• 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
Can we agree that instead of taxing sugar and salt, we should instead target bad food like fried chicken and doughnuts? If we go after the foods we know are incredibly unhealthy instead of the commonly used substances like sugar and salt I'd imagine that'd be a bit more fair for all.
 
Can we agree that instead of taxing sugar and salt, we should instead target bad food like fried chicken and doughnuts? If we go after the foods we know are incredibly unhealthy instead of the commonly used substances like sugar and salt I'd imagine that'd be a bit more fair for all.

How are you going to tax someone for frying chicken or dough?
 
How are you going to tax someone for frying chicken or dough?

I don't recall saying that. Any food item that is knowingly unhealthy like fried foods and doughnuts, like those you'd see at Wal-Mart, should be taxed.
 
Can we agree that instead of taxing sugar and salt, we should instead target bad food like fried chicken and doughnuts? If we go after the foods we know are incredibly unhealthy instead of the commonly used substances like sugar and salt I'd imagine that'd be a bit more fair for all.

Honestly, I'd rather tax people in order to fund the legitimate operations of the federal government.
 
I don't recall saying that. Any food item that is knowingly unhealthy like fried foods and doughnuts, like those you'd see at Wal-Mart, should be taxed.

Wake, if people want to eat fried chicken, they don't need to buy it already fried. They can buy oil and chicken at the grocery store, and fry their own at home. What would you support then? Banning oil in the grocery store?
 
Wake, if people want to eat fried chicken, they don't need to buy it already fried. They can buy oil and chicken at the grocery store, and fry their own at home. What would you support then? Banning oil in the grocery store?

Good point.

Maybe we should start by targetting the already pre-made bad foods, instead of select ingredients. There are going to be ingredients like oil and flour that can be used to make either good or bad foods. Chicken itself can be fried, but it can also be baked or grilled, etc. Targetting pre-made foods would be more convenient than punishing everyone who uses said select ingredients.
 
Maybe we shouldn't target anything and allow people to live their lives free to make their own decision. Maybe we should allow people the freedom to eat what they want. Maybe instead of trying to regulate personal choice we should do the exact opposite and allow it.
 
Good point.

Maybe we should start by targetting the already pre-made bad foods, instead of select ingredients. There are going to be ingredients like oil and flour that can be used to make either good or bad foods. Chicken itself can be fried, but it can also be baked or grilled, etc. Targetting pre-made foods would be more convenient than punishing everyone who uses said select ingredients.

No, we shouldn't be targeting any foods. Make people pay for their own lifestyle choices by paying for the required medical costs associated with bad choices.

Banning and regulating foods is government coercion, and I never favor government coercion regarding actions which don't direictly harm others.
 
Good point.

Maybe we should start by targetting the already pre-made bad foods, instead of select ingredients. There are going to be ingredients like oil and flour that can be used to make either good or bad foods. Chicken itself can be fried, but it can also be baked or grilled, etc. Targetting pre-made foods would be more convenient than punishing everyone who uses said select ingredients.

Why not just tax people based on body fat percentage?
 
Why not just tax people based on body fat percentage?

Because that places the left in a very bad place. They then have to admit that the fat people, that consumed more calories than they burned, not some evil coroporation or gov't policy, made themselves fat. They can't handle that personal resonsibility angle, it must be some evil "other" that bears the burden of these costs.
 
Last edited:
Maybe we shouldn't target anything and allow people to live their lives free to make their own decision. Maybe we should allow people the freedom to eat what they want. Maybe instead of trying to regulate personal choice we should do the exact opposite and allow it.

Maybe we should consider that over two thirds of American adults are obese, and that this puts a very heavy burden on society. You have the freedom to eat food, but you shouldn't have the freedom to cripple out nation. Besides, taxation isn't taking away your right to eat a 2,000 calorie sandwich. Take into consideration that we also tax cigarettes and iirc alcohol as well.


No, we shouldn't be targeting any foods. Make people pay for their own lifestyle choices by paying for the required medical costs associated with bad choices.

Banning and regulating foods is government coercion, and I never favor government coercion regarding actions which don't direictly harm others.

Should we not target alcohol and cigarettes as well? I'd say make people responsible for their own medical costs, and tax/regulate/do what must be done to curb this immense problem. I don't want to have to wake up to there being 80% of all adults being obese. I'm under no obligation to do nothing while America eventually collapses under the weight of this problem. Sometimes enough is enough and if people are too stupid to take care of themselves then actions must be taken.

Why not just tax people based on body fat percentage?

That's also a good consideration. I'd have no problem with a slightly more lenient form of a BMI tax structure.

Does anyone know how successful the BMI structure is in Europe? Been searching it one Google and haven't found any official data.
 
Because that places the left in a very bad place. They then have to admit that the fat people, that consumed more calories than they burned, not some evil coroporation of gov't policy, made themselves fat. They can't handle that personal resonsibility angle, it must be some evil "other" that bears the burden of these costs.

I don't necessarily want to demonize fat people, either. Some of my favorite people in the world are fat as ****. If the actual goal is to provide a weight loss incentive, then taxing excess weight is the most efficient means of doing so.
 
Should we not target alcohol and cigarettes as well? I'd say make people responsible for their own medical costs, and tax/regulate/do what must be done to curb this immense problem. I don't want to have to wake up to there being 80% of all adults being obese. I'm under no obligation to do nothing while America eventually collapses under the weight of this problem. Sometimes enough is enough and if people are too stupid to take care of themselves then actions must be taken.

The better course of action would be to place the responsibility in the laps of those who cause their own problems. You can't force people to take care of themselves, but you can refuse to pay for their negligence.
 
That's also a good consideration. I'd have no problem with a slightly more lenient form of a BMI tax structure.

Does anyone know how successful the BMI structure is in Europe? Been searching it one Google and haven't found any official data.

The BMI is a load of ****. At 175lbs I'll have a six pack but my BMI is just inside the "overweight" category. Body fat percentage would be a far better measure.
 
The better course of action would be to place the responsibility in the laps of those who cause their own problems. You can't force people to take care of themselves, but you can refuse to pay for their negligence.

It's just frustrating imo how people support as hard as they can the negligence, and then turn around and walk away, refusing to take responsibility.
 
The BMI is a load of ****. At 175lbs I'll have a six pack but my BMI is just inside the "overweight" category. Body fat percentage would be a far better measure.

Interesting. If you were to implement this, how do you think you'd begin. Also, what do you think fair percentages would be?
 
In the vast majority of cases Obesity is a choice. You should have the freedom to eat what you want, but you should also be expected to pay for the higher costs of care associated with your lifestyle (higher insurance premiums and higher medical bills). It's about personal responsibility, if you want to be obese then carry your share of the financial burden it causes.
 
The better course of action would be to place the responsibility in the laps of those who cause their own problems. You can't force people to take care of themselves, but you can refuse to pay for their negligence.

I agree completely. We are back to that darned personal responsibility thing again. That goes against the left, that want the huge nanny state to make life "fair" and to help those that will not help themsevles. Have a pet that you can not (or will not) feed and properly care for and the state will take the pet to a shelter, charge you with a crime and be done with it; have a child that you can not (or will not) feed and properly care for and the state will give you a check to help you care for yourself and the child. Yes they can!
 
Still wating on either an explanation or support or both. :coffeepap

Agreed. 2/3 of American adults being obese is an obesity epidemic.

I wonder what people would say if we woke up and discovered that 90% of all American adults were obese.
 
It's just frustrating imo how people support as hard as they can the negligence, and then turn around and walk away, refusing to take responsibility.

That is the reasoning behind putting the responsibility of the shoulders of individuals, as opposed to putting it on society as a whole. I can't force someone to live a healthy life, but I can refuse to pay for their bad habits, and let them bear that burden of responsibility. It's just like when my son was being a 17 year-old ****head. I refused to indulge his stupidity, and let him learn from the life, the greatest of all teachers, that stupidity doesn't pay as a good lifestyle choice.
 
The better course of action would be to place the responsibility in the laps of those who cause their own problems. You can't force people to take care of themselves, but you can refuse to pay for their negligence.

Actually you cant refuse to pay for their negligence....... when they show up in the ER with health problems due to a bad diet, then what do you do.. say sorry but no treatment because you cant afford it and you are negligent since you ate too many twinkies?

The point on taxing "bad" foods is to push people to more healthy alternatives but not deny them the ability to buy and use the bad foods if they can afford it. Now it is not the foods themselves that should be taxed, but the bad parts of the foods and of course the amounts of the bad parts. You can actually make a fried chicken that is not 4000 calories, and you can make a healthy evening meal that is not 4000 calories. I mean one of the more popular foods at fairs in the US... is deep fried butter... come on....

They are actually trying this in Denmark now, and it has its success but also its annoying realities. For example the tax hit healthy non sugar jam because of one of the preservatives in the jam was on the tax list. It also hit some our national foods, which was not too popular hehe.
 
Back
Top Bottom