Obesity: A Health crisis or a moral one?

mallory k said:
public health care makes private insurance improve, because they have to offer some real advantage to make you pay when you can have it for free.
Click to expand...
Posted via Mobile Device
 
yeah i pay for one because it offers me real advantages compared to the free health care: having the choice to choose my doctors, have my own room with cable tv, have appointments in the evenings or saturday without having to skip work and all that crap

if the country didn
 
Dragon said:
Okay, has it ever been implemented in a modern setting?
Click to expand...
No.

Dragon said:
In the 1800s, quacks ran rampant,
Click to expand...
If you are speaking in the comparative sense, that's really subjective.
"Quacks" are quite rampant today; just visit your local chiropractor or acupuncturist... Or hell, just ask your doctor for advice. About 1/3rd of anything a doctor will tell you is arbitrary opinion.

Dragon said:
..and medical technology was nothing like it is now. I really don't see the merit or applicability of what happened then to what exists now. The most successful strategy is public health care, as demonstrated by pretty much everyone in Europe, Canada, etc...
Click to expand...
My argument was not that we ought to revert to the "good ol' times"; you asked if it had ever been done before, I pointed out that is has and that society didn't collapse into complete anarchy during this period of time.

Dragon said:
A private monopoly is not subject to accountability, especially if the government is weak.
Click to expand...
A private entity will inherently have more transparency than a state-run one.

If UPS/Fedex/DHL loses a package you mailed with them, you can take them to small claims court.
If the USPS loses a package you mailed with them, you practically can't sue them, unless you have the ambition to take the matter to a federal court, where you will be buried in red tape...

Dragon said:
A public monopoly could be controlled if the government is democratic. But, we're not talking about fully socialized here. Private medicine would still exist with public health care, but to do what you're suggesting is extreme and has .... no good evidence to support it. We're in a post-industrial economy now.
Click to expand...
The "evidence" for it is much the same as any other good and service on the market.
Having more firms competing in the marketplace increases supply and lowers prices.
What makes medicine exempt?

Dragon said:
Also, it is impossible to get rid of the state.
Click to expand...
How so?
 
I think I have come to the conclusion that some people will get it (what I'm saying) but most won't. I think it is too great of a leap (believing that people can be fat AND healthy) for people to accept. I can understand that.
 
Because?
 
This thread is two different discussions. I'd split it, but I don't know where to start.

From now on, any post that talks about private/public health care will become a new thread. and all posts will be dumped into there. Want to continue the topic? Start a new thread.
 
A small part is.

But cyanide is necessary in the body too. Try having too much.
 
Shai Gar said:
A small part is.

But cyanide is necessary in the body too. Try having too much.
Click to expand...

How much exactly (fat) is too much?

It's always good to have stores of energy reserves when a bad infection hits or (in some cultures/times) a year of poor crops comes round. I have heard that for women, fat around the hips, thighs, bum and breasts is very beneficial, I think it helps with girly hormones or something. Fat around the belly/waist is the dangerous kind I've heard, that is why the hourglass shape and a slim waist are considered very healthy in women.
 
Last edited:
Azure_Knight said:
I have a few qualms with the evidence that you have brought up. For one thing: your sources may be unreliable (in a scientific sense, and for use in academic setting with peer review).

I'm fairly confident that your source for weightwatchers is unreliable.

Your source for junkfoodscience may also be unreliable: the medical blogger site that she is affiliated with has a gmail account. As we all know, gmail accounts are free to get. The fact that the group does not seem to be affiliated with any professional organizations also gives me some pause. If you are presenting scientific evidence, make sure they are good sources with peer review.
Click to expand...

Those websites aren't the source of my conclusions, they simply conveniently collate the results of proper scientific studies. The true source of the information is the scientific studies themselves, I am too lazy to link directly to them but they are all referenced on those sites if your interested in tracing them back. Personally I think the studies themselves are definitely worth consideration if you're interested. I'm not writing an essay here, so I have provided enough of a link if people are really interested enough to pursue it further.

Do you have any evidence that there is a negligible risk with increasing weight? Otherwise, I will have to point out that you still have increased weight (which generates more force when it hits the ground). If you have evidence that the weight acts as a cushion and is protective, please provide it. Otherwise, this is speculation.
Click to expand...

Speculation from both sides of course, so clearly not enough for me to start panicking about a broken bone epidemic.

While this is an interesting graph, it is talking about old data. Is there a more current graph with data from within the past five years? As it stands, this graph would probably not be considered a good figure to use in academia.
Click to expand...

Those figures came from the CDC themselves. This article explains it all if you want to verify; http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm/article/162 The reason I posted it was simply to highlight just how dramatic the errors and careless scare mongering that public health officials have engaged in. That they made a monumental stuff up, is fact.

As far as I am aware, the obese have the same legal rights as everyone else in America.
Click to expand...

Not my point, my point was simply that you'll never be treated well if you never stand up for yourself.

I am aware that the issue may not be in the correct proportions because of incorrect figures that were given by agencies.
Click to expand...

Hooray so we agree! :D

However, obesity is a great cause for concern; I do not have any figures to og on yet, but I am of the opinion that less than 25% of the obese population have 'normal' glucose and cholesterol parameters. Once I have the information that I require, I will present it here.
Click to expand...

Well I think that as a society we are being too hard and prejudging that 25% that do have good levels, that's still a whole heap of people! If we focused on behaviours rather than characteristics, then that 25% would not get caught in the crossfire.

Eniko said:
Uh-huh, and I totally can't see unhealthy fat people not trying to get healthy by using this as an excuse. They'll say "you can be fat and healthy!" and then stuff their faces with two overfilled plates for breakfast, and when asked they will still maintain they "don't eat a lot".
Click to expand...

So why do you have a problem with the characteristic, instead of the behaviours themselves? I'm also a bit less cynical regarding the motivations of others as you seem to be.

And don't tell me they don't exist. Don't even try to sell me that these kinds of people all have some kind of medical problem that makes them gain weight easily. I've seen far too many people who are fat, and who stay fat, through their own gluttonous actions to ever buy that.
Click to expand...

But there are big people who are no more gluttonous than anyone else right? I think most obese people probably live a typical western lifestyle, they just happen to store much more of what they eat as body fat than other people. If they are living a typical western lifestyle then it is the whole lifestyle that should be attacked, not just one of many groups partaking in that lifestyle. I think most very/morbidly/extremely obese however probably don't have "typical" lifestyles, they do pay for that with damage to their health but they are on the very ends of the spectrum (not part of the main group on a normal distribution.

For the record, I don't care if people don't mind being big. They want to stuff their faces with all the good stuff cuisine has to offer and not do anything to keep it off? That's their prerogative, just like it's a smoker's prerogative to become a rattled addict. They'll both be chipping years if not decades off their life expectancy, but they're adults so they can do whatever they please. They don't even need to justify themselves to me.
Click to expand...

And just like I can't deny that there are people who get fat through medical conditions and can't help it nobody here can deny that there are people who get fat through overeating and under exercising. And that latter group doesn't need an excuse, they do need to eat sanely and exercise.
Click to expand...

Of course, everyone needs to eat sanely and exercise at every size. By focusing solely on weight, unhealthy skinny people can go on destroying their bodies because we hold the BMI up as such an important measure of health. "I don't care if my arteries are clogged, my BMI says I'm fine!" How's THAT for an excuse?

Eniko said:
If we don't accept other self destructive things then we shouldn't accept this one?
Click to expand...

One of the most common ways of being self-destructive is yoyo-dieting, there is no one set diet that will help someone lose weight, losing very significant amounts of weight is quite a complex thing, metabolisms and appetites can be very tricky also. So people try all sorts of things, experiment, most don't work and while they're at it they are really damaging their bodies and in the long run end up heavier than those that did nothing.

I'm fine with saying that behaviours are self-destructive but I don't understand the logic in saying a characteristic is self destructive, it's neither here nor there, good or bad, it just is.

If only we could be worrying about the "unhealthy behaviour epidemic (by all sizes)", then we could actually target the problem accurately, rather than a scatter gun approach that exaperates the very thing it's trying to stop.

I personally think the western lifestyle is terribly unhealthy in a lot of ways for people of every size.
 
Shai Gar said:
Do you live in Africa? Do any of us?
Click to expand...

What's your point? Infections still occur in the west. I would put my money on a lot more obese and overweight people surviving a serious viral epidemic than the underweight, "normal" and very obese groups. They have reserves of energy to count on.

What I am saying is that all fat is not equal, and fat often provides surprising counter-intuitive benefits.

Where fat is stored is crucial as it makes a big difference in terms of being a health indicator.
 
Meh. I've pretty much ended discussion with this (same as Q) but here's something to ponder: Sumo wrestlers are fat and healthy while they train. They have extremely healthy diets, but they massively overindulge. But they don't eat junk food or candy. They drink - which adversely affects their health - but they eat natural foods (just high quantities of it).

When they *stop* training, however, and continue eating the same way, they will run into heart disease and diabetes and all the other risks...which is why they die at an earlier age. They run into complications after they retire.

Time Magazine article, Can you be fat and healthy?: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1066937,00.html

ETA (more recently), Why Exercise won't make you thin: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1914857,00.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top