Needs of the Many, Wants of the Few (?)

[Guest]

http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/f ... ty_levels/

how long before that happens in the US?

Hopefully never.Modern Society may have a problem with obesity. A life that involve sitting on your ass in your car to get to your desk: and then sitting in you car to get to your couch........well it's not going to burn alot of calories is it.

Banning calories, fat, low grade nutrition is not the solution. exercise is the solution.

City dwellers as a whole sit on their ass and eat garbage. Rural folk burn a few more calories and consume a few more. In fact the Inuit and other peoples in the north must consume more fat and calories perday just to stay warm.

This is one of those grey areas as discussed on another thread Ian. The law intended to do good just may end harming people as well.

We can not legislate diet,or healthy amounts of exercise. And that horrible garbage food that hangs off the buttocks of urban folks is burned up heating the body in folks that work outside in minus fourty for twelve to sixteen hours a day.They have to eat to fuel the physical work on top of that.

Ya ya ya.....different types of fat .....but you cannot eat a designer diet on an oil rig or a trap line. you probably don't eat the best quality food on welfare. So you have no income and the big highlight of the month is eating some fast food crap. Better than eatting another plate of starch at home. ......I don't want to take that away. Why tax someones only indulgence?

The people eatting these poor diets can not afford much. Some of these people require 4 times your daily intake just because they work hard and work in the cold. Some of them live in the land of 6 dollar bread. Taxes on fat and poor quality food is not going to help some of these low wage earners in the north. It just might kill them because, they are going to go out in the cold and work with out the energy to heat and fuel them cause they can not afford the price increase.

I agree we need to put quality grub in folks, I know your sick of seeing the toll of poor quality diets Ian but this solution is going to hurt people who are just getting by. This is the wrong thing to support in our countries.

Just my uninformed look at it

Laird

[Stryke]

Taxing food thats bad for you is ridiculous , Its been suggested by a few down here , I dont however mind a more logical solution and thats giving a tax break on fruit and vegetables ... more logic right ?

I personally love food , I indulge in the junk now and then , I need those extra calories sometimes , its like the old guns dont kill people debate , same with fast food

Im all for a world of self responsibility , maybe then well start using that thing on our shoulders a bit more rather than suing Mcdonalds

[ljr]

but this thread was started on the fact that Boston, Massachusetts has outlawed the smoking inside of bars and resturaunts..... why is that far from taxing fatty food.... I realize you will say that smoking effects others, but "others" do not need to be there, it is there choice.

[Stryke]

Yup complicated stuff isnt it , when you start talking of public good versus personal freedom ... the smoking issue I cant really decide on , wouldnt mind smoke free enviroments myself but do I hav the right to impose this on others ? .

Its democracy at its finest/worst , I guess the mojority will tolerate/approve the smoking ban , Will they accept fast food bans ? , banning smoking in public is a good idea less chance of contaminating others .

then it comes down to a decision if a private establishment is indeed a public place ? , lots of factors here

[benzocaine]

I just found this thread.. I've recently bugun to "lurk" here. When I went home to Carver MA to visit 2 summers ago I was pleasantly surprised to find smoking banned in public places in Plymouth county. Iwish that would happen here! Unfortunately VA is tobacco country.

[2Green]

"Rights and laws are creations of society."

...glad that's still true in your country. Up here in Canada they are the creations of the courts and the police.
Government simply defers to the courts in order to avoid political implication. That way they are not responsible (accountable) for what the law says, come election day.
Laws are conceived, formulated and enforced with absolutely no input from society.Society has no say in what the courts decide, and what the police enforce.
Legislature-created law is a thing of the past, and having a vote on a new law is like voting on what time the tide will come in, in this country. Done deal. Live with it.

As for smoking (tobacco), you can smoke in your house and your car. "Public place" is interpreted as "any place the public has right or access to", meaning any bars, restaurants, malls, essentially anyplace that is not "yours."

Although it has not yet happened, I have no doubt that this will soon include (enforced) the beach and public parks, sidewalks owned by the city, bus stops, parking lots, drive-through pickups of any kind, your front yard (too close to children on the street), and probably soon , any outdoor area where cigarette smoke could drift away and endanger any nearby inhalants.
In other words, only your house and (sometimes) your car.

But wait, there's more.
You won't be able to smoke in your house because it will endanger your children.
No children?
It will endanger your pets.
In order to adopt a pet, you will have to sign a document certifying your indoor space as smoke free.

And guess what: you won't get to vote on it.
The government will leave it to the courts to rule on a precedent case which will now become law by de facto, and this will be enforced by the police.

How do you like your freedom so far, Canada?

(A Canadian)

NM

[IJ]

http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health/nutrit/ ... htm#preval

Look at slides 14-29 or so:
http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health/nutrit/ ... htm#preval

I submit that eating a healthier diet, as encouraged by sin taxes on unhealthy foods, or the apparently more popular tax breaks on healthy foods, although they are exactly the same thing is:

1) cheaper, because processed foods are the ones with more salt, fat, cholesterol, and other garbage in them and the good stuff refined out, and also the costlier ones, which is why our society promotes them

2) cost saving and work-life prolonging, because they encourage fitness, which makes work more efficient, and health, which prolongs the time one can work both in a day and a lifetime, and the absence of disease, which means avoidance of costly medications, doctor's visits and hospitalizations and eventually will lower insurance rates.

We have money for cigarettes, booze, and a large variety of distractions, and I doubt sin taxes on junk food are going to tax anyone out of food. If they can't afford sugar water for example, they'd have to turn to water, which would save $1.25 for 16 oz plus the sin tax, give or take, and a heck of a lot of calories. One can always argue that people should be completely free to make their own choices, but the way we are eating, aging and handling our healthcare system is not working and we're headed for a disaster of sorts. Go back and look at the diabetes prevalence graphs on those charts. The risk of a heart attack in a diabetic is the same as someone who's already had one. Wow. Sick country. We have to take some step. Sin taxes on junk, combined with bertter education in schools (from classes to only healthy options in the cafeteria (no more expensive and the kids DO learn to like it) to shutting out junk vending machines) and a more prominent health oriented labeling at the supermarket are some of my ideas... what does everyone else have?

[benzocaine]

Ian,

I can see quite clearly your arguments for a "sin tax" on certain foods. I strongly support your idea of educationg children and cutting the junk out of school menus. While we are at it let's get rid of the vending machines on property that sell sodas. God knows when the kids come off their sugar "high" their attention span will not be all that great.

I see problems with the sin tax. There are so many theories out there as to what food is good and what food is bad. Dr. Atkins said that a diet low in grains, fruits, and other carbohydrate sources, but high in fats and protiens is good for you.( I don't agree but will play devils advocate) Another camp follows the the ol' food pyramid... but didn't the New England journal of medecine just recently suggest a change in that? Also we need to think about the impact a tax like this would have on manufacturers of different foods in the US. Right now we have a fairly good market based upon supply and demand.. we have a large supply of beef as well as a large demand for Mickey Dees.. and soda.. and chips.. and pizza. Imagine what a tax on these foods could do to our economy.

Once again I can appreciate your ideas. I especially like the ideas about reforming school policies.

[IJ]

There are a variety of proposed diets out there, but there are a variety of constants:

--veggies are healthy.
--refined carbs are not
--excess salt is bad
--excess calories is bad
--except for the Atkins group, it's well accepted that we should control fat overall, and avoid saturated and trans fats for olive oil, canola oil, and oils from fish and nuts which are healthier.

There's no harm done to any food theory if we put sin taxes on twinkies and potato chips and regular sodas; they have no advocates.

And I think the loss to the economy from selling less dangerous food will be offset by the gain in health (most of our medical dollar goes to fixing lifestayle related disease) plus alternatives will develop (a company whose salty fatty crap is taxed to the point sales drop will offer a less salted less fatty version at the same cost) and I doubt overall food spending would change much (if people used to spend 100 at the grocers, and that rises to 120 if taxed which motivates them to alter buying habits, they'll be more likely to end up at 110 than 90). The money collected in the tax could be used to lower taxes elsewhere, making that money available to the economy, and besides, if Americans spent 10$ a day on smoking, and we had a chance to change that, it would be kind of perverse to say we should perpetuate a dangerous social phenomenon just because its monentarily convenient to those who profit from lung cancer and heart attacks... Differential taxing of food to improve eating habits along with other measures (health insurance companies who reduce rates if you adopt healthier lifestyles etc) are the best option we have to control our expanding health care disaster... obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other optional afflictions.

[benzocaine]

it would be kind of perverse to say we should perpetuate a dangerous social phenomenon just because its monentarily convenient to those who profit from lung cancer and heart attacks

I agree but sadly enough we have lobbyists in washington this very moment bribin..g.. er.... convincing senators to see their companys interests.

Differential taxing of food to improve eating habits along with other measures (health insurance companies who reduce rates if you adopt healthier lifestyles etc) are the best option we have to control our expanding health care disaster... obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other optional afflictions.

It would be hard to prove to an insurance company you eat better that the next guy. Yeah, you could show them your grocery bill I guess.. but even then you could still sneak happy meals without any one knowing.

Forcing people to eat well and excersize probably is the best way to help control our "expanding health care disaster". Problem is people are constitutionally gauranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness. Some folks' defenition of hapiness is to sit on their fat as$ and eat 3 whoppers fries and a milkshake.

[IJ]

Health insurance companies can and do reward people for healthier lifestyles. Smoking cessation and weight loss are examples.

People have the right to happiness, but that really doesn't get us anywhere. Some people think happiness = obese, and some think it = crack cocaine. Not sure what that proves. Fact is we have a variety of options for making people want to live healthier and instead we're pouring all our $ into expensive drugs and defibrillators for endstage hearts and long hospital stays for those with complicated endstage diabetes. Throwing up our hands and saying people will do whatever is not a good option; the prevalence of obesity is exploding, and that tells us two things:

1) It's important
2) If it's getting worse quickly we have some control over it. If we made our culture how it was 20 years ago we'd only be fat, not obese. No excuses. It's not your genes. Put down that ho-ho. Get on that exercise bike.

[benzocaine]

Ian,

Pardon my ignorance but I didn't realize health insurance companies had different rates for smokers and non smokers. Do they?? I was aware however that life insurance had different premiums for those reasons.

I agree that morbid obesity is a huge (pun intended) problem. I also agree with your ideas about changing school childrens menus and curriculum concerning food.

No real time to delve into this issue right now... but I will chew (pun inteded) on this some more.

[IJ]

A few updates and thoughts:

--read in the rag the "Metro" that the FDA may chase down restaurants (the ones that serve you enough calories for 2 days in an average meal in an attempt to push profits and satisfaction ever higher) and make them make their nutritional info available to all.

--Not sure what difference is meant by insurance companies having different premiums but not different rates. Whatever the official term is, many will charge people who follow various healthy habits less. In some, you can also pay less for less coverage (ie no bone marrow transplant in certain situations).

--Found an interesting article / commentary in the New England Journal of medicine from 4/24/03 that suggested obesity causes 14% of cancer deaths in men and 20% in women. That would increase it's culpability in the #2 killer in our society, and normal weight, if the findings are correct, could save 90,000 lives a year. Just from cancer--not to mention the heart disease, diabetes, and so on. How many people have died from terorrism in the last two years?

[benzocaine]

Like I said Ian pardon my ignorance about health insurance. I've always used an HMO that is provided through whatever company I have been an employee of. I have never had to disclose my eating habits to them.

I think it's a great idea to make resteraunts display nutritional info of their menus, or at least have the info available if people request it. I'll use the hospital I work at for an example. Their cafeteria serves fish, vegies, and has other assorted items. The problem is the carotts are glazed, the fricken green beens have fricken fat back in them (this is a hospital in SW Virginia) and the fish is fried. nfortunately many folks eroneously think they are eating healthy .