• 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!

Should the government play a role in preventing obesity?

Should the government play a role in the health of the people of the United States?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 37.5%
  • No

    Votes: 8 50.0%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 2 12.5%

  • Total voters
    16

zstep18

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2012
Messages
1,770
Reaction score
537
Location
Somewhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Simple question: Should the US government play in role in the health of the people of the United States? Why or why not?
 
Simple question: Should the US government play in role in the health of the people of the United States? Why or why not?

Yes. The gov't showed no hesitation in jumping on the "sins" of alocohol and tobacco use, yet did so in the usual strange ways that gov't does these things. Obesity is usually caused by simply consuming more calories than are expended (a portion of the excess is stored as body fat), and it is nearly impossible (and undesirable) to tax all sources of calories, so PPACA would have been a perfect opportunity for gov't to "do something" about obesity. PPACA allows only two factors to be considered for the establishment of a "private" medical care insurance policy premium amounts, age and smoking; adding obesity to that list would effectively serve as an obesity "tax".
 
Yes, it should shoot all its fat members.
 
The biggest thing is just information, making sure people have the information they need to make right decisions, and the way they set up cities can help, and the way the government is involved in the agricultural industry.

Other than those indirect means ... no.
 
The government subsidizes unhealthy food, making junk food cheaper than healthy food. So cutting back on these subsidies should be a must, in my opinion. Either that, or replace these subsidies with subsidies on fruits and vegetables.
 
Processed food has made America a nation of fat asses. Americans love processed foods. If you want to really reduce healthcare costs, then drastically reduce America's dependency on fake foods laden with excitoxins and preservatives. Heart disease and diabetes 2 can be reversed with dietary changes. No pills! No surgery! Real food can prevent, reverse and/or cure many allergies and diseases.

Who do you think will when that battle for government support? The People or Monsanto, Kellog, Coca Cola, Nestles, drug manufacturers?
 
Simple question: Should the US government play in role in the health of the people of the United States? Why or why not?

I voted no.Now if the government wanted to make mandatory in public schools I would support that. Its not the food that makes people fat its the sedimentary lifestyle that makes people fat.Our grandparents and generations before them ate stuff that was way unhealthier than what we are eating today, but they didn't sit inside all day watching tv, playing video games or on the computer.
 
Last edited:
I think so. It's fast becoming a public health issue, and the costs of American's increasingly sugar/carb-rich diets are being externalized to our healthcare system.
 
I think the government should try harder to prevent obesity in young children. I don't think young children can really pick a healthy diet and that it is up to the parents to do so. If the parents have an obese child (excusing medical problems causing obesity) then I think the government should step in and help the child somehow. When a person is 10 or under it is the parents responsibility to be sure their child is healthy; the child can't think for himself properly, he's not yet mature enough.

The government needs to stop subsidizing junk food companies and they should subsidize foods that are healthy for people.
 
I think so. It's fast becoming a public health issue, and the costs of American's increasingly sugar/carb-rich diets are being externalized to our healthcare system.

Why is cost so important that people are willing to give up their liberty to protect against it?

I notice it more times than not always tries to focus on little groups too as if it doesn't come around the bush back to the people that support taking others liberty away. Nothing like not learning from history I guess.
 
Last edited:
I think the government should try harder to prevent obesity in young children. I don't think young children can really pick a healthy diet and that it is up to the parents to do so. If the parents have an obese child (excusing medical problems causing obesity) then I think the government should step in and help the child somehow. When a person is 10 or under it is the parents responsibility to be sure their child is healthy; the child can't think for himself properly, he's not yet mature enough.

The way they would step in is by charging the parents for having an obese child. Kids can think for themselves and they can decide to not eat junk if they so decide by the time they are ten years old. The problem is only when the parents demand them to eat crap, but we can't just arrest people for being bad parents and there is no right to be feed healthy food or to be healthy

The government needs to stop subsidizing junk food companies and they should subsidize foods that are healthy for people.

Subsidizing behavior of people or industries is never wise. It might seem like there is an advantage but you don't want to mess with the decisions of consumers and you do not want to mess with the competitive forces or natural survival of an industry. Both end up badly and we have shown that in this country here by all the things we are know dependent on that were subsidized or all the things we subsidized over other activities only to lead to messed up market shares of those businesses. It is not wise.
 
Last edited:
The way they would step in is by charging the parents for having an obese child. Kids can think for themselves and they can decide to not eat junk if they so decide by the time they are ten years old. The problem is only when the parents demand them to eat crap, but we can't just arrest people for being bad parents and there is no right to be feed healthy food or to be healthy
Subsidizing behavior of people or industries is never wise. It might seem like there is an advantage but you don't want to mess with the decisions of consumers and you do not want to mess with the competitive forces or natural survival of an industry. Both end up badly and we have shown that in this country here by all the things we are know dependent on that were subsidized or all the things we subsidized over other activities only to lead to messed up market shares of those businesses. It is not wise.

I agree with you on the subsidies, but I do think that a lot of healthy foods need to be cheaper. I personally think a ten year old (arbitrary age I'm using, I just mean young children) usually still needs help to pick a balanced diet. Most young children don't know how to eat healthy and they could be easily swayed by the colorful dancing leprechauns telling them to eat Lucky Charms. At this age, it is still up to the parents to be sure their child is taking care of themselves.
 
As long as they allow government-funded food supplement programs to cover the purchase of candy bars and cola then no, they should keep their hypocritical noses out of my pantry.
 
The biggest thing is just information, making sure people have the information they need to make right decisions, and the way they set up cities can help, and the way the government is involved in the agricultural industry.

Other than those indirect means ... no.
This. Providing information is fine. Great, even.

Coercion? No.

And in the interest of consistency, I oppose "sin taxes" on items like alcohol and tobacco, also.
 
Simple question: Should the US government play in role in the health of the people of the United States? Why or why not?
Of course not. We are free to act for ourselves. The minute Big Brother steps in on one issue, it opens the door for government to step in other issues. Where would it end?
 
in the "yes" category :

food should be clearly labeled, and caloric values should be as accurate as possible. additionally, i'd like to see caloric values on menus. without some kind of legislation, it's unlikely to happen, because it actually leads people to avoid some profitable menu items, so many restaurants are not going to play ball on their own.

in the "no" column :

i don't support soda bans and other useless nanny measures.
 
in the "yes" category :

food should be clearly labeled, and caloric values should be as accurate as possible. additionally, i'd like to see caloric values on menus. without some kind of legislation, it's unlikely to happen, because it actually leads people to avoid some profitable menu items, so many restaurants are not going to play ball on their own.

in the "no" column :

i don't support soda bans and other useless nanny measures.
I'm all for requiring information on labels. Meaningful information. Or, in the case of restaurants, having nutrition brochures available upon request.

Beyond that? Not really.
 
To those who say that the government should not play a role in people's health, do you oppose the current government subsidies of junk food?
 
I voted maybe, because it should not play just any role, but a very specific one, by preventing obesity in the following ways:

1) Abolish agricultural subsidies
2) Refuse treatment and reimbursement (Medicare/Medicaid) for obesity-related conditions (heart disease, stroke, diabetes, hypercholesterolaemia, hypertension)

Binge and be idle at your peril.
 
Last edited:
Why is cost so important that people are willing to give up their liberty to protect against it?

I notice it more times than not always tries to focus on little groups too as if it doesn't come around the bush back to the people that support taking others liberty away. Nothing like not learning from history I guess.

Libertarians ahve a very strange notion of liberty ... working as a purpetual indebted wage slave is totally having liberty ... being tazed by cops for protesting is totally liberty, having almost no say over all the major things that effect your life is totally liberty.

Yet, a democratic representative government encouraging eating fruit in schools is tyranny ...
 
The government subsidizes unhealthy food, making junk food cheaper than healthy food. So cutting back on these subsidies should be a must, in my opinion. Either that, or replace these subsidies with subsidies on fruits and vegetables.

The government should not subsidize anything, period. Cut all food subsidies and save some money.
 
I dont know...Im no brainiac...but it seems to me that the way our country keeps most of its people from falling into vicious violent dispair is what always separated the United States from all other countries...that have constant turmoil and mass killings and overthrows. My uneducated opinion is that our govts laws and protections have safeguarded us from being a Libya or Syria or Rhawonda and the like.
Ive been listening to all the new and very recent complaints about govt...and it all seems to boil down to two things....The few that still have jobs that pay well and the veryvery few that are in position to take advantage of every single thing our govt provides for them...The ability to outsource, GOVT laws that allow tax havens and allow them to make obscene profits at the expense of everyone else....say they hate the govt the most...and dont believe anyone else but those that "HAVE" have a right to anything. I dont buy all that
 
Back
Top Bottom