• 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
Holy cow, Wake, they've been moving the goalposts for "Obesity" back further and further for the past 40 years, to the point where you've about got to be skin and bones and tendons to weigh in "normal for your height". Bodybuilders and other muscular athletes are often technically "obese" by government standards because the gov doesn't take into account different body types and levels of muscularity and so on.

I seriously doubt this "obesity crisis" is quite as bad as they make it sound.

Don't like obesity? Put down the doughnut and go take a walk.

Your neighbors' obesity is his problem.

Any effective system should consider the existence of bodybuilders, muscular people, etc. The rough idea of a system in my mind would be a bit more lax than the one I've heard of in Europe.

The article states that 2/3 of all American adults are obese. To deny that would be to say they're either lying or flat-out wrong. If they're wrong, logic dictates that it's shown exactly how it's wrong.

It's not just an individual problem. The whole group of obese people, through their obesity, undoubtedly develop a myriad of problems. Those problems require care, treatment, medicine, procedures X rays, etc. That costs money. A lot of money.

My neighbor's obesity becomes my problem when my taxes go up in paying for those costs. The notion of obesity is a problem to me when I see morally bankrupt corporations preying on our young, enticing them with cartoon ads for their ****** products.
 
Fine. Simple solution; let everyone pay for their own healthcare in a free market without government intervention or artificial rules disallowing inter-state competition for rates.
 
Fine. Simple solution; let everyone pay for their own healthcare in a free market without government intervention or artificial rules disallowing inter-state competition for rates.

Then there'd be even more people suffering and dying from being unable to afford medical insurance. The same happened with me and my family.
 
Then there'd be even more people suffering and dying from being unable to afford medical insurance. The same happened with me and my family.


Oh...

so you want OTHERS to pay for YOUR medical care, but not for fat people's medical care....


Gotcha.
 
Oh...

so you want OTHERS to pay for YOUR medical care, but not for fat people's medical care....


Gotcha.

I did not say that.

I said that having people pay for more of their medicare would undoubtedly cause more people to suffer and die.

A better solution would be to start attacking the problem itself through regulation/taxation/whatever, since education doesn't seem to be sinking in to these certain people.
 
I did not say that.

I said that having people pay for more of their medicare would undoubtedly cause more people to suffer and die.

A better solution would be to start attacking the problem itself through regulation/taxation/whatever, since education doesn't seem to be sinking in to these certain people.

Because regulation/taxation solves everything. How do you regulate what people eat or how much exercise they get? You can't. Last I checked this is America, where people have the right to be fat and stupid, regardless of how much of a ****ty idea it is.
 
I did not say that.

I said that having people pay for more of their medicare would undoubtedly cause more people to suffer and die.

A better solution would be to start attacking the problem itself through regulation/taxation/whatever, since education doesn't seem to be sinking in to these certain people.



Like most well-intentioned efforts to control people's private lives, this one is doomed to one or another version of fail.
 
A better solution would be to start attacking the problem itself through regulation/taxation/whatever, since education doesn't seem to be sinking in to these certain people.

So your solution is to butt into thier lives and and force them into submission? What gives you the right?
 
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
C. S. Lewis
English essayist & juvenile novelist (1898 - 1963)
 
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
C. S. Lewis
English essayist & juvenile novelist (1898 - 1963)
Eh, solving the "obesity problem" isn't really a matter of conscience or doing things for people's own good. It's about eliminating something that costs society.
 
Eh, solving the "obesity problem" isn't really a matter of conscience or doing things for people's own good. It's about eliminating something that costs society.



Anything and everything you do, COULD end up costing someone else some money somewhere down the line. If we use that as the standard of what qualifies for government intervention, we might as well throw the Bill of Rights out right now and forget about freedom.
 
They may very well not want to interfere in peoples lives. But that is exactly what they are doing. And where does it end? Where do we draw the line? One day its one thing, the next its another, the third its another still. It all adds up. Soon you won't be able to turn your back on your kid for 5 seconds for fear of breaking some friggen law. Whether the kid is asleep or not.
No, you didn't understand what I said. Let me repeat:

You argued that people are using obesity as an excuse to interfere in people's lives. I'm telling you that that's not true. I didn't say anything about people not wanting to interfere in people's lives. I said that they aren't just looking for excuses to do so.
 
Anything and everything you do, COULD end up costing someone else some money somewhere down the line.

If we use that as the standard of what qualifies for government intervention, we might as well throw the Bill of Rights out right now and forget about freedom.
Nobody's talking about "could," we're talking about "is".
 
Nobody's talking about "could," we're talking about "is".


Yeah, like seatbelt laws. :roll:


Simple solution: if you have a wreck not wearing a seatbelt, the cost of your injuries are your own personal problem and no one else's.

But no, we have to have seatbelt laws, seatbelt checkpoints where they ask you nosy questions, etc.

Yeah, the government is gonna save us all. :roll:

Out.
 
Yeah, like seatbelt laws. :roll:

Simple solution: if you have a wreck not wearing a seatbelt, the cost of your injuries are your own personal problem and no one else's.

But no, we have to have seatbelt laws, seatbelt checkpoints where they ask you nosy questions, etc.

Yeah, the government is gonna save us all. :roll:

Out.
Seat belt laws? I thought you were responding to thread which is about obesity. And I don't think anyone, at least not me, is arguing that the "government is going to save us all." I don't understand why you can't have conversation without hyperbole.
 
Look around you, where are all these fat people?

Hard to tell in a text-only forum. They could be everywhere for all you know.
 
Look around you, where are all these fat people?

Yeah, I see a lot of them. Perhaps you should get out more. ;)

But, you need to support your claim with more than that.
 
Fine. Simple solution; let everyone pay for their own healthcare in a free market without government intervention or artificial rules disallowing inter-state competition for rates.

Which means, a good number simply won't get care, let alone quality care.
 
And what evidence exists which would suggest that this is possible with regard to obesity? Remember, we're specifically talking about an issue that is caused by people not getting off of their asses and doing something about it.




When you think about the issue we are talking about, getting people off of their asses and doing something is probably much more difficult than pulling a rabitt out of Newt's ass would be.



You just said that faith means "sitting back and waiting for it to happen". That is a fake definition for Faith.

And pretending that I'm being snarky by pointing out that fact is not a very good debate tactic. Of course, making up definitions for words and then pretending that the person you are debating with actually used such an imaginary definition is an even worse debate tactic.

I'm not sure we're agreed what this was about. I told everyone I once weighted in excess of 350 lbs. At that time not only did I work every day, play racketball, and was politically active, I ran four miles a day and lifted weights. Exactly what part was me not getting off my ass?

Faith, as you defined it, is wating for others to do it. A belief that it will just happen. Sure, I do believe in people in general, and you may call that faith if you like. But I do not believe in just sitting back and believing they will do. I specifically laid out what I woould support, and what I was willing to do. That isn't faith by your definition. Your definition and attitude seems rather defeatist to me. But, we should explore that elsewhere.
 
I seriously don't know why no one else has suggested the whole turn SNAP more into WIC thing. It kills two birds with one stone: Conservatives are able to limit what tax dollars are spent on, liberals can continue helping out the poor with said tax dollars, and within a generation the average weight will surely decline.
 
I seriously don't know why no one else has suggested the whole turn SNAP more into WIC thing. It kills two birds with one stone: Conservatives are able to limit what tax dollars are spent on, liberals can continue helping out the poor with said tax dollars, and within a generation the average weight will surely decline.

Odd they want welfare folks to eat healthy, but not school children. Just seems odd to me. :shrug:
 
Allow health insurance prices to vary by individual in accordance with their relative risk.
 
I seriously don't know why no one else has suggested the whole turn SNAP more into WIC thing. It kills two birds with one stone: Conservatives are able to limit what tax dollars are spent on, liberals can continue helping out the poor with said tax dollars, and within a generation the average weight will surely decline.

As I understand it, it's not even our intake as much as it is our lethargy. WIC doesn't make you exercise for an hour a day.
 
Back
Top Bottom