If rising obesity saves the state money should fast food be subsidized?

Obesity is reported to save health care money since the obese die sooner and receive less government handouts in retirement.

http://www.slate.com/id/2184475/

So why is the government discouraging obesity? Shouldn't they be providing an incentive for use to eat more?

Obviously not but neither should it be discouraging obesity through taxes and bans.

Let people decide whether the benefits of more fast food outweigh the cons. The government is not our parent they have no right to arbitrarily tells us what is good for ourselves and what isn't.

Anyways what are your views? Are we really free if choosing to buy a cheeseburger costs hundreds of dollars extra in taxes?

you have an interesting point, but don't confuse the liberals. they need to understand that government serves its citizens, not the other way around.

Your argument is way off. People who die of obesity-related disease (or any other chronic disease) cost a bundle before they finally do die. There are also indirect costs - reduced productivity, time off work, etc. If we the people knew how to live responsibly and in a healthy way, we wouldn't need people telling us what to do. Fat lot of good it does anyway (pun intended).

Fast food should be allowed to live or die by the old fashioned rule of supply and demand. The government subsidizes way too much stuff because the senators and representatives want to take care of their constituency.
In the long run eating healthy foods will cost less in health care costs which the government already subsidizes.

It seems to me that here, again, people are trying to make their points on statistics that are faulty. That article has a lot of numbers but not a lot of logic.

Regards,
Dan