Arizona: $50 fee for being a fat-a$$

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704530204576235151262336300.html

[LeviF]

Since these are Medicaid recipients we're talking about here,

[Gene Frenkle]

Good idea.

[UConn James]

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 April 1, 2011 by UConn James

[Gene Frenkle]

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.

[DC Tom]

Good idea.

 

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

[LeviF]

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.

[Joe Miner]

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.

[Gene Frenkle]

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.

[UConn James]

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.