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.
What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?
Options
Replies
-
NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?
The other day I really wanted to kill somebody, but I didn't want to spend the next six years wearing orange.
Did the law stop you or did you contemplate the ramifications of committing this action?
...and I agree with you personally, but the evidence does not support this.0 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »Single payer healthcare, including nurse visits and dietitians.
32 hour workweek.
Investment in mass transit systems over highways
Longer school day with mandatory % of time in recess/PE/sports
Tax breaks for companies that buy desk bikes/treadmills, provide a cafeteria, or pay for gym memberships or onsite doctor visits, transit cards, bike racks, etc.
Increase the percentage of open space, bike trails, etc. in development codes.
Building codes that require open staircases under a certain story height? (People are more likely to use the stairs if they are big and visible vs. hidden behind a door looking like they're for emergencies only.)
To add to this (because it's more or less what I was thinking), better bike infrastructure (this, for me, goes beyond "bike trails") and an overhaul on school lunch programs.
Tax breaks for bike commuting. For people who are putting less wear and tear on the roads, and not using up parking spaces - which people get into knife fights over.
You already get a tax break by not paying motor fuel taxes since not buying gas for bike commutimg.
lol wut
Not paying a tax on an item I'm not consuming isn't a tax break. I could say you're getting a tax break by not buying marijuana in Colorado or Washington, that would be just as nonsense.
You are getting bike paths and roads paid for in large part by motor fuel taxes and not contributing.
I use both a car and bike, including biking on street and paths, and do contribute through the various taxes. But even if I did not own and use a car, that's not really true.
https://frontiergroup.org/reports/fg/who-pays-roads
https://frontiergroup.org/sites/default/files/reports/Who Pays for Roads vUS.pdf
2 -
If we had a law that only factual information about weight management was allowed to be posted on the internet.11
-
I checked the WHO county obesity statistics (ranked by BMI) and the US is #17 while Austria is #117. Since I’m living abroad in Austria, I’ve been trying think of what is different. I come up with a few things like better public transport and universal health insurance. But I think it’s really more about cultural attitudes. Being active seems to be really important in Austria. So many people hike, walk, ride bike, swim in the lakes, and even in the winter people are skating, sledding, skiing. And not just fit people either! It’s all very social – meeting up with friends or family to do these things, especially on Sundays when all the shops are closed. The only thing I’m struggling to explain is that there’s usually lots of food and beer involved afterward.
My other observation is that they eat a lot more “in-season” produce. When it’s asparagus time in the Spring, it’s everywhere in supermarkets and restaurants, then it’s gone for the rest of the year. Same with peaches, strawberries, pumpkins... Maybe these foods are “treats” so people really appreciate them. Same with sodas. Soda is really expensive, even compared with beer or wine, so people only order one and enjoy it almost as snack, not guzzled down with food and then refilled. (No free re-fills here!)
I don’t think you can legislate this. It’s quite frustrating to me that most of my American family treat these activities (let alone exercise) as something to be avoided. When did we stop seeing an after dinner walk or Saturday bike ride as something fun? End of my rant!
9 -
MaintainInTheMembrane wrote: »If we had a law that only factual information about weight management was allowed to be posted on the internet.
This would be the ideal, but would destroy a 66 billion dollar industry.4 -
MaintainInTheMembrane wrote: »If we had a law that only factual information about weight management was allowed to be posted on the internet.
Who would be the authority on this though?3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »MaintainInTheMembrane wrote: »If we had a law that only factual information about weight management was allowed to be posted on the internet.
Who would be the authority on this though?
Exactly the problem. The reality is there is no consensus on nutrition. I have read numerous studies on various nutritional and weight loss topics...you can find one to support just about any view. The best you can do is read up and make your own informed judgment on how you want to eat.
The science on nutritional issues is simply not definitive enough.
The only established "facts" are that if you eat less you will lose weight. Frankly, everybody already knows this. I am tired of hearing some people claim that people are fat because they just don't know any better. That is ridiculous. Just eat less!!! You don't need studies and nutritionists and "experts" and classes and government sanctioned websites to tell you what is obvious.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »MaintainInTheMembrane wrote: »If we had a law that only factual information about weight management was allowed to be posted on the internet.
Who would be the authority on this though?
Evidently the European Union.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »MaintainInTheMembrane wrote: »If we had a law that only factual information about weight management was allowed to be posted on the internet.
Who would be the authority on this though?
Scientists? If it's completely false, can't be put up. If it's a "well it could be correlation, not causation", or "more research needed", say so.
Basically we need peer reviewed websites.3 -
FireOpalCO wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MaintainInTheMembrane wrote: »If we had a law that only factual information about weight management was allowed to be posted on the internet.
Who would be the authority on this though?
Scientists? If it's completely false, can't be put up. If it's a "well it could be correlation, not causation", or "more research needed", say so.
Basically we need peer reviewed websites.
I'm as sympathetic as anyone can be to frustration about misinformation about weight loss online, but "completely false" is still a definition that can be weaponized and misused. We're basically talking about silencing people via a politically administered process.
I'm not even sure that it would be that effective at meeting the stated goals, as many weight loss claims aren't "completely false" but instead based on not-yet-proven suppositions or just misleading.
Is Jason Fung, for example, "completely false"? In what I've read, his writing is a clever mixture of established, relatively uncontroversial facts that are then spun into supposition. So what exactly is he going to be barred from posting? And if he disagrees that a statement is "completely false," how does he get his right to speak restored?3 -
FireOpalCO wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MaintainInTheMembrane wrote: »If we had a law that only factual information about weight management was allowed to be posted on the internet.
Who would be the authority on this though?
Scientists? If it's completely false, can't be put up. If it's a "well it could be correlation, not causation", or "more research needed", say so.
Basically we need peer reviewed websites.
If and only if we relied on actual objective evidence, then there would be much fewer panics. "Ground breaking" to the scientific community now means a conventional shift greater than 5%. There's always that one rogue "scientist" who pushes the boundaries of evidence and inserts bias.
1 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »Single payer healthcare, including nurse visits and dietitians.
32 hour workweek.
Investment in mass transit systems over highways
Longer school day with mandatory % of time in recess/PE/sports
Tax breaks for companies that buy desk bikes/treadmills, provide a cafeteria, or pay for gym memberships or onsite doctor visits, transit cards, bike racks, etc.
Increase the percentage of open space, bike trails, etc. in development codes.
Building codes that require open staircases under a certain story height? (People are more likely to use the stairs if they are big and visible vs. hidden behind a door looking like they're for emergencies only.)
To add to this (because it's more or less what I was thinking), better bike infrastructure (this, for me, goes beyond "bike trails") and an overhaul on school lunch programs.
Tax breaks for bike commuting. For people who are putting less wear and tear on the roads, and not using up parking spaces - which people get into knife fights over.
You already get a tax break by not paying motor fuel taxes since not buying gas for bike commutimg.
lol wut
Not paying a tax on an item I'm not consuming isn't a tax break. I could say you're getting a tax break by not buying marijuana in Colorado or Washington, that would be just as nonsense.
You are getting bike paths and roads paid for in large part by motor fuel taxes and not contributing.
What? I'm about to hit 100,000 miles on my Subaru. It runs on gas just like your car, and they tax mine too.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »Single payer healthcare, including nurse visits and dietitians.
32 hour workweek.
Investment in mass transit systems over highways
Longer school day with mandatory % of time in recess/PE/sports
Tax breaks for companies that buy desk bikes/treadmills, provide a cafeteria, or pay for gym memberships or onsite doctor visits, transit cards, bike racks, etc.
Increase the percentage of open space, bike trails, etc. in development codes.
Building codes that require open staircases under a certain story height? (People are more likely to use the stairs if they are big and visible vs. hidden behind a door looking like they're for emergencies only.)
To add to this (because it's more or less what I was thinking), better bike infrastructure (this, for me, goes beyond "bike trails") and an overhaul on school lunch programs.
Tax breaks for bike commuting. For people who are putting less wear and tear on the roads, and not using up parking spaces - which people get into knife fights over.
You already get a tax break by not paying motor fuel taxes since not buying gas for bike commutimg.
lol wut
Not paying a tax on an item I'm not consuming isn't a tax break. I could say you're getting a tax break by not buying marijuana in Colorado or Washington, that would be just as nonsense.
You use the road when you're on your bike, and taxes on motor fuels support the building and maintenance of roads. Why should other people have to pay higher gas taxes to pay for your use of the roads?-1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »Single payer healthcare, including nurse visits and dietitians.
32 hour workweek.
Investment in mass transit systems over highways
Longer school day with mandatory % of time in recess/PE/sports
Tax breaks for companies that buy desk bikes/treadmills, provide a cafeteria, or pay for gym memberships or onsite doctor visits, transit cards, bike racks, etc.
Increase the percentage of open space, bike trails, etc. in development codes.
Building codes that require open staircases under a certain story height? (People are more likely to use the stairs if they are big and visible vs. hidden behind a door looking like they're for emergencies only.)
To add to this (because it's more or less what I was thinking), better bike infrastructure (this, for me, goes beyond "bike trails") and an overhaul on school lunch programs.
Tax breaks for bike commuting. For people who are putting less wear and tear on the roads, and not using up parking spaces - which people get into knife fights over.
You already get a tax break by not paying motor fuel taxes since not buying gas for bike commutimg.
lol wut
Not paying a tax on an item I'm not consuming isn't a tax break. I could say you're getting a tax break by not buying marijuana in Colorado or Washington, that would be just as nonsense.
You are getting bike paths and roads paid for in large part by motor fuel taxes and not contributing.
What? I'm about to hit 100,000 miles on my Subaru. It runs on gas just like your car, and they tax mine too.
That's irrelevant. It's like saying, "Why should I have to pay income tax? I pay sales tax and property, just like everybody else." The fuel taxes we're talking about are rough proxies for use of the roads and wear and tear on the roads, because the costs of setting up tolling gates and weighing stations at every ingress and egress to public roads and every jurisdictional line (at a minimum) are deemed higher than the costs of the inaccuracies in using consumption of motor fuels as a proxy for road use.3 -
I think health insurance companies should be made to offer free or discounted gym memberships. My husband is on disability, so he gets free Medicare, which offers free gym memberships. However, I am paying through the nose for health insurance at work just for myself, and the only weight loss they pay for is either prescription pills, which I am scared of because most turn out to be dangerous for your heart, or gastric bypass, which, by the time I lose the required weight they make you lose to "prove" you're serious, I will not need. It makes no sense to me. I know that gastric bypass is by no means the "easy" way out, but it seems that my insurance company is only willing to pay for "quick" fixes.1
-
Not sure if this was mentioned yet, but when discussing adding requirements for labeling calories and nutrition information on menu items or any other food for that matter, the FDA only requires labels to be within 20% of what is actually in the food, so the labeling could be pretty inaccurate.
https://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocumentsregulatoryinformation/labelingnutrition/ucm063113.htm
Also, if you are using a device to track your fitness (Apple Watch/Fitbit, etc...) it is prudent to note that the energy expenditure calculations can be way off... on average 27%, and at worst 93%.
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2017/05/fitness-trackers-accurately-measure-heart-rate-but-not-calories-burned.html
So, regardless of labels being provided on food, your calorie calculations could be off by a ton of calories if including labels and energy expenditure.
I think awareness is far more important than any legislation that restricts a person's freedom of choice.3 -
As a Libertarian, I'm against most government intervention as a rule. The least offensive way (in my opinion) for the government to attempt to influence it's citizen's food choices would be to take all that corn subsidy money and use it to fund cheaper fruits and veggies, instead. Ideally, I'd be in favor of repealing ALL subsidies, but this would be a fair compromise for me.5
-
Charge for insurance based on health risk factors.
If you are obese, smoke, don't exercise (probably harder to determine) then you would be subject to higher rates, even for government supplied health care.
As long as we don't rate based on risk and allow the costs of higher risk behaviors transferred to the populace in general through taxation, there is little incentive for people to change their behaviors.
For the vast majority of obese people, it's avoidable and not some chronic condition causing obesity.
When we shield people from or distribute the consequences to others, we encourage bad behaviors.
I'm also Libertarian, so I think the best solution would be for government to get out of the health business all together. People would be responsible for the costs of their care. We wouldn't require hospitals to treat someone just because they walked in the door.
Charity would still be legal, it just wouldn't be imposed by Federal fiat.
Insurance would still exist, but would be voluntary arrangements. The insured and the insurance company would mutually agree upon a policy without federal interference. We wouldn't require 50 something men who have had a vasectomy to have coverage that covers pre-natal visits and well woman exams because he doesn't need them. He would be free to buy a policy that meets his needs. Insurance companies wouldn't be required to offer a government mandated set of coverage, and could rate policies based on risk.13 -
nathanellsworth wrote: »Also, if you are using a device to track your fitness (Apple Watch/Fitbit, etc...) it is prudent to note that the energy expenditure calculations can be way off... on average 27%, and at worst 93%.
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2017/05/fitness-trackers-accurately-measure-heart-rate-but-not-calories-burned.html
Bear in mind the referenced studies have all used the devices incorrectly for allowing the normal improvement to calculating calories burned.
Like tweaking stride length for the daily step aspect, or learning resting HR and workout frequency to improve the workout calorie calc's.
They strap the devices on a for a study period there in the lab for some tests and that's it. The researchers didn't do their research on how they work to setup a good study.4 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »Single payer healthcare, including nurse visits and dietitians.
32 hour workweek.
Investment in mass transit systems over highways
Longer school day with mandatory % of time in recess/PE/sports
Tax breaks for companies that buy desk bikes/treadmills, provide a cafeteria, or pay for gym memberships or onsite doctor visits, transit cards, bike racks, etc.
Increase the percentage of open space, bike trails, etc. in development codes.
Building codes that require open staircases under a certain story height? (People are more likely to use the stairs if they are big and visible vs. hidden behind a door looking like they're for emergencies only.)
To add to this (because it's more or less what I was thinking), better bike infrastructure (this, for me, goes beyond "bike trails") and an overhaul on school lunch programs.
Tax breaks for bike commuting. For people who are putting less wear and tear on the roads, and not using up parking spaces - which people get into knife fights over.
You already get a tax break by not paying motor fuel taxes since not buying gas for bike commutimg.
lol wut
Not paying a tax on an item I'm not consuming isn't a tax break. I could say you're getting a tax break by not buying marijuana in Colorado or Washington, that would be just as nonsense.
You use the road when you're on your bike, and taxes on motor fuels support the building and maintenance of roads. Why should other people have to pay higher gas taxes to pay for your use of the roads?
How does my use of a bike cost you money? It doesn't. This is about sour grapes.7 -
Work to eliminate poverty and reduce work week. Most people can't read more than a paragraph of information an absorb all of it. You need to offer very simple information, healthy ready-made food options, cooking class…
Population with a good safety net are usually in better health (look up swedish health vs usa health).
- Encourage business to let their worker choose their schedule. I read a study that showed people that can choose their schedule are more likely to take up a sport or active transportation. In my workplace we have flexible schedule, just need to do 35 hours a week and everyone take a long lunch to go take a walk or go to the pool next door, some people do a yoga class once a week in the building… it makes a big difference on the level of activity.
- Higher minimum wage so you can reduce your hours and can keep same living standard. Especially for enterprise were all profit goes to shareholders…
- Give tax credit to business who do work incentive for participation in exercise program ($, one paid hour to exercise, etc).9 -
But you don't have to eat "health food" to be a healthy weight. You can make better choices at fast food places, dollar stores, and the frozen food section. It's cheaper to drink water out of the tap than buy soda. It's cheaper to eat canned beans and minute rice than to go to McDs. It's a case of putting some thought into it. I have weeks where 90% of my diet is oatmeal, fast food, Lean Cuisines, ramen, and $0.99 bags of frozen veg, I can still hit my calorie goal and macros. And sometimes my only exercise is marching and jogging on the living room floor in front of my TV. It's not optimal, but it works.
^^this^^
Know what the #1 purchase with EBT (used to be called food stamps) is? It's SODA pop. If you want legislation, there's the start -- with more than 40,000,000 people on EBT, restrict it to healthy, whole foods. Think it can't be done? Check out Rain's video on surviving two months in the food desert and most expensive place in the US (Manhattan) on one month's worth of EBT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUZuu3JPzXM
It's about choices. The overwhelming majority of us made the choices that got us into our current states. We can make the choices to get out, or at least head the right direction.
9 -
Know what the #1 purchase with EBT (used to be called food stamps) is? It's SODA pop. If you want legislation, there's the start -- with more than 40,000,000 people on EBT, restrict it to healthy, whole foods. Think it can't be done?
***snipped video***It's about choices. The overwhelming majority of us made the choices that got us into our current states. We can make the choices to get out, or at least head the right direction.
Um. I'm really sorry to break this to you, and I know it's hard to believe when you haven't witnessed it, but at least some of the pop those EBT beneficiaries are buying isn't even consumed - it's dumped out in the parking lot, so the welfare cheat can return the cans for the deposit (as cash) to go buy something else that. Like booze.
I'm VERY STRONGLY in favor of requiring the bottle deposit to be ineligible for EBT. In fact, I don't understand why it isn't, already. Modern POS registers support flagging various categories of merchandise as, for example, age-restricted. It seems trivial to restrict a bottle deposit that already rings up as a separate change to not be allowed on EBT.
12 -
All those people claiming to be libertatian are suddenly all fine targeting poor people with punitive mesure for buying treats or finding a work around ot get cash (wow, so much cash.. a few dollars at most)... I'm disgusted.
People are underestimating the role of "unhealhty" (read high calorie and fat content = efficient) food in poorer people life. It's an antidepressant. It's often THE ONLY treat you will ever get. It makes your brain happy when you have to skip meal often and send you in vicious circle.
Fast food is fast, no planning (information + shopping list), no shopping, no prepping, no cooking, no cleaning dishes. If you work a hard physical job (like under educated people often do) or long hours (like poor people often do, 2 or 3 part time job), the choice is easy.
Can't poor people never lose weight OF COURSE NOT. I was poor but I was freaking LUCKY to be smartish and have access to higher education, ability to understand nutritional information, etc.
But for us, pizza night or mcdonald lunch were amazing treat.
We need more to support mental health. Just like we found out addict need MORE social interaction to kick their habit, obese person need HELP and SUPPORT...
http://theconversation.com/do-poor-people-eat-more-junk-food-than-wealthier-americans-79154
"We found that people who said they checked ingredients before eating new foods had lower fast-food intake. This suggests that making it easier for Americans to learn what is in their food could help sway consumers away from fast food and toward healthier eating options.
Another finding was that working more hours raises fast-food consumption, regardless of income level. People eat it because it’s fast and convenient. This suggests policies that make nutritious foods more readily available, quickly, could help offset the lure of fast food. For example, reducing the red tape for approving food trucks that serve meals containing fresh fruits and vegetables could promote healthier, convenient eating."
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-singh-food-deserts-nutritional-disparities-20180207-story.html
"Why do poor Americans eat so unhealthfully? Because junk food is the only indulgence they can afford"
https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2016/dec/13/mental-illness-and-poverty-you-cant-tackle-one-without-the-other
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/the-true-connection-between-class-and-obesity-isnt-what-you-probably-think/2018/07/19/8d3a61e4-8ac8-11e8-a345-a1bf7847b375_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.18e892b9c02c16 -
autumnblade75 wrote: »
Um. I'm really sorry to break this to you, and I know it's hard to believe when you haven't witnessed it, but at least some of the pop those EBT beneficiaries are buying isn't even consumed - it's dumped out in the parking lot, so the welfare cheat can return the cans for the deposit (as cash) to go buy something else that. Like booze.
I'm VERY STRONGLY in favor of requiring the bottle deposit to be ineligible for EBT. In fact, I don't understand why it isn't, already. Modern POS registers support flagging various categories of merchandise as, for example, age-restricted. It seems trivial to restrict a bottle deposit that already rings up as a separate change to not be allowed on EBT.
You have a source for this claim? Because that's a hell of a charge to toss out as fact.
First, let me address something from this and the previous post. The program you are referencing is called SNAP. EBT is a card that is issued to people receiving government benefits. Multiple benefit programs get loaded onto the same card, so you the witness, have no idea which program they are using. You don't know if they have SNAP, refugee assistance funds, TANF, or something else entirely from either a state or federal agency.
Second, how would any store know that the bottle returned was purchased with SNAP funds? People I know who have used SNAP or WIC definitely spent their own money on food in addition to their benefits. Why would we treat people differently because they get benefits?
"Hmm, you are bringing back soda cans. Clearly you are a DRUNK."
"No *kitten*, the family had a birthday party for our 12 year old. Kindly *kitten* off."
16 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »BuiltLikeAPeep wrote: »I think health insurance companies should be made to offer free or discounted gym memberships. My husband is on disability, so he gets free Medicare, which offers free gym memberships. However, I am paying through the nose for health insurance at work just for myself, and the only weight loss they pay for is either prescription pills, which I am scared of because most turn out to be dangerous for your heart, or gastric bypass, which, by the time I lose the required weight they make you lose to "prove" you're serious, I will not need. It makes no sense to me. I know that gastric bypass is by no means the "easy" way out, but it seems that my insurance company is only willing to pay for "quick" fixes.
And the $x a month for membership is included in your premium. Ain't nothing free.
Just buy the membership of you want it. A
@Theoldguy1 Apparently you missed the part where I said it covers pills and gastric bypass, and you must have missed the part where I said I don't want pills and I would not be eligible for the bypass. I'm paying premiums so that other people have the right to those options, so why shouldn't they pay for me to have the right to go to a gym and work out to lose it? Whether you know it or not, EVERYBODY pays for whatever is covered- it's not like I can call them and say "I don't want pills or a bypass, please give me a discount on my premium." Or "please add a gym membership to my policy and adjust my premiums accordingly. "
Where's the eyeroll button on this thing?5 -
It's sad when expecting people to make good choices is called targeting.
I take exception with your characterization that people are being targeted. I said let people bear the responsibility of their choices. No one else is targeting them. If they are targeted by a system that holds decision makers responsible for the consequences of their decisions, they targeted themselves.
I contend that if anything, the rest of us are weary of being targets for taking on the burden of circumstances shifted from the decision makers to others who are taxed to pay for the consequences, but have no say in the choices.VeroniqueBoilard wrote: »All those people claiming to be libertatian are suddenly all fine targeting poor people with punitive mesure for buying treats or finding a work around ot get cash (wow, so much cash.. a few dollars at most)... I'm disgusted.
People are underestimating the role of "unhealhty" (read high calorie and fat content = efficient) food in poorer people life. It's an antidepressant. It's often THE ONLY treat you will ever get. It makes your brain happy when you have to skip meal often and send you in vicious circle.
Fast food is fast, no planning (information + shopping list), no shopping, no prepping, no cooking, no cleaning dishes. If you work a hard physical job (like under educated people often do) or long hours (like poor people often do, 2 or 3 part time job), the choice is easy.
Can't poor people never lose weight OF COURSE NOT. I was poor but I was freaking LUCKY to be smartish and have access to higher education, ability to understand nutritional information, etc.
But for us, pizza night or mcdonald lunch were amazing treat.
We need more to support mental health. Just like we found out addict need MORE social interaction to kick their habit, obese person need HELP and SUPPORT...
http://theconversation.com/do-poor-people-eat-more-junk-food-than-wealthier-americans-79154
"We found that people who said they checked ingredients before eating new foods had lower fast-food intake. This suggests that making it easier for Americans to learn what is in their food could help sway consumers away from fast food and toward healthier eating options.
Another finding was that working more hours raises fast-food consumption, regardless of income level. People eat it because it’s fast and convenient. This suggests policies that make nutritious foods more readily available, quickly, could help offset the lure of fast food. For example, reducing the red tape for approving food trucks that serve meals containing fresh fruits and vegetables could promote healthier, convenient eating."
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-singh-food-deserts-nutritional-disparities-20180207-story.html
"Why do poor Americans eat so unhealthfully? Because junk food is the only indulgence they can afford"
https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2016/dec/13/mental-illness-and-poverty-you-cant-tackle-one-without-the-other
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/the-true-connection-between-class-and-obesity-isnt-what-you-probably-think/2018/07/19/8d3a61e4-8ac8-11e8-a345-a1bf7847b375_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.18e892b9c02c
13 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »
You use the road when you're on your bike, and taxes on motor fuels support the building and maintenance of roads. Why should other people have to pay higher gas taxes to pay for your use of the roads?
Are we sure motor fuel taxes cover the costs of the roads?
Do other taxes also go into the fund?
Don't I pay the motor fuel taxes of the trucks that deliver food and bicycles to the stores where I shop?
It is highly unlikely a cyclist doesn't pay taxes and hasn't paid the motor fuels taxes passed on in the costs of shipping goods and services to his home or the stores where he shops.
Even if he doesn't own a motor vehicle.
If you really want to complain about something, address the shortfall between what is charged to ride public transit and what it costs to run such a system.
In my locale, fares pay about 20% of the costs to run the system. The other 80% is paid by taxpayers. I don't think 80% of them use the buses and light rail.
5 -
FireOpalCO wrote: »autumnblade75 wrote: »
Um. I'm really sorry to break this to you, and I know it's hard to believe when you haven't witnessed it, but at least some of the pop those EBT beneficiaries are buying isn't even consumed - it's dumped out in the parking lot, so the welfare cheat can return the cans for the deposit (as cash) to go buy something else that. Like booze.
I'm VERY STRONGLY in favor of requiring the bottle deposit to be ineligible for EBT. In fact, I don't understand why it isn't, already. Modern POS registers support flagging various categories of merchandise as, for example, age-restricted. It seems trivial to restrict a bottle deposit that already rings up as a separate change to not be allowed on EBT.
You have a source for this claim? Because that's a hell of a charge to toss out as fact.
First, let me address something from this and the previous post. The program you are referencing is called SNAP. EBT is a card that is issued to people receiving government benefits. Multiple benefit programs get loaded onto the same card, so you the witness, have no idea which program they are using. You don't know if they have SNAP, refugee assistance funds, TANF, or something else entirely from either a state or federal agency.
Second, how would any store know that the bottle returned was purchased with SNAP funds? People I know who have used SNAP or WIC definitely spent their own money on food in addition to their benefits. Why would we treat people differently because they get benefits?
"Hmm, you are bringing back soda cans. Clearly you are a DRUNK."
"No *kitten*, the family had a birthday party for our 12 year old. Kindly *kitten* off."
No - I have no proof that kid in the parking lot paid for those cases of Mountain Dew with EBT or SNAP. But I couldn't think of any good reason for him to be dumping them down the sewer. So I asked.
I don't object to the purchase of the pop with government funds. I don't think it's the best use, but I'm not trying to police what they're buying. Neither of those programs are intended to be the sole grocery fund for a family. Charging cash for just the deposit portion of the purchase would indeed stop that particular abuse. Yeah, that's a whole $1.20 for that 12-pack of Coke - or 10 cents for a 2-liter.
Or do away with deposit laws. I'm cool with that, too. But I'm not cool with abuse of the system. Sorry 'bout that. No, actually, I'm not. Sorry, not sorry.5 -
tbright1965 wrote: »
In my locale, fares pay about 20% of the costs to run the system. The other 80% is paid by taxpayers. I don't think 80% of them use the buses and light rail.
But they do benefit from the reduced traffic congestion from other people using lightrail and buses. Plus the draw to potential employers considering setting up shop in that city/state.
8
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396.8K Introduce Yourself
- 44.2K Getting Started
- 260.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 451 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.3K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.5K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3.1K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions