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.
Do you think obese/overweight people should pay more for health insurance?
Replies
-
fuzzylop72 wrote: »I think the only objective way to do this is to require a certain nutrient density in food to avoid taxes. I don't think it's really a useful thing to do, though, and I can't imagine it having any impact on obesity.
The thing is, I can't think of any way to measure nutrient density in relation to calories that doesn't also rope in foods like oil, butter, cream, maple syrup, jams, salad dressings, and other common foods that aren't typically classified as "junk." Maybe proponents of punitive food taxes are okay with that, but it seems less than ideal.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »fuzzylop72 wrote: »I think the only objective way to do this is to require a certain nutrient density in food to avoid taxes. I don't think it's really a useful thing to do, though, and I can't imagine it having any impact on obesity.
The thing is, I can't think of any way to measure nutrient density in relation to calories that doesn't also rope in foods like oil, butter, cream, maple syrup, jams, salad dressings, and other common foods that aren't typically classified as "junk." Maybe proponents of punitive food taxes are okay with that, but it seems less than ideal.
I agree. However, if your argument against doughnuts is nutrient density, then go all in and set a nutrient density line in the sand. You'll include a lot of whole foods if you do that, though, and (hopefully) realize how silly the whole idea is.0 -
fuzzylop72 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »fuzzylop72 wrote: »I think the only objective way to do this is to require a certain nutrient density in food to avoid taxes. I don't think it's really a useful thing to do, though, and I can't imagine it having any impact on obesity.
The thing is, I can't think of any way to measure nutrient density in relation to calories that doesn't also rope in foods like oil, butter, cream, maple syrup, jams, salad dressings, and other common foods that aren't typically classified as "junk." Maybe proponents of punitive food taxes are okay with that, but it seems less than ideal.
I agree. However, if your argument against doughnuts is nutrient density, then go all in and set a nutrient density line in the sand. You'll include a lot of whole foods if you do that, though, and (hopefully) realize how silly the whole idea is.
If my understanding of human nature is correct, you'd probably also see a lot of gaming in the system (like manufacturers determining exactly how much they had to add to a donut or cookie in order to meet the minimum nutrient density tax cut-off point) while smaller businesses and more traditional foods would still be taxed. So quickly you'd have a big confusing mess where the Kale-Infused Quinoa Super-Donut by Frito-Lay isn't subject to the tax, but people are still paying extra taxes on jam made with just sugar and strawberries or on coconut oil.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »fuzzylop72 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »fuzzylop72 wrote: »I think the only objective way to do this is to require a certain nutrient density in food to avoid taxes. I don't think it's really a useful thing to do, though, and I can't imagine it having any impact on obesity.
The thing is, I can't think of any way to measure nutrient density in relation to calories that doesn't also rope in foods like oil, butter, cream, maple syrup, jams, salad dressings, and other common foods that aren't typically classified as "junk." Maybe proponents of punitive food taxes are okay with that, but it seems less than ideal.
I agree. However, if your argument against doughnuts is nutrient density, then go all in and set a nutrient density line in the sand. You'll include a lot of whole foods if you do that, though, and (hopefully) realize how silly the whole idea is.
If my understanding of human nature is correct, you'd probably also see a lot of gaming in the system (like manufacturers determining exactly how much they had to add to a donut or cookie in order to meet the minimum nutrient density tax cut-off point) while smaller businesses and more traditional foods would still be taxed. So quickly you'd have a big confusing mess where the Kale-Infused Quinoa Super-Donut by Frito-Lay isn't subject to the tax, but people are still paying extra taxes on jam made with just sugar and strawberries or on coconut oil.
Yeah, Picture Dunkin Donuts doping with Metamucil/multivitamins.
2 -
First there is an ethical decision on whether or not you think it appropriate for the government or insurance agencies to actively punish people for behaviors they wish to discourage. Once you decide that the answer to that is "Yes" then I would think the solution is fairly obvious...target those behaviors. I find it strange that a lot of people seem to want to target things incidental to those behaviors instead. Almost like the idea of punishing a person directly for their behavior makes them too uncomfortable but they still want to discourage that behavior by interventions.
If you want to discourage obesity then put policies in place that punish obesity itself. Taxing food doesn't do that.
If insurance companies raise rates on people who qualify as obese that is direct discouragement of that behavior. If instead you tax chocoolate or fast food then that doesn't affect obese people who don't eat those things (yeah, you can be obese without eating chocolate or fast food) and it does affect people who eat those things but are not obese. Why do that? As soon as you are willing to be interventionist why not just go after the thing you actually want to stop directly instead of just dancing around it with taxing things just loosely related at best.
4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »First there is an ethical decision on whether or not you think it appropriate for the government or insurance agencies to actively punish people for behaviors they wish to discourage. Once you decide that the answer to that is "Yes" then I would think the solution is fairly obvious...target those behaviors. I find it strange that a lot of people seem to want to target things incidental to those behaviors instead. Almost like the idea of punishing a person directly for their behavior makes them too uncomfortable but they still want to discourage that behavior by interventions.
If you want to discourage obesity then put policies in place that punish obesity itself. Taxing food doesn't do that.
If insurance companies raise rates on people who qualify as obese that is direct discouragement of that behavior. If instead you tax chocoolate or fast food then that doesn't affect obese people who don't eat those things (yeah, you can be obese without eating chocolate or fast food) and it does affect people who eat those things but are not obese. Why do that? As soon as you are willing to be interventionist why not just go after the thing you actually want to stop directly instead of just dancing around it with taxing things just loosely related at best.
I've been noting for some time that taxation is the tool de jour of the passive aggressive personality disorder.1 -
I'm a simple guy, I like simple examples.
If I have two kids and one makes the bad decision to throw his dinner in the trash, not eating it, taking food from the other kid doesn't teach the first kid to make better choices.
Pretty obvious, right. Yet that is in essence what is proposed when people suggest we tax X, because it's bad. It isn't focused on those making the bad choices. I can eat a reasonable portion of chocolate, or bacon, or donuts, or whatever. So putting a tax on those items isn't going to change my behavior. Taking money off of my plate will not improve my behavior.
Nor will it improve the behavior of those making the bad choices. Why? They don't pay the full consequences of their choices in the tax donuts scenario. Seems the most effective lever is to let the consequences fall on those and ONLY those who make the bad choices.
Eat enough cheezy poof or even Kale to become as big as a house and you've made a bad choice somewhere. The person who buys cheezy poofs only for a birthday or Christmas party and doesn't make them a diet staple will simply be harmed by a food tax with no benefit to society.
If the goal is to change behavior, then you have to target ONLY those who engage in the behavior. Any other means harms society as a whole. It impacts those who don't engage in the bad behavior and it fails to significantly impact those who do.2 -
I'm in Canada, so health insurance is not as crucial an issue up here. It's helpful, but critical care does not item depend upon it. It helps more with prescriptions and supplies.
I am all for making the cost of poor food choices cost more. Up here, it would probably be a tax on the behaviour you want discouraged, and reducing the cost (government subsidy) on those behaviours you want encouraged.
I think increasing the cost of highly processed and refined foods, and reducing the price of whole foods would not hurt anyone beyond encouraging people to cook from closer to scratch more often. Cheaper eggs, meat, seafood, produce, whole grains and dairy would be a nice trade off for increasing the price of convenience foods or items that are highly processed and refined. Sugar and sweeteners would be more expensive, but grapes and apples would be cheaper. Make ground beef cheaper and raise the price of pork rinds and chips. Foods like noodles and breads might get more expensive, but if a steak with a side of veggies/ potato and a salad becomes cheaper, I'd consider it a good trade off, nutritionally speaking. JMO
Sure, some people get fat on steak, veggies and salad, but compared to those who eat a diet with more highly processed and refined foods, my guess is that they are a minority.
And for those who eat those highly processed foods in moderation now, they won't be penalized in the end. Yes they'll pay more for those foods (although it should not be prohibitive since they dot eat much of it) but they'll be paying less for the whole foods they normally eat too.
6 -
I'm in Canada, so health insurance is not as crucial an issue up here. It's helpful, but critical care does not item depend upon it. It helps more with prescriptions and supplies.
I am all for making the cost of poor food choices cost more. Up here, it would probably be a tax on the behaviour you want discouraged, and reducing the cost (government subsidy) on those behaviours you want encouraged.
I think increasing the cost of highly processed and refined foods, and reducing the price of whole foods would not hurt anyone beyond encouraging people to cook from closer to scratch more often. Cheaper eggs, meat, seafood, produce, whole grains and dairy would be a nice trade off for increasing the price of convenience foods or items that are highly processed and refined. Sugar and sweeteners would be more expensive, but grapes and apples would be cheaper. Make ground beef cheaper and raise the price of pork rinds and chips. Foods like noodles and breads might get more expensive, but if a steak with a side of veggies/ potato and a salad becomes cheaper, I'd consider it a good trade off, nutritionally speaking. JMO
Sure, some people get fat on steak, veggies and salad, but compared to those who eat a diet with more highly processed and refined foods, my guess is that they are a minority.
And for those who eat those highly processed foods in moderation now, they won't be penalized in the end. Yes they'll pay more for those foods (although it should not be prohibitive since they dot eat much of it) but they'll be paying less for the whole foods they normally eat too.
Seriously, this is the same argument that has been going on for the last half dozen pages of this thread, and it has repeatedly been pointed out what a bad idea this is. Does anyone even bother reading the thread anymore before regurgitating these same foolish ideas? You want to increase the price of bread, but lower the price of ground beef? Explain to me how one food is inherently better for you than the other. I eat both of those foods and am at a healthy weight. If I were to overeat either of those foods, I could become overweight or obese. So many people in this thread want to demonize the food instead of holding the individual responsible for consistently exceeding their daily calories. I guarantee you there are plenty of people that are eating far more ground beef than they should be, but because you perceive that food as healthier than bread, it should be cheaper? I should not have to pay more for ANY food just because someone else could potentially eat too much of it.9 -
I'm in Canada, so health insurance is not as crucial an issue up here. It's helpful, but critical care does not item depend upon it. It helps more with prescriptions and supplies.
I am all for making the cost of poor food choices cost more. Up here, it would probably be a tax on the behaviour you want discouraged, and reducing the cost (government subsidy) on those behaviours you want encouraged.
I think increasing the cost of highly processed and refined foods, and reducing the price of whole foods would not hurt anyone beyond encouraging people to cook from closer to scratch more often. Cheaper eggs, meat, seafood, produce, whole grains and dairy would be a nice trade off for increasing the price of convenience foods or items that are highly processed and refined. Sugar and sweeteners would be more expensive, but grapes and apples would be cheaper. Make ground beef cheaper and raise the price of pork rinds and chips. Foods like noodles and breads might get more expensive, but if a steak with a side of veggies/ potato and a salad becomes cheaper, I'd consider it a good trade off, nutritionally speaking. JMO
Sure, some people get fat on steak, veggies and salad, but compared to those who eat a diet with more highly processed and refined foods, my guess is that they are a minority.
And for those who eat those highly processed foods in moderation now, they won't be penalized in the end. Yes they'll pay more for those foods (although it should not be prohibitive since they dot eat much of it) but they'll be paying less for the whole foods they normally eat too.
Awful ideas. Reasoning just as awful.7 -
I'm in Canada, so health insurance is not as crucial an issue up here. It's helpful, but critical care does not item depend upon it. It helps more with prescriptions and supplies.
I am all for making the cost of poor food choices cost more. Up here, it would probably be a tax on the behaviour you want discouraged, and reducing the cost (government subsidy) on those behaviours you want encouraged.
I think increasing the cost of highly processed and refined foods, and reducing the price of whole foods would not hurt anyone beyond encouraging people to cook from closer to scratch more often. Cheaper eggs, meat, seafood, produce, whole grains and dairy would be a nice trade off for increasing the price of convenience foods or items that are highly processed and refined. Sugar and sweeteners would be more expensive, but grapes and apples would be cheaper. Make ground beef cheaper and raise the price of pork rinds and chips. Foods like noodles and breads might get more expensive, but if a steak with a side of veggies/ potato and a salad becomes cheaper, I'd consider it a good trade off, nutritionally speaking. JMO
Sure, some people get fat on steak, veggies and salad, but compared to those who eat a diet with more highly processed and refined foods, my guess is that they are a minority.
And for those who eat those highly processed foods in moderation now, they won't be penalized in the end. Yes they'll pay more for those foods (although it should not be prohibitive since they dot eat much of it) but they'll be paying less for the whole foods they normally eat too.
The other problem with this idea (besides the ones pointed out above) is that you are penalizing people who live in the inner cities and other food desserts where the ONLY foods that are readily available are the processed foods that last longer on the shelves.5 -
Thankfully our system has a set price for everyone, but then gives incentives for people who complete certain lifestyle improvement initiatives. So currently if you test as a non-smoker you get a monthly discount $360 annually. If you simply complete a health risk assessment you get $240 annually. So as much as $600 a year, or $50 a month off premiums. All voluntary and there are no standards of health that have to be achieved to qualify (except being a non-smoker).
To me, as someone who strives for a healthy lifestyle I believe this is fair and more than justified.2 -
I'm in Canada, so health insurance is not as crucial an issue up here. It's helpful, but critical care does not item depend upon it. It helps more with prescriptions and supplies.
I am all for making the cost of poor food choices cost more. Up here, it would probably be a tax on the behaviour you want discouraged, and reducing the cost (government subsidy) on those behaviours you want encouraged.
I think increasing the cost of highly processed and refined foods, and reducing the price of whole foods would not hurt anyone beyond encouraging people to cook from closer to scratch more often. Cheaper eggs, meat, seafood, produce, whole grains and dairy would be a nice trade off for increasing the price of convenience foods or items that are highly processed and refined. Sugar and sweeteners would be more expensive, but grapes and apples would be cheaper. Make ground beef cheaper and raise the price of pork rinds and chips. Foods like noodles and breads might get more expensive, but if a steak with a side of veggies/ potato and a salad becomes cheaper, I'd consider it a good trade off, nutritionally speaking. JMO
Sure, some people get fat on steak, veggies and salad, but compared to those who eat a diet with more highly processed and refined foods, my guess is that they are a minority.
And for those who eat those highly processed foods in moderation now, they won't be penalized in the end. Yes they'll pay more for those foods (although it should not be prohibitive since they dot eat much of it) but they'll be paying less for the whole foods they normally eat too.
Seriously, this is the same argument that has been going on for the last half dozen pages of this thread, and it has repeatedly been pointed out what a bad idea this is. Does anyone even bother reading the thread anymore before regurgitating these same foolish ideas? You want to increase the price of bread, but lower the price of ground beef? Explain to me how one food is inherently better for you than the other. I eat both of those foods and am at a healthy weight. If I were to overeat either of those foods, I could become overweight or obese. So many people in this thread want to demonize the food instead of holding the individual responsible for consistently exceeding their daily calories. I guarantee you there are plenty of people that are eating far more ground beef than they should be, but because you perceive that food as healthier than bread, it should be cheaper? I should not have to pay more for ANY food just because someone else could potentially eat too much of it.
Some foods are already subsidized. They often tend to go towards the ingredients of the more refined and highly processed food varieties. If the government is going to subsidize foods, why not those associated with better health and nutrition?
Some foods are better for you than others. I know opinion will vary about which foods in particular are healthier but I think most would agree that whole foods are usually a healthier choice than refined and highly processed foods. I never said that people should never eat those foods, but I doubt anyone would benefit by eating more of those foods rather than limiting them in a realistic way.
I am aware that one can get fat on too much beef or too much bread. I already said that. Beef is something that a person could live off of without other foods. Bread not so much. That would make beef nutritionally more complete, or more nutritious.... Neither are required to live. One is fortified (like a vitamin with calories) and the other does not need to be altered besides being cut up in different ways. I just gave beef as an example. I don't think it would be horrible to make a food like beef less expensive while raising the price of pork rinds or chips.
Why subsidize corn over greens or fish? I think the States' feds puts a lot of money into corn and soy. The dairy industry is subsidized up here. I would guess that not everyone is drinking milk. I suppose you could say that the lactose intolerant are being unfairly punished.I'm in Canada, so health insurance is not as crucial an issue up here. It's helpful, but critical care does not item depend upon it. It helps more with prescriptions and supplies.
I am all for making the cost of poor food choices cost more. Up here, it would probably be a tax on the behaviour you want discouraged, and reducing the cost (government subsidy) on those behaviours you want encouraged.
I think increasing the cost of highly processed and refined foods, and reducing the price of whole foods would not hurt anyone beyond encouraging people to cook from closer to scratch more often. Cheaper eggs, meat, seafood, produce, whole grains and dairy would be a nice trade off for increasing the price of convenience foods or items that are highly processed and refined. Sugar and sweeteners would be more expensive, but grapes and apples would be cheaper. Make ground beef cheaper and raise the price of pork rinds and chips. Foods like noodles and breads might get more expensive, but if a steak with a side of veggies/ potato and a salad becomes cheaper, I'd consider it a good trade off, nutritionally speaking. JMO
Sure, some people get fat on steak, veggies and salad, but compared to those who eat a diet with more highly processed and refined foods, my guess is that they are a minority.
And for those who eat those highly processed foods in moderation now, they won't be penalized in the end. Yes they'll pay more for those foods (although it should not be prohibitive since they dot eat much of it) but they'll be paying less for the whole foods they normally eat too.
The other problem with this idea (besides the ones pointed out above) is that you are penalizing people who live in the inner cities and other food desserts where the ONLY foods that are readily available are the processed foods that last longer on the shelves.
I don't think we have food deserts up here like I've heard about in the States. Perhaps up north in the arctic....6 -
Thankfully our system has a set price for everyone, but then gives incentives for people who complete certain lifestyle improvement initiatives. So currently if you test as a non-smoker you get a monthly discount $360 annually. If you simply complete a health risk assessment you get $240 annually. So as much as $600 a year, or $50 a month off premiums. All voluntary and there are no standards of health that have to be achieved to qualify (except being a non-smoker).
To me, as someone who strives for a healthy lifestyle I believe this is fair and more than justified.
I like the idea of this way better than increasing premiums because of adverse health conditions, especially if it's paired with subsidized health programs (that are flexible enough to accommodate all types of home situations/work schedules/family commitments) to improve fitness, diet, etc. There are several companies that do this "carrot" method, and I think it's easier to motivate people to get healthy for a prize versus fining them for their current state. Certainly feels more humanizing.0 -
I'm in Canada, so health insurance is not as crucial an issue up here. It's helpful, but critical care does not item depend upon it. It helps more with prescriptions and supplies.
I am all for making the cost of poor food choices cost more. Up here, it would probably be a tax on the behaviour you want discouraged, and reducing the cost (government subsidy) on those behaviours you want encouraged.
I think increasing the cost of highly processed and refined foods, and reducing the price of whole foods would not hurt anyone beyond encouraging people to cook from closer to scratch more often. Cheaper eggs, meat, seafood, produce, whole grains and dairy would be a nice trade off for increasing the price of convenience foods or items that are highly processed and refined. Sugar and sweeteners would be more expensive, but grapes and apples would be cheaper. Make ground beef cheaper and raise the price of pork rinds and chips. Foods like noodles and breads might get more expensive, but if a steak with a side of veggies/ potato and a salad becomes cheaper, I'd consider it a good trade off, nutritionally speaking. JMO
Sure, some people get fat on steak, veggies and salad, but compared to those who eat a diet with more highly processed and refined foods, my guess is that they are a minority.
And for those who eat those highly processed foods in moderation now, they won't be penalized in the end. Yes they'll pay more for those foods (although it should not be prohibitive since they dot eat much of it) but they'll be paying less for the whole foods they normally eat too.
Seriously, this is the same argument that has been going on for the last half dozen pages of this thread, and it has repeatedly been pointed out what a bad idea this is. Does anyone even bother reading the thread anymore before regurgitating these same foolish ideas? You want to increase the price of bread, but lower the price of ground beef? Explain to me how one food is inherently better for you than the other. I eat both of those foods and am at a healthy weight. If I were to overeat either of those foods, I could become overweight or obese. So many people in this thread want to demonize the food instead of holding the individual responsible for consistently exceeding their daily calories. I guarantee you there are plenty of people that are eating far more ground beef than they should be, but because you perceive that food as healthier than bread, it should be cheaper? I should not have to pay more for ANY food just because someone else could potentially eat too much of it.
Some foods are already subsidized. They often tend to go towards the ingredients of the more refined and highly processed food varieties. If the government is going to subsidize foods, why not those associated with better health and nutrition?
Some foods are better for you than others. I know opinion will vary about which foods in particular are healthier but I think most would agree that whole foods are usually a healthier choice than refined and highly processed foods. I never said that people should never eat those foods, but I doubt anyone would benefit by eating more of those foods rather than limiting them in a realistic way.
I am aware that one can get fat on too much beef or too much bread. I already said that. Beef is something that a person could live off of without other foods. Bread not so much. That would make beef nutritionally more complete, or more nutritious.... Neither are required to live. One is fortified (like a vitamin with calories) and the other does not need to be altered besides being cut up in different ways. I just gave beef as an example. I don't think it would be horrible to make a food like beef less expensive while raising the price of pork rinds or chips.
Why subsidize corn over greens or fish? I think the States' feds puts a lot of money into corn and soy. The dairy industry is subsidized up here. I would guess that not everyone is drinking milk. I suppose you could say that the lactose intolerant are being unfairly punished.I'm in Canada, so health insurance is not as crucial an issue up here. It's helpful, but critical care does not item depend upon it. It helps more with prescriptions and supplies.
I am all for making the cost of poor food choices cost more. Up here, it would probably be a tax on the behaviour you want discouraged, and reducing the cost (government subsidy) on those behaviours you want encouraged.
I think increasing the cost of highly processed and refined foods, and reducing the price of whole foods would not hurt anyone beyond encouraging people to cook from closer to scratch more often. Cheaper eggs, meat, seafood, produce, whole grains and dairy would be a nice trade off for increasing the price of convenience foods or items that are highly processed and refined. Sugar and sweeteners would be more expensive, but grapes and apples would be cheaper. Make ground beef cheaper and raise the price of pork rinds and chips. Foods like noodles and breads might get more expensive, but if a steak with a side of veggies/ potato and a salad becomes cheaper, I'd consider it a good trade off, nutritionally speaking. JMO
Sure, some people get fat on steak, veggies and salad, but compared to those who eat a diet with more highly processed and refined foods, my guess is that they are a minority.
And for those who eat those highly processed foods in moderation now, they won't be penalized in the end. Yes they'll pay more for those foods (although it should not be prohibitive since they dot eat much of it) but they'll be paying less for the whole foods they normally eat too.
The other problem with this idea (besides the ones pointed out above) is that you are penalizing people who live in the inner cities and other food desserts where the ONLY foods that are readily available are the processed foods that last longer on the shelves.
I don't think we have food deserts up here like I've heard about in the States. Perhaps up north in the arctic....
The reason Corn and Soy are subsidized is because thats what they are feeding to the "beef," cows. The government will never advocate other vegetables until the the demand goes down for beef and dairy. Why would they? That's where they make all their money.6 -
Many companies have group insurance plans, such as the one my husband and I both work for. I believe it is better to give incentives for healthful activities and keeping up with prevetitive health screens than penalizing any one group of people, as many have already mentioned. This is what my company does as well, and it gives me incentive to get my maximum return.
If someone buys private health insurance they are already looking at you as an individual, basing your risk and cost against your current health condition, past health history etc.
Believe me, as a nurse, I want to say YES! Charge people more if they have a BMI over 40, as this is the demographic that becomes increasingly difficult to take care of in the hospital. However, seeing the causes of increased weight in our population, their other health issues, their psych/social issues, there is no way in my good conscience could I advocate them to pay more for simply having this "medical diagnosis."
It is a complex situation we have built for ourselves as a nation, and if the government really cared, they would take action against this disease. However, due to Big Pharma, and the meat and dairy industries, it is easier to keep people sick and increasingly more profitable.6 -
Leslierussell4134 wrote: »I'm in Canada, so health insurance is not as crucial an issue up here. It's helpful, but critical care does not item depend upon it. It helps more with prescriptions and supplies.
I am all for making the cost of poor food choices cost more. Up here, it would probably be a tax on the behaviour you want discouraged, and reducing the cost (government subsidy) on those behaviours you want encouraged.
I think increasing the cost of highly processed and refined foods, and reducing the price of whole foods would not hurt anyone beyond encouraging people to cook from closer to scratch more often. Cheaper eggs, meat, seafood, produce, whole grains and dairy would be a nice trade off for increasing the price of convenience foods or items that are highly processed and refined. Sugar and sweeteners would be more expensive, but grapes and apples would be cheaper. Make ground beef cheaper and raise the price of pork rinds and chips. Foods like noodles and breads might get more expensive, but if a steak with a side of veggies/ potato and a salad becomes cheaper, I'd consider it a good trade off, nutritionally speaking. JMO
Sure, some people get fat on steak, veggies and salad, but compared to those who eat a diet with more highly processed and refined foods, my guess is that they are a minority.
And for those who eat those highly processed foods in moderation now, they won't be penalized in the end. Yes they'll pay more for those foods (although it should not be prohibitive since they dot eat much of it) but they'll be paying less for the whole foods they normally eat too.
Seriously, this is the same argument that has been going on for the last half dozen pages of this thread, and it has repeatedly been pointed out what a bad idea this is. Does anyone even bother reading the thread anymore before regurgitating these same foolish ideas? You want to increase the price of bread, but lower the price of ground beef? Explain to me how one food is inherently better for you than the other. I eat both of those foods and am at a healthy weight. If I were to overeat either of those foods, I could become overweight or obese. So many people in this thread want to demonize the food instead of holding the individual responsible for consistently exceeding their daily calories. I guarantee you there are plenty of people that are eating far more ground beef than they should be, but because you perceive that food as healthier than bread, it should be cheaper? I should not have to pay more for ANY food just because someone else could potentially eat too much of it.
Some foods are already subsidized. They often tend to go towards the ingredients of the more refined and highly processed food varieties. If the government is going to subsidize foods, why not those associated with better health and nutrition?
Some foods are better for you than others. I know opinion will vary about which foods in particular are healthier but I think most would agree that whole foods are usually a healthier choice than refined and highly processed foods. I never said that people should never eat those foods, but I doubt anyone would benefit by eating more of those foods rather than limiting them in a realistic way.
I am aware that one can get fat on too much beef or too much bread. I already said that. Beef is something that a person could live off of without other foods. Bread not so much. That would make beef nutritionally more complete, or more nutritious.... Neither are required to live. One is fortified (like a vitamin with calories) and the other does not need to be altered besides being cut up in different ways. I just gave beef as an example. I don't think it would be horrible to make a food like beef less expensive while raising the price of pork rinds or chips.
Why subsidize corn over greens or fish? I think the States' feds puts a lot of money into corn and soy. The dairy industry is subsidized up here. I would guess that not everyone is drinking milk. I suppose you could say that the lactose intolerant are being unfairly punished.I'm in Canada, so health insurance is not as crucial an issue up here. It's helpful, but critical care does not item depend upon it. It helps more with prescriptions and supplies.
I am all for making the cost of poor food choices cost more. Up here, it would probably be a tax on the behaviour you want discouraged, and reducing the cost (government subsidy) on those behaviours you want encouraged.
I think increasing the cost of highly processed and refined foods, and reducing the price of whole foods would not hurt anyone beyond encouraging people to cook from closer to scratch more often. Cheaper eggs, meat, seafood, produce, whole grains and dairy would be a nice trade off for increasing the price of convenience foods or items that are highly processed and refined. Sugar and sweeteners would be more expensive, but grapes and apples would be cheaper. Make ground beef cheaper and raise the price of pork rinds and chips. Foods like noodles and breads might get more expensive, but if a steak with a side of veggies/ potato and a salad becomes cheaper, I'd consider it a good trade off, nutritionally speaking. JMO
Sure, some people get fat on steak, veggies and salad, but compared to those who eat a diet with more highly processed and refined foods, my guess is that they are a minority.
And for those who eat those highly processed foods in moderation now, they won't be penalized in the end. Yes they'll pay more for those foods (although it should not be prohibitive since they dot eat much of it) but they'll be paying less for the whole foods they normally eat too.
The other problem with this idea (besides the ones pointed out above) is that you are penalizing people who live in the inner cities and other food desserts where the ONLY foods that are readily available are the processed foods that last longer on the shelves.
I don't think we have food deserts up here like I've heard about in the States. Perhaps up north in the arctic....
The reason Corn and Soy are subsidized is because thats what they are feeding to the "beef," cows. The government will never advocate other vegetables until the the demand goes down for beef and dairy. Why would they? That's where they make all their money.
I think the cows get the leftover from making corn and soy oil, which is a bit disturbing to begin with considering a grazer's natural diet.
4 -
The goal of the farm subsidies was probably to keep the farmers afloat in more difficult times so we would not face a food shortage later on (a possible concern decades ago). (I do remember from history class that at one point dairy farmers were taking a loss by sending milk to market versus dumping it out due to rising transportation costs - this was of concern to the government). If your concern is food shortages causing (more) people to starve to death or succumb to diseases of malnutrition, then it makes sense to subsidize higher calorie density foods. (I doubt they foresaw the future desire for high volume low calorie foods due to people wanting to stuff their faces with massive volumes of food..it didn't used to be so cheap and over-abundant). One also needs to take into consideration what will actually grow where....the climate in most of the US & Canada isn't exactly mediterranean. A lot of stuff isn't going to grow in New York state. Corn will.1
-
Most of the corn subsidies go to either corn that is grown for bio-fuel or for feedlot corn. Very few of them go to food-grade corn that is sold for human consumption. The dairy subsidy is the main reason that we are not paying upwards of $10 a gallon for milk.3
-
Leslierussell4134 wrote: »I'm in Canada, so health insurance is not as crucial an issue up here. It's helpful, but critical care does not item depend upon it. It helps more with prescriptions and supplies.
I am all for making the cost of poor food choices cost more. Up here, it would probably be a tax on the behaviour you want discouraged, and reducing the cost (government subsidy) on those behaviours you want encouraged.
I think increasing the cost of highly processed and refined foods, and reducing the price of whole foods would not hurt anyone beyond encouraging people to cook from closer to scratch more often. Cheaper eggs, meat, seafood, produce, whole grains and dairy would be a nice trade off for increasing the price of convenience foods or items that are highly processed and refined. Sugar and sweeteners would be more expensive, but grapes and apples would be cheaper. Make ground beef cheaper and raise the price of pork rinds and chips. Foods like noodles and breads might get more expensive, but if a steak with a side of veggies/ potato and a salad becomes cheaper, I'd consider it a good trade off, nutritionally speaking. JMO
Sure, some people get fat on steak, veggies and salad, but compared to those who eat a diet with more highly processed and refined foods, my guess is that they are a minority.
And for those who eat those highly processed foods in moderation now, they won't be penalized in the end. Yes they'll pay more for those foods (although it should not be prohibitive since they dot eat much of it) but they'll be paying less for the whole foods they normally eat too.
Seriously, this is the same argument that has been going on for the last half dozen pages of this thread, and it has repeatedly been pointed out what a bad idea this is. Does anyone even bother reading the thread anymore before regurgitating these same foolish ideas? You want to increase the price of bread, but lower the price of ground beef? Explain to me how one food is inherently better for you than the other. I eat both of those foods and am at a healthy weight. If I were to overeat either of those foods, I could become overweight or obese. So many people in this thread want to demonize the food instead of holding the individual responsible for consistently exceeding their daily calories. I guarantee you there are plenty of people that are eating far more ground beef than they should be, but because you perceive that food as healthier than bread, it should be cheaper? I should not have to pay more for ANY food just because someone else could potentially eat too much of it.
Some foods are already subsidized. They often tend to go towards the ingredients of the more refined and highly processed food varieties. If the government is going to subsidize foods, why not those associated with better health and nutrition?
Some foods are better for you than others. I know opinion will vary about which foods in particular are healthier but I think most would agree that whole foods are usually a healthier choice than refined and highly processed foods. I never said that people should never eat those foods, but I doubt anyone would benefit by eating more of those foods rather than limiting them in a realistic way.
I am aware that one can get fat on too much beef or too much bread. I already said that. Beef is something that a person could live off of without other foods. Bread not so much. That would make beef nutritionally more complete, or more nutritious.... Neither are required to live. One is fortified (like a vitamin with calories) and the other does not need to be altered besides being cut up in different ways. I just gave beef as an example. I don't think it would be horrible to make a food like beef less expensive while raising the price of pork rinds or chips.
Why subsidize corn over greens or fish? I think the States' feds puts a lot of money into corn and soy. The dairy industry is subsidized up here. I would guess that not everyone is drinking milk. I suppose you could say that the lactose intolerant are being unfairly punished.I'm in Canada, so health insurance is not as crucial an issue up here. It's helpful, but critical care does not item depend upon it. It helps more with prescriptions and supplies.
I am all for making the cost of poor food choices cost more. Up here, it would probably be a tax on the behaviour you want discouraged, and reducing the cost (government subsidy) on those behaviours you want encouraged.
I think increasing the cost of highly processed and refined foods, and reducing the price of whole foods would not hurt anyone beyond encouraging people to cook from closer to scratch more often. Cheaper eggs, meat, seafood, produce, whole grains and dairy would be a nice trade off for increasing the price of convenience foods or items that are highly processed and refined. Sugar and sweeteners would be more expensive, but grapes and apples would be cheaper. Make ground beef cheaper and raise the price of pork rinds and chips. Foods like noodles and breads might get more expensive, but if a steak with a side of veggies/ potato and a salad becomes cheaper, I'd consider it a good trade off, nutritionally speaking. JMO
Sure, some people get fat on steak, veggies and salad, but compared to those who eat a diet with more highly processed and refined foods, my guess is that they are a minority.
And for those who eat those highly processed foods in moderation now, they won't be penalized in the end. Yes they'll pay more for those foods (although it should not be prohibitive since they dot eat much of it) but they'll be paying less for the whole foods they normally eat too.
The other problem with this idea (besides the ones pointed out above) is that you are penalizing people who live in the inner cities and other food desserts where the ONLY foods that are readily available are the processed foods that last longer on the shelves.
I don't think we have food deserts up here like I've heard about in the States. Perhaps up north in the arctic....
The reason Corn and Soy are subsidized is because thats what they are feeding to the "beef," cows. The government will never advocate other vegetables until the the demand goes down for beef and dairy. Why would they? That's where they make all their money.
I think the cows get the leftover from making corn and soy oil, which is a bit disturbing to begin with considering a grazer's natural diet.
This is US-specific, but according to the government most of the corn grown in the US is used to feed cattle and 70% of the soy is used to feed animals in the food system. They're not getting the "leftovers." Subsidies for corn and soy are effectively subsidies for beef, chicken, and other foods produced from/by animals. We're already making ground beef cheaper.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn-and-other-feedgrains/background/
https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexistence-soybeans-factsheet.pdf
3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions