Jun 28, 2012 -- 1:06PM, Nepenthe wrote:

I suppose you can look at it as a punishment, but I look at it as paying for your lifestyle.  Should car insurance be covered by having each person pay the same amount, regardless of driving record and DWI arrests?  If your adult lifestyle leads ot more medical conditions, you should pay more.  Or have higher co-pays, if we have single payer, since that is what you have chosen.

I don't think human physiology falls in the same category as other things people choose or choose not to buy, such as car insurance.  Genetics and physiology play a part in people's development of obesity.   More than that, however, nobody has ever chosen to have 28 ounce drinks labelled as "small" and 42 ounce drinks labelled as "large", or even free "bottomless" refills.  Those things were bascially dumped on them in a classic example of manipulative, or predatory capitialism.  The marketing professionals already know that when people are eating out, they typically eat and drink what's put in front of them...hence, the supersized portions of food and drink that is contributing in a big way to the obesity epidemic in America.   Plus, the concern isn't so much for adults, although a disabled parent contributes to the costs to society, but the concern is for kids and young adults who don't have the cognitive development to overcome manipulative sales practices and who don't have parental guidance when they eat out everyday, looking for "deals".

Jun 28, 2012 -- 1:06PM, Nepenthe wrote:

So, I hadn't considered this, but I actually accept this argument.  If this was shown, it would be an infringement upon the rights of other people, in the same way that farm run off polluting a bay (like the Chesapeake Bay) should be curtailed because of the effect on other people's lives. 

Well, as a consumerist society, we are also a throw-away society, so dumping out what one just paid for seems a normal thing to do.  But even it carries consequences.  

There's already prozac and synthetic estrogen in our water.  And antibiotics

Why should I have to pay more for a coke in some restaurant than I would in the supermarket, when all I want is a third of what they're giving me?   The answer is: because the seller made that decision for me, regardless of what I want, how much it costs, or what the consequences may be.  To use the same reasoning as "the obese with medical problems should pay more", Those who want more supesugary drink should pay more instead of making all of us take more than we want.  Does 28 ounces REALLY qualify as a "small"?

Jun 28, 2012 -- 1:54PM, Ebon wrote:

Jun 26, 2012 -- 1:13PM, rabello wrote:

Naturally, Michelle Obama (as one example) is being pilloried by conservatives for her anti-obesity programs, so that tells us something. 

That the right despises the Obamas beyond reason?

Yep.

Jun 28, 2012 -- 1:54PM, Ebon wrote:

Jun 26, 2012 -- 1:13PM, rabello wrote:

Exactly...and I still would like to know what such a campaign, over and above what we already have in place, would look like and how it would work! 

I've been having a think about this. Way back when HIV/AIDS started to become an issue, we had a massive public awareness campaign here. We had commercials running in every commercial break, no matter what time of day (although the content was adjusted for the timeslot). Every single household in the country was sent a pamphlet that explained what HIV/AIDS was, who was at the most risk and what you could do to protect yourself. Rubbers became available free of charge (basic rubbers, you pay for the fancy ones) from your doctor. Our government is currently doing a slightly lesser version of that for smoking. You can get free stop smoking advice, free nicotine patches and gum and Lord knows what else (I keep smoking just because I enjoy it, I'd smoke evn if it wasn't addictive).

Now, I'm thinking that we could take that model and apply it to food and drink. Send out a booklet to every household in the country, laying out what the RDAs are for everything, what common foods contain, maybe some balanced meal ideas and so on. The problem isn't what people are eating/drinking, it's how much. It's fine to have a burger and fries once in a while, it's people eating them every day that's a problem. On top of that, you run a buttload of commercials. Here, one of teh most effective anti-smoking ads shows cigarettes oozing fat, which represents the fat that furrs your arterys if you smoke. Another ad, against drunk-driving, shows a bunch of lads drinking and then suddenly, everything gets thrown three feet forward and everyone gets simulated car-crash injuries. Does it stop everyone drink-driving? Of course not but it is a bloody effective ad. I'm not a huge fan of shock advertising but in certain circumstances, it works. So lets show people exactly the toll eating too much crap takes on them. Get cameras and film the consequences of too much fat, salt, sugar, etc. Then show that in every commercial break. Yes, it costs a lot but arguably less than treating people for obesity related problems. Try not to demonise obese people, that doesn't help anyone, but try helping them get better.

While you're doing that, you have to make help available for people who want to lose weight or eat more healthily. The web is a boon in this regard. Every one of those commercials, you put a website address and you load that site with simple, easy to follow advice, recipes and meal plans. Along with that, you have to have proper food labelling. Here, every item in every restaurent or supermarket has a little chart next to it telling you how much fat, sugar, salt it has and what percentage of your RDA that is. Go to the McDonalds UK website and you'll find the same information. Yes, the food lobby will bitch about it but it should be easy to frame the debate as them trying to keep customers in the dark while the government is just trying to give consumers more information.

And yes, having Michelle Obama out there probably helps. I'm sure she's a role model for some young girls. While you're at it, petition some celebrity chefs (hell, bribe them if you have to), get them to start putting out healthy recipes and meal ideas, stick them up on that website. Gordon Ramsay makes a point of putting low-calorie options on all his menus (I know this because his cookery shows are a guilty pleasure of mine), I'm sure he could be convinced to share some of those recipes, either on the site or in the booklet. Make a big point that healthy food doesn't have to be just veggies and doesn't have to be boring. Here, the NHS website has stacks of information about eating properly.

Anyway, that's where to start.

Thank you for such a compelling and well-thought out answer, Ebon.  I can't disagree.  Now, if we could just get the Trickle Down advocates, conservatives and the conservative lobbies to agree on spending public monies in this way (will never happen over here, at the present time, anyway -- they don't want to fund medicaid for the poor, food stamps, welfare programs, unemployment benefits, the EPA, the Dept of Education, etc! much less an anti oversized portions of food/drink educational campaign, and they would not allow making the businesses pay for such an educational campaign, either). 

Jun 28, 2012 -- 2:09PM, Girlchristian wrote:

Jun 28, 2012 -- 1:54PM, Ebon wrote:

Jun 26, 2012 -- 1:13PM, rabello wrote:

Naturally, Michelle Obama (as one example) is being pilloried by conservatives for her anti-obesity programs, so that tells us something. 

That the right despises the Obamas beyond reason?

Exactly...and I still would like to know what such a campaign, over and above what we already have in place, would look like and how it would work! 

I've been having a think about this. Way back when HIV/AIDS started to become an issue, we had a massive public awareness campaign here. We had commercials running in every commercial break, no matter what time of day (although the content was adjusted for the timeslot). Every single household in the country was sent a pamphlet that explained what HIV/AIDS was, who was at the most risk and what you could do to protect yourself. Rubbers became available free of charge (basic rubbers, you pay for the fancy ones) from your doctor. Our government is currently doing a slightly lesser version of that for smoking. You can get free stop smoking advice, free nicotine patches and gum and Lord knows what else (I keep smoking just because I enjoy it, I'd smoke evn if it wasn't addictive).

Now, I'm thinking that we could take that model and apply it to food and drink. Send out a booklet to every household in the country, laying out what the RDAs are for everything, what common foods contain, maybe some balanced meal ideas and so on. The problem isn't what people are eating/drinking, it's how much. It's fine to have a burger and fries once in a while, it's people eating them every day that's a problem. On top of that, you run a buttload of commercials. Here, one of teh most effective anti-smoking ads shows cigarettes oozing fat, which represents the fat that furrs your arterys if you smoke. Another ad, against drunk-driving, shows a bunch of lads drinking and then suddenly, everything gets thrown three feet forward and everyone gets simulated car-crash injuries. Does it stop everyone drink-driving? Of course not but it is a bloody effective ad. I'm not a huge fan of shock advertising but in certain circumstances, it works. So lets show people exactly the toll eating too much crap takes on them. Get cameras and film the consequences of too much fat, salt, sugar, etc. Then show that in every commercial break. Yes, it costs a lot but arguably less than treating people for obesity related problems. Try not to demonise obese people, that doesn't help anyone, but try helping them get better.

While you're doing that, you have to make help available for people who want to lose weight or eat more healthily. The web is a boon in this regard. Every one of those commercials, you put a website address and you load that site with simple, easy to follow advice, recipes and meal plans. Along with that, you have to have proper food labelling. Here, every item in every restaurent or supermarket has a little chart next to it telling you how much fat, sugar, salt it has and what percentage of your RDA that is. Go to the McDonalds UK website and you'll find the same information. Yes, the food lobby will bitch about it but it should be easy to frame the debate as them trying to keep customers in the dark while the government is just trying to give consumers more information.

And yes, having Michelle Obama out there probably helps. I'm sure she's a role model for some young girls. While you're at it, petition some celebrity chefs (hell, bribe them if you have to), get them to start putting out healthy recipes and meal ideas, stick them up on that website. Gordon Ramsay makes a point of putting low-calorie options on all his menus (I know this because his cookery shows are a guilty pleasure of mine), I'm sure he could be convinced to share some of those recipes, either on the site or in the booklet. Make a big point that healthy food doesn't have to be just veggies and doesn't have to be boring. Here, the NHS website has stacks of information about eating properly.

Anyway, that's where to start.

I agree with this. Right now we have some pretty good anti-smoking commercials being aired constantly and even though I don't smoke, they make me stop and listen. In my state, we have increased our anti-smoking campaign through our Tobacco Prevention and Cessation agency that includes radio ads, billboards, and community education meetings. The agency supplies all providers with nicotine patches and other cessation methods to give to patients that want to quit smoking at no cost.

We could easily do the same with food and drink. Part of the problem with food and drink is that you can't patronize people or treat them like they're just gullible pawns being manipulated into eating or drinking something that is bad for them by the evil companies that make the product. You have to recognize that they make choices (just as smokers do) and help them make better choices by giving them all the information without all the hyperbole. For instance, the blanket statement that is frequently used here "sugar is bad for you" should be "eating too much processed sugar can cause X,Y, and Z...here are some products that have sugar in them that you could cut out of your diet."

I agree that education is really the ONLY way, nothing else baring very extreme measures that are unthinkable will work. 

Jun 28, 2012 -- 12:04PM, Ebon wrote:

Jun 28, 2012 -- 11:19AM, mytmouse57 wrote:

And I think the legalization/putting a consumption tax on prostitution and many recreational drugs might be a good idea too. 

Agreed but for different reasons. Bringing prostitution and (some) recreational drugs out of the shadows and into legality means they can be regulated. Prostitution can be policed for abuse, disease and so on. If, say, pot was legal, then you'd know that your bag of weed was just weed. If you made Ecstacy legal, you'd know it wasn't cut with drain cleaner, reducing fatalities. And we can pour the money from taxing them into treatment programs.

Recreational drug use needs to be viewed as a matter of personal choice. Therefore, I agree, legalize and regulate it -- for such things as quality control, and to penalize such practices as trying to sell it to minors, or driving or operating heavy machinery while tripping out on whatever. 

Drug abuse/addiction should be approached as a matter of public health, not a punative criminal justice issue. And again, I agree, public funds, raised from some of the taxes on drugs, could go toward treatment.

Other tax revenue could go toward infrastructure, schools, etc. 

Prostitution is simply a matter of perhaps the oldest example of supply and demand. Not to be sexist, but let's face it, the lion's share of prostitution has been men purchasing the services of women. 

The male tendancy toward constant horniness creates the demand. Some women's willingness to accept money in order to accomodate that horniness creates the supply. And thus, entrepreneurship was born. 

Making it legal would not only make it safer -- for both the clients and the providers -- it would also provide another veritable gold mine of tax revenue. 

Jun 29, 2012 -- 12:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Prostitution is simply a matter of perhaps the oldest example of supply and demand.

Or the oldest example of subjugation and slavery

Jun 29, 2012 -- 12:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Not to be sexist, but let's face it, the lion's share of prostitution has been men purchasing the services of women. 

Or getting it any way they can

Jun 29, 2012 -- 12:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

The male tendancy toward constant horniness creates the demand.

Baloney.  Men might always be horny; that would indicate some men -- those who are ""johns" can't control themselves, particularly if they are lying to their wives, children and mistresses.

Jun 29, 2012 -- 12:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Some women's willingness to accept money in order to accomodate that horniness creates the supply.

You actually believe that?   You never heard of a pimp?  You never heard of the sex trade?  You never heard of the prospects for women who lacked the credentials to be nurses, teachers, or nannies back when women couldn't get jobs? 

Wow.

Jun 29, 2012 -- 12:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

And thus, entrepreneurship was born. 

Yeah, right.  Would you say the same thing about indetured servitude, or the selling of slaves on the auction block?