Obesity is the Government's Business
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 сер 2024
- With 33% of adults and 17% of children obese, the U.S. is facing an obesity epidemic. A major risk factor for expensive, chronic conditions like heart disease, diabetes, and cancer, it costs our health care system nearly $150 billion a year. Should government intervene, or is this a matter of individual rights and personal responsibility?
For: Dr. Pamela Peeke
For: Dr. David Satcher
Against: John Stossel
Against: Paul Campos
Like on us Facebook: bit.ly/IQ2onFac...
Tweet at us: bit.ly/IQ2Twitter
Subscribe to us: bit.ly/IQ2onYou...
SERIOUSLY,
What AMERICAN DOES NOT OWN A @#$@#$ING TV? What American cannot DO PUSH UPS IN THEIR OWN HOUSE?
It is so frustrating to hear this nonsense. Blame poverty then. Can the government fix poverty? How many social programs have been passed to end poverty?
"I feel that pain and passion"
Yes, emotions drive government policy. Big government do gooders are dangerous.
I have a better idea, how about we stop subsidizing sugar?
Edit: Brazil isn’t a wealthy country per capita, yet they have the best soccer players in the WORLD!
i'm a libertarian so obviously i'm against the motion, but what the fuck? this guy just said "we cannot make fat people thin." what? if we can't make fat people thin, then why can we make thin people fat? why can fat people lose weight? fat people can get thin if they want to, i doubt government can help. but there's a fucking REASON that 33% of adults are obese now, when for the vast majority of human history NOBODY was obese. obesity isn't a "body type," our situation is not "body diversity."
People tend to personalize this issue. But in the end it is a social issue because obesity impacts health and those people will drive healcare costs up. All of us are going to end up paying for this obesity epidemic in rising diabetes, heart attacks, cholesterol, etc...
Will Hart
It IS a personal issue. Because deciding to take good physical care of your body (or not) is as much a personal choice as deciding whether or not to smoke, brush your teeth, or drink excessively.
The only reason why obesity is perceived to be more of a social issue than it really is is because the government has already become heavily involved in healthcare (even before the passage of Obamacare).
Wrong. If you get seriously ill, society is involved in your care....please get your head out of the sand. MOrbily obese people cost society a lot over their lifetimes....
Apparently you don't understand the difference between an issue being social or personal from an inherent philosophical perspective, versus what Congress has deemed it. For example, if Congress passes a law declaring wet to be dry, does that make it so? How about declaring that Earth's gravitational constant is 8.13 m/s^2 instead of 9.81 m/s^2? How about if it calls a law that results in deforestation a pro-environmental act?
The only reason why healthcare issues like getting "seriously ill" or "obesity" are PERCEIVED (by persons like you) to be social...is because Congress has declared that they are, and hence, built laws around this belief. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY ACTUALLY ARE.
Please get your head out of the sand.
blah, blah, blah...
I like how they kept cutting to shots of fat people in the audience.
Maybe it was not done on purpose. The fact is just that there are so many fat people...
The private-public partnership means more tax money being shelled out to WebMD and other corporate cronies.
Listens to Pamela speak *Points gun at temple* *blows brains out*
I wonder if Pamela has ever heard of at home work outs...
"the hinterland is one big park" lol srsly people can also work out in their living rooms.
Food is a private industry.. the government has a role in regulating it, but not prohibiting it.. I don't see how you can argue that.
push ups can be done at home. no park or sidewalk needed.
I thought the exact same thing. So can squats and various other exercises.
Obesity as any other addiction is psychological problem.
Divorce, parents spending less time with kids, public school is drudgery has more to do with obesity than vegetable for lunch and walk on playground in circles.
When you have hole in your soul you want to fill it - booze, heroin, food, sugar rush.
Obesity is just a symptom of unhealthy life style and that is symptom of psychological issues like no self esteem, toxic shame and abandonment complex.
Satcher said absolutely nothing besides one funny joke in his opening statement
PLEASE have this debate again but have it say “Obesity with regards to children, is the governments business.” It’s very different from consenting adults compared to children and parenting those children.
I find it astounding that the very well-credentialed people arguing for the pro side couldn't do something as simple as argue why their position is correct. The only point I heard in their combined 14 minutes that did so was the woman's point that government-funded research can lead to helpful discoveries about what things cause obesity. But this wasn't even explicitly stated.
It's very simple: yes, obesity is the governments business, and (the part they largely missed) here's why.
26:20 "...punfully intended"
and yet, not a single laugh. what a wretched woman....
The way you win this debate isn’t fair. Changed minds doesn’t prove who is right or wrong
I'm happy that the side opposed to the motion managed to sway some people to their side of the argument, but I am appalled that 55% of the people in the audience remained for the motion.
The doctors did a really shitty job debating--but ultimately they were incontrovertibly right. Too bad more skilled debaters weren't there to counter the opposition's sophistry.
Why would the State do so to begin with?
unbelievably annoying.
I would agree with this if the government hadn't hijacked our food and our knowledge about it to begin with
No
Depends on the Bugers some are only around 300 Calories, where as Bigger ones can be around and/or up to 600 the large Fries are 500 each, Soada large can be around a100 and something.
Gotta love stossel
When services to people that extend outside of protecting the rights of the people, its bureaucracy tends to do more harm--paved in good intentions. The government has no business in obesity. The individuals are responsible for themselves and can do it better than government.
The government has already intervened when one considers the school diet being the #1 culprit of causing sickness.Kids eat more meals at schools than they do at home.I have also seen stories where schools confiscated kids sack lunches claiming that the homemade lunches were inadequate,doesn't meet schools recommendations for nutrition standards.For most it didn't cost a thing to become unhealthy when you consider free school lunch but it will likely cost to become healthy.Health's not expensive.
That lady pulled at heartstrings to carry the point. That's not how you debate. This wasn't even a debate, it was a mashup of opinions.
This woman is about as arrogant as they come, while providing almost no concrete support for her position--instead she talks a lot about her positions, achievements, etc. Basically it's "well I'm great, so you should listen to me.",
I remember when i was a kid (my parents had the same) there was a presidential fitness challenge in gym class. I don't know about anyone else, but we "prepared" for this challenge for months and kept doing the exercises for a couple months after (about half the school year) and the kids in the gym classes at the school I went to have gotten fatter. Government intervention backfires. They frail.
Don't forget the sauces and other items that are added to enhance the flavor of that burger, That is why I always ask the restaurants no ketchup, mayo or any other sauces.... and no cheese. I add my own veggie cheese to the fish sandwich. :)
we have all failed so we can only blame ourselves if the state steps in
How exactly is the government to decide what kind of food are you to eat? And how is that not supposed to get politicized? Dairy is bad for you but the only reason we have so many milk campaigns it's because it brings 3.8 billion in income. That same with sugar. How exactly are we supposed to decide what people are supposed to eat? And what of your allergic that food? Are they supposed to like shave it down your throat.
One of the worst debates... on both sides.... why on earth did nobody bring up tax subsidies on animal products, the leading cause of obesity? And i cannot believe that the opposition was getting away with suggestion fat is healthy and it is just a body type. Just a failure of a debate on all fronts.
She did. I Googled "Health Span" All i got were some companies named "Health Span"
John Stossel rocks this debate. Like a boss. But seriously, Ray Kurzweil has totally solved this problem, to the extent the will is there. The free market already has a perfect solution, for all the problems government is trying to threaten people into solving. The government's side couldn't be more screwed: they literally cause the problem with their ignorant, years outdated, incorrect "food pyramid." Mercola goes still further by taking genetics into account with his dietary prescriptions.
Haha very funny. You are a talented writer. Maybe you could write comedy scripts for Hollywood?
Exactly. Poison in my food. Wait.. I don't want that.. But I don't want government to be a parent.. ..
"I'm compassionate" (because I say I am) "I favor a voluntary approach" (because I say I do). "Go out and give them options. Give them someplace safe." (But the government made the streets unsafe by taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.) The government's crappy food pyramid has, for years, CAUSED unhealthy dietary programming with their incorrect "food pyramid." The government doesn't have the answers, they just want to control your lifestyle.
No kidding! Holy crap... I don't think I can sleep now.
Not sure why you all hate Pam so much, yes she over used phrases in her opening statement - but over the course of the debate she consistently made some the best points of anyone in the discussion. Seems shallow to dislike her for choice of expressions when her substance is the most valuable.
@41:00 --Yeah, but the weight loss depends on whether people go through carbohydrate withdrawal, and whether they eliminate simple, high GI carbohydrates. There is no point in reducing calories, if you keep programming your body to pack on weight with simple carbs. To have any impact on actual diet, there would need to be a totalitarian tracking system, or an oppressive reward system that targeted major food producers for a huge loss in revenue. The government CANNOT and WILL NOT do that.
Healthy lifestyles are a normal good. As your income increases, you are more likely to eat healthy foods because they become more affordable. We can solve these health problems by making people wealthier.
Okay, it's this easy! Make up a panel with about 10 of the best nutritionists in the world and make them decide what sugars and what fats that are bad for you an tax them HEAVILY so that all food that contains any type of bad sugar and fat are much more expensive.
He thinks obesity isn't the result of behavior...
Debates like this are the reason why I hate politics.
1:20:40 best question of the night
WHAT ABOUT THE GOV ARREST OR SHUT DOWN THREE 9 YEAR OLD GIRLS
FOR SELLING LEMONADE
IS THAT A GOOD REGULATION?
IF THEY GO OUT TO MAKE SOME MONEY INSTEAD OF WATCHING TV,
THE COPS SAY SHUT IT DOWN OR GO TO JAIL ITS THE LAW
STROSSEL HAD A SHOW ON THAT
I really didn't like this debate because none of them really argued the motion. Nobody presented a credible case as to why it is or isn't the governments responsibility to tell people to move more and eat less. Why I do agree with opposition that weight loss is more complex than that they didn't say why that means that government shouldn't be involved in lifestyle education
Are all the additives in processed food, known factors in the effect of chemicals producers include in the prducts we eat ? If not, Why ??? Why are any additives that have been insufficiently studied, LEGALLY allowed for human consumption ? If the CDC has designated Obesity as a disease, then they should know tha causes & cures. Glutony is not the only cause, & is used to shame the afflicted. It has many causes.
Explain this to me, we the individual voter, one of 400,000 in a congressional district or 325 million in the country, vote every two years, in districts often carved out by those in power, for 536 elected officials. These elected officials are then responsible to appoint hundreds of officials, who then through laws and regulations govern our lives, and we the people are supposed to control this.....how exactly?
Paul Campos hurts his side MUCH more than he helps it. Stossel is great.
Why do you say that?
peruzka he had a whiny, high pitched voice and sounded very petty and argumentative. That doesn't mean his facts weren't completely correct.
Stossel seemed more reasonable and well thought out and just likeable. I think the emotional connection with the audience is as important as all the facts, logic, and statistics. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.
szililolabu
They balance each other out.
That lady on the other side. She sounded like a teenage boy deliberately deepening his voice to Hulk levels. Dontcha think there were people who were turned off by her demeanor? Maybe even many big gov't types.
szililolabu
The lady on the other side was appealing to emotion ... which is generally a liberal thing to do. Debates can get heated and some personality types can get loud. I can forgive loud voices but the bleeding heart approach accompanied by a loud mouth is obnoxious.
When I'm at McDonalds I like to get 2 large Fries a large Drink, Burger(s) and the end Result is usually about 1.700 Calories at McDonalads in adtion to all the other hundreds of Calories that I consume, but the Calories Count has never once dertered myself, or when I'm with Friens and Family they never seem to take notice, maybe other People care enough to stop eating, but as far as I know and can tell most People don't.
Funny from watching all these discussions on a variety of subjects that most argue that the government cant afford it. I wonder if many of these discussions would have come to past if US didn`t put 2-3 wars on the credit card. Maybe it`s a blessing disguise. There`s now a lot of debate on government spending and what they should focus on witch might not have happened to this extent. I`m not from the US, but we have the same discussions here in Norway and I find these debates enlightening.
I had to ignore Stossel's 2 minute plug for libertarianism. I'm just pleased I didn't hear about the venerated Ayn Rand and how she would have opposed the motion.
As the government is the nutritional regulator, we ourselves must establish an interpersonal relationship with our mind of logic & our stomach.
how do 55% think govern has a role in lifestyle???
She talked very confidently (and obnoxiously) of things she knew very little about relating to economics and geography (over 95% of Americans own TVs and have access to cable, there are more than enough parks and "free-roam" areas around the US to exercise, etc.) which calls into question some of her ranting about "studies." She just said buzzwords and grandstanded most of the time. That, and the barrage of insults she threw to the other side, calls into question her intellectual authority
Not sure where you're getting your stats,but I think you missed the point of my comment. I'm not saying cable is a substitute for education or anything close--Pam said a reason poor people are at a disadvantage is that they don't have access to cable. She then actually contradicted herself and later said poor people who live in neighborhoods where there are no parks go home and "watch the tube." More to the point she isn't an intellectual authority in the debate and your original point is false
You misspelled John Stossel
Dr Pamela Peeke provided plenty of concrete support for her position: large scale studies published in The Lancet and other medical and epidemiological academic journals. Did you watch the whole debate?
I think the audience voted on the basis of who told the funniest jokes to demonized the role of government, rather than who won the argument.
While I'm very much a fan of Stossel, I think he relies too heavily on the slippery-slope argument. I would have preferred that he directly respond to his opponent's claims rather than arguing solely from libertarian principles.
I bet that the government could really increase our life expectancies if they put us all in giant prisons and regulated our diets completely. This would also save lives by preventing people from engaging in dangerous life-threatening activities such as driving and we all know that people in prison get plenty of exercise. What do you say guys? Should we trade our liberty for a big nanny state?
2 large fries and burgers and drinks is not 1700 calories. its way more than that
Beef doesn't produce obesity, carbs which are sugars do produce obesity, nor protein
Government is too stupid to do so.
What persuasion was that?
in the heart of the problem a question rises, should government be concerend about our freedome or about our happiness? inside this heart we find the real issue, should the government seek for peopple that look the same and think the same, or should it just let poepple think and be however they want when there is no harm to others around them?
It is very critical that the speaker noted that 'at the very least, the government should do no harm' because, at this point, I do not think that there is enough attention and action against obesity as there should be. Not that the government should get so involved in their citizens' lives and dictate what they eat but they should ensure that the society we live in should have fruits and vegetables that are at least the same place, if not cheaper than junk food. People do not necessarily eat these unhealthy foods because they want to. Many cannot afford the healthier foods or are so overworked, they do not have time to cook. This is a clear by-product of the 24-hours economy that is so common in western societies. When the FDA had all food vendors issue the calorie content of their foods, this was a substantial step taken by the federal government which the public has tried to match by becoming more interested in fitness and nutrition but these seem more like a fad than anything else. I think obesity is definitely the government's business. They are in a position to implement policies which would be favorable to people's health and will also see a decline in the number of people seeking disability due to obesity. It is in their best interests to fully address this issue.
I was just coming here to say that
I so agree with the woman doctor, with stress you can't lose weight as much as you want, so true!
The people that need the most healthcare, care the least about their health. If someone wants to drink two liters of soda a day, that's their business, but when they need heart surgery and can't afford their 10 different medications, then it's everyone's business, fuck that.
I agree with Stossel on most things. In my experience his type of argument really does not work well. Stossel's partner was extremely good.
I agree that the proposition is phrased wrong, but government subsidies helped make the american diet as lopsided and unhealthy as it is. Correcting the situation is just as much a government responsibility. If we had subsidized healthier foods like fruit and veg production in the same ways like we did with products like corn our diet would be healthier. No matter a person's body size, a healthier diet promotes improved health.
I love how Paul is trying to convince people in exactly the same way in which he says it would be useless were the government to do so. He is educating the audience and referring to academic research in hopes of enlightening them, but he doesn't support the education of children? How does he think the general population is going to get the information each side espouses to make an informed decision?
Interesting things to be learned from this debate: People need parks to effectively work out when they are living in rural areas, poor people don't watch TV, and soccer is one of the more expensive sports there is - which I'm afraid will cause a huge stir in the developing world if they ever get wind of how much money they are wasting on having their kids participate in elite sports.
The first speaker did not say a single word about why the government should play a role in preventing obesity. He wasted his breath.
So the same government which claims to fight obesity on one hand, subsidizes the production of GMO corn to the billions of dollars, and thereby ensures that fattening agents like high-fructose corn syrup and corn derivatives are in virtually any processed product available. Makes perfect sense. :-/
John. Effing. Stossel. A+
I don't know about that. I cut out animal protein from my diet and I lost fat storage or pockets of fat out of my body. Weirder still was my muscles increased. O_O I do agree that Carbs over 100g a day is bad for you. For me, at least, when I go over 90g a day I gain weight... not so much in fat but overall increase in weight. Anyways not everyone is the same. People ought to find a diet that fits for them and stop relying what others say is good or bad. What is good for you maybe bad for me.
wow, presumptous statement, as far as you can tell people don't care enough about their eating? so when can you tell anything about someone by their appearance or what suffering and struggles they deal with? you can see what God can see? our problem in this world is judging others without all the information,
Good debate!
Romans 8:6 The mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace,
Mostly pointless. Good example of a specific applied ethics issue where the difference of opinion is driven by deeper differences in ethics/political philosophy, which go unexamined. And so, the debate should've just been about ethics/political philosophy, at least if they wanted it to mean something.
The government is an abject laggard in the area of cutting edge research. No matter how many "git 'er done" mentality "can do" government bureacrats they throw at the situation.
The guy hosting this makes me feel the title should be "intelligence ^ -2" ...
I am inclinded to agree with you, our bodies handle fats just fine sugar can be a problem especially if your glucose intolerant (fat cells are designed to convert sugar to fat and when your glucose intolerant your body will increase fat cells simply because the other cells get overwhelmed converting to fat the sugars so the cells have a constant supply of fats (including storing it around the liver and heart so they can have a private supply.
Very well stated. I agree fully. There are WAY too many irresponsible people who are procreating... they could barely take care or police themselves... much less look after another. Now keep in mind, I'm not in any way insist on sterilization programs, but there ought to be a parent licensing program that tests who are responsible enough to take care of oneself & another human being. Anyone can produce a baby, very few are capable of producing responsible, well minded, productive individual. :)
Oh my god this was an awful debate. The team for the motion failed in such a simple task, and the team debating against the motion somehow got from making sure the schools give the kids healthy meals, to the goverment coming to your house, making you exercise by gunpoint. Awful, awful.
Anybody who needs the government to hold their hand when it comes to the food they eat is the same as a sheep in need of a Shepard. The idea that people cannot decided for themselves what the should not eat is foolish. Moderation and restrain is all people need but apparently a large percentage of Americans lack the ability to do that. And the problem is that these same sheep drag the rest of us down with theme and we must suffer the outcome of their choices,
I think obesity should not be considered an 'epidemic'. Because of the terminology, I used to think it was some sort of virus that anybody could catch! Now, I see it as more of a symptom than anything else, caused by different internal and external factors, and sometimes a combination of them. As for some external factors, the panel talked about safety and government support of big businesses regardless of health. These are government issues, and if these, along with others, are dealt with, obesity rates should go down.
I agree with the side against the motion, but I do NOT agree with much of what Paul Campos asserted. Which diseases is he talking about? I am under the impression that type 2 diabetes, for example--shown to be associated with unhealthy eating habits--is at an all-time high. Maybe I'm wrong?
That Campos dude is the only one that makes sense.
Gov't could have a role....... Get out of the economy. That would help.
1. City, state, and the fed gov't promote the automobile thru taxing you and I to pay for roads and incredibly costly highways.
They mandate parking for businesses, whereas density would be better.
Archaic zoning regulations require distant shopping centers and isolated suburbs...so we become dependent on cars and less walking.
Thus our whole lifestyle is built around the car - due to GOVT rules. This is NOT the market.. So we get fat as we drive.
2. Federal GOVT corn subsidies....huge issue re. obesity.
If the government didn't tell people to eat more grains and less fat, we wouldn't even have this issue in the first place.
Hyun Ralph Jeong incorrect
what an important hypothesis to crush! I want a 17ou beverage again...
Good observation :)
for the collective good.
1:29:12 I actually agree with the against position, but this guy is a terrible debater, he keep throwing out absolute bs. The “health”of Americans as far as death and illness from infectious disease is far better now, but as to life expectancy the rise is only minimally at the top end, most of the gains are due to the elimination of much of our infant and child mortality (from pre antibiotics era infections) which shifts the average higher. Additionally more than half American children have a chronic condition which is a NEW phenomenon as is the glut of autoimmune and inflammatory disease. We are not “healthier” simply because we no longer die of cholera in our youth and his choice of stats to demonstrate his point reveals his disingenuity or ignorance.
The debaters on the opposing side, a news caster and a law professor, don't seem qualified to be speaking on the subject. Maybe they're both qualified to talk about government with some authority, but not about medicine or nutrition.
Please note the proposition/title of the debate--based on that, a group of philosophers would be the best people to engage in this debate.
I like bananas.
BAH-NAH-NAH!