A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Weightwatchers
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Beyond Personal Responsibility"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 5th, 2004, 04:37 PM
Radley Balko
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Beyond Personal Responsibility"

This June, Time magazine and ABC News will host a three-day summit on
obesity. ABC News anchor Peter Jennings, who last December anchored the
prime time special "How to Get Fat Without Really Trying," will host.
Judging by the scheduled program, the summit promises to be pep rally for
media, nutrition activists, and policy makers -- all agitating for a
panoply of government anti-obesity initiatives, including prohibiting junk
food in school vending machines, federal funding for new bike trails and
sidewalks, more demanding labels on foodstuffs, restrictive food marketing
to children, and prodding the food industry into more "responsible"
behavior. In other words, bringing government between you and your
waistline.

Politicians have already climbed aboard. President Bush earmarked $200
million in his budget for anti-obesity measures. State legislatures and
school boards across the country have begun banning snacks and soda from
school campuses and vending machines. Sen. Joe Lieberman and Oakland Mayor
Jerry Brown, among others, have called for a "fat tax" on high-calorie
foods. Congress is now considering menu-labeling legislation, which would
force restaurants to send every menu item to the laboratory for nutritional
testing.

This is the wrong way to fight obesity. Instead of manipulating or
intervening in the array of food options available to American consumers,
our government ought to be working to foster a sense of responsibility in
and ownership of our own health and well-being. But we're doing just the
opposite.

For decades now, America's health care system has been migrating toward
socialism. Your well-being, shape, and condition have increasingly been
deemed matters of "public health," instead of matters of personal
responsibility. Our lawmakers just enacted a huge entitlement that requires
some people to pay for other people's medicine. Sen. Hillary Clinton just
penned a lengthy article in the New York Times Magazine calling for yet
more federal control of health care. All of the Democrat candidates for
president boasted plans to push health care further into the public sector.
More and more, states are preventing private health insurers from charging
overweight and obese clients higher premiums, which effectively removes any
financial incentive for maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

We're becoming less responsible for our own health, and more responsible
for everyone else's. Your heart attack drives up the cost of my premiums
and office visits. And if the government is paying for my anti-cholesterol
medication, what incentive is there for me to put down the cheeseburger?

This collective ownership of private health then paves the way for even
more federal restrictions on consumer choice and civil liberties. A society
where everyone is responsible for everyone else's well-being is a society
more apt to accept government restrictions, for example -- on what
McDonalds can put on its menu, what Safeway or Kroger can put on grocery
shelves, or holding food companies responsible for the bad habits of
unhealthy consumers.

A growing army of nutritionist activists and food industry foes are egging
the process on. Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public
Interest has said, "we've got to move beyond 'personal responsibility.'"
The largest organization of trial lawyers now encourages its members to
weed jury pools of candidates who show "personal responsibility bias." The
title of Jennings' special from last December -- "How to Get Fat Without
Really Trying" -- reveals his intent, which is to relieve viewers of
responsibility for their own condition. Indeed, Jennings ended the program
with an impassioned plea for government intervention to fight obesity.

The best way to alleviate the obesity "public health" crisis is to remove
obesity from the realm of public health. It doesn't belong there. It's
difficult to think of anything more private and of less public concern than
what we choose to put into our bodies. It only becomes a public matter when
we force the public to pay for the consequences of those choices. If
policymakers want to fight obesity, they'll halt the creeping socialization
of medicine, and move to return individual Americans' ownership of their
own health and well-being back to individual Americans.

That means freeing insurance companies to reward healthy lifestyles, and
penalize poor ones. It means halting plans to further socialize medicine
and health care. Congress should also increase access to medical and health
savings accounts, which give consumers the option of rolling money reserved
for health care into a retirement account. These accounts introduce
accountability into the health care system, and encourage caution with
one's health care dollar. When money we spend on health care doesn't belong
to our employer or the government, but is money we could devote to our own
retirement, we're less likely to run to the doctor at the first sign of a
cold.

We'll all make better choices about diet, exercise, and personal health
when someone else isn't paying for the consequences of those choices.



  #2  
Old June 5th, 2004, 06:53 PM
Cubit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Beyond Personal Responsibility" Food Disclosure

Congress is now considering menu-labeling legislation, which would
force restaurants to send every menu item to the laboratory for

nutritional
testing.


Awesome! I had not heard this. Guessing at how much sugar the resautant
has mixed in my food has been a real problem. I would gladly pay 50 cents
more to have nutrition label info on restaurant menus.

You obviously have no heart, but you brought up some interesting topics.

CUBIT
311/242/165
low carb since 12/01


  #3  
Old June 7th, 2004, 03:27 PM
jmk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Beyond Personal Responsibility"

On 6/5/2004 11:37 AM, Radley Balko wrote:

Congress is now considering menu-labeling legislation, which would
force restaurants to send every menu item to the laboratory for nutritional
testing.

This is the wrong way to fight obesity. Instead of manipulating or
intervening in the array of food options available to American consumers,
our government ought to be working to foster a sense of responsibility in
and ownership of our own health and well-being. But we're doing just the
opposite.


How is having restaurants provide nutritional information so that
consumers can more easily make educated choices not fostering a sense of
responsibility?

--
jmk in NC
  #4  
Old June 7th, 2004, 06:20 PM
Diane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Beyond Personal Responsibility"~RADLEY

  #5  
Old June 8th, 2004, 03:34 AM
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Beyond Personal Responsibility"

Radley Balko wrote in message .. .
This June, Time magazine and ABC News will host a three-day summit on
obesity. ABC News anchor Peter Jennings, who last December anchored the
prime time special "How to Get Fat Without Really Trying," will host.
Judging by the scheduled program, the summit promises to be pep rally for
media, nutrition activists, and policy makers -- all agitating for a
panoply of government anti-obesity initiatives, including prohibiting junk
food in school vending machines, federal funding for new bike trails and
sidewalks, more demanding labels on foodstuffs, restrictive food marketing
to children, and prodding the food industry into more "responsible"
behavior. In other words, bringing government between you and your
waistline.


didn't see anything in here about the additives to our food (allowed
by the gumint) that are making us fat. our meat is given estrogen
hormones to fatten it up. we get the hormones via the meat, thereby
changing our hormone ratios. pesticides also mimic estrogen in our
bodies. lots of that sprayed all over our grains and produce. then
there's petrochemicals. they too mimic estrogen in our bodies.
plastics are made from petrochemicals. first order of business is for
us to outlaw these practices. and plastic doesn't have to be make
from petroleum; hemp can be used to make it.
  #6  
Old June 11th, 2004, 07:15 PM
Bobby The D
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Beyond Personal Responsibility"

Radley Balko wrote in message news:


This June, Time magazine and ABC News will host a three-day summit on
obesity. ABC News anchor Peter Jennings, who last December anchored the
prime time special "How to Get Fat Without Really Trying," will host.
Judging by the scheduled program, the summit promises to be pep rally for
media, nutrition activists, and policy makers -- all agitating for a
panoply of government anti-obesity initiatives, including prohibiting junk
food in school vending machines, federal funding for new bike trails and
sidewalks, more demanding labels on foodstuffs, restrictive food marketing
to children, and prodding the food industry into more "responsible"
behavior. In other words, bringing government between you and your
waistline.



Certainly junk-food vending machines have no place in our schools, and
indeed school lunch menus need to become healthier. Just because kids
would rather eat tacos or pizza doesn't mean the schools should be
providing that (taxpayer subsidized) at the expense of healthy meals.

As far as labeling foods...I'm not sure what good it will do.
Consumers have to actually READ the labels. How long have cigarette
packs been required to carry warning labels? Lotsa good they've done.

Alas, we've become very nutrition-illiterate in this country and there
are demands that the government "do something about it". It's easier
to pass a law than it is to modify behavior.
  #7  
Old June 11th, 2004, 07:20 PM
Crazy Bastard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Beyond Personal Responsibility"

"Bobby The D" wrote in message
om...
Radley Balko wrote in message news:
This June, Time magazine and ABC News will host a three-day summit on
obesity. ABC News anchor Peter Jennings, who last December anchored the
prime time special "How to Get Fat Without Really Trying," will host.
Judging by the scheduled program, the summit promises to be pep rally

for
media, nutrition activists, and policy makers -- all agitating for a
panoply of government anti-obesity initiatives, including prohibiting

junk
food in school vending machines, federal funding for new bike trails and
sidewalks, more demanding labels on foodstuffs, restrictive food

marketing
to children, and prodding the food industry into more "responsible"
behavior. In other words, bringing government between you and your
waistline.

Certainly junk-food vending machines have no place in our schools, and
indeed school lunch menus need to become healthier. Just because kids
would rather eat tacos or pizza doesn't mean the schools should be
providing that (taxpayer subsidized) at the expense of healthy meals.


You have a big (no pun intended) problem to overcome. Yes, school food
programs are taxpayer subsidized. However, OVER 50% of school operating
budgets are funded BY PROFIT MADE ON JUNK FOOD MACHINES.

So, healthy food = tax increase.

Are you in or are you gonna whine about it?


  #8  
Old June 11th, 2004, 08:05 PM
Bob in CT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Beyond Personal Responsibility"

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:20:54 GMT, Crazy ******* wrote:

"Bobby The D" wrote in message
om...
Radley Balko wrote in message news:
This June, Time magazine and ABC News will host a three-day summit on
obesity. ABC News anchor Peter Jennings, who last December anchored

the
prime time special "How to Get Fat Without Really Trying," will host.
Judging by the scheduled program, the summit promises to be pep rally

for
media, nutrition activists, and policy makers -- all agitating for a
panoply of government anti-obesity initiatives, including prohibiting

junk
food in school vending machines, federal funding for new bike trails

and
sidewalks, more demanding labels on foodstuffs, restrictive food

marketing
to children, and prodding the food industry into more "responsible"
behavior. In other words, bringing government between you and your
waistline.

Certainly junk-food vending machines have no place in our schools, and
indeed school lunch menus need to become healthier. Just because kids
would rather eat tacos or pizza doesn't mean the schools should be
providing that (taxpayer subsidized) at the expense of healthy meals.


You have a big (no pun intended) problem to overcome. Yes, school food
programs are taxpayer subsidized. However, OVER 50% of school operating
budgets are funded BY PROFIT MADE ON JUNK FOOD MACHINES.

So, healthy food = tax increase.

Are you in or are you gonna whine about it?



While the machines provide some money, I don't think that "50%" is
realistic. For instance, my town pays 3-4 million a year to teach Senior
High Schoolers at another town. I don't think that a junk food machine is
going to provide 1.5-2 million a year. If schools make 50 cents an item,
that's 3 million items a year. Let's assume that there are 900
students. That's about 3,300 items per year per student or 18 items a
day per student every day they are in school. Even if the school makes
$1/item, that's 9 items a day per student every day they are in school,
and there's no where near 900 students in Senior High.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply
  #9  
Old June 11th, 2004, 09:33 PM
Crazy Bastard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Beyond Personal Responsibility"

"Bob in CT" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:20:54 GMT, Crazy *******
wrote:
"Bobby The D" wrote in message
om...
Radley Balko wrote in message news:
This June, Time magazine and ABC News will host a three-day summit on
obesity. ABC News anchor Peter Jennings, who last December anchored
the
prime time special "How to Get Fat Without Really Trying," will host.
Judging by the scheduled program, the summit promises to be pep rally

for
media, nutrition activists, and policy makers -- all agitating for a
panoply of government anti-obesity initiatives, including prohibiting

junk
food in school vending machines, federal funding for new bike trails
and
sidewalks, more demanding labels on foodstuffs, restrictive food

marketing
to children, and prodding the food industry into more "responsible"
behavior. In other words, bringing government between you and your
waistline.
Certainly junk-food vending machines have no place in our schools, and
indeed school lunch menus need to become healthier. Just because kids
would rather eat tacos or pizza doesn't mean the schools should be
providing that (taxpayer subsidized) at the expense of healthy meals.

You have a big (no pun intended) problem to overcome. Yes, school food
programs are taxpayer subsidized. However, OVER 50% of school operating
budgets are funded BY PROFIT MADE ON JUNK FOOD MACHINES.
So, healthy food = tax increase.
Are you in or are you gonna whine about it?

While the machines provide some money, I don't think that "50%" is
realistic.


Instead of "I don't think" how about GO FIND OUT????

For instance, my town pays 3-4 million a year to teach Senior
High Schoolers at another town. I don't think that a junk food machine is
going to provide 1.5-2 million a year. If schools make 50 cents an item,
that's 3 million items a year. Let's assume that there are 900
students. That's about 3,300 items per year per student or 18 items a
day per student every day they are in school. Even if the school makes
$1/item, that's 9 items a day per student every day they are in school,
and there's no where near 900 students in Senior High.


Instead of "I don't think" how about GO FIND OUT????

This has been reported on previously.

The magic number is about 50%...


  #10  
Old June 12th, 2004, 12:09 AM
Lady Veteran
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Beyond Personal Responsibility"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11 Jun 2004 11:15:50 -0700, (Bobby The D)
wrote:

Radley Balko wrote in message news:


This June, Time magazine and ABC News will host a three-day summit
on obesity. ABC News anchor Peter Jennings, who last December
anchored the prime time special "How to Get Fat Without Really
Trying," will host. Judging by the scheduled program, the summit
promises to be pep rally for media, nutrition activists, and
policy makers -- all agitating for a panoply of government
anti-obesity initiatives, including prohibiting junk food in
school vending machines, federal funding for new bike trails and
sidewalks, more demanding labels on foodstuffs, restrictive food
marketing to children, and prodding the food industry into more
"responsible" behavior. In other words, bringing government
between you and your waistline.



Certainly junk-food vending machines have no place in our schools,
and indeed school lunch menus need to become healthier. Just
because kids would rather eat tacos or pizza doesn't mean the
schools should be
providing that (taxpayer subsidized) at the expense of healthy
meals.


Maybe they have no place in schools, but have you ever enjoyed school
foot? Most thinks it sucks. If parents are too lazy to make them a
lunch then must they do without and not have anything resource?

As far as labeling foods...I'm not sure what good it will do.
Consumers have to actually READ the labels. How long have cigarette
packs been required to carry warning labels? Lotsa good they've
done.

Alas, we've become very nutrition-illiterate in this country and
there are demands that the government "do something about it". It's
easier to pass a law than it is to modify behavior.


Notice hoe it is only fat people that are being called upon to take
some sort of individual responsibility? I have a serious problem with
that because it generalizes. There are some people that refuse to be
responsible and it has nothing to do with how much a person weighs.


LV


Lady Veteran
- -----------------------------------
"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..."
- -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil
- ------------------------------------------------
People who hide behind anonymous remailers and
ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no
motive but malice.
- ---------------------------------------------
"To Do Is To Be" Socrates
"To Be Is To Do" Plato
"Do Be Do Be Do" Sinatra
- -------------------------------


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use:
www.pgp.com

iQA/AwUBQMo7i8jazA1WMM1JEQIYlQCgqjm4Z5RDHZWFXCOFy7D3Tb FworYAnRR3
uhVLgEUca0M392Nxd3W0ZpeU
=csvF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Beyond Personal Responsibility" Radley Balko Low Carbohydrate Diets 46 June 14th, 2004 10:14 PM
#1 Site on Self-help and Personal Developmet Olav Mehl Ludvigsen Low Carbohydrate Diets 1 January 4th, 2004 11:41 PM
#1 Site on Self-help and Personal Developmet Olav Mehl Ludvigsen Weightwatchers 0 January 4th, 2004 06:16 PM
#1 Site on Self-help and Personal Developmet Olav Mehl Ludvigsen Medications related to Weight Control 0 January 4th, 2004 06:16 PM
#1 Site on Self-help and Personal Developmet Olav Mehl Ludvigsen Fit For Life 0 January 4th, 2004 06:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.