First they came for Tony the Tiger...

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm sure the free choice to eat yourself to death, have heart attacks because of too much salt or diabetes through being overweight is a grand thing...

Stop right there, please. With respect, that is one way to describe it. One could also (and just as accurately) say "I'm sure the free choice to live your life the way you choose, understanding the risks and accepting the consequences for your own choices is a grand thing..."

I think fellow citizens who watch their diets and try to stay healthy may complain when their medical insurance premiums go up because of the less healthy. Even in capitalist countries no man is an island and what one group of people do affects many others.

Everything everyone does affects others, no question. However, that has to beg the question - at what point does the effect I have on others allow the government to restrict my actions for the good of the rest?

Let's face facts. Far more people die of heart disease than anything else, primarily caused by obesity. If one is to use the argument that one's behavior affects the cost of health insurance or other aspects of the lives of fellow citizens, then the government has the absolute right to demand that everyone who is overweight exercise, eat less, and lose weight, and to back it up with fines, penalties, even prison and mandatory exercise.

Again, I am not talking 'slippery slope' here. This is simple. If the government has the right to restrict my dietary intake for the good of society as well as myself, then there is no limit to the restrictions that can be place for the same reasons.

Quota restrictions have reduced radically the 'milk lake' thankfully, though it's not so good for dairy farmers.

I like milk, and I'm not allergic to it. I understand that lots of people are, and that's certainly up to them whether or not they want to drink it. I fail to see what right the government has to restrict milk production when *I* can drink it and want to drink it, and milk is legal to own and consume.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'd put myself around the Moderate. However, there does come a time when knowing what's in the food is not enough when all the food is the same crap.

And the solution is to force people to eat healthier food, or force manufacturers to make it?

I've been strugling with hypertension for the better part of a decade. I read the lables for sodium content. You'd be amazed how much of that stuff is out there. And in places you'd not think about. The mind bogling one was a few weks ago. The local supermarket had boxes of frozen fish filets on sale. Not seasoned, coated or anything. Just frozen fish. I looked at the box and the sodium content was off the scale. It's frozen fish!!!

Yeah, I totally get that. As a diabetic, I go down the rows of cold breakfast cereal looking for cereal that does not have sugar in it. Know how many there are? Two. Shredded wheat and wheat germ. Everything else has sugar in it.

And that sucks. But it is the government's responsibility to make sure that I have enough choices in sugar-free breakfast cereal? I don't think so. I have choices, I can cook an egg or make oatmeal.

I reject the kind of thinking that goes "It's gotten so bad that the government must step in and fix this!" People choose not to read labels or do not care - that's the end of it. The ends (a healthier populace) do not justify the means (government control of the food industry).

But that's the typical lament. "I eat healthy, but other people don't, and it's hurting them! Something must be done! Make them eat healthier whether they like it or not!" I have to reject that notion.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

People need to take control of what they're feeding themselves.

And if they choose not to? What's the 'or else'?

That's why I can never call myself a liberal. In my world, people 'should' take control of what they're feeding themselves. But if they don't, they don't. End of discussion. I try not to tell people what they 'need' to do in general.

That's the liberal position: I see a problem in you. I tell you about it. You refuse to fix it. That gives me the right to force you to fix it or demand that the government do so.

Uh, no.

 

[Tez3]

The government can tell the makers to keep salt, sugar out of their food but you don't have to buy it. Do you all live on pre-prepared food which is what these 'laws' will affect, can't you cook your own and put in as much or little salt as you like?

Where it depends on whether you can tell someone to 'fix' their food habit is if it's affecting you, not them, in having to pay higher premiums for health insurance (because you know the insurance companies will find any excuse to put their prices up). Here it would affect us as in costing more for the NHS to treat people who don't eat properly and give themselves illnesses. We pay for their treatment ( we pay National Insurance) so we can say they should eat better.

As I said it's a grand thing to have the freedom to eat what you wish but if and when it starts costing other people ie you, then you do have the right to tell them to eat properly or they opt out of the systems you use for medical treatment so you don't end up paying for them. I don't care whether they eat themselves to death or not.

 

[MA-Caver]

Childhood obesity is a parental problem not food. If parents would watch what their kids would eat (and watch what they eat themselves) then obesity would be a problem for people with glandular problems not gluttonous.

 

[CanuckMA]

The government can tell the makers to keep salt, sugar out of their food but you don't have to buy it. Do you all live on pre-prepared food which is what these 'laws' will affect, can't you cook your own and put in as much or little salt as you like?

Problem is, there is a lot of food that I would not classify as 'prepeared' that contains horrible amounts of sodium, for ne reason. See my example of frozen fish. It's a fish filet, frozen. Why does it have to contain sodium. Same can be said for canned veggies. There are times when it's the only available alternative, why does it need so much crap in it?

And when it comes to High-fructuse corn syrup, well there are not many choices. It's in everything. The corn lobby is strong in NA.

 

[Tez3]

Here you can buy fresh fish from the fishmongers, no need for frozen.

Anyone wonder how much it costs the country to have people off work with illnesses caused by unhealthy eating and obesity? How much productivity is lost? At first glance it would seem the government is poking it's nose in but have a think of how much it could actually cost you in taxes etc if there is an obesity 'epidemic' and many man hours as well as revenue are lost to the country.

 

[granfire]

Here you can buy fresh fish from the fishmongers, no need for frozen.

Anyone wonder how much it costs the country to have people off work with illnesses caused by unhealthy eating and obesity? How much productivity is lost? At first glance it would seem the government is poking it's nose in but have a think of how much it could actually cost you in taxes etc if there is an obesity 'epidemic' and many man hours as well as revenue are lost to the country.

Yep, eventually the followup costs do become a matter of interest for the government.
(Kinda like child labor laws....they were not invented because politicians liked children so much...they found themselves in need of able bodied recruits for the army....)

 

[Bill Mattocks]

As I said it's a grand thing to have the freedom to eat what you wish but if and when it starts costing other people ie you, then you do have the right to tell them to eat properly or they opt out of the systems you use for medical treatment so you don't end up paying for them. I don't care whether they eat themselves to death or not.

Aye, there's the rub, isn't it?

But as I said, if that is a valid argument, then there is NO REASON why the government cannot (and should not) restrict the other behaviors that cost society EVEN MORE.

According to the CDC, the number one and two causes of death are:

Number of deaths for leading causes of death

• Heart disease: 616,067
• Cancer: 562,875

Risk factors for heart disease:

High cholesterol
High blood pressure
Diabetes
Cigarette smoking
Overweight and obesity
Poor diet
Physical inactivity
Alcohol use

Using your logic and applying it directly, I can state clearly that if you behave in ways that cost others money, the government can and should restrict your behavior.

That means no extreme sports. That means no hang-gliding or parachuting. That means everyone has to lose weight. That means everyone has to eat healthy food, like it or not.

That means no recreational drug use and no alcohol. It means no smoking (anything) and no risky sex.

If the government has a duty to protect citizens from the financial costs of your bad decisions (and you just said they did), then the government can tell people to stop doing all the things I just listed above, and more.

As to 'opting out' of the insurance system, well, that's not an option under the US Obamacare system. Everyone is required to have insurance, which means (using your logic) that they are required to behave as the government wants them to.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Here you can buy fresh fish from the fishmongers, no need for frozen.

Anyone wonder how much it costs the country to have people off work with illnesses caused by unhealthy eating and obesity? How much productivity is lost? At first glance it would seem the government is poking it's nose in but have a think of how much it could actually cost you in taxes etc if there is an obesity 'epidemic' and many man hours as well as revenue are lost to the country.

You talk about money, I talk about freedom. The differences are fundamental.

 

[granfire]

You talk about money, I talk about freedom. The differences are fundamental.

nah, it's connected.
no money no freedom...

Or rather your freedom ends where mine 9and my money) is affected....


(@Tez: Sadly the retail structure has suffered greatly, there are hardly any specialty stores left. I know the cooking shows all talk about the butcher and the fishmonger...but around here at least, there aren't any)

 

[CanuckMA]

I fo buy fresh fish. And usually proceed to freeze it. That time it was just much cheaper. And that's sort of the point I was making. If I can buy fresh filets and freeze them with no salt, why can't the processing plants do the same?

I'd rather not regulate, but there comes a point where voluntary needs to be helped along.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

nah, it's connected.
no money no freedom...

Not true. One does not need money to be free.

Or rather your freedom ends where mine 9and my money) is affected....

Disagree. Again, if that is true, then I can demand you do things that affect my wallet also. We will have to stop engaging in sports, drinking, etc.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'd rather not regulate, but there comes a point where voluntary needs to be helped along.

Again, that is the liberal mindset exemplified. You say 'needs' like it is your right to do so. It may be a 'need' but you haven't the right. Not in a free society.

People 'need' to x, y, or z? Well sir, people do NOT 'need' to do x, y, or z. You *want* them to do x, y, or z, and your logic and science may be absolutely correct, but your authority in a free society is lacking.

Example: even knowing the dangers of smoking, many people continue to smoke. You can say they 'need' to quit smoking and use that as your excuse to control their behavior against their will. Others in this thread can cite the cost to society in terms of health insurance costs and use that as their reason to control the smoker's behavior. But these are not the responses of a free society. Smoking is and has been legal through most of the history of the USA. As long as the majority of people want that to remain the law, then what people 'need' to do is not in your ability to control, nor should it be. If you said that you think people ought to quit smoking, I'd agree with you. If you said they should quit smoking, I'd agree with you. If you said they cost us a fortune in medical insurance costs, I'd agree with you. When you say that because of these things, society has a right to tell them what to do, I disagree completely.

I have to say that although I am sure you don't mean it in a bad way, when people tell me what I 'need' to do, it gets my back up in a big way. What people 'need' to do is to stop telling me what I 'need' to do for my own good. It's my life, I will live it as I see fit, and that's the end of it. What others 'need' to do is mind their own business and leave me to mine.

I have never gotten over the anger I feel at liberals who tell me how I must run my life, while all the time expressing shock and dismay that I don't *want* to live my life the way they think I ought, and that they have a perfect right to demand. When people tell me what I 'need' to do, I generally refuse to comply and dare them to make me.

 

[Tez3]

You talk about money, I talk about freedom. The differences are fundamental.

No, you've missed my point. A government's responsiblity is not to cost you money so it's supposed to take measures that will save you money, it's up to you then to decide whether what it does also costs you your freedom, you vote them in. It sees a vast amount of unhealthy food being sold which people are buying and making themselves ill with so it tries to make that food healthy, there is a choice, you aren't forced to buy the new healthy food but the government does have an obligation to not put up taxes because it's losing money because of these people. Perhaps education would be a better way forward but again that would cost tax payers moneys so telling the manufacturers to sort their food out could well be a more practical way of trying to sort out this epidemic. If your money is being taken off you in taxes to pay for these people who have made themselves sick surely that is denying you the freedom to spend your money how you wish? If the companies you have shares in loses money because of these selfsame people and your dividends go down, what are you going to do about it? Your money, for your family needs etc is being affected by this, your freedom to work could be affected by this. It's not as simple as money v freedom as you see it. If you were the govenment would you let these people eat themselves to death regardless of what it costs you? Is it denying you freedom when you can still choose what you eat?

http://www.forbes.com/2007/11/08/obesity-health-economics-biz-health-cx_mh_1108obesity.html

 

[billc]

Bill Mattocks, well said. I especially liked this point:

"If you said they should quit smoking, I'd agree with you. If you said they cost us a fortune in medical insurance costs, I'd agree with you. When you say that because of these things, society has a right to tell them what to do, I disagree completely."

Tez, on another post you warned me about being so blind I won't see people taking my freedom away. You might want to re-read your own post.

That is why the government should have less to do with healthcare. If taxes aren't paying for it, there is no need to control peoples behavior to reduce medical costs.

 

[Tez3]

Again, that is the liberal mindset exemplified. You say 'needs' like it is your right to do so. It may be a 'need' but you haven't the right. Not in a free society.

People 'need' to x, y, or z? Well sir, people do NOT 'need' to do x, y, or z. You *want* them to do x, y, or z, and your logic and science may be absolutely correct, but your authority in a free society is lacking.

Example: even knowing the dangers of smoking, many people continue to smoke. You can say they 'need' to quit smoking and use that as your excuse to control their behavior against their will. Others in this thread can cite the cost to society in terms of health insurance costs and use that as their reason to control the smoker's behavior. But these are not the responses of a free society. Smoking is and has been legal through most of the history of the USA. As long as the majority of people want that to remain the law, then what people 'need' to do is not in your ability to control, nor should it be. If you said that you think people ought to quit smoking, I'd agree with you. If you said they should quit smoking, I'd agree with you. If you said they cost us a fortune in medical insurance costs, I'd agree with you. When you say that because of these things, society has a right to tell them what to do, I disagree completely.

I have to say that although I am sure you don't mean it in a bad way, when people tell me what I 'need' to do, it gets my back up in a big way. What people 'need' to do is to stop telling me what I 'need' to do for my own good. It's my life, I will live it as I see fit, and that's the end of it. What others 'need' to do is mind their own business and leave me to mine.

I have never gotten over the anger I feel at liberals who tell me how I must run my life, while all the time expressing shock and dismay that I don't *want* to live my life the way they think I ought, and that they have a perfect right to demand. When people tell me what I 'need' to do, I generally refuse to comply and dare them to make me.

I'm not into telling people what they are to do or not to do, smoke yourself to death if you wish but don't blow the smoke in my face, don't spill the ash all over me or put cigarette burns on my clothes, fair one? Don't expect me to pay your medical bills either.

If your government has decided that Americans should be given a choice between healthy food and non healthy food surely that is not a bad thing when so much of your processed food is full of salt and sugar? If a toy manufacturer was making toys with dangerous components, the government would be correct in doing something about it. These companies are selling food with dangerous components so they want to do something about it. It's not about taking away liberties or telling you what you can or can't eat, but you should have a choice and from my visits to the PX when in Germany, I've seen your food is seriously overloaded with stuff that's not in most countries food. Coca Cola used to contain cocaine would you advocate it still was, in the interests of freedom or that medicines sold over the counter still contains opium and morphine as it used to be?

I'm sure people can still get as fat as they wish eating whatever they want but that a few foods should offer a healthier choice is not a bad thing. Freedom is about choice, there is no choice if all there is going to be is food containing dangerous levels of salt, sugar and additives. Making some companies clean up their food will give a choice, you don't have to eat the healthy stuff.

If you happy with paying more taxes and higher health premiums because other people choose to get obese therby curtailing your choices over how you spend your money that's up to you. There's no such thing as a perfect society so even conservative government have to make decisions that are unpopular. How would cut the costs involved in obesity while allowed people to eat themselves to death as is their right, it's not an easy thing to work out so everyone is content. It's not a case of taking away liberties or trying to be big brother but of reconciling peoples rights which are conflicting with each other.

 

[Tez3]

Bill Mattocks, well said. I especially liked this point:

"If you said they should quit smoking, I'd agree with you. If you said they cost us a fortune in medical insurance costs, I'd agree with you. When you say that because of these things, society has a right to tell them what to do, I disagree completely."

Tez, on another post you warned me about being so blind I won't see people taking my freedom away. You might want to re-read your own post.

That is why the government should have less to do with healthcare. If taxes aren't paying for it, there is no need to control peoples behavior to reduce medical costs.

and you should wind your neck in because you simply haven't understood what I've said.

I'm not advocating anything just pointing out that you have a dilemma in your country over the obese costing you tax money, productivity and higher insurance. If people can't work because of obesity related diseases it costs the country as a whole lost man hours and taxes. You can cut the healthcare away from the government but these things are still going to cost you money, the government has a responsibilty to save you money. there lies your dilemma, it's nothing to do with being 'liberal' or wanting to take away your rights, how are you going to reconcile these obese peoples right to get ill with yours not to have to pay in higher taxes, less dividends and working harder to cover the jobs of those off sick?

 

[hongkongfooey]

Childhood obesity is a parental problem not food. If parents would watch what their kids would eat (and watch what they eat themselves) then obesity would be a problem for people with glandular problems not gluttonous.

It's more than just what the kids eat, it's also their lack of activity that is causing problems.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

A government's responsiblity is not to cost you money so it's supposed to take measures that will save you money...

No, it's not.

...but the government does have an obligation to not put up taxes because it's losing money because of these people.

No it doesn't have any such obligation.

If you were the govenment would you let these people eat themselves to death regardless of what it costs you?

Yes.

Is it denying you freedom when you can still choose what you eat?

Yes.

You are confusing good science (people should eat healthier food and poor eating habits cost us all money) with good government (it is not the role of the government to tell people what to eat). It is none of the government's business. Does it cost money? Yes. Not the point.