# The war on obesity, the next phase.



## HereticFA (Jun 11, 2009)

Barack Obama says shape up now
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23559.html

I cringe to think of Michael Jacobson (of the Center for Science in the Public Interest) possibly being put into a position of power in the Administration. They _are_ the food police.


----------



## GutsGirl (Jun 11, 2009)

The above is why I am not a liberal (I identify as an independent libertarian with strong conservative leanings on some issues).

Things like taxes on certain foods is, IMHO, about the government controlling people's lives and generating revenue from more taxes.

I'm all for people eating healthy, but why does the Federal government need to tell them to do so?


----------



## Famouslastwords (Jun 11, 2009)

*cries*


----------



## imfree (Jun 11, 2009)

GutsGirl said:


> The above is why I am not a liberal (I identify as an independent libertarian with strong conservative leanings on some issues).
> 
> Things like taxes on certain foods is, IMHO, about the government controlling people's lives and generating revenue from more taxes.
> 
> I'm all for people eating healthy, but why does the Federal government need to tell them to do so?



The "war on obesity" makes me very uneasy because
I feel the government is going too far into people's
personal lives.

Limiting salt in food, along with limiting trans and 
saturated fats in manufactured foods seems like
a good idea, however.:bow:


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 11, 2009)

HereticFA said:


> Barack Obama says shape up now
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23559.html
> 
> I cringe to think of Michael Jacobson (of the Center for Science in the Public Interest) possibly being put into a position of power in the Administration. They _are_ the food police.



Google "George W Bush" and "obesity". I think you'll be in for an eye-opener.

Every politician has to take a stab at the current hot-button issue. Right now, it's Americans and obesity. Sooner or later, the focus will shift to something else.

But this isn't a one-party issue. Not by a long shot. 

Aside from which, I happen to agree with much of what the article said. Making healthy food choices and getting plenty of exercise *is* good for us. We just don't need to have it legislated or shoved down our throats.


----------



## undrcovrbrothr (Jun 11, 2009)

Fascism is alive and well today  They can't tell me how to cook my steak and burgers... I'm going to rare meat and eat it in front of as many people as possible... not to mention pizza and things. I'll be damned!

They took all fryers off of Navy ships too... fascists never stop... and you thought it was just PC people!!!! *barf*


----------



## Fatgirlfan (Jun 12, 2009)

I warned ya'll that this guy was going to make things hard on fat people, I bet he will take away basic rights of people who don't become thin. I think people will be threatened with job loss and fines for not getting thin. People will be told get to thin or else. I hate the "nanny state" this guy is creating.


----------



## undrcovrbrothr (Jun 12, 2009)

Fatgirlfan said:


> I warned ya'll that this guy was going to make things hard on fat people, I bet he will take away basic rights of people who don't become thin. I think people will be threatened with job loss and fines for not getting thin. People will be told get to thin or else. I hate the "nanny state" this guy is creating.



HE'S creating? I'm sure he is single handedly responsible for all of this nonsense? BZZZZT.... this stuff started way before January, and a far worse kook to begin with "running" things. No matter which side, you are always having people trying to get into your business!!! Look at Arnold Schwarzenegger!!!


----------



## Mathias (Jun 12, 2009)

Fatgirlfan said:


> I warned ya'll that this guy was going to make things hard on fat people, I bet he will take away basic rights of people who don't become thin. I think people will be threatened with job loss and fines for not getting thin. People will be told get to thin or else. I hate the "nanny state" this guy is creating.



It was already created before he got into office but I'll stop there before things get too political... sigh*


----------



## Paquito (Jun 12, 2009)

I think Hyde Park is gonna come out of hyding with this one...

But yea, I'm gonna eat what I damn well please, Obama. Kthnxbai.


----------



## Fatgirlfan (Jun 12, 2009)

undrcovrbrothr said:


> HE'S creating? I'm sure he is single handedly responsible for all of this nonsense? BZZZZT.... this stuff started way before January, and a far worse kook to begin with "running" things. No matter which side, you are always having people trying to get into your business!!! Look at Arnold Schwarzenegger!!!



I agree, BUT...............HE made a big deal out of the war on obesity during his run for the White House. No other candidate did that, (except for Hilary).
The writing on the wall was there. He made it a major promise while running for election. 

to quote the prez: "you 'aint seen nothing yet".


----------



## steely (Jun 12, 2009)

It's a slippery slope, you start with telling people what they can and can't eat and you end up with the goverment telling you how many children you can have. Where does government in your life end?

It's already too close for comfort, imo.


----------



## undrcovrbrothr (Jun 12, 2009)

steely said:


> It's a slippery slope, you start with telling people what they can and can't eat and you end up with the goverment telling you how many children you can have. Where does government in your life end?
> 
> It's already too close for comfort, imo.



My whole entire point was that both sides do it, whether or not it is religious morality pushing it or extreme "liberal" elements. The only reason why this comes up is because it is OK for health care providers/suppliers to jack up prices, and then it is because someone eats "badly" that is the reason why we pay so much in health care costs!?! I am waving the giant BS flag on that!!!!!


----------



## Fatgirlfan (Jun 12, 2009)

To the government: Hands Off my personal business and my body!!


I suggest a day of indugence to protest! We'll call it : National "pig out" day!! 

I'm tired of the health czars and food police being the high priests of our culture and how they decide who the sinners and saints are!


----------



## Fatgirlfan (Jun 12, 2009)

undrcovrbrothr said:


> My whole entire point was that both sides do it, whether or not it is religious morality pushing it or extreme "liberal" elements. The only reason why this comes up is because it is OK for health care providers/suppliers to jack up prices, and then it is because someone eats "badly" that is the reason why we pay so much in health care costs!?! I am waving the giant BS flag on that!!!!!




The "progressives" want their hands in ALL of our personal business. It will not end with health, it will never end.


----------



## Blackjack (Jun 12, 2009)

all around regarding this- and plenty of the response to it.


----------



## undrcovrbrothr (Jun 12, 2009)

Fatgirlfan said:


> The "progressives" want their hands in ALL of our personal business. It will not end with health, it will never end.



Don't confuse progressives with socialists! Protecting the public such as in safety of food is not the same as dictating what the public shall do, obviously. 

These people you are talking about aren't protecting the health care providers and suppliers and insurers by promoting this "health care costs are to blame because people are eating poorly" idea... that is a conservative mantra, hence everyone is doing it.


----------



## Keb (Jun 12, 2009)

I love how half the stuff they mention doesn't even relate to me. I'm not fat because of soda, for example; I drink water 99% of the time. Yet, gasp, I'm still fat.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 12, 2009)

Keb said:


> I love how half the stuff they mention doesn't even relate to me. I'm not fat because of soda, for example; I drink water 99% of the time. Yet, gasp, I'm still fat.



Exactly. None of what they mentioned effects me at all. Some of the ideas expressed I agree with on a personal leve. Still, the whole business gives me an uneasy feeling. I think they're crossing the line.


----------



## Ned Sonntag (Jun 12, 2009)

This has gone rancid- move it to the Hyde park archives. Politico is pretty wingnutty,


----------



## undrcovrbrothr (Jun 12, 2009)

Ahh, time to put the happy shades on and play issue avoidance despite its obvious direct relationship to fat issues. Hmmmm... I wonder.


----------



## Ned Sonntag (Jun 12, 2009)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Politico
Reagan apparatchiks, ABC/Disney affiliates.
Beliefsystem>Agenda>Filter: voila! your outrage du jour.


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Jun 12, 2009)

A lot of that article scares the crap out of me, but I agree with the taxation of soda, sweets, and fast food. Call me crazy, but I think those things are on the same level as cigarettes. Smokers enjoy smoking, so they pay the tax. I'm a fat girl who likes chocolate, I'd pay the tax. And news flash, thin people eat and drink all the stuff too....so it isn't taxing the fatties, it is taxing habits that can lead to poor health. And my supersized ass supports that.


----------



## IrishBard (Jun 12, 2009)

HereticFA said:


> Barack Obama says shape up now
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23559.html
> 
> I cringe to think of Michael Jacobson (of the Center for Science in the Public Interest) possibly being put into a position of power in the Administration. They _are_ the food police.



Obama, so bright a future, we wanted more
but now your government is sounding like 1984


----------



## IrishBard (Jun 12, 2009)

HereticFA said:


> Barack Obama says shape up now
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23559.html
> 
> I cringe to think of Michael Jacobson (of the Center for Science in the Public Interest) possibly being put into a position of power in the Administration. They _are_ the food police.



Obama, so bright a future, we wanted more
but now your government is sounding like 1984
so please don't put me in room 101
for enjoying food and having fun


----------



## pani (Jun 12, 2009)

The silver lining in the economy tanking is that people who have just been ripped off billions by the banks via the government are not going to take kindly to Uncle Sam meddling in their lives. Especially when they are going hungry. This will be almost fun to fight!

p.s. According to Open Secrets, one of Harkin's biggest campaign contributers is Herbalife.


----------



## GWARrior (Jun 12, 2009)

BLAH BLAH BLAH I HATE OBAMA BLAH BLAH I WANT A CHEESEBURGER BLAH BLAH BLAH DAMN THEM LIBERAL HIPPIES! 


and that is how i post.


----------



## Blackjack (Jun 12, 2009)

GWARrior said:


> BLAH BLAH BLAH I HATE OBAMA BLAH BLAH I WANT A CHEESEBURGER BLAH BLAH BLAH DAMN THEM LIBERAL HIPPIES!
> 
> 
> and that is how i post.



You forgot to mention WHARGARBL


----------



## Santaclear (Jun 12, 2009)

As Ned pointed out, consider the source. :bow:

The story is stoopid, people. Just calculated crap to push our buttons.


----------



## Your Plump Princess (Jun 13, 2009)

I Find it sort of funny, when I hear about Taxing Sugary Drinks.

Because most people assume it's a war on Pop. 

But Really. 
Think About it.
SUGARY DRINKS? 

There Goes your :

Gatorade
Kool Aid
Pop
Tea's [Arizona, Brisk, Nestl`e, ect]
And Probably Some Chocolate Milk's, Too. Their Loaded with Sugar!



..And Ya know what?
I don't give a damn what ANYBODY says.
Nobody is taking my Chinese Food Away.
NOBODY. >;O NO BUFFET, NO HAPPY MEGAN. NO HAPPY MEGAN. NO HAPPY NOBODY! >:O


----------



## MatthewB (Jun 13, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> A lot of that article scares the crap out of me, but I agree with the taxation of soda, sweets, and fast food. Call me crazy, but I think those things are on the same level as cigarettes. Smokers enjoy smoking, so they pay the tax. I'm a fat girl who likes chocolate, I'd pay the tax. And news flash, thin people eat and drink all the stuff too....so it isn't taxing the fatties, it is taxing habits that can lead to poor health. And my supersized ass supports that.


Nice to know some people can be reasonable on this subject; I like my sweets like anybody else, but if I have to pay extra to support the gov't, so be it.


----------



## mithrandirjn (Jun 13, 2009)

Yeah, really guys, this isn't so much about a "war on obesity", it strikes me more as "our economy is screwed, and better all-around national health and taxes raised on luxury goods will REALLY help us."

Quit the "1984" talk, really. The whole idea that "liberals want to control our lives!" is really played out, considering it wasn't the liberals pushing for all the civil liberty pushbacks in recent years, including who people are allowed to sleep with/marry/whatever. It drags the conversation down when we treat it like a partisan issue.

Let's also face a few facts; most of the people in this country who are overweight don't get that way through issues like glandular disorders, nor do most of them go about gaining like many people on this site do, as in doing it the smart, correct, safe way, where you still take care of yourself while also gaining weight.

No, most people who gain weight in this country do it, whether we like it or not, involuntarily, and usually through the development of habits that, again, whether we like it or not, lead to health problems that end up putting strain on our already strained healthcare system. Some of this is beyond their control to a certain extent, like parents who are forced to work multiple jobs and have no time for exercise, no time for healthy, home cooked meals, and how they pass those habits to their kids, etc.

The old saying goes that "your rights end where my nose begins", the old idea that you're free to do as you please in America until you begin infringing on the rights and safety of others. It sucks to say it, but when big time sects of the population lead unhealthy lives and run their risks for severe health problems too high, it leads to skyrocketing healthcare costs and coverage issues all over, leaving even more families and individuals uninsured, unable to afford coverage.

*Now, PLEASE don't read this as me saying "everyone has to lose weight!". Not at all, actually.*

Honestly, many of the more unhealthy people in this country aren't very fat at all. Think of all the thinner people you know who probably don't exercise at all, or still eat fast food frequently, or do any number of unhealthy activities...I'm sure you know more than a few. I know I do. Hell, I've got plenty of bad habits like that myself, and while I'm kind of big, I'm not especially fat. 

_But that's what we need to start looking at all of this as_: not having a war against being fat, but making it clear about unhealthy lifestyles that end up adversely affecting all of us. We all know this on this board: you can be big, but be healthy, too. Rather than fighting the idea of taxing unhealthy, unnecessary foods and additives or whatever, we should turn it around into a positive, that a person can be healthy and big; that the fight isn't against fat, it's against the all-around habits that any person of any size can have that seriously affect their health, and the nations' health and economy.

For some of those people, it might mean dropping a few pounds; for some, it wouldn't mean that at all. But part of living in an organized society is that we sometimes have to sacrifice complete personal freedom for a greater good (i.e. I can't just walk by onto somebody's property and claim it as my own for some arbitrary reason). 

So, no, I choose not to view this as a war on fat. I choose to view this as a chance to have a healthier nation at *ANY SIZE*, and a healthier nation will mean a healthier economy, among many other positive items.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Jun 13, 2009)

If the government really wanted to tax things like sodas I would have no problem with it (Minus them calling those things "Fat taxes" because OMG thin people drink soda too ). However, the only way I would support is if I knew it was going to use the money of the valid cause.


Call me cynical, but I am not completely trusting of those taxes being used for the good of the people and/or the ideas that the tax is supposedly made for. The government is not as altruistic as it may portray at times. Well at least in the US. 


That's my only gripe with the idea minus specific details of what the tax/bill/whatever would be for. That and of course the difference between a control situation and one with moar taxes.


----------



## thejuicyone (Jun 13, 2009)

I got my sniper and sawed off shotgun ready...Let's cap some motherfuckers.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Jun 13, 2009)

Juicyone for the winz lol


----------



## thejuicyone (Jun 13, 2009)

Jon Blaze said:


> Juicyone for the winz lol



haha hell yeah...I read the word war and came a runnin'.


----------



## Ned Sonntag (Jun 13, 2009)

Jon Blaze said:


> That and of course the difference between a control situation and one with moar taxes.



We need a lotta Moar taxes ha ha.


----------



## Famouslastwords (Jun 13, 2009)

I personally think the government taxes us ENOUGH as it is. They take every possible dime from us that they can and they still want more. When is enough, enough? We can't be responsible for some politician's poor spending habits, that simply isn't fair.


----------



## Wild Zero (Jun 13, 2009)

Blackjack said:


> You forgot to mention WHARGARBL



NEVAR FORGET


----------



## kioewen (Jun 13, 2009)

mithrandirjn said:


> *Now, PLEASE don't read this as me saying "everyone has to lose weight!". Not at all, actually.*
> 
> _But that's what we need to start looking at all of this as_: not having a war against being fat, but making it clear about unhealthy lifestyles that end up adversely affecting all of us.
> 
> ...



Not, you're not saying everyone has to lose weight. You're saying everyone has to be "healthy." I don't want to live in a world where you, or the government, or anyone can make such an imposition on anyone. That's tyranny, and you can dress it up any way you like. In Eastern Europe, that's how the always dressed up totalitarian governments -- by saying they were doing it "for the good of all." And only walls and barbed wire could keep people in those nations. Everyone wanted to escape that kind of "greater good," because it really was every bit as anathema to human nature as Orwell said.

Your' "taking somebody's property" is a false analogy. If anything, it works against you, because what you seek to impose would be taking something from others -- their personal liberty.

Your "greater good" is not my "greater good," and I don't accept you defining the "greater good" for others, and certainly not for me.

I think a far "greater good" is personal liberty.


----------



## imfree (Jun 13, 2009)

kioewen said:


> ........snipped......
> 
> I think a far "greater good" is personal liberty.



I agree and I'm amazed at how easily people are giving
up their personal liberties.


----------



## mel (Jun 14, 2009)

...and us "fat" people and our "fat" lovers...need to realize that if Obama nationalizes healthcare that us "fat" people will be on the bottom of the list for healthcare. Regardless of your party affiliations this is one thing that will affect us all.


----------



## Ned Sonntag (Jun 14, 2009)

mel said:


> ...and us "fat" people and our "fat" lovers...need to realize that if Obama nationalizes healthcare that us "fat" people will be on the bottom of the list for healthcare. Regardless of your party affiliations this is one thing that will affect us all.


 Mel, right now there isn't even a list. Being even on the bottom(not that I accept ANY of your prognostications) of the Socialismo Health list would be a big help to a lot of dying people.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Jun 14, 2009)

kioewen said:


> Not, you're not saying everyone has to lose weight. You're saying everyone has to be "healthy." I don't want to live in a world where you, or the government, or anyone can make such an imposition on anyone. That's tyranny, and you can dress it up any way you like. In Eastern Europe, that's how the always dressed up totalitarian governments -- by saying they were doing it "for the good of all." And only walls and barbed wire could keep people in those nations. Everyone wanted to escape that kind of "greater good," because it really was every bit as anathema to human nature as Orwell said.
> 
> Your' "taking somebody's property" is a false analogy. If anything, it works against you, because what you seek to impose would be taking something from others -- their personal liberty.
> 
> ...



They seem to thinking the same way that did when they started the Prohibition of liquor. They saw liquor related misbehavior, specially domestic abuse, and they thought that if they remove the liquor, then the bad behavior with go with it. But, as we all know that people just when to speak easys, local gangs when into the smuggling mading them so much money, so that these gangs were able to become powerful mobs, and the violence grew, not fall. So, Prohibition had the reverse effect that the supporters where looking for. 

On the flip side, since the founding of the nation there has always been a debate between Individual rights and the greater good. I thinking we all agree that we shouldn't have the right kill someone anytime we fell like it, for any reason we like. But, then the question is where is the line drawn. 

But, back to this issue I believe that it should be in the realm of Individual freedoms. However the problem we face is that given the current opinion over the obesity issue, our opponents (be they Democrats or Republicans) of course, believe that the issue falls on the other side. 

Finally, no matter who got in, we would have got it in the end, one way or the other, on this issue.


----------



## imfree (Jun 14, 2009)

EtobicokeFA said:


> They seem to thinking the same way that did when they started the Prohibition of liquor. They saw liquor related misbehavior, specially domestic abuse, and they thought that if they remove the liquor, then the bad behavior with go with it. .....snipped.... I believe that it should be in the realm of Individual freedoms. However the problem we face is that given the current opinion over the obesity issue, our opponents (be they Democrats or Republicans) of course, believe that the issue falls on the other side.
> 
> Finally, no matter who got in, we would have got it in the end, one way or the other, on this issue.



Yep, that's the harsh reality of it all. Fly me to Fatopia!
Tn Loop Ranch could be on the outskirts of Fatopia.:bow:


----------



## GWARrior (Jun 14, 2009)

Where the hell is my tinfoil cap?


----------



## mel (Jun 14, 2009)

Ned Sonntag said:


> Mel, right now there isn't even a list. Being even on the bottom(not that I accept ANY of your prognostications) of the Socialismo Health list would be a big help to a lot of dying people.




...and right now we dont have the govt in total control of our healthcare..hmmm...and when everyone has the same access to the same healthcare how long do you think you will have to wait for healthcare? how many new doctors will there be ..because they sure wont be making the same amount of money as dr's in the past...and how many dr's will retire or will only work for those who dont have to use the govt helathcare and will pay HUGE out of pockets amounts for their "private" healthcare....and when you think a wait time of 2 days to see the dr was a long time and your wait time changes to 2 weeks or 2 months..how will you feel..i guess if you are in geat shape or plan on not having any helth issue or you are wealthy enough to pay for your medical out of pocket then there are no worries... 

This country is not meant to be socialist!


----------



## Mathias (Jun 14, 2009)

GWARrior said:


> Where the hell is my tinfoil cap?


----------



## Ned Sonntag (Jun 14, 2009)

mel said:


> ...
> 
> This country is not meant to be socialist!


 My wait IS two weeks for a consultation and six weeks in advance for my allowed yearly checkup under the socialist Deval Patrick regime here in the Commonwealth. But hey I'm so broke after years of caregiving for my Pa-in-Law and Wife(meanwhile learning all the string-pulling for end-of-life healthcare MA has to offer) that it's FREE! Kind of like... in every industrialized country except "the Land Of The Free"!!! The Constitution says nothing about Capitalism vs Socialism. Medicine in 1776 consisted primarily of the application of leeches. 'Was not meant' is passive tense i.e. Propaganda. WHO did this 'meaning' you speak of? Mean People Suck as the bumpersticker says.


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 14, 2009)

wow! if i hadn't have read the article myself and heard the president speak about healthcare myself i would have been afraid too. but going by the things i've read and heard i don't think fat people have much to worry about. in fact i think this can be a great help. i think we ourselves need to stop feeling that fat and unhealthy necessarily go hand in hand. excercise is great for fat people. it keeps us happy it helps with depression mobility and helps us with the ablity to be a part of the world with greater ease. thats especially true when we are knowledgeable about the types of activities that are good for our bodies. i also think it will be good for SA if more of us are feeling good and fit in the fat bodies that we have so that people can see that its a myth that we can't have a good quality of life.

i also feel that improving the american diet would help us as well. our food is so generally bad and posionous its sad, especially when you compare the quality to what you find in other industrialized nations. by the time we get it its not fresh, its full of salt, toxins, synthetic hormones and steroids. instead of blaming the high incidence of cancer and many other diseases in fat people on all of the toxins in our food they simply blame it on fat. its just that we have a bigger storage system for the toxins. if there weren't toxins the warehouse would be empty. if americans had safe food to eat then maybe statistics like the ones for cancer would come down in our population and they couldn't just blame it on simply being fat. 

i think its time for us to stop being afraid of pushes for good health because we are afraid it will change our habits or even change us. instead i think we need to join in the healthcare conversation in a constructive way adding in our concerns. as long as anything about health is seen as the enemy our health will continue to be our enemy. even many of us buy into the idea that we have the illnesses we have just because we are fat rather than because we have to be careful of what types of things we eat and the quality of that or because we need more physical activity. its not definite that we have to end up sick just because we are fat. there are things we can do to be proactive. 

i applaud the administraition for looking at preventative maintenace in healthcare. for once someone is trying to keep us well instead of waiting until we are in crisis mode to get us help. i think we should take a page from that part of the healthcare conversation. its up to us to show people that we can be fat and healthy so that they start to understand that you can't use weight as an easy excuse to opt out of truly taking care of people and showing them consideration. then we can take away an argument that has been the basis for a lot of abuse toward people who are fat. they can't have the excuse any longer that fat has to be unhealthy so they are being nice by being abusive toward us. if the fat+unhealthy complex can be disproven by us learning how to take better care of ourselves we can take the candy coating off the very nasty pills they've tried to shove down our throats for many years and expose the prejudicial argument for what it really is.

there is a big difference between a war on obesity and a war on bad health. obesity does not have to necessarily equal bad health. assuming that it obesity is necessarily bad health and exemplified by all fat people eating a lot of horrible food and not having any physical activity is a self imposed prejudice and an easy excuse for giving up on taking care of ourselves that i think its time we get over.


----------



## mithrandirjn (Jun 14, 2009)

kioewen said:


> Not, you're not saying everyone has to lose weight. You're saying everyone has to be "healthy." I don't want to live in a world where you, or the government, or anyone can make such an imposition on anyone. That's tyranny, and you can dress it up any way you like. In Eastern Europe, that's how the always dressed up totalitarian governments -- by saying they were doing it "for the good of all." And only walls and barbed wire could keep people in those nations. Everyone wanted to escape that kind of "greater good," because it really was every bit as anathema to human nature as Orwell said.
> 
> Your' "taking somebody's property" is a false analogy. If anything, it works against you, because what you seek to impose would be taking something from others -- their personal liberty.
> 
> ...



Dude, take off the tin foil.

Nobody's espousing, and nobody's even floated the idea, of enforcing health.

However, the idea of putting taxes on unnecessary additives and trans fats? There's nothing totalitarian about that, it's _common freaking sense._

If our healthcare issues aren't taken care of, our economy will be more screwed than it is today to a magnitude that's nightmare-inducing to even think about. America would not survive a crisis like that as it's currently constituted.

In the 1940's, people were asked to sacrifice for the war effort; they were given rewards when possible for helping, and there were some penalties (minor ones) for things that could possibly go against what was best for the war effort. End result? A booming economy as the vets returned from WW2. Did people have to give things up? Absolutely. Did it do INCREDIBLE good for America, without costing us civil liberties? Big time.

Just so, nobody's saying here that we're going to round out fat people and force them onto treadmills, nobody's saying fast food restaurants are going to be made illegal, nobody's saying you won't be allowed to sit down on the couch after a hard day of work and just fall asleep for a few hours.

But the idea of taxing things that are unnecessary for people, things that contribute to the all-around poor quality of health in our country, a problem that could absolutely cripple this country's economic well being in only a couple of decades? There's no infraction on civil liberties there.


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 14, 2009)

kioewen said:


> Not, you're not saying everyone has to lose weight. You're saying everyone has to be "healthy." I don't want to live in a world where you, or the government, or anyone can make such an imposition on anyone. That's tyranny, and you can dress it up any way you like. In Eastern Europe, that's how the always dressed up totalitarian governments -- by saying they were doing it "for the good of all." And only walls and barbed wire could keep people in those nations. Everyone wanted to escape that kind of "greater good," because it really was every bit as anathema to human nature as Orwell said.
> 
> Your' "taking somebody's property" is a false analogy. If anything, it works against you, because what you seek to impose would be taking something from others -- their personal liberty.
> 
> ...



call me crazy but i don't undertsand how being healthy and having help with that is such an imposition on freedom. no one is going to get arrested for being unhealthy in america even if a very stringent bill is passed--which it won't be. thats why we have two parties just to make sure no one goes hog wild and there is always someone to call it when anything is too radical in one direction or the other. to think otherwise is a little bit paranoid in my opinion. 

my suggestion to you is to go to the hospital terminal care unit or a nursing home or even ask people on dims who are struggling if they wished they had had more encouragement, help and support in keeping their health. ask them what they think about it now in the middle of ther suffering and struggles. ask them if they might wish they had forgone a little sugar or steroid salt filled item for something just as good for more comfortable and happy time on this earth. ask the the people who love them who have to watch. i understand and respect your ideals but sometimes ideals conflict highly with reality. 

i'm fat and 45 myself and i'm happy to say that i have exceptionally good health. i take care of myself. i eat well and try to keep up my physical activity and it didn't make me skinny. i'm still an ssbbw. i have good insurance. but i have to pay for people who don't. i don't mind at all. i think its the right thing to do. but if someone wants that much liberty he should pay his own health bills and let me take care of mine. if i pay taxes is it really too much to ask for people try to maintain thier health somewhat? doesn't it impege on my personal liberty if i have to pay for someone who totally disregards thier health?


----------



## imfree (Jun 14, 2009)

This one is interesting.
http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/12/obama-on-obesit.html


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 14, 2009)

steely said:


> It's a slippery slope, you start with telling people what they can and can't eat and you end up with the goverment telling you how many children you can have. Where does government in your life end?
> 
> It's already too close for comfort, imo.



i adore you but a slippery slope is one of the consummate logical fallicies


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 14, 2009)

mithrandirjn said:


> Dude, take off the tin foil.
> 
> Nobody's espousing, and nobody's even floated the idea, of enforcing health.
> 
> ...



You know I'm kind of glancing over at the tin foil myself here. I remember when smoking laws got started. Everybody said, "Yayyyy!" including yours truly but... eih! I don't know. Seriously, it's these small steps for the greater good that open the door a crack. It's a good idea to every sensible person but what happens when the next thing for the greater good is something you don't agree with? We'll be okay when the close the tanning booths, take licenses away from old folks, charge more for people who are pet owners. I don't think it's unfounded to have a sneaking suspicion that all of these 'right' things will come back to bit us in the ass someday when somebody else is in charge and the public climate suggests something else should be curbed. I'm not comfortable with the premise here, well intentioned though it may seem.


----------



## mithrandirjn (Jun 14, 2009)

But, again, it's not about banning things; it's about making it policy that substances that do all-around harm to the country as a whole (hurting healthcare, the economy, etc.) are going to be made less easily accessible, even if its just a matter of there being a bit of tax put on them to make buying them less desirable for people. 

That's a common practice, and common sense; many states make it a bit arduous to buy a gun, which makes sense, since we don't just want anybody buying a potentially deadly weapon carte blanche. Many states tax cigarettes, because, well, again, they're things that hurt the all around health of a community, so if you chose to become a smoker and thus put a burden on your community, you have to be willing to pay the price for it. If you're community has laws in place that make it hard or impossible to smoke in certain places (seen it firsthand, since I live right outside NYC), well, there's no law saying you can't smoke in your home, or any law saying smoking is illegal, but, well, you made the choice to smoke, so play by the rules. It's not discrimination in that case, I'm sorry.

As said before, the "slippery slope" argument isn't really a strong one, since it's never really been practically used or shown to work. It's taking a policy, and trying to seem logical by saying "Yeah, but NEXT this'll happen!", when there's no basis for proof, i.e. people saying that gay marriage will lead to people being able to marry animals.

As an example: let's say that they make a law saying "All senior citizens must re-apply for their drivers' license/retake a drivers' test every three years." 

Well, first off, the government is within it's rights to not allow ANYBODY to drive, as driving is a privilege, *not* a right, but that's besides the point. 

The bigger point is, that's a sound law to make if there's empirical evidence to back up why it's necessary. Are there an inordinate amount of traffic problems and accidents being caused by older drivers who aren't very responsive behind the wheel? Are they presenting a clear danger to other people using the public roads? 

If the evidence says yes, then it makes sense that, at a certain point, people be made to reapply for licenses, to show they're still capable of being safe drivers, not a danger to everybody else as well as themselves.

Some would stand and argue, though, that the "slippery slope" would then lead to taking away every seniors' license. 

On what grounds, though? WHY would it lead to that? Maybe if there was evidence that 100% of seniors were dangerous drivers causing 100% of the accidents on the road, then sure...but we KNOW that'll never be the case. It's just saying "X happened, so Y is inevitable!", without a lick of proof or reasoning. It's what kills me about a lot of gun control debates; the government enforcing background checks doesn't mean that next they're suddenly going to melt down all the guns and not let anybody have one. There is no correlation between those two things, period.

Also, we're missing a big key here; almost all the things mentioned so far in this thread (trans fats, cigarettes, drivers' licenses, etc.) are LUXURIES. They're privileges. They are NOT rights (you can make an argument guns are, but that's been it so far). There's nothing in our constitution saying you're granted the right to drive, the right to smoke, etc. You're given the right to life, liberty, and property, and other things that are spelled out in court decisions and constitutional amendments. Any of the others can be taken away, or taxed, or whatever. Doesn't mean it's always RIGHT when they're taken away or taxed, but it doesn't mean we're headed towards totalitarianism, either.

When they start to take away on full-on rights, such as privacy or freedom of speech, _then_ there's a problem.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 14, 2009)

They've found harm in these things, therefore restricting them would be good. There has been no direct link though saying that these things are responsible for the problems in the US or how significant an influence they have. They may be the smoking gun and I'm all for solving problems but do we know for sure? Lets say in a few years time we see no changes as a result of these taxes. This is a very real possibility. Then what? What and who do we blame/tax next? I think that's what's bothering me so much. And those taxes, what is the government going to do with them? Will they be helpful enough to be its own reward even if they have no effect? Someone surely won't think so and will be on the attack again to the next thing deemed harmful. 

Yesterday I was checkng out a friend of mine's meetup group and Forrest Gumped my way into discovering just how many weight loss meetup group requests there are. There were somewhere around 1300 worldwide give or take. More than 1100 of them were in the US yet we're the fattest people according to everybody. I understand the margin of error here but still, I just feel as though we're building policies on a hunches. Things that are theorized but not proven. They may work which would be good I suppose but we don't really know that. I don't know, some people don't find it bothersome but I do. *shrugs*


----------



## mithrandirjn (Jun 14, 2009)

In THAT case, I understand what you're saying.

But here's the thing: most of the stuff we've mentioned that we've enacted taxes on and whatnot ARE proven to be dangerous and/or unnecessary items. And if it doesn't decrease the number of people smoking/treating themselves badly/etc. etc. etc.? Then the extra tax money made can go towards studying health breakthroughs, paying for healthcare, developing alternative energy, keeping up infrastructure, etc. It's not like the government collects taxes and then just piles them up in a Scrooge McDuck money vault. Trust me, the money gets spent. We can argue on the merits of WHAT it gets spent on all day long, but this obviously isn't the place for that.

Here's the thing about weight loss: we've said it on this board before, but people, especially in America are SO obsessed about losing weight, that they can't see the forest for the trees when it comes to being healthy. 

Most of these people whining about their weights and all that usually aren't interested in their actual health; they're just afraid of being made fun of or feeling uncomfortable wearing swimsuits at the beach, etc. It's hard to blame them; the constant media bombardment telling them "Fat bad, Skinny good!" is impossible to avoid, and most Americans are also stuck leading lifestyles that often don't allow much room for good health practices (people working long hours/multiple jobs, long commutes forcing you to drive instead of walk everywhere, excessive amounts of processed foods being the only thigns available to eat, etc.).

So they go to these "meetings", or they join some crash diet fad, or they starve themselves, or whatever, and the effect is usually nil. Or maybe they go to a gym, work out for a few months, quit, then gain it all back, and yo-yo their weight for a few years, which is dangerous for many people. They're so concerned with the superficial side of it all, that they never really go at the heart of the issue, that weight and health don't have a 1:1 correlation. 

Anybody can be healthy at almost any weight, but we're so image obsessed as a country that too many of us try to dictate health based on appearances. It's silly and misguided, but that's the message we get. 

The government promoting exercise or putting taxes/whatever on trans fats isn't meant to get people skinny; it's meant to get people of ANY size healthier. There certainly IS strong evidence that our poor health choices have had a negative effect on our country's economy and healthcare system, so taking a proactive approach to the issue is the smart way to go.


----------



## undrcovrbrothr (Jun 14, 2009)

mithrandirjn said:


> Dude, take off the tin foil.
> 
> Nobody's espousing, and nobody's even floated the idea, of enforcing health.
> 
> ...



Why should the American taxpayer be burdened with a majority of the costs already created by the likes of insurance companies, medical suppliers, and health care providers that gouge the public all for the bottom line? Trim the fat from THEM first before taking from my purchasing power. THAT is freaking common sense.



mithrandirjn said:


> In the 1940's, people were asked to sacrifice for the war effort; they were given rewards when possible for helping, and there were some penalties (minor ones) for things that could possibly go against what was best for the war effort. End result? A booming economy as the vets returned from WW2. Did people have to give things up? Absolutely. Did it do INCREDIBLE good for America, without costing us civil liberties? Big time.



It did not cost us civil liberties; in fact, restrictions placed on goods and services made enforcement mandatory throughout the United States- rationing IS NOT voluntary, my friend- it is mandated by the government.



mithrandirjn said:


> Just so, nobody's saying here that we're going to round out fat people and force them onto treadmills, nobody's saying fast food restaurants are going to be made illegal, nobody's saying you won't be allowed to sit down on the couch after a hard day of work and just fall asleep for a few hours.
> 
> But the idea of taxing things that are unnecessary for people, things that contribute to the all-around poor quality of health in our country, a problem that could absolutely cripple this country's economic well being in only a couple of decades? There's no infraction on civil liberties there.



When you shift the burden to consumers instead of making costs more reasonable through more obvious means, then that is patently unfair. Our economy isn't going to be crippled as you say- predictions are just that, and nobody can honestly say that would happen and be 100% sure, or even close.

The Black Death.. now THERE is an economy crippling event, not what we eat. We're going to die of something, and if it is not food, then it will be something else!!!! We'd tax everything higher if that were the case... all excuses so the medical sector can maintain their huge profit margins...


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 14, 2009)

mithrandirjn said:


> In THAT case, I understand what you're saying.
> 
> But here's the thing: most of the stuff we've mentioned that we've enacted taxes on and whatnot ARE proven to be dangerous and/or unnecessary items. And if it doesn't decrease the number of people smoking/treating themselves badly/etc. etc. etc.? Then the extra tax money made can go towards studying health breakthroughs, paying for healthcare, developing alternative energy, keeping up infrastructure, etc. It's not like the government collects taxes and then just piles them up in a Scrooge McDuck money vault. Trust me, the money gets spent. We can argue on the merits of WHAT it gets spent on all day long, but this obviously isn't the place for that.
> 
> ...



I would agree with you 100% if the title of the article were "War on Poor Nutrition." The war is on obesity and its supposed causes. obesity = poor nutrition. The measure of health according to the jargon is directly linked to how fat we are and no matter how much restriction there is those fat numbers wont decrease. They might even get larger if current trends are any indication. Even though people are living longer healthier lives now obesity is the enemy. The policy will definely help make us healthier, I'm not disputing that. It just won't have the effect the talking heads are looking for obesity wise. I feel as if they don't really give a crap about our health, it's all about appearances just as you describe.


----------



## steely (Jun 14, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> You know I'm kind of glancing over at the tin foil myself here. I remember when smoking laws got started. Everybody said, "Yayyyy!" including yours truly but... eih! I don't know. Seriously, it's these small steps for the greater good that open the door a crack. It's a good idea to every sensible person but what happens when the next thing for the greater good is something you don't agree with? We'll be okay when the close the tanning booths, take licenses away from old folks, charge more for people who are pet owners. I don't think it's unfounded to have a sneaking suspicion that all of these 'right' things will come back to bit us in the ass someday when somebody else is in charge and the public climate suggests something else should be curbed. I'm not comfortable with the premise here, well intentioned though it may seem.



This is the point of my slippery slope. What's next?


----------



## undrcovrbrothr (Jun 14, 2009)

And this is precisely what I am talking about, from The New Standard:

_A 2003 report by Public Citizen, a non-partisan consumer advocacy organization, cites figures from the New England Journal of Medicine, which show that in 1999, 31 percent of US health spending was on administrative costs. By comparison, comparable aspects of Canada?s single payer system amounted to only 16.7 percent of health spending. The report argues that the difference is due to inefficiencies in the US?s "current fragmented and duplicative payment structure." In Canada?s system the government pays all health providers.

CEPR recently released a paper which determined that, in 2000, the average cost of health care per person in the 21 countries with longer life expectancies than that of the US was $2,230, while the average per capita health care costs in the US amounted to $4,540 and the size of the gap is increasing rapidly. The paper states, *"The power of interest groups opposed to any serious reform effort (e.g. the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry), dims the prospects for serious health care reform in the United States any time in the near future."*_


----------



## MatthewB (Jun 14, 2009)

You know, there's something that the media doesn't seem to understand: You _can_ be fat and healthy; one doesn't exclude the other. Even if someone does eat a lot of sweets and such in order to gain weight, that doesn't mean he or she can't have some healthy products every so often to keep the health up.


----------



## HereticFA (Jun 15, 2009)

It amazes me how many people seem to believe there is a conspiracy issue here to be discredited. There is no conspiracy. The plan to influence citizens to lose weight is a very open plan. It's been published for over a decade, starting with the "Healthy People 2000" report from NIH and DHHS published in the 90's. The foundation was laid then with the "300 000 annual deaths due to obesity" statistic and the medical bureaucrats have been strengthening their approach ever since.

The political bureaucrats have also been strengthening their approaches as well. We saw discussions about a Twinkies tax in NY and other states. We've seen states introduce putting student's weight on report cards. This isn't a Democrat vs. Republican issue, it's a politician vs. citizen issue, and the politicians are winning.

Some politicians have publically stated more aggressive methods are needed to make people lose weight. Remember HB282 in Mississippi? That's the proposed bill that would make it illegal to serve fat people food in restaurants. (http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/4524) That doesn't seem to be a conspiracy. It looks like a solid attempt to deny fat people equal treatment under the law. Thankfully, it didn't pass. Next time, it might. And it might be at a federal level, not a state level.

How many of you have had trouble with a doctor who wouldn't treat your health problem unless you lost weight? Many of those doctors are also politically active. Some of them are influencing the politicians right now and it's spelled out clearly in working papers from various think tanks like Rand as well as from NIH/DHHS and the United Nations World Health Organization. While most of these plans are based on influence and not control, the failed Mississippi bill shows what some politicians see as acceptable levels of influence. To ridicule logical extrapolations of this body of work is delusional optimism. 

Will authorities round up fat people? That's very doubtful. Will fat people be denied some level of healthcare (or pay higher fees based on BMI) until they comply with doctors orders to lose weight? That sometimes happens now and is very likely under government funded healthcare in an attempt to curb perceived costs. It's not control, it's just influence. You're free to choose to not comply with the doctors recommendation to lose weight, just they will be free to choose your course of treatment afterwards based on your actions. Just remember, you may have to convince Adult Protective Services that your choice to not lose weight isn't self-neglect but a valid personal lifestyle choice made by a sound mind.


----------



## Keb (Jun 15, 2009)

If it were just a choice, and easy to change your weight, maybe 2% of people would actually be obese. It's just not that easy, and until medicine finds a way to make it reasonable instead of an obstacle that 95% of dieters cannot overcome, it's unfair to discriminate against fat people in any way. I did not choose to be fat, and changing my lifestyle entirely several times over the years has done nothing to make me thin. I'm reasonably active and don't live on soda and twinkies. I'm uninsured because my job sucks in that department, but so far I've been forunate enough to need minimal health care anyway. To me, that seems pretty healthy, but the current definition of healthy includes "not fat."


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 15, 2009)

HereticFA said:


> Just remember, you may have to convince Adult Protective Services that your choice to not lose weight isn't self-neglect but a valid personal lifestyle choice made by a sound mind.



And while the Orwellian Social Workers are controlling the lives of the fatties who refuse to comply with "medical advise" that they lose weight, who is controlling the fat Social Workers who make these decisions?

Not that you didn't have some good points, HereticFA, but this ... this is just absurd. 

Not once in my career have I ever been involved with a case where a client was mandated to lose weight, and I've worked extensively with people who have had severe health problems that were very much exacerbated by that hateful term "super morbid obesity". I currently spend my days going through hospital intake & discharge summaries, physician's notes, and progress reports, pulling out the information needed to have the state make a determination of disability for very seriously ill people who are not 65+ and/or not yet (or ever going to be) eligible for social security. I see some truly heartbreaking cases. At times, I have to admit, I almost wish that we COULD mandate weight loss, for people who have lost limbs/become blind/immobile/suffer from heart problems that make just BREATHING difficult for them, never mind moving. But the reality is that an enforced, court-ordered diet and/or surgical intervention is never going to happen. Doctors operate far too much under the assumption that obesity is a lifestyle choice, rather than a genetic predisposition. We cannot force a lung cancer patient to stop smoking, and in this case at least, there is a definitive link between a lifestyle choice and a medical consequence. Such a link is certainly not always the case for a fat person who suffers from a medical condition, and usually it is at most a contributing or exacerbating factor, not the underlying cause.


----------



## Spanky (Jun 15, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> And while the Orwellian Social Workers are controlling the lives of the fatties who refuse to comply with "medical advise" that they lose weight, who is controlling the fat Social Workers who make these decisions?
> 
> Not that you didn't have some good points, HereticFA, but this ... this is just absurd.
> 
> Not once in my career have I ever been involved with a case where a client was mandated to lose weight, and I've worked extensively with people who have had severe health problems that were very much exacerbated by that hateful term "super morbid obesity". I currently spend my days going through hospital intake & discharge summaries, physician's notes, and progress reports, pulling out the information needed to have the state make a determination of disability for very seriously ill people who are not 65+ and/or not yet (or ever going to be) eligible for social security. I see some truly heartbreaking cases. At times, I have to admit, I almost wish that we COULD mandate weight loss, for people who have lost limbs/become blind/immobile/suffer from heart problems that make just BREATHING difficult for them, never mind moving. But the reality is that an enforced, court-ordered diet and/or surgical intervention is never going to happen. Doctors operate far too much under the assumption that obesity is a lifestyle choice, rather than a genetic predisposition. We cannot force a lung cancer patient to stop smoking, and in this case at least, there is a definitive link between a lifestyle choice and a medical consequence. Such a link is certainly not always the case for a fat person who suffers from a medical condition, and usually it is at most a contributing or exacerbating factor, not the underlying cause.



TraciJo. You watched the state demand a boy take chemo in direct opposition to the wishes of the parents right here in Minnesota. Agree or not, the threshold has been crossed and will continue to be crossed. Why not state mandated weight loss? Both can be considered life and death and almost suicidal by the all knowing all thinking state.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 15, 2009)

Spanky said:


> TraciJo. You watched the state demand a boy take chemo in direct opposition to the wishes of the parents right here in Minnesota. Agree or not, the threshold has been crossed and will continue to be crossed. Why not state mandated weight loss? Both can be considered life and death and almost suicidal by the all knowing all thinking state.



Spanky, I disagreed with that decision, FWIW. As much as I would have decided another way, I felt that we crossed a line, just as you do. However, he's a minor child. It is always going to be a different set of rules, and a far different set of criteria when a child is involved. This isn't the first time such a court order has been made, in direct conflict with parental desires, when the case involves a child .... historically, it has always been so, and will continue to be so (in other words, we're not seeing that dreaded "rolling stone" effect). We've even had cases (not me, and nobody that I know -- I'm referring to media coverage) of obese children being court-ordered into weight loss programs. A child is by definition vulnerable and unable to make decisions on his/her own behalf. The presumption for an adult is that he/she is able to do so, unless proven (via court-order, which involves a hell of a lot of expert testimony, judicial input, etc) otherwise. It doesn't happen in a vacuum. An obese person, even one who has serious physical ailments, even one who has ailments ASSOCIATED with obesity, in absence of any other mitigating factor (an SPMI-related mental disorder, for example) is never going to be determined a vulnerable adult.


----------



## Spanky (Jun 15, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> Spanky, I disagreed with that decision, FWIW. As much as I would have decided another way, I felt that we crossed a line, just as you do. However, he's a minor child. It is always going to be a different set of rules, and a far different set of criteria when a child is involved. This isn't the first time such a court order has been made, in direct conflict with parental desires, when the case involves a child .... historically, it has always been so, and will continue to be so (in other words, we're not seeing that dreaded "rolling stone" effect). We've even had cases (not me, and nobody that I know -- I'm referring to media coverage) of obese children being court-ordered into weight loss programs. A child is by definition vulnerable and unable to make decisions on his/her own behalf. The presumption for an adult is that he/she is able to do so, unless proven (via court-order, which involves a hell of a lot of expert testimony, judicial input, etc) otherwise. It doesn't happen in a vacuum. An obese person, even one who has serious physical ailments, even one who has ailments ASSOCIATED with obesity, in absence of any other mitigating factor (an SPMI-related mental disorder, for example) is never going to be determined a vulnerable adult.



Point taken. 

What has scared me is the creeping control. The government rarely comes in a makes something illegal outright (like smoking). They work around the politically expedient and safe edges slowly devouring like a caterpillar on a broad leaf, slowly chewing around and around the edges until suddenly the leaf is just gone. 

This is how it is happening with obesity. It will end up coming from the sides, the rear, underneath until the control is just there. And I am not talking about the level of control you are (declaring vulnerable adults). It is happening with BMIs on report cards, local governments restricting what fast food joints can be built, more and more control on food information on products and what type of fat can be used in cakes and fryers. Can't imagine any of that 30 years ago. What will the next 10 bring us? 

I also worry about how government healthcare will start to force us to act certain ways in order to receive treatment. Not saying that it will happen, but when the government spends money, it will tell banks how to lend and car manufacturers how to build cars. Why not telling John and Jane Doe how to eat and exercise if they are on the government healthcare dole?? 

BTW, I am not adding any D or R party opinion to this mix. It doesn't matter who is in charge, the movement is in the same direction. People = too dumb to make their own decisions and Gubment = must save the people from themselves. 



Oh, and Al Franken.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 15, 2009)

Spanky said:


> Point taken.
> 
> What has scared me is the creeping control. The government rarely comes in a makes something illegal outright (like smoking). They work around the politically expedient and safe edges slowly devouring like a caterpillar on a broad leaf, slowly chewing around and around the edges until suddenly the leaf is just gone.



I see your point here, Spanky ... and it bothers me too, but not to the extent (probably) that it does you. I don't typically subscribe to a 'slippery slope' type of argument, even if the evidence presented is somewhat compelling, because while I have very little faith in politicians, I do believe in our legal system -- whether that is misplaced or not remains to be seen. I readily admit that I could be wrong; I just hope that I am not. 



> I also worry about how government healthcare will start to force us to act certain ways in order to receive treatment. Not saying that it will happen, but when the government spends money, it will tell banks how to lend and car manufacturers how to build cars. Why not telling John and Jane Doe how to eat and exercise if they are on the government healthcare dole??



Again, mixed feelings on my part. 

I don't want this to slide into a discussion of Minnesota politics, but this one point probably relates to the current discussion: As you know, the governor is in the unallotment process and has already pledged to do away with General Assistance Medical Care (state-funded medical assistance for low & no-income adults without minor children) in 2010. The argument being laid forth by our governor, and backed by most tax-payers, is that we cannot afford another tax hike; and since Pawlenty refuses to raise taxes, he is now eliminating whatever he can from the budget in order to balance it. I have strong opinions about that, but I know ... absolutely ... that my perspective has been influenced by my work, by being on the frontline and seeing, actually working with and speaking to and shaking hands with the men and women who have benefitted from this program. I know that my opinion, no matter how well articulated, will never change the minds of people who aren't already predisposed to agree with me. Here's where I tie it into the current topic of discussion, though: Can you tell me that it's not at least disingenuous to eliminate healthcare coverage for the most vulnerable and needy among us because we can't afford to foot the bill ... but let's not examine how one's diet/lifestyle choices may have an impact on healthcare costs because THAT is too Orwellian, too big government controlling the little guy? 

And the other thing is ... I happen to agree that people are stupid, Spanky. Present company & all of Dimsland excluded  Some laws are, I believe, for the common good. Legislating that parents must keep their children restrained in car seats. Legislating that motorcylists should wear helmets, that we shouldn't exceed a certain speed limit, that Mr. Jones can't go out and purchase a machine gun just coz he wants one, that child porn is & always will be illegal, that parents with extreme religious beliefs (NOT Daniel Hauser & his family, btw) can't just 'accept' that their severely type-1 diabetic child is going to die without medical intervention because that's just The God & Jeebus' way. I am not suggesting that we should legislate healthy diet & eating habits in any way at all, or that there should be penalties associated with a certain lifestyle. I'd be more inclined to agree with a reward system (i.e., lower premiums for those who adhere to medical advise) but even that is debatable. I'm just explaining why the slippery slope just doesn't sway me much. Because we've been sliding down that slope for many, many years now ... and haven't hit bottom yet.



> Oh, and Al Franken.



He's good enough, he's smart enough, and goldurnit, people LIKE him!


----------



## Miss Vickie (Jun 15, 2009)

One of the things not mentioned so far in relation to the article is the plan by Obama to make fitness centers available at work, etc.

From the article:

_He wants more time in the school day for physical fitness, more nutritious school lunches and more bike paths, walking paths and grocery stores in underserved areas._

Tell me again how this is a bad thing? Yes, I agree that the focus on obesity is wrong. Transfats, high fructose corn syrup and shit food is bad for EVERYONE -- regardless of what size you are. Just because it doesn't make someone put on pounds shouldn't mean that it's in any way less than horribly unhealthy and dangerous. Like others, I feel about this like I feel about alcohol and cigarettes -- it creates health problems and I don't feel badly at all if those things are taxed so that our government then has the money to pay to treat the problems they create. And yes, I say this as someone who occasionally enjoys all of those things (except cigarettes). I don't mind paying extra for alcohol, and I wouldn't mind paying extra for the shit food that I eat from time to time. It is abhorrent to me how inexpensive fast food is, when it creates havoc on the body. If we truly want to help the poor, then we should make healthy foods cheaper, and unhealthy foods more expensive.

Things like nutritional education, more access to inexpensive healthy foods, more opportunities for kids to be physically active and SAFE, and more time to exercise at work are all good things. Sure, I wish it didn't take the feds to be involved to make it happen. But you know what? I've worked in health care to one degree or another for decades and never EVER has healthy living for employees EVER been addressed in a realistic and significant way. Do we have a fitness center on site? No. Are we subsidized for an outside fitness center? No. Do we get actual lunch breaks, pee breaks and opportunities to de-stress or exercise? HELL no. So, if hospitals can't do the very minimum for their employees, if they can't be the role models for corporate America, then what the *hell* right do they have to preach about health care?

I say bring it on.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 15, 2009)

Miss Vickie said:


> One of the things not mentioned so far in relation to the article is the plan by Obama to make fitness centers available at work, etc.
> 
> From the article:
> 
> ...



I don't see any of it as bad. All of this sounds great actually. The word I don't like in this is 'obesity.' This is to fight 'obesity.' This is all wonderful but it's not going to do anything about obesity. So what will be the next weapon? When all the Europeans are pointing and laughing at how many fatties we have over here there will be another attempt to shape us all up and stop our unhealthy habits. So we fight 'obesity' again. Man, I don't know about anybody else but I'm sick and tired of having the US government picking fights with me under the guise of common good. And I'm supposed to say it's okay because the changes mean I'm going to get things. A temporary euphoria until they come 'round with the measuring rod and see my wide ass taking up two spaces on the way to the gym. Then what?


----------



## Paquito (Jun 15, 2009)

Yea, if they called it something like "fight for healthier living" or something along those lines, I'd be A-ok with it. But the fact that they call it a fight against obesity is just another dig into fat people, implying that they are anything but unhealthy and that they must be corrected.

Granted, I don't live the healthiest I could, but I know tons of fat people who do like healthy lives, just as I know tons of thin people who don't.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Jun 15, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> I don't see any of it as bad. All of this sounds great actually. The word I don't like in this is 'obesity.' This is to fight 'obesity.' This is all wonderful but it's not going to do anything about obesity. So what will be the next weapon? When all the Europeans are pointing and laughing at how many fatties we have over here there will be another attempt to shape us all up and stop our unhealthy habits. So we fight 'obesity' again. Man, I don't know about anybody else but I'm sick and tired of having the US government picking fights with me under the guise of common good. And I'm supposed to say it's okay because the changes mean I'm going to get things. A temporary euphoria until they come 'round with the measuring rod and see my wide ass taking up two spaces on the way to the gym. Then what?



Hey, I agree that using the word obesity to support this is bullshit. Everyone -- fat or thin -- can benefit from eating better, and they shouldn't call it a "fat tax" or in any way link it to obesity. I agree with you completely. But unfortunately, eating this kind of crap and not being active makes some people fat. It also makes some people sick from being fat who might not otherwise be fat (or as fat) as if they ate actual food. Whether we like it or not, there are lots of people out there who are sick from eating this stuff, and yes, many of them are fat.

I don't think it's fair to call it a war on "obesity", though. Rather, we should call it a war on bullshit fake food that is KILLING us. But that's got too many words -- and it's too complicated a concept -- for the media whores to understand let alone describe. 

Frankly I don't give a rat's ass -- as a health care professional -- if this reduces the numbers of the obese in America. However, I care greatly about the benefits to health by supporting measures to encourage Americans to eat better and move more. I think this will be a good thing for all people -- including fat people, who may or may not lose an ounce.


----------



## undrcovrbrothr (Jun 15, 2009)

What is living better though? Is life truly guaranteed??

Why should I care what I eat, so long as I am happy? This is what gets me, and why I have to say something... I don't need people trying to tell me how to live when they make themselves just as miserable by all the stress they put on themselves- unhappy, miserable people addicted to dieting themselves or hitting the gym 6, 7 times a week. That's not living.. that is PRETENDING to live, afraid of what they might eat might make them gain pounds or make them sick.

No, I will not buy into that logic. I will be very happy and my positive self, all while eating a big cheeseburger and fries, knowing that if I go tomorrow, I will have LIVED. I've lost too many people in my life to so many other things OTHER than related to what they ate.


----------



## HereticFA (Jun 16, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> HereticFA said:
> 
> 
> > Just remember, you may have to convince Adult Protective Services that your choice to not lose weight isn't self-neglect but a valid personal lifestyle choice made by a sound mind.
> ...



A social worker has to follow best practices based on peer reviewed studies in multiple disciplines, typically updated on 3 to 5 year intervals. What is acceptable treatment or methodologies today is different from what was acceptable ten to twenty years ago. 

I see political mandates influencing that methodology in the future with single payer healthcare. I also read studies that recommend more aggressive management of obesity to control diabetes, arthritis and cardiovascular disease. All of these influences seem to be converging somewhere in the near future. When does some overworked and under budgeted supervisor of social workers lose it when they see a 45 year old bed bound patient (who is a willing foodie or gainer) "fail to take responsibility" and lose weight to regain mobility? When do they start building a legally supportable justification to literally implement a "more aggressive" approach with that client via the court?



TraciJo67 said:


> Not that you didn't have some good points, HereticFA, but this ... this is just absurd.



Sometimes it takes a little hyperbole to drive a point home. And I think it was only a little, as I'll explain shortly.


TraciJo67 said:


> Not once in my career have I ever been involved with a case where a client was mandated to lose weight, and I've worked extensively with people who have had severe health problems that were very much exacerbated by that hateful term "super morbid obesity". I currently spend my days going through hospital intake & discharge summaries, physician's notes, and progress reports, pulling out the information needed to have the state make a determination of disability for very seriously ill people who are not 65+ and/or not yet (or ever going to be) eligible for social security. I see some truly heartbreaking cases. At times, I have to admit, I almost wish that we COULD mandate weight loss, for people who have lost limbs/become blind/immobile/suffer from heart problems that make just BREATHING difficult for them, never mind moving. But the reality is that an enforced, court-ordered diet and/or surgical intervention is never going to happen. Doctors operate far too much under the assumption that obesity is a lifestyle choice, rather than a genetic predisposition. We cannot force a lung cancer patient to stop smoking, and in this case at least, there is a definitive link between a lifestyle choice and a medical consequence. Such a link is certainly not always the case for a fat person who suffers from a medical condition, and usually it is at most a contributing or exacerbating factor, not the underlying cause.



I'm sure you haven't seen a case so far. And I hope for your sake you never do.

I'll explain my earlier hyperbole based case. With a bed bound client who has the usual litany of weight related issues, the attending physician believes their spouse is guilty of at least abuse by a caregiver by not following medical advice to help the patient lose weight. The patient swears they want to stay fat or get fatter and the spouse has no influence on that decision. Where the doctors, nurses, social workers or judges might have accepted that in previous decades, I believe some might be activist enough to take direct action in a case like that in the future. Maybe it will be a social worker who saw their passive parent similarly overfed by an abusive parent and they are engaging in unconscious transference. Maybe they just grew up fat and hated it and are now an anti-fat activist. They may have been in a feeder/feedee relationship that went sour. 

Are you absolutely certain that with over 500 000 social workers across 50 states, what I described can never happen? Not even in the next forty years, given the changes we've seen in the last forty? Even assuming 150 000 front line social workers and a light caseload of 75 clients per social worker, that's 11.25M clients nationwide. The odds are in favor of my predictions happening in the next forty years. And all it takes is one. Once that case happens (and if there is no blowback), more cases will be treated that way. Eventually it will become accepted as best practices to take an aggressive approach with non-compliant obese clients.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 16, 2009)

Miss Vickie said:


> Hey, I agree that using the word obesity to support this is bullshit. Everyone -- fat or thin -- can benefit from eating better, and they shouldn't call it a "fat tax" or in any way link it to obesity. I agree with you completely. But unfortunately, eating this kind of crap and not being active makes some people fat. It also makes some people sick from being fat who might not otherwise be fat (or as fat) as if they ate actual food. Whether we like it or not, there are lots of people out there who are sick from eating this stuff, and yes, many of them are fat.
> 
> I don't think it's fair to call it a war on "obesity", though. Rather, we should call it a war on bullshit fake food that is KILLING us. But that's got too many words -- and it's too complicated a concept -- for the media whores to understand let alone describe.
> 
> Frankly I don't give a rat's ass -- as a health care professional -- if this reduces the numbers of the obese in America. However, I care greatly about the benefits to health by supporting measures to encourage Americans to eat better and move more. I think this will be a good thing for all people -- including fat people, who may or may not lose an ounce.



Vickie I respect you as a person and I respect you as a professional in the medical field, but if I hear one more person using that lame tired quip about how fatty foods and laziness makes some people fat I'm going to start projectile vomiting. I'm so sick and tired of hearing that. Bad food and sedintary lifestyle are bad for everybody. It makes some people fat so it's okay to fight obesity? I mean, the absurdity of this logic has become so vivid for me these days that I'm almost in shock that I went along with it for so long. There isn't even anything sensible I can compare it to in life. That logic wouldn't fly anywhere in any circumstance except this one. Many diseases have many symptoms. It would be lunacy to focus on one symptom and put it on equal footing with the disease while completely ignoring all the others. To carry on doing so for decades and even making public policies about it while people continue to die right in front of us. The obesity fight is silly.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Jun 16, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> Vickie I respect you as a person and I respect you as a professional in the medical field, but if I hear one more person using that lame tired quip about how fatty foods and laziness makes some people fat I'm going to start projectile vomiting.



I can't speak for others, but the reason I say it is because it's true. I also say that this has nothing to do with obesity, but rather with limiting or taxing things that are bad for everyone. (With a tax on trans fats, as an example, it's not just fat people who would pay more for those products -- everyone would). Unfortunately, for those of us who it does make fat, our _presumed_ lack of health is apparent for all to see; however, for those "lucky" enough to stay thin while eating crap, the assumption is that they're healthy somehow. Like you, that pisses me off. It's an unfair assumption on everyone's part.



> Bad food and sedintary lifestyle are bad for everybody. It makes some people fat so it's okay to fight obesity?



First of all, I said they were bad for everybody, didn't I? And secondly, I also agreed that it wasn't right that they are using this to fight obesity. My only problem with focusing on lifestyle choices and eating well (as I said, more than once, and have said for a long time -- a decade, in fact) is that it's almost always used as a tool to fight obesity, rather than focus on improving health. I think it's short sighted, stupidly simplistic and wrong. So see? We agree. 



> Many diseases have many symptoms. It would be lunacy to focus on one symptom and put it on equal footing with the disease while completely ignoring all the others. To carry on doing so for decades and even making public policies about it while people continue to die right in front of us. The obesity fight is silly.



Depending on what disease you're talking about, I don't think they're just focusing on obesity. With diabetes, as an example, they continue to look at genetic components while also looking at treatments (besides losing weight -- which does work much of the time, whether we like that from a fat acceptance point of view or not). My feeling is that it's silly to fight obesity not because it isn't a problem because it clearly is for some people but rather because to me it's not obesity that's the biggest problem, but rather our (as in Americans') fucked up view of food, nutrition and exercise. The only positive I see in what Obama is doing is hopefully making better food and access to exercise available to EVERYONE. I think everyone needs information about nutrition, cheaper healthier food, and more access to places to be active. Not just fat people.


----------



## fffff (Jun 16, 2009)

undrcovrbrothr said:


> What is living better though? Is life truly guaranteed??
> 
> Why should I care what I eat, so long as I am happy? This is what gets me, and why I have to say something... I don't need people trying to tell me how to live when they make themselves just as miserable by all the stress they put on themselves- unhappy, miserable people addicted to dieting themselves or hitting the gym 6, 7 times a week. That's not living.. that is PRETENDING to live, afraid of what they might eat might make them gain pounds or make them sick.
> 
> No, I will not buy into that logic. I will be very happy and my positive self, all while eating a big cheeseburger and fries, knowing that if I go tomorrow, I will have LIVED. I've lost too many people in my life to so many other things OTHER than related to what they ate.



Well, to me the idea that I'm somehow pretending to live because I watch what I eat is pretty laughable. I'm making damn sure I won't have any mobility problems until I'm well into my 90s and if that means I have to substitute a homemade salad for some McDonalds fried-and-wrapped-crap so be it. I doubt my dying words will be "..if only... I had made... more.. trips.. to Burger King." But then again I've watched relatives die slow, painful, prolonged deaths due to years of not taking care of themselves and its a hell I wouldn't wish on anybody. 

The government is going to come and lock up all the fat people into a forced exercise internment camp. No one's going to force you to be healthy. I basically agree with any policy related information in that article. 



> . When does some overworked and under budgeted supervisor of social workers lose it when they see a 45 year old bed bound patient (who is a willing foodie or gainer) "fail to take responsibility" and lose weight to regain mobility?



Yeah I think some of it may boil down to guys being afraid the government's going to inconvenience their wanking fantasies...


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 16, 2009)

undrcovrbrothr said:


> What is living better though? Is life truly guaranteed??
> 
> Why should I care what I eat, so long as I am happy? This is what gets me, and why I have to say something... I don't need people trying to tell me how to live when they make themselves just as miserable by all the stress they put on themselves- unhappy, miserable people addicted to dieting themselves or hitting the gym 6, 7 times a week. That's not living.. that is PRETENDING to live, afraid of what they might eat might make them gain pounds or make them sick.
> 
> No, I will not buy into that logic. I will be very happy and my positive self, all while eating a big cheeseburger and fries, knowing that if I go tomorrow, I will have LIVED. I've lost too many people in my life to so many other things OTHER than related to what they ate.



I do care what I eat, to an extent, and I definitely make sure to move as much as I can. I don't always make good choices, and I don't berate myself about it. I just try to make a conscious effort to at least get the healthy stuff in as much as possible and to limit the empty carbs, trans fats, excess sugar. I'm not PRETENDING to live. I agree with everything you've said about enjoying life, and about "knowing that if I go tomorrow, I will have LIVED" ... but you didn't talk about the OTHER side to that coin, which is that you don't go tomorrow ... instead, you suffer a massive heart attack or you have a stroke or a wound on your foot gets infected and many months later, thousands upon thousands of doctor bills and physical therapy visits and many prosthetist appointments later, you're adjusting to life without a leg because complications from unchecked diabetes caused you to lose it. What if you DON'T go, undrcovrbrothr? What if the consequences of years of unhealthy eating and lack of exercise DOESN'T kill you -- it just leaves you maimed and crippled, instead? 

We don't know what will happen to us. I don't know that my efforts to keep active and healthy will pay off. I could die in a car accident tomorrow. I could have a stroke or a heart attack or be diagnosed with diabetes for reasons having nothing to do with my weight. You could remain healthy into your 80's despite eating nothing but grease. My own father was the picture of robust health at least into his late 60's, and he lived to 83, and his diet consisted of massive quantities of red meat, cigarettes, and a huge nightly bowl of Schwann's ice cream. His exercise was to have daily naps after eating an enormous lunch. But then, we watched him slowly suffocate to death, for agonizing years. Had his first massive heart attack killed him, he'd have suffered far less ... I know that I would have ... not having to live with the memories of watching him fail by inches and suffer one indignity after another after another until he was, ultimately, bedridden, completely helpless and dependent upon his grown daughters to change his diapers. What I don't know could fill a book. What I do know is that I'm not going to delude myself that because anything COULD happen, I may as well pick up a pack of cigarettes or live on a liquid diet consisting of whole milk lattes and caramel frappucinos. I need some insurance. I need to know that I'm taking care of myself ... so that when my time does come, when it does, even if I'm bedridden and my adult son is changing my diapers ... I can know that I did everything possible to take care of myself, so he wouldn't have to.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Jun 18, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> I do care what I eat, to an extent, and I definitely make sure to move as much as I can. I don't always make good choices, and I don't berate myself about it. I just try to make a conscious effort to at least get the healthy stuff in as much as possible and to limit the empty carbs, trans fats, excess sugar. I'm not PRETENDING to live. I agree with everything you've said about enjoying life, and about "knowing that if I go tomorrow, I will have LIVED" ... but you didn't talk about the OTHER side to that coin, which is that you don't go tomorrow ... instead, you suffer a massive heart attack or you have a stroke or a wound on your foot gets infected and many months later, thousands upon thousands of doctor bills and physical therapy visits and many prosthetist appointments later, you're adjusting to life without a leg because complications from unchecked diabetes caused you to lose it. What if you DON'T go, undrcovrbrothr? What if the consequences of years of unhealthy eating and lack of exercise DOESN'T kill you -- it just leaves you maimed and crippled, instead?
> 
> We don't know what will happen to us. I don't know that my efforts to keep active and healthy will pay off. I could die in a car accident tomorrow. I could have a stroke or a heart attack or be diagnosed with diabetes for reasons having nothing to do with my weight. You could remain healthy into your 80's despite eating nothing but grease. My own father was the picture of robust health at least into his late 60's, and he lived to 83, and his diet consisted of massive quantities of red meat, cigarettes, and a huge nightly bowl of Schwann's ice cream. His exercise was to have daily naps after eating an enormous lunch. But then, we watched him slowly suffocate to death, for agonizing years. Had his first massive heart attack killed him, he'd have suffered far less ... I know that I would have ... not having to live with the memories of watching him fail by inches and suffer one indignity after another after another until he was, ultimately, bedridden, completely helpless and dependent upon his grown daughters to change his diapers. What I don't know could fill a book. What I do know is that I'm not going to delude myself that because anything COULD happen, I may as well pick up a pack of cigarettes or live on a liquid diet consisting of whole milk lattes and caramel frappucinos. I need some insurance. I need to know that I'm taking care of myself ... so that when my time does come, when it does, even if I'm bedridden and my adult son is changing my diapers ... I can know that I did everything possible to take care of myself, so he wouldn't have to.



Not to devalue your experience with your father's declining health, however after watching one family friend who was a body builder and a vegetation suddenly die of a stroke at the age of 40 and an uncle who was thin and watched what he ate, develop diabetes and heart problems in 60s, then watch two fat grandparents live into their 90s, I am hesitant to feel too safe in living a healthy lifestyle. 

The comedian Lewis Black once said that when it came to health we are all like snow flakes, what be okay for you might kill the person next to you. In some ways, I see some truth in that. 

Not that I am defending fake food, the kind that have loads of man-made chemicals in it. That is why I go for the foods that have natural ingredients int it. 

Finally, I would add my voice to the statement that the war on obesity is and always be a sham as long as they focus on the appearance lack of health, and don't consider a person's actual health.


----------

