Obesity: A Health crisis or a moral one?

[Faye]

this makes me so grateful that i wasnt born in america

This country has so many issues; it is ridiculous. But when you see the level of hatred and stupidity out there, it isn't surprising.

 

[Shai Gar]

I would go one better: See a really good dietitian/nutritionist. A doctor will often quote the food pyramid, but he might not be able to tell you what you're missing from your diet. We all need the same three building blocks in our diet: Protein, carbohydrates and fats...but we don't all need the same amounts in our diet. And considering that the American food industry usually strips all vitamins and minerals and healthy stuff from our foods (even the so-called "healthy" food), most of us are probably malnourished (seriously!).

Go to someone who can tell you what's best to eat for *you* rather than what's best to eat for other people.

Which is why you should always grow as much of your food as is possible. Agribusiness is bad for health.

 

[BenW]

How do you know that what you propose will work then?

Because it's easily observable in every other industry.

What would stop quacks from becoming more rampant if there were no regulations enforced? I'm talking about the regulation of terms. For example, the term "psychologist" is a regulated term. Anyone can call themselves a psycho-analyst and charge for it, but doing the same with "psychologist" without the appropriate degrees and such will cause trouble with the law.

As alluded to earlier, privately run and completely voluntary consumer awareness and ceritifcation organizations would take over, along with educational bodies.

Sure, you can call yourself a "psychologist", but without any authoritative body sponsoring you, nobody will take your very seriously.

I wasn't suggesting that we give up modern technology. I don't see how a lack of regulation will yield positive results in today's economy.

You asked if it had ever been done, and I stated it has. What makes it "less applicable" to today?
Education has advanced greatly, and pharmaceuticals are easier and cheaper to manufacture than ever before. So, don't you have every indication that it would work even better if we tried it today?

I agree that transparency is nice. However, transparency is not the issue. What good is transparency if you cannot afford the service period? The current system has failed to provide millions of people with health care, and this occurred even before President Clinton told the FDA to get buddy-buddy with the drug companies. The issue is that millions of people lack access to health care, and the best chance at solving that issue appears to be public health care as Europe and Canada have done.

Neither you or I seem to be in favor of the current system, so don't imply that I have the onus to defend it, as I'm arguing for something quiet a bit different.
And in that specific quote, you were referring specifically to the accountability of a private organization vs. a state run one.

So, what do you disagree with?
That transparency is actually not good, or that a private organization actually wouldn't be more accountable than a state run one?

Medicine, and drug companies, are massive; it is the largest industry in the U.S. Expecting new firms to pop up and compete effectively is like expecting small businesses to open near Wal-Mart that sell the same products as Wal-Mart. Even if the firms specialize in a specific drug or kind of drug, predatory competition practices will eventually eliminate them from the market. The larger firms will simply pick one of the competiting smaller firms, lower the price of the competiting drug so that the small firm cannot compete while taking a hit in the short term. Once the competition is eliminated, they can restore the price of the drug.

Manufacturing drugs is incredibly cheap and easy. Do you have any idea how many companies there already are that make generic medication? TONS, believe me.
Researching and developing new drugs is the only remotely difficult facet of the pharmaceutical industry.
After that, the rest of it is an utter cakewalk.

Another possibility is that deregulating drug companies will make the U.S. lose comparative advantage in drug manufacturing due to lack of government support. (Or rather ir will reveal that the U.S. doesn't have comparative advantage if that is the case).

If the US cannot compete with say, China, then I'd say you are right.
Doesn't bother me, though.
If another country can do something much cheaper than we can, good for them, and they can expect to gain my business.
If people really love their country so much, then they'll chose to spend the extra 250% to buy American made products.
But, of course, most people are financially realistic rather than financially idealistic, and would much prefer to buy the cost effective option.

Inevitably, you can't always win on every front in economics.
Lower prices, more jobs, higher wages?
If you're very lucky, you can pick two out of those three.

If the government is infact artificially propping up medicine and healthcare in the same way that the Europeans are propping up their farmers, then trying to take away this kind of corporatism will result in an end to talks.

Could you clarify this part for me? I'm not sure exactly what you meant, and I don't want to overlook it.

And of course, there is no guarentee that competition will lower drug and healthcare prices enough for the millions who need them to have access to them.

I'd say there is.
Substance patents and regulations are the only contributing factor to the inflated costs of these drugs.
They are NOT expensive to manufacture, only to develop.

The state is a monopoly on violence. Get rid of the main state, and smaller states exist. There are over 90,000 governments in the U.S., assuming you don't count illegitimate monopolies on violence such as gangsters. The state also decides who gets what, when, and how; that is politics. People are not going to give up this violent competition or the corruption that is present in the current system.

This doesn't really explain to me why it's impossible to get rid of the government.

The current government holding a monopoly on the legitimate use of force doesn't mean that a stateless voluntary-type system wouldn't manage to relegate out law enforcement and judicial aspects to private entities.
If you choose to become a citizen of a given nation state or distributed republic, you would most likely contractually obligate yourself to abide by their own set of laws.
A truly libertarian entity would still abide by the non-aggression axiom, but it remains to be seen whether anarcho-capitalism really would exclusively facilitate libertarianism.
Some people would like to live in a libertarian society, some people would not.
Much like every other industry, running a country would come down to appealing to specific demographics, and giving the proper incentives for people to do business with you.

 

[mallory knox]

it doesn't matter if they are expensive to manufacture, they are patented and sold by way way more than they cost.

Pharmaceuticals Rank as Most Profitable Industry, Again

www.citizen.org/documents/fortune500_2002erport.PDF

In fact, year after year, for over two decades, this industry has been far and away the most profitable in the United States.

www.nybooks.com/articles/17244

Finally, it should also be noted that the drug industry does not dispute that it is by far the most profitable in the country, according to the annual ...
www.drug-companies.net/druggernaut.htm

 

[mallory knox]

You do not want anarchy for the right reasons BenW.
No No No.
You're not a good anarchist.
You're the reason why we can't take risks.

 

[arbygil]

Which is why you should always grow as much of your food as is possible. Agribusiness is bad for health.

I wish I had the ability to do it, and the room. Someday I will. I'd love to be part of a small co-op where I could grow fruits and veggies and farm goats for milk (hmm...maybe I'd better check my allergies for goat hair first...).

Then I'd trade with someone for eggs and meat.

Man, I kind of wish I lived in an area that believed in self-sustainability on this scale. I'd want to learn first, then try it.

 

[mallory knox]

I don't wanna grow anything.
I don't even like chopping anything.

 

[Shai Gar]

My idea is to simply run the hydroponic gardens, and then own a house much too big for me. Allow people who are homeless because of debt rather than drugs or mental illness to come live at the house, and run the rest of it.

They'd get free accommodation and food, I'd get free labour.

 

[arbygil]

My idea is to simply run the hydroponic gardens, and then own a house much too big for me. Allow people who are homeless because of debt rather than drugs or mental illness to come live at the house, and run the rest of it.

They'd get free accommodation and food, I'd get free labour.

That's a pretty decent idea, actually. I guess you can always find a new person as a replacement if someone decides to leave the system because they've changed their status and/or want to live alone. Co-op systems have worked in the past, but governments and/or internal conflicts tend to destroy them.

 

[mallory knox]

except that falls into the concept of slavery

 

[arbygil]

except that falls into the concept of slavery

LOL. Or, maybe a better definition would be indentured servant. But if they can leave by choice, then it's not necessarily slavery. He's letting them live off the land and farm it.

 

[mallory knox]

as far as i know every worker who doesn't get paid in cash at least minimum wage falls into the definition of a slave

 

[arbygil]

as far as i know every worker who doesn't get paid in cash at least minimum wage falls into the definition of a slave

Not necessarily - but it depends on what you need and want, too. If you're forced to do something and have no choice and there's no way to get out of it once you're in it then yes, I'd call that slavery. But you could be slave to your financial situation, too. Especially if you have more month than you have money.

Like me.

But that's the one thing Shai's plan doesn't account for: The folks in debt need to find a way out of their debt, and they need to find a way to pay back the people they owe. Unless Shai's planning to pay back their mortgages and the like in exchange for living off the land.

 

[Lucifer]

I think that the author brings up an interesting distinction.

I like the idea that we should treat lifestyles not fatness.

Americans, over weight or not live a dangerous lifestyle of laziness. This lazy fatty life style is present independent of the persons weight.

So we should encourage all people big and small to lead healthier lifestyles, not to loose weight per se.

 

[Quite8the8Bell]

So we should encourage all people big and small to lead healthier lifestyles, not to loose weight per se.

You cannot be healthy and fat.

 

[arbygil]

You cannot be healthy and fat.

Depends on what you're reading and depends on who's doing the defining. Times Magazine recently said that it is possible, and Sumo wrestlers are actually healthy and fat *until* they stop training.

It depends on your point of view of "fat." Anorexics believe themselves to be fat, when they're actually malnourished and skeletal. You might need to define the word a little more for this conversation.

 

[alcyone]

That is where my defination and your defination of slave differs.
Merriam Webster definition of 'slave':
1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence
3 : a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another
4 : drudge, toiler

IMO, a slave is a person who cannot leave their situation by choice.

Shai in no way intimated that the people he'd shelter in exchange for their labor in his Co-op would be bound to the Co-op, would be owned by him, or would in any way be restricted in their exercise for free will.

It is a trade. Room and board for physical labor. That is the same system currently employed in the US and many other civilized countries. It's just dressed up prettier and has a middle man called 'wage' which is necessary to provide ones self with shelter and sustance.

In fact here is the Merriam Webster definition of 'wage slave'.....Sounds like all of us who are dependent on our wages are in definition 'slaves'.

Main Entry: wage slave
Function: noun
Date: 1882
: a person dependent on wages or a salary for a livelihood


Additionally, Shai did not say that the people he'd shelter would be unable to work outside of his establishment, there by earning an additional wage for their labor. Sounds to me like Shai's idea is less of a bad situation than that of a wage slave.

 

[Shai Gar]

Not necessarily - but it depends on what you need and want, too. If you're forced to do something and have no choice and there's no way to get out of it once you're in it then yes, I'd call that slavery. But you could be slave to your financial situation, too. Especially if you have more month than you have money.

Like me.

But that's the one thing Shai's plan doesn't account for: The folks in debt need to find a way out of their debt, and they need to find a way to pay back the people they owe. Unless Shai's planning to pay back their mortgages and the like in exchange for living off the land.

They can declare bankruptcy. I'm not there to help anyone get money, just accommodation and food. That's something you can't get on the street with ease.

My system has the benefit of providing security for those who want it. Noone has to stay, but if they want to get back no their feet, they've got a shower, cheap clothes which I'll buy for them, and access to a cheap computer with net access to job hunt. In the meantime, they've got food, showers, a bed, and safety. I'm not a charity, I require work for all that. But noone has to.

 

[Quite8the8Bell]

Depends on what you're reading and depends on who's doing the defining. Times Magazine recently said that it is possible, and Sumo wrestlers are actually healthy and fat *until* they stop training.

It depends on your point of view of "fat." Anorexics believe themselves to be fat, when they're actually malnourished and skeletal. You might need to define the word a little more for this conversation.

And you age and height. I go by the standard scale. If some one is 5'1 and weighs more than 115 pounds, he/she is overweight, for example.

 

[arbygil]

And you age and height. I go by the standard scale. If some one is 5'1 and weighs more than 115 pounds, he/she is overweight, for example.

Okay, that's a decent scale, for some. [ETA]: Although I would say it's skewed if one has a larger body frame (height/weight table)

Would you say the same for athletes?