ok so I made the mistake of trying to post this on /pol/ and all I got were hurr durrr gas the kikes hurr durr so i'll try on here, because the obesity problem after all is ingrained in sociology, a humanity.
ok Veeky Forums it's time to have a serious discussion about the obesity epidemic in the US. Let's try to keep the /b/-tier posting to a minimum. There's fat hate threads for that:
Maybe we could have a constructive discussion on the subject because in all honesty, I am worried.
So, according to the NIH: More than 2 in 3 adults are considered to be overweight or obese. More than 1 in 3 adults are considered to be obese.
You hear these statistics all the time and you usually just brush it off and don't think much about it. Lately, I have been reading a lot of reasearch papers about the subject in order to form a truly informed opinion.
Veeky Forums, I am honestly worried.
A serious, peer-reviewed and objective(as in mathematically sound projection) estimated that "By 2048, all American adults would become overweight or obese". In the study they considered people overweight if they have a BMI of over 25. That is about 180lbs for someone 5'10 tall.
Isn't this a huge problem? EVERY AMERICAN WILL BE OVERWEIGHT! HALF OF AMERICANS WILL BE OBESE! As in weighing over 215lbs for a height of 5'9!
Faced with such facts you can bury your head in the sand, and continue with your day as if nothing, or you can acknowledge that it's a huge problem, and think about how to address it.
One obvious way to do this to implement some national initiative for the prevention/reduction of Obesity. What do you guys think about that? Specifically, should the US government (or any state institution on any level) enact laws or encourage programs to curb Obesity?
tl;dr: Obesity is a huge problem for our country, how should we fight it?
Bentley King
The typical Libertarian will be the first to oppose such a thing since government intervention in people's everyday life should be kept at a minimum. Their position agrees although for different reasons with the stereotypical Liberal point of view on the matter: A state-sanctioned law/regulation/program targeting obesity will cause discrimination against "Larger" individuals etc etc.
One thing that keeps popping in my mind is the ban of smoking in public places. Cigarettes are bad for you, but you are "choosing" to put the cigarette in your mouth. However, by acting upon this choice the smoker is negatively impacting others who had no choice in the matter. Therefore, from this point of view these bans kind of make sense.
You can argue the same way for partaking in obesity in public spaces. A person slurping on a 64oz Coca Cola while going about on their mobility scooter is acting upon his "choice", however if "obesity partaking" acts negatively impacts others who had no choice in the matter, then it would be sensical to regulate those acts.
Juan Rivera
While I don't see how someone eating a burger in a park directly affects the people around him, such acts have indirect consequences: Given enough people eating fastfood (and therefore purchasing it) the demand for it will rise leading to an increase in supply and a decrease in the price of fastfood. This, in turn, leads suppliers like supermarkets to carry more of it and since shelf space is not free nor unlimited then the availability of "healthy" food will decrease while its cost increase.
A solution might seem obvious and theoretically sound: artificially increase consumer demand for "healthy" food by lowering its cost of production. In practice, this idea is implemented by what is known as a subsidy. The government "assists" farmers that produce "healthy" food by paying them some amount of money. Yeah...no.
Ryder Fisher
Given that government's policies are influenced(if not dictated) by politicians, and since politicians are human and humans love money then it follows that this idea, while good on paper, is disastrous in practice. Policy makers/influencers, who (naturally one could argue) hold their own interest above the interest of others, might "tactfully redirect" funding into what are called perversed subsidies for the sake of personal profit.
Case in point: corn.
Is it a coincidence that the number one source of calories in the United States, high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in soda, is made from the most heavily subsidized crop?
Austin Jackson
"Money"(input) pushes to subsidize corn. Subsidizing corn decreases cost of production which increases supply, creating surplus(output). Surplus decreases price of corn. Surplus + low price of corn pushes food manufacturer to buy it in large quantities(input) HFCS is very sweet tasting therefore humans naturally like it or anything containing it. Food manufacturers are driven to incorporate it into every possible product to increases its value at minimal cost. Minimal cost of production for manufacturer + high perceived value drives consumer to buy it in massive quantities(output). Rinse and repeat.
Since each output is superior to its corresponding input, every investor on every input side is happy and the system is stable. In other words, the highly profitable standard American diet perpetuates itself.
Landon Wilson
So... Experience tells us that lowering the price of healthy food is not effective, since this "power" can be perverted to profit individuals at the cost of society. In other words positively enforcing a "good behavior" is much easier to subvert then negatively disencourage a "bad behavior".
But what about the exact oppositeof a subsidy on healthy food: a tax on fastfood? Well it produces an opposite symmetrical system. Opposite in effects, but similar in stability.
A tax on will increase the cost of production of fast food which increase price of fastfood this increase in price will lower the demand for fastfood which in turn lowers supply of
But... What about the ridiculous taxes on cigarettes? A lot of people still smoke and now they also have to pay comically large taxes on ciggies. ie. the negative costs outweigh the positive effects.
Bentley Diaz
shit genes and mothers "not wanting to put on too much weight during pregnancy gotta watch my figure heh :^)" leads to kids having all kinds of fucked up metabolisms where they gain over 9000 pounds if they eat a cheese burger
Josiah Roberts
Then what makes us think it's gonna work for fastfood?
Price Elasticity of Demand (PED) is the measure of the responsiveness of the quantity demanded of a good in response to a change to its price.
We learn from the failure of taxes on cigarettes that the PED of cigarettes is low, ie demand does not significantly drop when price rises.
The conclusion of a peer-reviewed and objective(as in mathematically sound if we accept axioms of mainstream economics) show that the PED of fastfood and soda are the highest of all foods and nonalcoholic beverages. As an example, a 10% increase in soft drink prices should reduce consumption by 8% to 10%. There was a time when a cigarette pack costed 25 cents, if PED of ciggies were close to PED of softdrinks then increasing the price of a pack cig to 30c would lead to reduction in smoking of 10%! ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2804646/
Juan Stewart
But why not apply the general idea to other acts that contribute to obesity? Instead of positively encouraging physical activity, why not negatively discourage sedentarism?
Easiest example I can think of is to ban or severly restrict cars access to an urban center, of course exceptions for necessary case are to be made.
My whole argument in a nutshell is basically: Since encouraging with positive incentives has clearly failed in reducing obesity. It didn't only fail, but established a very stable loop which reinforces itself with each iteration, which lead to even more of an increase to obesity. The "model" therefore is clearly a good one since it is solid, we just have to "inverse" it. That is, discouraging with negative incentives.
Austin Perez
Just keep in mind that if we don't do anything then before the year 2050, EVERY American will be overweight, HALF will be obese.
It's not a matter of hurrr Americans are obese, it's not a matter of hate or of discrimination. It's a very serious problem with very real consequences that nobody seems to address, except maybe some placeholder program to ostensibly "fight" obesity like Michelle Obama's, but no serious, constructive debate around the issue.
If we don't do anything right now, our kids will be living in a country where the quasi-totality of its citizen are living a life to the rythm of diabetes and mobility scooters. Just think of the humongous additional cost to welfare (even more if we want to implement something like Obamacare), of the loss of productivity due to obese-related illness absentees, and the list goes on.
What I think is needed in order to address the issue is a logical flowing argument, devoid of hate/stereotypes/characterizations, that deals with the problem in a down to earth direct manner. An argument that poeple can genuinely rally around or clearly disagree with.
This is when we would start to have a constructive debate.
Nolan Torres
This could be a reason, maybe. But how would you remedy it? Pointing fingers is no longer enough.
Robert Anderson
it's simple, if someone goes over a certain healthy BMI value or goes over the proportionate weight for their age and size, the government will cease and restrict all support for that individual (no more healthcare, welfare, etc.)
specifically to the USA, if you want to go all out, you can declare that anyone over a healthy BMI is officially a non-citizen, and they are restricted access to anything taxpayer-funded, like a prohibition on the use of public roads, no access to public services like police and ambulances and paramedics and firefighters, and no more access to, and actually a prohibition of, for the individual, of healthcare and welfare.
Carter Edwards
Once someone gets too fat, they get a fat tax.
Benjamin Gray
Do you reeeaaally think this could be implemented? And even if it is, isn't it morally questionable? Say what you will about fat people, but there is SOME factor that is external to them. In particular, a socio/politico/economical factor, in which my proposition, tax products and service that OBJECTIVELY lead to obesity.
Tax them, not deny them citizenship...
Think of smokers, don't you agree that a law stating that "anyone that smokes more than 12 cigarettes a day should be stripped citizenship and denied health services", would it be fair?
taxation on the other hand will work as a negative incentive that is proportional (ideally of course) to the "amount" that said service/product contribute to obesity.
ok, they pay the tax get fatter and now pissed off. Taxing actually objective products/services that contribute to obesity will, if one should trust basic economic notions, lower the appeal of fastfood for example and highten that of more healthy alternatives, like I said here:
Caleb Green
Ban the fucking corn. There's a reason Americans are much fatter tgan say Norwegians.
Henry Watson
outright banning it would be somewhat against one of the most characteristic priniciple of the USA: the free market. Also, you know you could say that they should ban HFCS on the same grounds that they banned trans-fats.. But there is a subtle difference: whereas transfats in any quantity, shape or form is widely accepted as being bad for you. WHereas HFCS in itself is not "bad" per se. It's the economic incentive reinforced by the negative feedback loop I tried to explain here that is at cause.
basically, the fact that there is an economic incentive to put it EVERYWHERE, increasing demand etc etc
Jace Wilson
It's not just HFCS, it's the corn as a whole. They feed it to cows and everything.
Camden Butler
thats why I am proposing a solution that addresses that particular factor.
Of course obesity is not a simple 1+1=2 problem, it's a complex issue with several layers, with the "obese-inducing" tax I am only addressing one particular aspect of the problem and there many.
yeah, but the same refutation holds, ie its not the corn in itself, but the economical incentive that makes farmers/whatever drawn to it. Taxing it will lower this incentive, and higher it for some other alternative. If the alternative in its turn is also objectively then tax it too and so on.
Brandon Edwards
fuck you and fuck "the free market"
David Morgan
> (You) >Do you reeeaaally think this could be implemented? And even if it is, isn't it morally questionable? >Say what you will about fat people, but there is SOME factor that is external to them. In particular, a socio/politico/economical factor, in which my proposition, tax products and service that OBJECTIVELY lead to obesity. >Tax them, not deny them citizenship... >Think of smokers, don't you agree that a law stating that "anyone that smokes more than 12 cigarettes a day should be stripped citizenship and denied health services", would it be fair? >taxation on the other hand will work as a negative incentive that is proportional (ideally of course) to the "amount" that said service/product contribute to obesity.
both need to be dealt with harshly
>ok, they pay the tax get fatter and now pissed off. >and now pissed off
what are the landwhale hambeasts porkplanets going to do, protest? we could just take them off the immense medical dole until they shut up and lose weight
Ryder Smith
The incentive is the fact corn is subsidized by the federal government
Christian Watson
Wouldn't you want the laws of your country to be based on some fair ideals of morality? I don't think it's moral to tax someone on the basis of who he is (a fat guy), but rather tax an undeniably unhealthy substance. Take alcohol, would you go around town taxing alcoholics? or would you tax the harmful substance. Because if he freely chooses to eat HFCS and is willing to pay the taxes he can chug all the bottle if he likes to. exactly, and it's a subsidization that is maintained and reinforced by a network of influential lobbies. One could even put forward a not unplausible theory that they at least are not bothered by Americans not constructively debating the issue. But don't you think any rational being once confronted with cold facts ought to see the severity of the problem? I think that with more awareness of the issue, brought on by a debate for instance, will at least get the country "talking about it", and not relegating it as a secondary issue.
Kayden Price
I definitely think that corn subsidies are way too high, but obviously it didn't just come out of nowhere, there's profound political pressure from the agricultural industry and certain swing states.
So basically, if you want to fix it, you'll have to either convince the agricultural industry to stop supporting these policies, or get money out of politics and abolish the electoral college.
Hunter Flores
I agree wholeheartedly. The reason the agricultural industry in its turn is supporting these policies is because of an economic incentive brought on by the subsidies and so on.
factor out subsidies and growing corn over growing kale is not inherently cheaper, the subsidies make it so.
And since no farmer or any human being will say yeah ok i dont want "help" from subsidies, then keep subsidies but on a healthier alternative. I think that switch can be brought on by raising awareness on the issue. In all seriousness, how many American do you know that know about subsidies? How many will not like it when they know about it? How many would, given the choice, opt to vote/decide/whatevs for someone against it?
Owen Anderson
Wouldn't the backlash of this awareness be a negative incentive that would push for a "switch" of subsidies.
Lucas Ross
you speak of morality like you have the high ground, but is it moral to literally eat yourself into abhorrent health daily? even moreso, is it moral to burden taxpayers with your health bills despite you being solely responsible for your health? why doesn't the government pay me out tens of thousands of dollars if I decide to inflict voluntary bodily harm on myself?
fuck you
Easton Fisher
You could possibly think of a system of morality where every citizen has the duty to minimize taxpayer's burden, but it would certainly hinder if not eliminate free agency. Can't I choose to be obese? I think that the majority of people would say of course I can, but I have to accept the consequences. These consequences will be my unhealthiness and my paying my "fat tax". The state by issuing such a tax would still enable me my free agency but would give me an incentive towards an objectively better personal state of affairs. The issue with taxes is that they are far from being a perfect political structure. I can argue from your same logic that why should I living in NYC and not going outside of New York state pay taxes that go towards funding a lamppost's maintenance of a guy that lives in some desolate corner of Alaska? Is it moral for him to burden taxpayers with my choice of place to live? Why doesn't he minimize the burden of the taxpayers and live in a big city? Oooooh, he is free to do so, of course he has to endure the consequences, but we usually think that he is free to do so... See what I mean?
Connor Watson
I live in Georgia, which is like a Capital for Amerifats. The amount of salt people think is normal is just ungodly. Same with sugar. Fatty, sugary, salty foods are just very cheap and easily accessible. Also, no body does a lot of physical exertion around here other than people who work outside.
Blake Robinson
basically this post is why I disagree with the premise of punishing people for unhealthy life choices This is why I see a fully private health sector working. Your choice, your money.
Logan Morris
Australians and New Zelanders have a first world standard of life without farm subsidies, the same goes for Argentines and Brazilians producers (of the agricultural sector, there agriculture what subsidizes their less competitive industry, the dollars used to import machinery come from their agricultural exports)
USA farm subsidies are completely unnecessary, and only exist for political electoral reasons. In the USA dems and republicans dont want to end the embargo on Cuba because their fear angering miami cubans and losing Florida in an election, and they dont want to end farm subsidies because they fear angering farmers and losing some states in an election.
Robert Brown
I would agree with you if every action that you choose to do has no effect (particularly negative) on me, someone who did not choose to partake in the action. But this is not the case, if me and you live in some society we are bound to share some resources, like a public park, the air and more abstract objects like financial markets, or even atmosphere (in the "general mood of some place" sense). Your choices will in most cases modify these common goods without my wanting. There needs to be some limiting factor for these choices. In some severe cases where your choice's effect on me have severe consequences for me, where it's a question of discouraging ANY such actions, the negative incentive tends to be punishment. But for cases where it's a question not of eliminating completely, but to keep the number of such actions "under control", you need a "lighter" mechanism to implement this less harsh negative inception, something that will limit the number of such actions without completely removing them, like a kind of "cost". And I think that taxes are not a perfect implementation of such a concept, but works.
As for a fully private health program, it's really a matter of scope. Imagine I am a nutjob that does not believe in vaccines. My choices significantly affect yours, right? Well, my money, my choice. Well no you say there must be some form of punishment since it's one of those severe cases. You will need some kind of institution that regulizes the set of vaccines that are required in a certain society, at least. And they don't work for free. So even though it's my unhealthy life choices, you are paying for them. Take this argument long enough and you will get an institution that pretty much implements a public health sector. How much you extend the scope of such an institution is up for debate, but a bare minimum is at least beneficial, if not necessary.
Dominic Gray
You haven't thought out your ban on smoking. If you're talking about a public park that's one thing, but if you're talking about a restaurant or bar, that's another Likewise since I don't think most drugs have been shown to encourage productivity and in fact do the opposite you should support a ban on those as well, since they inherently detract from society, as opposed to adding to it.
If the ACA had given some sort of credit for staying in shape instead of providing blanket coverage for pre existing conditions, things might be different. I don't like bureaucractic red tape either way, but at least then those piglets night have to get their ass or from behind a desk and be more like a still instructor. Liberals kinda piss me off, mkay?
Landon Ortiz
The shitty food is cheaper than the healthy food, which is why so many low-income Americans are obese. I think a good solution is healthy food that's affordable and tastes enough like shitty food that the proles will like it. There's also the option of taking the rout Japan did: there's a waistline limit in Japan.
Parker Morgan
Shit genes that exist only in the us cultural sphere ? Please be serious, if you lot are a bunch of hamplanets it's because you eat way too much and what you eat is shit. You also don't walk enough, don't exercise enough, are too sheltered from the world. Promote "fat-shaming" and healthy food, tax fast food and high fat food heavily would be a small step in the right direction
Easton Davis
>In all seriousness, how many American do you know that know about subsidies? Farm subsidies are pretty widely known.
Robert Cruz
>there's a waistline limit in Japan. Not really, it was widely reported that Japan implemented a fat tax but they didn't. If you're over a certain waist size you're mandated to meet with a doctor and nutritionist to develop a plan to lose weight. There's no penalty for not actually following through with it though.
Jayden Rodriguez
Obesity has extended well beyond the US, it's now a global issue. Countries like Australia and Ireland have some of the faster growing obese populations in the world. The reasons for this are multifaceted and have a lot to do with the degradation of our understanding of health and nutrition in our consumer driven economy. People want quick and easy, and traditional home cooked meals are falling by the wayside in favor of convenience.
Alexander Morales
>EVERY American will be overweight, HALF will be obese That's not gonna happen. These things tend to even out and stagnate as there will always be a set amount of the population that will never be overweight or obese
