• 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!

Palin's reckless views on obesity

Viktyr Korimir said:
When people have demonstrated a pattern of making bad decisions, trusting them to make the right decisions for our future is irrational and dangerous. If we were making the right decisions for our children in the face of the obesity epidemic, there wouldn't be any obesity epidemic for us to worry about.

Getting this country back on track means getting people to behave "correctly". If force is the only way the government can accomplish this, so be it.
Click to expand...

How can one not think this is the path to socialism or communism?
 
Wake said:
How can one not think this is the path to socialism or communism?
Click to expand...

So what if it is? It is necessary for the continued prosperity and strength of our nation.

There are other flavors of authoritarianism besides Socialism. Socialists only care that poor people have enough box dinner to stay fat.
 
VanceMack said:
BD...Ive seen you on this site for a long time. You are a smart person. When did these education programs start? Be HONEST for Gods sake. The earliest I know of is the 70's, under Nixon...witht he Presidents Program on Physical Fitness. It has been in effect ever since. You REALLY think this is helping? It is an institutionalized problem. If your answers havent worked for 30 years...you might want to rethink the problem. And we arent talking about poor people...underpriveleged...we are talking obesity ACROSS THE SPECTRUM.
It requires more than Sesame Street and Zoom answers.
Click to expand...

Exactly. President Kennedy's Physical Fitness Challenge. I was one of the first kids in that, as I was five when he died. It was a start.

I don't think it's anybody's business but each individual. But I believe that the First Lady is not doing any harm, and she may be doing some good. You really think she's doing harm?
 
VanceMack said:
failed policies?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I thought the first lady was just doing some program that was important to her. I didn't realize policies were involved.

I've been a lot less active at this board, and you know why? Because it's depressing watching people just slap the **** out of each other day after day, making no attempt to meet in the middle. It's a huge waste of time. I really liked this forum. Obviously; I haven't actually left. But I can't entertain stupid and stubborn near as well as I used to.
 
Wake said:
How can one not think this is the path to socialism or communism?
Click to expand...

Because it can also be a path to totalitarianism and fascism.. coercive government and socialism don't always go hand and hand. A coercive government can exist within any economic ideology.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
When you choose to stick a gun in your mouth, your ability to make your own choices is taken away from you. A nation that epidemically chooses sloth and gluttony over health and vigor is committing suicide as surely as a man with a gun in his mouth, and just as surely needs to be restricted for its own good. Extinction is not a legitimate option.
Click to expand...

Extinction isn't on the table. That said, it's always a legitimate option, even if it isn't a desirable one.
 
BDBoop said:
Exactly. President Kennedy's Physical Fitness Challenge. I was one of the first kids in that, as I was five when he died. It was a start.

I don't think it's anybody's business but each individual. But I believe that the First Lady is not doing any harm, and she may be doing some good. You really think she's doing harm?
Click to expand...

Doing harm? No. Doing good? No. Do you? Every year the obesity problem gets worse. The problem wont go away with slogans and feel good programs and the same failed rhetoric. More government controls arent the answer. More social programs (some school districts are looking now at feeding the students breakfast, lunch, AND dinner. We have to stop sueing McDonalds and start holding INDIVIDUALS accountable. Its that individual responsibility thing that we are lacking.
 
BDBoop said:
I'm sorry, I thought the first lady was just doing some program that was important to her. I didn't realize policies were involved.

I've been a lot less active at this board, and you know why? Because it's depressing watching people just slap the **** out of each other day after day, making no attempt to meet in the middle. It's a huge waste of time. I really liked this forum. Obviously; I haven't actually left. But I can't entertain stupid and stubborn near as well as I used to.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree...so lets meet in the middle. Im FINE if Mo wants to continue the fitness programs. Great. Im totally opposed to increasing the social programs...its CREATING the problem. PEOPLE need to be held accountable for themselves and their families. Now...where is your 'middle ground'?
 
VanceMack said:
Oh I agree...so lets meet in the middle. Im FINE if Mo wants to continue the fitness programs. Great. Im totally opposed to increasing the social programs...its CREATING the problem. PEOPLE need to be held accountable for themselves and their families. Now...where is your 'middle ground'?
Click to expand...

Right where you left it. :)
 
Barbbtx said:
LOL, glad someone finally admitted to death panels. See Sarah's not so dumb after all. Just kidding, your scenario isn't really a "death panel" One heart, two patients, one has to lose.
With Obamacare there will be rationing due to cost and lack of doctors. And who will be doing the rationing? Will it be the doctor, or will it be the government?
Click to expand...

The free market is a form of rationing. Not everyone who wants a service can have it. Instead, only those with the ability to pay can, and the rest go without. Insurance engenders a distortion of market forces, causing a "tragedy of the commons" of sorts. Except that in this tragedy, we have the skyrocketing costs, instead of depletion of resources.

What is your solution to the rising costs? C'mon, put yourself out there, so that we can distort your ideas like your wackjobs on the right do with every idea put forth from the left.
 
Harshaw said:
Extinction isn't on the table.
Click to expand...

Obesity is already affecting military readiness because of a shortage of able-bodied volunteers.

Harshaw said:
That said, it's always a legitimate option, even if it isn't a desirable one.
Click to expand...

Extinction is one thing when you are defeated and eradicated by a superior enemy. It's an entirely different thing when it comes about as a result of choking on our own filth.
 
BDBoop said:
I'm sorry, I thought the first lady was just doing some program that was important to her. I didn't realize policies were involved.

I've been a lot less active at this board, and you know why? Because it's depressing watching people just slap the **** out of each other day after day, making no attempt to meet in the middle. It's a huge waste of time. I really liked this forum. Obviously; I haven't actually left. But I can't entertain stupid and stubborn near as well as I used to.
Click to expand...

You're doing a pretty good job right now.
 
VanceMack said:
The problem wont go away with slogans and feel good programs and the same failed rhetoric. More government controls arent the answer. More social programs (some school districts are looking now at feeding the students breakfast, lunch, AND dinner.)
Click to expand...

Since the vast majority of our children are educated in the welfare schools, I'd say they're the perfect venue for approaching the problem. My only problem with the schools serving three meals a day is that the meals they are serving are garbage. On the other hand, with school lunch reform we have the opportunity to ensure that at least every public school child gets one or two proper meals a day, and a full diet if school districts start serving dinners. Revising our physical education curriculum and classroom schedules to provide more structured physical activities could go a long way. The public schools are already a government agency; there is no increase in government control by reforming how they nourish and exercise our children.

And considering the fact that we require the majority of children to be held captive for at least one meal a day, I would say that the government has a moral responsibility to ensure that that one meal is wholesome.

VanceMack said:
We have to stop sueing McDonalds and start holding INDIVIDUALS accountable. Its that individual responsibility thing that we are lacking.
Click to expand...

I agree that suing McDonalds is useless. McDonalds isn't doing anything wrong; they are providing goods and services that the public wants. However, there is no way to hold individuals accountable unless there is someone to hold them accountable to. Since nobody is suggesting that we have "fat police", I think a sensible course would be to implement regulatory controls that make wholesome foods more desirable and unwholesome foods less. This isn't "telling people what to eat", it's using market forces to encourage the behaviors that people should have been choosing in the first place.
 
I am glad nobody wants to sue McD's for their fattening food.. I really like their fries, and I enjoy eating them but I am not fat. I still feel bad for eating McD's when I do, because I know it's unhealthy. I also like how they have a play station for kids, because they love going there.. but they play more than they eat, so they aren't getting fat on McD's either and I get their fries. :)
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Since the vast majority of our children are educated in the welfare schools, I'd say they're the perfect venue for approaching the problem. My only problem with the schools serving three meals a day is that the meals they are serving are garbage. On the other hand, with school lunch reform we have the opportunity to ensure that at least every public school child gets one or two proper meals a day, and a full diet if school districts start serving dinners. Revising our physical education curriculum and classroom schedules to provide more structured physical activities could go a long way. The public schools are already a government agency; there is no increase in government control by reforming how they nourish and exercise our children.

And considering the fact that we require the majority of children to be held captive for at least one meal a day, I would say that the government has a moral responsibility to ensure that that one meal is wholesome.



I agree that suing McDonalds is useless. McDonalds isn't doing anything wrong; they are providing goods and services that the public wants. However, there is no way to hold individuals accountable unless there is someone to hold them accountable to. Since nobody is suggesting that we have "fat police", I think a sensible course would be to implement regulatory controls that make wholesome foods more desirable and unwholesome foods less. This isn't "telling people what to eat", it's using market forces to encourage the behaviors that people should have been choosing in the first place.
Click to expand...

I think it is easy enough just to remind people...you eat at McDonalds (or fix cheap MacN cheese, or eat nothing but chips, drink soda, and eat food with no nutritional value but high in fat and calories) then you are going to get fat, develop health problems...and probably die young...and its going to be YOUR fault. So...choose...but we are NOT going to cover your health care and med bills.
 
VanceMack said:
I think it is easy enough just to remind people...you eat at McDonalds (or fix cheap MacN cheese, or eat nothing but chips, drink soda, and eat food with no nutritional value but high in fat and calories) then you are going to get fat, develop health problems...and probably die young...and its going to be YOUR fault.
Click to expand...

That food is cheap and easy to prepare for people who are overworked and underpaid. Unless you're extending your argument to say that it's their fault for being poor and having lousy jobs...

VanceMack said:
So...choose...but we are NOT going to cover your health care and med bills.
Click to expand...

More people without healthcare coverage means more untreated illnesses which means more expensive indigent ER visits and more parasites living off of tax dollars. Public healthcare means that poor people are healthier. Healthier people are more productive. A more productive workforce means a more productive economy which means more wealth for everyone. It's stupid to neglect the health of the working poor until they become crippled and useless and then support them-- including their healthcare-- for the rest of their natural lives.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
That food is cheap and easy to prepare for people who are overworked and underpaid. Unless you're extending your argument to say that it's their fault for being poor and having lousy jobs...



More people without healthcare coverage means more untreated illnesses which means more expensive indigent ER visits and more parasites living off of tax dollars. Public healthcare means that poor people are healthier. Healthier people are more productive. A more productive workforce means a more productive economy which means more wealth for everyone. It's stupid to neglect the health of the working poor until they become crippled and useless and then support them-- including their healthcare-- for the rest of their natural lives.
Click to expand...

Viktyr, there might be something to that, except for certain caveats.
1. Govenment programs tend to be far more $-wasteful than private enterprise.
2. Government programs rarely deliver as promised; there's a reason why Brits and Canadians come to America for medical proceedures if they can afford to. Delays, poor service, etc. It is debateable whether the poor and blue-collar would really recieve better medical care than they do now.
3. Our budget is currently 30% debt. This cannot go on indefinitely; the economy will collapse. We need to make major cuts in the budget, and failed social programs are the place to start. Adding new ones at this time just isn't feasible. Given that healthcare is 1/6th of the GDP, nationalizing it would be a good way to finish breaking the bank.
4. Current Medicare/Medicaid schemes include price-fixing, which drives doctors and hospitals to charge much higher rates for people with private insurance. Extending this practice would likely drive many hospitals under, and many doctors out of the business. I know many healthcare professionals and docs, and this is a huge concern to them.
 
Last edited:
Viktyr Korimir said:
That food is cheap and easy to prepare for people who are overworked and underpaid. Unless you're extending your argument to say that it's their fault for being poor and having lousy jobs...



More people without healthcare coverage means more untreated illnesses which means more expensive indigent ER visits and more parasites living off of tax dollars. Public healthcare means that poor people are healthier. Healthier people are more productive. A more productive workforce means a more productive economy which means more wealth for everyone. It's stupid to neglect the health of the working poor until they become crippled and useless and then support them-- including their healthcare-- for the rest of their natural lives.
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with everything you said. Its not going to be an easy overnight fix. People are going to HAVE to become a little more self sufficient...a little more feral. And yes...its going to sting. I think in the meantime charitable organizations and 'the people' are going to have to step up their efforts while the fed reduces theirs. Somewhere 'in the middle' there will be a solution. Or they will simply die...which...BTW...they are doing NOW and none of these current programs are touching that. We are having this discussion precisely BECAUSE the obesity problem is escalating.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Obesity is already affecting military readiness because of a shortage of able-bodied volunteers.
Click to expand...

Still doesn't mean extinction is on the table. Plus, it's a problem which can be solved with something far less drastic, like mandatory military service.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
When people have demonstrated a pattern of making bad decisions, trusting them to make the right decisions for our future is irrational and dangerous.
Click to expand...
Fine. Let's start with HIV and risky sexual practices, for that costs us a fortune. That has permanent, irreversible consequences.

If we were making the right decisions for our children in the face of the obesity epidemic, there wouldn't be any obesity epidemic for us to worry about.
Click to expand...
Let's use that paragraph as follows:
It is obvious homosexual men are a major source of HIV/AIDS. If they were making the right decisions in the face of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, there would be a smaller epidemic for us to worry about.

Getting this country back on track means getting people to behave correctly. If force is the only way the government can accomplish this, so be it.
Click to expand...
Komrade, Welcome to the USSA. Government is here to make sure you live your life correctly. We will be at the dinner table, in your bedroom, at your workplace, in your schools. We cannot trust you morons to live your lives properly.

This message was brought to you by the Democrat Party, and we approve of this message.

T W I S T E D.

.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Dezaad said:
The free market is a form of rationing. Not everyone who wants a service can have it. Instead, only those with the ability to pay can, and the rest go without. Insurance engenders a distortion of market forces, causing a "tragedy of the commons" of sorts. Except that in this tragedy, we have the skyrocketing costs, instead of depletion of resources.

What is your solution to the rising costs? C'mon, put yourself out there, so that we can distort your ideas like your wackjobs on the right do with every idea put forth from the left.
Click to expand...

First we should buy some hot dogs and cook them over Pelosi's flaming HC bill.
Then we get congress to sit down and discuss this.
http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/...rnative_Health_Care_plan_Updated_11-04-09.pdf
http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/RepublicanAlternative3962_9.pdf
 
You know (seriously) - perhaps they should tackle the expense of the related health problems that come from junk food, smoking, drinking, etc - by taxing all foods that are deemed 'unhealthy' as well as cigarettes and alcohol (or whatever).
Then put that into a trust-fund.
Use that trust-fund to cover people's self-induced weight issues like diabetes or smoking problems like cancer.

They do this for the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program - they tax the vaccines and put that into a trust fund which compensates those (individuals or their families) when one suffers illness or death due to vaccinations.

By how the NVIC Program runs they tax different vaccines different amounts depending on the diseases it's suppose to prevent.
"a dose of trivalent influenza vaccine is [taxed] $0.75 because it prevents one disease, whereas the excise tax imposed on a dose of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine is $2.25 because prevents three diseases."

Something similar could be done depending on the unhealthiness of said item - some things would be taxed more than others (like sugary energy drinks VS a box of cracker jacks)

That way people who avoid said items aren't paying out to help people because of their personal choices.
People who indulge and suffer - still get medical help.
With the liquor, junk food, soda and so on being more expensive some people won't indulge quite so much.

Win win win
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
You know (seriously) - perhaps they should tackle the expense of the related health problems that come from junk food, smoking, drinking, etc - by taxing all foods that are deemed 'unhealthy' as well as cigarettes and alcohol (or whatever).
Then put that into a trust-fund.
Use that trust-fund to cover people's self-induced weight issues like diabetes or smoking problems like cancer.

They do this for the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program - they tax the vaccines and put that into a trust fund which compensates those (individuals or their families) when one suffers illness or death due to vaccinations.

By how the NVIC Program runs they tax different vaccines different amounts depending on the diseases it's suppose to prevent.
"a dose of trivalent influenza vaccine is [taxed] $0.75 because it prevents one disease, whereas the excise tax imposed on a dose of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine is $2.25 because prevents three diseases."

Something similar could be done depending on the unhealthiness of said item - some things would be taxed more than others (like sugary energy drinks VS a box of cracker jacks)

That way people who avoid said items aren't paying out to help people because of their personal choices.
People who indulge and suffer - still get medical help.
With the liquor, junk food, soda and so on being more expensive some people won't indulge quite so much.

Win win win
Click to expand...

Smokers and overweight people should just pay higher premiums, if they don't already. That might be incentive enough to quit and lose weight if it means your premiums go down.
No, let me change that. Thin, non smokers should have reduced premiums. That sounds better. OOOps, Sarah Palin's Alaska is on! You all don't wanta miss it! :)
 
Oh they are running the first and second Palin's Alaska, then the new one. I've already seen the first two.
 
Barbbtx said:
Smokers and overweight people should just pay higher premiums, if they don't already. That might be incentive enough to quit and lose weight if it means your premiums go down.
No, let me change that. Thin, non smokers should have reduced premiums. That sounds better. OOOps, Sarah Palin's Alaska is on! You all don't wanta miss it! :)[/QUOTE]

yes, go watch it, it will be off the air soon:2razz:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom