Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Well, let's see... if you're "poor" but you smoke and overeat, maybe if you stop doing those things, you'd be less "poor" and more able to pay for your own fecking insurance rather than sucking off the govt teat.

Edited by UConn James
Posted
  On 4/1/2011 at 2:37 PM, UConn James said:

Well, let's see... if you're "poor" but you smoke and overeat, maybe if you stop doing those things, you'd be less "poor" and more able to pay for your owning fecking insurance rather than sucking off the govt teat.

Easier said than done, but true nonetheless.

Posted
  On 4/1/2011 at 2:22 PM, Gene Frenkle said:

Good idea.

 

Depends on how they define "fat". If the measure is BMI, many athletes would be fined under this.

Posted
  On 4/1/2011 at 3:16 PM, DC Tom said:

Depends on how they define "fat". If the measure is BMI, many athletes would be fined under this.

I imagine that this would largely be based on a doctor's opinion. The article mentioned that it would fine people who are obese and don't follow a "doctor-supervised slimming regimen." I doubt that athletes would ever be put on such a slimming regimen.

Posted
  On 4/1/2011 at 3:16 PM, DC Tom said:

Depends on how they define "fat". If the measure is BMI, many athletes would be fined under this.

 

Don't worry. If it's anything like Obamacare, the waivers are being printed as we speak.

Posted
  On 4/1/2011 at 3:16 PM, DC Tom said:

Depends on how they define "fat". If the measure is BMI, many athletes would be fined under this.

Ya, BMI sucks as an indicator. Body fat percentage works best IMO.

Posted
  On 4/1/2011 at 3:16 PM, DC Tom said:

Depends on how they define "fat". If the measure is BMI, many athletes would be fined under this.

 

But then, their status as athletes would likely mean they have employment and health insurance, rather than Medicaid.

×
×
  • Create New...