high taxes on other things that are seen as harmful, like alcohol and tobacco.
Actually, a tax on fat people would be fairer than the equivalent of that, a tax on food that is deemed unhealthy. Because that tax, same as for tobacco and alcohol, would also "punish" people who only consume it in reasonable amounts every now and then.

Only way to make it completely fair would be to completely abolish state interference in the healthcare sector. Or always let people pay their treatment out of their own pocket.

But the way it currently works will collapse our system. When I go into the inner city, basically everyone above the age of ~30 is fat. Imagine the costs for treatments when they hit the age where the first medical signs of that start showing and you suddenly have a massive increase in patients having to be treated for hormonal imbalances, diabetes and so on.

>>138714374
yes

File: consider.jpg (57KB, 500x526px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 500x526px

>>138714374
>and direct that money to the healthcare system

/pol/ should start this meme: "Fat people contribute to global warming". Which is actually true (more gasoline, more food etc)

>>138716343
I wish we'd take more cultural influence from Japan rather than gobbling up all the globalist, failure-worshiping shit from California exclusively.

>>138714374
I'd call that a pretty effective system for the UK given the NHS

>>138716773
Body fat percentage.
That's basically what the BMI is measuring anyway, just under the assumption that you have an average amount of muscle and bone mass so they can use simpler measurement techniques.

>>138715856
>BMI
You've just discredited yourself
t. /fit/ien with a BMI indicating "overweight" yet I've got 9% body fst

>>138716557
So there's visual checks now? Come on son.

>>138716873
fat people also fart more. ... Carbon Dioxide....

>>138716616
soulless dane

-30% to 60% is a-okay in my book.

>>138717016
I know, but it could have issues with anorexics if BF% is all you have access to (that actually never happens, but it's nice to have a polished metric)
There should be a BF%/Bodyweight ratio IMO.

>>138714374
no, but things caused by you being overweight should not be covered
you don't just "magically" become fat, you have to work for that

literally how health insurance in sane countries works you tard.

>>138715991
BMI is a good baseline but not really a measure of health.

A good measure would be resting heart rate, cholesterol levels, and then a pretty basic physical fitness test. 5k, situps/cruches, and pull ups or push-ups.

You can be a buff as shit bodybuilder and be unhealthy. You are healthier than a gigantic fatso, but not nearly as healthy as a soccer player.

>>138717257
You mean like a lower threshold so people don't go into the other direction instead?
I'd say the risk of that is fairly low, because that would take some serious discipline (even if it's the unhealthy kind of discipline), which most people simply lack.

Body fat should be a sufficient metric for quite some time to come. It's rather indiscriminate, too. Being strong as fuck still won't make 35% body fat on top of that healthy.

>>138717257
Body fat percentage tests are perfect though
I believe for males it is 10-16% while for females it is 20-25%
There is a range to account for heights. Having a too low body fat% is also unhealthy although that is in the range of sub 5%

>>138717140
Methane actually. Which has a hundred times stronger greenhouse effect than CO2 too IIRC

>>138717564
When women go below 20% they stop getting their period.

When men go below 8% their testosterone levels drop.

The modern fascination of being as lean as possible is not healthy.

>>138714374
-20 to 10 is waifu tier. don't agree? eat a dick, thicc chaser nigger.

>>138716343
NEVER change. EVER. resist the jew, based nip. there is hope for you yet.

>>138714374
That'd be a shit way about it. Taxing fast food items and subsidising sports/gym memberships would be better

>>138717773
>Below 20%
Fuck off fatty, try like 16%

>>138717991
>subsidizing sports/gym memberships

That wouldn't do anything. I know so many people who have a gym membership but go there maybe once a month, and even then just to talk to other people.

File: hmm.jpg (20KB, 504x415px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 504x415px

>>138714374
how bout not taxing anyone and letting everyone pay their own healthcare bills
same result but without the additional need of another layer of bureaucracy

>>138718080
Ever heard of breasts? Women have more body fat than men. A woman at 20% either just escaped Auschwitz is bulimic or is an elite athlete.

>>138715142
I'd go up to 80% depending on the face

>>138718276
eat a dick, chubbie chaser low test beta male. just because you can't pull above a 2/10 mixed monstrosity doesn't mean you have to force it on us.

>>138718261
I'd be on board with that but I also understand that it wouldn't work out.
There are too many people who would not be capable of just letting those incapable of living die.

>>138718177
Good point. Maybe subsidising children's sport would work better

>>138718517
Probably. If you get them interested in sport at a young age you are more likely to achieve anything, too.
Once they are hambeasts it's very unlikely anything about that will change, even if they pick up some exercise.

>>138718445
So, just tax the capable till they stop breeding?
oh it is already happening

>>138718276
Cheers for that one doctor. Go look up a 20% woman. It looks like your standard gym 3 times a week drink on the week ends 20 year old. It's like a man at 12%
Women who are athletes are below 18%

>>138714374
60% is the ultimate female body

>>138714374
don't insurance companies do that already?

>>138718599
There are steps in between two extremes, Anon.
If you find a way to implement your initial suggestion and have people accept it, you have my full support. Right now I just don't think it's very realistic.

>>138714374
Or just place them on probation.

They are given 5 years to return to healthy weight. They must also attend fat school sessions every 6 months like traffic school. Basic nutrition and such.

After 5 years they nolonger qualify for most procedures.

Done deal. And its very generous with its time line.

If you cant get your shit together in 5 years you are beyond help.

>>138718691
Private ones do. But the fatties normally don't have those, specifically because they'd have to pay a fair amount.
At least if you are talking about Germany.

>>138714374
FUCK
TAXES
FUCK
THE GOVERNMENT

I TAKE CARE OF MYSELF
I eat right, I have physical activity, I avoid harm, I make my own penicillin. I don't want any more fucking taxes. Tax fat people? How will they know the difference between me and tubbo over there? Mandatory weight measurements? And if I don't comply, I get fined!?

GET OUT

>>138714906
Change it to bodyfat and I'm down, fit 210lbs 6'1 here, technically overweight (not fat) havent had to visit a doctor in years so I aint paying shit you fucking leech

>>138718622
40% has a much better hip to waist ratio

>>138715809
Being underweight is still leagues better than being fat.
>>138715856
BMI is in accurate for tall people. It assumes that weight scales quadratically with height which it doesn't, it's almost cubically.

There is already a tax on food, put that money towards healthcare.

>>138714374
all of these have really tiny thighs, no hips and no tits, even the fat one
Just goes to show how inferior gooks are to white genetics

>>138714374
I'm 160kg, 42 years old, never been in the hospital since i brook my leg when i was 22 in a bike accident. I work since 24 years and the health care tax is cut off off my payment every single month. Even if i need a hearth transplant tomorrow i already paid more than it would cost

So... fuck you...

Ps.: if you think the -30/-20/-10/0 picture looks "healthy" you are a fucking moron.... complications from anorexia costs just as much

>>138716799
>it's fair to charge john who is a 300 pound white male who doesn't see the doctor more than once a year for a checkup lots of extra money to fund shaniquas abuse of ER services and 10th niglet

>>138719152
dont care. -30% --> +300% boner and semen output

>>138714374
-10 to 40 is top tier.

>>138719152
cherry picking

Some people don't handle stress very well (e.g. anxiety), and they can load on the pounds without even trying. With older age, the fat can be very difficult to lose. Sometimes it's good to have a winter coat.

>>138720435
>Some people have so much stress their bodies break the laws of physics and create energy

If you expend more calories than you consume you will lose mass. There are some people that can have excess food pass through them without extracting calories but is impossible to creat calories you don't consume.

>>138720435
>Sometimes it's good to have a winter coat.
But not when you are sitting in a greenhouse.