|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on May 15, 2010 9:34:29 GMT -5
They should be educating people of that fact and making it possible so everyone has easy access to healthy options if they desire.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 15, 2010 10:17:35 GMT -5
No we have a obesity epidemic because all the doctors keep telling us so. I'm in graduate school at Georgetown where I take classes with the medical students. In about half the classes I've been in there's been a mention by practicing doctors of the epidemic of obesity and how it's a big problem for them and for healthcare. I'm going to take the practicing physicians word for it. I'm going to take Dr. Nodak up above's word on it. It's not a government conspiracy. We need people to eat less, eat healthier and exercise more. It's a problem, not a crisis. There is a huge difference. To address this problem I suggest the doctors, who supposedly are the ones most capable of seeing the problem first hand, should be the ones trying to do something about it, not the federal government.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on May 15, 2010 12:41:21 GMT -5
Doctors are trying, but nobody's listening to them.
Considering the amount that obesity is adding to the federal budget deficit, the strain it's putting on our healthcare system, the national security implications that are already making us less safe as a nation, and the fact that it's getting exponentially worse, I say it's a crisis.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 15, 2010 12:49:33 GMT -5
The other problem is that many of the folks who were predisposed toward obesity due to diet and other issues do not currently have access to health insurance and will not until those provisions of the law become effective. While we may hope that they'll pay out of pocket for a check-up or will get care through some other means, I don't think the data necessarily bears that out.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on May 15, 2010 16:41:09 GMT -5
The central issue has still not been addressed. Why does THE GOVERNMENT have to do something? Not why should something be done, but why specifically should the government do it with my tax dollars. And as a corollary (and really the heart of my question) what gives the government the right to do something about it?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on May 15, 2010 18:28:46 GMT -5
The central issue has still not been addressed. Why does THE GOVERNMENT have to do something? Not why should something be done, but why specifically should the government do it with my tax dollars. Because obesity is costing the government money and reducing obesity rates are a form of cost control.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on May 15, 2010 19:30:43 GMT -5
The government, as per the Constitution, is also required to provide for the national defense. Thus, it has the right and the duty to address major threats to national defense like childhood obesity, which has the potential to cripple our military if it keeps spiraling out of control like it is. We don't want to get to the point where the military is starved of new recruits because all of its potential recruits are too fat to serve.
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on May 15, 2010 19:57:20 GMT -5
The Healthcare plan should go to creating new community centers and incentives for the public to go to the community centers and use their gyms, courts, and physical fitness programs. There shouldn't be business bailouts, there should be fitness bailouts. There should be a whole revamp of the YMCA image and system (maybe a name change). The government should run youth sports leagues (AYSO - Agoura Youth Soccer Organization, my soccer league growing up) and provide tax breaks for parents who have their kids in them. The government should run adult sports leagues too! A lot of people in the US dont like "working out" but if you convince them it is fun and they are just playing a game. The government should give tax breaks to game companies that create games that have you work out, such as Wii fit. The government should give tax breaks to business who have gyms in their buildings and require/provide extra benefits for employees that use these gyms. I'm sure the wide-spread use of adderall of today's youth will help keep them skinny too
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 16, 2010 18:43:32 GMT -5
I think this thread clearly demonstrates the difference between a conservative and a liberal, most of whom insist on calling themselves progressives. A conservative sees a problem and goes about trying to solve the problem while a liberal sees a problem, verbally escalates it into a crisis, and proposes a federal government effort and funding to solve the problem.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on May 16, 2010 19:35:02 GMT -5
I think this thread clearly demonstrates the difference between a conservative and a liberal, most of whom insist on calling themselves progressives. A conservative sees a problem and goes about trying to solve the problem while a liberal sees a problem, verbally escalates it into a crisis, and proposes a federal government effort and funding to solve the problem. I agree. Conservatives (or at least modern Republicans) "go about trying to solve the problem" without any proposal or suggestion at all for how to do so, instead substituting "anything but government" in place of where an actual plan should be.
|
|
nodak89
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Roy Roy Royyyyy!!!
Posts: 1,881
|
Post by nodak89 on May 16, 2010 20:44:37 GMT -5
I think this thread clearly demonstrates the difference between a conservative and a liberal, most of whom insist on calling themselves progressives. A conservative sees a problem and goes about trying to solve the problem while a liberal sees a problem, verbally escalates it into a crisis, and proposes a federal government effort and funding to solve the problem. The obesity epidemic is not like global warming or evolution, you can see it plainly with your own eyes in real time. There is no verbal escalation needed. If the private sector wants to take the lead, please, be my guest.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on May 16, 2010 22:19:56 GMT -5
I think this thread clearly demonstrates the difference between a conservative and a liberal, most of whom insist on calling themselves progressives. A conservative sees a problem and goes about trying to solve the problem while a liberal sees a problem, verbally escalates it into a crisis, and proposes a federal government effort and funding to solve the problem. Liberals spend way too much government money to get very little done. Conservatives spend way too much government money to get nothing done. Liberals pay for their excessive spending with taxes, conservatives spend just as excessively but don't bother paying for it. You can't rely upon the private sector to solve all our problems. The private sector is driven solely by profit. Profit and the public good are not always the same thing. There are a lot of American corporations that make a heck of a lot of money off of making Americans fat. They benefit while society suffers, and they don't suffer from the negative consequences of their actions. After all, they're not the ones paying for their customers' health care. It's in these corporations' best interest for the public to not know the harmful effects of their products.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on May 16, 2010 22:35:14 GMT -5
I think this thread clearly demonstrates the difference between a conservative and a liberal, most of whom insist on calling themselves progressives. A conservative sees a problem and goes about trying to solve the problem while a liberal sees a problem, verbally escalates it into a crisis, and proposes a federal government effort and funding to solve the problem. Liberals spend way too much government money to get very little done. Conservatives spend way too much government money to get nothing done. Liberals pay for their excessive spending with taxes, conservatives spend just as excessively but don't bother paying for it. You can't rely upon the private sector to solve all our problems. The private sector is driven solely by profit. Profit and the public good are not always the same thing. There are a lot of American corporations that make a heck of a lot of money off of making Americans fat. They benefit while society suffers, and they don't suffer from the negative consequences of their actions. After all, they're not the ones paying for their customers' health care. It's in these corporations' best interest for the public to not know the harmful effects of their products. George W. Bush and his Congress were not Conservatives. They may have claimed to be, but they were not, for the reasons you described above. And, please, let me know when the liberals/progressives in charge get around to paying for their spending (what does it say about them that they've managed to escalate the deficit in a way that makes Bush & Co. look like deficit hawks).
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 16, 2010 23:16:08 GMT -5
I guess my question about the Bush years is - what would a conservative have done differently on the spending side? I can buy that they would not have done the prescription drug bill - makes sense. I don't think I can buy that they would have let the banks fail in fall 2008 without a bailout - the more mainstream bailout criticism came in much later for better or for worse. Absent election season, I'm more inclined to buy it. No politician of significance would want the blood of a major Wall Street bank on his hands - easy to run against the bailouts now that the heat of the near collapse has cooled down. I definitely can't buy that they would not have passed the tax cuts (north of $2 trillion this decade) or have gone to war in Iraq (north of $700 billion to date ) - both among the biggest ticket items in the Bush presidency. The former was a major selling point to the conservative base in 2000, and the latter was likewise in 2004. To the extent Ronald Reagan is still considered a conservative, he spent us into "Boilivian" when evaluated as a % of GDP, but blame for that probably needs to be shared with Congress. zfacts.com/p/318.htmlI'd like to see less spending in Congress, but I also think there is reasonably good thinking behind some of the deficit spending. I think it helped to mitigate what would otherwise have been an economic disaster, particularly if Congress let the banks fail in 2008. Was the spending as efficient as it could have been? No, but it never is. Do I think Obama wants to reduce the deficit? Absolutely, but the problem is that now would not be a good time for such a quick change in direction given the state of the economy. Clinton and that Congress were given a gift in those regards.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on May 16, 2010 23:27:04 GMT -5
You forgot to mention Iraq or Afghanistan. Would "generic non-W conservative" have done anything differently in either of those two cases?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 16, 2010 23:29:21 GMT -5
You forgot to mention Iraq or Afghanistan. Would "generic non-W conservative" have done anything differently in either of those two cases? I hit on Iraq. I generally exempt Afghanistan as a litmus test. The only people who weren't generally on board with that live in huts in Kandahar. Liberals were on board with it, as shown by the votes in Congress and President Bush's approval ratings at the time. Iraq on the other hand...liberals at least got an idea for who was voting their interests. I can understand why there's an effort to say that the Bush years weren't conservative. It is a wise position to take given the disappointment and general failure of his Presidency, but that disappointment has only been made clear to conservatives by the passage of time IMO. They liked enough in his first term to vote for him again in greater numbers in 2004. As I posted on here before, Bush's approval ratings among conservatives were among the last to tank, but final approvals for him among conservatives were around 82% (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2009/01/bush_approval_a_last_look.html). The Tea Parties did not form until the damage was long done. There is still not a widespread effort on the right to run against President Bush's record to the extent his record was not conservative. He certainly does not appear negatively in conservative television ads. If deficit reduction is conservative, where are the conservatives who regret voting for Bush in 2000 instead of a VP who was part of an administration with a track record of deficit reduction?
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on May 17, 2010 7:31:43 GMT -5
I disagree on the "generic conservative" hypotheticals.
Afghanistan? Any US President would have led any US Congress to war in AFG over 9/11.
Iraq? That was totally drummed up. In terms of the theory posited above, it was a case of conservatives inventing a problem, raising hysteria about it, and vastly over-reacting to what was a non-issue from the very beginning. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMD. It was not a threat. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice intentionally misled the country and the world and started a completely unnecessary war -- that would be paid for with Iraqi oil money... everyone remembers that one right Mr. Wolfowitz?.
Would Bush I have invaded Iraq? Would Reagan? Bush I refused to invade Iraq the first time when it could arguably have been justified. Why would he invade them with no justification?
No, I think your generic Republican would have stayed focused on our real enemies in Afghanistan and the tribal regions of Pakistan, and would have nailed Bin Laden and Mullah Omar and destroyed the core of Al Qaeda. The war could have been over years ago, and the second one never started. A Smart US president of either party would then have followed up with a reconstruction plan to help AFG recover from decades of war and shown the world that the US is NOT anti-muslim and is NOT a war mongering nation. Remember, the entire world was behind the USA after 9/11. The cost of such a plan would have been vastly less than a war in Iraq.
The tax cuts? This one really requires speculation. My guess -- Guess -- is our generic Republican would not have made such drastic cuts, but would have (if he/she really were "conservative") used at least some of our Clinton surpluses in those days to continue reducing our National Debt. Again, the Nation would have been far better off.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 17, 2010 8:48:13 GMT -5
Shame on those damn Republicans for ramming that Iraq war resolution through Congress with NO support from the other side of the aisle.
But I suppose going to war is justification enough for the government's role also to be to tell me what I can eat. That seems right.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on May 17, 2010 9:00:35 GMT -5
I don't think the Government should be telling people what they can eat. They should just be telling them what they should and should not eat and what's in what they're eating and what will happen to them if they eat it. I think everyone should be able to eat a really greasy fastening hamburger on occasion when they want. I just think people need to be discouraged from doing it all the time and that people should have affordable access to healthy options.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on May 17, 2010 9:04:49 GMT -5
Would Bush I have invaded Iraq? Would Reagan? Bush I refused to invade Iraq the first time when it could arguably have been justified. Why would he invade them with no justification? Today's generic Republican is very different from the generic Republican on the 1980's. Despite what he says, Orrin Hatch would lose a primary today because he's not conservative enough, and I would have to think he was to the right of the generic Republican Senator of the 1980's (see D'Amato, Weicker, Chaffee, etc). The oil politics of the 2000's are very different than the oil politics of the 1980's in terms of supply, price, and China - so I don't think the Bush I example really holds water. If the invasion of Kuwait was in 2003 and Bush I were president, I don't think there's any question that Bush I would consider it in our strategic interests to continue forward to Baghdad.
|
|