We didn't say anything when they came for the smokers...

[Hurlshort]

If the government really did get all up in our business when it comes to health care, I'd be interested to see the someone sue post-mortem because their life was not fun enough

[Woldan]

I oppose bans and treating people like pet animals, bans are usually the easy way out for those who have no idea about the source and nature of a problem. Life might cause cancer. BAN it! 

 

I find it funny that the people who rave about banning/severely reducing consumption of alcohol, sugar and smokes are the same people who legalized (almost brutally forced it onto everyone) questionable genetically enhanced plants that not only completely destroy whats left of natural ecosystem but also has completely unknown effects on the human body. What I think is that some hands weren't greased and some people are now pissed off. 

 

Anyway, personally I blame aluminum and plastics used in the food industry for creating a new flood of cancer, aluminum is highly carcinogenic as is the plastic residue in bottles. And food is stored either in plastic or aluminum containers.  Oops. 

Edited February 5, 2014 by Woldan

[LadyCrimson]

*eats a small bowl of rice, vegies, a little meat, with glass of OJ. Then eats a cookie*

 

...no one better take away my cookies. Or my jerky.

 

 

I do understand wanting to do something about obesity in general but perceived convenience (vs. planning, cooking and doing the dishes, haha) and an ever-growing sedentary lifestyle are the things we should be looking at, not limiting sugar/booze/fat in gov. regulated fashion. I mean, education efforts are fine. Have no problem with that. But otherwise - what are they going to do? Start monthly enforced state weigh-ins and if your BMI is too high, fine you some huge fee-tax or go to jail? I'm so sick of the nanny-state mentality.

[Woldan]

what are they going to do? Start monthly enforced state weigh-ins and if your BMI is too high, fine you some huge fee-tax or go to jail? I'm so sick of the nanny-state mentality.

 

What about dramatically limiting monetary and medical health assistance for those who got sick due to their unhealthy, irresponsible and stupid lifestyle? Now that would wake up a few people and save tons of bucks. 

[Mor]

That's what happens, you start out with the innocent sounding Commerce Clause and you wind up with Chairman Obama.

If you refer to Obama care, its the wrong example. Because this is exactly the situation right now i.e. we go by the Abuse Indulgent and Affordable Care Act. So a person who lives a healthy life style and exercise will be financing those who park their as on a couch and do nothing.( Last year a 20 year old unwashed behemoth of 160kg, came to my mom complaining about shortness of breath and general weakness, asking what what could be the reason, really ?!)

 

I support the idea of personal freedom, if you want to **** up your life do it, but I shouldn't be paying the bills when the consequence of your choice come back to hunt you.

[Enoch]

 

what are they going to do? Start monthly enforced state weigh-ins and if your BMI is too high, fine you some huge fee-tax or go to jail? I'm so sick of the nanny-state mentality.

 

What about dramatically limiting monetary and medical health assistance for those who got sick due to their unhealthy, irresponsible and stupid lifestyle? Now that would wake up a few people and save tons of bucks. 

 

 

Ah, but that requires a judgment call, which, of course, requires a judge of some sort.  So who gets to decide when my malady is my fault, as opposed to the luck of the genetic draw or lousy medical advice or deceptive food marketing or my employer making me sit still all day or a hundred other possible causes?  And what are my appeal rights to this decision, how many experts can I hire to argue on my behalf, etc., etc.  All those administrative costs and the associated (necessary) fraud-prevention controls would eat into those cash savings pretty quickly. 

 

 

 

It's fun to theory-cast, but many of the slippery-slope arguments are rather inapt in this scenario.  Governmental power is effectively limited by what can be implemented in a practical manner.  Which, in the case of policies to influence the diet and exercise regimes of the population, means policy "nudges" like increasing taxes on "harmful" stuff (like we do with alcohol and tobacco) and/or providing incentives for healthier stuff like fresh veggies and gym memberships.  (Sure, they could try to ban things, but we all remember that Prohibition didn't work, right?  Bloomberg's large soda ban was similarly shot down, both by the practical "I can just by 2 smalls" reality and by the courts that said it was beyond the city's power.)  And, as Hurlshot alludes, the WHO has no real power, and the folks who do have some authority over this kind of thing generally don't give a **** what they say. 

 

The public only really turned against cigarettes once there was a scientific consensus about second-hand smoke being harmful to "innocent" third parties.  Similarly with alcohol and drunk driving.  I can't see how that case could be made with regard to unhealthy food and drink.  

Edited February 5, 2014 by Enoch

[Hiro Protagonist]

I'm surprised by the willingness to label it child neglect or abuse.  That's a very serious charge, and at what threshold do you hold the parents responsible?  

 

One court in Victoria, Australia thinks so (in certain circumstances)

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/is-this-child-abuse-the-courts-think-so-20120711-21wdb.html

[Mor]

 

What about dramatically limiting monetary and medical health assistance for those who got sick due to their unhealthy, irresponsible and stupid lifestyle? Now that would wake up a few people and save tons of bucks.

 

Ah, but that requires a judgment call, which, of course, requires a judge of some sort.  So who gets to decide when my malady is my fault, as opposed to the luck of the genetic draw or lousy medical advice or deceptive food marketing or my employer making me sit still all day or a hundred other possible causes?  And what are my appeal rights to this decision, how many experts can I hire to argue on my behalf, etc., etc.  All those administrative costs and the associated (necessary) fraud-prevention controls would eat into those cash savings pretty quickly.

 

That why we play politics, instead of "limiting monetary and medical health assistance", we call it encouraging healthy life style and provide extras assistance to those who follow a certain health criterion.

 

As for causes, lets take car insurance for example, you can have all the causes in the world behind you, but in most places you will still pay more if you were involved in accidents or part of a risk group...

 

 

The public only really turned against cigarettes once there was a scientific consensus about second-hand smoke being harmful to "innocent" third parties.  Similarly with alcohol and drunk driving.  I can't see how that case could be made with regard to unhealthy food and drink.

How about obesity being harmful to "innocent" third parties pockets(See Airlines pricing example), I don't know about you but I think that most people would care more about their pocket than someone smoking in a non smoker zone.. Edited February 5, 2014 by Mor

[LadyCrimson]

encouraging healthy life style and provide extras assistance to those who follow a certain health criterion.

I have no issue if people could, say, join some voluntary "I'msuperhealthy" govt. program, so they can qualify for better rates than those who don't join/qualify for that program. But I'm not really into forcing people to pay higher rates solely on the premise that because they consume more than, I dunno, 6 drinks a day or 200grams of sugar a day, that they're a higher risk for 40 years down the road and should thus pay tons more now. Nor am I in favor of regulating such products/substances. About the only thing I might support is "junk food taxes"  which would cause fast food/junk food/eating out to no longer be super cheap...hence the convenience of them would likely no longer be worth the extra cost, for many people. Such things might then, for many at least, go back to being a weekly treat, rather than a constant at every meal. (edit) and I should say I'm not actually in huge favor of that either...since it punishes people who are healthy. But I'd be willing to try that route.

 

 

How about obesity being harmful to "innocent" third parties pockets(See Airlines pricing example), I don't know about you but I think that most people would care more about their pocket than someone smoking in a non smoker zone..

 

That kind of goes back to the companies (and they way they "push" their products relentlessly etc) that no one wants to touch. Plus there's all kinds of things in life, that other people do, that in some way I'm at least partially paying for (taxes of some kind) through no volition of mine. Like retire. I think people shouldn't be allowed to retire anymore, it's ruining my monthly budget.

 

2nd edit: maybe the above was a little too snarky. If so, sorry in advance. I'm sick, cranky and it's tax time. Back to bed soon.

[BruceVC]

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63420-the-heart-attack-grill-las-vegas/

 

 

Guys this old post of mine is relevant to this discussion, for me it highlights just how completely out of control some companies are around making a profit at the expense of the health of consumers. To be honest I feel the Heart Attack clinic is an excellent candidate for federal  government closure or forcing them to make fundamental changes to how they choose to conduct there business. I honestly cannot comprehend how anyone cannot be supportive of government intervention in this example.

Edited February 5, 2014 by BruceVC

[Mor]

I have no issue if people could, say, join some voluntary "I'msuperhealthy" govt. program, so they can qualify for better rates than those who don't join/qualify for that program. But I'm not really into forcing people to pay higher rates solely on the premise that because they consume more than, I dunno, 6 drinks a day or 200grams of sugar a day, that they're a higher risk for 40 years down the road and should thus pay tons more now. Nor am I in favor of regulating such products/substances. About the only thing I might support is "junk food taxes"  which would cause fast food/junk food/eating out to no longer be super cheap...hence the convenience of them would likely no longer be worth the extra cost, for many people. Such things might then, for many at least, go back to being a weekly treat, rather than a constant at every meal. (edit) and I should say I'm not actually in huge favor of that either...since it punishes people who are healthy. But I'd be willing to try that route.

I agree, I don't think that food taxes is the way to go. This is extremely hard to implemented and IMO has dubious individual benefits. I prefer personal responsibility over collective punishment, I want to be able to enjoy some junk food once in a while, its my decision how much soda I want to drink and I shouldn't pay more so that some people will eat less.. It should be about the individual to show self control and self respect.

 

Which is why I prefer the health insurance approach. Its not about some vague 'higher risk for 40 years down the road' it is about obesity being a major risk group for just about anything and it is very easy to check by your waist line.

 

Plus there's all kinds of things in life, that other people do, that in some way I'm at least partially paying for (taxes of some kind) through no volition of mine.

The key phrase was "easily preventable" and people who work hard to take care of themselves having to pay for those who don't.

[LadyCrimson]

Which is why I prefer the health insurance approach. Its not about some vague 'higher risk for 40 years down the road' it is about obesity being a major risk group for just about anything and it is very easy to check by your waist line.

But individually, it is vague. Some overweight people may not ever have any serious medical (cost-wise) issues and then just drop dead, costing no one anything. And some alcoholics are still skinny, so you can't use waistline for that measure, you'd have to police what they're drinking to be able to say "you drink too much, we're raising your rates".

 

And where do you draw the line? BMI is a good starting indicator I suppose, but I know fat people (275+ lbs, not tall) who could outwalk me in speed and mileage because they walked EVERYWHERE (yet stayed fat....) while my flat feet/weak ankles can make long distance walking/running a serious pain. And some lazy people who never exercise but may not be fat can be prime candidates for diabetes or other maladies and other such even with a healthy diet. And they can lie about their exercise on forms. How do you rate those people without monitoring their health all the time to see if they're lying?

 

Also, stuff like diabetes, heart attacks, strokes also have genetic tendencies/influences. Sure it's not "easily preventable" in that case, but still, they're very high risk people, right? Almost guaranteed they're going to be a burden on the system one day! Should my scared/health-conscious cousins pay more, because my (skinny, otherwise healthy) Uncle has had 3 heart attacks and his father and grandfather both died from heart attacks?

 

I don't think you should punish individuals for "maybes" at all. It's a "you don't conform thus you're inferior" message. I think you should do something about having a fast food joint every 2 blocks and the seventy gazillion commercials and ads that encourage excessive living, large portions, and the "socializing=eating" mentality. Or something.

 

btw, when I say I might support a "junk food tax" it's because ... well, my household already "supports" the alcohol tax and the tobacco tax, so what the heck...largish chocolate bar costs $1.5 - $2.5, why not make it $3-5. Course, it won't stop me from buying one, since I don't buy 50 of them at a time. It does punish people who just want the occasional treat, but at the same time, it's still then their choice to spend or not.

[LadyCrimson]

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63420-the-heart-attack-grill-las-vegas/

 

 

Guys this old post of mine is relevant to this discussion, for me it highlights just how completely out of control some companies are around making a profit at the expense of the health of consumers. To be honest I feel the Heart Attack clinic is an excellent candidate for federal  government closure or forcing them to make fundamental changes to how they choose to conduct there business. I honestly cannot comprehend how anyone cannot be supportive of government intervention in this example.

I remember that thread.

 

I'd still be against shutting them down/forcing them to remove the excessive menu items. I might, however, say they such places should always have a "lighter" menu for people to choose from, as well. Doesn't have to be big, just that they have something.  It's still not their "fault" if some go there and eat themselves silly, vs. eating some and taking the rest home to have for dinner over a couple more nights, or whatever.

 

I am, however, a little dubious about places that have those contests like "if you can eat our 6 pound plate of food in 10 minutes, win a t-shirt/it's free/get a pic on The Wall!" I know it's all in good fun (and it made for a funny TV show....) but that's giving prizes for superhuman excess as a sort of marketing tactic, not just having it on the menu for people to option from. And then there are the HappyMeals...

[Walsingham]

Every single one of the posts here in favour of intervention argues that government or some sort of regulatory action is the solution.

 

This fails to recognise that the ultimate actor, the last man with a 'hand to the ball' is ...man.

 

I put it to you that you cannot legislate a perfect human existence.

 

I must say that while I don't recognise an either or question here. But if I have to choose between a totalitarian state interfering with my every waking moment, and being left to manage my entire healthcare I'm definitely with GD. And I'd ask him to reserve me space to build a small shack on a remote portion of land, where my plaintive and ineffectual attempts to ward off coyotes will provide him ample evening amusement.

[Mor]

But individually, it is vague. Some overweight people may not ever have any serious medical (cost-wise) issues and then just drop dead, costing no one anything. And some alcoholics are still skinny, so you can't use waistline for that measure, you'd have to police what they're drinking to be able to say "you drink too much, we're raising your rates".

We all may or may not get a serious medical condition, though some of us are far far more likely to get one and due to their own doing.

 

I haven't said anything about drinking, since I am not familiar with any practical way to address the issue other than taxes on alcohol, which I'd rather not have.

 

And where do you draw the line? BMI is a good starting indicator I suppose, but I know fat people (275+ lbs, not tall) who could outwalk me in speed and mileage because they walked EVERYWHERE (yet stayed fat....) while my flat feet/weak ankles can make long distance walking/running a serious pain. And some lazy people who never exercise but may not be fat can be prime candidates for diabetes or other maladies and other such even with a healthy diet. And they can lie about their exercise on forms. How do you rate those people without monitoring their health all the time to see if they're lying?

I'll let the doctors draw the lines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity#Effects_on_health

 

As for why the focus on obesity and something else: "Obesity is a leading preventable cause of death worldwide, with increasing prevalence in adults and children, and authorities view it as one of the most serious public health problems of the 21st century"

 

Also, stuff like diabetes, heart attacks, strokes also have genetic tendencies/influences. Sure it's not "easily preventable" in that case, but still, they're very high risk people, right? Almost guaranteed they're going to be a burden on the system one day! Should my scared/health-conscious cousins pay more, because my (skinny, otherwise healthy) Uncle has had 3 heart attacks and his father and grandfather both died from heart attacks?

Like I said the key phrase is easily preventable. **** happens to us all, we can't fault someone for being born one way or another.

 

I don't think you should punish individuals for "maybes" at all. It's a "you don't conform thus you're inferior" message. I think you should do something about having a fast food joint every 2 blocks and the seventy gazillion commercials and ads that encourage excessive living, large portions, and the "socializing=eating" mentality. Or something.

No, the message is if you choose to neglect yourself, you better be ready to pay the price. As for the rest those are contributing factors, but overall its all about lack of self control/respect.

[Walsingham]

Two elaborations on the theme:

 

1) Death _by cancer_ is avoidable. Death isn't. Cure cancer by standing a certain way, and the health problems don't diminish one iota (across a broad timeline).

 

2) I can agree with Mor that current global culture does not encourage self respect or self-control. Most states are either totalitarian, cronyist, or consumerist.

 

But changing the law _about food_ won't address any of those issues.

[213374U]

No, the message is if you choose to neglect yourself, you better be ready to pay the price. As for the rest those are contributing factors, but overall its all about lack of self control/respect.

 

You seem awfully certain that the choice factor outweighs any others. And I may be inclined to agree, if the choice was whether to be poor or not. I'm sure you can see how absurd the implication that people willingly make an informed decision to be poor is. Because, you see, the correlation between obesity and poverty is a fact.

 

http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/60/11/2667.full

 

As Enoch excellently explained, value judgments are not the best way to handle this, regardless of how expedient they may be.

 

 

1) Death _by cancer_ is avoidable. Death isn't. Cure cancer by standing a certain way, and the health problems don't diminish one iota (across a broad timeline).

 

You are going to have to explain this one old boy, because I don't understand how removing the costs of cancer treatment from the equation does nothing to improve the healthcare bottom line.

 

edit: I f***in hate this new boards code messing with my quotes and font sizes. That is all.

Edited February 5, 2014 by 213374U

[Hurlshort]

I gotta say the comparison to obesity and diabetes to smoking is miles apart.  Smoking directly affects the health of people around you.  It is entirely different.  I haven't had a sinus infection in years thanks to all the non-smoking legislation.  

 

I'm going to take the libertarian stance and say that government interference in our diets is a bad idea.  I'd rather see people use the media and educational resources to enact changes within the industry.  For example, M&M's was using artificial coloring in the US and natural coloring in the UK.  The artificial coloring has been linked to some health problems, albeit loosely.  So some parent petitioned on change.org to ask them to switch to natural.  It worked, M&M's are transitioning to natural colors.  Problem solved without the need for Big Brother.

 

Movies like Supersize Me have put pressure on Fast Food restaurants to offer a few healthy choices on the menu.  That means I can take my kids to McDonalds for a happy meal and get some apples with their horrible mystery meat nuggets.

[Blarghagh]

I read somewhere that research has shown that the inclusion of healthy items on fast food restaurants' menus has actually had the opposite effect for some reason - people will order more unhealthy food in places that offer healthier food.

[Amentep]

 

1) Death _by cancer_ is avoidable. Death isn't. Cure cancer by standing a certain way, and the health problems don't diminish one iota (across a broad timeline).

 

You are going to have to explain this one old boy, because I don't understand how removing the costs of cancer treatment from the equation does nothing to improve the healthcare bottom line.

 

I took it to mean that if 100 people would die of cancer tomorrow and you cured cancer today those 100 people would still die - just not of cancer. The cost to keep them alive shifts from cancer treatment/management to whatever came next in the breakdown of the human system.

[Walsingham]

Except that we have defined 'care pathways' for cancer sufferers. Transfer the failure down the line to 'liquidating bowels' and you have to completely reorient all that care.

[213374U]

Except that we have defined 'care pathways' for cancer sufferers. Transfer the failure down the line to 'liquidating bowels' and you have to completely reorient all that care.

 

Right. The implicit basis for your reasoning is that whatever fatal malady cancer is substituted with down the road, has an equivalent or greater cost, so decreasing cancer risk means no overall savings. But cancer is a chronic disease that is particularly expensive to treat, unlike other old age-related acute afflictions. In addition, this logic can be used to justify opposing any public health-related reforms aimed at reducing the impact of lifestyle or occupational diseases.

[Meshugger]

Well, i've been across the US and i can say that fresh, non-processed food was more difficult to obtain than what should be necessary. After a while me and my friends were starting to serious crawings for vegetables and fruit so we went to a local supermarket i Austin, Texas (we haven't had anything with raw vegetables or fruit since Virginia IIRC) and bought some apples, carrots, oranges and whatnot. The look on the cashiers face was priceless. 

 

And the price? a small bag of apples: 7,50$ A family-pack of 8 burritos: 6,90$. Same thing in New Jersey as well. A bottle of water? 1,50$ A bottle of high-sugar orange-like drink? 1,25$

 

And what's with corn-sugar in everything? Remove the subventions on that crap already.

[BruceVC]

Well, i've been across the US and i can say that fresh, non-processed food was more difficult to obtain than what should be necessary. After a while me and my friends were starting to serious crawings for vegetables and fruit so we went to a local supermarket i Austin, Texas (we haven't had anything with raw vegetables or fruit since Virginia IIRC) and bought some apples, carrots, oranges and whatnot. The look on the cashiers face was priceless. 

 

And the price? a small bag of apples: 7,50$ A family-pack of 8 burritos: 6,90$. Same thing in New Jersey as well. A bottle of water? 1,50$ A bottle of high-sugar orange-like drink? 1,25$

 

And what's with corn-sugar in everything? Remove the subventions on that crap already.

 

Your post makes me laugh

[Walsingham]

 

Except that we have defined 'care pathways' for cancer sufferers. Transfer the failure down the line to 'liquidating bowels' and you have to completely reorient all that care.

 

Right. The implicit basis for your reasoning is that whatever fatal malady cancer is substituted with down the road, has an equivalent or greater cost, so decreasing cancer risk means no overall savings. But cancer is a chronic disease that is particularly expensive to treat, unlike other old age-related acute afflictions. In addition, this logic can be used to justify opposing any public health-related reforms aimed at reducing the impact of lifestyle or occupational diseases.

 

 

Fair point. I am making the assumption that the cancer fail case will just get substituted for something else.

 

But I grant that for younger cancer sufferers this won't be true.

 

However, at the risk of pre-empting the results of discussion I am trying to make the overall point that paternalist government should have a ne plus ultra.

 

Unless and until we, as democratically empowered citizens/subjects, make it clear what the ne plus ultra is ...people held accountable for our health will continuously push for more power.