Well yes. If only we had enlightened overlords to choose for the mouth-breathing proletariat. “Hey fatty, no more soylient green for you, you’ve clearly had enough.”
Free people should be free to make bad decisions.
@Zeppelin795 was calling for subsidies for grass fed cattle. It’s subsidies for corn that created much of the cheap garbage food available today.
And then have the rest of us pay for their obesity-related healthcare costs?
That is a position held by Europeans and the progressive republicans and democrats in the US.
Many conservatives and libertarians disagree with government subsidized/controlled healthcare.
On an unrelated front when did banning anything ever work? Alcohol, drugs, prostitution etc… all failures. I dare say if you banned trans fats and HFCS their consumption may increase.
I doubt that very much, as these substances are not usually consumed in isolation like alcohol, drugs, etc.
At any rate, rather than banning less healthful foods, why not go the other direction and subsidize more healthful ones? If the govt is going to pick winners, let it be chicken breasts and broccoli rather than trans fats and HFCS.
Unfortunately subsidies won’t create more demand for nutritious food. Pizza just tastes better. Here’s the rub… other parts of the world have delicious food too, why aren’t they all fat? Portion size, self control and a culture that’s mean to fatties. It’s literally not acceptable to be fat in much of Europe and asia.
I can agree with your sentiment… But cannot lend my trust to government bureaucrats to do the picking. They will award subsidies to the “free range” chicken farm owned by their cousin or some such double dealing.
This is a fundamental difference in our opinions on the role of government and trust in human nature… less about nutrition or big pharma/food.
Nobody should ever eat trans fats, since it isn’t food. They should care enough to choose not to. It shouldn’t take a nanny state to stop them.
This is the first anti communist statement I’ve seen you make
That word doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.
I’ll amend it, the first anti-welfarism thing you’ve said. Congratulations.
How do we know the history of Jim Crow and slavery isn’t causing blacks to stress Eat?
Blacks are more likely than whites to be obese
If you’re hoping to have people engage with you seriously and respectfully, you’re going about this in the wrong way.
While I suspect this comment was intended to troll, there actually may be something to it:
Agreed consumers ought to be the ones in charge.
Consumers don’t always have the facts to make the right choice and this is designed that way. Limit knowledge and sell your garbage to them. Happens all the time.
They may disagree with this but most available evidence is that they are wrong. Why do the overwhelming majority, if not all, industrialized countries have a government run healthcare and pay far fewer costs along with better overall outcomes?
But you let corporations have this power and where has it gotten us? A government run by the people is much different than a government run by corporations.
Yes if you dont mind rationed care and the government making medical decisions for you then by all means… go ahead.
Ask real patients in the UK and Canada how happy they are with their socialized medicine. The wait times are insane, 6 months for an MRI, 8 months for surgery. It’s great car so long as you don’t have to use it.
Also you seem to hate corporations and anyone who makes a profit. Who made the device you are posting to this forum with?
If the money to pay for it is coming from the government’s coffers, then the govt should ration it, and have some say in medical-decision making (which is really two ways of saying the same thing).
Overall their NHSs do a good job, and people are satisfied. (Most people will opt for extra wait time over bankruptcy.) But either way, disparaging them is not germane to us, as there is no reason for us to follow the exact same model.
Government shouldn’t pay for the average person’s care. Every time you introduce a middle man (govt or private) costs go up and service gets worse.
Should we have a safety net for the disabled and truly poor? Yes. Should we all be mandated to participate in a coercive government plan? No.
Here’s an absolutely wild idea: let patients pay the doctors for their care with no middle men… crazy I know. There’s a really cool co-op in Kansas already making this work. Insanely low costs. The co-op negotiates with drug companies directly.
[quote=“Basement_Gainz, post:197, topic:229191”]
Government shouldn’t pay for the average person’s care. [/quote]
Until/unless the GOP dismantles both Medicaid and Medicare, shouldn’t is irrelevant.
While it is conceivable–highly unlikely, but conceivable–that we could do away with middlemen with regard to the provision of office-based healthcare (check-ups and the like), we will never be rid of them when it comes to procedural and in-patient medicine.
If by ‘participate’ you mean forced into a NHS system, I agree with you.
Like I said above, this could work for simple stuff like check-ups and outpatient management of medical (as opposed to surgical) conditions.
Oh you mean the internet? It was developed by the public sector, but you wouldn’t know that as Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reily never told you.
And the wait times are a myth, mere propaganda. I have worked with several people from eastern europe and asked them about their healthcare in their country and not one complained of wait times or less expense or better outcomes.
Even Trump admitted to the Australian Prime Minister of their superior healthcare. And they have a form of single payer. Most of the industrialized countries do and pay far less than the U.S. often with better outcomes. Trump has admitted so several times believing single payer is preferable. What blasphemy!