Beyerstein: Fat as Class War in Arizona

Background:

A blog post by Lindsay Beyerstein was submitted to a website called bigthink.com which presented an opposing side of Arizona's Republican governor, Jan Brewer's decision to propose charging obese medicaid patients a $50 tax fee a year if they don't follow a doctor-supervised plan to slim down. Those who are obese would need to work with a primary-care physician to develop a plan to help them lose weight and also improve their health. The "fat fee" would also apply to smokers and diabetics. Arizona's officials believe that the fee would give people a reason to get healthy, and that it's a crucial part of a plan to save $500 million a year in Medicaid spending. Also if ratified, the money that is saved would revive coverage of organ transplants.Others, like Lindsay Beyerstein,who opposes the tax says the new tax would punish patients for conditions they can't always control.

Analysis:

Throughout this article, Lindsay Beyerstein asserts that the proposal of the “fat tax” on overweight medicaid patients is wrong because they can't afford it. Here I will formalize Lindsay Beyerstein's entire argument in premise-conclusion form.

Premise 1: Demanding that poor people slim down and charging them extra if they don't would be a

cruel and regressive tax.The goal isn't really to save money, or improve public health. The goal is to make government assistance as degrading as possible.

Premise 2:A diet-or-pay scheme is not sound public health policy. Diets, even medically supervised diets, don't reliably produce permanent weight loss. Furthermore, weight fluctuations may be even more dangerous than being steadily overweight.

Premise 3:Poverty is an independent risk factor for obesity. High-nutrient, low-calorie foods like fruits, vegetables, and lean meats cost a lot more than low-nutrient, low-calorie staples rich in flour, sugar, and fats.

Premise 4: Proposing that the poorest of the poor be made to pay even more because they can't afford to be thin is irrational. It costs a lot more than $50 to join gyms and keep up with diets.

Conclusion: Taxing the poor by being overweight is an unfair proposal that should not be ratified.

Lindsay Beyerstein presents factual claims supporting the reasons why many people are overweight. She mentions low nutrient diets that cost less than high-nutrient diets and also how medically supervised diets don't reliably produce permanent weight loss. Also given the fact that medicaid is a health care program for low-income people, I could understand why Lindsay centered her argument around the poor not being able to afford many of the things that may help one obtain weight loss. Although Beyerstein presented feasible points, the questioning of relevance in correspondence to Governor Brewer's proposal entails conflict.

In the first argument, which is the proposal of Governor Brewer to charge a $50 tax on overweight medicaid patients is merely to save money and to also raise money to revive coverage for organ donors. However Lindsay Beyerstein's argument suggests other wise. As you can infer by evaluating each premise made by Lindsay Beyerstein there is no relevance in regards of what Governor Brewer intended for this proposal to produce. Lindsay misinterprets Governor Brewer's request by suggesting that “ the goal isn't really to save money, or improve public health. The goal is to make government assistance as degrading as possible.” She also points out that Governor Brewer's proposal is demanding that the poorest of the poor to pay even more because they can't afford to be thin.