Should the government (state or national) take bigger steps to help insure that people of this country stay fit? Steps such as making gym memberships tax deductible, making pe a bigger part in school, etc

If you were in charge what would you do.

9/12/2007 11:24:23 PM

nothing

people need to take responsibility for their own actions

9/12/2007 11:39:38 PM

If I were in charge I'd pass a law outlawing laws, then just sit back and laugh, by myself, at the irony.

9/12/2007 11:51:18 PM

No, the government should do no such thing.

On a side note, how is it possible that being a congressman can be a full time job? Your job is to write and vote on laws. How many new laws do we need?

9/12/2007 11:52:46 PM

Rather than making up new laws (because we have way too many as it is), a better action would be to give incentives for people to keep up their shape. Apparently heart disease and diabetes are not enough of one. Making fat people pay substantially more for health insurance could be a start (if they dont do it already), but the government should keep their hands out of this one

[Edited on September 12, 2007 at 11:59 PM. Reason : c]

9/12/2007 11:58:43 PM

according to the latest research, it seems what we need to do to decrease obesity is increase property values, presumably with community investments.

today's news describes that University of Washington researchers concluded a study showing

Quote :

"the strongest predictor of obesity rates wasn't income or education but property values [of the area in which a person lives] ... Each additional $100,000 in median home value for a ZIP code corresponded with a drop in obesity of 2 percentage points."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/331292_obesezip12.html





[Edited on September 13, 2007 at 1:14 AM. Reason : ]

9/13/2007 1:10:41 AM

if I currently have to pay to take care of people who come obese
and it's cheaper to prevent obese people
then I prefer preventing obese people

9/13/2007 1:12:10 AM

Quote :

"Steps such as making gym memberships tax deductible,"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

...

*cough* sorry about that ...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

...

Seriously, my favorite idea lately is this:

http://www.slashfood.com/2007/09/11/la-might-ban-fast-food-restaurants/ ("Officials might ban fast food restaurants")

The LA city council wants to create "Health Zones" wherein new fast food places are banned for a while.

Health Zones!? More like "Fat Ass Zones." Way to go, LA!

Here's my ultimate idea for Obesity Free America: take up excessive drinking, smoking, and eating of heavy cream-based dishes. It's worked for the French for centuries.

9/13/2007 4:08:01 AM

Quote :

"how is it possible that being a congressman can be a full time job? Your job is to write and vote on laws."

Well, you just displayed your ignorance.

Quote :

"If you were in charge what would you do."

I'd round up all of the fat people put them on a ship, and ship them to Africa. There, I would sell them to the locals as cattle. Profit.

9/13/2007 6:50:49 AM

Judging from the ideas given so far in this thread, the government shouldn't do anything.


Insurance companies need to start charging hefty ( ) premiums for fatties, though.

9/13/2007 8:00:47 AM

Quote :

"nothing people need to take responsibility for their own actions"

exactly

if anything, I'd actually push for an amendment banning all such "nanny" laws and incentives

9/13/2007 8:08:46 AM

The obesity rate won't decrease until the poverty rate decreases. Richer people are usually healthier.

9/13/2007 8:35:23 AM

The question is. Do the same things that make someone rich also make them want to take care of their bodies?

Or is it the other way around and being healthy is so expensive that only rich people can afford it?

I'm inclined to believe the former. In which case, decreasing the poverty rate (how would you do this anyway?) may not do a damn thing to help.

[Edited on September 13, 2007 at 9:41 AM. Reason : d]

9/13/2007 9:40:56 AM

Eating healthy is expensive and time consuming.

Cooking meals, especially healthy ones, can take anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour. Buying things like fresh fruits and vegetables, especially organics, is expensive.

Why spend $10.00 on fresh poultry, spices, balsamic vinaigrette, lettuce, broccoli, and onions and then spend an hour making a salad and cooking chicken and vegetables when you can spend $3.18 at McDonalds and get a hamburger, fries, and a drink in 2 minutes?

Plus, poor people really don't have time to exercise.

9/13/2007 9:45:57 AM

I don't buy it.

I was a college student on a shoestring budget at one time and it was WAY less expensive to buy groceries and cook for myself.

Further, most successful businessmen that I know have insanely busy schedules, but they typically discipline themselves to carve out time in their schedule to excersize.

Of course, your response will be to bring up the single mother working two jobs and how she doesn't have enough time to do anything but take the kids to mcdonalds for dinner. And then I will point out that that is probably a very small percentage of the "poor" we are talking about. We will go back and forth, but the bottom line will be that I believe people can and should take responsibility for their own health and you believe that people are a victim of their social class.

9/13/2007 9:51:09 AM

Quote :

"Plus, poor people really don't have time to exercise."

poor people have plenty of time to exercise.

9/13/2007 9:51:31 AM

The govt should have a food stamp grocery store, just like an aldi, where you have generic foods, healthy foods, and let them eat that.

These "poor" people bitch about time and money to eat healthy, but its just an excuse. Go to a walmart on the first of the month, and look what kind of foods they have in thier two or three grocery carts.

I would agree to let them take responsibility for thier own actions, the problem is that our "poor" population is also the most obese pop, and they dont take/have any responsibilities that they pay for. If they are on the system, the govt should tell them what they can eat..by way of thier own grocery store.

Now, if you arent on the govt dime, and are overweight...then you typically do pay for it. With higher premium costs. However, in some states they have mandated that you cant discriminate so EVERYONE has to pay the same premium... God help this socialist movement. Its unbelievable how doing the right thing continues to be punished by the govt.

9/13/2007 9:53:22 AM

Quote :

"insurance companies need to start charging hefty premiums for fatties, though."

agreed

9/13/2007 10:11:51 AM

I don't believe the correlation between poverty and obesity has anything to do with lack of time or money. It really, really doesn't take that much time or money to be healthy.

Frozen vegetables, dried beans, rice, bread, milk... all these things are many times cheaper than fast food, and take all of 15 minutes to prepare (or about the time it takes to make a fast food detour).

9/13/2007 10:14:41 AM

^you are right boone. Its just another excuse and lack of responsiblity from a group with NO responsiblity.


What good is raising premiums on fatties when the govt is paying for it anyway? Dont get me wrong I agree with it in principle, but we are moving towards socialism. There is NO penality for being obese with premiums when you have medicaid or in states like Mass. where the govt regulates it.. so they take away the penality for the one who actually is making the poor decisions and passing it on to others.

9/13/2007 10:18:16 AM

You may not believe it, but there is a correlation between being overweight and being in a lower income bracket.

9/13/2007 10:20:21 AM

^I know that our "poor" population is our most overweight. I would also imagine you will also find a correlation between the "poor" population and thier education level. Thier weight is just another example of the many bad decisions they continue to make, then blame/bill someone else for them.

9/13/2007 10:30:18 AM

Quote :

"You may not believe it, but there is a correlation between being overweight and being in a lower income bracket."

I don't think anyone is arguing whether or not this is true. I think where some of us differ is why there is this correlation.

9/13/2007 10:35:16 AM

I agree that the same character attributes that cause people to be poor also cause them to be fat, but I don't think "stupid and lazy" are quite it, though.

People living in generational poverty are generally not taught good habits or the benefits of delayed gratification. "Unaware of the benefits of knowledge and initiative" is probably more accurate.

9/13/2007 10:52:00 AM

I would agree with that.

9/13/2007 10:53:59 AM

^boone, good post. However, I would place some of that blame on the fact that they are the offspring of the same idiots. I think there is a strong correlation between fat parents and fat kids, and most of that is due bc of how the parents eat, they feed thier kids and teach their kids the same habits.

9/13/2007 11:00:52 AM

That's what he is saying when he says "generational poverty".

One thing that I don't think will work in ending obesity is making obesity a protected class. There has to be a negative consequence to poor life choices. Be it paying for two seats on an airplane, paying higher insurance premiums, etc.

Heck, with kids nowadays, they are taking away real exercise and competition during physical education and recess because it may make some kids feel bad.

9/13/2007 11:08:44 AM

I would support tax deductions for gym memberships, necessitating food stamps be used for healthy food, and increase PE health education spending in the schools.

However, I am firmly against the government trying to regulate the Fast Food industry except for ensuring that they aren't using poisonous/unsanitary ingredients or cooking procedures. Granted I abhor the obesity problem in america stemming a lot from laziness, however, if I want to eat a super bacon triple thickburger w/ a super biggie fries. Then it is my right to sit there w/ grease dripping out of my mouth as I pass the 300 lb weight mark. The gov't should "encourage" & educate but not force people to live a healthy life style.

Quote :

"if I currently have to pay to take care of people who come obese"

While true the same could be said about people....

-who smoke cigarettes
- drive w/o wearing a seatbelt
- drink 12 beers everyday
- don't save for retirement
- get pregnant at 16 and have to receive welfare since they don't have the means to support their child
- etc

all the above activities inherently "cost society" but the gov't should not beyond education and "tax encouragement" prevent people from taking part in actions that "harm" themselves. Otherwise we might as well live in a 1984 society where the federal gov't regulated all personal activities of individuals in order to ensure that everyone provides 100% of their full capacity to "benefit" society.

I think there are/were societies like this and we called them communists (ignoring the economic differences btw US and red nations)

[Edited on September 13, 2007 at 11:20 AM. Reason : l]

9/13/2007 11:11:18 AM

Quote :

"You may not believe it, but there is a correlation between being overweight and being in a lower income bracket."

I believe it when Big Daddy is making $120K a year; the wife can spend the day w/ her personal trainer at the gym working on a good body and pay a premium for healthier food. Sally can get of high school and go visit the gym too and play all the sports.

Also, from a purely natural selection standpoint a man with more money is more likely to seek out and marry an "attractive" wife who though genetics and habits has a healthy lifestyle. She then passes her traits and behavioral patterns to her kids who grow up learning the same traits.

Meanwhile Mc. Fatty usually has to settle for a "lesser" guy who earns less money and the cycle continues.

[Edited on September 13, 2007 at 11:29 AM. Reason : l]

9/13/2007 11:27:17 AM

Quote :

"(1) Eating healthy is expensive and time consuming. Cooking meals, especially healthy ones, can take anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour. Buying things like fresh fruits and vegetables, especially organics, is expensive. Why spend $10.00 on fresh poultry, spices, balsamic vinaigrette, lettuce, broccoli, and onions and then spend an hour making a salad and cooking chicken and vegetables when you can spend $3.18 at McDonalds and get a hamburger, fries, and a drink in 2 minutes?"

Time consuming, yes. Expensive, no. You have to keep in mind that healthier food provides more efficient energy. One pound of fresh poultry and a side salad will provide far more energy, not to mention essential nutritional content, than say a super-sized combo at McDonalds.

That's the problem with fast food - it doesn't hardly cover the food groups you need each day. You instead get a whole lot of BAD things like high-fructose corn syrup, fats, and salt. Yeah, it's cheap, but there's a reason you'll feel sluggish and apathetic later. You haven't gotten the balanced diet needed to be more active.

Additionally, I had a friend who used to spend ~$25 at the supermarket and then cook for 4-6 hours on Sunday afternoon. She made enough food for dinner for the entire week, plus a few lunches depending on whether she had company over on any particular night. All of it healthy, all of it nutritionally balanced.

Quote :

"Plus, poor people really don't have time to exercise."

Busy poor people rarely stay poor.

9/13/2007 12:33:19 PM

^ agreed.

I have found if i just take the time to shop then cook I can usually put together a healthy meal cheaper then it would usually cost to eat some shitty fast food.

9/13/2007 1:09:31 PM

How about this for a solution.

GO JOGGING YOU LAZY BASTARDS

9/13/2007 1:41:58 PM

Government has a huge interest in fighting obesity, as the largest health insurance provider. I think it is certainly permissable to set up a system of incentives/disincentives for staying fit, as a healthy weight and physical condition is a major component of preventative health care. Private health insurance providers should do the same thing. Unfortunately, I'm not sure the extent this would truly impact lifestyle choices, but at least people living a healthy lifestyle woudn't be subsidizing those who don't.

However, I think excessive regulation/banning of "bad" foods is overboard. Unhealthy foods are not a problem. Living a lifestyle of eating poorly often (especially when combined with lack of exercise) is the problem.

Quote :

"While true the same could be said about people.... -who smoke cigarettes Easy to lie about how many cigarettes you smoke a day - drive w/o wearing a seatbelt Most life insurance companies cut their payout if you die without a seatbelt on. - drink 12 beers everyday Easy to lie about how much you drink. - don't save for retirement Everyone gets social security anyway... - get pregnant at 16 and have to receive welfare since they don't have the means to support their child The additional benefit is for the child, not the mother. - etc"

Also, when insurance companies are allowed to base premiums off of demographic factors out of the individual's control: i.e. 25 year old male, I'm not sure why an obese lifestyle would be off limits.

9/13/2007 1:47:17 PM

mark, I disagree with your "everyone gets social security anyway" line. There are already talks of means testing people out of thier own SS amounts. So if you do what you are supposed to and save money, you will be penalized and not get your full amount owed to you.

Besides, SS was never meant to be somones SOLE retirement fund. Just as health ins. was never designed to start paying at dollar one.

9/13/2007 2:00:19 PM

Quote :

" don't save for retirement Everyone gets social security anyway..."

Quote :

"who smoke cigarettes Easy to lie about how many cigarettes you smoke a day"

insurance companies often take a swab of your cheek tissues to tell if you smoke or dip.

9/13/2007 2:32:30 PM

Quote :

"Why spend $10.00 on fresh poultry, spices, balsamic vinaigrette, lettuce, broccoli, and onions and then spend an hour making a salad and cooking chicken and vegetables when you can spend $3.18 at McDonalds and get a hamburger, fries, and a drink in 2 minutes?"

Your point stands, but I am just here to inform you (and billions of others) that a healthy meal can be made from scratch for < $5. And in 20-30 minutes.

9/13/2007 4:36:42 PM

Quote :

"nothing people need to take responsibility for their own actions "

9/13/2007 11:07:00 PM

let's not look towards solving the problem

lets just place blame and move on

fucking fatties

9/14/2007 12:37:23 AM

oh the horror, people have food to eat. It's almost like we are living in a time of unparalleled prosperity, but ignore that lets complain about even the poor having too much to eat. Maybe someday we can be skinny like parts of the third world, wouldn't that be great.

9/14/2007 1:21:43 AM

We're all going to die of something, I can't see the problem in dying of an abundance of something of which an abundance of has been the goal of all life on Earth forever.

That said, we could probably be shifting our focus in schools. Fuck adults, it's their problem. But unfortunately children are, by default, someone else's problem. As a result I don't see any harm in government -- local government, where educational control belongs -- setting up programs in schools to affect the process.

9/14/2007 1:57:23 AM

^

The problem is that food "education" in this country verges on nefarious evil.

I was reading one of those heart-health brochures today in a local gym. It was preaching about how, for example, one should use egg beaters instead of yolks. And use wine to baste roast instead of drippings. And other such food crimes of unimaginable proportions, designed to suck the pleasure out of eating in favor of bland, inoffensive, heart-healthy predictability.

And on that note, I should point out that the French invented and consume practically every unhealthy food we eat today (or its grandparent), and they still maintain inordinately thin physiques.

There's something to be said for eating with gusto, versus just sloughing down whatever is around. Food education encourages the worst in us because it deprives us of what we crave. Fast food fills the void with bland but satiating cheap thrills.

Even the poorest among us can eat well. The best food is the cheapest -- braised meats, for example. Where do people think Southern food (and its cousin Soul food) came from? Mostly making do and making flavor out of cheap cuts and cheap vegetables.

Food education, indeed. It's all a matter of taste.

9/14/2007 2:19:01 AM

again

let's do nothing

fuck fatties and the fat fucking boat they ride in

am i rite?

9/14/2007 2:37:48 AM

1. fat person has a heart attack or other related health problem
2. fat person claims a crap ton of insurance money to pay for hospital bills
3. insurance company continues to raise rates because they're already greedy plus they have a new reason
...
...
profit?...

9/14/2007 2:40:39 AM

but fuck fatties

am i rite?

9/14/2007 2:42:12 AM

Quote :

"here do people think Southern food (and its cousin Soul food) came from? Mostly making do and making flavor out of cheap cuts and cheap vegetables."

I do not quite understand your argument. Soul food is pretty healthy with all the vegetables (okra, corn, greenbeans, etc) and complex carbs like potatoes.

There is nothing redeeming or healthy in the super sized big mac; or the KFC super extra crispy chicken bucket. People in this country or too contempt at being larger.

Here at Sony Ericsson we have a lot of european co-workers and I swear like 50% of middle aged euro woman are thin like a 20 yr old

9/14/2007 9:48:37 AM

Quote :

" Busy poor people rarely stay poor."

i wish i was this optimistic

9/14/2007 10:27:20 AM

So there's a correlation between obesity and poverty. It seems pretty obvious to me that Americans in "poverty" are just lazy as shit. What's so hard to believe about that?

9/14/2007 1:00:25 PM

Quote :

"Soul food is pretty healthy with all the vegetables (okra, corn, greenbeans, etc) and complex carbs like potatoes."

The problem is that a lot of foods can be good or bad depending on how it is prepared. Okra and chicken is very healthy. Fried okra and fried chicken is terrible.

You can get hella fat off corn and potatoes. They are both very starchy foods. It gets worse when people start adding butter, sour cream, etc. You really don't need to be eating corn or potatoes in any form more than a couple times a week unless you are very active.

I'd say that "Soul Food" is bad for you on the whole. While some of it may be healthy or healthy in moderation, the final product is not a healthy meal.

Quote :

"making fat people pay substantially more for health insurance could be a start"

They do. Overweight people are charged a premium for insurance. While the hit is distributed for people on company or group plans if an overweight person applies for an insurance policy for himself/herself the rate will be drastically higher.

[Edited on September 14, 2007 at 2:10 PM. Reason : s]

9/14/2007 2:08:26 PM

Quote :

"You really don't need to be eating corn or potatoes in any form more than a couple times a week unless you are very active."

WTF, r people supposed to eat then. Green Salads and celery every meal???
The key factor is moderation, balanced diet, and staying away from purely junk food. All while getting adequate exercise.

I try to eat healthy but i sometimes eat more then i need or throw in some occasion "unhealthy" "fatty" foods. However, I get regular exercise therefore weigh 155 not 200lbs

9/14/2007 2:47:45 PM

Before college: 6'5" 220, played hockey 3 times a week and wroked out at the gym.
5 years of college: 6'5" 320, did absolutely zero physical activity and ate mainly Wendy's, Gumby's, and China Wok and drank heavily.
Within 2 years I was down to about 250-260 with minimal effort.

I cannot imagine someone consuming more calories and doing less than I did living in the fraternity house. Being a little overweight is one thing but it seems to me like you have to actively "work" to become obese.

9/14/2007 4:20:58 PM