Obesity: A Health crisis or a moral one?

[Billy]

a - overweight people pay taxes too, so they are entitled

Not true, they pay taxes yes, but use more services as their health fails much harder and use up more resources to heal. Especially after heart disease sets in.

b - the idea that other people's health concern you because you pay taxes and you'd like to have the right to tell them how to live their lives borders on fascism

Socialism actually, and if we are going into socialist medicine as it seems we are, be prepared for the government to tell you what you can and cannot do to your body. Or you might just be exempt from specific health care.

c- next thing you'll do is try to tell people not to smoke, not to drink, not to eat unhealthy, not to rollerblade or sky or run because you're concerned about your tax money?

Actually, I tell people to do what makes them happy, as a capitalist I believe in freedom and despise socialism. I don't control the government though, a socialist does... and he is going to make sure the government can tell you what you can and cant do to your body. Whether I like It or not. I am concerned about my tax money though I don't want it taken from me even more than it already is and used to help a bunch of people who have no right to it. I help enough people in my daily life.

d- so if I don't want medical care paid to people whose habits I don't agree with, can I just ask them not to treat anyone whom I find an asshole?

You can, but in a socialist system they laugh in your face and take your money and give it to the asshole anyway. That's the problem.

e- so what if you don't like to see people unhealthy? democracy isn't about what you like, it's about personal freedom.

It used to be anyway. And my wanting to see people healthy isn't something I would legislate. As I have stated before. I can still challenge their ignorance though with truth.

f- I know a lot of americans have a problem with this concept, but free health care has nothing to do with "socialist"? I have no idea what you said "socialist medicine"? Most countries that have govermental health care are democratic.

Well you have made a few mistakes, 1. Its not "free" you pay for it with increased taxes. 2. It is socialist. Its a redistribution of money and wealth from those who have earned it, to those who haven't. I am deeply against this when it comes to moral issues like health, not so much when it comes to roads and bridges though. Governmental health is the worst health care in the world. Its why anyone with any means who has a serious medical condition comes to the united States or seeks outside medical care from their governmental health system. My grandfather who is 70 years old just recovered from seriously bad cancer, luckily he is quite wealthy he owns a company and was able to afford the care he needed independently. Had he been poor, the governmental health care system would have loaded him up on pain pills and sent him home to die because it wouldn't have been "worth" the effort to save an old man with cancer, diabetes, and alcoholism. In other words if he lived in the rest of the world, he would have been given a death sentence. He is cured though, never looked healthier. Capitalism works.

Pffft.

mature.

 

[mallory knox]

are you insane? what does socialism have to do with any of this?

none of the countries i've ever lived were socialist, they were all democratic countries and they all had free health care and none of the goverments told people what to do concerning their health.

I have lived in places with govermental health care and most of it it's quite good, thank you very much. Thanks to that me and my relatives always had treatment, including to cancer.

If your grandad was living in the UK or France - for example - he would have been treated just the same having money or not and the outcome would have been just the same. Unfortunately in the US they let the poor die or get in debt.

Your idea of public health care couldn't be further from the truth - everyone is treated just the same regardless of how much it costs or how much they would profit - ask any british person.

I want my tax money to be used to treat EVERYONE, regardless of their personal choices, that's what democracy is.

You clearly never lived outside the US and sound extremely brainwashed.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and neither do you.

You can, but in a socialist system they laugh in your face and take your money and give it to the asshole anyway. That's the problem.

that's the most disturbing part of your post.
As if you'd like to have the right to tell the goverment not to save someone because you think he's an asshole?

 

[Shai Gar]

As if you'd like to have the right to tell the goverment not to save someone because you think he's an asshole?

Actually yes. I'd like that right.

 

[BenW]

are you insane? what does socialism have to do with any of this?

Public healthcare is a socialist concept, it's that simple.

I want my tax money to be used to treat EVERYONE, regardless of their personal choices, that's what democracy is.

"Democracy" is not some special buzzword that you can just throw around to be synonymous with whatever political views you may hold regarding public services, it's a specific form of electoral system that places the voting power in the hands of the general populous.
If a majority of the population decided that they in fact didn't want their tax money to be used to treat every equally regardless of their personal choices, and voted as such to make it happen, that would still be democracy, even though you may happen to disagree with their choice.

Democracy and egalitarianism are not mutually inclusive concepts.
Neither in concept nor in practice.

To quote BJ Lawson...
"Democracy is two wolves, and a sheep, deciding what to eat for dinner."

 

[Faye]

I would like to know, on the moral aspect of this debate, how is it anybody's business if someone's overweight or obese?

Well, its not anyone's business, but knowing humans, they make everything their business. Skin color, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation: people are extremely discriminatory. There is also the personal and emotional aspect of the issue; being obese means being rejected by potential romantic partners more frequently. Thus, the access to resources and happiness is limited.

Not true, they pay taxes yes, but use more services as their health fails much harder and use up more resources to heal. Especially after heart disease sets in.



Socialism actually, and if we are going into socialist medicine as it seems we are, be prepared for the government to tell you what you can and cannot do to your body. Or you might just be exempt from specific health care.



Actually, I tell people to do what makes them happy, as a capitalist I believe in freedom and despise socialism. I don't control the government though, a socialist does... and he is going to make sure the government can tell you what you can and cant do to your body. Whether I like It or not. I am concerned about my tax money though I don't want it taken from me even more than it already is and used to help a bunch of people who have no right to it. I help enough people in my daily life.



You can, but in a socialist system they laugh in your face and take your money and give it to the asshole anyway. That's the problem.



It used to be anyway. And my wanting to see people healthy isn't something I would legislate. As I have stated before. I can still challenge their ignorance though with truth.



Well you have made a few mistakes, 1. Its not "free" you pay for it with increased taxes. 2. It is socialist. Its a redistribution of money and wealth from those who have earned it, to those who haven't. I am deeply against this when it comes to moral issues like health, not so much when it comes to roads and bridges though. Governmental health is the worst health care in the world. Its why anyone with any means who has a serious medical condition comes to the united States or seeks outside medical care from their governmental health system. My grandfather who is 70 years old just recovered from seriously bad cancer, luckily he is quite wealthy he owns a company and was able to afford the care he needed independently. Had he been poor, the governmental health care system would have loaded him up on pain pills and sent him home to die because it wouldn't have been "worth" the effort to save an old man with cancer, diabetes, and alcoholism. In other words if he lived in the rest of the world, he would have been given a death sentence. He is cured though, never looked healthier. Capitalism works.


mature.

Billy, what on Earth are you talking about? Do you think that 1920s Russia somehow epitomizes "socialism"? Are you really that naive? Hybrid economies, which is where the U.S. is headed with its "Socialist" policies, are superior to less regulated economies. Just look at how much better their education, life expectancy, health rates, and crime rates are in hybrid economies.

I find your anecdote funny. Governmental health care definitely beats having no health care, which was the case of my grandmother. She could not afford health care, so she was basically left for dead with her diabetes. If they had lived in Western Europe or the Scandinavian Countries, or even Cuba, they would have been able to get treatment, BUT NOW SHE IS DEAD. Other family members have had similar problems.

Millions of people in the U.S. don't have the ability to pay for medical service, thus they don't receive it. If I were poor, I'd definitely not want to live in the U.S. Even Cuba has better health care than the U.S. if you're poor. In the end, society bares the cost of their illness in lost productivity, and it is actually more expensive to not have socialized medicine available for them, assuming we get a return rate similar to Japan's.

So do you think that just because someone is born in a disadvantaged position, they deserve to die when they get sick unless they're upper middle class or rich? That is basically what you are saying. Saying that people need to earn money for health care ignores the reality of class and implicitly endorses the myth of the culture of poverty. Lets not forget also that the United States health system is extremely corrupt; drugs that shouldn't be released are approved just to make money at the health expense of the people who take them.

 

[BenW]

Hybrid economies, which is where the U.S. is headed with its "Socialist" policies, are superior to less regulated economies. Just look at how much better their education, life expectancy, health rates, and crime rates are in hybrid economies.

Subjective.
The USA has a significantly larger GPD than even the next highest country (Japan).
Our PPP is also ahead of essentially all of these countries with "hybrid economies".
Simply put; America is a richer country, as evident by our abundant middle class.

I find your anecdote funny. Governmental health care definitely beats having no health care, which was the case of my grandmother. She could not afford health care, so she was basically left for dead with her diabetes. If they had lived in Western Europe or the Scandinavian Countries, or even Cuba, they would have been able to get treatment, BUT NOW SHE IS DEAD. Other family members have had similar problems.

Private medicine has an inflated value of services and goods, due to requirements surrounding the licenses/education which are legally required to practice medicine (which the AMA fought hard to receive) constricting the amount of doctors in the workforce, and the fact that competition in the private sector is severely stunted by the existence of public healthcare.

Get rid of public healthcare, and take licensing requirements and drug regulation out of the hands of the government and place them into the hands of private firms, and several things will happen.
A; More doctors, in shorter periods of time.
B; More drug companies.
C; Drastic price drops for healthcare and drugs.

 

[Quinlan]

Why it matters is because

A. Its unhealthy, I don't like to see people unhealthy.
B. we are going into socialist medicine, why should I have to pay for all the medical care to cover all the people who are unwilling to take care of themselves?

A. There isn't scientific consensus on whether obesity in itself is inherently unhealthy. It is correlated to a lot of things but has never been shown to cause anything, correlation is not causation! Bad breath is correlated with smoking, that doesn't mean bad breath causes cancer does it?

B. By your own words you think they will die earlier, therefore costing the taxpayer less in the long run. All kinds of people take all kinds of risks (although being obese in itself is not a risk) everyday, perhaps everyone could live in plastic bubbles and never do anything involving any sort of risk for your benefit? Would you like that? You would have tons of refunded tax money but you wouldn't be able to do anything exciting with the money because that involves risk. Anyway it is proven that an obese person that takes care of themselves is much healthier than an skinny person that doesn't, that's a fact! So you're being prejudice and judgemental towards people who may well cost you very little.

It costs our society money to take care of people who don't take care of themselves, which means more money I earned out of my pocket that could be going to better things like taking care of my family.

Then you should have a war on people not taking care of themselves (behaviours) instead of a war on obesity (characteristics). Why should I have to pay for skinny people's rock climbing injuries? Why should I pay for any sporting injuries, they only bring it on themselves? Do you know why I pay? Because I am a compassionate person and I would happily pay to reduce suffering, whether or not that suffering is self-inflicted or not. Why don't we just chuck all the sick fat people out on the street and watch them die a slow death, that will be lovely won't it?

One stays obese through a chronic lack of healthy eating and physical activity.

Please provide evidence for this assertion.

Yes they are committing suicide, you can use whatever quasi-pseudo evidence du jour with all the pretty graphs and bar charts you want showing whatever you want, but obesity increases risk for grave medical conditions like heart disease. That is a fact. Just because normal weight people have a similar life expectancy doesnt mean anyhting, maybe youre not factoring in the rock climbing deaths etc that much healthier people do and stuff like that.

This sums up your argument entirely and why you will never see my point, you're doing the equivilant of closing your eyes and blocking your ears and shouting "I can't hear you!". You completey ignore all of the scientific evidence I have presented because you don't like what it says. It's much more comfortable for you to stick by your ingrained bias and prejudice, it's as close minded as you can get. If you won't accept hard evidence then there is nothing I can do to convince you. You also state that things are facts even though they have no supporting evidence at all.

You have made your mind up, fat people are lazy, worthless, bludgers to you, this is clear.

I'm not saying they are better off dead than obese, I am saying they are slowly killing themselves, and if they cant help themselves they will be dead and we might as well just accept that.

Everyone is going to be dead one way or another, life for anyone is short, we might as well let people enjoy it while it lasts rather than giving them massive stigmas and encouraging them to hate their bodies.

 

[Quinlan]

Not true, they pay taxes yes, but use more services as their health fails much harder and use up more resources to heal. Especially after heart disease sets in.

Please provide evidence to support this assertion. I have already provided evidence to the contrary.

 

[mallory knox]

Public healthcare is a socialist concept, it's that simple.

"Democracy" is not some special buzzword that you can just throw around to be synonymous with whatever political views you may hold regarding public services, it's a specific form of electoral system that places the voting power in the hands of the general populous.
If a majority of the population decided that they in fact didn't want their tax money to be used to treat every equally regardless of their personal choices, and voted as such to make it happen, that would still be democracy, even though you may happen to disagree with their choice.

Democracy and egalitarianism are not mutually inclusive concepts.
Neither in concept nor in practice.

To quote BJ Lawson...
"Democracy is two wolves, and a sheep, deciding what to eat for dinner."

I suppose you can say having public schools is also a socialist concept?
They're just public services.

 

[BenW]

I suppose you can say having public schools is also a socialist concept?

Yes.

They're just public services.

Exactly.
State ownership over the means of production/distribution of anything is by definition a socialist concept.

The only (classically) arguable exceptions are courts/law enforcement, national defense, and roads.
However, I could argue that those too would be just as easily privatized, and would benefit from it too...

 

[mallory knox]

The great majority of the countries with public health care are not socialist.

 

[BenW]

Word semantics.
I can guarantee you that the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is neither democratic nor a republic, despite their name.

Your claim was that healthcare is not a socialist concept, not that the US isn't a socialist country.

 

[mallory knox]

How is it a socialist concept?

are you saying the UK or Portugal or France or Canada aren't democratic?

 

[BenW]

How is it a socialist concept?

I just explained that.

State ownership over the means of production/distribution of anything is by definition a socialist concept.

are you saying the UK or Portugal or France or Canada aren't democratic?

Democratically elected legislators and executives can instate socialist policies (and, have done so).

 

[TheLastMohican]

How is it a socialist concept?

are you saying the UK or Portugal or France or Canada aren't democratic?

Governments are rarely "pure." Ancient Athens had the closest thing to a democracy, and even that system excluded most of the voters. We don't have any purely socialist governments, either, but that does not mean that so-called democratic governments (all but Saudi Arabia claim to be so) cannot have socialistic or other elements in their systems.

 

[Quinlan]

Weight does need to be considered. Certain safety standards have to be met based on how much weight something can support (an elevator for example, or a ladder). Weight can also play a role in how much force is generated if someone falls. If that someone has osteoperosis and falls down and breaks their hip (note: they fall down for a reason other than the hip breaking pre-fall), then weight may play a very important role in how the bone fractures, the extent of the damage, etc.

The first is an engineering issue, not a public health one. Second, isn't it possible that fat could also cushion a fall? This would have to be weighed up against the benefit of having more fat at older ages (yes there are benefits) as well. I think you would find the increased risk negligible.

While I understand that there is an emotional and very personal side to the issue of obesity, there are some facts that cannot be overlooked and talked about because the topic is a sensitive one. For example: hospitals having to buy open MRI's because patients cannot fit into closed machines (and other medical equipment). Logistics is also important when dealing with fulfilling the needs of all patients.

I'm all for facts, I have brought lots of facts to this discussion backed by studies and expert opinion, I will happily discuss any facts you would like to put forward. I do think that logistics and machines should fit humans not the other way around.

We have to work with knowledge that is available to us (and follow appropriate guidelines). Yes, obesity is a great challenge to overcome. But so are a great number of other health related issues (ex. cancer, diabetes, drug addictions, etc.) There are ways to lose weight in a healthy manner (WeightWatchers comes to mind), and there are other options as well.

Which guidelines should we follow though? and how accurate are they really at measuring health (BMI)? Where do these guidelines come from? Public health officials have already messed up beyond belief in the past by dramatically overstating the number of obesity deaths. This is no slight error, this is 15 times greater! That is willful misleading of the public! They have already shown in the past that they get so stuck in their own idealogy and circular logic "Fat is bad, because we have always thought it was bad, therefore fat is bad" that they end up backing themselves up a creek with nowhere to go except out and out lies and misinformation.

Oh yes, and weightwatchers does work, for just 2 out of every thousand people!

But I will agree and disagree with you: I think that a majority of people are obese because of poor lifestyle choices, but being obese does not mean that one cannot live a happy life.

I have yet to see any evidence in a difference in lifestyle and health choices amongest any of the sizes, this evidence would be interesting. The problem is, the more we talk/panic about wieght the bigger we get, we create a problem just by fretting about it!

“We have seen over the years that it does not work to make people feel worse about their bodies. The data are striking — talking about weight, worrying too much about diet, focusing on it increases risk not only of eating disorders, but also of being overweight.”

Unhealthy habits and eating are the root of a growing health problem in the developing world. And yes, people of any size can be unhealthy. But I don't think that the obese are scapegoats by any means.

Well I haven't seen any talk of an "unhealthy epidemic", I have just seen the shameing and generalisation of a certain size people and not of others. If we are going to use careless generalisations and attitudes they should apply to all unhealthy people!

I am somewhat hesitant to say this, but I dislike the idea of 'victim' being brought into the obesity issue. I have noticed more and more that a 'victim mentality' is brought into issues where it does not belong. In my own perceptions of it, if someone says something to the contrary to the 'victim' side of the issue then that person is emotionally judged by both the 'victim' side and society at large. Thus, the person who brings up a contrary opinion risks either passively agreement with what is said, or active measures against their voiced opinion. Please note that I am not saying that you (or any other user) is doing this. What I am saying is that I do not wish to see this thread degenerate because of this scenario taking place. I think that the issue of obesity (and it's discussion) deserves better than that.

Is no one ever treated badly by anyone else ever? Sometimes people are treated badly and sometimes people have to stand up for themselves, that's just life, the alternative is everyone being a doormat, if everyone did that, there would be no rights for women or minorities!

As much as it would make you more comfortable to dehumanise the issue and the people, there is no way around it, this is a deeply human, complex and personal issue. Pretending it isn't does no help to anyone!

But in my own mind, I don't associate obesity with good health.

Of course you don't! Everyday we are bombarded with "FAT IS THE DEVIL!" messages. All I am asking is for people to open their minds just a little, to the possibility that the whole thing might be a fuss about nothing and be open to the slight possibility that by making such a big deal of it we might be exasperating the very problem we're trying to fix (something humans seem to do oh so well)!

 

[Faye]

Get rid of public healthcare, and take licensing requirements and drug regulation out of the hands of the government and place them into the hands of private firms, and several things will happen.
A; More doctors, in shorter periods of time.
B; More drug companies.
C; Drastic price drops for healthcare and drugs.

Has this ever been effectively implemented anywhere? What happens when monopolies develop?

 

[evalura]

It's a fact that overweight people who get excercise are healthier than slim people who don't. However, being obese isn't good. I know 3 people who lost a lot of weight after gastric bypass surgury and they were able to eliminate medication due to issues directly related to being obese. I also know that obesity is partly due to genetics in some people and those people who are prone to obesity, if they lose the weight, have an incredibly difficult time keeping the weight off.

 

[BenW]

Has this ever been effectively implemented anywhere?

In the United States (and many other places) prior to around the turn of the 20th century, this was a reality.
Substance regulation ("drug laws") came about in the 1930's, and medical licensing started in small scale by the late 1800's (post Civil War) catching on fully before the turn of the century.

What happens when monopolies develop?

Socialized medicine itself is a monopoly, by means of privileges and exclusivities granted by the state forcefully.
Why worry about monopolization in the face of introducing vastly more competitive pressure to the playing field? If anything, a monopoly over healthcare/pharmaceuticals would be drastically less likely in a stateless society (or at least, a society wherein the state keeps it's hand off these industries).

 

[mallory knox]

No it isn