or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Warning: Your ass is too big!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Warning: Your ass is too big! - Page 4

post #121 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

The Food and Drug Administration begs to differ.

Read you some of Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" to get a handle on the history of the pre-regulation food industry.

I don't think you realize what I'm arguing. See above please. I agree obesity is a problem and the government has a vested interest in helping fix the problem. I am disagreeing with the method proposed (and other hypothetical ones) as they are invasive. You also claimed that methods which are effective are acceptable, and I disagree with that in general.
There are plenty of methods the government could use to fight obesity...methods that would be effective but unacceptable from the standpoint of personal liberty and or morality.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #122 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm really not sure where to begin here nor am I sure what you're arguing exactly. I'm saying that it's not necessarily the government's job to address obesity with measures that invade personal freedom. I agree that obesity costs money. I also agree that we need regulations in terms of disclosing the ingrediants food, programs to promote physical fitness, public service messages, etc. I draw the line at the government requiring special labels for clothing and/or banning fattending substances.

whats the difference?

If fat people require treatment/benefits because of actions they undertake by their own freedoms, then the government has a freedom to put whatever labelling or banning they like, becuase government is funded by tax payers, who are paying for the treatment.

Basically, if my money pays for your problem, then Im going to exercise my freedom and point it out whenever i damn well like. If thats through government labelling or banning, then so be it.
post #123 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

whats the difference?

If fat people require treatment/benefits because of actions they undertake by their own freedoms, then the government has a freedom to put whatever labelling or banning they like, becuase government is funded by tax payers, who are paying for the treatment.

Basically, if my money pays for your problem, then Im going to exercise my freedom and point it out whenever i damn well like. If thats through government labelling or banning, then so be it.


But you're using a faulty assumption. The majority of the population doesn't rely on government healthcare. Secondly...what are you going to do next...force people to exercise or be shot? OK, that one's extreme...but maybe we could fine them or make them pay a fat tax?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #124 of 163
like buying two airline tickets?

post #125 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

like buying two airline tickets?


Not the same. If they take up two seats, it can at least be argued that they should pay for them.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #126 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

The Food and Drug Administration begs to differ.

You see...this is the essence of the slippery slope. You use the existence of government intervention as justification for more government intervention. You suggest that because the FDA exists, that it is right for it to exist. Will these types of fallacies help you in court in the future?
post #127 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla View Post

You see...this is the essence of the slippery slope. You use the existence of government intervention as justification for more government intervention. You suggest that because the FDA exists, that it is right for it to exist. Will these types of fallacies help you in court in the future?


Shawn's a good guy. But he does like to try and win cases here on AI for the sake of practice, it seems.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #128 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

like buying two airline tickets?


How is that government intervention?
post #129 of 163
How is it not humor ?

Sorry- just makin a joke!
post #130 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla View Post

How is that government intervention?

Well, since the airlines would likely not exist without subsidies.....
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #131 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Shawn's a good guy. But he does like to try and win cases here on AI for the sake of practice, it seems.

Objection! Leading the witness, your honor!

Oh wait... I'm on christmas va-ca-tion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I don't think you realize what I'm arguing. See above please. I agree obesity is a problem and the government has a vested interest in helping fix the problem. I am disagreeing with the method proposed (and other hypothetical ones) as they are invasive. You also claimed that methods which are effective are acceptable, and I disagree with that in general.
There are plenty of methods the government could use to fight obesity...methods that would be effective but unacceptable from the standpoint of personal liberty and or morality.

Well said.

That's a good way to put it.
post #132 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I agree obesity is a problem and the government has a vested interest in helping fix the problem.

And this is where I disagree. I don't see how the government has such a vested interest at all. Please explain how you think that it does.
post #133 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Well, since the airlines would likely not exist without subsidies.....

Well I am in favor of ending (phasing down to zero would be fine...but, ultimately, ending them all) government subsidies to corporations too.

And while I agree that some of the airlines would likely fail...certainly not all of them would...and perhaps this would restore some sanity (i.e., profitability) to the industry.
post #134 of 163
Well- since the government foots the bill on medicare/aid (whatever the F it is) blah blah- and obesity causes many illnesses including type 2 diabetes, heart disease, cancers, etc....

i mean, connect some dots over there and the vested interest will make more sense to you.

The sicker and unhealthier our nation is, the less capable of a country we become.

I mean- all you are professing here is the lack of government oversight on consumables so you can eat cheese whiz fried doughballs smothered in pure grade A trans fat gravy. You seem to want a corporate bottom line driven menu of edibles while paying higher insurance premiums and medicare taxes just so you can have no choice in getting fed swamp shit when you eat out at a restaurant surrounded by bovine like consumers crowded around ill sized jumbo tables.

I am having a hard time understanding any point or notion of positivity in your take on this. I trust this is not a "misery loves company" kind of philosophy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla View Post

And this is where I disagree. I don't see how the government has such a vested interest at all. Please explain how you think that it does.
post #135 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

Well- since the government foots the bill on medicare/aid (whatever the F it is) blah blah- and obesity causes many illnesses including type 2 diabetes, heart disease, cancers, etc....

i mean, connect some dots over there and the vested interest will make more sense to you.

Perhaps you should be the one connecting the dots. You laid them all out but still fail to see the path we are on. You are right, when the government pays for the medical care of its people it does have a vested interest in the health of its people. Specifically, it will have a vested interest in controlling the health/behavior of its people...what they can/can't eat/do.

No, perhaps the solution is not further government intervention, but less. Perhaps the government should get out of the business of medicare/medicaid because this appears to be taking us down the path of justifying further government control and intervention into the individual, private decisiong-making of its people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

The sicker and unhealthier our nation is, the less capable of a country we become.

Less capable of what (as a country)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

You seem to want a corporate bottom line driven menu of edibles while paying higher insurance premiums and medicare taxes

What I want is for the government to step away from interfering into the freedom of its people to make their own choices (food consumption is merely one specific example). As far as the higher medicare taxes...well...that problem can be solved too...but not by regulating other people's freedom to choose their own diets...it can be solved by the government getting out of the business of medicare and medicaid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

I am having a hard time understanding any point or notion of positivity in your take on this. I trust this is not a "misery loves company" kind of philosophy?

It is a philosophy of freedom. It is a philosophy that questions what right the government has to tell its people what they can and cannot eat or do (so long as those people are not infringing upon the person, property and rights of another person or group). It doesn't mean that I think people should eat junk foods...but it does mean that I don't think that I have the right (via government intervention) to force people not to. That is the key point. What right do you (via government) have to tell me what I can and cannot eat?
post #136 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla View Post

Well I am in favor of ending (phasing down to zero would be fine...but, ultimately, ending them all) government subsidies to corporations too.

And while I agree that some of the airlines would likely fail...certainly not all of them would...and perhaps this would restore some sanity (i.e., profitability) to the industry.

Totally agree. I say let the market sort it out. There are airlines that have figured out how to make money. They cut operating costs, treat their employees well, and focus on customer service without frills. There is huge demand for air travel. I say let US "We Own Everbody" Air and the rest go down the toilet.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #137 of 163
Sofar, only health issues have been covered here. I would like to point out that overweight people also use a lot more energy of all sorts.
This makes it a global and very much a governmental issue.
It is also a fact that obesity causes some cognitive problems as well as brain function and emotional problems. Reaction time is slowed and severely obese people live in a fog of diminished bloodflow through the brain. That's a public safety issue.

My ass is OK, my ego need 2 zip codes...
post #138 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla View Post

And this is where I disagree. I don't see how the government has such a vested interest at all. Please explain how you think that it does.

Obesity is a problem because it frankly costs a lot of money. Obesity leads to a host of other diseases and health problems, not the least of which are heart disaease and diabetes. Like it or not, that means more demand for health care. Insurance premiums rise and in turn, so do government programs to help the poor (again, like it or not).
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #139 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

I would like to point out that overweight people also use a lot more energy of all sorts.

Would you care to support this assertion in some way?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

This makes it a global and very much a governmental issue.
It is also a fact that obesity causes some cognitive problems as well as brain function and emotional problems. Reaction time is slowed and severely obese people live in a fog of diminished bloodflow through the brain. That's a public safety issue.

You are really reaching here. Goodness! Using this sort of tenuous reasoning you can probably fit almost anything under the umbrella of "public interest". This is nuts. How about we deal with actual actions instead of "oh gee this might happen and that might happen and thus the public needs to be protected!"
post #140 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Obesity is a problem because it frankly costs a lot of money. Obesity leads to a host of other diseases and health problems, not the least of which are heart disaease and diabetes.

Yes it does. But this is not an argument for government intervention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Like it or not, that means more demand for health care.

Yes. And?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Insurance premiums rise

Yes. And?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

and in turn, so do government programs to help the poor (again, like it or not).

Ah...so the fact that the government is already intervening, becomes the justification for even more government intervention.

Sorry, but you have not made a very good argument or justification for government intervention here.
post #141 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla View Post

Would you care to support this assertion in some way?



You are really reaching here. Goodness! Using this sort of tenuous reasoning you can probably fit almost anything under the umbrella of "public interest". This is nuts. How about we deal with actual actions instead of "oh gee this might happen and that might happen and thus the public needs to be protected!"


Simple math lift 170 Lbs or lift 400Lbs what takes more energy? Obese people eat more and this also needs more trucks, more cows, more fertyilizer, more water = more pollution.

I did not mention might. I mentioned fact. It is happenening.
Excess body fat decreases cognitive ability and reaction time. Amen. fat is dangerous to all of us not only to the ones who carry it around.
post #142 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

Simple math lift 170 Lbs or lift 400Lbs what takes more energy? Obese people eat more and this also needs more trucks, more cows, more fertyilizer, more water = more pollution.

I did not mention might. I mentioned fact. It is happenening.
Excess body fat decreases cognitive ability and reaction time. Amen. fat is dangerous to all of us not only to the ones who carry it around.

OK. This is still a pretty weak argument for the government to step in and regulate our behavior, consumption, habits, etc.
post #143 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla View Post

OK. This is still a pretty weak argument for the government to step in and regulate our behavior, consumption, habits, etc.

Obviously most people are too stupid to think before they chew. Maybe instead of regulation education might be an idea. In the very near future we will have to make some very tough decisions about energy consumption in the broadest sense.
Does liberty really mean "waste as much as you like and behave like a degenerate anytime you like?"
post #144 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

Obviously most people are too stupid to think before they chew.

What an amazingly arrogant and elitist statement to make.

Are you "too stupid to think before you chew"? Why must "most (other) people" be so? Maybe they simply are making different choices than you are (or than you think they should). Maybe they know what the risks are but don't care all that much. Are these possibilities apart from the stupidity assumption?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

Maybe instead of regulation education might be an idea.

I think education is a grand idea! I think this is perfectly fine (and it doesn't even need to be done the government...where it can be subject to political manipulation). We have an amazing amount of information available to us these days about the risks and harmfulness of many things. At this point we ought to be free to make the choice (ourselves) to take those risks or avoid them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

In the very near future we will have to make some very tough decisions about energy consumption in the broadest sense.

So we have been told.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

Does liberty really mean "waste as much as you like and behave like a degenerate anytime you like?"

As long as you are not infringing upon the person, property and rights of another...and if what you are "wasting" has been obtained through free and honest exchange. Sure. Why not?
post #145 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla View Post

What an amazingly arrogant and elitist statement to make.

I do include myself in that group. I do eat things I know to be pure poison, but they are sooooo goooood!
post #146 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

I do include myself in that group. I do eat things I know to be pure poison, but they are sooooo goooood!

a) "pure poison" is probably...oh right...hyperbole

b) That doesn't make you "stupid"...you know the risks...you are willing to take them (to some degree)...and that's OK. Frankly most of the junk food many complain about are probably just fine...in moderaaation.
post #147 of 163
Chris,

you are one tubby mofo, huh? I picture you sitting in a trans-fat cellar in your secret basement room hoarding onto a stash of the last known trans fat oreo cookies- shaking your flabby fist at recent legislation to ban your beloved manufactured fat. cookie crumbs and milk ringing your gorged mouth screaming in frustration as the oreo's taste so good- yet so bittersweet as each cookie eaten brings you all that much closer to it's finality....

The only freedom that's been had lately are the food manufacturers swindling fat asses into thinking they were eating fat free potato chips by the truckload from Costco when they were in fact ingesting fat that also raises your cholesterol in amazing new ways making heart disease so many more people's reality.

there's no slippery slope here.....

it's not like electronic voting machines for instance.

post #148 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

The only freedom that's been had lately are the food manufacturers swindling fat asses into thinking they were eating fat free potato chips by the truckload from Costco when they were in fact ingesting fat that also raises your cholesterol in amazing new ways making heart disease so many more people's reality.



Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

there's no slippery slope here.....

There is. You just refuse to acknowledge it.
post #149 of 163
Nah- you're just creating it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla View Post





There is. You just refuse to acknowledge it.
post #150 of 163
post #151 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

Nah- you're just creating it.


OK

post #152 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla View Post

Yes it does. But this is not an argument for government intervention.



Yes. And?



Yes. And?



Ah...so the fact that the government is already intervening, becomes the justification for even more government intervention.

Sorry, but you have not made a very good argument or justification for government intervention here.

Don't forget who you're talking to here, champ. My case is pretty straightforward. Obesity costs taxpayers money. Period. We don't have a fully independent healthcare system, even if it is more independent of government than any other system on the planet. Obesity in large numbers causes a drain on public resources. It is therefore in the government's interest to help correct the problem.

The only question that remains is how far we go in terms of limiting personal freedoms. I don't think we should go very far, a statement which I assume you agree with.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #153 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Don't forget who you're talking to here, champ.

What the heck is that supposed to mean?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Obesity costs taxpayers money. Obesity in large numbers causes a drain on public resources.

How so? Please be specific. (Because this tends to the the vague and ambiguous "argument" of people seeking to expand the power of government over people's lives: "But is it for the good of society." or "But it costs all of us.")

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It is therefore in the government's interest to help correct the problem.

See...you are begging the question here. You are assuming that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the government intervention to begin with. Furthermore, you are basically saying that because the government is already intervening (health care) that it should intervene even more. This is the slippery slope.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The only question that remains is how far we go in terms of limiting personal freedoms.

I'd say it is a pretty big question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I don't think we should go very far, a statement which I assume you agree with.

But see here is the problem. We have government already doing something (paying for some people's medical care). Next step (already there) we have people arguing that because of this, the government has a vested interest in controlling people's healthy/unhealthy behaviors and habits (what they can/cannot eat, etc.)...but now it isn't just the people for whom they are paying for medical care...it is everyone.

Fundamentally you are arguing that the reason it is OK for the gov't to ban certain foods is because it makes people more obese...and the reason this is a problem is because it costs the gov't $...but you fail to see the option of it not costing the gov't $ by having the gov't back away from medical coverage altogether and leaving this to private companies.

The better solution (from the perspective of overall freedom) is for the government to step back from both things.

P.S. I am just curious...how many people here that are pro-choice (abortion) also think it is just fine for the gov't to regulate what food I choose to consume? If so, what happened to the grand-sounding (supposedly) moral high-ground of "the government has no right to tell a woman what she can do with her body"?
post #154 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

Obviously most people are too stupid to think before they chew. Maybe instead of regulation education might be an idea. In the very near future we will have to make some very tough decisions about energy consumption in the broadest sense.
Does liberty really mean "waste as much as you like and behave like a degenerate anytime you like?"

I have to say, I really just lost any respect for you that I might once have had.
post #155 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla View Post


P.S. I am just curious...how many people here that are pro-choice (abortion) also think it is just fine for the gov't to regulate what food I choose to consume? If so, what happened to the grand-sounding (supposedly) moral high-ground of "the government has no right to tell a woman what she can do with her body"?

You can do with your body whatever you want. We'll just tax you by your weight. Abortion is not free. Your choice to be overweight shouldn't be free either.

Birth control is cheaper and healthier than abortion.
Obesity prevention is cheaper and healthier than obesity.
post #156 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

You can do with your body whatever you want.

OK.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

We'll just tax you by your weight. Abortion is not free.

Ah. Typical. Forcing your values and morals on others are we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

Your choice to be overweight shouldn't be free either.

It isn't. It doesn't need any additional gov't costs either though. BTW...I wonder how far you'd get on a platform of taxing women extra for getting abortions.
post #157 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla View Post

OK.



Ah. Typical. Forcing your values and morals on others are we?



It isn't. It doesn't need any additional gov't costs either though. BTW...I wonder how far you'd get on a platform of taxing women extra for getting abortions.

No values, economics.

We are taxing the abortion clinics.
The difference here is the obese are taxing everyone else and themselves. Be fat, die sooner, more parking spaces for the thin!
EAT MORE grease. look at my eyes, You feel the urge, go to that fridge, you can do it you can hit 420 LBs go for it. Yeah yummy that oreo is great why not eat the whole pack, add some sugar to your steak sauce. Oh yeah.... orgasm. Oh I forgot that might be a problem.
Don't breath, chew baby!
post #158 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

No values, economics.

Wrong. When you forcibly take money from people because of some thing they do that you don't like...you are trying to use money as a means of accomplish some sort of B.F. Skinner experiment. It is social engineering which derives from some set of values that you think everyone else should hold or at least adhere to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

We are taxing the abortion clinics.

Really? Are they taxed more because they are performing abortions? Because, if not, then the "We are taxing the abortion clinics." claim is just BS. It just means that they are taxed like any other business...no more, no less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

The difference here is the obese are taxing everyone else

This is simply a lie that you tell yourself to justify your desire to exert some control over their lives. Why don't you just admit your desire to impose your morals about personal health, well-being and physical fitness onto everyone else?
post #159 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla View Post

What the heck is that supposed to mean?

It means you should know you're talking to a conservative who generally opposes government intervention.


Quote:
How so? Please be specific. (Because this tends to the the vague and ambiguous "argument" of people seeking to expand the power of government over people's lives: "But is it for the good of society." or "But it costs all of us."

Come on. You really need that broken down? Whatever...fine. Obesity leads to a host of health problems. Health problems cost money, from insurance premiums, to added medical staff, to missed work days to a thousand other examples. This impacts the economy as we spend more as a society on healthcare. It also costs money in terms of medicare, medicaid, CHIP, etc.

Quote:
See...you are begging the question here. You are assuming that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the government intervention to begin with. Furthermore, you are basically saying that because the government is already intervening (health care) that it should intervene even more. This is the slippery slope.

Wait..you're saying that ALL government intervention is wrong? the slipperly slope runs both ways, my friend.

Quote:

I'd say it is a pretty big question.

Yes, so?

Quote:

But see here is the problem. We have government already doing something (paying for some people's medical care). Next step (already there) we have people arguing that because of this, the government has a vested interest in controlling people's healthy/unhealthy behaviors and habits (what they can/cannot eat, etc.)...but now it isn't just the people for whom they are paying for medical care...it is everyone.

Fundamentally you are arguing that the reason it is OK for the gov't to ban certain foods is because it makes people more obese...and the reason this is a problem is because it costs the gov't $...but you fail to see the option of it not costing the gov't $ by having the gov't back away from medical coverage altogether and leaving this to private companies.

The better solution (from the perspective of overall freedom) is for the government to step back from both things.

Well if you want to dicuss backing away from healthcare alltogther, I'm game. That's not what we're talking about though. We're having this dicussion in the here and now. Medicare, Medicaid (et al) are programs that exist. Assuming those programs exist, obesity costs taxpayers money. Even leaving out direct government funding, you're talking increased costs for the private sector...costs that will be passed on.

Quote:

P.S. I am just curious...how many people here that are pro-choice (abortion) also think it is just fine for the gov't to regulate what food I choose to consume? If so, what happened to the grand-sounding (supposedly) moral high-ground of "the government has no right to tell a woman what she can do with her body"?

Agreed. But remember, it all depends what length the government goes to. That's why I say that's the only question that remains. If we're talking public service messages, full nutritional disclosure, funding for healthy living/eating in school curriclums and in school lunches, all that is fine with me. When we start talking about banning Crisco and putting "I'm a Lardo" labels on clothes, that's when I go batshit.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #160 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Obesity leads to a host of health problems. Health problems cost money, from insurance premiums, to added medical staff, to missed work days to a thousand other examples. This impacts the economy as we spend more as a society on healthcare. It also costs money in terms of medicare, medicaid, CHIP, etc.

So the cost to the government is about medicare and medicaid...which is what I suspected. I addressed that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Well if you want to dicuss backing away from healthcare alltogther, I'm game. That's not what we're talking about though.

But the issues are obviously intrincally interwined as you have illustrated by your own argument in favor of government intervention into the obesity issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Medicare, Medicaid (et al) are programs that exist. Assuming those programs exist, obesity costs taxpayers money.

And the circular reasoning continues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Even leaving out direct government funding, you're talking increased costs for the private sector...costs that will be passed on.

So what? People do lots of things that result in externalized costs...and externalized benefits as well. This is an extraordinarily weak argument for government intervention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

When we start talking about banning Crisco and putting "I'm a Lardo" labels on clothes, that's when I go batshit.

And that's what I'm talking about.

Education...information sharing and spreading is fine (though even these things can be private-sectored). But forcibly making these choices for people is over the time (which is where this thread started).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Warning: Your ass is too big!