Your own link (from the summary) states that it's a mixed bag at best:
> The relationship between obesity and socioeconomic status differs by sex and race and ethnicity group. Among women, and specifically non-Hispanic white women, obesity prevalence increases as income (PIR) decreases, while among non-Hispanic black and Mexican-American men obesity prevalence decreases as income (PIR) decreases. Although the prevalence of obesity among women with income below 130% of the poverty level is higher than among those with higher incomes, most obese women do not have incomes below 130% of the poverty level.
And considering education tends to (roughly) map to income, the most damning sentence is the last:
> Among men and women with a college degree, the prevalence of obesity is lower than among those with some college education. Moreover, college educated women are less likely to be obese compared with those with less than a high school diploma.
While OP may be incorrect in claiming most poor Americans are overweight, it doesn't look like they're too far off claiming those in poverty tend to be heavier. Doubly so considering this evidence is pulled solely from the link you're trying to use to refute their claim.
Most Americans (2 in 3) are overweight or obese. I only found this on the first link of Google so it's not stratified by wealth, but do you really disbelieve that most poor Americans are overweight?
I thought it was common knowledge that poor and/or uneducated people, at least in the West, tend to be more obese, and overall tend to live a less healthy lifestyle. But I'm happy to be wrong.
What has usually been the topic of discussion between people with differing political views is 1) whether this can be reduced to a personal choice (ability), and consequently 2) where the responsibilities lie to improve the situation.
At least observationally, having lived in both richer and poorer areas of cities around the world, in the poor areas people smoked more, drank more (whether sugary drinks or alcohol), were more obese, had worse teeth, and I saw fewer joggers or other people working out.
Because of my political views I tend to feel that many of these poorer/uneducated people both lack the ability and the environment to do 'better', and regardless of whether that is true, I believe societal/collective initiatives would be helpful in changing the situation (whether state- or community-led).
I think there are plenty of initiatives to support improvements (church, grassroots movements, non-profits, state-initiatives; pick your poison).
The one thing I have trouble with is the, IMO, often self-serving and incredibly myopic view that all these people are just inferior and entirely willingly choosing to live often unhealthy and unhappy lives. When I see a severely obese person, I see someone with problems, not someone who's just a happy, lazy glutton. I've never personally met a fat person who was unapologetically happy with their situation. Far from it.
You need to look at the percentage of people that have flashed their phones. The proton mail folks need a large addressable market that readily spends money, loves the convenience etc, so they can charge them and make a profit.
What I don’t get is, why can’t they simply charge their existing users 30% more - if they aren’t profitable.
