What do you think of this issue?

Some health care professionals are saying those of us who are overweight should pay a special tax. The reason is twofold:

1. Fatness is the #1 health problem in North America (and increasingly in Europe) today. If we had to pay an extra tax, it might encourage us to eat more responsibly.

2. Since fatness contributes to many illnesses and these illnesses clog up our health care systems, and cost a lot of money, it is only fair that those who deliberately put themselves at risk by not eating responsibly should pay extra.

Do you think that such a policy would help improve public health?
***************************************************
08-06-04, 01:28 PM
Elexina
Taxes don't seem to keep people from drinking or smoking or buying gas-guzzling SUVs. I don't think it would make a difference.
And I don't think it would be right. Fat is bad for you. We know this. People need to take more responsibility for themselves and their families and quit waiting for the government to be everyone's mommy.
And what about people who are healthy and not overweight but still like to consume an Oreo or a Milky Way now and then? Should those folks be burdened with higher fat taxes just because other people can't get it through their thick skulls that McDonalds is bad for you? I don't think so.

08-06-04, 03:35 PM
honilov
I don't think the policy would improve public health, at all. All overweight are not the result of overeating, and there are fat people that never have any of the diseases that's clogging up the health care system.

I know some skinny people that are sick with things like diabetes, thyroid problems, cancer, bi-polar etc, so I don't think fat tax would be a fair tax.

Come to think of it though, it's hard to find anything that is fair.

08-12-04, 11:59 PM
DvdGStwrt
GRRR! This upsets me to no end.

Many who are overweight or fat are eating (so they are lead to believe) corectly.

The Fricken Food Processors add sugar, fat and MSG (Look that up and the studies done on Rats, it appears that MSG causes obesity and is Addictive - puts a whole new meaning to you can't eat one).

The Food Pyramid - Lordy - That is a good one for economics but has nothing at all to do with the beends and the design of the human body - Trust me a base of carbs is not good no way no how - but bread is cheap.

And they want to tax the victims?

Yeah, makes perfect sense again.

08-13-04, 10:39 AM
babthrower
I remember reading that in the 17th C. in Germany the daily wage determined by the 'powers that be' to be fair for a skilled workman (e.g. a stonemason) was whatever would buy a loaf of black bread. On this, it was assumed, he could feed himself and his family. I imagine that the man's wife would grow a little windowbox garden of greens and onions. The crowded tenements in which the workers lived did not come equipped with back yards.

I'm sure that those diseases and conditions which caused the early deaths of many of the workers and their family members did not include obesity.

Dvd, who in North America or Europe does not know that fruits, vegetables, and whole grain bread are better for health than candy bars, bags of salted peanuts, ice cream, ground up bits of trash meat cooked with Hamburger Helper, french fries, and soda pop?

08-17-04, 02:55 PM
Oceangurl
Taxing people for being fat?? This is a discriminatory and ridiculous idea.

If anyone/anything should be taxed, it should be the entire fast food industry, soda companies, candy makers, snack industry, etc.

Let their products be taxed, thereby raising their prices so that it's not cheap and convenient to eat these foods.

If people had to pay the same price for a fattening Big Mac as they did for more healthy selections in non-fast food environments, they might decide to spend their hard earned money on food choices that are healthier.

Of course, the majority of people who frequent fast food places say part of the reason is because their busy schedules don't allow them to take the time to eat at places where healthy options are available. It simply takes more time to make a healthy sandwich than it does to whip up a quickie burger.

I say, no on the fat tax for people. Yes on the fat tax for the fast food industry, candy makers, soda companies, etc.

On another note, let's also slow down and savor our meals so that we're not scarfing food down our throats as we run from one errand or responsibility to the next.

Me? I need to get MORE EXERCISE! Maybe we should be taxing couch potatoes! (Just kidding, don't anyone attack!)

08-17-04, 04:35 PM
babthrower
Oceangurl says:

"If anyone/anything should be taxed, it should be the entire fast food industry, soda companies, candy makers, snack industry, etc."

Actually that is one way to implement the fat tax. It would become a hidden tax passed on to the end user by the manufacturer and retailer. The proceeds might be allocated directly to medical research, or medical services.

08-18-04, 01:16 PM
Elexina
So that's still taxing us for what we choose to eat, isn't it? I understand it on one level, but on all the others it's still not sitting well with me.

08-19-04, 10:05 PM
SeattleRon
Not to be mean or anything, but I think the fast food places should be treated like a bar. If they think you've had enough they should cut you off.
Being obese is a serious problem. It's a disease that can be prevented. Now to treat these obese people my medical and health insurance premium has to go up.
Why should I have to pay for someone who doesn't know when to say enough is enough.
It's like having to pay higher premiums for cigarette smokers who get diseases that could have been 100% prevented. Or for a new liver for an alcoholic.

I wouldn't say it unless I meant myself as well. I'm 25 pounds overweight so I feel I deserve to pay a higher food tax if there was one imposed. Maybe it would help me lose some weight.

08-20-04, 01:21 AM
babthrower
Woo, Seattle, yaknowwhat? Animal studies show that REALLY skinny animals live longest.

08-20-04, 03:12 PM
Elexina
That would be awesome. But it's so difficult to draw the line. I mean, my grandmother is FAT, but my husband is just a little hefty in the middle. Who gets served and who doesn't?
"I'm sorry, ma'am, you're arms are looking a little flabby today. I'm afraid you can only get the medium fry."

08-20-04, 04:56 PM
babthrower
Then she reaches a hefty arm across the counter, grabs the guy (who is 17 and about 5'11" and weights 120 pounds) by the shirt front and pulls his face up close and hisses "Are you sayin' I'm FAT?" And the guy says, "Double-large order comin' up!"

It's easy for us armchair quarterbacks to say how it should be done. But when you're in the front line! And not even permitted to carry a firearm!

08-23-04, 03:39 PM
Elexina
Or even pepper spray!

08-28-04, 12:45 AM
SeattleRon
personally ya know I don't care what people do to themselves. I don't want to sound like one of those people, but when it starts to affect my money I don't like it.
Do what you want, get as fat as a cow and eat like a pig for all I care, but don't make myself and others suffer higher premiums on health care due to your inability of self control.

08-31-04, 11:40 AM
Texan-In-Exile
Having to pay higher taxes would not make obese people eat healthier foods - it would probably make them eat even more of the unhealthy things they're eating now!
It's human nature (not just a fat human's nature, but any human's nature) to say "If I'm going to pay more for it, then I might as well get my money's worth!"
In fact, inside the city limits of Mobile AL, there is an extra 1% sales tax on restaurant food. This has been so for years. The people don't look any skinnier to me!

There are many other alternatives to encouraging healthier eating (like fast food places could serve healthier foods, and many are starting to), but since this thread is about tax, I won't get on my soap box. I'll just say that I don't think it would work.

(BTW - Can you picture a McDonald's with a bouncer? Big Grin)

08-31-04, 02:49 PM
MommyTimesTwo
I have not seen where a sin tax on cigarettes and alcohol have reduced use at all, so I doubt a tax on fattening foods would either.

Furthermore, I don't think taxing obese people would stand up in court. I mean, would anyone agree to an extra tax on people who are HIV-positive, or diabetics, or people with MS? They all have higher health care costs, too. While it is debatable if obesity is an actual disease, it would still probably be considered discrimination. Also, there would be the inherit difficulty of deciding whom to tax. Do we go by weight, by BMI, or what? The standard "ideal weight" and BMI charts are known to be flawed and they do not take into account things like breast size (women with very large breasts simply weigh more than women the same size with small breasts) and muscularity (body builders are "obese" on weight and BMI charts). Also, what about people with thyroid and other diseases that cause weight gain--wouldn't a tax on obesity punish people for having illnesses beyond thier control?

It is up to the individual, not the state, to care for their own health. Nutrition is no different from any other personal health issue. It's no different from bathing or sleeping. Passing a tax on fat people would be equivalent to passing a tax on smelly people. It simply wouldn't be possible.

08-31-04, 03:57 PM
methos
I'm not supporting a fat tax, but sin taxes have reduced smoking. Studies have show a direct relationship between cigarette price and cigarette usage.

08-31-04, 05:18 PM
MommyTimesTwo
Really?? I have not seen that. Just recently they have been complaining up here that the increased price of cigarettes and alcohol has made no difference in consumption. Perhaps it is regional. There's little else to do here but get drunk. Wink

08-31-04, 08:56 PM
methos
Just Googling and only looking at the first couple results, I found this:
[URL=08-06-04, 01:28 PM]Declining Cigarette Consumption Follows Price Hikes [/URL] (from the Department of Agriculture).

The title certainly agrees with the hypothesis (I'll admit I haven't given it a careful read), and the chart shows decreasing consumption during every period of significant price increase and flat consumption during periods on slow or no increase. I've seen a better study, but I don't have time to look too far at the moment.

08-31-04, 10:13 PM
MommyTimesTwo
That's interesting. I wonder what the difference is up here (or perhaps it was only perception that sales did not slow--it wasn't a study, just an article).

08-31-04, 11:04 PM
babthrower
Fat tax?
Footnote on fairness:

Taxes are never fair. We all pay to support road maintenance but some people are stay-at-homes and others are always in the car.

I kind of think a fat tax would act as a deterrent. I used to smoke, years ago. But the Canadian government kept slapping the tax onto cigarettes and finally I decided the price had become too ridiculous to tolerate so I quit smoking. And I'm sure glad I did. Especially when I see those forlorn people standing in the rain huddling under the eaves sneaking a smoke because they aren't allowed indoors. Or especially when I go into someone's house and the whole house just reeks.

09-01-04, 01:18 AM
MommyTimesTwo
Unfair is quite a different animal from discriminatory. It is unfair that everyone pays the same for public things like roads but not everyone uses them the same. But use of the road is by choice. If you want it to be fair, increase your use of the road to the amount you think is fair for what you pay.

Discrimination is being focused on for something that you can't change or that isn't easily alterable. I can decided to drive twice as much tomorrow. I can't decide not to be white (ignoring Black Like Me Wink )

The way I look at it, replace "obese" with "HIV +" or "female" (because women, on average, do use more health care than men). Does it still sound simply "unfair"? While it is true that many obese people can chose to alter their habits and eventually not be obese any more, if we are going to accept obesity as a disease then we need to treat it the same in all aspects.

09-01-04, 08:46 AM
juanruiz
A couple things:

I presume the "fat tax" would either be levied on industry or on the individuals themselves. In the case of the latter, good luck with coming up with standards (also good luck keeping the courts from striking it down). Also, knowing how the government wastes money, the amount taken in would likely only cover the cost of the bureaucracy,

Also, babs, the Canadian tax on cigarettes essentially suffered under the law of diminishing returns. When it hit a certain level, the black market took over. Less money actually came in, and more was spent on law enforcement.

09-01-04, 11:22 AM

babthrower
Juanruiz sez:

"I presume the "fat tax" would either be levied on industry or on the individuals themselves. In the case of the latter, good luck with coming up with standards (also good luck keeping the courts from striking it down)."

As you know, in Canada the civil libertarians are not as assertive as for example in the U.S. But it seems to me that taxing (the product which is to be discouraged) at source is simpler, and since it is passed on to the end user, would tend to discourage use.

"...knowing how the government wastes money, the amount taken in would likely only cover the cost of the bureaucracy..."

Too true. It may not be necessary that the tax go to medical care, though, as long as it deters smoking. We pay ridiculous 'environmental tax' every time we buy troublesome products e.g. paint; but do we know how, or even if, the revenue is used to help the environment? I would bet big bucks that not one in a thousand B.C. residents know. I know I don't know.

"Also, babs, the Canadian tax on cigarettes essentially suffered under the law of diminishing returns. When it hit a certain level, the black market took over."

The black market certainly cuts into government tax revenues. Do I care? Not really. Again, it's not about using tax money wisely. It's about annoying the user until he/she doesn't want to be a user any more. Actually, I know of no one who buys bootleg cigarettes, although I hear they are readily available in the seedier parts of town, so I know there's a significant market. We Canadians are pretty law-abiding, and feel uncomfortable if we are breaking the law -- most of us. We don't litter the highways -- much. It's not the $2,000 fine. I've never heard of anyone being busted. It's just that it's not nice. Why throw dirt around where you live? Why not dispose of it in a less unsightly way? Then we can argue about whether our garbage disposal methods are good for the environment.

09-01-04, 11:27 AM
MommyTimesTwo
A rather large assumption just occured to me. It would be actually pretty pointless to put a tax on junk foods or restaurant foods, as was mentioned previously, as it is just as easy to make unhealthy foods yourself.

A bag of flour, a bag of sugar, yeast, etc... as items in someone's grocery cart could not be assumed to be 'junk foods', but they can be turned into donuts just as easily as bread. Potatoes can be baked or deep fried. Mushrooms can be tossed on a salad or breaded and dunked in Ranch dressing.

Just a thought.

09-01-04, 11:54 AM
babthrower
MommyTimesTwo sez:

"Unfair is quite a different animal from discriminatory. It is unfair that everyone pays the same for public things like roads but not everyone uses them the same. But use of the road is by choice."

So is the use of tobacco, and the number of Twinkies one eats.

I know it is popular these days to 'medicalize' all behavior problems. Is little Mary a talkative nuisance in class? Let's drug her, and keep her quiet. Does Mrs. T., aged 42, consistently drink and drive, even after several fines and accidents? The fines are discriminatory! The woman is sick, and should be sentenced to weekly therapy sessions instead of fined. Does John J., a public school teacher, have a problem keeping his hands off the little boys? It is discriminatory to fire him; he has a compulsive disorder, and ought to be pitied and helped, not deprived of his job. The latter would penalize him twice for something he cannot help, poor man.

"Discrimination is being focused on for something that you can't change or that isn't easily alterable."

Nobody said it was easy. To say that we cannot change what food we select is to beg the question.

Mx2:"The way I look at it, replace "obese" with "HIV +" or "female" (because women, on average, do use more health care than men). "

N.B. A significant part of women's health care costs has to do with pregnancy and childbirth. It could be argued that these costs are not only on behalf of the woman, but on behalf of the child, should it survive, and the child may be male or female. So I don't see these costs as discriminatory. (I merely question whether a lot of prenatal care helps mother or child; good nutrition is probably more important. But I digress.)

N.B. #2: Men are much more likely to be injured in vehicle accidents and accidents of all kinds. No one has suggested that we charge them more, or deprive them of medical care because of it.

I'm afraid I'm not seeing the discrimination to which you refer.

But much more importantly, it is better to prevent obesity than to treat the illnesses which result. Better for the medical system, which is overburdened, but far better for the individual who is, or may become, obese. It is counterproductive to claim that overeating and/or poor choices (which lead to obesity) is a medical problem, and thus somehow beyond one's control.

If I am allergic to peanuts and go into anaphylactic shock every time I eat one, I quickly learn to avoid them (if I survive). If I whine and say, "Oh, I am addicted to them. It's an illness! I cannot choose not to eat them!" I may well gain sympathy but I will likely die. So anyone who sympathizes with my rationalization is doing me no service.

09-01-04, 12:44 PM
FredPuli
Tax like this only works if the taxed item becomes so prohibitively expensive that few can get it. Then you may get a black market as a bonus

Enforcing laws of this nature is always difficult. Nobody can ever see the point in them. People are law abiding for reasons of culture, not fear.They do or don't do things because it does or does not seem right. Most people do not steal but that is not because it is a criminal offence but because they feel it is wrong to do so.The Swiss have easily the world's tidiest streets but that's because they abhor litter and anyone who dropped any would be shamed and become a social outcast overnight, not because of anti-litter laws. Compare the French speciality.This is the other side of this coin. Their government creates loads of noble and well intentioned laws, some quite recent, none of which the French people pay the slightest attention to, and quite right too, because they cannot see the point of them.

With that in mind the answer is fashion and cultural shift. Once a big Mac and fries or other food of the kind is not what the public accepts it'll go the way of the homberg and the trilby and the cheroot, stockings and cravats. The market and Ronald McD will adjust though; adapt or die. Look at pictures of crowds in the street or at football games or election meetings outside in the 1920s or any time pre WW2. The men wear hats. Look now and a hatted man is hardly to be seen.Likewise consider smoking. In the UK the young smoker is female more often than male and it is common to see a group of teens where none of the boys smoke but a few of the girls do. Put thirty years on the age group and there are far more smokers overall but fewer of them women.Fifty years on it and smoking is yet more common,even fewer women smoking, but the practice and its practitioners are literally dying out.The youngsters do not find it cool to smoke unless they are girls; a stronger incentive for a boy not to smoke could hardly be imagined.

That surely is the best hope. However it won't in itself address the problem that the poorest at present often go for junk food rather than a healthier alternative. This is as much a question of education as anything. They are, presumably, never brought to wonder or to learn just how similar people in countries where hamburgers are unknown manage to survive so well, often on even less money.

By the way the 'I've paid for it so I'll use it even more'response has been considered re. dogs fouling the streets in the South of France, already nicknamed 'La Crotte d'Azur' (crotte = dog mess). Somebody has suggested dog licences, the proceeds to go to street cleaning; the authorities already employ special machines and operators for clearing dog mess off the pavements/ sidewalks. The immediate response from one official was that it was a bad idea: "Around here, as soon as they thought they were paying for it they'd let, or even encourage, the dog to do as it pleased wheresoever it pleased"' he observed. Big Grin

09-01-04, 01:13 PM
MommyTimesTwo
Babs

If you read back, you'll see that I said it is debatable if obesity is a "disease" (I do not personally feel that it is) but for us to put a tax on obese people we need to separate out those who are fat by choice (habits) and those who have no control over it (through diseases, such as thyroid).

But I digress. Discrimination is the singling out of a group that can be considered a "class" based upon a common feature shared by the members of the group. Women are a class. Black people are a class. Obese people are a class (regardless of the cause of the obesity). It would be discrimination to tax only the people in one class, regardless of the reasons behind the tax (higher health care expenses are just an example.) Furthermore, such a tax would be levied on all obese people, whether they are obese through their own behaviours or through a disease beyond thier control, which would be discrimination against the disabled (those with obesity causing diseases). Finally, unless there is a way to single out only those people who are 1) actually obese (as opposed to only showing as being off a standardized chart) and 2) obese solely through thier own behaviours, such a tax would by definition tax those who don't even belong to the class that is meant to be taxed in the first place.

Body builders are "obese" on standarized weight and BMI charts. Women with large breasts are "obese" on the same charts. An individual with hypothyroidism can't control their weight gain. An parapalegic can't get on the treadmill to lose weight.

Also, consider the costs of weighing and measuring every adult American to see whom should be taxed, and who should not. Should the 1040 now have a spot for you to input your weight? Should tax auditors now have scales and tape measures in their offices?

Or if we tax junk food, aren't we also punishing thin people who just want a snack? Not everyone who eats chips is fat.

The idea is ridiculous. People are responsible for themselves. It is not, as I have stated before on this thread, the state's job to force people to be healthy. I think the fat tax and the cigarette lawsuits should all go down the crapper where they belong.

09-01-04, 01:38 PM
MommyTimesTwo
Upon further reflection I want to add to my last post.

There are two different taxes being spoken about here: one on fat PEOPLE, and one on fattening FOODS.

A fat tax on fat people would be discriminatory and nearly impossible to implement and maintain.

A fat tax on fattening foods, similar to existing sin taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, would not be discriminatory nor would it be very difficult to implement, but I don't personally feel it would have the desired effect, and I'll tell you why.

A fat tax on fattening food would reduce the purchases of fattening foods, ie junk food. But that is not the desired effect. The desired effect is to make fewer obese people. I don't think reducing the purchases of junk food would reduce the number of obese people.

Obesity is not solely the result of eating junk food. The behavioural cause of obesity (ignoring any one who is fat due to a disease) is eating poorly all around. One of the reasons for this type of behaviour is poverty.

There is a reason why so many poor people are fat. To illustrate: 1 lb of boneless, skinless chicken breasts costs about $5.50 (I'm going on the costs where I live, they are higher than the lower 48, but proportionately) and has about 3 g of fat and 140 cal per serving. A pound of chicken thighs costs about $2.00 and has 10 g of fat and 153 calories per serving (assuming both kinds of chicken are roasted). A pound of 90% ground beef costs about $3.50 and has 14 g of fat and 227 calories per serving. A pound of 70% ground beef costs about $1.50 and has 30 g of fat and 351 calories per serving.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Obesity is not solely caused by junk foods, the foods that would have the additional tax, but also through poor food choices caused by economizing. (I'm not saying this is the sole cause of obesity either, just an additional cause).

Yes, chips, cookies, sugar soda, etc... do cause people to be fat. But I do not beleive that increasing the price of these items will greatly impact the number of obese people in America, due to the many factors (poverty, disease, etc...) that cause obesity in the first place.

09-01-04, 01:48 PM
babthrower
Fred: Yes, the law is always an ass, no matter how well-intentioned.

Mx2: You're right, tax is never fair. (Or did I misunderstand?) Perhaps it never can be fair. When we think of how laws started, probably through some tribal attempt to right wrongs:

-- Grog kill brother.
-- Bad Grog.
-- Yeah. But brother good.
-- Yeah. Kill Grog.
-- Yeah. From now on kill anybody kills brother.

And next time a brother was killed, he deserved it. But the law said....

Usually law is designed to correct injustice, not to create it. Some see it as unjust that those who do not smoke, who eat sensibly and who exercise, must pay, through higher health care premiums, through longer waits for procedures, and so forth, for those who are irresponsible.

It's similar to auto insurance. Rates vary because some drivers are accident-prone. Some see this as unfair, since an accident, by definition, was not planned or deliberately caused. Others say that with care and attention most accidents on the road can be avoided.

Different opinions. That's what makes a horserace, they say.

09-01-04, 02:03 PM
MommyTimesTwo
I agree, the law can never be fair. I have never cheated on my taxes, and never would, so why do my tax dollars have to pay for auditors to check everyone's taxes for cheating?

That is what is going to happen in such a large and diverse population.

09-04-04, 03:45 AM
SeattleRon
why should I have to pay for other peoples stupidity? The AIDS thing was mentioned a few posts ago. AIDS can be 100% prevented. People just gotta stop being promiscuious.
We can't claim ignorance on these things. You sleep around you're bound to get an STD.
You smoke cigarettes your bound to get cancer, eat too many cheeseburgers you're gonna get fat and have a heart attack or diabetes.
You drink too much, you're gonna end up with a DUI liver and kidney problems.

Sucks for me because I do all those things. Difrence is, I do not expect anybody else to pay for my problems. I don't do it in excess, and if any of those horrible things happened to me. I wouldn't sue a McDonalds, trojan condoms, Marlboro, or Jack Daniels. It's my own dumbass fault for being fat, getting AIDS, or getting cancer.

I find it really ridiculous that they give fat people a disabled placard. That doesn't help them any. That just means they can park closer to the grocery store. If anything they should make them park in the spaces furthest away so they can walk their fat asses to the store. Then maybe they'll be a little bit too tired to grab that 20 piece bucket of fried chicken cheeseburger combo meal.

Be stupid and dumb all you want, I do it all the time, and if the laws went my way. I wouldn't cry, bitch or moan about having to pay more than others. Because I do sleep around a lot, I drink on weekends, smoke cigarettes and don't really live a healthy life. I wouldn't care if I had to pay twice as much as a person who workouts and lives a healthy life.
For me it would be worth every penny. I'm enjoying my life and wouldn't change a thing.
I'm already paying with my health, why not pay out the wallet too.

Because of my DUI I'm paying triple the insurance I should be paying. I never complained once. I know exactly why I"m paying what I'm paying. I deserve it.
I think it sucks, but I'm paying it because I was a dumbass. Nobody else should have to pay because I was stupid. Thats wrong.
KNow what I mean?

09-04-04, 12:30 PM
babthrower
Seattle Ron says:

"I find it really ridiculous that they give fat people a disabled placard. That doesn't help them any. That just means they can park closer to the grocery store. If anything they should make them park in the spaces furthest away...."

Wink

Yeah, but...

then we would pay (though our grocery prices) for the wages of the Parking Lot Patrol guard, who would need to do a pinch test on every person suspected of being overweight. So they'd need two guards, one for men and one for women, and the pinch areas would have to be strictly defined: an area not more than 2 inches above or below the waist; anything else is molestation. So then they'd need a guard to watch the guards, to make sure the boundaries would be respected. And a video monitor to make sure the guards are not acting in collusion...

Oh, heck, might as well forget the whole thing. Prevention is a bust.

So how about hospital rates? Drug, alcohol and food abusers should pay higher medical bills? I would add those who indulge in promiscuous sex, but I don't see how that can be proved. Innocent people can catch AIDS from a promiscuous spouse. But no drug, alcohol or food abuser can claim innocence. "Honest, judge, I didn't know that hamburger was loaded...with calories."

09-04-04, 01:19 PM
MommyTimesTwo

quote:AIDS can be 100% prevented. People just gotta stop being promiscuious.



What a horribly sterotypical and narrowminded thing to say. Are you seriously going to blame infants born to infected mothers for thier disease? How about loyal spouses who are infected by partners who caught it years before? Health care workers who catch it from a needle-stick? What about all those innocent people a few years ago in Florida who where intentionally infected by their dentist? Rape victims??

Just like talking about taxing fat people, it would be nice if people separated their discrimination to the people who are actually responsible for their condition, as opposed to people who had no control over what has happened to them.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,