Eat what you want attitude to food not compatible with socialist health care policies

Alopex

In America 30% of the population is obese. In the UK its less but here's what's interesting. That figure has doubled since the eighties. If you look at the charts the increase in obesity is almost exactly the same for people in the UK as the US - So we will soon catch up. I don't know the figures for 26county part of Ireland but I think it will be the same.

We all know type 2 diabetes is costly and levels are rising. and 80% of the cases could be prevented by diet and exercise. The other 20% its mostly down do them being elderly

So here's the issue - we have the nhs and hse who both treat all their patients equally no matter what their lifestyle(with the exception of transplant priority)

Socialist health care policies are a great idea in theory - but they were formulated when we didn't have an obesity epidemic. Overweight and obese people are at risk for so many diseases and the rest of us are paying for them.

Education demonstrably doesn't work. I'm 90% sure taxing "bad" foods won't work either (and its really unfair to people who aren't fat) - its ok for smokers because they have one specific drug and the tax they pay on the smokes gives us a profit. far more complicated with food.

With the socialist policies of the nhs and hse there's no incentive for the obese to change their ways. It is truly unbelievable Diebetic people are willing to take more and more drugs rather than just lose some weight.

If we're going to continue with allowing people eat whatever food they like then we're going to have to make people pay for their healthcare themselves.

southsiderosie

Is this forum now so obsessed with libertarianism and socialism that they have to be dragged into every single thread (that doesn't involve Republicanism)? Jesus Christ.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Alopex

southsiderosie wrote: »

Is this forum now so obsessed with libertarianism and socialism that they have to be dragged into every single thread (that doesn't involve Republicanism)? Jesus Christ.

by libertarian attitude to food i mean people can choose to eat whatever they want

by socialist health care I mean it is state funded (nhs) and almost entirely state funded (hse)

what terms should I have used?

johnnyskeleton

Alopex wrote: »

by libertarian attitude to food i mean people can choose to eat whatever they want

by socialist health care I mean it is state funded (nhs) and almost entirely state funded (hse)

what terms should I have used?

You should have simply stated your viewpoint, without having to refer it to a perception of libertarianism and socialism being the only two viewpoints (outside of boards.ie, they are quite rare viewpoints).

Alopex

Alopex wrote: »

by libertarian attitude to food i mean people can choose to eat whatever they want

by socialist health care I mean it is state funded (nhs) and almost entirely state funded (hse)

what terms should I have used?

It's not a libertarian attitude to it though.
Fair enough you can eat what you what, but the outcome affects everybody.
You are not being responsible to your body, but the general public are paying for it. If you took responsibility for yourself, you wouldn't need state funding health schemes for food.
As Permabear pointed out, the lobbyists for food companies in the states are very powerful. Perhaps without them, and a more libertarian view towards food, we might actually eat healthier, and instead take responsibility for what we eat?

johnnyskeleton

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You should have simply stated your viewpoint, without having to refer it to a perception of libertarianism and socialism being the only two viewpoints (outside of boards.ie, they are quite rare viewpoints).

Thanks for telling posters how to post!

I like this topic, I am a very confused person. I am trying to marry the points of libertarianism I believe in, with the socialism I also believe in.


It ain't easy!

dave_o_brien

Deleted User wrote: »

Thanks for telling posters how to post!

I like this topic, I am a very confused person. I am trying to marry the points of libertarianism I believe in, with the socialism I also believe in.


It ain't easy!

I don't post much on this forum, so may be stating the obvious, or saying something that is simply naieve, but surely the factor that marries libertarianism with socialism is responsibility? In most countries, capitalism has created a two-from-three attitude, which has hastened the slip down the tank, especially in countries which have a weak form of social governmental policy (moderate tax and little public investment with confusing private public partnerships and little to no corporate incentive to invest in social dividend), ie, Ireland, the UK and the USA, as opposed to stronger social democracies like the Netherlands and Denmark.

Well that's my naieve and simplistic view on it anyway!

Alopex

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not a libertarian attitude to it though.
Fair enough you can eat what you what, but the outcome affects everybody.
You are not being responsible to your body, but the general public are paying for it. If you took responsibility for yourself, you wouldn't need state funding health schemes for food.
As Permabear pointed out, the lobbyists for food companies in the states are very powerful. Perhaps without them, and a more libertarian view towards food, we might actually eat healthier, and instead take responsibility for what we eat?

Fair point. Post edited

nesf

dave_o_brien wrote: »

I don't post much on this forum, so may be stating the obvious, or saying something that is simply naieve, but surely the factor that marries libertarianism with socialism is responsibility? In most countries, capitalism has created a two-from-three attitude, which has hastened the slip down the tank, especially in countries which have a weak form of social governmental policy (moderate tax and little public investment with confusing private public partnerships and little to no corporate incentive to invest in social dividend), ie, Ireland, the UK and the USA, as opposed to stronger social democracies like the Netherlands and Denmark.

Well that's my naieve and simplistic view on it anyway!

Socialism has the same "two from three" principle baked in. Essentially the problem comes from the idea of a big pool of young healthy workers paying for the benefits (of all kinds) for the old and the infirm. This worked grand when these systems were being developed in the late 19th and early 20th century because life expectancy was much lower. Now with ever older people and shrinking birth rates in developed economies, neither capitalist or more socialist economies can actually pay for their commitments over the medium term. Our pension system, similar to the rest of Europe, is insolvent in its current form.


For ideas of how this pans out look at what Japan is facing at the moment. They're about 20 years ahead of us in terms of the benefit problem and are being forced to come up with a myriad of ways of dealing with the social and economic problems that it involves. Last I heard they were trialling a system where instead of retiring people work part time after the old retirement age and continue to be a productive member (from an economics point of view) for an extra 10-15 years, reducing the weight on pensions and also giving an important social support for these people.

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Indeed the orignal food pyramiad was edited so not to upset certain groups. The food pyramiad as we see it isnt what I would call healthy eating.

What's the two from three attitude?

nesf

Deleted User wrote: »

What's the two from three attitude?

In capitalism it's the idea that we'll forever have economic growth on average so a State can out grow its borrowings rather than have to pay them off. Kinda similar to how people took out very big mortgages in the 80s assuming that inflation (double digits back then) would turn the repayments into something trivially small within a decade. The big problem is the uncommon worldwide recession that force states to dramatically cut back on budget expenditure to balance the books because of unfavourable borrowing rates in the market.


In socialism it's the idea that we'll always have enough tax payers (and rich people) to pay for all the expansive social schemes and what not. It does very much come to to running out of other people's money. Cradle to Grave social protection, a la the Swedish system, requires there to be something like 2 workers for every retired person to work at present (iirc).

meglome

Alopex wrote: »

In America 30% of the population is obese. In the UK its less but here's what's interesting. That figure has doubled since the eighties. If you look at the charts the increase in obesity is almost exactly the same for people in the UK as the US - So we will soon catch up. I don't know the figures for 26county part of Ireland but I think it will be the same.

It's only my observation but for whatever reason people in Northern Ireland appear to be much fatter than the rest of the island of Ireland. Being part of the UK I assume, again I have no idea why.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

johnnyskeleton

Deleted User wrote: »

Thanks for telling posters how to post!

He asked what terms he should have used. I gave him an answer which would make his post clearer by avoiding buzzwords and, in this context, meaningless labels of socialist and libertarian.

Why do you take such offence that I would offer him such a view? You're not a mod of this forum.

Deleted User wrote: »

I like this topic, I am a very confused person. I am trying to marry the points of libertarianism I believe in, with the socialism I also believe in.


It ain't easy!

If you started by looking up those terms and doing some research into what they mean you might be less confused. There is a tendency on boards for people to declare themselves to be libertarians and, when pressed on their views, roll back to saying "libertarian means I want less government". That is not what libertarianism is, despite the attempts to reinvent the word.

In any event its moot because the OP has changed the libertarianism/socialism slightly so that what he means is clear i.e. is the provision of public healthcare compatible with lax regulation of the food we eat?

Still, describing public healthcare as "socialist" is a bit like saying that having a police force is a sign of a totalitarian regime.

Alopex

meglome wrote: »

It's only my observation but for whatever reason people in Northern Ireland appear to be much fatter than the rest of the island of Ireland. Being part of the UK I assume, again I have no idea why.

I don't think that's true. A recent study showed 26% of men are obese in the republic. I think the overall UK one is 25% (thought not quite as recent - and of course the population of ni is minute compared to the rest of the UK - perhaps we are fatter but I don't see why we would - similar gene pool and lifestyle)

I am in waterford a fair bit I haven't notice any difference myself.

meglome

Alopex wrote: »

I don't think that's true. A recent study showed 26% of men are obese in the republic. I think the overall UK one is 25% (thought not quite as recent - and of course the population of ni is minute compared to the rest of the UK - perhaps we are fatter but I don't see why we would - similar gene pool and lifestyle)

I am in waterford a fair bit I haven't notice any difference myself.

I'm in Belfast quite a bit and I find people to be way fatter than in Dublin, especially younger people. I don't have any figures so it's just observation.

Alopex

meglome wrote: »

I'm in Belfast quite a bit and I find people to be way fatter than in Dublin, especially younger people. I don't have any figures so it's just observation.

you know now that you mention it last time i went out in belfast we ordered chinese takeaway when we got home. For their five quid fifty deal they sent chicken curry rice loads of chicken balls ribs and chips. Honestly could have fed three people

I'll keep a closer eye on the situation next time I'm around. and cheers for getting things back on topic:)

southsiderosie

Alopex wrote: »

In America 30% of the population is obese. In the UK its less but here's what's interesting. That figure has doubled since the eighties. If you look at the charts the increase in obesity is almost exactly the same for people in the UK as the US - So we will soon catch up. I don't know the figures for 26county part of Ireland but I think it will be the same.

We all know type 2 diabetes is costly and levels are rising. and 80% of the cases could be prevented by diet and exercise. The other 20% its mostly down do them being elderly

So here's the issue - we have the nhs and hse who both treat all their patients equally no matter what their lifestyle(with the exception of transplant priority)

Socialist health care policies are a great idea in theory - but they were formulated when we didn't have an obesity epidemic. Overweight and obese people are at risk for so many diseases and the rest of us are paying for them.

Education demonstrably doesn't work. I'm 90% sure taxing "bad" foods won't work either (and its really unfair to people who aren't fat) - its ok for smokers because they have one specific drug and the tax they pay on the smokes gives us a profit. far more complicated with food.

With the socialist policies of the nhs and hse there's no incentive for the obese to change their ways. It is truly unbelievable Diebetic people are willing to take more and more drugs rather than just lose some weight.

If we're going to continue with allowing people eat whatever food they like then we're going to have to make people pay for their healthcare themselves.

But in the US, we don't have socialized health care, millions are uninsured, and people still eat whatever they want and refuse to 'change their ways'. Even if you have insurance, you may have to pay the full cost of your prescription drugs. So there are literally millions of people who should have an incentive to make dietary and lifestyle changes, but don't. Therefore, I don't think the health care system has much to do with how people eat.

More broadly, I don't think the issue is really about obesity when it comes to health care systems. There is a broader question of, just how much should public health care systems cover? Given that a) people live much longer today than they did 70 years ago when these were set up and b) medical technology changes rapidly, how can the interests of public health be balanced against public cost? The ethicist Peter Singer wrote a very interesting piece on this in the NY Times during the health care debate. He was critisized by the usual suspects on both the left and the right, but I think he has a point: in a world of limited resources, but seemingly unlimited advances in medical technology, health care providers, whether the state or the private sector, are going to have to make some hard decisions about what they will and will not pay for.

Increasingly, I think that people should have to individually pick up the cost of 'lifestyle choice'-type illneses...But of course the problem then becomes, who decides if it is a choice or not? In most cases, obesity is linked to dietary habits, but I suspect a change in coverage policies for obese patients would lead to a subsequent increase in medical claims for whatever else people can get doctors to sign off on so that obesity isn't their 'fault'.

southsiderosie

meglome wrote: »

I'm in Belfast quite a bit and I find people to be way fatter than in Dublin, especially younger people. I don't have any figures so it's just observation.

Observationally, having moved between the two cities for about a year, I noticed the same thing. People in Belfast seemed noticeably heavier than in Dublin. There seemed to be a LOT of chippers and curry houses EVERYWHERE, and in general it is cheaper to eat out in Belfast than in Dublin. And the portions in a lot of place are American-sized.

Alopex

southsiderosie wrote: »

But in the US, we don't have socialized health care, millions are uninsured, and people still eat whatever they want and refuse to 'change their ways'. Even if you have insurance, you may have to pay the full cost of your prescription drugs. So there are literally millions of people who should have an incentive to make dietary and lifestyle changes, but don't. Therefore, I don't think the health care system has much to do with how people eat.

Well that's the thing - I'd be happier then because at least the rest of us don't have to pay. Like I mentioned with smokers - I don't think taxing them to insane level really reduces their consumption - but at least it pays for their health bills.

More broadly, I don't think the issue is really about obesity when it comes to health care systems. There is a broader question of, just how much should public health care systems cover? Given that a) people live much longer today than they did 70 years ago when these were set up and b) medical technology changes rapidly, how can the interests of public health be balanced against public cost? The ethicist Peter Singer wrote a very interesting piece on this in the NY Times during the health care debate. He was critisized by the usual suspects on both the left and the right, but I think he has a point: in a world of limited resources, but seemingly unlimited advances in medical technology, health care providers, whether the state or the private sector, are going to have to make some hard decisions about what they will and will not pay for.

Cheers/ that's interesting.

Increasingly, I think that people should have to individually pick up the cost of 'lifestyle choice'-type illneses...But of course the problem then becomes, who decides if it is a choice or not? In most cases, obesity is linked to dietary habits, but I suspect a change in coverage policies for obese patients would lead to a subsequent increase in medical claims for whatever else people can get doctors to sign off on so that obesity isn't their 'fault'.

My take on this is that genetics play a role in obesity - but I reject the thinking or even referring to it being their "fault". I think the attitude needs to change. The reality is that if you are disadvantaged by genetics in relation to obesity; the onus is on you to compensate for that with diet and exercise not use it as an excuse. Fault doesn't come into it.

southsiderosie

Alopex wrote: »

Well that's the thing - I'd be happier then because at least the rest of us don't have to pay. Like I mentioned with smokers - I don't think taxing them to insane level really reduces their consumption - but at least it pays for their health bills.

Well the thing is, do you care about public health, or do you care about saving money? TBH I think the UK and the US are probably the two worst examples - there are countries with socialized health care systems that have much better public health outcomes - and these places spend less per capita on health care than the US. So is the root problem cultural (it is more culturally acceptable to be fat in the US IRE & UK than in Continental European countries)? Is it a political economy issue - the limited market economy countries (LMEs) certainly seem to do worse on a number of social indicators than the Centralized Market Economies (CMEs)? I suspect that it may be a combination of these given factors.

Alopex wrote: »

My take on this is that genetics play a role in obesity - but I reject the thinking or even referring to it being their "fault". I think the attitude needs to change. The reality is that if you are disadvantaged by genetics in relation to obesity; the onus is on you to compensate for that with diet and exercise not use it as an excuse. Fault doesn't come into it.

But that's what the tone of the OP implicitly suggests - why should the rest of us pay for something that in the vast majority of cases is a result of - or to put it more harshly, the fault of - individual behavioral choices?

anymore

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The US is one of those countries which has a super abundance of information on diets, nutrition and how to eat healthily. What is also offers people is the right to make their own minds up. Lets not blame the US government or big business or lack of education. Other than for a small mimority of people, peoples obesity is something they have full control of.

ei.sdraob

Running out of other peoples money, that's a good way of describing the current situation in the west

I myself have given up on pensions, bank manager was trying hard to push one told her by that I dont know if her bank will last 1 year never mind up to time I have to retire (if i do, or dont die by then) :eek:

Whats worse China for whom europe turned for money (and were told to get lost) is also in for a huge demographic change with rapidly ageing population

Interestingly the US population is defying the rest and is growing linearly, so there might be some hope there in the long term provided they dont turn to the dark side and follow europe into the same outcome.


this article here should be of interest to people


The next challenge: not too many people, but too few?