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?
Replies
-
bathmatt12345 wrote: »Does junk food translate into a cost for society that I have to pay for.
Yes, in terms of medicare costs, costs for the uninsured. You can argue that we shouldn't pay for these costs, but I feel these costs should be pushed to the people who eat junk food to excess, or smoke or other such actions.
Now the counter argument is to have no social services as part of the government, but if we do, yes tax according to the cost so I don't have to pay for others.
I'm a normal weight, normal BF%, and perfectly healthy according to my blood markers. Every now and then I want a pint of ice cream, and I consume it in small servings that fit in my calorie requirements. Am I going to have to pay $10 for something that's normally $4 even though I'm not obese, or will I get an exemption? Because putting a tax on junk food is still me paying for others on the occasions I choose to consume it.4 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »The whole idea of "hidden" sugar in things like ketchup baffles me. There is sugar in ketchup. It's part of the recipe. It's an ingredient. If you don't know there's sugar in ketchup, then it's your ignorance of how to make ketchup that's too blame, not the hidden sugars. And not that i expect everyone to know how to make ketchup, but the fact that we no longer need to make our own and can conveniently buy it from the store doesn't make its ingredients suddenly nefarious.
I originally used the term "hidden sugar" in this context:
How about taxing based on added sugars? Would get the main items that any third grader would classify as junk food like pop, candy, cookies, etc. Might also get manufacturers to reduce the amount of "hidden" sugars in things like ketchup, sauces, etc.
Agree anyone can find the sugar in an item by looking at the ingredient list (that is why I put "hidden" in the quotation marks). However, most don't and consumers can get much additional sugar (calories) in the diet from things that many would not expect to have sugar.
Also, I'm not sure people can taste the "hidden sugars" in many item. Many people have grown up eating foods that have extra sugar added in the processing and don't "taste" the sugar since they've never had the food without it.
While I get your point, I don't see what more could be done. Well, short of forcing companies to change their labeling to big black boxes with white letters that say "all the sugar!! Diabeetus!! Do not eat unless you want the beetus!!", which would be completely false, and still probably wouldn't dissuade most who eat these things.
The information is clearly on the label. If consumers practice willful ignorance, or just don't care, there's nothing you can do about it.
A label with Paula Deen's photo required on all items with any added sugar?
Hmmm, maybe. Though, if the crap they put on cigarette packs in some places didn't work, I doubt that will either. Though admittedly, Paula Deen's face is almost as horrifying as a lung tumor.
Interesting, but there is a different drive to these things. Smokers who are addicted are trying to fuel a very specific (nicotine) addiction. On the other hand, people who are hungry buying food could probably fulfill that hunger with any one of a variety of foods. Now we all know that product packaging is designed for specific marketing purposes. This is evident in colors used on packages, shapes and lines, and even mascots (Tony the Tiger, the Trix rabbit) and celebrities (whichever athlete is currently on Wheaties). I believe putting Paula Deen's image on a food item would promote that food item to a particular audience just as putting <insert athlete name here> promotes Wheaties to a particular audience.
The Paula Deen thing was a joke, because diabeetus. Plus I was under the impression this thread was a place where ridiculously unrealistic suggestions were being put forward, like trying to legally classify junk food and tax it. Paula Deen was my contribution... My bad.
If it makes you feel any better, I laughed, and not in a sad trombone way either.
Aww
0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
Since 2/3 of the US population is overweight, 1/3 is obese and 30% of the population is expected to have diabetes by 2050, it's pretty obvious the typical American doesn't know *kitten* about feeding themselves in an educated manner.
If a tax would help with curtail the current eating habits and/or help fund education/medical care for obesity related issues, I'd say why not.
In my opinion, it won't and it won't. And people continually expecting the government to step in and "help" us take care of ourselves is, in my opinion, a big reason why so many people don't know how to take care of themselves.
So how are you proposing paying for the medical costs of obesity? Remember 50% of healthcare spending is funded by the US government. It's a dollars and cents think for the government to reduce healthcare costs.
/raises hand
Oh oh, pick me, pick me.
Stop subsidizing people's bad decisions. There, I just solved most of our debt problem in thirty seconds.
That's one of the points that was already made (I think I was the first to make that point, in fact), but more specifically, stop subsidizing HFCS. Vaguely, "bad decisions" has about as many definitions as "junk food."
Well yes, those need to go too, but I was specifically referring to quit paying for people's self-induced health problems.
That is going to be difficult to define as well. Not everyone who is overweight made bad decisions. I'm a perfect example - I became overweight because I followed medical advice. But then again, it was a question of being fat or being dead, so technically I had that decision. But would you punish me then?! It actually gets a bit more complicated because some of my treatment for the results of being overweight actually overlap with the treatment for auto-immune disease, which can't possibly be attributed to behavior. So how would you determine what part is auto-immune disease treatment and what part is treatment for being overweight?bathmatt12345 wrote: »Does junk food translate into a cost for society that I have to pay for.
Yes, in terms of medicare costs, costs for the uninsured. You can argue that we shouldn't pay for these costs, but I feel these costs should be pushed to the people who eat junk food to excess, or smoke or other such actions.
Now the counter argument is to have no social services as part of the government, but if we do, yes tax according to the cost so I don't have to pay for others.
That is similar to how tobacco taxes fund smoking cessation programs and campaigns to dissuade youths from smoking, right? I like the idea overall, but then it would not just be to pay for healthcare... it would need to go to education for those not yet overweight and for dietitions (and maybe personal trainers) to help those who are addicted to nicotine overweight to kick the habit lose weight.
If your doctor's advice caused your health problem, there should be records of this, and he should be held accountable. However, in your specific circumstance, it sounds like it was a lesser of two evils thing, so would be passable. Again, medical records showing this would vindicate, and there should be no problem moving forward. Every fatty has an excuse. You have documented proof. That's the difference.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
I'd say why not.
To which I'd reply:
Because this is the United States of America which was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. This nation was built by hard working innovators taking advantage of a free-enterprise, capitalist system and we owe the affluence we so readily take for granted to the very type of free trade that the creation of a socialistic nanny state would strangle.
We haven't become one of the most prosperous and blessed nations in the history of mankind because of government intervention in our daily lives. We've enjoyed the prosperity we have because, to a much greater degree than most countries, our government has left industry alone to succeed and our people alone to live and believe as they so desire.
We don't need someone to decide for us what we can eat and punish us monetarily for not adhering to their plan. If we don't take care of our own selves, it's on us. And even if we did need someone to make our decisions for us, it sure to goodness wouldn't be the government's job. You know, The Constitution and Bill of Rights and all that fun stuff no one remembers from their civics classes.
Besides, do we really want our nutrition choices to be dictated by the same entity responsible for bankrupting social security, the housing bubble (remember 2008?), Fast and Furious, IRS scandals, Benghazi, trillions of dollars of debt, etc. not to mention being heavily influenced by lobbyists and perpetually stalled in partisan gridlock?
That's why. For starters.
Seriously, the very idea flies in the face of everything that made America great.
And people ask me to expound on why I weep for this nation.
The fact that this is even being considered a serious conversation...
They're going to tax the junk food. They'll do it by taxing food with added sugars and high amounts of sodium.
I think people should be eating healthy. If they don't, they should pay for it.
Maybe they should just make cigarettes and junk food illegal instead of taxing it. That would probably be easier and have less people complaining about paying taxes. We would also have fewer people setting poor examples for children.
They could set limits on how much fast food and restaurant food people could eat. Nobody is saying you can't ever eat junk, but limit it to a reasonable, small amount.
People who are left to make their own decisions will make bad ones. It's bad for them, it's bad for children and it's bad for society. There is no good there.0 -
I prefer to think of this as "how do we encourage clean eating?" Collectively, we pay for consuming junk food one way or the other. Would you rather the price reflected in higher medical costs, medical insurance premiums and using hospital assets for obese people who spent their adult lives consuming this stuff? The alternative is to have consumers pay a tax on junk food and bear the costs themselves. It's not much different than taxing cigarettes or drinks with high sugar content.2
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
I'd say why not.
To which I'd reply:
Because this is the United States of America which was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. This nation was built by hard working innovators taking advantage of a free-enterprise, capitalist system and we owe the affluence we so readily take for granted to the very type of free trade that the creation of a socialistic nanny state would strangle.
We haven't become one of the most prosperous and blessed nations in the history of mankind because of government intervention in our daily lives. We've enjoyed the prosperity we have because, to a much greater degree than most countries, our government has left industry alone to succeed and our people alone to live and believe as they so desire.
We don't need someone to decide for us what we can eat and punish us monetarily for not adhering to their plan. If we don't take care of our own selves, it's on us. And even if we did need someone to make our decisions for us, it sure to goodness wouldn't be the government's job. You know, The Constitution and Bill of Rights and all that fun stuff no one remembers from their civics classes.
Besides, do we really want our nutrition choices to be dictated by the same entity responsible for bankrupting social security, the housing bubble (remember 2008?), Fast and Furious, IRS scandals, Benghazi, trillions of dollars of debt, etc. not to mention being heavily influenced by lobbyists and perpetually stalled in partisan gridlock?
That's why. For starters.
Seriously, the very idea flies in the face of everything that made America great.
And people ask me to expound on why I weep for this nation.
The fact that this is even being considered a serious conversation...
They're going to tax the junk food. They'll do it by taxing food with added sugars and high amounts of sodium.
I think people should be eating healthy. If they don't, they should pay for it.
Maybe they should just make cigarettes and junk food illegal instead of taxing it. That would probably be easier and have less people complaining about paying taxes. We would also have fewer people setting poor examples for children.
They could set limits on how much fast food and restaurant food people could eat. Nobody is saying you can't ever eat junk, but limit it to a reasonable, small amount.
People who are left to make their own decisions will make bad ones. It's bad for them, it's bad for children and it's bad for society. There is no good there.
Uh huh, and what happens when someone like me, who has a burning hatred for starches, ends up in an unelected bureaucratic position of power, and decided that your rice and potatoes are junk food, because they have a minimal micronutrient content relative to their caloric value?
I'm sure you see how this could get out of hand over time.8 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
Since 2/3 of the US population is overweight, 1/3 is obese and 30% of the population is expected to have diabetes by 2050, it's pretty obvious the typical American doesn't know *kitten* about feeding themselves in an educated manner.
If a tax would help with curtail the current eating habits and/or help fund education/medical care for obesity related issues, I'd say why not.
In my opinion, it won't and it won't. And people continually expecting the government to step in and "help" us take care of ourselves is, in my opinion, a big reason why so many people don't know how to take care of themselves.
So how are you proposing paying for the medical costs of obesity? Remember 50% of healthcare spending is funded by the US government. It's a dollars and cents think for the government to reduce healthcare costs.
/raises hand
Oh oh, pick me, pick me.
Stop subsidizing people's bad decisions. There, I just solved most of our debt problem in thirty seconds.
That's one of the points that was already made (I think I was the first to make that point, in fact), but more specifically, stop subsidizing HFCS. Vaguely, "bad decisions" has about as many definitions as "junk food."
Well yes, those need to go too, but I was specifically referring to quit paying for people's self-induced health problems.
That is going to be difficult to define as well. Not everyone who is overweight made bad decisions. I'm a perfect example - I became overweight because I followed medical advice. But then again, it was a question of being fat or being dead, so technically I had that decision. But would you punish me then?! It actually gets a bit more complicated because some of my treatment for the results of being overweight actually overlap with the treatment for auto-immune disease, which can't possibly be attributed to behavior. So how would you determine what part is auto-immune disease treatment and what part is treatment for being overweight?bathmatt12345 wrote: »Does junk food translate into a cost for society that I have to pay for.
Yes, in terms of medicare costs, costs for the uninsured. You can argue that we shouldn't pay for these costs, but I feel these costs should be pushed to the people who eat junk food to excess, or smoke or other such actions.
Now the counter argument is to have no social services as part of the government, but if we do, yes tax according to the cost so I don't have to pay for others.
That is similar to how tobacco taxes fund smoking cessation programs and campaigns to dissuade youths from smoking, right? I like the idea overall, but then it would not just be to pay for healthcare... it would need to go to education for those not yet overweight and for dietitions (and maybe personal trainers) to help those who are addicted to nicotine overweight to kick the habit lose weight.
If your doctor's advice caused your health problem, there should be records of this, and he should be held accountable. However, in your specific circumstance, it sounds like it was a lesser of two evils thing, so would be passable. Again, medical records showing this would vindicate, and there should be no problem moving forward. Every fatty has an excuse. You have documented proof. That's the difference.
Wouldn't the cost of bureacrats with medical degrees to review each case cost as much or more than the cost of just continuing to pick up some healthcare costs as today?1 -
Yes, they should tax junk food. I think that's what the deal with listing sugars on the new nutrition labels is all about. Any over X amount of added sugar will be taxed.
It's good. People shouldn't be able to kill themselves with junk food. If you leave the choice up to people, they'll eat the junk instead of what they should eat, so a little nudge in the right direction is probably a good thing.
They eat junk food, the cost of healthcare goes up. So, taxing the food might help with that expense. Maybe put a limit on how much junk food people could buy. You could figure in weight. Fat people can't buy any, that kind of thing. They could have, like, a food debit card to keep track.
While I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Oreo should be illegal, maybe if it costs more people will start thinking about what they should and shouldn't eat.
Poor people get food stamps, anyway, so it really doesn't matter if rich, fat people can't eat another bag of Cheetos.
You cannot just let people eat whatever they want. That's why we are fat.
If you cannot make the right choices for yourself, someone has to help you. People should be eating healthy!
I've been sitting here trying to think of all kinds of responses to this. "Wow" is all I've got. I mean a food debit card to keep track and restrict your "junk" food? Wow.5 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
I'd say why not.
To which I'd reply:
Because this is the United States of America which was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. This nation was built by hard working innovators taking advantage of a free-enterprise, capitalist system and we owe the affluence we so readily take for granted to the very type of free trade that the creation of a socialistic nanny state would strangle.
We haven't become one of the most prosperous and blessed nations in the history of mankind because of government intervention in our daily lives. We've enjoyed the prosperity we have because, to a much greater degree than most countries, our government has left industry alone to succeed and our people alone to live and believe as they so desire.
We don't need someone to decide for us what we can eat and punish us monetarily for not adhering to their plan. If we don't take care of our own selves, it's on us. And even if we did need someone to make our decisions for us, it sure to goodness wouldn't be the government's job. You know, The Constitution and Bill of Rights and all that fun stuff no one remembers from their civics classes.
Besides, do we really want our nutrition choices to be dictated by the same entity responsible for bankrupting social security, the housing bubble (remember 2008?), Fast and Furious, IRS scandals, Benghazi, trillions of dollars of debt, etc. not to mention being heavily influenced by lobbyists and perpetually stalled in partisan gridlock?
That's why. For starters.
Seriously, the very idea flies in the face of everything that made America great.
And people ask me to expound on why I weep for this nation.
The fact that this is even being considered a serious conversation...
Better still, do we want our mandatory nutritional guidelines laid out by people who think that a 10% caloric allotment to protein per day is a good idea?
Believe the usda recommended protein allotment is 15-35% of daily calories0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
I'd say why not.
To which I'd reply:
Because this is the United States of America which was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. This nation was built by hard working innovators taking advantage of a free-enterprise, capitalist system and we owe the affluence we so readily take for granted to the very type of free trade that the creation of a socialistic nanny state would strangle.
We haven't become one of the most prosperous and blessed nations in the history of mankind because of government intervention in our daily lives. We've enjoyed the prosperity we have because, to a much greater degree than most countries, our government has left industry alone to succeed and our people alone to live and believe as they so desire.
We don't need someone to decide for us what we can eat and punish us monetarily for not adhering to their plan. If we don't take care of our own selves, it's on us. And even if we did need someone to make our decisions for us, it sure to goodness wouldn't be the government's job. You know, The Constitution and Bill of Rights and all that fun stuff no one remembers from their civics classes.
Besides, do we really want our nutrition choices to be dictated by the same entity responsible for bankrupting social security, the housing bubble (remember 2008?), Fast and Furious, IRS scandals, Benghazi, trillions of dollars of debt, etc. not to mention being heavily influenced by lobbyists and perpetually stalled in partisan gridlock?
That's why. For starters.
Seriously, the very idea flies in the face of everything that made America great.
And people ask me to expound on why I weep for this nation.
The fact that this is even being considered a serious conversation...
Better still, do we want our mandatory nutritional guidelines laid out by people who think that a 10% caloric allotment to protein per day is a good idea?
Believe the usda recommended protein allotment is 15-35% of daily calories
Nope. It's 50g/day on a 2000 calorie diet, which is 10% of the total.1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
I'd say why not.
To which I'd reply:
Because this is the United States of America which was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. This nation was built by hard working innovators taking advantage of a free-enterprise, capitalist system and we owe the affluence we so readily take for granted to the very type of free trade that the creation of a socialistic nanny state would strangle.
We haven't become one of the most prosperous and blessed nations in the history of mankind because of government intervention in our daily lives. We've enjoyed the prosperity we have because, to a much greater degree than most countries, our government has left industry alone to succeed and our people alone to live and believe as they so desire.
We don't need someone to decide for us what we can eat and punish us monetarily for not adhering to their plan. If we don't take care of our own selves, it's on us. And even if we did need someone to make our decisions for us, it sure to goodness wouldn't be the government's job. You know, The Constitution and Bill of Rights and all that fun stuff no one remembers from their civics classes.
Besides, do we really want our nutrition choices to be dictated by the same entity responsible for bankrupting social security, the housing bubble (remember 2008?), Fast and Furious, IRS scandals, Benghazi, trillions of dollars of debt, etc. not to mention being heavily influenced by lobbyists and perpetually stalled in partisan gridlock?
That's why. For starters.
Seriously, the very idea flies in the face of everything that made America great.
And people ask me to expound on why I weep for this nation.
The fact that this is even being considered a serious conversation...
They're going to tax the junk food. They'll do it by taxing food with added sugars and high amounts of sodium.
I think people should be eating healthy. If they don't, they should pay for it.
Maybe they should just make cigarettes and junk food illegal instead of taxing it. That would probably be easier and have less people complaining about paying taxes. We would also have fewer people setting poor examples for children.
They could set limits on how much fast food and restaurant food people could eat. Nobody is saying you can't ever eat junk, but limit it to a reasonable, small amount.
People who are left to make their own decisions will make bad ones. It's bad for them, it's bad for children and it's bad for society. There is no good there.
Ironically, I need high amounts of sodium when I'm most active. I sweat a lot and end up with a strong desire for sodium-rich foods... it isn't hard for me to figure out what happened. So then I'm taxed for having a high activity level, particularly in high temperatures?3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
Since 2/3 of the US population is overweight, 1/3 is obese and 30% of the population is expected to have diabetes by 2050, it's pretty obvious the typical American doesn't know *kitten* about feeding themselves in an educated manner.
If a tax would help with curtail the current eating habits and/or help fund education/medical care for obesity related issues, I'd say why not.
In my opinion, it won't and it won't. And people continually expecting the government to step in and "help" us take care of ourselves is, in my opinion, a big reason why so many people don't know how to take care of themselves.
So how are you proposing paying for the medical costs of obesity? Remember 50% of healthcare spending is funded by the US government. It's a dollars and cents think for the government to reduce healthcare costs.
/raises hand
Oh oh, pick me, pick me.
Stop subsidizing people's bad decisions. There, I just solved most of our debt problem in thirty seconds.
That's one of the points that was already made (I think I was the first to make that point, in fact), but more specifically, stop subsidizing HFCS. Vaguely, "bad decisions" has about as many definitions as "junk food."
Well yes, those need to go too, but I was specifically referring to quit paying for people's self-induced health problems.
That is going to be difficult to define as well. Not everyone who is overweight made bad decisions. I'm a perfect example - I became overweight because I followed medical advice. But then again, it was a question of being fat or being dead, so technically I had that decision. But would you punish me then?! It actually gets a bit more complicated because some of my treatment for the results of being overweight actually overlap with the treatment for auto-immune disease, which can't possibly be attributed to behavior. So how would you determine what part is auto-immune disease treatment and what part is treatment for being overweight?bathmatt12345 wrote: »Does junk food translate into a cost for society that I have to pay for.
Yes, in terms of medicare costs, costs for the uninsured. You can argue that we shouldn't pay for these costs, but I feel these costs should be pushed to the people who eat junk food to excess, or smoke or other such actions.
Now the counter argument is to have no social services as part of the government, but if we do, yes tax according to the cost so I don't have to pay for others.
That is similar to how tobacco taxes fund smoking cessation programs and campaigns to dissuade youths from smoking, right? I like the idea overall, but then it would not just be to pay for healthcare... it would need to go to education for those not yet overweight and for dietitions (and maybe personal trainers) to help those who are addicted to nicotine overweight to kick the habit lose weight.
If your doctor's advice caused your health problem, there should be records of this, and he should be held accountable. However, in your specific circumstance, it sounds like it was a lesser of two evils thing, so would be passable. Again, medical records showing this would vindicate, and there should be no problem moving forward. Every fatty has an excuse. You have documented proof. That's the difference.
Wouldn't the cost of bureacrats with medical degrees to review each case cost as much or more than the cost of just continuing to pick up some healthcare costs as today?
Bureaucracy would not be needed. It could simply be dialed down to "do you have medical records for this?" Yea: treatment. No: cough up the cash and we'll talk. Even assuming a buttload of forgery got through, it would still axe the hell out of current costs, and would require no further overhead.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
Since 2/3 of the US population is overweight, 1/3 is obese and 30% of the population is expected to have diabetes by 2050, it's pretty obvious the typical American doesn't know *kitten* about feeding themselves in an educated manner.
If a tax would help with curtail the current eating habits and/or help fund education/medical care for obesity related issues, I'd say why not.
In my opinion, it won't and it won't. And people continually expecting the government to step in and "help" us take care of ourselves is, in my opinion, a big reason why so many people don't know how to take care of themselves.
So how are you proposing paying for the medical costs of obesity? Remember 50% of healthcare spending is funded by the US government. It's a dollars and cents think for the government to reduce healthcare costs.
/raises hand
Oh oh, pick me, pick me.
Stop subsidizing people's bad decisions. There, I just solved most of our debt problem in thirty seconds.
That's one of the points that was already made (I think I was the first to make that point, in fact), but more specifically, stop subsidizing HFCS. Vaguely, "bad decisions" has about as many definitions as "junk food."
Well yes, those need to go too, but I was specifically referring to quit paying for people's self-induced health problems.
As much as some would like the government to stop paying for self inflicted health problems it ain't going to happen in the US. Gone are the days when people did stupid *kitten*, died out back and the buzzards ate the carcass.
0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
Since 2/3 of the US population is overweight, 1/3 is obese and 30% of the population is expected to have diabetes by 2050, it's pretty obvious the typical American doesn't know *kitten* about feeding themselves in an educated manner.
If a tax would help with curtail the current eating habits and/or help fund education/medical care for obesity related issues, I'd say why not.
In my opinion, it won't and it won't. And people continually expecting the government to step in and "help" us take care of ourselves is, in my opinion, a big reason why so many people don't know how to take care of themselves.
So how are you proposing paying for the medical costs of obesity? Remember 50% of healthcare spending is funded by the US government. It's a dollars and cents think for the government to reduce healthcare costs.
/raises hand
Oh oh, pick me, pick me.
Stop subsidizing people's bad decisions. There, I just solved most of our debt problem in thirty seconds.
That's one of the points that was already made (I think I was the first to make that point, in fact), but more specifically, stop subsidizing HFCS. Vaguely, "bad decisions" has about as many definitions as "junk food."
Well yes, those need to go too, but I was specifically referring to quit paying for people's self-induced health problems.
That is going to be difficult to define as well. Not everyone who is overweight made bad decisions. I'm a perfect example - I became overweight because I followed medical advice. But then again, it was a question of being fat or being dead, so technically I had that decision. But would you punish me then?! It actually gets a bit more complicated because some of my treatment for the results of being overweight actually overlap with the treatment for auto-immune disease, which can't possibly be attributed to behavior. So how would you determine what part is auto-immune disease treatment and what part is treatment for being overweight?bathmatt12345 wrote: »Does junk food translate into a cost for society that I have to pay for.
Yes, in terms of medicare costs, costs for the uninsured. You can argue that we shouldn't pay for these costs, but I feel these costs should be pushed to the people who eat junk food to excess, or smoke or other such actions.
Now the counter argument is to have no social services as part of the government, but if we do, yes tax according to the cost so I don't have to pay for others.
That is similar to how tobacco taxes fund smoking cessation programs and campaigns to dissuade youths from smoking, right? I like the idea overall, but then it would not just be to pay for healthcare... it would need to go to education for those not yet overweight and for dietitions (and maybe personal trainers) to help those who are addicted to nicotine overweight to kick the habit lose weight.
If your doctor's advice caused your health problem, there should be records of this, and he should be held accountable. However, in your specific circumstance, it sounds like it was a lesser of two evils thing, so would be passable. Again, medical records showing this would vindicate, and there should be no problem moving forward. Every fatty has an excuse. You have documented proof. That's the difference.
Wouldn't the cost of bureacrats with medical degrees to review each case cost as much or more than the cost of just continuing to pick up some healthcare costs as today?
Bureaucracy would not be needed. It could simply be dialed down to "do you have medical records for this?" Yea: treatment. No: cough up the cash and we'll talk. Even assuming a buttload of forgery got through, it would still axe the hell out of current costs, and would require no further overhead.
So I would still have to give my medical records over to a government bureaucrat (not sure I like this idea regardless) to review, even if they barely glance at it. That still is going to cost money.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
Since 2/3 of the US population is overweight, 1/3 is obese and 30% of the population is expected to have diabetes by 2050, it's pretty obvious the typical American doesn't know *kitten* about feeding themselves in an educated manner.
If a tax would help with curtail the current eating habits and/or help fund education/medical care for obesity related issues, I'd say why not.
In my opinion, it won't and it won't. And people continually expecting the government to step in and "help" us take care of ourselves is, in my opinion, a big reason why so many people don't know how to take care of themselves.
So how are you proposing paying for the medical costs of obesity? Remember 50% of healthcare spending is funded by the US government. It's a dollars and cents think for the government to reduce healthcare costs.
/raises hand
Oh oh, pick me, pick me.
Stop subsidizing people's bad decisions. There, I just solved most of our debt problem in thirty seconds.
That's one of the points that was already made (I think I was the first to make that point, in fact), but more specifically, stop subsidizing HFCS. Vaguely, "bad decisions" has about as many definitions as "junk food."
Well yes, those need to go too, but I was specifically referring to quit paying for people's self-induced health problems.
As much as some would like the government to stop paying for self inflicted health problems it ain't going to happen in the US. Gone are the days when people did stupid *kitten*, died out back and the buzzards ate the carcass.
And therein lies part of the problem. Anyone still trying to claim ignorance in an age where information flows so freely, does not need saving. They need abandoning.
Children and the (literally) mentally handicapped are the only exception to this.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
I'd say why not.
To which I'd reply:
Because this is the United States of America which was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. This nation was built by hard working innovators taking advantage of a free-enterprise, capitalist system and we owe the affluence we so readily take for granted to the very type of free trade that the creation of a socialistic nanny state would strangle.
We haven't become one of the most prosperous and blessed nations in the history of mankind because of government intervention in our daily lives. We've enjoyed the prosperity we have because, to a much greater degree than most countries, our government has left industry alone to succeed and our people alone to live and believe as they so desire.
We don't need someone to decide for us what we can eat and punish us monetarily for not adhering to their plan. If we don't take care of our own selves, it's on us. And even if we did need someone to make our decisions for us, it sure to goodness wouldn't be the government's job. You know, The Constitution and Bill of Rights and all that fun stuff no one remembers from their civics classes.
Besides, do we really want our nutrition choices to be dictated by the same entity responsible for bankrupting social security, the housing bubble (remember 2008?), Fast and Furious, IRS scandals, Benghazi, trillions of dollars of debt, etc. not to mention being heavily influenced by lobbyists and perpetually stalled in partisan gridlock?
That's why. For starters.
Seriously, the very idea flies in the face of everything that made America great.
And people ask me to expound on why I weep for this nation.
The fact that this is even being considered a serious conversation...
They're going to tax the junk food. They'll do it by taxing food with added sugars and high amounts of sodium.
I think people should be eating healthy. If they don't, they should pay for it.
Maybe they should just make cigarettes and junk food illegal instead of taxing it. That would probably be easier and have less people complaining about paying taxes. We would also have fewer people setting poor examples for children.
They could set limits on how much fast food and restaurant food people could eat. Nobody is saying you can't ever eat junk, but limit it to a reasonable, small amount.
People who are left to make their own decisions will make bad ones. It's bad for them, it's bad for children and it's bad for society. There is no good there.
Communism and fascism, though described as being on opposing ends of the spectrum of political theory, have two major similarities:
1) Government control of the populace
2) Self-justification by the flawed reasoning of "the people need us to make their decisions for them"
If you want a government that so encroaches on your personal liberties as to dictate what you should and shouldn't be eating, try the Castro brothers.11 -
Given the limits of RDA and other government produced nonsense, I'm going with they'll screw if up starting with be definition and just get worse from there. I just can't see this going over well.1
-
Alatariel75 wrote: »Alluminati wrote: »I wish we could tax stupid. We'd be rich!
We could tax a lack of personal accountability. Every time someone says it's the government's fault they're fat, an IRS guy would appear, smack them upside the head, and take a tenner from their wallet.
Wait, this could work1 -
Potatoes aren't bad for you in moderation. They could simply load all the info into debit cards so people couldn't buy things that weren't good for them. Or buy too much that isn't good for them. Like you get X amount of this and that and you can choose what kind you want. You get this much red meat, this much dairy, this much starch. If you want to eat rice, okay. If you'd rather eat bread, okay.Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
I'd say why not.
To which I'd reply:
Because this is the United States of America which was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. This nation was built by hard working innovators taking advantage of a free-enterprise, capitalist system and we owe the affluence we so readily take for granted to the very type of free trade that the creation of a socialistic nanny state would strangle.
We haven't become one of the most prosperous and blessed nations in the history of mankind because of government intervention in our daily lives. We've enjoyed the prosperity we have because, to a much greater degree than most countries, our government has left industry alone to succeed and our people alone to live and believe as they so desire.
We don't need someone to decide for us what we can eat and punish us monetarily for not adhering to their plan. If we don't take care of our own selves, it's on us. And even if we did need someone to make our decisions for us, it sure to goodness wouldn't be the government's job. You know, The Constitution and Bill of Rights and all that fun stuff no one remembers from their civics classes.
Besides, do we really want our nutrition choices to be dictated by the same entity responsible for bankrupting social security, the housing bubble (remember 2008?), Fast and Furious, IRS scandals, Benghazi, trillions of dollars of debt, etc. not to mention being heavily influenced by lobbyists and perpetually stalled in partisan gridlock?
That's why. For starters.
Seriously, the very idea flies in the face of everything that made America great.
And people ask me to expound on why I weep for this nation.
The fact that this is even being considered a serious conversation...
They're going to tax the junk food. They'll do it by taxing food with added sugars and high amounts of sodium.
I think people should be eating healthy. If they don't, they should pay for it.
Maybe they should just make cigarettes and junk food illegal instead of taxing it. That would probably be easier and have less people complaining about paying taxes. We would also have fewer people setting poor examples for children.
They could set limits on how much fast food and restaurant food people could eat. Nobody is saying you can't ever eat junk, but limit it to a reasonable, small amount.
People who are left to make their own decisions will make bad ones. It's bad for them, it's bad for children and it's bad for society. There is no good there.
Uh huh, and what happens when someone like me, who has a burning hatred for starches, ends up in an unelected bureaucratic position of power, and decided that your rice and potatoes are junk food, because they have a minimal micronutrient content relative to their caloric value?
I'm sure you see how this could get out of hand over time.
Nobody is saying people must eat food that they hate, just that if they refuse to make the choices that are good for them, we have to help them out and teach them how. Force them if we must. They might fuss at first, but they'll be grateful later,when they're healthier.
The could have people get approval from doctors for what kind of diet they should eat. Load it onto a card and voila, they buy what they should eat.
It wouldn't be that hard.
0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
I'd say why not.
To which I'd reply:
Because this is the United States of America which was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. This nation was built by hard working innovators taking advantage of a free-enterprise, capitalist system and we owe the affluence we so readily take for granted to the very type of free trade that the creation of a socialistic nanny state would strangle.
We haven't become one of the most prosperous and blessed nations in the history of mankind because of government intervention in our daily lives. We've enjoyed the prosperity we have because, to a much greater degree than most countries, our government has left industry alone to succeed and our people alone to live and believe as they so desire.
We don't need someone to decide for us what we can eat and punish us monetarily for not adhering to their plan. If we don't take care of our own selves, it's on us. And even if we did need someone to make our decisions for us, it sure to goodness wouldn't be the government's job. You know, The Constitution and Bill of Rights and all that fun stuff no one remembers from their civics classes.
Besides, do we really want our nutrition choices to be dictated by the same entity responsible for bankrupting social security, the housing bubble (remember 2008?), Fast and Furious, IRS scandals, Benghazi, trillions of dollars of debt, etc. not to mention being heavily influenced by lobbyists and perpetually stalled in partisan gridlock?
That's why. For starters.
Seriously, the very idea flies in the face of everything that made America great.
And people ask me to expound on why I weep for this nation.
The fact that this is even being considered a serious conversation...
They're going to tax the junk food. They'll do it by taxing food with added sugars and high amounts of sodium.
I think people should be eating healthy. If they don't, they should pay for it.
Maybe they should just make cigarettes and junk food illegal instead of taxing it. That would probably be easier and have less people complaining about paying taxes. We would also have fewer people setting poor examples for children.
They could set limits on how much fast food and restaurant food people could eat. Nobody is saying you can't ever eat junk, but limit it to a reasonable, small amount.
People who are left to make their own decisions will make bad ones. It's bad for them, it's bad for children and it's bad for society. There is no good there.
Communism and fascism, though described as being on opposing ends of the spectrum of political theory, have two major similarities:
1) Government control of the populace
2) Self-justification by the flawed reasoning of "the people need us to make their decisions for them"
If you want a government that so encroaches on your personal liberties as to dictate what you should and shouldn't be eating, try the Castro brothers.
The Castros? Given the *kitten* she's spewing, I'd recommend the Kims.4 -
Potatoes aren't bad for you in moderation. They could simply load all the info into debit cards so people couldn't buy things that weren't good for them. Or buy too much that isn't good for them. Like you get X amount of this and that and you can choose what kind you want. You get this much red meat, this much dairy, this much starch. If you want to eat rice, okay. If you'd rather eat bread, okay.Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
I'd say why not.
To which I'd reply:
Because this is the United States of America which was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. This nation was built by hard working innovators taking advantage of a free-enterprise, capitalist system and we owe the affluence we so readily take for granted to the very type of free trade that the creation of a socialistic nanny state would strangle.
We haven't become one of the most prosperous and blessed nations in the history of mankind because of government intervention in our daily lives. We've enjoyed the prosperity we have because, to a much greater degree than most countries, our government has left industry alone to succeed and our people alone to live and believe as they so desire.
We don't need someone to decide for us what we can eat and punish us monetarily for not adhering to their plan. If we don't take care of our own selves, it's on us. And even if we did need someone to make our decisions for us, it sure to goodness wouldn't be the government's job. You know, The Constitution and Bill of Rights and all that fun stuff no one remembers from their civics classes.
Besides, do we really want our nutrition choices to be dictated by the same entity responsible for bankrupting social security, the housing bubble (remember 2008?), Fast and Furious, IRS scandals, Benghazi, trillions of dollars of debt, etc. not to mention being heavily influenced by lobbyists and perpetually stalled in partisan gridlock?
That's why. For starters.
Seriously, the very idea flies in the face of everything that made America great.
And people ask me to expound on why I weep for this nation.
The fact that this is even being considered a serious conversation...
They're going to tax the junk food. They'll do it by taxing food with added sugars and high amounts of sodium.
I think people should be eating healthy. If they don't, they should pay for it.
Maybe they should just make cigarettes and junk food illegal instead of taxing it. That would probably be easier and have less people complaining about paying taxes. We would also have fewer people setting poor examples for children.
They could set limits on how much fast food and restaurant food people could eat. Nobody is saying you can't ever eat junk, but limit it to a reasonable, small amount.
People who are left to make their own decisions will make bad ones. It's bad for them, it's bad for children and it's bad for society. There is no good there.
Uh huh, and what happens when someone like me, who has a burning hatred for starches, ends up in an unelected bureaucratic position of power, and decided that your rice and potatoes are junk food, because they have a minimal micronutrient content relative to their caloric value?
I'm sure you see how this could get out of hand over time.
Nobody is saying people must eat food that they hate, just that if they refuse to make the choices that are good for them, we have to help them out and teach them how. Force them if we must. They might fuss at first, but they'll be grateful later,when they're healthier.
The could have people get approval from doctors for what kind of diet they should eat. Load it onto a card and voila, they buy what they should eat.
It wouldn't be that hard.
I can't even with your posts. I just can't. Do you realize how much individual diets vary, and how people thrive on different things? Are you going to tell an 80/10/10 vegan they're limited on how many starches they buy? Are you going to tell a person who needs to gain weight for health reasons that sorry, they're stuck eating avocados and peanut butter because they've maxed out beef jerky limit?
Oh, and as for sodium, now I have to pay a tax on soy sauce that I use in my protein-rich, veggie-dense stir-fries? Salted nuts are off the table? Cottage cheese can be high in sodium. Frozen veggie burgers can be high in sodium. Are these things all "junk"?
I don't want anyone trying to tell me what I can and cannot eat. I educated myself, I learned to make good choices. I know how to work in a treat. I like going out to eat, and I will do it as much as I like and work out for it if I need to, thanks very much.7 -
Potatoes aren't bad for you in moderation. They could simply load all the info into debit cards so people couldn't buy things that weren't good for them. Or buy too much that isn't good for them. Like you get X amount of this and that and you can choose what kind you want. You get this much red meat, this much dairy, this much starch. If you want to eat rice, okay. If you'd rather eat bread, okay.Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
I'd say why not.
To which I'd reply:
Because this is the United States of America which was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. This nation was built by hard working innovators taking advantage of a free-enterprise, capitalist system and we owe the affluence we so readily take for granted to the very type of free trade that the creation of a socialistic nanny state would strangle.
We haven't become one of the most prosperous and blessed nations in the history of mankind because of government intervention in our daily lives. We've enjoyed the prosperity we have because, to a much greater degree than most countries, our government has left industry alone to succeed and our people alone to live and believe as they so desire.
We don't need someone to decide for us what we can eat and punish us monetarily for not adhering to their plan. If we don't take care of our own selves, it's on us. And even if we did need someone to make our decisions for us, it sure to goodness wouldn't be the government's job. You know, The Constitution and Bill of Rights and all that fun stuff no one remembers from their civics classes.
Besides, do we really want our nutrition choices to be dictated by the same entity responsible for bankrupting social security, the housing bubble (remember 2008?), Fast and Furious, IRS scandals, Benghazi, trillions of dollars of debt, etc. not to mention being heavily influenced by lobbyists and perpetually stalled in partisan gridlock?
That's why. For starters.
Seriously, the very idea flies in the face of everything that made America great.
And people ask me to expound on why I weep for this nation.
The fact that this is even being considered a serious conversation...
They're going to tax the junk food. They'll do it by taxing food with added sugars and high amounts of sodium.
I think people should be eating healthy. If they don't, they should pay for it.
Maybe they should just make cigarettes and junk food illegal instead of taxing it. That would probably be easier and have less people complaining about paying taxes. We would also have fewer people setting poor examples for children.
They could set limits on how much fast food and restaurant food people could eat. Nobody is saying you can't ever eat junk, but limit it to a reasonable, small amount.
People who are left to make their own decisions will make bad ones. It's bad for them, it's bad for children and it's bad for society. There is no good there.
Uh huh, and what happens when someone like me, who has a burning hatred for starches, ends up in an unelected bureaucratic position of power, and decided that your rice and potatoes are junk food, because they have a minimal micronutrient content relative to their caloric value?
I'm sure you see how this could get out of hand over time.
Nobody is saying people must eat food that they hate, just that if they refuse to make the choices that are good for them, we have to help them out and teach them how. Force them if we must. They might fuss at first, but they'll be grateful later,when they're healthier.
The could have people get approval from doctors for what kind of diet they should eat. Load it onto a card and voila, they buy what they should eat.
It wouldn't be that hard.
The bolded is one of the most naive statements I've ever read.
The U.S. government can't even change the name of a post office without drooling on themselves.
The complexity of defining and instituting such a program as you're describing would make it unfathomly difficult.6 -
What is more important than people being healthy? Nothing. People, kids especially, need to start getting healthier.Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
I'd say why not.
To which I'd reply:
Because this is the United States of America which was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. This nation was built by hard working innovators taking advantage of a free-enterprise, capitalist system and we owe the affluence we so readily take for granted to the very type of free trade that the creation of a socialistic nanny state would strangle.
We haven't become one of the most prosperous and blessed nations in the history of mankind because of government intervention in our daily lives. We've enjoyed the prosperity we have because, to a much greater degree than most countries, our government has left industry alone to succeed and our people alone to live and believe as they so desire.
We don't need someone to decide for us what we can eat and punish us monetarily for not adhering to their plan. If we don't take care of our own selves, it's on us. And even if we did need someone to make our decisions for us, it sure to goodness wouldn't be the government's job. You know, The Constitution and Bill of Rights and all that fun stuff no one remembers from their civics classes.
Besides, do we really want our nutrition choices to be dictated by the same entity responsible for bankrupting social security, the housing bubble (remember 2008?), Fast and Furious, IRS scandals, Benghazi, trillions of dollars of debt, etc. not to mention being heavily influenced by lobbyists and perpetually stalled in partisan gridlock?
That's why. For starters.
Seriously, the very idea flies in the face of everything that made America great.
And people ask me to expound on why I weep for this nation.
The fact that this is even being considered a serious conversation...
They're going to tax the junk food. They'll do it by taxing food with added sugars and high amounts of sodium.
I think people should be eating healthy. If they don't, they should pay for it.
Maybe they should just make cigarettes and junk food illegal instead of taxing it. That would probably be easier and have less people complaining about paying taxes. We would also have fewer people setting poor examples for children.
They could set limits on how much fast food and restaurant food people could eat. Nobody is saying you can't ever eat junk, but limit it to a reasonable, small amount.
People who are left to make their own decisions will make bad ones. It's bad for them, it's bad for children and it's bad for society. There is no good there.
Communism and fascism, though described as being on opposing ends of the spectrum of political theory, have two major similarities:
1) Government control of the populace
2) Self-justification by the flawed reasoning of "the people need us to make their decisions for them"
If you want a government that so encroaches on your personal liberties as to dictate what you should and shouldn't be eating, try the Castro brothers.
This is important. If you eat a healthy diet like you should then nothing changes for you. If you aren't eating a healthy diet then everyone else shouldn't have to pay for it which we would in healthcare. Plus, you set a bad example for children.
The health of the populace and the kids especially is the most important thing and we all see where allowing people to crazy with food had left us.
Something has to be done and taxing is better than nothing. Quit selling junk food would be better and probably easier.
Do people really need the Cheeto?
1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
I'd say why not.
To which I'd reply:
Because this is the United States of America which was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. This nation was built by hard working innovators taking advantage of a free-enterprise, capitalist system and we owe the affluence we so readily take for granted to the very type of free trade that the creation of a socialistic nanny state would strangle.
We haven't become one of the most prosperous and blessed nations in the history of mankind because of government intervention in our daily lives. We've enjoyed the prosperity we have because, to a much greater degree than most countries, our government has left industry alone to succeed and our people alone to live and believe as they so desire.
We don't need someone to decide for us what we can eat and punish us monetarily for not adhering to their plan. If we don't take care of our own selves, it's on us. And even if we did need someone to make our decisions for us, it sure to goodness wouldn't be the government's job. You know, The Constitution and Bill of Rights and all that fun stuff no one remembers from their civics classes.
Besides, do we really want our nutrition choices to be dictated by the same entity responsible for bankrupting social security, the housing bubble (remember 2008?), Fast and Furious, IRS scandals, Benghazi, trillions of dollars of debt, etc. not to mention being heavily influenced by lobbyists and perpetually stalled in partisan gridlock?
That's why. For starters.
Seriously, the very idea flies in the face of everything that made America great.
And people ask me to expound on why I weep for this nation.
The fact that this is even being considered a serious conversation...
They're going to tax the junk food. They'll do it by taxing food with added sugars and high amounts of sodium.
I think people should be eating healthy. If they don't, they should pay for it.
Maybe they should just make cigarettes and junk food illegal instead of taxing it. That would probably be easier and have less people complaining about paying taxes. We would also have fewer people setting poor examples for children.
They could set limits on how much fast food and restaurant food people could eat. Nobody is saying you can't ever eat junk, but limit it to a reasonable, small amount.
People who are left to make their own decisions will make bad ones. It's bad for them, it's bad for children and it's bad for society. There is no good there.
Communism and fascism, though described as being on opposing ends of the spectrum of political theory, have two major similarities:
1) Government control of the populace
2) Self-justification by the flawed reasoning of "the people need us to make their decisions for them"
If you want a government that so encroaches on your personal liberties as to dictate what you should and shouldn't be eating, try the Castro brothers.
The Castros? Given the *kitten* she's spewing, I'd recommend the Kims.
Having the Kims feed you to the dogs is a proven method for 100% weight loss, btw.3 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
I'd say why not.
To which I'd reply:
Because this is the United States of America which was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. This nation was built by hard working innovators taking advantage of a free-enterprise, capitalist system and we owe the affluence we so readily take for granted to the very type of free trade that the creation of a socialistic nanny state would strangle.
We haven't become one of the most prosperous and blessed nations in the history of mankind because of government intervention in our daily lives. We've enjoyed the prosperity we have because, to a much greater degree than most countries, our government has left industry alone to succeed and our people alone to live and believe as they so desire.
We don't need someone to decide for us what we can eat and punish us monetarily for not adhering to their plan. If we don't take care of our own selves, it's on us. And even if we did need someone to make our decisions for us, it sure to goodness wouldn't be the government's job. You know, The Constitution and Bill of Rights and all that fun stuff no one remembers from their civics classes.
Besides, do we really want our nutrition choices to be dictated by the same entity responsible for bankrupting social security, the housing bubble (remember 2008?), Fast and Furious, IRS scandals, Benghazi, trillions of dollars of debt, etc. not to mention being heavily influenced by lobbyists and perpetually stalled in partisan gridlock?
That's why. For starters.
Seriously, the very idea flies in the face of everything that made America great.
And people ask me to expound on why I weep for this nation.
The fact that this is even being considered a serious conversation...
They're going to tax the junk food. They'll do it by taxing food with added sugars and high amounts of sodium.
I think people should be eating healthy. If they don't, they should pay for it.
Maybe they should just make cigarettes and junk food illegal instead of taxing it. That would probably be easier and have less people complaining about paying taxes. We would also have fewer people setting poor examples for children.
They could set limits on how much fast food and restaurant food people could eat. Nobody is saying you can't ever eat junk, but limit it to a reasonable, small amount.
People who are left to make their own decisions will make bad ones. It's bad for them, it's bad for children and it's bad for society. There is no good there.
Communism and fascism, though described as being on opposing ends of the spectrum of political theory, have two major similarities:
1) Government control of the populace
2) Self-justification by the flawed reasoning of "the people need us to make their decisions for them"
If you want a government that so encroaches on your personal liberties as to dictate what you should and shouldn't be eating, try the Castro brothers.
The Castros? Given the *kitten* she's spewing, I'd recommend the Kims.
They have fake food made with sawdust to fill their population's stomachs. Good times!!2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
Potatoes aren't bad for you in moderation. They could simply load all the info into debit cards so people couldn't buy things that weren't good for them. Or buy too much that isn't good for them. Like you get X amount of this and that and you can choose what kind you want. You get this much red meat, this much dairy, this much starch. If you want to eat rice, okay. If you'd rather eat bread, okay.Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
I'd say why not.
To which I'd reply:
Because this is the United States of America which was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. This nation was built by hard working innovators taking advantage of a free-enterprise, capitalist system and we owe the affluence we so readily take for granted to the very type of free trade that the creation of a socialistic nanny state would strangle.
We haven't become one of the most prosperous and blessed nations in the history of mankind because of government intervention in our daily lives. We've enjoyed the prosperity we have because, to a much greater degree than most countries, our government has left industry alone to succeed and our people alone to live and believe as they so desire.
We don't need someone to decide for us what we can eat and punish us monetarily for not adhering to their plan. If we don't take care of our own selves, it's on us. And even if we did need someone to make our decisions for us, it sure to goodness wouldn't be the government's job. You know, The Constitution and Bill of Rights and all that fun stuff no one remembers from their civics classes.
Besides, do we really want our nutrition choices to be dictated by the same entity responsible for bankrupting social security, the housing bubble (remember 2008?), Fast and Furious, IRS scandals, Benghazi, trillions of dollars of debt, etc. not to mention being heavily influenced by lobbyists and perpetually stalled in partisan gridlock?
That's why. For starters.
Seriously, the very idea flies in the face of everything that made America great.
And people ask me to expound on why I weep for this nation.
The fact that this is even being considered a serious conversation...
They're going to tax the junk food. They'll do it by taxing food with added sugars and high amounts of sodium.
I think people should be eating healthy. If they don't, they should pay for it.
Maybe they should just make cigarettes and junk food illegal instead of taxing it. That would probably be easier and have less people complaining about paying taxes. We would also have fewer people setting poor examples for children.
They could set limits on how much fast food and restaurant food people could eat. Nobody is saying you can't ever eat junk, but limit it to a reasonable, small amount.
People who are left to make their own decisions will make bad ones. It's bad for them, it's bad for children and it's bad for society. There is no good there.
Uh huh, and what happens when someone like me, who has a burning hatred for starches, ends up in an unelected bureaucratic position of power, and decided that your rice and potatoes are junk food, because they have a minimal micronutrient content relative to their caloric value?
I'm sure you see how this could get out of hand over time.
Nobody is saying people must eat food that they hate, just that if they refuse to make the choices that are good for them, we have to help them out and teach them how. Force them if we must. They might fuss at first, but they'll be grateful later,when they're healthier.
The could have people get approval from doctors for what kind of diet they should eat. Load it onto a card and voila, they buy what they should eat.
It wouldn't be that hard.
The bolded is one of the most naive statements I've ever read.
The U.S. government can't even change the name of a post office without drooling on themselves.
The complexity of defining and instituting such a program as you're describing would make it unfathomly difficult.
The name is easy: "The Full Employment for Lawyers and Lobbyists Act of 2016."
If anyone thinks the decisions will be based solely on science they've not read many statutes.2 -
And since we're talking about only being able to buy food with a particular card issued by the government and the potential to buy only certain foods with said card, let's not miss the fact that the entire restaurant industry would disappear, leading to millions of unemployed citizens.
Oh! And let's not forget the inevitable outcry that only being able to purchase food with a certain card is a precursor to the mark of the beast.5 -
Potatoes aren't bad for you in moderation. They could simply load all the info into debit cards so people couldn't buy things that weren't good for them. Or buy too much that isn't good for them. Like you get X amount of this and that and you can choose what kind you want. You get this much red meat, this much dairy, this much starch. If you want to eat rice, okay. If you'd rather eat bread, okay.Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
I'd say why not.
To which I'd reply:
Because this is the United States of America which was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. This nation was built by hard working innovators taking advantage of a free-enterprise, capitalist system and we owe the affluence we so readily take for granted to the very type of free trade that the creation of a socialistic nanny state would strangle.
We haven't become one of the most prosperous and blessed nations in the history of mankind because of government intervention in our daily lives. We've enjoyed the prosperity we have because, to a much greater degree than most countries, our government has left industry alone to succeed and our people alone to live and believe as they so desire.
We don't need someone to decide for us what we can eat and punish us monetarily for not adhering to their plan. If we don't take care of our own selves, it's on us. And even if we did need someone to make our decisions for us, it sure to goodness wouldn't be the government's job. You know, The Constitution and Bill of Rights and all that fun stuff no one remembers from their civics classes.
Besides, do we really want our nutrition choices to be dictated by the same entity responsible for bankrupting social security, the housing bubble (remember 2008?), Fast and Furious, IRS scandals, Benghazi, trillions of dollars of debt, etc. not to mention being heavily influenced by lobbyists and perpetually stalled in partisan gridlock?
That's why. For starters.
Seriously, the very idea flies in the face of everything that made America great.
And people ask me to expound on why I weep for this nation.
The fact that this is even being considered a serious conversation...
They're going to tax the junk food. They'll do it by taxing food with added sugars and high amounts of sodium.
I think people should be eating healthy. If they don't, they should pay for it.
Maybe they should just make cigarettes and junk food illegal instead of taxing it. That would probably be easier and have less people complaining about paying taxes. We would also have fewer people setting poor examples for children.
They could set limits on how much fast food and restaurant food people could eat. Nobody is saying you can't ever eat junk, but limit it to a reasonable, small amount.
People who are left to make their own decisions will make bad ones. It's bad for them, it's bad for children and it's bad for society. There is no good there.
Uh huh, and what happens when someone like me, who has a burning hatred for starches, ends up in an unelected bureaucratic position of power, and decided that your rice and potatoes are junk food, because they have a minimal micronutrient content relative to their caloric value?
I'm sure you see how this could get out of hand over time.
Nobody is saying people must eat food that they hate, just that if they refuse to make the choices that are good for them, we have to help them out and teach them how. Force them if we must. They might fuss at first, but they'll be grateful later,when they're healthier.
The could have people get approval from doctors for what kind of diet they should eat. Load it onto a card and voila, they buy what they should eat.
It wouldn't be that hard.
I am not even religious, but you are legit pushing some antichrist level, mark of the beast stuff right now. Hey, better idea: let's do away with the cards and just roll with barcodes, cool?
What is wrong with you?4 -
tattoo barcodes are next!1
-
If they're vegan, they get their vegan diet approved and that gets loaded into the card. This just wouldn't be that hard.mskessler89 wrote: »
Potatoes aren't bad for you in moderation. They could simply load all the info into debit cards so people couldn't buy things that weren't good for them. Or buy too much that isn't good for them. Like you get X amount of this and that and you can choose what kind you want. You get this much red meat, this much dairy, this much starch. If you want to eat rice, okay. If you'd rather eat bread, okay.Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
I'd say why not.
To which I'd reply:
Because this is the United States of America which was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. This nation was built by hard working innovators taking advantage of a free-enterprise, capitalist system and we owe the affluence we so readily take for granted to the very type of free trade that the creation of a socialistic nanny state would strangle.
We haven't become one of the most prosperous and blessed nations in the history of mankind because of government intervention in our daily lives. We've enjoyed the prosperity we have because, to a much greater degree than most countries, our government has left industry alone to succeed and our people alone to live and believe as they so desire.
We don't need someone to decide for us what we can eat and punish us monetarily for not adhering to their plan. If we don't take care of our own selves, it's on us. And even if we did need someone to make our decisions for us, it sure to goodness wouldn't be the government's job. You know, The Constitution and Bill of Rights and all that fun stuff no one remembers from their civics classes.
Besides, do we really want our nutrition choices to be dictated by the same entity responsible for bankrupting social security, the housing bubble (remember 2008?), Fast and Furious, IRS scandals, Benghazi, trillions of dollars of debt, etc. not to mention being heavily influenced by lobbyists and perpetually stalled in partisan gridlock?
That's why. For starters.
Seriously, the very idea flies in the face of everything that made America great.
And people ask me to expound on why I weep for this nation.
The fact that this is even being considered a serious conversation...
They're going to tax the junk food. They'll do it by taxing food with added sugars and high amounts of sodium.
I think people should be eating healthy. If they don't, they should pay for it.
Maybe they should just make cigarettes and junk food illegal instead of taxing it. That would probably be easier and have less people complaining about paying taxes. We would also have fewer people setting poor examples for children.
They could set limits on how much fast food and restaurant food people could eat. Nobody is saying you can't ever eat junk, but limit it to a reasonable, small amount.
People who are left to make their own decisions will make bad ones. It's bad for them, it's bad for children and it's bad for society. There is no good there.
Uh huh, and what happens when someone like me, who has a burning hatred for starches, ends up in an unelected bureaucratic position of power, and decided that your rice and potatoes are junk food, because they have a minimal micronutrient content relative to their caloric value?
I'm sure you see how this could get out of hand over time.
Nobody is saying people must eat food that they hate, just that if they refuse to make the choices that are good for them, we have to help them out and teach them how. Force them if we must. They might fuss at first, but they'll be grateful later,when they're healthier.
The could have people get approval from doctors for what kind of diet they should eat. Load it onto a card and voila, they buy what they should eat.
It wouldn't be that hard.
I can't even with your posts. I just can't. Do you realize how much individual diets vary, and how people thrive on different things? Are you going to tell an 80/10/10 vegan they're limited on how many starches they buy? Are you going to tell a person who needs to gain weight for health reasons that sorry, they're stuck eating avocados and peanut butter because they've maxed out beef jerky limit?
Oh, and as for sodium, now I have to pay a tax on soy sauce that I use in my protein-rich, veggie-dense stir-fries? Salted nuts are off the table? Cottage cheese can be high in sodium. Frozen veggie burgers can be high in sodium. Are these things all "junk"?
I don't want anyone trying to tell me what I can and cannot eat. I educated myself, I learned to make good choices. I know how to work in a treat. I like going out to eat, and I will do it as much as I like and work out for it if I need to, thanks very much.
I don't know why people would fight to eat unhealthy diets, but I am sure that when they're healthier, they'll be happy about it. Society would be better off.
This business of eating whatever you want thanks very much is not good for your health. Nothing is more important than health.
We are an unhealthy country, it's costing us money, we have to do something about it. Leaving the choice up to everyone hasn't worked.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions