Is the U.S. Government about to try and tackle the Obesity Epidemic?

lynn_glenmont

psychod787 wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

psychod787 wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

psychod787 wrote: »

paperpudding wrote: »

side track comment - yes that has been an issue here too - the fact shaving cream, toilet paper and so on are exempt as essential products (which they are, of course) but tampons and pads are not.

I have just convened an emergency meeting with the Council of the Patriarchy. We have put out an immediate stop action on the taxation of all feminine hygiene products!
All joking aside, they should tax razors and shaving cream as well. It is not essential to remove body hair.

ythannah wrote: »

paperpudding wrote: »

Here in Australia we effectively have a tax on treat foods already.

Not directly to do with weight loss promotion though.

GST (goods and services tax, similar to VAT in UK) is added to all things.

But essential food items are exempt. Complicated list of what is exempt and what is not - but generally basic non prepared foods are exempt.

Ready made foods and non essential foods ( like soft drink) are not

Much the same in Canada, also called the GST. On top of the Provincial Sales Tax (PST) which varies from province to province.

Most grocery food items are exempt, including multi-pack baked goods. But if I buy a single item baked good at a coffee shop it's taxed. So if it was important to me to avoid the tax, I'd be better off buying the dozen at a grocery store than just one.

I think there was more of a flap about taxing feminine hygiene products as "non-essential" than about snack foods though.

In my home state, there is no tax on fresh and unprepared foods at the grocery store. People are not allowed to buy hot, prepared foods with public assistance. Though, there are loopholes. They can buy prepackaged foods that are not to be eaten on site, snack cakes, and other junk foods.

This seems to imply that you think feminine hygiene products are not essential. Do you think a woman could hold down a job if for several days a month she either had to take leave (paid or not) or show up to work with growing blood stains on her clothing, leaving blood stains on chairs, carpet, etc.?

ugghh..... I guess irony is lost on some people. Now, I guess I am going to be accused of mansplaining so anyways.. the first part was me speaking of the stupidity of the "pink" tax. No, female hygiene are essential. The second part was the point that is they were going to continue taxing female products, they should also tax mens. @ythannah , I don't really mix words these days, if I thought women belong in the kitchen pregnant, I would just say it........

My apologies. I did say "seems to imply," in hopes that there was some other intent. I still think taxing something that you're defining as nonessential that men use doesn't make up for taxing something essential that women use.

https://www.amanet.org/articles/get-rid-of-those-pesky-weasel-words/ 😉

I looked at your linked article.

If saying "seems" is weaselly and sneaky (as opposed to leaving open the possibility that one could be mistaken in one's interpretation), what is it when you just post a link that says the words another poster used are weaselly and sneaky instead of coming right out and telling someone you think they're weaselly and sneaky?

I don't think discussion boards would be improved by everyone always assuming that they're absolutely right when someone's post strikes them as sexist, racist, uncompassionate, etc. (or worse yet, just calling out the person instead of their post), rather than saying, "what you just said seems problematic to me because of X," and leaving the door open for a correction of a miscommunication and perhaps a further exchange of ideas.

lynn_glenmont

g2renew wrote: »

Bàck to original question:

Government HAS made attempts to fix our obesity issues multiple times in my lifetime. They have had Presidents physical fitness stuff with certificates for participating, and Surgeon General's guidelines and PSAs, and how many times have we had a food pyramid? Oh, yeah..how about those food labels? Does it look like any of these have made a real difference?

Govt has given us alerts that eating fat makes us fat, passed laws against different foods and additives and sweeteners (Tab, anyone?), and then given official sanction to other foods and additives and sweeteners that they later warn us against. Milk, eggs, you know the drill- Bad for you, good for you.

Not sure exactly what the fix is, because there are too many underlying things that either directly cause the problems or exacerbate them.

Some can be fixed- like accessibility to information, medical care, and better foods, and making misleading labelling of food a crime. Some can only be discouraged, like laziness and giving sweet treats as rewards. And we can give encouragement and support to those who are making an effort.

As for those who choose to remain blind and deaf to common sense and efforts to help, well, you know the saying.

It is up to each of us to do the best we can- for ourselves, our family, and our fellow man. IMO, the more govt is involved in our daily lives, the more screwed up things get. They aren't doing a good enough job with my tax money for me to hand over my health and my children's future.

The original question was about one specific pending bill, not about government efforts through the years. And the bill wasn't about some wholesale change in the way the government approaches obesity, but just some incremental changes at the edges about what kind of medical professionals under what conditions can be paid for providing weight-loss treatments, services, etc. under Medicare and Medicaid, IIRC. Which is probably the most the government can do effectively -- incremental changes in what's available, be it medical support, healthy food options that aren't too calorie-dense where those are lacking, and more safe places to exercise where those are lacking. As you suggest, there's not much that can be done to help those who can't or won't accept help.

AnnPT77

psychod787 wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

psychod787 wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

psychod787 wrote: »

paperpudding wrote: »

side track comment - yes that has been an issue here too - the fact shaving cream, toilet paper and so on are exempt as essential products (which they are, of course) but tampons and pads are not.

I have just convened an emergency meeting with the Council of the Patriarchy. We have put out an immediate stop action on the taxation of all feminine hygiene products!
All joking aside, they should tax razors and shaving cream as well. It is not essential to remove body hair.

ythannah wrote: »

paperpudding wrote: »

Here in Australia we effectively have a tax on treat foods already.

Not directly to do with weight loss promotion though.

GST (goods and services tax, similar to VAT in UK) is added to all things.

But essential food items are exempt. Complicated list of what is exempt and what is not - but generally basic non prepared foods are exempt.

Ready made foods and non essential foods ( like soft drink) are not

Much the same in Canada, also called the GST. On top of the Provincial Sales Tax (PST) which varies from province to province.

Most grocery food items are exempt, including multi-pack baked goods. But if I buy a single item baked good at a coffee shop it's taxed. So if it was important to me to avoid the tax, I'd be better off buying the dozen at a grocery store than just one.

I think there was more of a flap about taxing feminine hygiene products as "non-essential" than about snack foods though.

In my home state, there is no tax on fresh and unprepared foods at the grocery store. People are not allowed to buy hot, prepared foods with public assistance. Though, there are loopholes. They can buy prepackaged foods that are not to be eaten on site, snack cakes, and other junk foods.

This seems to imply that you think feminine hygiene products are not essential. Do you think a woman could hold down a job if for several days a month she either had to take leave (paid or not) or show up to work with growing blood stains on her clothing, leaving blood stains on chairs, carpet, etc.?

ugghh..... I guess irony is lost on some people. Now, I guess I am going to be accused of mansplaining so anyways.. the first part was me speaking of the stupidity of the "pink" tax. No, female hygiene are essential. The second part was the point that is they were going to continue taxing female products, they should also tax mens. @ythannah , I don't really mix words these days, if I thought women belong in the kitchen pregnant, I would just say it........

My apologies. I did say "seems to imply," in hopes that there was some other intent. I still think taxing something that you're defining as nonessential that men use doesn't make up for taxing something essential that women use.

https://www.amanet.org/articles/get-rid-of-those-pesky-weasel-words/ 😉

So if I'm uncertain of something, I should state it as a definite fact, rather than using so-called weasel words?

That's not communication.

If the qualifying words are there to hide what one really thinks, sure, just state the opinion.

But I'm with Lynn, accusing someone of intentionally obscuring what they really think, when they're actually clearly expressing true uncertainty . . . well, that wouldn't be very nice. 😉