Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare - 6/1/2012 8:36:58 AM   
fucktoyprincess


Posts: 2337
Status: offline
I have to say, I don't think this is such a bad idea. After all, it is quite obvious that people are not able to control the quantity of what they consume. And consuming ones daily caloric intake through sweet drinks is not healthy. Period.

People's ability to assess when they have consumed enough is very poor. If you keep feeding people more and more, they will just consume it. So, because our internal cues are so easily deceived, I think it is reasonable to start to define what is a reasonable serving size of certain things. If people can buy 40 ounces, they will consume it without regard to whether they have had enough or not after 8 ounces, or even 20. That's the reality.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15761167

I also feel that to the extent that we as a society bear the long term costs of certain personal decision that perhaps we, as a society, should have a say in some of these things. In other words, if people who insist on having to consume huge quantities of sweet drinks every day also pay out of pocket for all of their medical expenses, then I have no problem with establishments being able to serve gigantic serving portions. But we all end up paying with our own money for the health choices of other people. And as obesity, and the health costs around obesity, continue to increase, all of us will bear the burden.

So for those of you who are in favor of "freedom" on this issue, then I say, anyone who drinks a lot of sweet drinks should not be allowed to have medical insurance. They can be free to become obese as long as they take on the responsibility for the costs associated with that choice. Fair is fair.

_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare - 6/1/2012 9:32:23 AM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
quote:

When I walk into a store, there are about 20 different labels for the same thing. I want the one that is the best for me but I don't want to sit there all day going through each label. It would take me hours upon hours to shop that way.


The healthiest foods have no labels.

http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/The-Truth-About-Food-with-Michael-Pollan/3

Mass-produced foods also line the shelves of nearly every grocery aisle. "A lot of what you see in the supermarket I would argue is not really food," Michael says. "It's what I call edible, food-like substances."

These products comprise of what Michael calls the "Western diet." "It was really invented about a hundred years ago. It means lots of processed food and meat, lots of added fat and sugar," he says. "Lots of everything except fruits, vegetables and whole grains."

...Michael says his own approach to eating is simple. "I've boiled it down to seven words: Eat food. Mostly plants. Not too much."

...In his 20 years of reporting on food, Michael has picked up a number of rules to eat by. They're now collected in an eater's manual, Food Rules. His guidelines to good eating include:

1: Eat food.

2: Don't eat anything your great-grandmother wouldn't recognize as food.

7: Avoid food products containing ingredients that a third-grader cannot pronounce.

13: Eat only foods that will eventually rot.

39: Eat all the junk food you want as long as you cook it yourself.

"It's not that hard to eat well if you're willing to put a little more time into it, a little more thoughtfulness into it and, yes, a little bit more money," he says.

(in reply to littlewonder)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare - 6/1/2012 9:35:11 AM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
"Food Rules": A Completely Different Way To Fix The Health Care Crisis

...I decided to take the doctors up on the challenge. I set out to collect and formulate some straightforward, memorable, everyday rules for eating, a set of personal policies that would, taken together or even separately, nudge people onto a healthier and happier path. I solicited rules from doctors, scientist, chefs, and readers, and then wrote a bunch myself, trying to boil down into everyday language what we really know about healthy eating. And while most of the rules are backed by science, they are not framed in the vocabulary of science but rather culture -- a source of wisdom about eating that turns out to have as much, if not more, to teach us than nutritional science does.

What follows is a small sample of "Food Rules", a half dozen policies that will give you a taste of what you'll find in the book: sixty-four food rules, each with a paragraph of explanation. I think you'll see from this little appetizer that "Food Rules" is a most unconventional diet book. You can read it in an hour and it just might change your eating life. I hope you'll take away something you can put to good use, and maybe get a chuckle or two along the way. And do let me know if have any food rules I should know about. I'm still collecting them, at [email protected].

#11 Avoid foods you see advertised on television.

Food marketers are ingenious at turning criticisms of their products -- and rules like these -- into new ways to sell slightly different versions of the same processed foods: They simply reformulate (to be low-fat, have no HFCS or transfats, or to contain fewer ingredients) and then boast about their implied healthfulness, whether the boast is meaningful or not. The best way to escape these marketing ploys is to tune out the marketing itself, by refusing to buy heavily promoted foods. Only the biggest food manufacturers can afford to advertise their products on television: More than two thirds of food advertising is spent promoting processed foods (and alcohol), so if you avoid products with big ad budgets, you'll automatically be avoiding edible foodlike substances. As for the 5 percent of food ads that promote whole foods (the prune or walnut growers or the beef ranchers), common sense will, one hopes, keep you from tarring them with the same brush -- these are the exceptions that prove the rule.

From "Food Rules":

#19 If it came from a plant, eat it; if it was made in a plant, don't.

#36 Don't eat breakfast cereals that change the color of the milk.

This should go without saying. Such cereals are highly processed and full of refined carbohydrates as well as chemical additives.

#39 Eat all the junk food you want as long as you cook it yourself.

There is nothing wrong with eating sweets, fried foods, pastries, even drinking soda every now and then, but food manufacturers have made eating these formerly expensive and hard-to-make treats so cheap and easy that we're eating them every day. The french fry did not become America's most popular vegetable until industry took over the jobs of washing, peeling, cutting, and frying the potatoes -- and cleaning up the mess. If you made all the french fries you ate, you would eat them much less often, if only because they're so much work. The same holds true for fried chicken, chips, cakes, pies, and ice cream. Enjoy these treats as often as you're willing to prepare them -- chances are good it won't be every day.

#47 Eat when you are hungry, not when you are bored.

For many of us, eating has surprisingly little to do with hunger. We eat out of boredom, for entertainment, to comfort or reward ourselves. Try to be aware of why you're eating, and ask yourself if you're really hungry -- before you eat and then again along the way. (One old wive's test: If you're not hungry enough to eat an apple, then you're not hungry.) Food is a costly antidepressant.

#58 Do all your eating at a table.

No, a desk is not a table. If we eat while we're working, or while watching TV or driving, we eat mindlessly -- and as a result eat a lot more than we would if we were eating at a table, paying attention to what we're doing. This phenomenon can be tested (and put to good use): Place a child in front of a television set and place a bowl of fresh vegetables in front of him or her. The child will eat everything in the bowl, often even vegetables that he or she doesn't ordinarily touch, without noticing what's going on. Which suggests an exception to the rule: When eating somewhere other than at a table, stick to fruits and vegetables.

(in reply to kalikshama)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare - 6/1/2012 9:57:49 AM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
I just downloaded "Food Rules" from my library. I've been a big fan of Michael Pollan since his Power Steer article: http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/power-steer/

(in reply to kalikshama)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare - 6/1/2012 11:21:36 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
I have to say, I don't think this is such a bad idea. After all, it is quite obvious that people are not able to control the quantity of what they consume. And consuming ones daily caloric intake through sweet drinks is not healthy. Period.
People's ability to assess when they have consumed enough is very poor. If you keep feeding people more and more, they will just consume it. So, because our internal cues are so easily deceived, I think it is reasonable to start to define what is a reasonable serving size of certain things. If people can buy 40 ounces, they will consume it without regard to whether they have had enough or not after 8 ounces, or even 20. That's the reality.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15761167
I also feel that to the extent that we as a society bear the long term costs of certain personal decision that perhaps we, as a society, should have a say in some of these things. In other words, if people who insist on having to consume huge quantities of sweet drinks every day also pay out of pocket for all of their medical expenses, then I have no problem with establishments being able to serve gigantic serving portions. But we all end up paying with our own money for the health choices of other people. And as obesity, and the health costs around obesity, continue to increase, all of us will bear the burden.
So for those of you who are in favor of "freedom" on this issue, then I say, anyone who drinks a lot of sweet drinks should not be allowed to have medical insurance. They can be free to become obese as long as they take on the responsibility for the costs associated with that choice. Fair is fair.


Are you saying that because someone is obese and drinks "a lot" of "sweet" drinks, he/she will be barred from getting insurance? What's next? People who engage in extreme sports? Wasn't the idea of universal health care to get everyone covered so we aren't covering the costs of those who don't have insurance and go to the ER? And, if you engage in sexual intercourse and get pregnant (assuming you can, were trying, didn't take enough precautions, etc.), we are still going to bear the costs of that for you? How is it you can single out people who are obese and not others who take risky behaviors that will also drive up care costs? Smokers next? Drinkers? People who don't wear seat belts? Motorcycle riders especially if they don't wear helmets? Speeders? People who eat a lot of fried foods? People who salt their foods heavily?

Are going to regulate how much dietary fiber we eat on a daily basis because it has been shown to have a beneficial effect on colon cancer? Are we all going to have to switch to oatmeal or Cheerios for breakfast because the oat fiber (the soluble fiber, more specifically) has been shown to absorb cholesterol from the foods we eat, thereby preventing us from absorbing it, keeping our blood cholesterol down?

If they can decide this stuff for us, and prevent us from ingesting it, where does it end? 1984?

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare - 6/1/2012 11:23:44 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And, within the blood stream, fructose and glucose act the same with regards to diabetes, insulin levels and glucagon. They are also metabolized in the same manner within the cells.

They do not, and they are not. There's quite a bit of research published which suggests that fructose is not digested in the same fashion as glucose. At one point HFCS was being seriously pushed as a possible replacement for glucose based sugar in the diabetic diet as a result of that. When other issues with its side effects began to emerge, this notion was mostly abandoned.


Fructose undergoes 3 enzymatic reactions before being able to be used as a replacement for glucose. Don't mistake digestion and metabolism. They are not the same.

But, hey, what does science know, right?

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare - 6/1/2012 1:08:00 PM   
fucktoyprincess


Posts: 2337
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
I have to say, I don't think this is such a bad idea. After all, it is quite obvious that people are not able to control the quantity of what they consume. And consuming ones daily caloric intake through sweet drinks is not healthy. Period.
People's ability to assess when they have consumed enough is very poor. If you keep feeding people more and more, they will just consume it. So, because our internal cues are so easily deceived, I think it is reasonable to start to define what is a reasonable serving size of certain things. If people can buy 40 ounces, they will consume it without regard to whether they have had enough or not after 8 ounces, or even 20. That's the reality.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15761167
I also feel that to the extent that we as a society bear the long term costs of certain personal decision that perhaps we, as a society, should have a say in some of these things. In other words, if people who insist on having to consume huge quantities of sweet drinks every day also pay out of pocket for all of their medical expenses, then I have no problem with establishments being able to serve gigantic serving portions. But we all end up paying with our own money for the health choices of other people. And as obesity, and the health costs around obesity, continue to increase, all of us will bear the burden.
So for those of you who are in favor of "freedom" on this issue, then I say, anyone who drinks a lot of sweet drinks should not be allowed to have medical insurance. They can be free to become obese as long as they take on the responsibility for the costs associated with that choice. Fair is fair.


Are you saying that because someone is obese and drinks "a lot" of "sweet" drinks, he/she will be barred from getting insurance? What's next? People who engage in extreme sports? Wasn't the idea of universal health care to get everyone covered so we aren't covering the costs of those who don't have insurance and go to the ER? And, if you engage in sexual intercourse and get pregnant (assuming you can, were trying, didn't take enough precautions, etc.), we are still going to bear the costs of that for you? How is it you can single out people who are obese and not others who take risky behaviors that will also drive up care costs? Smokers next? Drinkers? People who don't wear seat belts? Motorcycle riders especially if they don't wear helmets? Speeders? People who eat a lot of fried foods? People who salt their foods heavily?

Are going to regulate how much dietary fiber we eat on a daily basis because it has been shown to have a beneficial effect on colon cancer? Are we all going to have to switch to oatmeal or Cheerios for breakfast because the oat fiber (the soluble fiber, more specifically) has been shown to absorb cholesterol from the foods we eat, thereby preventing us from absorbing it, keeping our blood cholesterol down?

If they can decide this stuff for us, and prevent us from ingesting it, where does it end? 1984?


I am saying that people who rely on other people's money for their health care (that is what insurance is) should not gripe about government regulation of foods that are directly linked to the obesity problem in this country. Smokers and drinkers are already taxed heavily to take into account the disproportionate burden that they place on society. Seat belt laws are in place in most jurisdictions. And if you don't wear your seatbelt and are injured, part of your injuries will not be covered by tort law due to contributory negligence. Same with motorcycle helmets. Speeding is also illegal. And personally, I wouldn't have a problem on taxing fried foods to take into account their negative impact on health. Salt is actually a dietary requirement, so I would not favor any type of restrictions on salt. I would love a tax on people with more than one child. But I know that will never pass. I also support free choice and contraception - both of which I feel should be easily available to women of all means. And free choice and contraception reduce the number of births.

So, my basic answer to your question, is that, well, in most cases, society has already done what you suggest, and I am not opposed to it going further. Restricitng people's access to things that we all know are bad, and in the case of sweet drinks there is actually NO positive thing to say about them, doesn't seem that wrong. Even marijuana has more positive impact than sweet drinks. And yet marijuana is illegal!

People who would like to do unhealthy things are welcome to opt out of health care programs where other people have to pay for their choices. To me certain types of freedoms and privileges ought to come with certain responsibilities too.

By the way this has NOTHING to do with the concept of universal health care. Even with private insurance, the rest of us pay for things like obesity. That's how pooled fund risk management works. Has nothing to do with whether government is paying or it is private. My premiums still go up when other people engage in risky behavior.

By the same token, I am in support of offering premium reduction to people who engage in safer behavior (something that insurance companies already do).







_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare - 6/1/2012 4:14:54 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And, within the blood stream, fructose and glucose act the same with regards to diabetes, insulin levels and glucagon. They are also metabolized in the same manner within the cells.

They do not, and they are not. There's quite a bit of research published which suggests that fructose is not digested in the same fashion as glucose. At one point HFCS was being seriously pushed as a possible replacement for glucose based sugar in the diabetic diet as a result of that. When other issues with its side effects began to emerge, this notion was mostly abandoned.


Fructose undergoes 3 enzymatic reactions before being able to be used as a replacement for glucose. Don't mistake digestion and metabolism. They are not the same.

But, hey, what does science know, right?

How to clone Sontarans?


_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare - 6/1/2012 5:38:41 PM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Got any authority for that statement, Aylee? Because this study says you are wrong.




40 people. Subtle differences. That is really not enough research.

He even states that there need to be more studies to determine long term effects.

Regardless, I should be able to buy myself a 44 ounce super gulp FULL of HFCS if I want to.

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to Iamsemisweet)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare - 6/1/2012 6:28:53 PM   
littlewonder


Posts: 15659
Status: offline
I kinda like the idea of the government regulating our food. I'm the type of person where if I see something to eat that I really want, I will buy it because it's so readily available. I stand there, put it in the cart, take it out of cart, put it back in, the entire time telling myself that I have self control and hey, I'll just start all over tomorrow.

Now if there was healthy food instead of junk food on shelves, I would end up eating those more instead of the junk food which is shoved down your throat you yourself and the corporation.



_____________________________

Nothing has changed
Everything has changed

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare - 6/1/2012 6:35:36 PM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
...here is Michael Pollan's fourth rule from his book, "Food Rules: An Eater's Manual."

4. Avoid food products that contain high-fructose corn syrup.

Not because high-fructose corn syrup is any worse for you than sugar, but because it is, like many of the other unfamiliar ingredients in packaged foods, a reliable marker for a food product that has been highly processed. Also, high-fructose corn syrup is being added to hundreds of foods that have not traditionally been sweetened – breads, condiments, and many snack foods – so if you avoid products that contain it, you will cut down on your sugar intake. But don’t fall for the food industry’s latest scam: products reformulated to contain “no HFCS” or “real cane sugar.” These claims imply these foods are somehow healthier, but they’re not. Sugar is sugar.

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare - 6/1/2012 7:19:00 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

I am saying that people who rely on other people's money for their health care (that is what insurance is) should not gripe about government regulation of foods that are directly linked to the obesity problem in this country.


Well stated.

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare - 6/1/2012 7:43:53 PM   
erieangel


Posts: 2237
Joined: 6/19/2011
Status: offline
I like the government regulating our food in the manner of ensuring that the food we get is disease-free. That we are not going to get poisoned from eating tomatoes, beef, eggs, etc., as we have in recent years. I don't like the idea of the government dictating what size soft drink I am permitted to have with my dinner at the local Olive Garden.

As for healthy food on the grocery store shelves--its there, all over the place. My son and I have started shopping at Wegmen's. We buy organic beef, chicken and eggs, bison (its delicious but costly), lots of organic produce on a weekly basis. We also buy fresh pasta which costs a little more than the dried stuff but its worth it because it doesn't have all the preservatives of the dried pasta and it comes in smaller packages so we make less and eat less. My son tried to get me to eat whole grain pasta but I didn't like it. I make pierogies from scratch. Cabbage rolls and stuffed peppers, too. I do not bake cakes or pies and cookies usually only at holiday time and from scratch.

In all honesty, most of my soft drink intake is of the "diet" variety and it is much lower than it used to be--I think I've had 2 maybe 3 all week. I do like Pepsi Throwback, which has cane sugar instead of corn syrup but only because it tastes better than regular or diet Pepsi but it is hard to find sometimes and I usually don't go around looking for particular types of soft drinks. I'd rather drop a few tea bags into gallon of hot water let it seep for a while, add half a cup of sugar (or not, depending how I'm feeling and who else is drinking it) add some lemon, ice and enjoy.


(in reply to littlewonder)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare - 6/1/2012 10:26:05 PM   
Iamsemisweet


Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline
and how much "research" have you done? Not so much as a citation for your blanket statement.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Got any authority for that statement, Aylee? Because this study says you are wrong.




40 people. Subtle differences. That is really not enough research.

He even states that there need to be more studies to determine long term effects.

Regardless, I should be able to buy myself a 44 ounce super gulp FULL of HFCS if I want to.



_____________________________

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare - 6/2/2012 6:40:28 AM   
fucktoyprincess


Posts: 2337
Status: offline
FR

The more I think about this, I think the government should approach this the way they approach tobacco and alcohol, and just start taxing sweet drinks very heavily. So if people want their ridiculous super size big gulp whatevers that consist of sweeteners, water, and artificial colors, they can go right ahead and pay extra for the privilege of making themselves obese. As for diet drinks, some sweeteners are carcinogenic, some sweeteners, like Nutrasweet - well they don't observe it leaving our system - so it is depositing somewhere in our bodies and no one knows to what effect. In addition, it has been shown that all sweet drinks, even those artificially sweetened, encourage people to actually eat more because the empty calories leave the body without nutrition so the body then searches for more. So I would tax all sweet drinks regardless of how they are sweetened, because they both seem to have a negative impact on health.

_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to Iamsemisweet)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare - 6/2/2012 7:31:29 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
How to clone Sontarans?



I see your General Staal, and raise you 11 Doctors!



_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare - 6/2/2012 7:58:30 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
I'm going to hack and slash your response just for clarity. I just want you to know up front that I'm editing your response, and not doing it just to be sneaky.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
I am saying that people who rely on other people's money for their health care (that is what insurance is) should not gripe about government regulation of foods that are directly linked to the obesity problem in this country.

People who would like to do unhealthy things are welcome to opt out of health care programs where other people have to pay for their choices. To me certain types of freedoms and privileges ought to come with certain responsibilities too.

By the way this has NOTHING to do with the concept of universal health care. Even with private insurance, the rest of us pay for things like obesity. That's how pooled fund risk management works. Has nothing to do with whether government is paying or it is private.


Now, rearrange the quotes...

quote:


By the way this has NOTHING to do with the concept of universal health care. Even with private insurance, the rest of us pay for things like obesity. That's how pooled fund risk management works. Has nothing to do with whether government is paying or it is private.

I am saying that people who rely on other people's money for their health care (that is what insurance is) should not gripe about government regulation of foods that are directly linked to the obesity problem in this country.

People who would like to do unhealthy things are welcome to opt out of health care programs where other people have to pay for their choices. To me certain types of freedoms and privileges ought to come with certain responsibilities too.


If Government isn't paying for the insurance, why is it up to Government to regulate it? Where does the authority to dictate what we can or can not ingest, how heavy we are, or how healthy we are come from? If you enter into a contract with an insurance company, using non-public funds (ie, either you or your employer pay for it; if you work for the Government, in cases such as this, the Government acts as any other employer and negotiates with the insurance companies on behalf of it's covered employees, not all Citizens), aren't you stating that you want to take advantage of the risk pool offered? If you think you belong in a healthier risk pool, isn't it your responsibility to effect that change?

Universal Health Care that is in place now, forces people to purchase insurance whether they want it or not. That would be in conflict with the quote above about opting out. If I can't opt out for whatever reason, even if it's because I'm concerned about my risk pool being less healthy than I am, or more risky than I am, how can you enforce our current incarnation of UHC?

While you can believe that all you want, I believe the better way is to separate each person from being forced to pay for another. Allow Government to enforce truth in advertising (so, some huckster can't come along, sell you snake oil, and get away with it), but allow each and every one of us do what we think is right. If I am going to subsidize your going to a Certified Physician, shouldn't I be subsidized if I decide to go see a Shaman? If we are all responsible for ourselves, would that not mean we're less likely to engage in risky behaviors because we'll bear the full brunt of the consequences?

This is where the rubber hits the road. If the Government can dictate what you can or can not eat, what is to stop them from making regulations regarding what you can or can not weigh? Or, what activities you can or can not engage in? Or, what you have to engage in? Telling people that they are perfectly free as long as they choose accepted activities, foods, and behaviors isn't freedom at all.

The only reason you are having to pay for someone else's obesity, is because of Government Regulations. Get the Government out, and costs will drop. When costs drop, you'll be better able to be financially responsible for yourself.

[edited because I forgot to add a "/"]

< Message edited by DesideriScuri -- 6/2/2012 7:59:40 AM >


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare - 6/2/2012 10:13:23 AM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
Michael Pollan's open letter to the future President in Oct 2008 postulates that the Farmer in Chief will not be able to make significant progress on the health care crisis, energy independence or climate change without reform of the entire food system.

Farmer in Chief

...It must be recognized that the current food system — characterized by monocultures of corn and soy in the field and cheap calories of fat, sugar and feedlot meat on the table — is not simply the product of the free market. Rather, it is the product of a specific set of government policies that sponsored a shift from solar (and human) energy on the farm to fossil-fuel energy.

Did you notice when you flew over Iowa during the campaign how the land was completely bare — black — from October to April? What you were seeing is the agricultural landscape created by cheap oil. In years past, except in the dead of winter, you would have seen in those fields a checkerboard of different greens: pastures and hayfields for animals, cover crops, perhaps a block of fruit trees. Before the application of oil and natural gas to agriculture, farmers relied on crop diversity (and photosynthesis) both to replenish their soil and to combat pests, as well as to feed themselves and their neighbors. Cheap energy, however, enabled the creation of monocultures, and monocultures in turn vastly increased the productivity both of the American land and the American farmer; today the typical corn-belt farmer is single-handedly feeding 140 people.

This did not occur by happenstance. After World War II, the government encouraged the conversion of the munitions industry to fertilizer — ammonium nitrate being the main ingredient of both bombs and chemical fertilizer — and the conversion of nerve-gas research to pesticides. The government also began subsidizing commodity crops, paying farmers by the bushel for all the corn, soybeans, wheat and rice they could produce. One secretary of agriculture after another implored them to plant “fence row to fence row” and to “get big or get out.”

The chief result, especially after the Earl Butz years, was a flood of cheap grain that could be sold for substantially less than it cost farmers to grow because a government check helped make up the difference. As this artificially cheap grain worked its way up the food chain, it drove down the price of all the calories derived from that grain: the high-fructose corn syrup in the Coke, the soy oil in which the potatoes were fried, the meat and cheese in the burger.

Subsidized monocultures of grain also led directly to monocultures of animals: since factory farms could buy grain for less than it cost farmers to grow it, they could now fatten animals more cheaply than farmers could. So America’s meat and dairy animals migrated from farm to feedlot, driving down the price of animal protein to the point where an American can enjoy eating, on average, 190 pounds of meat a year — a half pound every day.

But if taking the animals off farms made a certain kind of economic sense, it made no ecological sense whatever: their waste, formerly regarded as a precious source of fertility on the farm, became a pollutant — factory farms are now one of America’s biggest sources of pollution. As Wendell Berry has tartly observed, to take animals off farms and put them on feedlots is to take an elegant solution — animals replenishing the fertility that crops deplete — and neatly divide it into two problems: a fertility problem on the farm and a pollution problem on the feedlot. The former problem is remedied with fossil-fuel fertilizer; the latter is remedied not at all.

What was once a regional food economy is now national and increasingly global in scope — thanks again to fossil fuel. Cheap energy — for trucking food as well as pumping water — is the reason New York City now gets its produce from California rather than from the “Garden State” next door, as it did before the advent of Interstate highways and national trucking networks. More recently, cheap energy has underwritten a globalized food economy in which it makes (or rather, made) economic sense to catch salmon in Alaska, ship it to China to be filleted and then ship the fillets back to California to be eaten; or one in which California and Mexico can profitably swap tomatoes back and forth across the border; or Denmark and the United States can trade sugar cookies across the Atlantic. About that particular swap the economist Herman Daly once quipped, “Exchanging recipes would surely be more efficient.”

Whatever we may have liked about the era of cheap, oil-based food, it is drawing to a close. Even if we were willing to continue paying the environmental or public-health price, we’re not going to have the cheap energy (or the water) needed to keep the system going, much less expand production. But as is so often the case, a crisis provides opportunity for reform, and the current food crisis presents opportunities that must be seized.

In drafting these proposals, I’ve adhered to a few simple principles of what a 21st-century food system needs to do. First, your administration’s food policy must strive to provide a healthful diet for all our people; this means focusing on the quality and diversity (and not merely the quantity) of the calories that American agriculture produces and American eaters consume. Second, your policies should aim to improve the resilience, safety and security of our food supply. Among other things, this means promoting regional food economies both in America and around the world. And lastly, your policies need to reconceive agriculture as part of the solution to environmental problems like climate change.

...

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare - 6/2/2012 2:13:38 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
How to clone Sontarans?


Cackle, cackle, cackle


_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare - 6/2/2012 2:33:34 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
Thanks, I'm hear all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.180