Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

They forgot to mention why the govt is doing this. Insurance industry special interest money. Personally, I think the republicans would have done it as well, they love that big business money as much as the dems.

agnosto wrote:They forgot to mention why the govt is doing this. Insurance industry special interest money.

Sorry to ask, but could you explain how severe restrictions on the food industry is something that fits the agenda of "Insurance industry special interest money"?

Carmine the Wolf wrote:

agnosto wrote:They forgot to mention why the govt is doing this. Insurance industry special interest money.

Sorry to ask, but could you explain how severe restrictions on the food industry is something that fits the agenda of "Insurance industry special interest money"?

Insurance companies lobbying so that they have to pay less claims due to health related matters.

biccat wrote:Which could be possible, but it's not. If every company stuffs their products full of crap, then you should buy food that isn't full of crap. This will increase demand for non-crap food.

Though as I pointed out, when the vast majority of companies and the vast majority of food is stuffed full of the stuff, the vast majority of people will continue buying it for lack of options, lack of availability, lack of funds, etc, etc.

And even with some people "switching brands" to "healthier" options, there are still not enough of them to make a difference. Just as there are many people who want to see various TV programs back on the air, however, there are not enough of them for companies to pay attention to and bring back cancelled shows.

Again, could be possible, but it's not. There is a strong demand for healthy food and plenty of suppliers make it available. You might have to buy iceburg lettuce and chicken instead of arugula and filet mignon, but it's not impossible to eat healthy if you make an effort to do so.

When it costs more than twice as much to buy the same meal when buying fresh (not even special, organic, mega healthy, etc) ingredients compared to buying some mass produced, fat filled, salty, sugar stuffed ready meal (or even "stir in" sauces, "ready-to-cook" style meal components) something is wrong. Mass production scales obviously factor in, but when a couple of chicken breasts are significantly more than a microwave chicken curry with rice, naan bread, etc...

If they're not inclined to seek out "better" alternatives or willing to inform themselves of healthful alternatives, that's not my problem. But there is plenety of information on eating healthy available (for free even!) to those who will make the effort to seek it out.

How about we stop public education, scolarships and so on, so that only those who make the effort to pay their own way and make the effort to better themselves get any schooling?

As for ability, I'm not sure what you mean. If you're talking about finances, I don't think there's a general obligation to support people on the public dime. But even if there is, healthy food is not more expensive than "unhealthy" food.

I'm not suggesting giving people food stamps here, I am just pointing out that it is often significantly cheaper to buy crap filled ready meals than the ingredients for the same meal freshly prepared. There is also the issue that often the stores catering towards the poorer individuals will have even worse quality food (in terms of having meals stuffed with even more crap, as well as generally offering more unhealthy options than higher end eupermarkets).

By legislating on the contents of meals, foods, etc, you are essentially ensuring that all food (no matter the "quality") will at least be relatively healthy (compared to the same foods that are sold and marketed now).

You can survive quite well on beans, rice and water and pay significantly less than eating out at McDonalds.

Sure, but having been to university and having lived on pasta for a number of years, it is neither healthy or fun.

You could, presumably, still purchase strawberries to make your own jam. In fact, if there really was a demand for real strawberry jam, you could probably make your own jam, slap a wrapper on the jar, and sell it to your friends and neighbors. Sure someone else could undercut you by selling rhubarb-sugar-wood jam, but if people wanted real strawberries, you could deliver it.

Sure, lowest income workers in the (early C20th/C19th?) could afford to grow strawberries, press them, make jam, etc, etc

I could go out tomorrow witht he intention of creating a healthy food company that produced ready meals with less salt, fat and sugar in them. Wouldn't get very far because I don't have the funds, knowledge or indeed much else beyond an idea

Also, labelling rhubarb-sugar-wood jam as strawberry is fraud, and should be prohibited.

Wait a minute! Damn the government! Who said they could control what we can and cannot put on labels?!?!

RABBLERABBLERABBLE!

Frazzled wrote:

Carmine the Wolf wrote:

agnosto wrote:They forgot to mention why the govt is doing this. Insurance industry special interest money.

Sorry to ask, but could you explain how severe restrictions on the food industry is something that fits the agenda of "Insurance industry special interest money"?

Insurance companies lobbying so that they have to pay less claims due to health related matters.

Seems like a long game for such a vicious industry to adopt.

I thought their main strategy to avoid paying out was simply to find some BS in the patient's past history and refuse to pay on that basis.

SilverMK2 wrote:Though as I pointed out, when the vast majority of companies and the vast majority of food is stuffed full of the stuff, the vast majority of people will continue buying it for lack of options, lack of availability, lack of funds, etc, etc.

And even with some people "switching brands" to "healthier" options, there are still not enough of them to make a difference. Just as there are many people who want to see various TV programs back on the air, however, there are not enough of them for companies to pay attention to and bring back cancelled shows.

TV is different because of the high production costs and low distribution costs. The production of a TV show may cost $1 million, but sending it to 1 million TVs is not much more expensive than sending it to 10 TVs.

In contrast, production and distribution of food are roughly proportional to the value generated. The material cost (per serving) of food is roughly proportional to the number of products produced, shipped and sold.

SilverMK2 wrote:When it costs more than twice as much to buy the same meal when buying fresh (not even special, organic, mega healthy, etc) ingredients compared to buying some mass produced, fat filled, salty, sugar stuffed ready meal (or even "stir in" sauces, "ready-to-cook" style meal components) something is wrong. Mass production scales obviously factor in, but when a couple of chicken breasts are significantly more than a microwave chicken curry with rice, naan bread, etc...

That's because a microwave chicken curry with rice and naan bread doesn't include a couple of chicken breasts. It probably includes half a chicken breast, at best. If you bought the ingredients separately and prepared them yourself, you would probably save money.

SilverMK2 wrote:How about we stop public education, scolarships and so on, so that only those who make the effort to pay their own way and make the effort to better themselves get any schooling?

A man can dream...

SilverMK2 wrote:I'm not suggesting giving people food stamps here, I am just pointing out that it is often significantly cheaper to buy crap filled ready meals than the ingredients for the same meal freshly prepared. There is also the issue that often the stores catering towards the poorer individuals will have even worse quality food (in terms of having meals stuffed with even more crap, as well as generally offering more unhealthy options than higher end eupermarkets).

By legislating on the contents of meals, foods, etc, you are essentially ensuring that all food (no matter the "quality") will at least be relatively healthy (compared to the same foods that are sold and marketed now).

You are also limiting food variety. Plus, there's the tyranny issue.

SilverMK2 wrote:

You can survive quite well on beans, rice and water and pay significantly less than eating out at McDonalds.

Sure, but having been to university and having lived on pasta for a number of years, it is neither healthy or fun.

Not healthy? Humans survived for centuries on essentially those two ingredients alone. Sure there was the occasional protein (available by eggs at $2/dozen), but those two ingredients alone will allow you to live a full life.

Now, if you want fun...well, that's a luxury good. Even if you accept that society has to provide necessities, you don't think that it should provide for "fun," do you?

SilverMK2 wrote:Sure, lowest income workers in the (early C20th/C19th?) could afford to grow strawberries, press them, make jam, etc, etc

Lowest income workers? No, probably not, at least, not for long. If there really was a high demand for strawberry jam they wouldn't be low income workers.

The costs of planting, growing, pressing and cooking strawberries to make jam are surprisingly cheap. The biggest difficulty is the time investment.

SilverMK2 wrote:I could go out tomorrow witht he intention of creating a healthy food company that produced ready meals with less salt, fat and sugar in them. Wouldn't get very far because I don't have the funds, knowledge or indeed much else beyond an idea

Your problem isn't the lack of knowledge, funds, or "much else," it's the lack of a drive to take the risk to create the healthy food company. Nothing wrong with that, a lot of people have good ideas that they either don't think will provide a valuable return on investment or they aren't willing to take the risk.

SilverMK2 wrote:Wait a minute! Damn the government! Who said they could control what we can and cannot put on labels?!?!

Now you're just being silly. There are legitimate objects of government (providing relief for injury or fraud) and illegitimate objects (controlling private actions).

Carmine the Wolf wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Carmine the Wolf wrote:

agnosto wrote:They forgot to mention why the govt is doing this. Insurance industry special interest money.

Sorry to ask, but could you explain how severe restrictions on the food industry is something that fits the agenda of "Insurance industry special interest money"?

Insurance companies lobbying so that they have to pay less claims due to health related matters.

Seems like a long game for such a vicious industry to adopt.

I thought their main strategy to avoid paying out was simply to find some BS in the patient's past history and refuse to pay on that basis.

New health care law is doing away with that and preventing insurance companies from denying claims based on preexisting conditions. So if they want to pay less out, they're going to have to make people healthier....whether they like it or not.

Carmine the Wolf wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Carmine the Wolf wrote:

agnosto wrote:They forgot to mention why the govt is doing this. Insurance industry special interest money.

Sorry to ask, but could you explain how severe restrictions on the food industry is something that fits the agenda of "Insurance industry special interest money"?

Insurance companies lobbying so that they have to pay less claims due to health related matters.

Seems like a long game for such a vicious industry to adopt.

I thought their main strategy to avoid paying out was simply to find some BS in the patient's past history and refuse to pay on that basis.

I didn't say I agreed. Just expanding the theory. I just put it down to nany state do gooderism. In the Obama administration, if its good enough for San Francisco, its good enough for the nation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Of course, many who said mandates for government health care would soon be followed by govenment mandates for food. Looks lilke they were right, much more quickily than anticipated. But its ok. The same people who brought us government efficiency know whats best for us.

Frazzled wrote:I didn't say I agreed. Just expanding the theory. I just put it down to nany state do gooderism. In the Obama administration, if its good enough for San Francisco, its good enough for the nation.

Yeah, you don't need to look far. There're a plethora of reasons for extra babying; one of the biggest being that people in this country like to look to the govt to take care of them instead of working things out for themselves like our parents, grandparents, etc..



Can't think of the word "plethora" without thinking about this movie.

Frazzled wrote:I didn't say I agreed. Just expanding the theory. I just put it down to nany state do gooderism. In the Obama administration, if its good enough for San Francisco, its good enough for the nation.

I think you'd look great rollerblading along in a day-glo vest and short-shorts listening to a walkman. Wait... that was LA in the 80's...

Ah well, you would still look great!

I will reply to biccat's post this evening (if I remember and no one else does so ).

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I didn't say I agreed. Just expanding the theory. I just put it down to nany state do gooderism. In the Obama administration, if its good enough for San Francisco, its good enough for the nation.

I think you'd look great rollerblading along in a day-glo vest and short-shorts listening to a walkman. Wait... that was LA in the 80's...

Excellent. The DCM is mounting up for a counterinvasion of GW headquarters. I just found my uniform. Shock and Awe here I come!

agnosto wrote:Yeah, you don't need to look far. There're a plethora of reasons for extra babying; one of the biggest being that people in this country like to look to the govt to take care of them instead of working things out for themselves like our parents, grandparents, etc..

You realize the source for those stories of rugged individualism and can do attitude are being told you by your parents and grand parents. When was the last time they told you a story that started "Well I was a total cock up and did nothing very well"?

You can find people from that time period that would also argue that things would have been better if there had been more regulation and intervention such as this. It isn't as if there are new political ideas being talked about that weren't around before the great cereal wars of 2013. Ignore that last part. In short, the past was no where near that simple or uncomplicated. Politics was politics 100 years ago just as much as it is today. They just didn;t have the internet but what they did have was a lower life expectancy and more false teeth.

I have a question to all the anti-regulators...

Do you feel that supply of medicine/pharmaceuticals should be strictly regulated? If the answer is yes then why should food be treated any differently?

Ahtman wrote:

agnosto wrote:Yeah, you don't need to look far. There're a plethora of reasons for extra babying; one of the biggest being that people in this country like to look to the govt to take care of them instead of working things out for themselves like our parents, grandparents, etc..

You realize the source for those stories of rugged individualism and can do attitude are being told you by your parents and grand parents. When was the last time they told you a story that started "Well I was a total cock up and did nothing very well"?

You can find people from that time period that would also argue that things would have been better if there had been more regulation and intervention such as this. It isn't as if there are new political ideas being talked about that weren't around before the great cereal wars of 2013. Ignore that last part. In short, the past was no where near that simple or uncomplicated. Politics was politics 100 years ago just as much as it is today. They just didn;t have the internet but what they did have was a lower life expectancy and more false teeth.

Back in the days when a "chicken in every pot" was literal.
Much like everything, I take it all with a grain of salt but balance that with hearing the things my grandmother went through that I can't even imagine making it through. Riding in a covered wagon across a river? Surviving the dust bowl? No way, I complain about the hail damage on my house, they had to literally dig themselves out of theirs. They were called the "Greatest Generation" for a reason.

I used to work for social services and I really don't see my former clients bucking up and going out to scrabble in the dirt to try and feed their families. Too many people expect the govt to provide for their needs these days and then the few of us that actually pay taxes (and not get it all refunded due to credits and so on) complain. I just think it's too easy to blame the govt for the nanny-state that we're plummeting towards when in fact it's the people that deserve the blame.

lighterthief wrote:I have a question to all the anti-regulators...

Do you feel that supply of medicine/pharmaceuticals should be strictly regulated? If the answer is yes then why should food be treated any differently?

No.

And a question to the pro-regulators:

If you think that food should be strictly regulated, should exercise be strictly regulated? If not, why not?

biccat wrote:If you think that food should be strictly regulated, should exercise be strictly regulated? If not, why not?

I quite like the Japanese "worker health" plans/programs where companies pay for gym memberships, or have daily exercise routines for staff.

However, there is a difference between forcing people to exercise, and ensuring what they eat is as healthy as realistically possible. It is entirely feasible to replace the vast amount of unhealthy foods with healther equivalents without substantially changing the "food". For example sugar being replaced with stuff that is harder to break down (the name escapes me but it is essentially energy neutral for the body to process), adding less salt (probably the easiest thing to change and the least necessary addition), using different types of fat (or cutting out fat additives), etc.

It is kind of the same as ensuring that cars have crumple zones, or impact bars of a certain strength, or meet certain emmissions levels, etc. Doesn't really change anything in your day to day, but is a lot safer.

If the citizenry will not regulate themselves effectively, then, for their own good and more to the point, the good of society's future generations, actions should be taken by the state to ensure the good of the nation.


So, grow up or we'll start parenting you.


Stronger state = stronger nation.

SilverMK2 wrote:However, there is a difference between forcing people to exercise, and ensuring what they eat is as healthy as realistically possible.

How is there a difference? And you haven't really answered the question.

SilverMK2 wrote:It is kind of the same as ensuring that cars have crumple zones, or impact bars of a certain strength, or meet certain emmissions levels, etc. Doesn't really change anything in your day to day, but is a lot safer.

It doesn't change anything in my day-to-day? Are you sure? Increasing regulation increases the price of goods and serves as a barrier to entry for new companies.

So my day-to-day life is affected because my car is more expensive.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:If the citizenry will not regulate themselves effectively, then, for their own good and more to the point, the good of society's future generations, actions should be taken by the state to ensure the good of the nation.

Who is going to regulate the citizenry effectively?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:So, grow up or we'll start parenting you.

Stronger state = stronger nation.

See, this is what I was saying about people preferring tyranny to freedom. Modern disagreement seems to be about who the tyrant should be.

biccat wrote:

lighterthief wrote:I have a question to all the anti-regulators...

Do you feel that supply of medicine/pharmaceuticals should be strictly regulated? If the answer is yes then why should food be treated any differently?

No.

And a question to the pro-regulators:

If you think that food should be strictly regulated, should exercise be strictly regulated? If not, why not?

Don't worry the antiobesity campaign will be made mandatory next year.

biccat wrote:See, this is what I was saying about people preferring tyranny to freedom.

See, this is what I was saying about False Choice Fallacy being introduced into this thread.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:If the citizenry will not regulate themselves effectively, then, for their own good and more to the point, the good of society's future generations, actions should be taken by the state to ensure the good of the nation.


So, grow up or we'll start parenting you.


Stronger state = stronger nation.

Sorry the US Constitution says its my body. Leave me the hell alone.

So to biccat:

Saying that medicine should be left unregulated is one of the most ludicrous statements I have ever read. I guess we shouldn't regulate the banks either?

I mean really? Really? Jesus.

I believe that goverment has a duty to provide for sports- facilities , playing fields etc etc so that the populace has the oppertunity to engage in exercise activities. This is another example of putting health before profit. In a sense I do feel it should be regulated so that these facilities exist. In Britain we have a problem with playing feilds being sold off for housing development.

I obviously don't believe that you should or could force people to exercise like in 1984.

Regulating the food industry is not forcing people to eat healthily, you would still have the freedom to go get a big block of lard and eat it down. However it would certainly improve the overall health of the nation, reduce health care costs and tackle obesity. America does have an obesity problem.

The important point is that profit should not determine food policy for a civilised country.

lighterthief wrote:So to biccat:

Saying that medicine should be left unregulated is one of the most ludicrous statements I have ever read. I guess we shouldn't regulate the banks either?

I mean really? Really? Jesus.

Really. The free market is a better regulator for providing goods and services that people want than a government agency. It's not subject to graft, political favoritism or corruption. Companies that don't provide a good product or service go out of business.

lighterthief wrote:I believe that goverment has a duty to provide for sports- facilities , playing fields etc etc so that the populace has the oppertunity to engage in exercise activities. This is another example of putting health before profit.

Who pays for the sports facilities? Do you value them more than they cost, or more than the incremental cost to you? If so, why don't you go out and solicit donations from like-minded folks to pay for a sports facility?

If you don't value them as more than the incremental cost to you, who do you propose makes up the difference? If each share costs more than you are willing to pay, who has to pay for the loss? Why should those people have to take up the loss?

lighterthief wrote:In a sense I do feel it should be regulated so that these facilities exist. In Britain we have a problem with playing feilds being sold off for housing development.

So where should those people live?

lighterthief wrote:I obviously don't believe that you should or could force people to exercise like in 1984.

But why not. You think that the government can force a company to provide specific food. They can force people to pay for products they don't want. Why not force them to exercise?

lighterthief wrote:Regulating the food industry is not forcing people to eat healthily, you would still have the freedom to go get a big block of lard and eat it down. However it would certainly improve the overall health of the nation, reduce health care costs and tackle obesity. America does have an obesity problem.

The important point is that profit should not determine food policy for a civilised country.

I disagree. Profit means that you're providing a good to people that they value more than they are willing to pay for it. Profit is a good thing. If you are providing something at a loss, you're eventually going to lose to a company that can sell at a profit.

lighterthief wrote:So to biccat:

Saying that medicine should be left unregulated is one of the most ludicrous statements I have ever read. I guess we shouldn't regulate the banks either?

I mean really? Really? Jesus.

I believe that goverment has a duty to provide for sports- facilities , playing fields etc etc so that the populace has the oppertunity to engage in exercise activities. This is another example of putting health before profit. In a sense I do feel it should be regulated so that these facilities exist. In Britain we have a problem with playing feilds being sold off for housing development.

I obviously don't believe that you should or could force people to exercise like in 1984.

Regulating the food industry is not forcing people to eat healthily, you would still have the freedom to go get a big block of lard and eat it down. However it would certainly improve the overall health of the nation, reduce health care costs and tackle obesity. America does have an obesity problem.

The important point is that profit should not determine food policy for a civilised country.

How can you eat a big block of lard if lard is illegal?
What about barbeque?
What about Mexican food?
What about pizza?
What about popcorn?
What about sausage?
Whats about hotdogs (but I repeat myself)
What about whole milk?
What about steak?
What about potatoes?

Frazzled wrote:
How can you eat a big block of lard if lard is illegal?
What about barbeque?
What about Mexican food?
What about pizza?
What about popcorn?
What about sausage?
Whats about hotdogs (but I repeat myself)
What about whole milk?
What about steak?
What about potatoes?

We're going to have to talk if you think hotdogs and sausage are the same thing. ick.

agnosto wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
How can you eat a big block of lard if lard is illegal?
What about barbeque?
What about Mexican food?
What about pizza?
What about popcorn?
What about sausage?
Whats about hotdogs (but I repeat myself)
What about whole milk?
What about steak?
What about potatoes?

They are actually. Now a good frankfurter indeed tastes like mild sausage.

We're going to have to talk if you think hotdogs and sausage are the same thing. ick.

I blame the Norwegians.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:If the citizenry will not regulate themselves effectively, then, for their own good and more to the point, the good of society's future generations, actions should be taken by the state to ensure the good of the nation.

So by this logic, Big Brother should be paying down the amassed debt they have accumulated. Y'know, for the good of society's future generations and the good of the nation.

Don't hold your breath on that one.

biccat wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:Well, apparently many people can't or won't watch what they eat, so if you can ensure that whatever they throw into their maws (and the maws of their children) is much healthier then that is a good thing.

If people don't want to watch what they eat then they shouldn't be forced to eat healthy food.

What business is it of the government (or more specifically, other citizens) whether I eat healthy or unhealthy food?

See, I'd like to see this over here!

The NHS pays for big dirty fatties health treatments, so therefore. Matty has to pay for some guys stomach to be stapled, even though Matty didnt force him to eat cakes all night!

We should take a leaf out of Obama's book, and you guys who have private healthcare, should let them eat what the hell they want!

Its all backwards I tells ya!

All I can say to this is "Wow."

As a child, I was fat. It wasn't so much that I ate the wrong things, I just ate too much of it and exercised too little. Yes, I ate candies and lucky charms and the like too every once in a while, but not because of the pretty character on the box, it was because THE <CENSORED> TASTED GOOD.

As an adult, I am getting fat again because, well....it's "easier" to go get fast food when i'm not at home than it is to go all the way home, cook something that's actually decent for me, and eating it before rushing back out the door. Oh, and beer. Mmm.....Beer. (Which again, I don't go for because of the advertising. It tastes good and gets me drunk. If it didn't taste good and get me drunk, it wouldn't matter if they put a naked woman on the label, they would not get my money.) It's not a question of "Can not"...it would certainly be a lot cheaper. Even in CA and AK it's cheaper to eat stuff you prepare yourself, good or not.

In both of these cases, it is MY fault. I knew good and well what a "Healthy" meal consisted of, and I ate them frequently. Too frequently. But hey, it's easier for people now to kick and scream and shout "IT'S NOT MY FAULT! HELP ME!" than it is to own up to things and fix it. So people scream and kick like infants, and the government does what it thinks it should: Get more overbearing.

If you find yourself a fat american, and you are yelling about how those evil food companies MADE you fat, I want to see some video of someone being forcefed big macs until the fatness occurred. Because otherwise it's like a drunk driver blaming Jack Daniels for his car getting wrapped around a tree. Learn some restraint and meet me on the track.