The Economics of Obesity

Agreed. But how many consumers of these foods are cops or firefighters? If you were obese, how would you ever catch suspects in a foot chase? The majority of those who frequent places like McDonalds usually end up ordering the high-fat content foods. What it boils down to is whether you want the food industry to change its way of preparing and serving food or can the tax payer afford to pay more for health care? With fancy marketing campaigns and a constant bombardment from the fast food franchises to increase market share, the average consumer, at times will let places like McDonalds decide their fate. In this day and age restaurants can lead the horse to water, and can make him drink!

 

That's fine and your statement is valid. But what happens when the health care system falls apart because of an increase in diseases and illnesses that are related to obesity? Yes, tax the fools who eat junk food, smoke and drink alcohol, but also tax the producers as well.

 

Roy

Social engineering through the tax system? For shame.

 

Nope. But something has to give. Either pour more dollars into health care (from taxpayers) or go after those corporations that refuse to abide by healthy lifestyle values.

 

And what about the people who get fat eating potatoes?
TAX THE FARMERS?

 

I don't follow your logic. The farmers have nothing to do with the way food is prepared. Restaurant chains such as McDonald purchase thousands of tons of potatoes monthly from farmers. Yet when you deep fry them in oil (which the same oil is used repeatedly) the fat and cholestrol content rises dramatically. All foods contain calories. It depends completely on how food is prepared - and McD is one of those multinational corporations that is slowly beginning to wake up.

 

Unless the potatoes are being fried with some animal products, or in animal fat, the cholesterol level will remain at its original value - zero.

 

I'm a food addict and my grocer is a pusher?

I am overweight, and I would like to appologize to everyone who feels I have no right to live a life because of my size. I am truly sorry that I have been such a drain on society. That I have not contributed to the public welfare. I am truly sorry my very existence, and those of my ilk (or bulk) is a pox on society as a whole. We should applaud those watchdogs of our freedoms and personal liberties for their continuing efforts to make society safe from depravity.

However, this is America, folks. Let's not get bogged down in taxes and levies. Let's follow our most hallowed traditions and do it the old fashioned way- LITIGATION and total abandonment of personal responsibility! It's just a question of who to sue:

Perhaps the government? Evidence shows we tend not to eat "right." We could say it's because there is no definition of "right" out there. Then, because the the guv'mint hasn't defined it, or perhaps defined it incorrectly, we could slap a lawsuits against "them." Might work, but then we all end up paying more in taxes to cover the costs.

School districts, because they allow vending machines on school grounds? Well, the schools are cash strapped, so that won't work.

Fast food chains for understating their nutritional numbers? Possible, as they have deep pockets, there is precedent, and taxes likely won't go up. However, they have big shot lawyers.

Auto manufacturers? They make it easy to get to the stores and fast food joints, and provide an efficient means to transport product to stores.

Grocers? They are the main distribution channel, they have deep pockets, they should provide warnings when they see someone buying 10 packages of Oreo's with double stuff. The argument could go further- they should set policies when they see someone buying unhealthy levels of stuff. But then, how does one interpret a guy buying a six pack of beer, some tampons, cucumbers, and a jar of vaseline?

Vending machine owners? Possible, but how much space will it take to store $1.5million in quarters?

Soft drink/candy manufacturers? Deep pockets, enticing and ubiquitous promotions. However, I don't want to live in a world without diet cola and frozen M&Ms.

Ooooo, I know- parents. Afterall, they taught us our eating habits.

Madison avenue? They made us unable to live without the latest happy meal or Jar Jar Binks promotional tie in.

TV/radio set manufacturers- after all, if they push their wares on us we wouldn't hear the message from the adverts.

City planners? Nah- the tax thing again.

TV/radio stations- after all, they are the ones accepting money to run the devious super sized fries. If they did their civic duty and refused to take the money to run the ads, then our society would be perfect! A side suit could go against internet providers for providing internet dial tone to allow additional channels for advertising.

Transmission equipment manufacturers? This is a possibility, as they provide the equipment to beam the depraved messages into our homes. Included in the suit could be Lucent, Cisco Systems, Extreme Networks, and other network backbone providers for providing the equipment that allowed for the network that allowed the advertisers to provide the message for the food manufacturers to promote their wares to kids and adults to buy them in vending machines and at grocery stores.

Appliance manufacturers? Afterall, if they didn't keep food safely refigerated, and rovide the mechanisms for safely preparing it, people wouldn't buy so much.

However, I think the real culprit in all this are the bag and box manufacturers. They are the common link in all this. Afterall, it's hard to carry 50 White Castles without sacks. Trying to transport 1000 boxes of lucky charms in individual boxes is inefficient. They are the ones, with their sturdy boxes, and easy to carry poly bags that give us the ability to carry home vast amounts of food. Yeah- and they haven't had anyone focus on them, so this would play well in the media- "Poly bag makers and their links to obesity and the downfall of civilization as we know it- News at 11."

Toodles,

 

I will confess that I've become judgmental since I've lost some weight. Last night we watched a program of religious singers. All I could think about was why were the singers were so heavy. I feel guilty for those judgmental thoughts.

I was driven to better eating habits and exercise because I was fearful of the consequences of my diabetes and hypertension. I did not want to dig my grave with my teeth!

I will also confess that I'm prideful of being able to wear sizes that I have not worn for decades. I weigh less now, and have a smaller waist, than when I was married in 1971. At 64 I feel like a kid full of energy---well, almost.

I suppose were I to have continued in my patterns of eating whatever I wanted and of not exercising medical costs for me would increase. As it is, just for just my wife and I , I pay nearly $1000 per month for health insurance which has big deductables and does not even cover such as vision and dental.

I suppose, while I cannot evidence such a correlation, that there may be a relationship between what my insurance costs me and the manner others handle, or fail to handle, both health issues and what causes those health issues.

 

I think we all get judgemental at times on certain things. It's part of life.

I think it's a public service, when media report on trends, such as obesity or lead poisoning.

What gets my goat is the WAY the media in this country does things. If I believed lead in, every news story, I'd be afraid to leave the house. One news program had a promo one day that went something like this, "Cellphones- there are areas in the Bay Area where they don't work. Why this is, and what cellphone companies don't want you to know. News at 11."

US society is becoming more and more paranoid everyday. One thing that doesn't help is the way news programs oversensationalize the mundane. The obesity issue is the same. There is a problem, but the news coverage of it is less reporting and more chicken little.

The other thing is the search for a pill. The equation is simple, consume less, move more. Simple equation, moving more is simple, but the consume less is an issue. However, the only people served with finding a chemical answer are the med companies. The only reason for research is the potential payoff at the end.

I've battled my weight all my life. I haven't surrendered. However, I do get upset with the way the media polarize everything.

OK- the soapbox is now available.

 

Losing weight is really a struggle. I understand!! Happily I needed not to follow anyone's special diet. I've found a way that works for me to reduce bloodpressure, glucose level, pounds, and lethargy.

Again speaking about an area I know nothing about, perhaps metabolism has something to do with it. My old body still responds well to exercise whether walking briskly or using moderate weight training.

Personal satisfaction, or self-concept, is an issue with me both in my distance learning studies and in my health and appearance regimens. I enjoy shaping my thoughts into a dissertation. I also like being a thinner shape and more active looking. I like being able to go up the library steps two at a time and no longer be winded when I reach the top as I was just a year ago even at a much slower pace. I like finding an old pair of levis in my new size(have lost 4'') and a hippy sort of colored t-shirt at Goodwill (I buy mostly used clothes) to express my new attitude. I like being suspiciously asked at the hardware store if I'm old enough to get the senior discount. I don't really feel 64.

At 64, IMO, it is time or past time to begin to do the sort of things that will allow one to finish well his goals. My driven purpose is to finish my present dissertation, and my new healthful ways , and even my more youthful attitude, seem to better posture me to do that. I have more energy and a better focus now than just a year ago.

I suppose that such thoughts and diets and exercise and attitudes are self-centered. Or, perhaps it rather is that the absence of these is the mark self-centeredness. I don't know.

We all should do our best. My best to you as you try to do that.

 

Econ 101, people!: If you impose sin taxes on McDonalds, Jim Beam, and R. J. Reynolds, they will just jack up their prices so that eventually all the obese, the alcoholics, and the smokers will pony up the tax monies.

 

Not only that, the increased prices will be a further burden on the people who eat at fast food places on an almost daily basis. Lower income, less educated people who can't afford to eat at more expensive resturants.

 

And, let us not forget, regardless of income or education, people with children under a certain age frequent Mickey D's. For example, my high-income brother and sister-in-law, a computer consultant and a real estate agent, still find McDonald's haute cuisine on account of my niece and nephew. Also, mind you, many relatively highly educated individuals like myself are low income, as I have been subsisting on disability for some time (manic-depression), perhaps too long.