h a l f b a k e r yNo serviceable parts inside.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Medical costs are bankrupting the US, with the obesity
epidemic at the forefront of completely preventable, yet
highly costly diseases. We've tried pretty
much
everything, but one fad diet after another keeps failing,
the FDA keeps issuing new guidelines, but nothing seems
to be helping.
Smart
politicians (e.g. Mayor Bloomberg) have seen the
light, but their efforts are being blocked at every turn by
voters, who want to have their cake and eat it too. Not
to mention that eating more causes global warming, too.
But the solution is staring right at us:
Use the body fat guidelines to "adjust" or weigh voting
power. 25% over your ideal body fat index? Your vote
value is adjusted appropriately during the pre-vote
weigh-
in. Now, you can't just keep voting yourself more and
more pie. No more of that "pound for pound, he's the
best <insert useless throwaway compliment here>
around".
Let's see how quickly we can become the fittest
nation on Earth!
Weight based voting
Weight-based_20Voting
[theircompetitor, Dec 04 2013]
Apply this!
Fat-Cat_20See-Saw
at the voting booth [lurch, Dec 04 2013]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
There is nothing quite like disenfranchisement to make America great again! |
|
| |
In addition to this solution, a ban on all chairs would help, as sitting is also a strong cause of preventable disease. State sponsored chair burnings will help get this nation back in shape. |
|
| |
Excellent, [swimswim], you're getting into the spirit
of it. No Stool For You |
|
| |
// Let's see how quickly we can become the fittest nation on Earth! // Considering the voter turnout rates I suspect that this would have only marginal motivational value. |
|
| |
In addition you'd have people arguing that this was politically motiviated because excess weight is unevenly distributed along social or racial divisions which tend to favor one political party or the other. |
|
| |
If you really want to motivate people, hit them in the pocketbook. You could make a real impact with a tax rate difference, but you'd probably have people saying that was unfair since I've hear that in 1st world countries, poor people tend to be fatter than rich people. |
|
| |
You could make a pretty good argument for the fairness of adjusting health insurance premiums based on various indications of health, but we seem to be focusing more and more on making those fees uniform rather than fair. |
|
| |
One more idea: hit em in the taste buds. You can't eat things that taste good unless your in the "ideal" range. In the "needs improvement" range, you just get bland food. For those in the "unhealthy" catagory, all food it tainted with foul tasting artificial flavors. |
|
| |
Then again I'd rather not have the nanny state be that involved in my life. |
|
| |
I don't think this idea would work because I think there's something to the microbial theory of obesity. That and it's fat shaming, which for some reason seems to be an accepted form of discrimination. More costly? Maybe, but obese people tend to live shorter, so maybe not. |
|
| |
What is the difference between this idea and the
one linked? |
|
| |
It is the reverse of it, calum |
|
| |
The reverse of it insofar as your vote's worth is
inversely proportional to your weigh, rather than
directly proportional? That is so slim a distinction as
to be no distinction at all. The core idea in both
instances is to make the worth of a vote a function
of the weight of the prospective voter. This posting
would be better as an annotation on Aristotle's 12
year old idea. |
|
| |
that's like saying taxing the rich is the same as taxing
the poor, since it's taxes. What are you talking
about? |
|
| |
The idea is quite obviously (to me) not serious, and I
would certainly lose suffrage under it :) |
|
| |
I am not assessing the idea you have posted on its
own
merits or demerits but the idea in relation to its
existence on the halfbakery, given that the core
notion
of the idea - being worth of votes being linked to
the
weight of the voter - has already been dealt with
on the halfbakery. On this basis, the idea you
have
posted is, if at all, a bawhair away from being
redundant
per the help file. |
|
| |
I will say, though, that I am not overfussed as to
whether it stays or not and won't be upset if you
want to prune this convo from the thread. |
|
| |
Anorexic s unite! You have nothing to lose! |
|
| |
Another modest proposal: encourage doctors to
prescribe weight-loss / appetite-suppressing drugs.
It's not fair that the food industry gets to use
modern technology and marketing to make food
addictive, but I'm not allowed to use equally-
powerful technology to lose weight. |
|
| |
Also, your plan would give astronauts (weightless)
infinite votes. |
|
| |