Who, last I checked it was the Gov't who said you should pay for everyone. Why are you blaming anyone else. Is it because this is what people like you wanted? Or is it because you thought only rich people were gonna flip the bill but you got fooled by Obama's BS and now realize even you will be flipping part of the bill? Kinda sucks when the BS hits the fan and gets you too doesn't it? How do you people get up in the morning without getting lost in your own beds?

Ah, so it's ok if you benefit, but not if someone else benefits? Classic hypocrisy.

I am confused, where is the hypocrisy? Please explain.

No, I pay taxes which go to assist those unable to provide for themselves or provide services gratis or donate to charities, etc. Some, apparently you included, think that those 'unwilling' are the same as those 'unable'.  Big difference in my mind, and not the least bit hypocritical.

Here it is.

Good one Nitro!

Opposing a fat tax because you want other people to have to pay for you (if you're fat), while opposing universal health care because it means you have to pay for other people.

Don't worry, I wouldn't expect you to understand it easily, if you have trouble understanding basics such as eating being linked to weight gain.

Well I am not fat. Six foot one inch tall, 217 lbs. I still do not understand how I am paying for fat people please explain? You assume that fat people are poor. Not all fat people are poor or on welfare or Medicare. The fat people I know all have jobs that pay well and have not taken any government money.

Eating is also linked to death; everyone who has eaten food has died or will die at some time. Using your logic should we ban food? Your contention is that people that don't eat right (by your standards) are fat and should pay a fat tax. I eat what I want, not fat, and don't exercise. Other than my newly discovered cancer, I have a bad heart caused by lead poisoning, got shot in the chest when I was a young marine. To tax people because of their life choices on the chance that you might pay for them is more than selfish while on the other hand you want UHC so your medical bills would supposedly go down. I am very happy with my Health Insurance and its cost. Why should I change and go to a system I know sucks dirt?

What point is there in me trying to explain to you again? I mean even a 3 year-old would be able to grasp the idea that if you eat more, you get fatter.

Here it is one final time though:

People choose how much(+what) they eat+exercise, which affects how fat they are. The fatter they are, the more health problems they are likely to have, meaning the more healthcare they require on average. This means that providing healthcare to a fat person costs on average more than to a non-fat person. This means if you charge both of them the same amount, the non-fat person is subsidising the fat person.

Your condescending shitpoint is based on a false assumption, aeortar - that if someone is fat, they want someone else to pay for their healthcare.

Being out in the sun causes melanoma, so anyone with a tan is a hypocrit?  It's clear you don't even understand the concept of insurance, or freedom for that matter.

Your puerile statements demonstrate your inability to understand. There is no assumption that all fat people want others to pay for their healthcare, especially since I wouldn't have thought every fat person would be opposed to paying more due to being fat. Just as there is no assumption that fat people are poor.

The 'assumptions' I'm making are that 1) if you eat more, you'll be fatter than if you eat less; 2) You are more likely to suffer health problems the fatter you get; and 3) The costs of healthcare will increase if you are suffering more health problems.

Paladin seems to dispute the first 2 of these, which are you disputing?

Healthcare they will likely need is determined by their illnesses. These illnesses are usually issues the older they get. So would it not also be true that age plays a factor? As people get older the more healthcare they need. For example at 21 I did not need any healthcare. But now that I am into 50’s I need more healthcare. So you are paying for my age related illnesses. We should then by your logic have and age tax or stop treating people over 40 because that is the tipping point. Also people that have risky behavior should be taxed. Gay people, sexually promiscuous people, people that ride bikes, or drive cars, or drink or smoke. Should be taxed at a higher rate that do what the government says is bad for you. Eating salt, can lead to hypertension and heart disease, drinking coffee can reduce your risk of some cancers but lead to dehydration which causes other health issues such as urinary tract infections. Since UHC will be the single payer for all healthcare they will determine what people will be treated based on their so called risky lifestyle. That is how it is done in other countries with UHC. They cut out the middle man (insurance) and just tell you that because you don’t live their version of a healthy lifestyle you don’t get treated for things they disapprove of.

So the fat person is subsidizing the drinker, the smoker, the drug abuser, the skydiver, the scuba diver, the motorcycle rider and more. Is that fair? You see the only time you are paying for someone else is when you have UHC, Insurance companies charge for risky lifestyles if they know about it. What do we do with the people that lie to the insurance company? You can see a fat person is fat but you can’t tell if a person is a drug abuser until they are in the hospital already collecting on benefits the insurance company did not know about. Is that fair to the rest of us? Why should a fat person pay for everyone else that lives a risky lifestyle plus pay a fat tax. Did you know that if you take blood pressure medication your insurance goes up? So taking meds to keep you healthy costs more than suddenly getting ill because you did not take them. Even though pain medication is cheep you pay more if you are on pain management than if you buy drugs on the street to fix your pain. Why pick on fat people unless you just like to discriminate and fat people like smokers are the flavor of the month. Who is next?

You're using those points to justify making someone else's healthcare your business.  That's what I'm disputing.  There was opposition to Medicare in 1964 for a reason; you are an example of what those opponents foresaw - that surrendering autonomy for security will result in a tyranny of elites and that security will eventually prove to be false & hollow.

not at all, I am disputing that it is the case with every fat person. If you have a medical condition your weight goes up, they are just as fat as the person that does not have a medical condition. How can YOU tell the difference? Why should that person pay a fat tax if they did not eat bad foods, or over eat? You assume that a person is fat only because they don't eat right and should pay a tax for it.

You just assumed that fat people would want to pay more for being fat and call them a hypocrite if they don't want to pay more. I am not fat and I don't think it is fair for them to pay extra because they are fat.

Hold on, you're saying I'm assuming that they won't want to pay more, and I'm also assuming that they will want to pay more?! Make up your mind! Either way though I'm making no assumptions about fat people's preferences over being charged a fair amount. As for the hypocrisy, you appear to be using your selective memory again. Hypocrisy is typically where you say A but do B. That doesn't mean that saying A by itself is hypocritical, just as doing B by itself is hypocritical. Read back and you should be able to find the 'B' to go with the 'A'.

Well you can't choose to grow old, or get younger again, so for a universal healthcare system that would raise obvious moral issues, especially when you factor in that many old people who have retired will be on a lower income and hence wouldn't be able to pay any such tax as easily, and UHC will be funded by taxation which itself is based on ability to pay.

In a (private) insurance system however it makes every sense to allow companies to charge based on age. Companies are afterall profit making, and to prevent them charging on age could effectively mean they end up having to provide insurance to the elderly at a loss, and/or refusing to provide insurance for that reason, and/or heavily overcharging the young if they have to provide insurance to the elderly and can't charge more.

Actually I'm effectively using those points to justify no longer making someone else's healthcare my business with an insurance system, since a fat surcharge would mean I'd no longer be subsidising fat people and hence it wouldn't be my business. Without allowing any such surcharge though I'm going to lose out based on other people's healthcare and hence I'll take more of an interest in it (such as supporting government programmes to restrict peoples ability to choose to be fat). With the tax/surcharge, I shouldn't care whether people choose to get fat or not because it won't affect me.