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?
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.
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.
This. Providing information is fine. Great, even.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.
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?Simple question: Should the US government play in role in the health of the people of the United States? Why or why not?
I'm all for requiring information on labels. Meaningful information. Or, in the case of restaurants, having nutrition brochures available upon request.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.
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.
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.