Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Should junk food be taxed?
Options
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do. I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers. There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one. I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too. The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
why on earth would you want the government dictating to private business how they should run their companies and how many hours per week employees can work? The French is example is pretty hilarious given that their system makes it almost impossible for young people to find employment, because the ones that have employment do not want to retire/give them up. I will take the American economy over the French one any day of the week.
Just because another country isn't as good overall doesn't mean they never have good ideas now and then. Why would I want the Gov dictating to private business how they should run their companies? Fair Labour Standards Act....that's why. Go check it out...the Giv has a looong history of dictating to business on labour. And I'm not about limiting how many hours employees can work, not at all, I am about restricting unpaid hours of work that are expected of employees by companies...to me the out of hours emails is unpaid work. You're on an employment contract that says you do x hrs work for y pay. Any work beyond the x hrs should be compensated for and not snuck in via teleworking expectations.lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do. I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers. There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one. I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too. The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
why on earth would you want the government dictating to private business how they should run their companies and how many hours per week employees can work? The French is example is pretty hilarious given that their system makes it almost impossible for young people to find employment, because the ones that have employment do not want to retire/give them up. I will take the American economy over the French one any day of the week.
Just because another country isn't as good overall doesn't mean they never have good ideas now and then. Why would I want the Gov dictating to private business how they should run their companies? Fair Labour Standards Act....that's why. Go check it out...the Giv has a looong history of dictating to business on labour. And I'm not about limiting how many hours employees can work, not at all, I am about restricting unpaid hours of work that are expected of employees by companies...to me the out of hours emails is unpaid work. You're on an employment contract that says you do x hrs work for y pay. Any work beyond the x hrs should be compensated for and not snuck in via teleworking expectations.
Except for many people who are answering emails at home or working extra hours *aren't* on an employment contract that specifies "x hours for x pay." We're exempt employees, specifically exempt from OT regulations.
Not to say that there isn't room for improvement, but a contract that specifies hours is going to be rare for lots of white collar workers.
If my husband is checking work emails at home then he charges his time. He was just at out of state work training last week and the minute he stepped foot into the airport he was on the clock. With travel/class time he ended up with around 60 hours last week that will be on our next check.
eta: it looks like we're talking the difference between hourly wages vs salaried workers? Here salary positions are mostly management (or teachers etc).0 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do. I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers. There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one. I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too. The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
why on earth would you want the government dictating to private business how they should run their companies and how many hours per week employees can work? The French is example is pretty hilarious given that their system makes it almost impossible for young people to find employment, because the ones that have employment do not want to retire/give them up. I will take the American economy over the French one any day of the week.
Just because another country isn't as good overall doesn't mean they never have good ideas now and then. Why would I want the Gov dictating to private business how they should run their companies? Fair Labour Standards Act....that's why. Go check it out...the Giv has a looong history of dictating to business on labour. And I'm not about limiting how many hours employees can work, not at all, I am about restricting unpaid hours of work that are expected of employees by companies...to me the out of hours emails is unpaid work. You're on an employment contract that says you do x hrs work for y pay. Any work beyond the x hrs should be compensated for and not snuck in via teleworking expectations.lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do. I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers. There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one. I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too. The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
why on earth would you want the government dictating to private business how they should run their companies and how many hours per week employees can work? The French is example is pretty hilarious given that their system makes it almost impossible for young people to find employment, because the ones that have employment do not want to retire/give them up. I will take the American economy over the French one any day of the week.
Just because another country isn't as good overall doesn't mean they never have good ideas now and then. Why would I want the Gov dictating to private business how they should run their companies? Fair Labour Standards Act....that's why. Go check it out...the Giv has a looong history of dictating to business on labour. And I'm not about limiting how many hours employees can work, not at all, I am about restricting unpaid hours of work that are expected of employees by companies...to me the out of hours emails is unpaid work. You're on an employment contract that says you do x hrs work for y pay. Any work beyond the x hrs should be compensated for and not snuck in via teleworking expectations.
Except for many people who are answering emails at home or working extra hours *aren't* on an employment contract that specifies "x hours for x pay." We're exempt employees, specifically exempt from OT regulations.
Not to say that there isn't room for improvement, but a contract that specifies hours is going to be rare for lots of white collar workers.
If my husband is checking work emails at home then he's charging his time
He was just at out of state work training last week and the minute he stepped foot into the airport he was on the clock. With travel/class time he ended up with around 60 hours last week that will be on our next check.
It's awesome that he has that option. It's not something that is available at my company.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do. I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers. There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one. I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too. The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
why on earth would you want the government dictating to private business how they should run their companies and how many hours per week employees can work? The French is example is pretty hilarious given that their system makes it almost impossible for young people to find employment, because the ones that have employment do not want to retire/give them up. I will take the American economy over the French one any day of the week.
Just because another country isn't as good overall doesn't mean they never have good ideas now and then. Why would I want the Gov dictating to private business how they should run their companies? Fair Labour Standards Act....that's why. Go check it out...the Giv has a looong history of dictating to business on labour. And I'm not about limiting how many hours employees can work, not at all, I am about restricting unpaid hours of work that are expected of employees by companies...to me the out of hours emails is unpaid work. You're on an employment contract that says you do x hrs work for y pay. Any work beyond the x hrs should be compensated for and not snuck in via teleworking expectations.lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do. I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers. There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one. I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too. The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
why on earth would you want the government dictating to private business how they should run their companies and how many hours per week employees can work? The French is example is pretty hilarious given that their system makes it almost impossible for young people to find employment, because the ones that have employment do not want to retire/give them up. I will take the American economy over the French one any day of the week.
Just because another country isn't as good overall doesn't mean they never have good ideas now and then. Why would I want the Gov dictating to private business how they should run their companies? Fair Labour Standards Act....that's why. Go check it out...the Giv has a looong history of dictating to business on labour. And I'm not about limiting how many hours employees can work, not at all, I am about restricting unpaid hours of work that are expected of employees by companies...to me the out of hours emails is unpaid work. You're on an employment contract that says you do x hrs work for y pay. Any work beyond the x hrs should be compensated for and not snuck in via teleworking expectations.
Except for many people who are answering emails at home or working extra hours *aren't* on an employment contract that specifies "x hours for x pay." We're exempt employees, specifically exempt from OT regulations.
Not to say that there isn't room for improvement, but a contract that specifies hours is going to be rare for lots of white collar workers.
If my husband is checking work emails at home then he's charging his time He was just at out of state work training last week and the minute he stepped foot into the airport he was on the clock. With travel/class time he ended up with around 60 hours last week that will be on our next check.
It's awesome that he has that option. It's not something that is available at my company.
I am guessing he is not salaried/exempt employee...0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do. I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers. There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one. I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too. The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
why on earth would you want the government dictating to private business how they should run their companies and how many hours per week employees can work? The French is example is pretty hilarious given that their system makes it almost impossible for young people to find employment, because the ones that have employment do not want to retire/give them up. I will take the American economy over the French one any day of the week.
Just because another country isn't as good overall doesn't mean they never have good ideas now and then. Why would I want the Gov dictating to private business how they should run their companies? Fair Labour Standards Act....that's why. Go check it out...the Giv has a looong history of dictating to business on labour. And I'm not about limiting how many hours employees can work, not at all, I am about restricting unpaid hours of work that are expected of employees by companies...to me the out of hours emails is unpaid work. You're on an employment contract that says you do x hrs work for y pay. Any work beyond the x hrs should be compensated for and not snuck in via teleworking expectations.lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do. I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers. There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one. I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too. The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
why on earth would you want the government dictating to private business how they should run their companies and how many hours per week employees can work? The French is example is pretty hilarious given that their system makes it almost impossible for young people to find employment, because the ones that have employment do not want to retire/give them up. I will take the American economy over the French one any day of the week.
Just because another country isn't as good overall doesn't mean they never have good ideas now and then. Why would I want the Gov dictating to private business how they should run their companies? Fair Labour Standards Act....that's why. Go check it out...the Giv has a looong history of dictating to business on labour. And I'm not about limiting how many hours employees can work, not at all, I am about restricting unpaid hours of work that are expected of employees by companies...to me the out of hours emails is unpaid work. You're on an employment contract that says you do x hrs work for y pay. Any work beyond the x hrs should be compensated for and not snuck in via teleworking expectations.
Except for many people who are answering emails at home or working extra hours *aren't* on an employment contract that specifies "x hours for x pay." We're exempt employees, specifically exempt from OT regulations.
Not to say that there isn't room for improvement, but a contract that specifies hours is going to be rare for lots of white collar workers.
If my husband is checking work emails at home then he's charging his time He was just at out of state work training last week and the minute he stepped foot into the airport he was on the clock. With travel/class time he ended up with around 60 hours last week that will be on our next check.
It's awesome that he has that option. It's not something that is available at my company.
I am guessing he is not salaried/exempt employee...
Yeah, I should have been clearer -- the *non-exempt* employees at my company would have that option. Just the exempt ones wouldn't. Most people at my company with expectations around being available for on-call, checking emails on the weekends/evenings, etc are exempt, although there are some exceptions.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do. I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers. There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one. I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too. The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
why on earth would you want the government dictating to private business how they should run their companies and how many hours per week employees can work? The French is example is pretty hilarious given that their system makes it almost impossible for young people to find employment, because the ones that have employment do not want to retire/give them up. I will take the American economy over the French one any day of the week.
Just because another country isn't as good overall doesn't mean they never have good ideas now and then. Why would I want the Gov dictating to private business how they should run their companies? Fair Labour Standards Act....that's why. Go check it out...the Giv has a looong history of dictating to business on labour. And I'm not about limiting how many hours employees can work, not at all, I am about restricting unpaid hours of work that are expected of employees by companies...to me the out of hours emails is unpaid work. You're on an employment contract that says you do x hrs work for y pay. Any work beyond the x hrs should be compensated for and not snuck in via teleworking expectations.lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do. I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers. There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one. I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too. The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
why on earth would you want the government dictating to private business how they should run their companies and how many hours per week employees can work? The French is example is pretty hilarious given that their system makes it almost impossible for young people to find employment, because the ones that have employment do not want to retire/give them up. I will take the American economy over the French one any day of the week.
Just because another country isn't as good overall doesn't mean they never have good ideas now and then. Why would I want the Gov dictating to private business how they should run their companies? Fair Labour Standards Act....that's why. Go check it out...the Giv has a looong history of dictating to business on labour. And I'm not about limiting how many hours employees can work, not at all, I am about restricting unpaid hours of work that are expected of employees by companies...to me the out of hours emails is unpaid work. You're on an employment contract that says you do x hrs work for y pay. Any work beyond the x hrs should be compensated for and not snuck in via teleworking expectations.
Except for many people who are answering emails at home or working extra hours *aren't* on an employment contract that specifies "x hours for x pay." We're exempt employees, specifically exempt from OT regulations.
Not to say that there isn't room for improvement, but a contract that specifies hours is going to be rare for lots of white collar workers.
If my husband is checking work emails at home then he's charging his time He was just at out of state work training last week and the minute he stepped foot into the airport he was on the clock. With travel/class time he ended up with around 60 hours last week that will be on our next check.
It's awesome that he has that option. It's not something that is available at my company.
I am guessing he is not salaried/exempt employee...
Correct, he's hourly and not salaried. He's been offered management positions that are salaried, and on first glance they look better because they have a high-looking wage, but when you actually break down the hours involved, it's much better to be hourly + OT.0 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do. I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers. There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one. I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too. The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
why on earth would you want the government dictating to private business how they should run their companies and how many hours per week employees can work? The French is example is pretty hilarious given that their system makes it almost impossible for young people to find employment, because the ones that have employment do not want to retire/give them up. I will take the American economy over the French one any day of the week.
Just because another country isn't as good overall doesn't mean they never have good ideas now and then. Why would I want the Gov dictating to private business how they should run their companies? Fair Labour Standards Act....that's why. Go check it out...the Giv has a looong history of dictating to business on labour. And I'm not about limiting how many hours employees can work, not at all, I am about restricting unpaid hours of work that are expected of employees by companies...to me the out of hours emails is unpaid work. You're on an employment contract that says you do x hrs work for y pay. Any work beyond the x hrs should be compensated for and not snuck in via teleworking expectations.lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do. I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers. There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one. I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too. The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
why on earth would you want the government dictating to private business how they should run their companies and how many hours per week employees can work? The French is example is pretty hilarious given that their system makes it almost impossible for young people to find employment, because the ones that have employment do not want to retire/give them up. I will take the American economy over the French one any day of the week.
Just because another country isn't as good overall doesn't mean they never have good ideas now and then. Why would I want the Gov dictating to private business how they should run their companies? Fair Labour Standards Act....that's why. Go check it out...the Giv has a looong history of dictating to business on labour. And I'm not about limiting how many hours employees can work, not at all, I am about restricting unpaid hours of work that are expected of employees by companies...to me the out of hours emails is unpaid work. You're on an employment contract that says you do x hrs work for y pay. Any work beyond the x hrs should be compensated for and not snuck in via teleworking expectations.
Except for many people who are answering emails at home or working extra hours *aren't* on an employment contract that specifies "x hours for x pay." We're exempt employees, specifically exempt from OT regulations.
Not to say that there isn't room for improvement, but a contract that specifies hours is going to be rare for lots of white collar workers.
If my husband is checking work emails at home then he's charging his time He was just at out of state work training last week and the minute he stepped foot into the airport he was on the clock. With travel/class time he ended up with around 60 hours last week that will be on our next check.
It's awesome that he has that option. It's not something that is available at my company.
I am guessing he is not salaried/exempt employee...
Correct, he's hourly and not salaried. He's been offered management positions that are salaried, and on first glance they look better because they have a high-looking wage, but when you actually break down the hours involved, it's much better to be hourly + OT.
This is the reason I have turned down salary offers. Yeeeeah, I get an extra 10k per year, but you want me to work how many more hours for it? Thanks, I'll pass. Pay me for when I'm here, and don't expect me to come in an listen to silly *kitten* meetings on slow days just because I'm "getting paid to be here".1 -
I am normally a libertarian, but sugar is not any sort of essential nutrient and it is definitely addictive and abused which causes societal costs that we all bear. Alcohol and cigarettes are similar in that vane. I wouldn't be opposed to taxing sugar or HFCS.
So...why exactly does society bear this cost to begin with? This is anti-libertarian.
I agree it is anti libertarian. However, society bears the cost of cheap sugar through medicare, medicaid, and reduced earnings of people that get disease associated with over consumption of sugar. I would prefer a solution where the abusers pay for their own medical care, but we are never as a country going to be eliminating these programs.0 -
Tobacco is taxed. Alcohol is taxed. At least,they are in the uk. I guess the problem with "junk food "is,who would decide on the definition of what constitutes junk.0
-
I am normally a libertarian, but sugar is not any sort of essential nutrient and it is definitely addictive and abused which causes societal costs that we all bear. Alcohol and cigarettes are similar in that vane. I wouldn't be opposed to taxing sugar or HFCS.
So...why exactly does society bear this cost to begin with? This is anti-libertarian.
I agree it is anti libertarian. However, society bears the cost of cheap sugar through medicare, medicaid, and reduced earnings of people that get disease associated with over consumption of sugar. I would prefer a solution where the abusers pay for their own medical care, but we are never as a country going to be eliminating these programs.
except sugar is not causing disease...1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
The inherent problem with government is lack of transparency and accountability. As long as career politicians are allowed to exist corruption will flourish. Government is ill suited for this role, which is why all socialist systems ultimately fail. People love being charitable - they abhor being forced to support a failing system. Centralized systems only work in small populations. Attempts to centralize large populations require authoritarian structures. Smart agile businesses work around this through decentralized structures, giving local structures the freedom of deciding which policies produce the best results.
Negative reinforcement has never been an effective behavioral modifier.
Education has been completely ineffective because we have centralized conflicting policies. We also have "leaders" who talk the talk but do not walk the walk.
This would be far more effective and efficient to promote positive reinforcements - just as the business world has done. Maintain positive health metrics = tax credit/deduction.
So setting aside the broader debate over gov't philosophy, can you be more specific? Tax credit/deduction offered by whom (feds? state?) for what?
People seemed really down on insurance company/workplace wellness programs in some other thread, but isn't that basically similar to this idea, but not gov't-based?
You get success in achievement based systems. It is an amazingly effective tool that motivates users into desired activities.
For healthcare this could be tracked via an app - form a simple risk management structure (many business models already exist with these platforms in the business realm). Each participant actively engages in proactive measures and rewarded through specific credits/deductions. Specifically - maintaining a healthy BMI would equate to a $2000 deduction. This would be managed (ideally) privately; however as government has inserted itself by force this would be managed by state to minimize corruption and maximize competition. Unhappy with your state's policy - you can vote with your feet and relocate.
I have long been a proponent of a two tiered system. One for those who embrace the benefits and risks of liberty and another for those who do not. Those who want the safety net of government can certainly enjoy this, but they pay into this just as one would in an insurance pool. Those who do not can opt out.0 -
I am normally a libertarian, but sugar is not any sort of essential nutrient and it is definitely addictive and abused which causes societal costs that we all bear. Alcohol and cigarettes are similar in that vane. I wouldn't be opposed to taxing sugar or HFCS.
So...why exactly does society bear this cost to begin with? This is anti-libertarian.
I agree it is anti libertarian. However, society bears the cost of cheap sugar through medicare, medicaid, and reduced earnings of people that get disease associated with over consumption of sugar. I would prefer a solution where the abusers pay for their own medical care, but we are never as a country going to be eliminating these programs.
There are no diseases associated with over-consumption of sugar... there are diseases that are associated with over-consumption of CALORIES in general, but not with sugar specifically.comptonelizabeth wrote: »Tobacco is taxed. Alcohol is taxed. At least,they are in the uk. I guess the problem with "junk food "is,who would decide on the definition of what constitutes junk.
This - bottom line - is the single biggest issue with trying to implement a tax of this nature.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
The inherent problem with government is lack of transparency and accountability. As long as career politicians are allowed to exist corruption will flourish. Government is ill suited for this role, which is why all socialist systems ultimately fail. People love being charitable - they abhor being forced to support a failing system. Centralized systems only work in small populations. Attempts to centralize large populations require authoritarian structures. Smart agile businesses work around this through decentralized structures, giving local structures the freedom of deciding which policies produce the best results.
Negative reinforcement has never been an effective behavioral modifier.
Education has been completely ineffective because we have centralized conflicting policies. We also have "leaders" who talk the talk but do not walk the walk.
This would be far more effective and efficient to promote positive reinforcements - just as the business world has done. Maintain positive health metrics = tax credit/deduction.
So setting aside the broader debate over gov't philosophy, can you be more specific? Tax credit/deduction offered by whom (feds? state?) for what?
People seemed really down on insurance company/workplace wellness programs in some other thread, but isn't that basically similar to this idea, but not gov't-based?
You get success in achievement based systems. It is an amazingly effective tool that motivates users into desired activities.
For healthcare this could be tracked via an app - form a simple risk management structure (many business models already exist with these platforms in the business realm). Each participant actively engages in proactive measures and rewarded through specific credits/deductions. Specifically - maintaining a healthy BMI would equate to a $2000 deduction. This would be managed (ideally) privately; however as government has inserted itself by force this would be managed by state to minimize corruption and maximize competition. Unhappy with your state's policy - you can vote with your feet and relocate.
I have long been a proponent of a two tiered system. One for those who embrace the benefits and risks of liberty and another for those who do not. Those who want the safety net of government can certainly enjoy this, but they pay into this just as one would in an insurance pool. Those who do not can opt out.
How would you keep people from switching when they ran into issues later in life, like a child with a disability or a chronic disease developing? Would people decide which group they want to be in early in life and be prohibited from switching from the non-safety net group to the safety net group?
Without some mechanism to keep people from switching, wouldn't you have relatively few people in the safety net group unless they actually planned to draw benefits?1 -
I am normally a libertarian, but sugar is not any sort of essential nutrient and it is definitely addictive and abused which causes societal costs that we all bear. Alcohol and cigarettes are similar in that vane. I wouldn't be opposed to taxing sugar or HFCS.
So...why exactly does society bear this cost to begin with? This is anti-libertarian.
I agree it is anti libertarian. However, society bears the cost of cheap sugar through medicare, medicaid, and reduced earnings of people that get disease associated with over consumption of sugar. I would prefer a solution where the abusers pay for their own medical care, but we are never as a country going to be eliminating these programs.
Attack the root cause - why is society bearing the cost to begin with?
You are addressing the symptom - and an incorrect one at that. Sugar makes for a wonderful whipping post, but it is not the root cause or even a symptom.
We are going to end up eliminating these programs at some point. These are unsustainable long term. You have two decisions to make - either kill it now and address the root cause or allow these programs to bury society.1 -
zachbonner_ wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
The inherent problem with government is lack of transparency and accountability. As long as career politicians are allowed to exist corruption will flourish. Government is ill suited for this role, which is why all socialist systems ultimately fail. People love being charitable - they abhor being forced to support a failing system. Centralized systems only work in small populations. Attempts to centralize large populations require authoritarian structures. Smart agile businesses work around this through decentralized structures, giving local structures the freedom of deciding which policies produce the best results.
Negative reinforcement has never been an effective behavioral modifier.
Education has been completely ineffective because we have centralized conflicting policies. We also have "leaders" who talk the talk but do not walk the walk.
This would be far more effective and efficient to promote positive reinforcements - just as the business world has done. Maintain positive health metrics = tax credit/deduction.
So setting aside the broader debate over gov't philosophy, can you be more specific? Tax credit/deduction offered by whom (feds? state?) for what?
People seemed really down on insurance company/workplace wellness programs in some other thread, but isn't that basically similar to this idea, but not gov't-based?
You get success in achievement based systems. It is an amazingly effective tool that motivates users into desired activities.
For healthcare this could be tracked via an app - form a simple risk management structure (many business models already exist with these platforms in the business realm). Each participant actively engages in proactive measures and rewarded through specific credits/deductions. Specifically - maintaining a healthy BMI would equate to a $2000 deduction. This would be managed (ideally) privately; however as government has inserted itself by force this would be managed by state to minimize corruption and maximize competition. Unhappy with your state's policy - you can vote with your feet and relocate.
I have long been a proponent of a two tiered system. One for those who embrace the benefits and risks of liberty and another for those who do not. Those who want the safety net of government can certainly enjoy this, but they pay into this just as one would in an insurance pool. Those who do not can opt out.
How would you keep people from switching when they ran into issues later in life, like a child with a disability or a chronic disease developing? Would people decide which group they want to be in early in life and be prohibited from switching from the non-safety net group to the safety net group?
Without some mechanism to keep people from switching, wouldn't you have relatively few people in the safety net group unless they actually planned to draw benefits?
I assume they would be tracking the money you yourself have put into the pool. If you haven't contributed then you don't get health care.
So one can only access the money they personally contribute? That's less of a safety net than a government-administered saving plan. If one never needs to draw on that money, does it revert to the family after the person's death?
Or do you mean that if you've contributed any money at all, you can draw benefits? This still has the issue of how you keep people from switching from one plan to another based on their perceived need for assistance. If I spend my twenties and thirties keeping my money and switch to the safety net plan at age 39 because I have realized I will probably need assistance with my health care when I retire, how are the decades I didn't contribute accounted for?0 -
zachbonner_ wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
The inherent problem with government is lack of transparency and accountability. As long as career politicians are allowed to exist corruption will flourish. Government is ill suited for this role, which is why all socialist systems ultimately fail. People love being charitable - they abhor being forced to support a failing system. Centralized systems only work in small populations. Attempts to centralize large populations require authoritarian structures. Smart agile businesses work around this through decentralized structures, giving local structures the freedom of deciding which policies produce the best results.
Negative reinforcement has never been an effective behavioral modifier.
Education has been completely ineffective because we have centralized conflicting policies. We also have "leaders" who talk the talk but do not walk the walk.
This would be far more effective and efficient to promote positive reinforcements - just as the business world has done. Maintain positive health metrics = tax credit/deduction.
So setting aside the broader debate over gov't philosophy, can you be more specific? Tax credit/deduction offered by whom (feds? state?) for what?
People seemed really down on insurance company/workplace wellness programs in some other thread, but isn't that basically similar to this idea, but not gov't-based?
You get success in achievement based systems. It is an amazingly effective tool that motivates users into desired activities.
For healthcare this could be tracked via an app - form a simple risk management structure (many business models already exist with these platforms in the business realm). Each participant actively engages in proactive measures and rewarded through specific credits/deductions. Specifically - maintaining a healthy BMI would equate to a $2000 deduction. This would be managed (ideally) privately; however as government has inserted itself by force this would be managed by state to minimize corruption and maximize competition. Unhappy with your state's policy - you can vote with your feet and relocate.
I have long been a proponent of a two tiered system. One for those who embrace the benefits and risks of liberty and another for those who do not. Those who want the safety net of government can certainly enjoy this, but they pay into this just as one would in an insurance pool. Those who do not can opt out.
How would you keep people from switching when they ran into issues later in life, like a child with a disability or a chronic disease developing? Would people decide which group they want to be in early in life and be prohibited from switching from the non-safety net group to the safety net group?
Without some mechanism to keep people from switching, wouldn't you have relatively few people in the safety net group unless they actually planned to draw benefits?
I assume they would be tracking the money you yourself have put into the pool. If you haven't contributed then you don't get health care.
Either that, or a literal opt out. That was always my problem with the individual mandate. I'd have been fine with it, if there were an option to opt out, which would prevent me from receiving any health care that I cannot either A: pay for up front, or B: have the credit to get a private loan to cover it.2 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
The inherent problem with government is lack of transparency and accountability. As long as career politicians are allowed to exist corruption will flourish. Government is ill suited for this role, which is why all socialist systems ultimately fail. People love being charitable - they abhor being forced to support a failing system. Centralized systems only work in small populations. Attempts to centralize large populations require authoritarian structures. Smart agile businesses work around this through decentralized structures, giving local structures the freedom of deciding which policies produce the best results.
Negative reinforcement has never been an effective behavioral modifier.
Education has been completely ineffective because we have centralized conflicting policies. We also have "leaders" who talk the talk but do not walk the walk.
This would be far more effective and efficient to promote positive reinforcements - just as the business world has done. Maintain positive health metrics = tax credit/deduction.
So setting aside the broader debate over gov't philosophy, can you be more specific? Tax credit/deduction offered by whom (feds? state?) for what?
People seemed really down on insurance company/workplace wellness programs in some other thread, but isn't that basically similar to this idea, but not gov't-based?
You get success in achievement based systems. It is an amazingly effective tool that motivates users into desired activities.
For healthcare this could be tracked via an app - form a simple risk management structure (many business models already exist with these platforms in the business realm). Each participant actively engages in proactive measures and rewarded through specific credits/deductions. Specifically - maintaining a healthy BMI would equate to a $2000 deduction. This would be managed (ideally) privately; however as government has inserted itself by force this would be managed by state to minimize corruption and maximize competition. Unhappy with your state's policy - you can vote with your feet and relocate.
I have long been a proponent of a two tiered system. One for those who embrace the benefits and risks of liberty and another for those who do not. Those who want the safety net of government can certainly enjoy this, but they pay into this just as one would in an insurance pool. Those who do not can opt out.
How would you keep people from switching when they ran into issues later in life, like a child with a disability or a chronic disease developing? Would people decide which group they want to be in early in life and be prohibited from switching from the non-safety net group to the safety net group?
Without some mechanism to keep people from switching, wouldn't you have relatively few people in the safety net group unless they actually planned to draw benefits?
I assume they would be tracking the money you yourself have put into the pool. If you haven't contributed then you don't get health care.
Either that, or a literal opt out. That was always my problem with the individual mandate. I'd have been fine with it, if there were an option to opt out, which would prevent me from receiving any health care that I cannot either A: pay for up front, or B: have the credit to get a private loan to cover it.
yea, but if you opt out then the system can't afford to pay for everyone else's healthcare ...*sarcasm*2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
The inherent problem with government is lack of transparency and accountability. As long as career politicians are allowed to exist corruption will flourish. Government is ill suited for this role, which is why all socialist systems ultimately fail. People love being charitable - they abhor being forced to support a failing system. Centralized systems only work in small populations. Attempts to centralize large populations require authoritarian structures. Smart agile businesses work around this through decentralized structures, giving local structures the freedom of deciding which policies produce the best results.
Negative reinforcement has never been an effective behavioral modifier.
Education has been completely ineffective because we have centralized conflicting policies. We also have "leaders" who talk the talk but do not walk the walk.
This would be far more effective and efficient to promote positive reinforcements - just as the business world has done. Maintain positive health metrics = tax credit/deduction.
So setting aside the broader debate over gov't philosophy, can you be more specific? Tax credit/deduction offered by whom (feds? state?) for what?
People seemed really down on insurance company/workplace wellness programs in some other thread, but isn't that basically similar to this idea, but not gov't-based?
You get success in achievement based systems. It is an amazingly effective tool that motivates users into desired activities.
For healthcare this could be tracked via an app - form a simple risk management structure (many business models already exist with these platforms in the business realm). Each participant actively engages in proactive measures and rewarded through specific credits/deductions. Specifically - maintaining a healthy BMI would equate to a $2000 deduction. This would be managed (ideally) privately; however as government has inserted itself by force this would be managed by state to minimize corruption and maximize competition. Unhappy with your state's policy - you can vote with your feet and relocate.
I have long been a proponent of a two tiered system. One for those who embrace the benefits and risks of liberty and another for those who do not. Those who want the safety net of government can certainly enjoy this, but they pay into this just as one would in an insurance pool. Those who do not can opt out.
How would you keep people from switching when they ran into issues later in life, like a child with a disability or a chronic disease developing? Would people decide which group they want to be in early in life and be prohibited from switching from the non-safety net group to the safety net group?
Without some mechanism to keep people from switching, wouldn't you have relatively few people in the safety net group unless they actually planned to draw benefits?
These issues are outliers and can easily be absorbed in the system. You never make policy based on outliers.
You can switch groups, but would pay the prorated fee associated with opting out of the current plan.
That is precisely the point. Ponzi schemes are illegal for all parties with the curious exception of government. This also keeps politicians from pretending to play Robin Hood when they are, by default, the Sheriff of Nottingham.1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
The inherent problem with government is lack of transparency and accountability. As long as career politicians are allowed to exist corruption will flourish. Government is ill suited for this role, which is why all socialist systems ultimately fail. People love being charitable - they abhor being forced to support a failing system. Centralized systems only work in small populations. Attempts to centralize large populations require authoritarian structures. Smart agile businesses work around this through decentralized structures, giving local structures the freedom of deciding which policies produce the best results.
Negative reinforcement has never been an effective behavioral modifier.
Education has been completely ineffective because we have centralized conflicting policies. We also have "leaders" who talk the talk but do not walk the walk.
This would be far more effective and efficient to promote positive reinforcements - just as the business world has done. Maintain positive health metrics = tax credit/deduction.
So setting aside the broader debate over gov't philosophy, can you be more specific? Tax credit/deduction offered by whom (feds? state?) for what?
People seemed really down on insurance company/workplace wellness programs in some other thread, but isn't that basically similar to this idea, but not gov't-based?
You get success in achievement based systems. It is an amazingly effective tool that motivates users into desired activities.
For healthcare this could be tracked via an app - form a simple risk management structure (many business models already exist with these platforms in the business realm). Each participant actively engages in proactive measures and rewarded through specific credits/deductions. Specifically - maintaining a healthy BMI would equate to a $2000 deduction. This would be managed (ideally) privately; however as government has inserted itself by force this would be managed by state to minimize corruption and maximize competition. Unhappy with your state's policy - you can vote with your feet and relocate.
I have long been a proponent of a two tiered system. One for those who embrace the benefits and risks of liberty and another for those who do not. Those who want the safety net of government can certainly enjoy this, but they pay into this just as one would in an insurance pool. Those who do not can opt out.
How would you keep people from switching when they ran into issues later in life, like a child with a disability or a chronic disease developing? Would people decide which group they want to be in early in life and be prohibited from switching from the non-safety net group to the safety net group?
Without some mechanism to keep people from switching, wouldn't you have relatively few people in the safety net group unless they actually planned to draw benefits?
I assume they would be tracking the money you yourself have put into the pool. If you haven't contributed then you don't get health care.
Either that, or a literal opt out. That was always my problem with the individual mandate. I'd have been fine with it, if there were an option to opt out, which would prevent me from receiving any health care that I cannot either A: pay for up front, or B: have the credit to get a private loan to cover it.
yea, but if you opt out then the system can't afford to pay for everyone else's healthcare ...*sarcasm*
This is precisely why insurance as a whole needs to die in a fire, not be mandatory. The death of the private transaction, and insertion of a bunch of middlemen is a huge part of why medical costs are so stupid now, as you are well aware, I'm sure.2 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
The inherent problem with government is lack of transparency and accountability. As long as career politicians are allowed to exist corruption will flourish. Government is ill suited for this role, which is why all socialist systems ultimately fail. People love being charitable - they abhor being forced to support a failing system. Centralized systems only work in small populations. Attempts to centralize large populations require authoritarian structures. Smart agile businesses work around this through decentralized structures, giving local structures the freedom of deciding which policies produce the best results.
Negative reinforcement has never been an effective behavioral modifier.
Education has been completely ineffective because we have centralized conflicting policies. We also have "leaders" who talk the talk but do not walk the walk.
This would be far more effective and efficient to promote positive reinforcements - just as the business world has done. Maintain positive health metrics = tax credit/deduction.
So setting aside the broader debate over gov't philosophy, can you be more specific? Tax credit/deduction offered by whom (feds? state?) for what?
People seemed really down on insurance company/workplace wellness programs in some other thread, but isn't that basically similar to this idea, but not gov't-based?
You get success in achievement based systems. It is an amazingly effective tool that motivates users into desired activities.
For healthcare this could be tracked via an app - form a simple risk management structure (many business models already exist with these platforms in the business realm). Each participant actively engages in proactive measures and rewarded through specific credits/deductions. Specifically - maintaining a healthy BMI would equate to a $2000 deduction. This would be managed (ideally) privately; however as government has inserted itself by force this would be managed by state to minimize corruption and maximize competition. Unhappy with your state's policy - you can vote with your feet and relocate.
I have long been a proponent of a two tiered system. One for those who embrace the benefits and risks of liberty and another for those who do not. Those who want the safety net of government can certainly enjoy this, but they pay into this just as one would in an insurance pool. Those who do not can opt out.
How would you keep people from switching when they ran into issues later in life, like a child with a disability or a chronic disease developing? Would people decide which group they want to be in early in life and be prohibited from switching from the non-safety net group to the safety net group?
Without some mechanism to keep people from switching, wouldn't you have relatively few people in the safety net group unless they actually planned to draw benefits?
I assume they would be tracking the money you yourself have put into the pool. If you haven't contributed then you don't get health care.
Either that, or a literal opt out. That was always my problem with the individual mandate. I'd have been fine with it, if there were an option to opt out, which would prevent me from receiving any health care that I cannot either A: pay for up front, or B: have the credit to get a private loan to cover it.
yea, but if you opt out then the system can't afford to pay for everyone else's healthcare ...*sarcasm*
This is precisely why insurance as a whole needs to die in a fire, not be mandatory. The death of the private transaction, and insertion of a bunch of middlemen is a huge part of why medical costs are so stupid now, as you are well aware, I'm sure.
agree, health insurance companies have essentially become utilities.
You should be able to shop across state lines for health insurance, if you want it, and opt out if you want to. You should also be able to seethe cost of services at different providers, so that I go to hospital A I pay this for this service and if I go to hospital B I pay this for the same service and then make a decision based on cost.
I mean amazon's owner can have private space flight but we can't figure out a way to categorize the costs of healthcare service, really????????????3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions