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.
Paying the healthcare costs of obesity
Replies
-
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »The riparian rights discussion is fascinating
You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?
I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.
So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.
It would seem not everyone in this thread agrees there ::should:: be rights to something like that. it isn't 'Murican enough and infringes on their freedom. Or something.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm sure it's been talked out, but what about the High Fructose Syrup they're putting in foods to make people fatter?
There's no evidence that it has any difference than cane sugar -- it's basically the same, 55% fructose, 45% glucose vs. 50/50 for sucrose (table sugar).
The main difference is that HFCS can be used more conveniently in some processed products (because it's liquid, if memory serves), and -- especially -- is insanely cheap, in part because we subsidize it. (Which has been discussed upthread or maybe in the tax thread.)
yes, but I'm sure that the FDA knows the residuals of putting this in our food. If that's the case, every chemical is safe. A great example of how Brominated vegetable oil (BVO), a food additive used in Gatorade is banned in multiple countries based on health concern, but we in America are drinking it by the cases. But gotta' love those chemicals, and hey it's a liquid....0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »The riparian rights discussion is fascinating
You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?
I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.
So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.
Cheese on burgers, sticks for the analogy.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Yes, you have a decent amount of choice even in a food desert. Certain types of choice are harder to exercise.
Rather than trying to sue someone, the public policy response to food deserts ought to be to try to fix the issue. There's some encouraging stuff about Whole Foods (yes, I know) locating in places like Englewood (neighborhood on the south side of Chicago) and Detroit and so on, and offering stuff at cheaper prices than elsewhere (land costs being lower) and also providing jobs and selling some locally-created products. (The one here isn't in yet, so I know the plans, not how it will work.)
There are also some cool projects with urban gardens, and a bunch else that can be done.
Speaking of Michigan, your comment about Detroit makes me think about the water issue in Flint. That the world was so outraged about the water situation there and how people are getting sick, but those same kids are getting sick from our food supply. Is the Red Cross and the National Guard trucking in broccoli for them? Sorry to talk about water again, I know everyone hated the comparison...
They aren't getting sick from the food supply. They are getting sick from overconsumption.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Yes, you have a decent amount of choice even in a food desert. Certain types of choice are harder to exercise.
Rather than trying to sue someone, the public policy response to food deserts ought to be to try to fix the issue. There's some encouraging stuff about Whole Foods (yes, I know) locating in places like Englewood (neighborhood on the south side of Chicago) and Detroit and so on, and offering stuff at cheaper prices than elsewhere (land costs being lower) and also providing jobs and selling some locally-created products. (The one here isn't in yet, so I know the plans, not how it will work.)
There are also some cool projects with urban gardens, and a bunch else that can be done.
Speaking of Michigan, your comment about Detroit makes me think about the water issue in Flint. That the world was so outraged about the water situation there and how people are getting sick, but those same kids are getting sick from our food supply. Is the Red Cross and the National Guard trucking in broccoli for them? Sorry to talk about water again, I know everyone hated the comparison...
They aren't getting sick from the food supply. They are getting sick from overconsumption.
If they're getting sick from overconsumption... like actually sick... is anyone to blame? Are the parents to blame? And if so, do we fine the parents? Put the kids in foster care?
Again, it seems TO ME like it's way too big of a problem to lay solely on the backs of parents.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Yes, you have a decent amount of choice even in a food desert. Certain types of choice are harder to exercise.
Rather than trying to sue someone, the public policy response to food deserts ought to be to try to fix the issue. There's some encouraging stuff about Whole Foods (yes, I know) locating in places like Englewood (neighborhood on the south side of Chicago) and Detroit and so on, and offering stuff at cheaper prices than elsewhere (land costs being lower) and also providing jobs and selling some locally-created products. (The one here isn't in yet, so I know the plans, not how it will work.)
There are also some cool projects with urban gardens, and a bunch else that can be done.
Speaking of Michigan, your comment about Detroit makes me think about the water issue in Flint. That the world was so outraged about the water situation there and how people are getting sick, but those same kids are getting sick from our food supply. Is the Red Cross and the National Guard trucking in broccoli for them? Sorry to talk about water again, I know everyone hated the comparison...
They aren't getting sick from the food supply. They are getting sick from overconsumption.
they're also getting sick from the water0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Yes, you have a decent amount of choice even in a food desert. Certain types of choice are harder to exercise.
Rather than trying to sue someone, the public policy response to food deserts ought to be to try to fix the issue. There's some encouraging stuff about Whole Foods (yes, I know) locating in places like Englewood (neighborhood on the south side of Chicago) and Detroit and so on, and offering stuff at cheaper prices than elsewhere (land costs being lower) and also providing jobs and selling some locally-created products. (The one here isn't in yet, so I know the plans, not how it will work.)
There are also some cool projects with urban gardens, and a bunch else that can be done.
Speaking of Michigan, your comment about Detroit makes me think about the water issue in Flint. That the world was so outraged about the water situation there and how people are getting sick, but those same kids are getting sick from our food supply. Is the Red Cross and the National Guard trucking in broccoli for them? Sorry to talk about water again, I know everyone hated the comparison...
They aren't getting sick from the food supply. They are getting sick from overconsumption.
If they're getting sick from overconsumption... like actually sick... is anyone to blame? Are the parents to blame? And if so, do we fine the parents? Put the kids in foster care?
Again, it seems TO ME like it's way too big of a problem to lay solely on the backs of parents.
Why does there need to be blame? Why do we need to form a government to rescue these people?1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Yes, you have a decent amount of choice even in a food desert. Certain types of choice are harder to exercise.
Rather than trying to sue someone, the public policy response to food deserts ought to be to try to fix the issue. There's some encouraging stuff about Whole Foods (yes, I know) locating in places like Englewood (neighborhood on the south side of Chicago) and Detroit and so on, and offering stuff at cheaper prices than elsewhere (land costs being lower) and also providing jobs and selling some locally-created products. (The one here isn't in yet, so I know the plans, not how it will work.)
There are also some cool projects with urban gardens, and a bunch else that can be done.
Speaking of Michigan, your comment about Detroit makes me think about the water issue in Flint. That the world was so outraged about the water situation there and how people are getting sick, but those same kids are getting sick from our food supply. Is the Red Cross and the National Guard trucking in broccoli for them? Sorry to talk about water again, I know everyone hated the comparison...
They aren't getting sick from the food supply. They are getting sick from overconsumption.
they're also getting sick from the water
In Flint, sure. Kids in less advantaged neighborhoods in my city drink the same water I do.
I think she's talking about food, though.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »terricherry2 wrote: »Soooo happy to live in the UK with socialised healthcare, paid for through taxes and which has better clinical outcomes and is cheaper per capita than private models. And I say that as a high rate tax payer who likely pays for the healthcare of others that are less well off than me. I get why so many Americans are so wedded to the insurance system, given that huge corporations have told people for years that anything else is filthy communism or giving away their hard earned money to the lazy, but I just can't get my head around it.
I talked to a British National at my company about the heath care in the UK. He had a knee injury, went to the doctor who confirmed he needed surgery. Since he was an IT guy and didn't need the knee for work he was told he could take pain killers and be put on the list for surgery and his turn would come up in 2-3 years.
However, if he was willing to pay $10k towards the cost, he could get it done in 2 weeks. I could pay the $10k but others might not be able to and would have to wait. Is that socialized?
Not sure if I can get my head around that scenario.
Exactly - I have friends in the UK and they all carry additional private medical insurance for just this sort of contingency... as utopian as it's made to sound, it is truly a 2-tiered system where the well-to-do have access to better care. Definitely not socialized.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
Our property has a well.
I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.
I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.
Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?
That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)
IMO, you have a right to prevent your neighbor from putting their pollution in your water (by polluting the aquifer). It's a form of trespass.
Also, statutes convey rights, but obviously not all here will agree with that.
I think once it comes to some things like taxes, enough people have such a deep confirmation bias that there's barely even a chance to understand their perspective. I truly want to understand where people are coming from, but it's like there's some "how to be a libertarian" and "how to be a liberal wiener" podcast I missed where the self-evident truths of individual freedoms trumping rational collective good (or vice verse) were laid out.
As part of the collective, it is important to draw a line where the collective ends, and the individual begins. I draw that line at use of force as a coercive measure.
Now, do not confuse this with me saying that we should all be able to do whatever, whenever. What I am saying, is that an inaction (in this case, refusal to participate) should never be a justification for said force.
Solid justifications would be things like halting a physical aggressor, stopping the destruction of property, and tamping out contract fraud.
Essentially, if there is no victim, there is no crime, and inaction can never create a victim, no matter how bad some may want it to be able to.
So if somehow there was a "victim" in the obesity epidemic, maybe we could consider it a just matter to consider a collective threat?
There can't be, because the only person aggressed upon is the person who commited the act upon themselves...well, maybe them and the poor guy who has to sit next to them on an airplane.
Again, this assumes that, as I have suggested many times, we stop paying for their self-induced medical troubles.
seriously, why is it everyone's else's fault that person X decided to overeat for 20 plus years and is now morbidly obese and not healthy???????????????????
So let's say the factory next door to your house has been spewing ... ammonia... mustard gas... whatever your whole life. And 20 years later you get sick and it can be tied to the fumes conclusively, as does the 50,000,000 other people in your city who've been breathing the emissions. Do you feel that the factory owner owes you or your family anything for their negligence? Or is it your fault for "overbreathing?"
You kinda can't choose which air you breathe without moving away.
You CAN choose quite easily what and how much of it you eat.
Even in a food desert?
Even if all you have is frozen things and whatnot, you can still get your nutrition in. I'd expect even food deserts have at least frozen veggies of some sort.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
Our property has a well.
I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.
I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.
Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?
That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)
IMO, you have a right to prevent your neighbor from putting their pollution in your water (by polluting the aquifer). It's a form of trespass.
Also, statutes convey rights, but obviously not all here will agree with that.
I think once it comes to some things like taxes, enough people have such a deep confirmation bias that there's barely even a chance to understand their perspective. I truly want to understand where people are coming from, but it's like there's some "how to be a libertarian" and "how to be a liberal wiener" podcast I missed where the self-evident truths of individual freedoms trumping rational collective good (or vice verse) were laid out.
As part of the collective, it is important to draw a line where the collective ends, and the individual begins. I draw that line at use of force as a coercive measure.
Now, do not confuse this with me saying that we should all be able to do whatever, whenever. What I am saying, is that an inaction (in this case, refusal to participate) should never be a justification for said force.
Solid justifications would be things like halting a physical aggressor, stopping the destruction of property, and tamping out contract fraud.
Essentially, if there is no victim, there is no crime, and inaction can never create a victim, no matter how bad some may want it to be able to.
So if somehow there was a "victim" in the obesity epidemic, maybe we could consider it a just matter to consider a collective threat?
There can't be, because the only person aggressed upon is the person who commited the act upon themselves...well, maybe them and the poor guy who has to sit next to them on an airplane.
Again, this assumes that, as I have suggested many times, we stop paying for their self-induced medical troubles.
seriously, why is it everyone's else's fault that person X decided to overeat for 20 plus years and is now morbidly obese and not healthy???????????????????
So let's say the factory next door to your house has been spewing ... ammonia... mustard gas... whatever your whole life. And 20 years later you get sick and it can be tied to the fumes conclusively, as does the 50,000,000 other people in your city who've been breathing the emissions. Do you feel that the factory owner owes you or your family anything for their negligence? Or is it your fault for "overbreathing?"
They do owe, because their action (freely venting poisonous gases) caused harm.
Can we apply this to food manufacturers? Let's say wheat is conclusively proven to cause autism... i dunno... can farmers and the company that makes wonder bread be held to blame for the autism treatment? Can Kroger be partially to blame for selling the wheat products?
Yes, but only if they continued to produce and sell it, and hid the information from the public, after it was made known that there was a definitive, and undisputed link. No conjecture, no "well maybe it kinda does in some people".
That part in the middle is why I opposed the tobacco companies being sued for damages acquired after a certain point in time. It's been common knowledge for a veeeeery long time that smoking would kill you. Hell, there was even a popular song about it in the 1920s. However, that's a wee bit more forgivable, given how slow information traveled until about 25 years ago.
The problem with this is that it was proven that they actively targeted children who both did not know AND did not have capacity to make that decision with the given information.0 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
Our property has a well.
I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.
I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.
Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?
That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)
IMO, you have a right to prevent your neighbor from putting their pollution in your water (by polluting the aquifer). It's a form of trespass.
Also, statutes convey rights, but obviously not all here will agree with that.
I think once it comes to some things like taxes, enough people have such a deep confirmation bias that there's barely even a chance to understand their perspective. I truly want to understand where people are coming from, but it's like there's some "how to be a libertarian" and "how to be a liberal wiener" podcast I missed where the self-evident truths of individual freedoms trumping rational collective good (or vice verse) were laid out.
As part of the collective, it is important to draw a line where the collective ends, and the individual begins. I draw that line at use of force as a coercive measure.
Now, do not confuse this with me saying that we should all be able to do whatever, whenever. What I am saying, is that an inaction (in this case, refusal to participate) should never be a justification for said force.
Solid justifications would be things like halting a physical aggressor, stopping the destruction of property, and tamping out contract fraud.
Essentially, if there is no victim, there is no crime, and inaction can never create a victim, no matter how bad some may want it to be able to.
So if somehow there was a "victim" in the obesity epidemic, maybe we could consider it a just matter to consider a collective threat?
There can't be, because the only person aggressed upon is the person who commited the act upon themselves...well, maybe them and the poor guy who has to sit next to them on an airplane.
Again, this assumes that, as I have suggested many times, we stop paying for their self-induced medical troubles.
seriously, why is it everyone's else's fault that person X decided to overeat for 20 plus years and is now morbidly obese and not healthy???????????????????
So let's say the factory next door to your house has been spewing ... ammonia... mustard gas... whatever your whole life. And 20 years later you get sick and it can be tied to the fumes conclusively, as does the 50,000,000 other people in your city who've been breathing the emissions. Do you feel that the factory owner owes you or your family anything for their negligence? Or is it your fault for "overbreathing?"
They do owe, because their action (freely venting poisonous gases) caused harm.
Can we apply this to food manufacturers? Let's say wheat is conclusively proven to cause autism... i dunno... can farmers and the company that makes wonder bread be held to blame for the autism treatment? Can Kroger be partially to blame for selling the wheat products?
Yes, but only if they continued to produce and sell it, and hid the information from the public, after it was made known that there was a definitive, and undisputed link. No conjecture, no "well maybe it kinda does in some people".
That part in the middle is why I opposed the tobacco companies being sued for damages acquired after a certain point in time. It's been common knowledge for a veeeeery long time that smoking would kill you. Hell, there was even a popular song about it in the 1920s. However, that's a wee bit more forgivable, given how slow information traveled until about 25 years ago.
The problem with this is that it was proven that they actively targeted children who both did not know AND did not have capacity to make that decision with the given information.
As a person who started smoking in their low teens, I can appreciate that. I also call *kitten*. Even at that age, I knew exactly what I was doing, after having watched a grandfather rot with lung cancer in his mid-50s.0 -
Almost half our tax dollars go to defense. The rest is doled out in (albeit disproportionally) to what the government see fit to spend on. My point was that we don't NEED to spend 45% on defense. The majority of money isn't even spent on soldiers or servicemen. It's spent on research and development along with over priced cost of attaining weaponry.The US COULD have a more affordable health care system if 45% of taxes weren't spent on defense (more than practically all countries spend together on defense). Mind you I'm not saying reduce what we need to do to protect the country as a whole, but when we spend 3 trillion on planes (F35 series) that aren't even finished yet (ongoing delays and overbudget) and likely won't be needed on US soil unless a war comes over here, diverting some of that money instead to a more "user friendly" health care system would help. Hell, even kids would be able to get college education with that money. Of course with the money spent and profited on due to defense cost, that's likely not going to happen.
What about the tax dollars spent on foreign aid, to countries who despise the U.S. and express delight when anything bad happens to us?
What about the tax dollars spent subsidizing non-citizens, who haven't earned or contributed significantly, so they can disproportionately collect perks such as: WIC, EBT cards, Section 8, free doctors' appointments, free hospital services, subsidized childcare, subsidized state run postsecondary education tuition and subsidized utility payments?
These are two examples, and a there are few more I'd like to list, but they're too controversial to be discussed on this thread. I don't know what percentage of the tax pie these examples comprise, but I'd rather see cuts here than cuts to our defense.
And if I've gotten too political in this discussion and broke the rules, let me know and I'll stop gabbing and just lurk.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Almost half our tax dollars go to defense. The rest is doled out in (albeit disproportionally) to what the government see fit to spend on. My point was that we don't NEED to spend 45% on defense. The majority of money isn't even spent on soldiers or servicemen. It's spent on research and development along with over priced cost of attaining weaponry.The US COULD have a more affordable health care system if 45% of taxes weren't spent on defense (more than practically all countries spend together on defense). Mind you I'm not saying reduce what we need to do to protect the country as a whole, but when we spend 3 trillion on planes (F35 series) that aren't even finished yet (ongoing delays and overbudget) and likely won't be needed on US soil unless a war comes over here, diverting some of that money instead to a more "user friendly" health care system would help. Hell, even kids would be able to get college education with that money. Of course with the money spent and profited on due to defense cost, that's likely not going to happen.
What about the tax dollars spent on foreign aid, to countries who despise the U.S. and express delight when anything bad happens to us?
What about the tax dollars spent subsidizing non-citizens, who haven't earned or contributed significantly, so they can disproportionately collect perks such as: WIC, EBT cards, Section 8, free doctors' appointments, free hospital services, subsidized childcare, subsidized state run postsecondary education tuition and subsidized utility payments?
These are two examples, and a there are few more I'd like to list, but they're too controversial to be discussed on this thread. I don't know what percentage of the tax pie these examples comprise, but I'd rather see cuts here than cuts to our defense.
And if I've gotten too political in this discussion and broke the rules, let me know and I'll stop gabbing and just lurk.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Have you actually looked at the Federal budget allotment? It's public record. Defense is nowhere near 45%. Healthcare is almost double what national defense is, and Social Security is almost as large as that.
ETA: don't get it twisted though. I'd like to see all of the above cut by about 60% or more.2 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
Our property has a well.
I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.
I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.
Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?
That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)
IMO, you have a right to prevent your neighbor from putting their pollution in your water (by polluting the aquifer). It's a form of trespass.
Also, statutes convey rights, but obviously not all here will agree with that.
I think once it comes to some things like taxes, enough people have such a deep confirmation bias that there's barely even a chance to understand their perspective. I truly want to understand where people are coming from, but it's like there's some "how to be a libertarian" and "how to be a liberal wiener" podcast I missed where the self-evident truths of individual freedoms trumping rational collective good (or vice verse) were laid out.
As part of the collective, it is important to draw a line where the collective ends, and the individual begins. I draw that line at use of force as a coercive measure.
Now, do not confuse this with me saying that we should all be able to do whatever, whenever. What I am saying, is that an inaction (in this case, refusal to participate) should never be a justification for said force.
Solid justifications would be things like halting a physical aggressor, stopping the destruction of property, and tamping out contract fraud.
Essentially, if there is no victim, there is no crime, and inaction can never create a victim, no matter how bad some may want it to be able to.
So if somehow there was a "victim" in the obesity epidemic, maybe we could consider it a just matter to consider a collective threat?
There can't be, because the only person aggressed upon is the person who commited the act upon themselves...well, maybe them and the poor guy who has to sit next to them on an airplane.
Again, this assumes that, as I have suggested many times, we stop paying for their self-induced medical troubles.
seriously, why is it everyone's else's fault that person X decided to overeat for 20 plus years and is now morbidly obese and not healthy???????????????????
So let's say the factory next door to your house has been spewing ... ammonia... mustard gas... whatever your whole life. And 20 years later you get sick and it can be tied to the fumes conclusively, as does the 50,000,000 other people in your city who've been breathing the emissions. Do you feel that the factory owner owes you or your family anything for their negligence? Or is it your fault for "overbreathing?"
They do owe, because their action (freely venting poisonous gases) caused harm.
Can we apply this to food manufacturers? Let's say wheat is conclusively proven to cause autism... i dunno... can farmers and the company that makes wonder bread be held to blame for the autism treatment? Can Kroger be partially to blame for selling the wheat products?
Yes, but only if they continued to produce and sell it, and hid the information from the public, after it was made known that there was a definitive, and undisputed link. No conjecture, no "well maybe it kinda does in some people".
That part in the middle is why I opposed the tobacco companies being sued for damages acquired after a certain point in time. It's been common knowledge for a veeeeery long time that smoking would kill you. Hell, there was even a popular song about it in the 1920s. However, that's a wee bit more forgivable, given how slow information traveled until about 25 years ago.
The problem with this is that it was proven that they actively targeted children who both did not know AND did not have capacity to make that decision with the given information.
As a person who started smoking in their low teens, I can appreciate that. I also call *kitten*. Even at that age, I knew exactly what I was doing, after having watched a grandfather rot with lung cancer in his mid-50s.
Science would dispute your mental ability to weigh consequences and make that conscious decision. It's why we have laws that say minors cannot consent to sex as well as sign contracts. I'm sure you are the exception but no...children don't have that cognitive ability.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Yes, you have a decent amount of choice even in a food desert. Certain types of choice are harder to exercise.
Rather than trying to sue someone, the public policy response to food deserts ought to be to try to fix the issue. There's some encouraging stuff about Whole Foods (yes, I know) locating in places like Englewood (neighborhood on the south side of Chicago) and Detroit and so on, and offering stuff at cheaper prices than elsewhere (land costs being lower) and also providing jobs and selling some locally-created products. (The one here isn't in yet, so I know the plans, not how it will work.)
There are also some cool projects with urban gardens, and a bunch else that can be done.
Speaking of Michigan, your comment about Detroit makes me think about the water issue in Flint. That the world was so outraged about the water situation there and how people are getting sick, but those same kids are getting sick from our food supply. Is the Red Cross and the National Guard trucking in broccoli for them? Sorry to talk about water again, I know everyone hated the comparison...
They aren't getting sick from the food supply. They are getting sick from overconsumption.
they're also getting sick from the water
In Flint, sure. Kids in less advantaged neighborhoods in my city drink the same water I do.
I think she's talking about food, though.
Flint isn't the only one, just the most famous.0 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow, I hope you haven't taken personal offense to anything I've said. I'm talking about an aquafer. For instance, like in this diagram where three wells are tapping the same aquafer. My question is who owns the aquafer?why is this so hard for you to comprehend? What is in my neighbors well is his, and what is my well is mine.
again, if the well is on my property, I own what is in the well, the end.
Our property has a well.
I say we own water after our pump draws it into the 50 gallons main tank plus the 80 gallons hot water tank. The stored water is replenished as we use it.
I don't think we own the water that our well draws from.
Do you have a "right" to the water in the groundwater before it's pumped into your tank?
That's where this question is coming from. u/Gallowmere1984 said medical care isn't a "right" in his opinion, so I was trying to get a sense of what he meant by "right" by asking if he though redress of grievances or fresh water was a right. (just in case anyone wondered where the water thing came from)
IMO, you have a right to prevent your neighbor from putting their pollution in your water (by polluting the aquifer). It's a form of trespass.
Also, statutes convey rights, but obviously not all here will agree with that.
I think once it comes to some things like taxes, enough people have such a deep confirmation bias that there's barely even a chance to understand their perspective. I truly want to understand where people are coming from, but it's like there's some "how to be a libertarian" and "how to be a liberal wiener" podcast I missed where the self-evident truths of individual freedoms trumping rational collective good (or vice verse) were laid out.
As part of the collective, it is important to draw a line where the collective ends, and the individual begins. I draw that line at use of force as a coercive measure.
Now, do not confuse this with me saying that we should all be able to do whatever, whenever. What I am saying, is that an inaction (in this case, refusal to participate) should never be a justification for said force.
Solid justifications would be things like halting a physical aggressor, stopping the destruction of property, and tamping out contract fraud.
Essentially, if there is no victim, there is no crime, and inaction can never create a victim, no matter how bad some may want it to be able to.
So if somehow there was a "victim" in the obesity epidemic, maybe we could consider it a just matter to consider a collective threat?
There can't be, because the only person aggressed upon is the person who commited the act upon themselves...well, maybe them and the poor guy who has to sit next to them on an airplane.
Again, this assumes that, as I have suggested many times, we stop paying for their self-induced medical troubles.
seriously, why is it everyone's else's fault that person X decided to overeat for 20 plus years and is now morbidly obese and not healthy???????????????????
So let's say the factory next door to your house has been spewing ... ammonia... mustard gas... whatever your whole life. And 20 years later you get sick and it can be tied to the fumes conclusively, as does the 50,000,000 other people in your city who've been breathing the emissions. Do you feel that the factory owner owes you or your family anything for their negligence? Or is it your fault for "overbreathing?"
They do owe, because their action (freely venting poisonous gases) caused harm.
Can we apply this to food manufacturers? Let's say wheat is conclusively proven to cause autism... i dunno... can farmers and the company that makes wonder bread be held to blame for the autism treatment? Can Kroger be partially to blame for selling the wheat products?
Yes, but only if they continued to produce and sell it, and hid the information from the public, after it was made known that there was a definitive, and undisputed link. No conjecture, no "well maybe it kinda does in some people".
That part in the middle is why I opposed the tobacco companies being sued for damages acquired after a certain point in time. It's been common knowledge for a veeeeery long time that smoking would kill you. Hell, there was even a popular song about it in the 1920s. However, that's a wee bit more forgivable, given how slow information traveled until about 25 years ago.
The problem with this is that it was proven that they actively targeted children who both did not know AND did not have capacity to make that decision with the given information.
As a person who started smoking in their low teens, I can appreciate that. I also call *kitten*. Even at that age, I knew exactly what I was doing, after having watched a grandfather rot with lung cancer in his mid-50s.
Science would dispute your mental ability to weigh consequences and make that conscious decision. It's why we have laws that say minors cannot consent to sex as well as sign contracts. I'm sure you are the exception but no...children don't have that cognitive ability.
I never said that I wasn't a stupid kid. Only that I had firsthand experience of exactly what it leads to. In retrospect, I should have known better. I can also acknowledge that no one was to blame but me. That last part is something that a lot of people have a problem with.1 -
You could not know better. Your frontal cortex was not fully developed...the tobacco companies knew it and exploited it. That's why they are responsible.1
-
eveandqsmom wrote: »You could not know better. Your frontal cortex was not fully developed...the tobacco companies knew it and exploited it. That's why they are responsible.
You do realize that I am only 31, right? Tobacco advertising was nearly banned by that point, outside of silly redneck *kitten* like NASCAR that no self-respecting 12 year old metal fan would be caught dead watching.
0 -
Almost half our tax dollars go to defense. The rest is doled out in (albeit disproportionally) to what the government see fit to spend on. My point was that we don't NEED to spend 45% on defense. The majority of money isn't even spent on soldiers or servicemen. It's spent on research and development along with over priced cost of attaining weaponry.The US COULD have a more affordable health care system if 45% of taxes weren't spent on defense (more than practically all countries spend together on defense). Mind you I'm not saying reduce what we need to do to protect the country as a whole, but when we spend 3 trillion on planes (F35 series) that aren't even finished yet (ongoing delays and overbudget) and likely won't be needed on US soil unless a war comes over here, diverting some of that money instead to a more "user friendly" health care system would help. Hell, even kids would be able to get college education with that money. Of course with the money spent and profited on due to defense cost, that's likely not going to happen.
What about the tax dollars spent on foreign aid, to countries who despise the U.S. and express delight when anything bad happens to us?
What about the tax dollars spent subsidizing non-citizens, who haven't earned or contributed significantly, so they can disproportionately collect perks such as: WIC, EBT cards, Section 8, free doctors' appointments, free hospital services, subsidized childcare, subsidized state run postsecondary education tuition and subsidized utility payments?
These are two examples, and a there are few more I'd like to list, but they're too controversial to be discussed on this thread. I don't know what percentage of the tax pie these examples comprise, but I'd rather see cuts here than cuts to our defense.
And if I've gotten too political in this discussion and broke the rules, let me know and I'll stop gabbing and just lurk.
Honestly I don't know because I'm not in the military. I'd like to hear from active service men and women though, regarding the bolded quote above.
I don't see why our service members' opinion would rate any greater importance than the rest of the populous. The main functions of the military are to deter aggression and win wars. Those are goals that affect the country as a whole.
That being said, I do feel that military compensation should be equal to the upper end of the private sector, which it is...for the most part.
0 -
That doesn't change the shape of your brain.0
-
eveandqsmom wrote: »That doesn't change the shape of your brain.
No, but it changes the fact that they couldn't exploit me, if I was never exposed to any nefarious advertising, which is what you were fingering. If anything, you'd be better laying the blame at the feet of some 16 year old guy with a mohawk, behind the trailers of the school I went to. Of course, you could get plausible (and ridiculous) if you were to lay it in a chain of I saw him, he saw his mom, his mom saw her dad, who saw Camel ads in the 1940s. That's stretching it a bit though, don't you think?0 -
I'm sorry, I missed your age. There have been no lawsuits from your generation. I am only 10 years older. We were exploited.0
-
Almost half our tax dollars go to defense. The rest is doled out in (albeit disproportionally) to what the government see fit to spend on. My point was that we don't NEED to spend 45% on defense. The majority of money isn't even spent on soldiers or servicemen. It's spent on research and development along with over priced cost of attaining weaponry.The US COULD have a more affordable health care system if 45% of taxes weren't spent on defense (more than practically all countries spend together on defense). Mind you I'm not saying reduce what we need to do to protect the country as a whole, but when we spend 3 trillion on planes (F35 series) that aren't even finished yet (ongoing delays and overbudget) and likely won't be needed on US soil unless a war comes over here, diverting some of that money instead to a more "user friendly" health care system would help. Hell, even kids would be able to get college education with that money. Of course with the money spent and profited on due to defense cost, that's likely not going to happen.
What about the tax dollars spent on foreign aid, to countries who despise the U.S. and express delight when anything bad happens to us?
What about the tax dollars spent subsidizing non-citizens, who haven't earned or contributed significantly, so they can disproportionately collect perks such as: WIC, EBT cards, Section 8, free doctors' appointments, free hospital services, subsidized childcare, subsidized state run postsecondary education tuition and subsidized utility payments?
These are two examples, and a there are few more I'd like to list, but they're too controversial to be discussed on this thread. I don't know what percentage of the tax pie these examples comprise, but I'd rather see cuts here than cuts to our defense.
And if I've gotten too political in this discussion and broke the rules, let me know and I'll stop gabbing and just lurk.
Honestly I don't know because I'm not in the military. I'd like to hear from active service men and women though, regarding the bolded quote above.
I don't see why our service members' opinion would rate any greater importance than the rest of the populous. The main functions of the military are to deter aggression and win wars. Those are goals that affect the country as a whole.
That being said, I do feel that military compensation should be equal to the upper end of the private sector, which it is...for the most part.
If there was a proposal to cut government funding to state or federally funded hospitals, I'd want to hear from the doctors and nurses who work at those hospitals. They know how they'd like to see money spent for the nuts and bolts, front line sorta work.
For instance, I know that in the charitable and privately funded Shriner's hospitals, nurses generally don't have to hunt for basic supplies like syringes, towels, wound dressings, blood pressure cuffs that work, etc.
In a government run, and even in some privately owned hospitals, nurses might have to run around for 15 minutes before they can locate what they need to change a catheter, start a nebulizer, hang an IV or do a sterile dressing - due to a tight budget for supplies.
Every military person I know is perfectly fine with a reduced budget, ASSUMING that it's cut from wasteful Pentagon and DoD programs, and not soldier pay, etc. That's the problem with pols though. We all know which would get cut, due to greased palms.0 -
Almost half our tax dollars go to defense. The rest is doled out in (albeit disproportionally) to what the government see fit to spend on. My point was that we don't NEED to spend 45% on defense. The majority of money isn't even spent on soldiers or servicemen. It's spent on research and development along with over priced cost of attaining weaponry.The US COULD have a more affordable health care system if 45% of taxes weren't spent on defense (more than practically all countries spend together on defense). Mind you I'm not saying reduce what we need to do to protect the country as a whole, but when we spend 3 trillion on planes (F35 series) that aren't even finished yet (ongoing delays and overbudget) and likely won't be needed on US soil unless a war comes over here, diverting some of that money instead to a more "user friendly" health care system would help. Hell, even kids would be able to get college education with that money. Of course with the money spent and profited on due to defense cost, that's likely not going to happen.
What about the tax dollars spent on foreign aid, to countries who despise the U.S. and express delight when anything bad happens to us?
What about the tax dollars spent subsidizing non-citizens, who haven't earned or contributed significantly, so they can disproportionately collect perks such as: WIC, EBT cards, Section 8, free doctors' appointments, free hospital services, subsidized childcare, subsidized state run postsecondary education tuition and subsidized utility payments?
These are two examples, and a there are few more I'd like to list, but they're too controversial to be discussed on this thread. I don't know what percentage of the tax pie these examples comprise, but I'd rather see cuts here than cuts to our defense.
And if I've gotten too political in this discussion and broke the rules, let me know and I'll stop gabbing and just lurk.
Honestly I don't know because I'm not in the military. I'd like to hear from active service men and women though, regarding the bolded quote above.
I don't see why our service members' opinion would rate any greater importance than the rest of the populous. The main functions of the military are to deter aggression and win wars. Those are goals that affect the country as a whole.
That being said, I do feel that military compensation should be equal to the upper end of the private sector, which it is...for the most part.
If there was a proposal to cut government funding to state or federally funded hospitals, I'd want to hear from the doctors and nurses who work at those hospitals. They know how they'd like to see money spent for the nuts and bolts, front line sorta work.
For instance, I know that in the charitable and privately funded Shriner's hospitals, nurses generally don't have to hunt for basic supplies like syringes, towels, wound dressings, blood pressure cuffs that work, etc.
In a government run, and even in some privately owned hospitals, nurses might have to run around for 15 minutes before they can locate what they need to change a catheter, start a nebulizer, hang an IV or do a sterile dressing - due to a tight budget for supplies.
The "military budget" is comprised of broad areas most of which the average service person will never be made aware. If the hospital has a budget for medical supplies, and a budget for pizza parties, cutting the pizza parties shouldn't affect the workers' ability to perform their job (unless recruiting is an issue).
I guess my point is that the military is a big beast with a big budget. You don't have to be a service member to know that there should be some opportunities to cut spending there without putting our people at risk. Though the opinions of service members vary widely, you can assume that in a vacuum, we would always support having the best tools, technology and training available to accomplish our mission and be fairly compensated. However, as we are all citizens as well, we have the same vested interest in the overall best outcome for the country as a whole.0 -
Almost half our tax dollars go to defense. The rest is doled out in (albeit disproportionally) to what the government see fit to spend on. My point was that we don't NEED to spend 45% on defense. The majority of money isn't even spent on soldiers or servicemen. It's spent on research and development along with over priced cost of attaining weaponry.The US COULD have a more affordable health care system if 45% of taxes weren't spent on defense (more than practically all countries spend together on defense). Mind you I'm not saying reduce what we need to do to protect the country as a whole, but when we spend 3 trillion on planes (F35 series) that aren't even finished yet (ongoing delays and overbudget) and likely won't be needed on US soil unless a war comes over here, diverting some of that money instead to a more "user friendly" health care system would help. Hell, even kids would be able to get college education with that money. Of course with the money spent and profited on due to defense cost, that's likely not going to happen.
What about the tax dollars spent on foreign aid, to countries who despise the U.S. and express delight when anything bad happens to us?
What about the tax dollars spent subsidizing non-citizens, who haven't earned or contributed significantly, so they can disproportionately collect perks such as: WIC, EBT cards, Section 8, free doctors' appointments, free hospital services, subsidized childcare, subsidized state run postsecondary education tuition and subsidized utility payments?
These are two examples, and a there are few more I'd like to list, but they're too controversial to be discussed on this thread. I don't know what percentage of the tax pie these examples comprise, but I'd rather see cuts here than cuts to our defense.
And if I've gotten too political in this discussion and broke the rules, let me know and I'll stop gabbing and just lurk.
Honestly I don't know because I'm not in the military. I'd like to hear from active service men and women though, regarding the bolded quote above.
Based on the 2012 budget numbers, defense accounted for about 19% of the budget.
I'm not active duty, but my husband is, so here's one factor to consider: the military is part of the government, and like most government entities, the money is use it or lose it. If they don't spend all the money in a given fiscal year, the government figures they don't actually need, and gives a smaller budget next year. Once the money is reduced, it's really hard to get it back, because that means arguing with Congress. So even if your department doesn't need the whole budget for a given year, they still find a way to spend it, because if all hell breaks loose the following year, they want to have some money immediately available and not have to wait for congressional approval. Pretty much every government entity I've ever worked with does this.
The military also needs to stay on top on evolving technology, and that not only means weapons, but also engineering and medical advances. Many of the items developed for troops find their way into the civilian world in some format - clothing, outdoor gear, prosthetics, electronics, transportation, etc, so it's not like the spending on defense doesn't also find it's way back to benefiting the civilian population.3 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »The riparian rights discussion is fascinating
You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?
I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.
So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.
It would seem not everyone in this thread agrees there ::should:: be rights to something like that. it isn't 'Murican enough and infringes on their freedom. Or something.
there is a difference between the fundamental right to have ones property and some pie in the sky dreamed up right that everyone somehow has a natural human right to access free healthcare...2 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »The riparian rights discussion is fascinating
You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?
I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.
So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.
It would seem not everyone in this thread agrees there ::should:: be rights to something like that. it isn't 'Murican enough and infringes on their freedom. Or something.
there is a difference between the fundamental right to have ones property and some pie in the sky dreamed up right that everyone somehow has a natural human right to access free healthcare...
Obviously the people in these countries would disagree that it's something "dreamed up":
Norway
New Zealand
Japan
Germany
Belgium
United Kingdom
Kuwait
Sweden
Bahrain
Brunei
Canada
Netherlands
Austria
United Arab Emirates
Finland
Slovenia
Denmark
Luxembourg
France
Australia
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Cyprus
Greece
Spain
South Korea
Iceland
Hong Kong
Singapore
Switzerland
Israel1 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »The riparian rights discussion is fascinating
You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?
I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.
So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.
It would seem not everyone in this thread agrees there ::should:: be rights to something like that. it isn't 'Murican enough and infringes on their freedom. Or something.
there is a difference between the fundamental right to have ones property and some pie in the sky dreamed up right that everyone somehow has a natural human right to access free healthcare...
Obviously the people in these countries would disagree that it's something "dreamed up":
Norway
New Zealand
Japan
Germany
Belgium
United Kingdom
Kuwait
Sweden
Bahrain
Brunei
Canada
Netherlands
Austria
United Arab Emirates
Finland
Slovenia
Denmark
Luxembourg
France
Australia
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Cyprus
Greece
Spain
South Korea
Iceland
Hong Kong
Singapore
Switzerland
Israel
Because these countries have this, it doesn't mean that it is a right. The "right" is the part that was dreamed up.0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »The riparian rights discussion is fascinating
You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?
I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.
So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.
It would seem not everyone in this thread agrees there ::should:: be rights to something like that. it isn't 'Murican enough and infringes on their freedom. Or something.
there is a difference between the fundamental right to have ones property and some pie in the sky dreamed up right that everyone somehow has a natural human right to access free healthcare...
Obviously the people in these countries would disagree that it's something "dreamed up":
Norway
New Zealand
Japan
Germany
Belgium
United Kingdom
Kuwait
Sweden
Bahrain
Brunei
Canada
Netherlands
Austria
United Arab Emirates
Finland
Slovenia
Denmark
Luxembourg
France
Australia
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Cyprus
Greece
Spain
South Korea
Iceland
Hong Kong
Singapore
Switzerland
Israel
Because these countries have this, it doesn't mean that it is a right. The "right" is the part that was dreamed up.
To them it's a "right." Just like some people in this thread think there's a right to property or a right to get your grievances heard before a court of law. I understand some people here don't think this is a right, and I really do respect and want to hear the other point of view, but some people in the US do think it's a right. And many people in the countries I listed above think so too. I don't mean to use the "appeal to bandwagon" fallacy, though.1
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