Your Subtitle text

The Byzantine Pineapple (Revision 5; Part 4)

8      The Failure of Social Welfare Legislation

There are three manners of social welfare legislations in the United States today:

a)      Wealth Redistribution plans to pay benefits to the Needy.

b)     Trickle Down Legislation….meaning the economic benefit of action is greater than the loss incurred by economic inaction.

c)       Vice Taxation

Many aspects of these manners of legislations fail the blind baby test.  These aspects of legislation do not treat all citizens fairly nor do they provide equal opportunity for all citizens.  These aspects of legislation are divisive to society.  The tax dollars (personal property) of citizens that the legislations take from the population are redistributed by some form of governmentally decided Means Test.  The Means Test qualification is a means to divide American Society.

Under the currently adjudicated system there is a politically motivated gap between those that earn and those that receive from the public dole.  That gap will continue to grow for the more government engages in a byzantine system hypothetically designed to bring all citizens to equality based upon some forms of means test the greater the incentive for citizens on the public dole to either not  earn or not report earnings to the government for this threatens their passing the Means Test applied to the Lower Class that keeps the select Class of citizens on the public dole. 

This encourages larger fraud against the government (and the taxpaying population) to grow.  The issue for some is not whether citizens do or do not have Means as defined by the Means Test.  The issue for some is how those who have passed the Means Test can continue to receive the public dole.  

This leads to a shrinking employment of the portion of the citizenship that pays for the doling out of funds to those that apply to government for their slice of the pineapple.  This leads to an unsustainable cycle of escalation of public dole.  Eventually the pineapple collapses from internal rot while also dividing American society.

a)      Wealth Redistribution plans to pay benefits to the Needy.

Wealth Redistribution Legislation is designed to benefit only those citizens who are government certified as needy.  The failure in the structure of the system is that it is only designed to benefit a government definition of needy.  In capitalistic society the definition of needy can change instantly. 

There is a joke about who the only sane people in the world are.  The answer to the joke is that the only sane people in the world are those who have been let out of insane asylums for they are the only ones who have a certificate to prove that they are sane.

With respect to social welfare legislation designed to benefit the needy the only needy citizens in the USA are those defined as needy.  It is akin to the sane in the joke: without the government certification of being needy one cannot qualify for Wealth Redistribution.

This process by itself fractures American Society.  Citizens must be classed and categorized by the Federal Government to qualify for Wealth Redistribution.  The classification and categorization sorts’ citizens and residents into categories that invariably state the receipts by the relevant categories are not enough.   Give my people more is the mantra of each category.

The Give my people more mantra is why the current Administration has difficulties addressing the budget deficits.  Every Give my people more has invariably paid money to politicians keep the money flowing.

Applying the same theory to the two swaddled babies: How does the Federal Government determine which child gets an equal share of Wealth Redistribution?  The Federal Government pries into the personal affairs of the applying citizens to determine all sorts of various programs that the citizen may qualify for to receive Wealth Redistribution.  The Federal Government fractures society by this process because:

i)                    Depending on the applying citizen’s social demographics

ii)                   Applying citizens get varying amounts of assistance through a variety of Federal Government Programs

iii)                 The programs are changed annually through thousands of pages of new legislation designed to buy votes that make the programs larger and larger

iv)                 The programs define a Federally decided perspective of how a citizen should live to qualify for Wealth Redistribution

v)                  The Federally decided perspective of how a person should live is subject to biases against how a person chooses the right of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness leads to…

vi)                 The Federal Government enforcement of how a person should live enforced through punitive measures against the citizens who do not comply

vii)               The Wealth Redistribution programs do not provide anything for those who fail the application process

viii)              The Wealth Redistribution programs do not provide anything for those who are needy but who do not apply

ix)                 The Wealth Redistribution programs do not provide anything for those pay for the programs

x)                  The failure of the Wealth Redistribution programs to provide for the non-needy leads to the creation of more laws to find some construct (i.e. tax breaks) to provide for those that pay for the programs

xi)                 Failure to qualify for the Construct\Tax Break benefit of the legislation designed to benefit those that pay for the Wealth Redistribution programs leads to…

xii)               Annually more Construct\Tax Break laws are modified again to alter the arrangement for those who pay for the Wealth Redistribution programs who do not receive any direct Wealth Redistribution program benefits making the Construct\Tax Break benefits larger and larger leads to…

xiii)              Annually there is a Congressional argument over Wealth Redistribution benefits packages benefits fracturing America Society into segments leading to…

xiv)             The Congressionally authorized ever increasing pools of programs and benefits pitting citizen against citizen causing social stress and unrest leads to…

xv)               The ever increasing Congressional legislation body of laws that further expand the Federally decided perspective of how a person should live subject to biases against how a person chooses the right of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness culminating in a continual erosion of the citizens personal and property rights as well as the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

The epitome of this sadly farcical behavioral pattern of the political process is illustrated by the release of the current Administration’s budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2012.  At a time of economic difficulty in America the current Administration has chosen to waste time (and time is money) by sending Congress (and the citizens of America) a budget proposal which contains the following:

xvi)             While some programs are cut other new programs are added

xvii)            The fact that interest payments cost money which adds to the Federal Deficit is ignored.

xviii)          The fact that an unachievable 5% annual growth rate is used in projecting future tax revenues is not considered anything but a good starting point for negotiation

xix)             The fact the prior Congresses have not funded the legislatively enacted Border Wall and that the Current Congress is seeking to defund the legislatively enacted Health Care bill points out that the three branches of Federal Government can pass all sorts of laws that will only be selectively enforced as determined by a current Federal Government Administration

The President of the United States seems to consider it effective Administration to submit a budget that is evidently Dead On Arrival but will suffice as a starting point for both months of negotiation and positioning for a 2012 Presidential Campaign run.  The current Administration gives every indication by this action that it is more concerned with staying in power versus addressing the Federal deficit.

The Declaration of Independence states that Government is instituted to secure the right of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  The Declaration of Independence also states that when any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it…But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future…The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

The reflection of the poll about the individual mandate vis-à-vis health insurance purchasing is a reflection that many citizens do not view this form of continuous Government behavior as securing Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  The reflection of the poll is that upwards of 150,000,000 citizens consider this to be Government Destructive of securing Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.   

The polling reflects that the Second Civil War of the States is at hand.  This is the war between the Citizens of The States against the Federal Government.  It is a War of constitutionality and it can only be ended in three ways:

1)      The Supreme Court of the United States begins adjudicating a restoration of the personal and property rights of the citizen leading to Congressional and Executive passages of legislation that treats citizens equally without punitive action to achieve societal goals and without a massive Federal Government dictating how citizens must lead their lives.

2)      A more totalitarian Federal Government beyond what exists in the USA Today as the definition of the Commerce Clause is expanded.

3)      Constitutional Amendments regarding the restoration of the personal and property rights of the citizen leading to Congressional and Executive passages of legislation that treats citizens equally without punitive action to achieve societal goals and without a massive Federal Government dictate about how citizens choose to lead their lives.

What is the problem that the Health Care Bill is attempting to solve?  What is the need requiring an immediate restructuring of 1\6th of the US Economy?  It’s easy for the Federal Government to trot out single situation tales of woe to sell a need but what is the issue with respect to the aggregate societal construct?  Some facts question the need to establish a mandate that all citizens must purchase Health Care Insurance to “save” American Society.  After looking at the facts one can see that what the Health Care Bill does is to compel the loss of individual and property rights of the citizens while establishing fiefdoms within the Federal Government System with no guarantee that the end result will be achieved due to the punitive nature of the Health Care Bill.

The fact that is known is that over 200 new Government Agencies that all need to be funded are in the legislation.  The fact that is known is that a mandate to citizens to buy a product is punitively mandated.  Comply, or face the penalty.  King George would be proud of this legislation.

Is the issue being addressed that the “death rate” in the USA is “too high” due to a lack of medical care?  What is the basis for such logic?

The table below shows data from the US Census and also from the US National Center for Health Statistics.  The data shows that data gathering has improved since 1900 for the death rate versus the census population does not match.  But, from 1940 forward, there is 60 years of data that does match.  The death rate decreased 20% from 1940 to 2000 while the population increased 213%.  There is now a fairly stable annual rate of 8.5 to 8.7 deaths per 1,000 citizens.














































































Source: U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of the United States, annual;

National Vital Statistics Reports NVSR) (formerly Monthly Vital Statistics Report).

Deaths, 1900–2007 —



Assume for arguments sake that the goal is to reduce the amount of deaths by 400,000 citizens annually.  This would reduce the annual death rate down to 7 citizens per every 1,000.







Is this a reason to redo 1\6th of the economy and to unconstitutionally mandate the purchase of Health Care Insurance?  The reason is to potentially stop 1 to 1.5 deaths per 1,000 citizens per year?

According to the flawed arguments put forth by the Democratic Party there are 40,000 deaths per year attributable to a lack of Health Care insurance.  (The logic is flawed because humans die from diseases or accidents or, by golly, even old age.  Not one Certificate of Death can be produced stating that the cause of death is a lack of Health Care Insurance.)  Stopping 40,000 deaths annually will not move the overall death rate. 

40,000/300,000,000 = .013.

So, to address an issue maximally affecting .013% of the total population over 300,000,000 citizens are punitively mandated to purchase health care insurance?

Is the reason to stop bankruptcies due primarily to the inability to afford medical bills?  According to

“In 2008, there were 1,117,771 bankruptcy filings in the United States courts. Of those, 744,424 were chapter 7 bankruptcies, while 362,762 were chapter 13.”

The maximal amount of bankruptcies due to un-payable medical bills is 744,000/300,000,000 = .25%.

So, to address an issue maximally affecting .25% of the total population over 300,000,000 citizens are punitively mandated to purchase health care insurance?

Is the reason to make sure that the approximately 30,000,000 uninsured part of the population that do not have health insurance purchase health insurance?

30,000,000/300,000,000 = 10%.

So, to address an issue affecting approximately 10% of the total population over 300,000,000 citizens are punitively mandated to purchase health care insurance?

Notice that the mandate is to purchase health care insurance.  The mandate is not to provide medical treatment. 


The first definition of INSURE ( is:


ɪnˈʃʊər, -ˈʃɜr Show Spelled [in-shoo r, -shur] Show IPA verb, -sured, -sur·ing.

–verb (used with object)


to guarantee against loss or harm.


to secure indemnity to or on, in case of loss, damage, or death.


to issue or procure an insurance policy on or for.


With respect to the concept of Health Insurance the idea of guaranteeing loss against damage or harm is an interesting concept.  Think of it in the context of 3 examples:

i)                    Childbirth

ii)                   The Corleone pneumonia example

iii)                 A Human Being who has snapped the Anterior Cruciate Ligament in their leg

Childbirth is a natural process.  Every mammal engages in childbirth.  Where is the loss or harm in childbirth to be insured against?  Is the insurance insuring against the chance that something may go wrong with the child or the birthing process?  To guarantee against loss or harm that nature is not correct?  There are bills to be paid for services rendered but there is no guarantee against human loss that may occur.  A child is not like a shipment of goods.  There may be bills to pay for services rendered which is an expenditure of cash but there is no concept of goods that are lost.

With respect to the Corleone pneumonia example: The child Fredo survived the disease.  Many humans have survived the disease.  What is the loss or harm that occurred?  Is the loss or harm that the child did not have hospitalization or drugs to assist in recovery from a disease that the child ended up making a recovery from?  This is true for many diseases that are in some manner treated outside of the traditional medical community.  There is no loss that truly occurred.

With respect to some people who have suffered a breakdown in their physical system such as the loss of the anterior cruciate ligament in their leg what physician or other person can unequivocally state that surgery to repair the damage is mandatory for the injured human to survive and thrive?  Undoubtedly human beings broke ligaments all through the existence of humans and went on to productive lives after the injury before the advents of surgeries such as exist today.  Why is it punitively mandatory that Health Insurance must be purchased for existence?

Insurance is the original hedge bet in the market place.  Insurance is a financial product.  Health Insurance doesn’t actually perform any health care actions.  Health Insurance is a financial tool used to pay billings for health care services. 

Mandating Health Insurance purchases is actually a violation of the Commerce Clause because it creates a Health Insurance monopoly.  This means that many potential forms of less expensive (meaning out of pocket) consumer options are eliminated.  The consumer of medical care suddenly has fewer options available to pay for services because the consumer is punitively forced into purchasing Medical Insurance. 

No matter how many germs are sanitized by humans…humans will always experience illnesses.  No matter how many helmets are sold for people to wear…people will still experience injury.  No matter how many warning labels are plastered on product labeling on society’s products…society will still continue to perform stupid people tricks or other activities that cause injury.  This is what being a human being is about.  Does it make more Common Sense to build a society that believes that injury, illness, and stupid people tricks will disappear via punitively mandating the purchase of Health Insurance…or should society seek to pay for health care of the citizens of the society?

If the problem definition is that citizens should be provided equal health care then why is there a need for insurance?  The only thing that Health insurance does is to add costs and risks to the system.  If the stated goal is to provide health care to all citizens then there is no need to pay the extra level costs and risk costs associated with Health insurance. 

The irony of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and also the Health Care Education and Reconciliation Act of 2010 is that the legislation does not provide for equal opportunity for health care.  The legislation punitively mandates the purchase of Health Insurance but the legislation does not provide for equal health care for all.

The law is unconstitutional by the punitive mandate that all citizens fall under the jurisdiction of a government fiefdom that is NOT established to secure the right of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  The punitive mandate dictates a loss of Liberty.  The rights of the individual are annexed by the government.

b)      Trickle Down Legislation….meaning the economic benefit of action is greater than the loss incurred by economic inaction.

One failure of the current Trickle Down Social Welfare Legislation as adjudicated in the USA is that the legislative plans are no more than glorified Travelers Insurance deals.  Nowhere is this more evident than in the TARP legislation.  The TARP legislation is the Travelers Insurance scam perpetrated on the citizens of the US.

The purpose of TARP was to have the US Government purchase underperforming financial instruments (i.e. bonds) from various entities that operate the same as Travelers Insurance.  Cash is brought in from the public.  The US Government, through debt funding, facilitates the reissuing of new financial instruments to the companies that had owned the underperforming assets…principally cash…and the citizens of the US get the newly issued bonds. 

The arrangement was actually made more complex in the greedy capitalistic manner.  Only certain assets were purchased.  Winners and Losers were selected by the US Government.  The beneficiaries were friends of those in political power.  The ability to borrow money at zero percent interest was made available to a select few corporations who are then authorized to re-loan the cash at a higher interest rate guaranteeing success.

The sales pitch is that the next great depression is now averted.  This is the sale of fear.  A punitive threat is issued to the citizens of the country.  Let the politicians do this or there will be hell to pay!  The Legislation will save the economy!  In the end, the only people who pay are those who contribute tax dollars but who see no direct benefit. 

The various social welfare programs that exist today in United States also reflect the Travelers Insurance mentality.  The argument is that by collecting tax dollars (cash) from the public then there will be a reduction in social inequity.  The argument is the bond that is sold.  The failure is that the benefit goes to those few citizens supporting the argument of the bond to the detriment of all other citizens.  Since there is no budget plan and an inequitable Byzantine Empire redistributing tax dollars one end result of all the social welfare legislation passed is a perpetuation of scams on the taxpaying citizens who don’t seek the special interest government aid.

Once one package was successfully sold to the public more packages were sold to the public.  The plan is not to actually address the issues of the packages being sold.  The idea is to continuously take more dollars from the public

A second failure of the various social welfare systems is the assumption of minimization and elimination of risk as well as the unguaranteed future related to risk.  The issue is that, in a capitalist society, the opportunity must exist that one can go from being a member of the high class to being a member of the low class, and vice versa, within days or even hours.    This means that the social welfare systems in place should be set up in anticipation of such an eventuality and not as an after-the-fact scenario.

This means that business regulations need to allow flash crashes without government interference.  There is no gun to the head of those in the trading pit to place stock orders.  Capitalism means that risk still occurs.  The denial of flash crashes inherently means government interference.  The market functioned as it should where stock was bought and sold for various prices.  The market had a natural correction where wealth changed hands according to the buy\sell orders; the government stepped in stating that only some corporations or individuals stand to lose or profit based upon buy\sell orders.  If the stock involved in the flash crash were Enron why should the government stop investors from selling the stock forcing shareholders to take losses on a failing company?

The social welfare programs such as TARP and any other bailouts of corporations are based upon always un-provable statements that the risk to society and the economy of doing nothing is worse than the proposed new social welfare program such as a bailout.  The Federal Government then may supersede all existing contractual agreements and bankruptcy court legislation to construct a deal that minimizes the loss and maximizes the gain to special interests that the current Administration has reasons to be beholden to.  The Federal Government babies are treated more equitably than non-Federal Government babies.  The non-Federal government babies pay tax dollars to support the Federal government babies.  The Travelers Insurance scam is imposed upon society.

The argument for TARP and the use of TARP funds, as well as stimulus and other social welfare legislation, is that society would collapse and the economy would be worse off if these pieces of legislation were not passed.  But…what do these legislative acts actually accomplish?  They accomplish a redistribution of future tax dollars to pay for the losses of the capitalists involved as well as allowing for Federal Government meddling in private enterprise where winners and losers are chosen.  Undoubtedly friends of the current Administration, whichever party is in power, are the winners in the legislation.  These programs do not meet the blind baby test. 

The Court System should be ruling that these legislative and Administrative actions are Unconstitutional for these laws give preference to certain citizens and corporate entities over other citizens and corporate entities.  The Court System needs to evolve to a new approach towards equality.  Failure by the Court to do so to address the inequities of current political thought, combined with erosion of the personal and property rights of the individual will cause social anarchy.  The bottom line is that programs such as TARP are punitive to the population that had no involvement in the corporate decisions that led to the downfall of the corporations being assisted by the Federal Government.  The babies are not treated equally.

This punitive construct extends to long term Federal Government programs that have been in existence.  For years the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) legislation has doled out funds to large cities for discretionary use to assist in home ownership.  Yet, home ownership in America is sinking to new lows.  This home ownership drop is due to many factors but the point is that the billions poured into the funds in conjunction with all other social welfare programs regarding housing are not having the desired effect.  The effect ends up being negative for the citizens who contribute tax dollars but who get no CDBG benefit.  The tax dollar contributors who do not happen to qualify for the CDBG program are treated punitively.  The program does not meet the blind baby test.

Little Common Sense is required to see that The Federal Government has extended many programs to the largest cities in the USA to benefit the citizens of the cities under the social welfare argument that the benefits of the various programs is socially beneficial to the USA.  Look at the housing status and the employment status and the civil content status and the education status of many areas of the major cities.  Does one really see the return on investment?

The Social Security system has some unique features that fall into the same category of social welfare programs not designed by the blind baby test, and then suffer the failings of tailoring the result to certain specifics instead of equitable design.  The amount of Social Security that one receives is based upon the wages of the last five years of employment.  Is this truly a measure of equity?  This is a discouragement for some to seek employment of lower pay in the later years of life to avoid having punitive measures applied against their social welfare capital distribution.  Is this what is mean by equitable design?

The theory that mass capital expenditures by the government that benefit special interests that will then exert a trickledown effect on the economy to provide both stimulus and stability to the economy is based upon flawed economic assumptions.  It is not the massive programs that will bring peace and economic stability to the United States but rather the development of an economic social welfare system that treats all citizens as equals.

Look at the tray of evenly grown grass.  The human species is like a field of grass with each human being a single blade of grass.  Tax receipts are like the elements of nature that the grass expels to interact with the atmosphere to create the rain of tax dollar disbursements to come down and nourish the field of grass.  Does nature rain down in one spot to make the lush field of grass grow?  Nature spreads the rain out over all the blades of grass to get the field to grow.”

Look at the results of the arguments of social welfare programs put forward.  Forty two million people living in the United States are on Food Stamps.  Home Ownership and Home Values have plummeted with the drop in the economy; this drop has been spurred on by all the various Travelers Insurance style legislative programs passed that have built into the Byzantine Pineapple.  The greater the Federal money spent on Education the lower the test scores.  More examples can be given but the point is already made.

The Federal programs based upon factors such as race or gender or economic backgrounds all fail the Blind Baby test.  The programs promote divisions in society for the design of the program is to base a redistribution of the Byzantine Pineapple based upon a factor other then citizenship.  Look at the results of these programs.  Is inequity going away because of the existence of these Federal programs?

Can this truly be considered a measure of success?  The Supreme Court needs to recognize that the time has come to recognize the Unconstitutionality of these programs.  The funding of special interest programs under the guise of social welfare that is based upon segregating the citizens of the USA into groups that do and do not receive based upon any aspect other citizenship is doomed to failure.

c)       Vice Tax System

The rational for taxes on gasoline or cigarettes or alcohol or other vice taxes or usage taxes are purported to collect money to be used to pay for governmental costs associated the usage or the vice associated with the applicable tax.  The fact of the matter is that the revenues collected are all used as part of a shuttle game of governmental accounting.  Tax dollars collected from lotteries may be designated to pay for the Education Departments of Governments but that does not mean that Governments pay more for Education than the Governments would if the lottery did not exist.

The effect is that certain social behaviors are demonized.  The Byzantine Empire fractures society more by demonizing either existence or behavioral patterns of select citizens.  This is evident by the plans floated by government officials to establish yet another new tax on select citizens of society: The Soda Pop Tax. 

The Soda Pop Tax is based upon a public campaign constructed to support the tax.  Those who stand to profit from taxation of soda pop line up together to lobby for the taxation of soda pop.  The competitors in the market place stand to profit from the higher product cost associated with the tax.  The Government stands to profit by having more tax dollars go through the coffers of the Government.

The Soda Pop Tax is sold like preventative Prescription Drugs are sold.  The benefit of the tax is greater than the side effects of the tax.  The biggest side of the tax is the annexing the right to pursue Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as one sees fit.  The Government demonizes the product users and levies taxes on the users.  The Government uses the taxes for whatever purpose the Government sees fit. 

The Government can state that the tax will only be used for a specific purpose but the fact of the matter is that Governments and minds change.  TARP was not used for the stated purposes of TARP.  Social Security would never be touched for Government use.  There will be no more Government amnesties for illegal immigrants.  Lotteries will be used to increase to increase education spending.  Tobacco lawsuit settlement money will only be used for medical care and prevention of smoking campaigns.  What citizen believes that the Government will keep its word about the use of the proposed Soda Pop Tax funds?

The Government has no credibility to keep the word of the Government with respects to taxes and redistribution of tax dollars.  The Democratic and Republican Parties have created a Byzantine Empire Government of taxes and fees and programs and tax credits and deductions and entitlements where it is truly impossible for any clear picture of income and spending because the components that make up the Byzantine Empire intertwine like a Gordian Knot.  The outside of the knot is seen so some data is known about the Gordian Knot but to untie the knot is a different matter.  The way to untie the Gordian Knot is to simplify the knot; adding more taxes and fees and government structure only strengthens the knot.

The Obesity Epidemic proclaimed is the basis for the argument for the Soda Pop Tax.  The argument is that the obesity epidemic can be factually stated by the % of overweight and obese citizens of the USA (and the world) based upon the BMI of the population.  The chart below demonstrates this fact:

Prevalence by state

The following figures were averaged from 2005–2007 adult data compiled by the CDC BRFSS program[20] and 2003–2004 child data from the National Survey of Children's Health.[21][22]


State & District of Columbia

Obese Adults


Overweight Adults


Obese Children & Adolescents

Obesity Rank


















































































































































New Hampshire





New Jersey





New Mexico





New York





North Carolina





North Dakota

























Rhode Island





South Carolina





South Dakota



































West Virginia
















In other words, as defined BMI, more than 60% of the population is defined as overweight.  The Government is perfectly happy to use this analysis as a basis for demonizing 60% of the US Society.  Yet the population is growing and the death rate has been decreasing.  How can this be?

The answer lies in the development of the BMI:

The body mass index (BMI), or Quetelet index, is a heuristic proxy for human body fat based on an individual's weight and height. BMI does not actually measure the percentage of body fat. It was invented between 1830 and 1850 by the Belgian polymath Adolphe Quetelet during the course of developing "social physics".[1] Body mass index is defined as the individual's body weight divided by the square of his or her height. The formulae universally used in medicine produce a unit of measure of kg/m2. BMI can also be determined using a BMI chart,[2] which displays BMI as a function of weight (horizontal axis) and height (vertical axis) using contour lines for different values of BMI or colors for different BMI categories.

BMI has been used by the WHO as the standard for recording obesity statistics since the early 1980s. In the United States, BMI is also used as a measure of underweight, owing to advocacy on behalf of those suffering with eating disorders, such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa.[citation needed]

BMI can be calculated quickly and without expensive equipment. However, BMI categories do not take into account many factors such as frame size and muscularity.[14] The categories also fail to account for varying proportions of fat, bone, cartilage, water weight, and more.

Despite this, BMI categories are regularly regarded as a satisfactory tool for measuring whether sedentary individuals are "underweight", "overweight" or "obese" with various exemptions, such as: athletes, children, the elderly, and the infirm.

One basic problem, especially in athletes, is that muscle weight contributes to BMI. Some professional athletes would be "overweight" or "obese" according to their BMI, despite them carrying little fat, unless the number at which they are considered "overweight" or "obese" is adjusted upward in some modified version of the calculation. In children and the elderly, differences in bone density and, thus, in the proportion of bone to total weight can mean the number at which these people are considered underweight should be adjusted downward.

Another way of stating this is that the method of determining whether citizens are overweight or obese is defined by a methodology developed over 160 years ago.  This methodology does not take into consideration evolution of the human species over the last 160 years.

Another way of stating this is that the method of determining whether citizens are overweight or obese is defined by a methodology developed over 160 years ago.This methodology does not take into consideration evolution of the human species over the last 160 years.

Not only do the categories of BMI ignore human evolution the categories of BMI ignore human physiology or other health factors such as tobacco usage.  The focus is solely on the BMI number developed over 160 years ago. 

Athletes are exempted from the BMI chart for a matter of convenience.  Athletes are exempted because of their profession: athletics.  Another way of stating this is to say that a citizen, classified as overweight or obese by BMI standards, who engages in strenuous workout 5 days a week for over an hour per day and who does not take prescribed drugs is demonized by society…but an athlete who fails the BMI test for obesity is exempted because they are an athlete.  This is a very self serving skewing of data.

This is akin to saying that people in general should be compared to the people of 1850.  Common Sense indicates that the human species has gone through a dramatic evolution from 1850 to 2011; the measuring tool of how healthy humans are should be a tool developed to reflect the human species of 2011 and not the human species of 1850.

This same BMI standard is used by the United Nations and by insurance companies in defining the health of the individual.  The BMI is a simple method used for defining individual’s health without ever looking at any other factors of health.

This is not to say that exercise and diet should not be pursued.  Nor is it to say that a human being individually should not accept responsibility for the physique of the individual.  The issue is:  Does it make more sense to have the government tax and demonize and prescribe drugs to address the perceived state of health based upon a flawed measurement standard developed over 160 years ago…or would it be better served to provide citizens with basic memberships at local gymnasiums that meet a government standard of a proper gymnasium?  Which system is simpler and more cost effective to address the issue of the health of a citizen…and which system builds a Byzantine Empire Gordian Knot? 


The ultimate failure…when the total of all the various Social Welfare programs are looked at as a composite…is that there is no “end game” in sight.  All the various programs act independent of each and they mandate a proscribed societal behavior to qualify for a piece of Byzantine Pineapple.  Any failure to comply with the Social Welfare programs means the citizen is dealt with punitively whether by direct punitive action such as is proscribed for in the Health Care bill or by an inequitable redistribution of wealth via the failure of the programs to meet the Blind Baby Test.

For all the programs attempts to eliminate societal inequity there is no part of the programs that will eliminate the need for the programs.  The programs are designed to be permanent fixtures that won’t solve the social problems of society.  Instead the programs divide society.

Website Builder