Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla
What the heck is that supposed to mean?
It means you should know you're talking to a conservative who generally opposes government intervention.
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.
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.
I'd say it is a pretty big question.
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.
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.