Government and Our Health

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Huntn, Aug 7, 2012.

  1. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #1
    Just how involved should the government be?

    I noted the "Is Cannabis Addictive?" thread and commented there. The 60 minute report: The Bitter Truth about Sugar is eye opening. Should government be involved? My tendency is to say yes it should. Based on the evidence, we don't seem to be smart enough to stay healthy on our own.

    Any local Libertarians ready to renounce this idea? ;)
     
  2. PracticalMac, Aug 7, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2012

    PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #2
    There is no question a country benefits from a healthy population.

    After all, how can business work if everyone is sick all the time?

    How much... ....


    IMHO, VERY involved.

    Think about it, from Kindergarten to gov warnings about smoking and proper cooking, governments are VERY busy with warning us about unhealthy activities,

    And still the average age of an American is decreasing due to obesity (gluttony), lack of exercise (sloth), and huge portions (greed).

    Yes, I specifically mention Christian ethics becuase in the distant past (when church was government) it was the job of holy men to admonish the congregation not to indulge in the sins, and by extension it is morally right for the government to be very active in espousing healthy activities.

    What I also see is heavily religious christian conservatives groups wanting to dictate health policy all everyone regardless of religion, and faith based "medicine", in short ancient tribal "cures" instead of modern knowledge and procedures (not that those work 100% or time).
     
  3. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #3
    I don't think the government has any role telling me what I can or can't put in my body - as long as I know what I'm doing (and am prepared for consequences), then the choice is mine alone.
     
  4. lannisters4life macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 14, 2012
    Location:
    Sydney
    #4
    What if the consequences of your diet go on to adversely affect others?
     
  5. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5
    Agreed. However, like tobacco, government should require warning labels on products containing lots of sugar and HFCS.

    Reminds me of anti-smoking threads in here. Told you all it was going to happen.
     
  6. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #6
    How would that be? Through health care? Then I should pay for it - part of the consequences I spoke of.

    I'm fine with warning labels - part of the knowing what I'm doing. However, I think they can go too far (imagine if everything had a warning label).
     
  7. lannisters4life, Aug 7, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2012

    lannisters4life macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 14, 2012
    Location:
    Sydney
    #7
    I didn't necessarily mean financial consequences. Parents with very poor diets impress this upon their children, there's no freedom to choose when you're nine years old. I knew two young people who developed diabetes from situations like this (sadly one has passed on). There can be a heavy emotional toll on loved ones when they lose spouses or parents or children that die from entirely preventable causes. My brother died of lung cancer, deeply regretting his lifetime of smoking not simply because he was soon to die but because he could see his wife and children's enormous grief. It's not the same situation, but I think it is similar in a way. The grief that comes from cases like these has always seemed more difficult than deaths by natural causes or accidents.

    Edit: this doesn't mean I think that certain food should be banned or schedules, but I think government programs that get unhealthy food out of schools, and tax things like refined snackfoods and use it to promote knowledge related to diet and its effects are great things.
     
  8. KJmoon117 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2007
    Location:
    NC
    #8
    I think the government should place warning on substances known to cause adverse effects e.g. alcohol on pregnant women, cigarettes and lung cancer, etc.

    It should also subsidized healthy foods and tax unhealthy ones. I feel like in America healthy foods such as fresh vegetables are a luxury while fast foods are the food for the masses. It should be the other way around.

    But no government should outright ban a substance like sugary drinks.
     
  9. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #9
    I don't know what to do here - especially if the parents know they are forcing a bad diet on their kids. I don't think we want someone from the government (at any level) telling us what we have to eat or feed our kids, monitoring what we are eating, or anything else.

    A little too intrusive, don't you think?
     
  10. fox10078 macrumors 6502

    fox10078

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    #10
    IMO it should be considered child abuse. No one has to tell you what to feed them, just don't let them get fat.
     
  11. Andeavor macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    #11
    Here are three words that will help: education, education, education.

    It is not fair for a government to force people to change their diet but it is favorable they give them the chance to know more about what they put in their mouths.
     
  12. lannisters4life macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 14, 2012
    Location:
    Sydney
    #12
    If this saves lifetimes of health problems and medication, and in many cases lives themselves, then I'm sure that less Stasi like methods could come into play to get people eating healthily. Obesity really does kill people. I think having six obese kids and making no attempts to improve each one's diet is tantamount to neglect.
     
  13. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #13
    I could see that, but I don't know for sure. There would have to be some distinct line - not just fat - resulting from negligence or willful disregard.
     
  14. PracticalMac, Aug 7, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2012

    PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #14
    Some would call you a sinful man. Just sayin.

    ----------

    What you said is it is OK for parents to let kids eat stuff that contains Lead, Arsenic, mercury, large quantities of LDL saturated foods, large quantities of cholesterol, so on.
    Eat foods not prepared on sanitary equipment, not screen for small objects, smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol, so on.

    Take a look around, there are BOOKS of regulations on what we should and should not do, since born, so you don't notice them.
     
  15. 63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #15
    I am a registered Democrat, but I have voted a lot for Green Party and support left Libertarians (some of who are OK with idea of limited national healthcare, as well as limited education, police, and military fundings from taxes).

    I tend to follow the concept that we need a government run healthcare to a point, at first, somewhere between limited and full fledged sponsored healthcare. If the Obama model, and actually to a great degree Romney model, works, then let's have government have increasing responsibilities on this. If the USA could send people to the moon, they could certainly have a national healthcare model that works.

    We have the president, and the GOP rival, both with models of universal healthcare that have worked, so it shouldn't even be a debate here. It works so let it happen a little at a time. Transition won't always be pretty, but it's better than having a severely limited healthcare system that caters increasingly only to the very rich. When I live in a very small town of 1,600 people and a night's stay at the hospital (non intensive care) is about 35 grand, then only the very rich, or maybe not even them, can afford it.
     
  16. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #16
    If it's bad for you there should be a warning on it. Technocrats should choose what is healthy and unhealthy between themselves.

    High salt, fat, sugar, alchohol, addiditives etc - stick a warning label on it. I'm going to crack down on my kids when I have some when it comes to food. Don't trust schools and restaurants one bit. Feed you junk.
     
  17. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #17
    That's not what I said, but if you want to believe it, then ok. :rolleyes:
     
  18. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #18
    1. dramatically improve the volume of mandatory health and nutrition education in public schools
    2. dramatically improve the volume of healthy foods available in schools
    3. end the numerous and ridiculous agricultural subsidies that artificially deflate the cost of junk food and inflate the cost of healthy food

    Thanks to that last point, sin taxes or banning is just passing on an additional cost to the consumer that is already paying a tax to allow those foods to be produced cheaply in the first place.
     
  19. PracticalMac, Aug 7, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2012

    PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #19
    I know you did not say, or even what you meant, it is implied unintentionally.

    Government monitoring of what children has been happening for decades, and is alive an well.

    Business as usual.

    move along, nothing to see.


    Oh, should note: Government food programs are heavily influenced by food industry.
     
  20. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #20
    I agree with you entirely, pumpkin. :)
     
  21. mcrain, Aug 7, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 7, 2012

    mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #21
    Simple solution that will make everyone happy. Make it legal to shoot anyone who doesn't have health insurance and is more than 40 pounds overweight. They don't care about the consequences, aren't paying for their own healthcare, and obviously aren't worth a jail sentence.
     
  22. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #22
    How's the government supposed to determine that you know what you're doing and are prepared for the consequences?
     
  23. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #23
    Maybe they shouldn't. I don't want to consult the government for anything - they should be transparent to normal, daily life.
     
  24. Huntn thread starter macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #24
    One thing I'm not prepared to see is our society and economy brought down by obesity. Action must be taken. We can debate what that action must be. :)

    So how should we go about fixing this?

    So government, made up of people we have elected to leadership positions has no role? Then who does, noone, just let the chips fall where they may?

    I agree with you. BTW, I'd like to know if you are for or against the concept of illegal drugs?

    Most of what you said sounds reasonable, however, I question $35k per night in the hospital, separate from operations. My guess is it's more like $1000-1500 per night for a room.

    I agree. The perfect role for government. :) Some substances could be banned, but sugar is so pervasive and required, I see it as impractical to outright ban it, however I can see government regulations that at a maximum dictate how much sugar can go into foods prepared by commercial interests and at a minimum massive amounts of education.

    For something like cigarettes, why not let people smoke who want to, but then don't require insurance companies to cover smokers and their subsequent illnesses?
     
  25. Andeavor macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    #25
    I am for legalising, taxing and monitoring all drugs. Spending money on hunting down and incarcerating people who sell or consume drugs is just nonsense. People will always take drugs no matter how illegal or hardcore they are, so it's in the government's best interest to help keeping the trade in order and provide the drug industry with funding for health centers and the necessary protection of those involved.

    I understand that some people would like drugs eliminated altogether, but this won't happen. In fact, I recently read an article in a local Sunday new paper where a drug expert said drugs had always been part of human nature, they are a means to deal with pain, open our minds past our imagination and giving us a chance to wind down in our very own way. Making them a big no-no is like telling a teenager they can't go out past 10 pm, they will find a way to sneak out of the room and meet their secret boyfriend/girlfriend. Every parent with common sense knows that!

    Also, every year, too many innocent people lose their lives because of the drug war, and if drugs weren't such a hot commodity, the crime rate would certainly drop. The drug lords would probably not be happy about the money they lose but imagine how much money would be saved instead - talk about a trillion dollar deficit.
     

Share This Page