• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Need for Regulation: Fighting the Obesity Epidemic

What do you think we should do about the Obesity Epidemic?


  • Total voters
    68
Well why can't I play along with everyone else? Y'all seem to like doing the same, so I figure it's fair game for me to join in as well. What is this Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer **** going on here? I can't play in your reindeer games cause I'm different? No presents for you!
Ah, I see. You believe that "humiliation" and "exercise" are equally valid solutions to health problems. Unfortunately, humiliation isn't a solution while exercise is. So again, you're just doing what libertarians do: advocating solutions that have no benefit for society. It's such a shame that the biggest problem libertarians face is just so easy to solve with a little critical thinking.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps too much government involvement is what got us here in the first place. The high price of sugar because of tariffs and cheap corn because of subsidies has lead to the increased consumption of HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) which has been shown to be extremely unhealthy. Now, I am not blaming the government for people choosing to eat items with HFCS, but when it is in the majority of food and drink and using real sugar is more expensive, sounds like a recipe for disaster.

The decline and fall of high-fructose corn syrup. - Slate Magazine
I think, like all things, it's the type of government involvement that matters. Just because the government makes harmful decisions doesn't mean it can't make positive ones. Subsidizing corn to the degree it is now is harmful for the problem at hand. However, requiring that schools have 30 minutes of PE per day would be positive.

Government involvement isn't an absolute good or an absolute bad. It's effect is relative to the type of solution it offers.
 
Ah, I see. You believe that "humiliation" and "exercise" are equally valid solutions to health problems. Unfortunately, humiliation isn't a solution while exercise is. So again, you're just doing what libertarians do: advocating solutions that have no benefit for society. It's such a shame that the biggest problems libertarians face is just so easy to solve with a little critical thinking.

I said nothing of the sort. I can't make anyone exercise though, their choice. Choices have consequences and one such consequence is being mocked for certain grotesqueries.

I like your last sentence though because it is so humorously off the mark. Instead of claiming I need a little critical thinking, perchance you need a little critical reading. Then perhaps you won't look like the fool when you open your mouth.
 
What the hell is this country coming to when people believe that they have a right to make people or force people through taxation or some other means to act a certain way on EVERYTHING? We have so many people complaining about government over reach...until it comes to a particular subject that they think they have a right to interfere with.

Should we just do away with the pretense of Rights? Because that is what everyone is actually trying to do.
 
I said nothing of the sort. I can't make anyone exercise though, their choice.
Well, you tried to compare your solution to the other solutions being offered here. I was just letting you know that the comparison doesn't exist.

Choices have consequences and one such consequence is being mocked for certain grotesqueries.
Oh, but I never argued that choices, in this case obesity, don't have consequences. I argued that your solution of humiliation was a stupid idea since it does not solve the problem.

I like your last sentence though because it is so humorously off the mark. Instead of claiming I need a little critical thinking, perchance you need a little critical reading. Then perhaps you won't look like the fool when you open your mouth.
Ah, but that's the thing. The solutions I advocated in this thread are supported by research, so I have done my reading. However, the solution you advocated is not supported by anything but your own whims and since this is a debate forum, arguments supported by evidence are the least foolish thing of all. :)
 
Well, you tried to compare your solution to the other solutions being offered here. I was just letting you know that the comparison doesn't exist.

I wasn't comparing anything. I just said that we can mock them.

Oh, but I never argued that choices, in this case obesity, don't have consequences. I argued that your solution of humiliation was a stupid idea since it does not solve the problem.

I never laid claim to it being a solution. A little more of the ol' reading comprehension, yes?

Ah, but that's the thing. The solutions I advocated in this thread are supported by research, so I have done my reading. However, the solution you advocated is not supported by anything but your own whims and since this is a debate forum, arguments supported by evidence are the least foolish thing of all. :)

Again, humorously off the mark. Try reading.
 
Some. Not enough to see significant difference. Just more people unable to pay for care.

If everyone were responsible for their own health care costs, they would be cognizant of their health status. They wouldln't seek medical care unnecessarily, they would price compare for drugs and physician office visits, and they would go to the ER for actual emergencies, rather than clinic issues, which is very common nowadays. The effect would bring costs down.
 
I wasn't comparing anything. I just said that we can mock them.
Yeah...

I never laid claim to it being a solution. A little more of the ol' reading comprehension, yes?
Sure you did. You said it might make them go on a diet. You did, however, admit that it was just for amusement after that was pointed out to you.

Again, humorously off the mark. Try reading.
Today must be opposite day.

American Public Health Association - The effect of state cigarette tax increases on cigarette sales, 1955 to 1988. (which is basis for my tax suggestion)
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/physicalactivity/pdf/roleofschools_obesity.pdf
Even a Little Exercise Fights Obesity

I made my claims, provided my evidence and wasted some time with a libertarian (is there really any other way to spend time with a libertarian?), so I think I'm done here. The back and forth was fun, but it's getting a little sad.
 
If everyone were responsible for their own health care costs, they would be cognizant of their health status. They wouldln't seek medical care unnecessarily, they would price compare for drugs and physician office visits, and they would go to the ER for actual emergencies, rather than clinic issues, which is very common nowadays. The effect would bring costs down.

That and if insurance companies charged market prices. The entire system has been colluded into some big mess that likely ends in a scam. People do use the ER a lot, but mostly because many cannot afford regular healthcare. If we had some base form of nationalized health care that was intelligently designed, people can go to the regular doctor for appropriate things and we could stop some medical conditions from reaching critical state wherein emergency care may be required; thus lowering the overall cost of healthcare. Not to say we should necessarily go that route; but to demonstrate that there are multiple ways in which we can achieve lower aggregate healthcare costs.
 
I think, like all things, it's the type of government involvement that matters. Just because the government makes harmful decisions doesn't mean it can't make positive ones. Subsidizing corn to the degree it is now is harmful for the problem at hand. However, requiring that schools have 30 minutes of PE per day would be positive.

Government involvement isn't an absolute good or an absolute bad. It's effect is relative to the type of solution it offers.

It only needs to be involved when necessary. This isn't one of those times. Mandatory PE isn't always a good thing. The government should not care whether you are skinny, fat, or obese. If you have more health problems due to your obesity, than expect to have higher health care insurance.

I am not saying the government should never be involved, but it is when the government engages in solutions that are necessary that lays the burden on the taxpayer, that is when I have a problem.
 
Sure you did. You said it might make them go on a diet. You did, however, admit that it was just for amusement after that was pointed out to you.

Not only did I say "perchance", I also later said it was a facetious statement. You know what facetious means don't you? Well if not, you obviously have the internet and can look it up.

Today must be opposite day.

American Public Health Association - The effect of state cigarette tax increases on cigarette sales, 1955 to 1988. (which is basis for my tax suggestion)
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/physicalactivity/pdf/roleofschools_obesity.pdf
Even a Little Exercise Fights Obesity

I made my claims, provided my evidence and wasted some time with a libertarian (is there really any other way to spend time with a libertarian?), so I think I'm done here. The back and forth was fun, but it's getting a little sad.

Again, humorously off the mark.
 
It only needs to be involved when necessary. This isn't one of those times.
I disagree and that's really just a matter of opinion.

Mandatory PE isn't always a good thing.
When is it not?

The government should not care whether you are skinny, fat, or obese. If you have more health problems due to your obesity, than expect to have higher health care insurance.
That's a common opinion, but my opinion is that the government should care when people's health habits start to cost the rest of society. This is one of those times.

I am not saying the government should never be involved, but it is when the government engages in solutions that are necessary that lays the burden on the taxpayer, that is when I have a problem.
Yeah, but obese people are going to cost you no matter what. So you either pay to solve it or you pay to sustain it. From where I'm looking, you're doing the latter.
 
Not only did I say "perchance", I also later said it was a facetious statement. You know what facetious means don't you? Well if not, you obviously have the internet and can look it up.

Again, humorously off the mark.
Well if you don't respond to research/evidence, then there isn't anything else to say.
 
That and if insurance companies charged market prices. The entire system has been colluded into some big mess that likely ends in a scam. People do use the ER a lot, but mostly because many cannot afford regular healthcare. If we had some base form of nationalized health care that was intelligently designed, people can go to the regular doctor for appropriate things and we could stop some medical conditions from reaching critical state wherein emergency care may be required; thus lowering the overall cost of healthcare. Not to say we should necessarily go that route; but to demonstrate that there are multiple ways in which we can achieve lower aggregate healthcare costs.

There are several ways, but letting a free market determine prices would be the most cost-effective. If insurance was used only for true emergencies and catastrophic care (unexpected illnesses requiring hospitalization and related expenses), and people paid for their own drugs and office visits/routine care, competition would be in effect in choosing routine products and services. Insurance companies pay for entirely too much, thus have much control of the health care industry.

What it really boils down to is this: what people pay for, they are more likely to value and care for. As an example, look at essentially any government "project" neighborhood, and you will see the results of people not valuing what they have, because they did nothing to earn it. Ownership and investment in something results in positive actions regarding it.
 
Last edited:
Well if you don't respond to research/evidence, then there isn't anything else to say.

Hahah, normally yes. Here I was being facetious. There's not much we can do. Do we strip the choice of how one eats? Do we force them to exercise? While it would be good for then, for all of us, I don't see that as legitimate force of government. We can do educational campaigns, but who doesn't know that a balanced diet and exercise will lead to longevity and a lower probability of health problems? The information is out there. As such, we're just going to pay for it. We can argue method through which we do so; whether it be some stripped down insurance model or nationalized health care or to hold the road steady at paying more for and having less access to healthcare than other industrialized countries or something in between. But fat people being fat, what are you going to do? Protect themselves from themselves for their own good? Sanitized for our Protection?

Education and proper healthcare reform would likely go much further than anything else to combat the problem. But in the end, everyone needs to be free to make their own choices. And if they choose to be fat, well so be it. I may, just may, choose to be a pretentious jerk and make fun of them. Not to solve any problems, but if the individual ain't gonna take steps to solve their problems, why should I step up to the plate and bat for them? It's a free country.
 
There are several ways, but letting a free market determine prices would be the most cost-effective. If insurance was used only for true emergencies and catastrophic care (unexpected illnesses requiring hospitalization and related expenses), and people paid for their own drugs and office visits/routine care, competition would be in effect in choosing routine products and services. Insurance companies pay for entirely too much, thus have much control of the health care industry.

It could be, but you'd need proper regulation and control in order to get the system there.
 
If everyone were responsible for their own health care costs, they would be cognizant of their health status. They wouldln't seek medical care unnecessarily, they would price compare for drugs and physician office visits, and they would go to the ER for actual emergencies, rather than clinic issues, which is very common nowadays. The effect would bring costs down.
That is what liberal minded people tend not to understand. People would respect the health care system as well as their own bodies if they were made to be more personally responsible. Health care costs and insurance premiums would come down as the system would be more in line with actual supply and demand.

Because of my work with the developmentally disabled, I have made numerous trips with them to doctor appointments and to the ER. I cannot tell you how many people I see especially in Emergency rooms who have no business being there. If people were made to be more personally responsible our health care system would run much more efficient in terms of both service and cost. As much as the insurance industry has corrupted the process, so to have people been abusive due to what I believe is the fact that they feel they pay so much and are entltled to such service when not necessary.

Beyond this, if people were to suffer the consequences of their own actions and decisions, they would correct their behavior quicker, and make better decisions. It would also allow for health care to be better provided for those who are in need of it more, and make urgent care facilities and Emergency rooms get to its patients more effectively.
 
Hahah, normally yes. Here I was being facetious. There's not much we can do. Do we strip the choice of how one eats? Do we force them to exercise? While it would be good for then, for all of us, I don't see that as legitimate force of government. We can do educational campaigns, but who doesn't know that a balanced diet and exercise will lead to longevity and a lower probability of health problems? The information is out there. As such, we're just going to pay for it. We can argue method through which we do so; whether it be some stripped down insurance model or nationalized health care or to hold the road steady at paying more for and having less access to healthcare than other industrialized countries or something in between. But fat people being fat, what are you going to do? Protect themselves from themselves for their own good? Sanitized for our Protection?
Oh, an actual answer.

Forcing adults to exercise, starting education campaigns and all that isn't something I advocate. However, I do advocate health education programs in school including PE and other "hands on" activities. Exercise and general health programs in school have evidence-backed success rates. I also loosely advocate "sin taxes" which helped decrease smoking rates, particularly among young people. My focus is on kids, not adults, because kids can be more easily taught good habits and they also have financial limitations.

Education and proper healthcare reform would likely go much further than anything else to combat the problem. But in the end, everyone needs to be free to make their own choices. And if they choose to be fat, well so be it. I may, just may, choose to be a pretentious jerk and make fun of them. Not to solve any problems, but if the individual ain't gonna take steps to solve their problems, why should I step up to the plate and bat for them? It's a free country.
Hey, if you want to attack people for something as shallow as appearance just to feel better, I'm not stopping you, but I don't know where you got the idea that not participating in such gross behavior is "stepping up to the plate" for them. Where I'm from, not being so shallow is the default.
 
Hahah, normally yes. Here I was being facetious. There's not much we can do. Do we strip the choice of how one eats? Do we force them to exercise? While it would be good for then, for all of us, I don't see that as legitimate force of government. We can do educational campaigns, but who doesn't know that a balanced diet and exercise will lead to longevity and a lower probability of health problems? The information is out there. As such, we're just going to pay for it. We can argue method through which we do so; whether it be some stripped down insurance model or nationalized health care or to hold the road steady at paying more for and having less access to healthcare than other industrialized countries or something in between. But fat people being fat, what are you going to do? Protect themselves from themselves for their own good? Sanitized for our Protection?

Education and proper healthcare reform would likely go much further than anything else to combat the problem. But in the end, everyone needs to be free to make their own choices. And if they choose to be fat, well so be it. I may, just may, choose to be a pretentious jerk and make fun of them. Not to solve any problems, but if the individual ain't gonna take steps to solve their problems, why should I step up to the plate and bat for them? It's a free country.

We pretty much had that system before insurance. Of course then, most things were treated at home without doctors and modern medicine. And many couldn't afford or get much. Today, no one is going back to trading for fruits and vegatables, so it would mean many simply not having and going without. Hell, we hav working poor doing that today, right now.
 
Hey, if you want to attack people for something as shallow as appearance just to feel better, I'm not stopping you, but I don't know where you got the idea that not participating in such gross behavior is "stepping up to the plate" for them. Where I'm from, not being so shallow is the default.

Oh I'm tickled pink about myself. It has nothing to do with feeling better about myself. I kick ass.
 
We seem to be breaking down, wallowing in our debilitation and lack of willpower. There is a group of people in America that on one hand opines that we Americans should be allowed to slowly kill ourselves through unhealthy food, and on the other hand complain about increasing taxes for the costs of affording the results of said unhealthy living. You should not be able to have it both ways; either support unhealthy living and pay taxes because of it, or don't support unhealthy freedom and don't pay taxes for it.

Supporting healthy living and providing for the health and welfare of its citizens is part of the "police powers" that were never delegated to the federal government. My first reaction to your post is that this issue ought not even be handled at the federal level, but at the level of the individual states. I doubt the propriety, or the ability, of DC to handle personal issues such as this.
 
I agree. That is why we NEED medical care insurance reform, like more OPTIONS allowed, nationally available, individual/family, "portable" policies for a start and more "cash upon treatment" as the NORMAL way of paying for routine medical care costs.

Our insurance costs are high and rising fast because we, the sheeple, asked for that. Do you expect your auto insurance to cover oil changes, worn out tires or brake pads? Do you expect your homeowners insurance to cover changing light bulbs, fixing/replacing your clothes dryer or keeping the lawn maintained? Of course not, you say, those are normal expected expenses! Yet many expect to use their "health" (it should be called medical care) insurance for the simple cleaning, stitching and dressing of a wound, a minor infection and fever or even an annual check-up. That is nonsense, and responsible for massive amounts of paperwork, driving up the costs for all.

Insurance is designed for the rare, unexpected and expensive events ONLY; that is why people rarely use their auto or homeowners policy protections, yet many of these same folks use their medical care insurance all of the time, perhaps multiple times in a month, certainly more than once every year.

A simple "catastrophic" medical care (not "health", that is free) insurance policy, with the highest annual deductable that you can afford, has a very much lower premium and usually a higher annual benefit limit too. Get one (if you can find one) and you will be amazed how much you save.

We are tricked into working for lower wages so that our employer can 'buy us' expensive "all inclusive" nonsense medical care insurance policies as an "employee benefit" that we feel compeled to use as much as possible, after all it is nearly "free", save for a minor co-pay (not much of a disencentive not to go to the doctor for every little thing). We act like morons and then wonder why it is SO expensive.
 
Last edited:
We pretty much had that system before insurance. Of course then, most things were treated at home without doctors and modern medicine. And many couldn't afford or get much. Today, no one is going back to trading for fruits and vegatables, so it would mean many simply not having and going without. Hell, we hav working poor doing that today, right now.

I grew up in a poor family in the 60's, and we could afford medical care when we needed it. We didn't seek it when it wasn't necessary. We paid out of pocket, and it was doable, even for the poor.
 
We pretty much had that system before insurance. Of course then, most things were treated at home without doctors and modern medicine. And many couldn't afford or get much. Today, no one is going back to trading for fruits and vegatables, so it would mean many simply not having and going without. Hell, we hav working poor doing that today, right now.

Bartering isn't so well doable anymore, though I would see no wrong with it if you could work it out. But as medical technology advances, the aggregate cost is of course going to go up. It's part and parcel with having an advanced society. This **** takes money. But if you like all the perks of technology, you gotta pay for the infrastructure to support it. Ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Technology means educated people, more and more people will have to go to college to support it. It means paying for the research that will ultimately yield new tech, and this can no longer be done by private enterprise alone (particularly base research). It means paying for the engineers, it means certain social programs which can benefit us all through multiple phenomenon. There are multiple ways in which you can pay for it. You can use our current method of funding healthcare, the ass backwards way, which leaves you paying the most for and having the least access to healthcare. But IMO that seems rather stupid. However, in the end it must be paid for. If you like that cell phone, then you're gonna have to pay. And that don't just mean paying Verizon a few hundred bucks for a phone. You have to support everything that goes into making it. The science didn't just poof into existence, the tech didn't develop itself. You have to pay for it all. Cost of technology.

When it comes to healthcare, I think the proper solution probably lies in some mixture of State and Private business. Not so much like Obamacare, since that's exactly the opposite of what you want to do (and one reason to distrust government in total in terms of them actually coming up with and agreeing to an intelligent solution. Our government may produce a lot of stuff, but intelligence ain't one of them).
 
Supporting healthy living and providing for the health and welfare of its citizens is part of the "police powers" that were never delegated to the federal government. My first reaction to your post is that this issue ought not even be handled at the federal level, but at the level of the individual states. I doubt the propriety, or the ability, of DC to handle personal issues such as this.

A big problem, that I see, is that unlike life, auto or homeowners insurance, medical care insurance is a state by state mess that makes most of the policies not transferable. Why should ONLY medical care insurance be like this? Why should your employer have anything to do with it? Almost all other insurance costs are not out of control, as they are designed for the rare, unexpected and expensive event use, not intended to have massive amounts of claims paperwork for normal routine expenses.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom