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
-
I’m curious, since your statements seem absolute, if you believe ANY taxes should be mandatory?tbright1965 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »I have no problem if universal healthcare is voluntary and optional.
My problem is when you FORCE people to participate or contribute.
Have whatever system you want, as long as it is not mandatory and is funded ONLY with money voluntarily given.FireOpalCO wrote: »Why? Why does a single payer healthcare system need to be voluntary? What is unique to it that does not apply to everything else that is paid for by taxes? I don't decide how much I pay towards the military each year. Neither do I pick each year my contribution to roads, schools, or a myriad of other government provided services. Where on my tax form do I pick how much I want to contribute to our State Department?
Because we are a nation of free people. We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Majority rules gives you things such as slavery and bans on same sex marriage, and bans on interracial marriage and so on.
This nation was not founded on collective rights. There is no right of the majority. Only INDIVIDUALS have rights. Not even the government has rights. Rights are bestowed only upon individuals.
The only way that is maintained is when we recognize and defend the rights of individuals. If we have majority rules, someone loses their rights.
So any system or scheme proposed by government must be 100% voluntary. There is no right to demand that others fall into line with some view of "the greater good" just because 50% + 1 person votes for it.
Maybe the question to ask is why have we allowed our Federal Government to usurp our rights. The roles of the Federal Government, as spelled out by the Constitution are pretty small. Most things people fight about such as police, fire, roads, and so on if they are the responsibility of any governmental unit, are local or state, not Federal.
Having money go to DC and then to have your representatives in Congress try to bring the money back to the community to build a new fire station is the height of insanity. Like the 535 members of Congress, plus the President and VP know better what you need than the people of your own community is laughable.
It's probably an oversimplification, but the real roles of the Federal Government are: Defense, Foreign Policy, and a Federal Judiciary.
That's pretty much it.FireOpalCO wrote: »
Part of being a democracy is sometimes you pay for things that don't benefit you personally or that you don't value. At certain points in our history we decided that some items that weren't provided by the government should be paid for by tax dollars and funded by everyone, not just the "in the moment need" or the largess of the rich. Public schools, fire departments, police, judges, social workers, etc.
Good thing we live in a Representative Republic that was founded on the idea of individual freedom. If we were following the lead of the founders, you wouldn't be asked to pay for what you don't support.
I think the founders, faults and all, recognized the dangers of concentrated power. How concentrated power erodes freedom.tbright1965 wrote: »
Why not voluntary?
...
VOLUNTARY is key, as it will act as a check on those making the choices. If the care doesn't meet the promises, people should be free to leave the program and not be locked in to endless contributions by law.The problem would be getting it up and running. Why would the wealthy, who can afford whatever system exists, or healthy people who are able to at least afford insurance premiums, switch right away? They would want to wait and see what happens. The people who would jump right in would be mostly low income or high usage, so there would be no way for it to be financially viable.
Voluntary universal healthcare is a logic trap. You can't show it will be a good deal without knowing who will participate, and you can't convince people to participate if you can't show them it will be a good deal.
I'm not saying single-payer or universal healthcare is the answer, I honestly have no idea what is. I'm just saying I don't think voluntary single-payer/universal healthcare is possible, it would just end up being a high risk insurance pool.
If the system was better, wouldn't the wealthy be some of the first to come on board? It's not like wealthy people are against saving money. In fact, I'd argue that they may have a pretty good handle on value. Not all the wealthy are newly minted Instagram Influencers, Rock Stars or Star Athletes with new-found riches in the lottery of life. Many have built companies, often out of what they had in their garage, and now have billions.
Any system that would lower healthcare costs for them and/or their enterprises would be welcomed, right?
Wouldn't bottom line focused CEOs welcome less costly alternatives to health care?
Large companies "self-insure" meaning while there may be an insurance company on the benefits card, they are paying them for access to the network, pre-negotiated rates, and administration. The benefits costs are paid by the company. There may be some re-insurance for catastrophic events. But by and large, day to day benefits are paid by the employer, not the insurance company.
If someone came in saying we can provide even better care for less money, what company wouldn't get on board?
It's not unreasonable to expect they prove they will be lower cost. So while I recognize the chicken and egg nature of things, understand that mandatory participation provides less incentive to actually get better. If your clients are captive through the force of law, do things really get better?
Do you want the same people who architect the IRS, the VA and the DoD to now be in charge of an additional 15% of the economy, healthcare?
The Federal G already accounts for about 20% of GDP and IIRC, healthcare is right around that 15% figure. So great, let's just put 1/3rd of all economic activity under the control of Congress (who cannot get along, but still manages to send pork back to the district) and the President (who knows who you might get. Can you trust this one, or the next one? Probably depends on your political leanings.)
1 -
rheddmobile wrote: »I’m curious, since your statements seem absolute, if you believe ANY taxes should be mandatory?
Taxes should be rare and the greatest taxes should be local, not federal.
Things like the TSA should be funded entirely by what is collected from passengers (if we are going to have a TSA, that's a whole different argument.)
I am not so Libertarian that I think taxes are theft.
HOWEVER, the way DC is doing it, a solid case could be made that a great deal is being stolen from the taxpayer to fund political power grabs.
Things like Social Security should be optional, and certainly shouldn't have graduated payouts. When you look at how AIME (I think I've mentioned it before) is paid at smaller and smaller values. Some AIME is paid back at 90%, then the payout drops to 32% and finally to 15%.
<snip... I started to write a bunch about AIME and bend points and such, but I put myself to sleep in the wonky details. Suffice it to say that if it is such a good deal for workers, why not let workers decide if they really wish to participate or not and to what extent.>
So we steal from middle class workers, because let's be clear, the uber rich are no longer paying Social Security taxes on wages above about $130K to fund those getting the 90% payout on their wages.
If such programs had to rely on people opting in, they would go away.
So while not all taxation is theft, much of how it is done today, not to mention how it is spent looks a great deal ike theft, or at least a bad deal for the typical taxpayer.
When a middle income worker loses 40% of a marginal dollar earned to Federal Income and Payroll taxes and state income tax, before the remaining bucket of taxes are paid, it's hard to argue that he's not paying more than his fair share when it comes to tax burden.
That was my last paycheck. I had 80 hours of regular labor and about 26 hours of overtime. The overtime wages paid my FEDERAL tax burden.
I'm not a rich man.
So I don't trust that "Free College" or "Free Healthcare" or any of the other "Freebies" are actually going to save me any money.
I did get about a 3% drop in my tax burden for 2018, but that's temporary as Congress wasn't able to pass lasting income tax reform.
And at the same time, after paying all those taxes, Social Security only wants to pay me 15% on about half of my indexed wages when I retire, but will give others 90% of their indexed wages.
So yes, I do feel like I'm robbed at times.
Go tax those who want the freebies at my marginal rates.
Let me forego all the freebies in exchange for the lowest marginal rates.5 -
tbright1965 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »I’m curious, since your statements seem absolute, if you believe ANY taxes should be mandatory?
Taxes should be rare and the greatest taxes should be local, not federal.
Things like the TSA should be funded entirely by what is collected from passengers (if we are going to have a TSA, that's a whole different argument.)
I am not so Libertarian that I think taxes are theft.
HOWEVER, the way DC is doing it, a solid case could be made that a great deal is being stolen from the taxpayer to fund political power grabs.
Things like Social Security should be optional, and certainly shouldn't have graduated payouts. When you look at how AIME (I think I've mentioned it before) is paid at smaller and smaller values. Some AIME is paid back at 90%, then the payout drops to 32% and finally to 15%.
<snip... I started to write a bunch about AIME and bend points and such, but I put myself to sleep in the wonky details. Suffice it to say that if it is such a good deal for workers, why not let workers decide if they really wish to participate or not and to what extent.>
So we steal from middle class workers, because let's be clear, the uber rich are no longer paying Social Security taxes on wages above about $130K to fund those getting the 90% payout on their wages.
If such programs had to rely on people opting in, they would go away.
So while not all taxation is theft, much of how it is done today, not to mention how it is spent looks a great deal ike theft, or at least a bad deal for the typical taxpayer.
When a middle income worker loses 40% of a marginal dollar earned to Federal Income and Payroll taxes and state income tax, before the remaining bucket of taxes are paid, it's hard to argue that he's not paying more than his fair share when it comes to tax burden.
That was my last paycheck. I had 80 hours of regular labor and about 26 hours of overtime. The overtime wages paid my FEDERAL tax burden.
I'm not a rich man.
So I don't trust that "Free College" or "Free Healthcare" or any of the other "Freebies" are actually going to save me any money.
I did get about a 3% drop in my tax burden for 2018, but that's temporary as Congress wasn't able to pass lasting income tax reform.
And at the same time, after paying all those taxes, Social Security only wants to pay me 15% on about half of my indexed wages when I retire, but will give others 90% of their indexed wages.
So yes, I do feel like I'm robbed at times.
Go tax those who want the freebies at my marginal rates.
Let me forego all the freebies in exchange for the lowest marginal rates.
wait.
..... does this mean that the government won't be buying me a new motorcycle ?
drat.2 -
Motorsheen wrote: »
..... does this mean that the government won't be buying me a new motorcycle ?
drat.
And neither will I
2 -
I think implementing laws that limit the size of sodas sold at restaurants and fast food places would be beneficial. No one needs a 44oz full sugar soda from the gas station.
Also controlled portion sizes/limits. You go out to eat and you get two meals for the price of one at a lot of places. Instead of offering large portions directly on your plate, restaurants could offer a free take-away box with every purchase, encouraging you to eat it at a later time. Very few people need a 16-20oz steak, or a half-pound burger. Those are way over the recommended daily serving for any gender and most activity levels.
7 -
PineAndSalt wrote: »I think implementing laws that limit the size of sodas sold at restaurants and fast food places would be beneficial. No one needs a 44oz full sugar soda from the gas station.
Also controlled portion sizes/limits. You go out to eat and you get two meals for the price of one at a lot of places. Instead of offering large portions directly on your plate, restaurants could offer a free take-away box with every purchase, encouraging you to eat it at a later time. Very few people need a 16-20oz steak, or a half-pound burger. Those are way over the recommended daily serving for any gender and most activity levels.
Just because "nobody needs" it doesn't follow that "there oughta be a law." Laws are enforced by men with guns - the police. If you wouldn't send a man with a gun to put someone in a cage in order to enforce the idea you're advocating, then it shouldn't be a law.
7 -
autumnblade75 wrote: »PineAndSalt wrote: »I think implementing laws that limit the size of sodas sold at restaurants and fast food places would be beneficial. No one needs a 44oz full sugar soda from the gas station.
Also controlled portion sizes/limits. You go out to eat and you get two meals for the price of one at a lot of places. Instead of offering large portions directly on your plate, restaurants could offer a free take-away box with every purchase, encouraging you to eat it at a later time. Very few people need a 16-20oz steak, or a half-pound burger. Those are way over the recommended daily serving for any gender and most activity levels.
Just because "nobody needs" it doesn't follow that "there oughta be a law." Laws are enforced by men with guns - the police. If you wouldn't send a man with a gun to put someone in a cage in order to enforce the idea you're advocating, then it shouldn't be a law.
Huh? There are bunches of laws we don't routinely send guys with guns out to enforce (laws regulating advertising, food labeling, financial reporting, just to name a few).
I agree with you that laws about soda size are overreach, though.7 -
PineAndSalt wrote: »I think implementing laws that limit the size of sodas sold at restaurants and fast food places would be beneficial. No one needs a 44oz full sugar soda from the gas station.
Also controlled portion sizes/limits. You go out to eat and you get two meals for the price of one at a lot of places. Instead of offering large portions directly on your plate, restaurants could offer a free take-away box with every purchase, encouraging you to eat it at a later time. Very few people need a 16-20oz steak, or a half-pound burger. Those are way over the recommended daily serving for any gender and most activity levels.
Great evil is conducted via the notion "nobody needs".3 -
This is true. Most developed countries have implemented a sugary drink tax, but in conjunction some have also required the amount of sugar in those products to be reduced by a certain percentage. France also implemented a law that refills on sugary drinks are no longer allowed.Theoldguy1 wrote: »Too many loopholes around limiting size. If you want to discourage consumption, just tax it like alcohol.
I hope that the US would eventually follow the example.
4 -
autumnblade75 wrote: »PineAndSalt wrote: »I think implementing laws that limit the size of sodas sold at restaurants and fast food places would be beneficial. No one needs a 44oz full sugar soda from the gas station.
Also controlled portion sizes/limits. You go out to eat and you get two meals for the price of one at a lot of places. Instead of offering large portions directly on your plate, restaurants could offer a free take-away box with every purchase, encouraging you to eat it at a later time. Very few people need a 16-20oz steak, or a half-pound burger. Those are way over the recommended daily serving for any gender and most activity levels.
Just because "nobody needs" it doesn't follow that "there oughta be a law." Laws are enforced by men with guns - the police. If you wouldn't send a man with a gun to put someone in a cage in order to enforce the idea you're advocating, then it shouldn't be a law.
Huh? There are bunches of laws we don't routinely send guys with guns out to enforce (laws regulating advertising, food labeling, financial reporting, just to name a few).
I agree with you that laws about soda size are overreach, though.
I'm not sure why we're not enforcing those things that were important enough to make laws about. That's the other side of that coin, though. I do believe that if it was important enough to legislate, then enforcement should definitely be carried out. Otherwise, what's the point?0 -
autumnblade75 wrote: »autumnblade75 wrote: »PineAndSalt wrote: »I think implementing laws that limit the size of sodas sold at restaurants and fast food places would be beneficial. No one needs a 44oz full sugar soda from the gas station.
Also controlled portion sizes/limits. You go out to eat and you get two meals for the price of one at a lot of places. Instead of offering large portions directly on your plate, restaurants could offer a free take-away box with every purchase, encouraging you to eat it at a later time. Very few people need a 16-20oz steak, or a half-pound burger. Those are way over the recommended daily serving for any gender and most activity levels.
Just because "nobody needs" it doesn't follow that "there oughta be a law." Laws are enforced by men with guns - the police. If you wouldn't send a man with a gun to put someone in a cage in order to enforce the idea you're advocating, then it shouldn't be a law.
Huh? There are bunches of laws we don't routinely send guys with guns out to enforce (laws regulating advertising, food labeling, financial reporting, just to name a few).
I agree with you that laws about soda size are overreach, though.
I'm not sure why we're not enforcing those things that were important enough to make laws about. That's the other side of that coin, though. I do believe that if it was important enough to legislate, then enforcement should definitely be carried out. Otherwise, what's the point?
Tons of laws are enforced by fines. For example, I need a new city parking sticker before the end of the month. If I don't get one (therefore violating the law) I will be fined something like $50 for a first offense. Do you really think I should be arrested?1 -
autumnblade75 wrote: »autumnblade75 wrote: »PineAndSalt wrote: »I think implementing laws that limit the size of sodas sold at restaurants and fast food places would be beneficial. No one needs a 44oz full sugar soda from the gas station.
Also controlled portion sizes/limits. You go out to eat and you get two meals for the price of one at a lot of places. Instead of offering large portions directly on your plate, restaurants could offer a free take-away box with every purchase, encouraging you to eat it at a later time. Very few people need a 16-20oz steak, or a half-pound burger. Those are way over the recommended daily serving for any gender and most activity levels.
Just because "nobody needs" it doesn't follow that "there oughta be a law." Laws are enforced by men with guns - the police. If you wouldn't send a man with a gun to put someone in a cage in order to enforce the idea you're advocating, then it shouldn't be a law.
Huh? There are bunches of laws we don't routinely send guys with guns out to enforce (laws regulating advertising, food labeling, financial reporting, just to name a few).
I agree with you that laws about soda size are overreach, though.
I'm not sure why we're not enforcing those things that were important enough to make laws about. That's the other side of that coin, though. I do believe that if it was important enough to legislate, then enforcement should definitely be carried out. Otherwise, what's the point?
Tons of laws are enforced by fines. For example, I need a new city parking sticker before the end of the month. If I don't get one (therefore violating the law) I will be fined something like $50 for a first offense. Do you really think I should be arrested?
Men with guns are rarely the first step. If you pay the fine, there's no need for an arrest. If you can't or won't pay the fine, though - do you not believe that the men with guns will be along, eventually?1 -
autumnblade75 wrote: »autumnblade75 wrote: »autumnblade75 wrote: »PineAndSalt wrote: »I think implementing laws that limit the size of sodas sold at restaurants and fast food places would be beneficial. No one needs a 44oz full sugar soda from the gas station.
Also controlled portion sizes/limits. You go out to eat and you get two meals for the price of one at a lot of places. Instead of offering large portions directly on your plate, restaurants could offer a free take-away box with every purchase, encouraging you to eat it at a later time. Very few people need a 16-20oz steak, or a half-pound burger. Those are way over the recommended daily serving for any gender and most activity levels.
Just because "nobody needs" it doesn't follow that "there oughta be a law." Laws are enforced by men with guns - the police. If you wouldn't send a man with a gun to put someone in a cage in order to enforce the idea you're advocating, then it shouldn't be a law.
Huh? There are bunches of laws we don't routinely send guys with guns out to enforce (laws regulating advertising, food labeling, financial reporting, just to name a few).
I agree with you that laws about soda size are overreach, though.
I'm not sure why we're not enforcing those things that were important enough to make laws about. That's the other side of that coin, though. I do believe that if it was important enough to legislate, then enforcement should definitely be carried out. Otherwise, what's the point?
Tons of laws are enforced by fines. For example, I need a new city parking sticker before the end of the month. If I don't get one (therefore violating the law) I will be fined something like $50 for a first offense. Do you really think I should be arrested?
Men with guns are rarely the first step. If you pay the fine, there's no need for an arrest. If you can't or won't pay the fine, though - do you not believe that the men with guns will be along, eventually?
I believe that if a corporation mislabels a can of beans with respect to nutrition labeling laws, they will face some penalty. If they fail to respond to phone calls and harshly worded letters, I think it's extremely unlikely that someone with a gun will ever show up. With a lot of labeling and financial reporting laws, even in a lot of pretty extreme cases, I suspect who will show up is a bunch of auditors, accountants, and lawyers, and that suit-coated horde will proceed to subject the corporation to something that feels like being pecked to death by an army of ducks.
Can I imagine a case of that nature where people with guns show up? Sure. But that's not how enforcement generally works in those cases.
There are kinds of laws where it isn't even relevant. Guys with guns are mostly reserved for criminal issues. If a public university fails to comply with certain federal laws, the feds will stop giving that university's students financial aid, stop funding that university's researchers grants, and that sort of thing. No guys with guns are directly involved.
If large sodas are made illegal (a silly, nanny-esque idea, and a waste of the government's time and my tax money, IMO), and someone sells giant sodas, I think the result will be lawsuits, fines, and possibly the eventual revocation of things needful to do business (licenses, etc.).3 -
autumnblade75 wrote: »autumnblade75 wrote: »autumnblade75 wrote: »PineAndSalt wrote: »I think implementing laws that limit the size of sodas sold at restaurants and fast food places would be beneficial. No one needs a 44oz full sugar soda from the gas station.
Also controlled portion sizes/limits. You go out to eat and you get two meals for the price of one at a lot of places. Instead of offering large portions directly on your plate, restaurants could offer a free take-away box with every purchase, encouraging you to eat it at a later time. Very few people need a 16-20oz steak, or a half-pound burger. Those are way over the recommended daily serving for any gender and most activity levels.
Just because "nobody needs" it doesn't follow that "there oughta be a law." Laws are enforced by men with guns - the police. If you wouldn't send a man with a gun to put someone in a cage in order to enforce the idea you're advocating, then it shouldn't be a law.
Huh? There are bunches of laws we don't routinely send guys with guns out to enforce (laws regulating advertising, food labeling, financial reporting, just to name a few).
I agree with you that laws about soda size are overreach, though.
I'm not sure why we're not enforcing those things that were important enough to make laws about. That's the other side of that coin, though. I do believe that if it was important enough to legislate, then enforcement should definitely be carried out. Otherwise, what's the point?
Tons of laws are enforced by fines. For example, I need a new city parking sticker before the end of the month. If I don't get one (therefore violating the law) I will be fined something like $50 for a first offense. Do you really think I should be arrested?
Men with guns are rarely the first step. If you pay the fine, there's no need for an arrest. If you can't or won't pay the fine, though - do you not believe that the men with guns will be along, eventually?
I believe that if a corporation mislabels a can of beans with respect to nutrition labeling laws, they will face some penalty. If they fail to respond to phone calls and harshly worded letters, I think it's extremely unlikely that someone with a gun will ever show up. With a lot of labeling and financial reporting laws, even in a lot of pretty extreme cases, I suspect who will show up is a bunch of auditors, accountants, and lawyers, and that suit-coated horde will proceed to subject the corporation to something that feels like being pecked to death by an army of ducks.
Can I imagine a case of that nature where people with guns show up? Sure. But that's not how enforcement generally works in those cases.
There are kinds of laws where it isn't even relevant. Guys with guns are mostly reserved for criminal issues. If a public university fails to comply with certain federal laws, the feds will stop giving that university's students financial aid, stop funding that university's researchers grants, and that sort of thing. No guys with guns are directly involved.
If large sodas are made illegal (a silly, nanny-esque idea, and a waste of the government's time and my tax money, IMO), and someone sells giant sodas, I think the result will be lawsuits, fines, and possibly the eventual revocation of things needful to do business (licenses, etc.).
Ok. I concede that is the more likely scenario, most of the time. I think I actually find it more distressing to think that swarms of lawyers and bureaucrats will waste time and resources stamping out the evils of one too many ounces of sugar syrup in a cup being transferred between two consenting adults for money. And before they can waste time on the enforcement, they would have to waste even more time and resources and sponsor studies to determine just how many ounces is too many, just so that the convenience store ends up selling two 20 oz. bottles of Coke to an individual (for a greater profit) instead of a single 40 oz. fountain drink.
But who wanted to tell me that I hated poor people because I would require the bottle deposit to be paid in cash in order to curb SNAP abuse?
2 -
autumnblade75 wrote: »autumnblade75 wrote: »autumnblade75 wrote: »PineAndSalt wrote: »I think implementing laws that limit the size of sodas sold at restaurants and fast food places would be beneficial. No one needs a 44oz full sugar soda from the gas station.
Also controlled portion sizes/limits. You go out to eat and you get two meals for the price of one at a lot of places. Instead of offering large portions directly on your plate, restaurants could offer a free take-away box with every purchase, encouraging you to eat it at a later time. Very few people need a 16-20oz steak, or a half-pound burger. Those are way over the recommended daily serving for any gender and most activity levels.
Just because "nobody needs" it doesn't follow that "there oughta be a law." Laws are enforced by men with guns - the police. If you wouldn't send a man with a gun to put someone in a cage in order to enforce the idea you're advocating, then it shouldn't be a law.
Huh? There are bunches of laws we don't routinely send guys with guns out to enforce (laws regulating advertising, food labeling, financial reporting, just to name a few).
I agree with you that laws about soda size are overreach, though.
I'm not sure why we're not enforcing those things that were important enough to make laws about. That's the other side of that coin, though. I do believe that if it was important enough to legislate, then enforcement should definitely be carried out. Otherwise, what's the point?
Tons of laws are enforced by fines. For example, I need a new city parking sticker before the end of the month. If I don't get one (therefore violating the law) I will be fined something like $50 for a first offense. Do you really think I should be arrested?
Men with guns are rarely the first step. If you pay the fine, there's no need for an arrest. If you can't or won't pay the fine, though - do you not believe that the men with guns will be along, eventually?
Men with guns (um, police officers) are often the first step for a variety of violations.
Re the fine/ticket issue I mentioned, probably not, so long as there's some other way to enforce the fine, which there is. More likely the fine increases and my car may eventually get towed.
Laws re soda (which I'm not in favor of) would be fining a business that ignores them (businesses get fined commonly for violations of the law, rarely is anyone arrested). I agree with theoldguy that focusing on size is pointless (fine, I'll buy two) and taxes are a better remedy if someone wants to try focusing on a soda-based approach (super politically unpopular, however, so don't hold your breath anyone!).0 -
autumnblade75 wrote: »autumnblade75 wrote: »autumnblade75 wrote: »PineAndSalt wrote: »I think implementing laws that limit the size of sodas sold at restaurants and fast food places would be beneficial. No one needs a 44oz full sugar soda from the gas station.
Also controlled portion sizes/limits. You go out to eat and you get two meals for the price of one at a lot of places. Instead of offering large portions directly on your plate, restaurants could offer a free take-away box with every purchase, encouraging you to eat it at a later time. Very few people need a 16-20oz steak, or a half-pound burger. Those are way over the recommended daily serving for any gender and most activity levels.
Just because "nobody needs" it doesn't follow that "there oughta be a law." Laws are enforced by men with guns - the police. If you wouldn't send a man with a gun to put someone in a cage in order to enforce the idea you're advocating, then it shouldn't be a law.
Huh? There are bunches of laws we don't routinely send guys with guns out to enforce (laws regulating advertising, food labeling, financial reporting, just to name a few).
I agree with you that laws about soda size are overreach, though.
I'm not sure why we're not enforcing those things that were important enough to make laws about. That's the other side of that coin, though. I do believe that if it was important enough to legislate, then enforcement should definitely be carried out. Otherwise, what's the point?
Tons of laws are enforced by fines. For example, I need a new city parking sticker before the end of the month. If I don't get one (therefore violating the law) I will be fined something like $50 for a first offense. Do you really think I should be arrested?
Men with guns are rarely the first step. If you pay the fine, there's no need for an arrest. If you can't or won't pay the fine, though - do you not believe that the men with guns will be along, eventually?
I believe that if a corporation mislabels a can of beans with respect to nutrition labeling laws, they will face some penalty. If they fail to respond to phone calls and harshly worded letters, I think it's extremely unlikely that someone with a gun will ever show up. With a lot of labeling and financial reporting laws, even in a lot of pretty extreme cases, I suspect who will show up is a bunch of auditors, accountants, and lawyers, and that suit-coated horde will proceed to subject the corporation to something that feels like being pecked to death by an army of ducks.
Funny (to me) story -- at a former job I represented a local pharmaceutical company that also made a brand of consumer products where they were really focused on defending their trademarks and trade dress. We had gotten a preliminary injunction in the SD of Florida (i.e., Miami), against a company infringing on their trade dress, and the other company ignored it and violated it. When my client (in-house counsel) found out, she was livid and wanted me to get the federal prosecutor in Miami to file criminal charges. I basically laughed at her, as he would have done. We did get nice monetary sanctions.1 -
autumnblade75 wrote: »autumnblade75 wrote: »autumnblade75 wrote: »PineAndSalt wrote: »I think implementing laws that limit the size of sodas sold at restaurants and fast food places would be beneficial. No one needs a 44oz full sugar soda from the gas station.
Also controlled portion sizes/limits. You go out to eat and you get two meals for the price of one at a lot of places. Instead of offering large portions directly on your plate, restaurants could offer a free take-away box with every purchase, encouraging you to eat it at a later time. Very few people need a 16-20oz steak, or a half-pound burger. Those are way over the recommended daily serving for any gender and most activity levels.
Just because "nobody needs" it doesn't follow that "there oughta be a law." Laws are enforced by men with guns - the police. If you wouldn't send a man with a gun to put someone in a cage in order to enforce the idea you're advocating, then it shouldn't be a law.
Huh? There are bunches of laws we don't routinely send guys with guns out to enforce (laws regulating advertising, food labeling, financial reporting, just to name a few).
I agree with you that laws about soda size are overreach, though.
I'm not sure why we're not enforcing those things that were important enough to make laws about. That's the other side of that coin, though. I do believe that if it was important enough to legislate, then enforcement should definitely be carried out. Otherwise, what's the point?
Tons of laws are enforced by fines. For example, I need a new city parking sticker before the end of the month. If I don't get one (therefore violating the law) I will be fined something like $50 for a first offense. Do you really think I should be arrested?
Men with guns are rarely the first step. If you pay the fine, there's no need for an arrest. If you can't or won't pay the fine, though - do you not believe that the men with guns will be along, eventually?
I believe that if a corporation mislabels a can of beans with respect to nutrition labeling laws, they will face some penalty. If they fail to respond to phone calls and harshly worded letters, I think it's extremely unlikely that someone with a gun will ever show up. With a lot of labeling and financial reporting laws, even in a lot of pretty extreme cases, I suspect who will show up is a bunch of auditors, accountants, and lawyers, and that suit-coated horde will proceed to subject the corporation to something that feels like being pecked to death by an army of ducks.
Funny (to me) story -- at a former job I represented a local pharmaceutical company that also made a brand of consumer products where they were really focused on defending their trademarks and trade dress. We had gotten a preliminary injunction in the SD of Florida (i.e., Miami), against a company infringing on their trade dress, and the other company ignored it and violated it. When my client (in-house counsel) found out, she was livid and wanted me to get the federal prosecutor in Miami to file criminal charges. I basically laughed at her, as he would have done. We did get nice monetary sanctions.
I thought you were an attorney; I appreciate your informed & applied perspective.
I have experience with some higher ed legal-conflict scenarios, otherwise I'm just a normal, barely/slightly informed citizen talking bullDoody. 2 -
This is a pie-in-the-sky, not-at-all-realistic wish, but, basing the cost of food on the number of calories would be great. The more the calories, the higher the price. I'd be healthy AND rich! lol.
Note: This is NOT real suggestion... for so many obvious reasons.1 -
PineAndSalt wrote: »
This is true. Most developed countries have implemented a sugary drink tax, but in conjunction some have also required the amount of sugar in those products to be reduced by a certain percentage. France also implemented a law that refills on sugary drinks are no longer allowed.Theoldguy1 wrote: »Too many loopholes around limiting size. If you want to discourage consumption, just tax it like alcohol.
I hope that the US would eventually follow the example.
Laws regulating how much of an ingredient can be used in food/beverages?
Hard pass.
What I eat and what I drink is none of the government's business.7 -
cmriverside wrote: »I think we have enough laws already.
People just need to take some personal responsibility. Anyone who's made it past fourth grade should be able to figure this out.
Eat less. Take a walk. Ta Da.
Too many laws actually.4 -
cmriverside wrote: »I think we have enough laws already.
People just need to take some personal responsibility. Anyone who's made it past fourth grade should be able to figure this out.
Eat less. Take a walk. Ta Da.
I agree. Im tired of so many people needing to have their hand held whenever they do anything nowadays. There are dozens of calorie counting and food tracking apps available now. Such as the very one we are on now ! If people cant take five lousy minutes at each meal to log and track their food then they are probably too lazy to have success with most any endeavor. Many in modern society seem to want everything done for them. Its really tragic7 -
I would say adding a health coach to each doctors office and covering health coaching with insurance so people can have the accountability, support and information they need to complete all of the suggestions they are given.7
-
As kind of a corollary to this topic, how do people feel about farm subsidies and the Farm Bill in the US? What would change if these did not exist?0
-
I don't think we necessarily need more laws. I do love the calorie disclosure though. I just think society as a whole needs to adopt a better attitude regarding health and food. If you look at other countries with a lower obesity rate their portions are smaller and people bike and walk more as opposed to driving,2
-
Stop subsidizing the sugar, corn and wheat industries. Let food cost what it actually cost so that a salad doesn't cost 10X as much as wonder bread. If isn't real and it forces people to make unnatural decisions2
-
Regulate the labels of alcohol bottles to Express the health effects like they do with cigarettes and calories at fast food places.1
-
Stop subsidizing the sugar, corn and wheat industries. Let food cost what it actually cost so that a salad doesn't cost 10X as much as wonder bread. If isn't real and it forces people to make unnatural decisions
The subsidies aren't anywhere near that level of out of alignment that I've ever seen. Grains are easy to grow even without subsidies.1 -
I find it interesting the number of times in this thread people have expressed an interest that more place be required to label calories and that calorie accuracy should be higher. I think it is easy to see how it would help someone using MFP or any other calorie tracker, but I think it overestimates how much anyone makes calorie based food decisions.
I recall (and I should probably look up) a study that showed calorie counts don't seem to impact food decisions at restaurants. The suggestion was that the numbers are just to abstract. Instead, they found there was a difference in behavior when menus were required to color code foods - low calories had green for go, while high calorie options were in red, and in between had yellow - there was a much greater change in food behaviors. I wonder how much it would work in the long run, or if it people would slowly build up blinders.8 -
I tried to post a picture of canadian cigarette packages for reference but I don't seem to be able to.
To be clear I think ALL the health problems with direct links should be included and that advertising, in giving packaging, and enticing children should be actively banned.
0 -
Great topic. I would like to see more nutrition education for school aged children to teach them good eating habits and about macronutrients. Eliminate fried foods at schools (like fries, corn dogs, etc) and only serve non processed fresh food. Require schools to teach basic gardening and cooking. Free lunches in all schools regardless of income. Provide additional food (in form of food pantry) to families that may need it to ensure students have proper nutrition. A program to eliminate food waste, support composting & encourage eating vegetables/fruits that are not "perfect". One can dream right?!
6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396.5K Introduce Yourself
- 44.2K Getting Started
- 260.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 449 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
- 3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions