Mississippi HOUSE BILL NO. 282


An act to prohibit certain food establishments from serving food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the state department of health; to direct the department to prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese and to provide those materials to the food establishments; to direct the department to monitor the food establishments for compliance with the provisions of this act; and for related purposes. Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Mississippi:


SECTION 1.

(1) The provisions of this section shall apply to any food establishment that is required to obtain a permit from the State Department of Health under Section 41-3-15(4)(f), that operates primarily in an enclosed facility and that has five (5) or more seats for customers.

(2) Any food establishment to which this section applies shall not be allowed to serve food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health after consultation with the Mississippi Council on Obesity Prevention and Management established under Section 41-101-1 or its successor. The State Department of Health shall prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese, and shall provide those materials to all food establishments to which this section applies. A food establishment shall be entitled to rely on the criteria for obesity in those written materials when determining whether or not it is allowed to serve food to any person.

(3) The State Department of Health shall monitor the food establishments to which this section applies for compliance with the provisions of this section, and may revoke the permit of any food establishment that repeatedly violates the provisions of this section.


SECTION 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2008.


Should this pass, scales will appear at the door of restaurants, people with BMIs of 30 or higher won’t be allowed to be served. And to comply with government regulations, restaurants will have to keep records of patrons' BMIs.

Is this a tongue-in-cheek bill, meant to point out how absurd the war on obesity has become? Or do lawmakers actually believe the myths that gluttony is the cause for obesity and that it is the government’s role to force people to eat and live how it deems best?

I called lead author, Rep. Mayhall, and asked if this was serious legislation or tongue-in-cheek to make a point. He kindly took a moment to answer my question while the legislature was in session. He said that while, regrettably, he doesn’t believe his bill will pass, this is serious. He wrote it, he said, because of the “urgency of the obesity crisis and need for government action.” He hopes it will “call attention to the serious problem of obesity and what it is costing the Medicare system.”

So, yes, this is for real and these elected officials actually believe this stuff.

Maybe if they go after enough minorities or groups like smokers, obese, and who knows next, people will actually wake up to what is happening.

Things probably aren't that bad but I really can't see where anything is done that doesn't limit another right, liberty, or freedom.

I don't really believe taking all the things that people do that aren't good for them, then making a law against it will really improve the quality of life.

I personally don't want to live in a padded room eat celery, and pedal a stationary bicycle to be healthy. It is better to take a few risks and just try to enjoy what we can. That choice is fading fast.

quote:

Maybe if they go after enough minorities or groups like smokers, obese, and who knows next, people will actually wake up to what is happening.

It is my hope that this is all part of a silly trend and 20 years from now, people will look back and say "can you believe the crap we were made to believe.' On the other hand, I'm afraid it will only get much worse before this nightmare is over. I bet some "expert" will write a book that too many people are living too long because they are too healthy and its bad for the economy and the planet. Maybe he or she will propose that we take up bad habits like smoking and eating doughnuts to shorten our lives, or more likely, that everyone must "voluntarily" commit suicide upon reaching the age of 85.

"It is my hope that this is all part of a silly trend and 20 years from now, people will look back and say "can you believe the crap we were made to believe.' On the other hand, I'm afraid it will only get much worse before this nightmare is over. I bet some "expert" will write a book that too many people are living too long because they are too healthy and its bad for the economy and the planet. Maybe he or she will propose that we take up bad habits like smoking and eating doughnuts to shorten our lives, or more likely, that everyone must "voluntarily" commit suicide upon reaching the age of 85."

--------------------------------------------
Or, since they have worked so hard to bring Orwell's vision to life, maybe they could use William F. Nolan's work as the next goal of making fiction into fact.

BTW, that work would be 'Logan's Run'.

Great post, I guess my sense of humor runs about the same. I had to chuckle but I agree with what you say.The world is going completely crazy.

As for living too long, wasn't a governor of Colorado(?) accused of saying, "You have a duty to die"? Roy Roemer or something like that. This was YEARS ago.

quote:

Originally posted by squeezer:
As for living too long, wasn't a governor of Colorado(?) accused of saying, "You have a duty to die"? Roy Roemer or something like that. This was YEARS ago.

Wow, he sure did...
Elderly, if very ill, have 'duty to die'
People who die without having life artificially extended are similar to ''leaves falling off a tree and forming humus for the other plants to grow up,'' the Governor told a meeting of the Colorado Health Lawyers Association at St. Joseph's Hospital.

''You've got a duty to die and get out of the way,'' said the 48-year-old Governor. ''Let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life.''

From 1984

What would be the cost of health care if each patient paid their own bill?

quote:

Originally posted by Bruce:
What would be the cost of health care if each patient paid their own bill?

Bruce, I was writing an involved answer here to your question, espousing views that I've shared here before on this board; that increased free market choice in the absence of regulation would drive down healthcare costs dramatically.

As much as it pains me to say it; I think I may have previously been wrong.

I'll put what made me rethink my position in the form of a couple of questions:

Car repairs, at least to a greater extent, run according to free market economics (body work excluded).

How much do you pay, per hour, to have your car repaired?

How much professional expertise would you demand in having yourself repaired as opposed to your car? You might pay $4,000 for an engine replacement. Given that, how much would you pay to have your heart repaired?

The cost would be exponentially higher and few or none would be willing to entertain the idea of lowering costs through compeitition. There probably isn't even time to consider compeitition.

There are things you could do to lower costs somewhat in terms of medical costs, but I don't know that they'd have a significant effect on overall costs, at least without lowering the quality of care.

However, if you were to remove third party payers from prescription drug costs, you might be on to something. But I think you might also have to eliminate prescriptions, at least for a wide variety of drugs.

I work in health insurance and I've been told that prescription drugs are the greatest expense for health insurance companies. Even greater than inpatient hospital care.

It may not be that medical care costs so much, but that prescription drugs are what are driving costs beyond what can be accomodated by the insurance industry.

Winston, I agree with you.

My car died just before Christmas and I do not intend to repair or replace it. But at the same time I am continuing to pay for car insurance.

I have an allergy problem that can be treated with prescription drugs but I prefer to suffer instead.

Many professional fees are outside my ability to pay for them, be they auto or body repairs.

We all have choices in life, I have made mine.