NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm having a hard time researching the "other side" of corporate accountability. Here is the issue:

Law-makers want tobacco companies to contribute to the health care system, because smoking cause diseases.

I think that tobacco companies shouldn't have to responsible for any of the healthcare costs, provided that the consumers are informed (smokers aware of health problems who still want the benefits of a good smoke).

What tobacco companies SHOULD contribute to is government-run addiction-therapy programs, because afterall, addiction is an illness that we want to help cure.



What are the arguments of the "for" side? If tobacco corporations are required to cover healthcare costs, should other companies, such as oil companies and fast-food restaurants cover their negative externalities as well?

I'm having a hard time researching the "other side" of corporate accountability. Here is the issue:

Law-makers want tobacco companies to contribute to the health care system, because smoking cause diseases.

I think that tobacco companies shouldn't have to responsible for any of the healthcare costs, provided that the consumers are informed (smokers aware of health problems who still want the benefits of a good smoke).

What tobacco companies SHOULD contribute to is government-run addiction-therapy programs, because afterall, addiction is an illness that we want to help cure.



What are the arguments of the "for" side? If tobacco corporations are required to cover healthcare costs, should other companies, such as oil companies and fast-food restaurants cover their negative externalities as well?

*Looks around at liberal NSG*

I don't think there is a "for" side around here. And yes, if tobacco companies have to do such a stupid thing, then oil companies should be paying to patch ozone layer holes and paying us to walk every where.

The addiction thing is a good idea though.

The thing about tobacco is that it's designed to physically punish people who quit smoking. It does this by artificially creating a need by chemically altering the brain. People smoke because their brains are altered to need it. People eat McDonalds because it's easier than cooking for yourself and people like the taste. People use oil because public transportation systems often suck and there's not really any alternative fuel source that's cost efficient and doesn't take hours to charge.

One thing I have learned is "convince me" arguments tend to be a waste of time as people who use that phrase already have decided their answer.

Now Tobacco. If you looked at the history in the US, it was well up to the 50s that there wasn't much information as to the effects of smoking; especially when the introduced filters. For centuries people smoked the leaf pretty well straight be it through pipes or rolling their own. So I would suggest assumptions were made.

In the 50's you can find ads about how smart it will make you, etc. So if the only information you can find is about the good aspects; how do you make an informed decision?

Even in the 60's when it was shown to be bad for you; tobacco still managed to get the wording changed to "it might cause cancer"

It was only in the last decade where the warnings were changed to it will kill you.

For the filters alone, tobacco has to pay.

Law-makers want tobacco companies to contribute to the health care system, because smoking cause diseases.
Do you guys not have duties on goods or something -_-

From wiki, searched 'smoking'
In Germany, anti-smoking groups, often associated with anti-liquor groups,[23] first published advocacy against the consumption of tobacco in the journal Der Tabakgegner (The Tobacco Opponent) in 1912 and 1932.

As scientific evidence mounted in the 1980s, tobacco companies claimed contributory negligence as the adverse health effects were previously unknown or lacked substantial credibility

So, the Tobacco companies ignored or denied scientific evidence for 70+ years. Thats why they need to contribute to healthcare costs.

That or invent a time machine and acknowledge the publishing about tobacco hazards in 1912, their choice :P

Yeah or maybe the duties placed upon tobacco products already pay more than their fair share of the damage they cause, at least in the UK.

Yeah or maybe the duties placed upon tobacco products already pay more than their fair share of the damage they cause, at least in the UK.

Exactly.

Tobacco products are already heavily taxed. There is no need for tobacco companies to pay more.

I'm having a hard time researching the "other side" of corporate accountability. Here is the issue:

Law-makers want tobacco companies to contribute to the health care system, because smoking cause diseases.

I think that tobacco companies shouldn't have to responsible for any of the healthcare costs, provided that the consumers are informed (smokers aware of health problems who still want the benefits of a good smoke).

What tobacco companies SHOULD contribute to is government-run addiction-therapy programs, because afterall, addiction is an illness that we want to help cure.



What are the arguments of the "for" side? If tobacco corporations are required to cover healthcare costs, should other companies, such as oil companies and fast-food restaurants cover their negative externalities as well?

It's less that they should contribute to costs NOW because of smoking going on NOW. If I'm a heavy smoker now, I'm not going to get cancer now. I'm going to get it 20, 30, 40, 50 years from now. So it's more to do with the increased health care costs caused as a result of 20, 30, 40, 50 years of smoking by smokers who started before such knowledge was available, and were addicted by the time it became so.

I'm having a hard time researching the "other side" of corporate accountability. Here is the issue:

Law-makers want tobacco companies to contribute to the health care system, because smoking cause diseases.

I think that tobacco companies shouldn't have to responsible for any of the healthcare costs, provided that the consumers are informed (smokers aware of health problems who still want the benefits of a good smoke).

What tobacco companies SHOULD contribute to is government-run addiction-therapy programs, because afterall, addiction is an illness that we want to help cure.



What are the arguments of the "for" side? If tobacco corporations are required to cover healthcare costs, should other companies, such as oil companies and fast-food restaurants cover their negative externalities as well?

What about those of us who get sick or disgusted from second-hand smoke? We choose not to smoke, yet we still have health issues from it -- especially the 53,000 NONSMOKERS who die each year from sicknesses caused by being around smokers (source 1 (http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/1/1?ijkey=4a5be6d1e9e3a9b7d6b3b9ab29a0f748d8b955ed&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha)) (source 2 (http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/86/2/699)).

what about those of us who get sick or disgusted from second-hand smoke? We choose not to smoke, yet we still have health issues from it -- especially the 53,000 nonsmokers who die each year from sicknesses caused by being around smokers (source 1 (http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/1/1?ijkey=4a5be6d1e9e3a9b7d6b3b9ab29a0f748d8b955ed&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha)) (source 2 (http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/86/2/699)).

You're shit out of luck.

You're shit out of luck.

That's too bad, seeing as only about 17,000 americans die of drunk driving. (source (http://www.stopimpaireddriving.org/HQPressRelease.pdf)).

Yes, you reads that correctly: second-hand smoke (which is LEGAL) kills more people than drunk driving (which is not).

Yes, you reads that correctly: second-hand smoke (which is LEGAL) kills more people than drunk driving (which is not).

I wonder how many people are killed by air pollution from cars and factories as opposed to second hand smoke? Considering some of the highest rates of lung cancer on Earth are found in populations with comparatively low smoking rates (such as Chinese women), you'd think people would be more interested in banning or severely restricting the use of cars in areas with poor air quality than going after smokers.

That's not to say that I oppose smoking bans; certainly, public places that people have to use should such as hospitals, government buildings, and schools should have such bans but beyond that there should be other provisions such as mandatory installation of filtration systems and proper ventilation that can produce a similar benefit as banning smoking without unduly affecting business (and contrary to the anti-smoking movement's claims, smoking bans badly hurt restaurants and bars that cater to an adult clientele which is why many of them outright violate the bans because the lost business is greater than the fines).

But then again, people need cars and fast food. They couldn't possibly function without them and any increase in taxes to fund good public transportation systems places an undue burden on hard-working Americans...that's an unthinkable crime. Of course, not coincidentally you can't sell billions of dollars worth of anti-depressants and products to make people quit driving or eating unhealthily so I imagine there isn't as much impetus to force that one through.

Now, on the issue of smoking, I'd say the solution is simple: don't provide any kind of government health benefits for people who pursue unhealthy behaviors. If you eat poorly, don't exercise, smoke/drink to excess or use drugs, the risk is on you and the consequences should be born by the person that makes the decision rather than the public or companies that supply the products. I do not believe that anyone other than the individual should be responsible for their decisions; frankly, I'd eliminate both Medicare and Medicaid because they're a massive waste of money. Our obsession with making people live longer is going to drain more and more money unless we find a way to cure the diseases of old age.

Can't afford to pay for your healthcare related to lifestyle decisions? Too bad. You should have thought of that when you made those decisions. You can live as unhealthily as you want so long as you shoulder the cost yourself...that personal freedom is something that is unfortunately too often ignored, especially in a culture so focused on extending lifespan at the cost of quality of life.

I wonder how many people are killed by air pollution from cars and factories as opposed to second hand smoke? Considering some of the highest rates of lung cancer on Earth are found in populations with comparatively low smoking rates (such as Chinese women), you'd think people would be more interested in banning or severely restricting the use of cars in areas with poor air quality than going after smokers.

the Chinese woman in your example likely has a coal power plant as more of a cause of the problem then cars. China has the 3rd largest coal reverses in the world just behind Russia and the US. at their current rate of usage they will use up all coal in 50 years. where as the US will use up theirs in 300 years and Russia 500 years(uses more oil then coal).

I wonder how many people are killed by air pollution from cars and factories as opposed to second hand smoke? Considering some of the highest rates of lung cancer on Earth are found in populations with comparatively low smoking rates (such as Chinese women), you'd think people would be more interested in banning or severely restricting the use of cars in areas with poor air quality than going after smokers.

That's not to say that I oppose smoking bans; certainly, public places that people have to use should such as hospitals, government buildings, and schools should have such bans but beyond that there should be other provisions such as mandatory installation of filtration systems and proper ventilation that can produce a similar benefit as banning smoking without unduly affecting business (and contrary to the anti-smoking movement's claims, smoking bans badly hurt restaurants and bars that cater to an adult clientele which is why many of them outright violate the bans because the lost business is greater than the fines).

But then again, people need cars and fast food. They couldn't possibly function without them and any increase in taxes to fund good public transportation systems places an undue burden on hard-working Americans...that's an unthinkable crime. Of course, not coincidentally you can't sell billions of dollars worth of anti-depressants and products to make people quit driving or eating unhealthily so I imagine there isn't as much impetus to force that one through.

Then you'd better tell the US government, as all their studies seem to show it improving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#United_States) things.

I call shenanigans!

Now, on the issue of smoking, I'd say the solution is simple: don't provide any kind of government health benefits for people who pursue unhealthy behaviors. If you eat poorly, don't exercise, smoke/drink to excess or use drugs, the risk is on you and the consequences should be born by the person that makes the decision rather than the public or companies that supply the products. I do not believe that anyone other than the individual should be responsible for their decisions; frankly, I'd eliminate both Medicare and Medicaid because they're a massive waste of money. Our obsession with making people live longer is going to drain more and more money unless we find a way to cure the diseases of old age.

Can't afford to pay for your healthcare related to lifestyle decisions? Too bad. You should have thought of that when you made those decisions. You can live as unhealthily as you want so long as you shoulder the cost yourself...that personal freedom is something that is unfortunately too often ignored, especially in a culture so focused on extending lifespan at the cost of quality of life.

Who exactly gets to decide what is and isn't an unhealthy behaviour?

Who exactly gets to decide what is and isn't an unhealthy behaviour?

Especially when the risks are deliberately obscured, or - as in the history of smoking - actively lied about.

Then you'd better tell the US government, as all their studies seem to show it improving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#United_States) things.

I call shenanigans!

"The President of the New York nightlife association stated that business had been harmed and that the Department of Health had included all restaurants in the figures, including "Starbucks and McDonald's".[89]"

"Some individuals have reported far different results. Michael Pakko of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis has posted several analyses of the negative economic impact of smoking bans on restaurants and bars, including generally,[92] in Columbia, Missouri,[93] and at Delaware gambling facilities.[94]"

"The Colorado state government is considering relaxing the state smoking ban in response to massive losses of bar and casino business since their ban was introduced.[95]"


???

As I said, the smoking ban is fine and likely beneficial when it applies to places that are frequented by families and non-adult customers, but it's clear that it has a negative effect on places that aren't patronized by those groups. Bars, casinos, nightclubs and other places are hurt by this, and in other parts of the world the effects are far worse. Similar places in the UK are getting reamed by these bans, often with absolutely no change in smoking habits.

So, if people aren't smoking any material amount less because of them and the bans are hurting these businesses, what's the benefit? Frankly, I'd say allowing smoking in properly ventilated or otherwise accommodating facilities at these kinds of venues will not only keep up business but will mitigate many or all of the risks of second-hand smoke exposure. It also means the risks of other things such as fires and various other bad things stemming from smoking and drinking at home will be reduced.

Who exactly gets to decide what is and isn't an unhealthy behaviour?

If we didn't have programs like Medicare and Medicaid, that would be up to the individual and the people providing healthcare. Of course, there's also that strange fact that Europe has a massively higher rate of smoking among men and women and yet they live considerably longer than their counterparts in America...that's probably one of those inconvenient facts that is swept under the rug when the anti-smoking movement is up to its eyeballs in money from the manufacturers of products designed to help people "quit" smoking, although we all know that nobody that manufactures anti-depressants or Nicorette patches seriously wants smokers to quit.

They want them to continually resume smoking and continually purchase their product because it's good money...why pay $5 for a pack of cigarettes when you can spend $40 for Nicorette? Or, for that matter, how about those anti-depressants; if you think quitting smoking is tough, try discontinuation symptoms .

the Chinese woman in your example likely has a coal power plant as more of a cause of the problem then cars. China has the 3rd largest coal reverses in the world just behind Russia and the US. at their current rate of usage they will use up all coal in 50 years. where as the US will use up theirs in 300 years and Russia 500 years(uses more oil then coal).
You never know about the Chinese women. The Chinese men have some high rates of smoking, and it also can't do good for the wives to keep breathing their husbands' cigarette smoke.

If we didn't have programs like Medicare and Medicaid, that would be up to the individual and the people providing healthcare. Of course, there's also that strange fact that Europe has a massively higher rate of smoking among men and women and yet they live considerably longer than their counterparts in America...

You do have programs like those though so how would they be judged

If we didn't have programs like Medicare and Medicaid, that would be up to the individual and the people providing healthcare. Of course, there's also that strange fact that Europe has a massively higher rate of smoking among men and women and yet they live considerably longer than their counterparts in America...

likely ties to food subsidies. we subsidize corn and soy beans. They subsidize olives. end result we cook with corn and veggie oil, they cook with olive oil.

If we didn't have programs like Medicare and Medicaid, that would be up to the individual and the people providing healthcare.

If we didn't have programs like Medicare and Medicaid people would be refused healthcare - more than they are already.

I don't care much for your vision of a world where healthcare is a luxury for the rich.

If we didn't have programs like Medicare and Medicaid people would be refused healthcare - more than they are already.

I don't care much for your vision of a world where healthcare is a luxury for the rich.

I don't like it either, but considering we'll likely never have the kind of system they have in Europe it's hardly worth it. Of course, nobody has ever been able to explain to me why Europeans live so much longer than Americans despite drinking and smoking considerably more both in absolute and percentage terms...

Personally, I want government health care like that seen in Europe. I do not like the half-assed system we have now that is run primarily on deficit spending and extortion from companies associated with unhealthy products. I'd also like to see massive and real restrictions on automobiles, funds for organic and local farming and increased funding for mass transit to encourage people to walk and to buy locally produced, fresh and healthy foods instead of the processed, additive-infused crap we get because it's dirt cheap and subsidized out the ass by a corrupt government.

likely ties to food subsidies. we subsidize corn and soy beans. They subsidize olives. end result we cook with corn and veggie oil, they cook with olive oil.

That's likely a huge part of it as well as a higher rate of exercise (i.e. walking) compared to Americans. The same is true of Japan, for that matter. So, they smoke and drink more but somehow not only have drastically lower incidences of lung cancer and heart disease but have massively lower mortality rates for those conditions. They also have lower incidence of other health conditions that have nothing to do with smoking or other factors and on average are far healthier in old age than their counterparts in the United States. So, if they're healthier and happier than us despite having fewer restrictions on behavior and more incidence of certain unhealthy behaviors, where are we going wrong?

It's curious to say the least. Perhaps it's the Golden Arches and General Motors that are killing us, although I don't think anyone would ever want to admit that. After all, getting rid of corn and gasoline subsidies would punish family farmers and the middle class, remember?

I don't like it either, but considering we'll likely never have the kind of system they have in Europe it's hardly worth it. Of course, nobody has ever been able to explain to me why Europeans live so much longer than Americans despite drinking and smoking considerably more both in absolute and percentage terms...

There's a racial component too.

Life expectancy of White Americans is perfectly competitive with life expectancy of Europeans.

It's the lower life expectancies among the US' large Black and Hispanic populations that skew the data downward.

There's a racial component too.

Life expectancy of White Americans is perfectly competitive with life expectancy of Europeans.

It's the lower life expectancies among the US' large Black and Hispanic populations that skew the data downward.

I don't know, it still looks like white men and women lag their counterparts in Europe significantly and are plagued by more disease of old age even if they live to a similar length of time. Even if we live as long, our quality of life is materially lower. That being said, I don't think it's too hard to explore the reason why minorities in the US have such poor life expectancy. I think the reason lies in the fact that they've got worse food, worse jobs, worse air, worse water and worse living conditions/healthcare.

I don't like it either, but considering we'll likely never have the kind of system they have in Europe it's hardly worth it. Of course, nobody has ever been able to explain to me why Europeans live so much longer than Americans despite drinking and smoking considerably more both in absolute and percentage terms...

Personally, I want government health care like that seen in Europe. I do not like the half-assed system we have now that is run primarily on deficit spending and extortion from companies associated with unhealthy products. I'd also like to see massive and real restrictions on automobiles, funds for organic and local farming and increased funding for mass transit to encourage people to walk and to buy locally produced, fresh and healthy foods instead of the processed, additive-infused crap we get because it's dirt cheap and subsidized out the ass by a corrupt government.

We don't need to have a European model to be a big improvement. Whate we really need to do, is stop the bleed of currency into the healthcare-related industries... and that could be done without going European.

On the other hand - letting the model you suggest come to pass would be an interesting scenario.

It would prove, once and for all, that America (collectively) refuses to learn the lessons of history. Alphabet agencies in the last Depression are responsible for the US not being a communism. It would certainly be worth watching.

I don't know, it still looks like white men and women lag their counterparts in Europe significantly and are plagued by more disease of old age even if they live to a similar length of time. Even if we live as long, our quality of life is materially lower. That being said, I don't think it's too hard to explore the reason why minorities in the US have such poor life expectancy. I think the reason lies in the fact that they've got worse food, worse jobs, worse air, worse water and worse living conditions/healthcare.

It is true Europeans walk more, bike more, drive less, etc than US, resulting in lower overweight problems in Europe. This is a function of Europe's higher population density compared to the US' low population density (especially in the suburban sprawl).

Obesity is pretty much the root of all evils. It's not mysterious at all. An effective Obamaite health care system would only allow people with BMI <25 to qualify for benefits. A strict line is drawn for people with BMI >25: if you're fat, you don't get national health insurance, period. This would vastly improve national health by making a huge economic incentive for people to lose weight, and once they get their BMIs under 25 they would not be a burden on healthcare infrastructure since their risks for cardiovascular and other diseases plummet.

Obesity is pretty much the root of all evils. It's not mysterious at all. An effective Obamaite health care system would only allow people with BMI <25 to qualify for benefits. A strict line is drawn for people with BMI >25: if you're fat, you don't get national health insurance, period. This would vastly improve national health by making a huge economic incentive for people to lose weight, and once they get their BMIs under 25 they would not be a burden on healthcare infrastructure since their risks for cardiovascular and other diseases plummet.

An effective system wouldn't exclude the overweight but would work with them to achieve a better result surely.

It is true Europeans walk more, bike more, drive less, etc than US, resulting in lower overweight problems in Europe. This is a function of Europe's higher population density compared to the US' low population density (especially in the suburban sprawl).

Obesity is pretty much the root of all evils. It's not mysterious at all. An effective Obamaite health care system would only allow people with BMI <25 to qualify for benefits. A strict line is drawn for people with BMI >25: if you're fat, you don't get national health insurance, period. This would vastly improve national health by making a huge economic incentive for people to lose weight, and once they get their BMIs under 25 they would not be a burden on healthcare infrastructure since their risks for cardiovascular and other diseases plummet.

How are people that can't afford healthcare going to get their BMI below 25?

This is not one of the better thought out plans I've heard... :rolleyes:

An effective system wouldn't exclude the overweight but would work with them to achieve a better result surely.

The merciless economic incentives of this proposed system would cause overweight people to rapidly take the effort to lose weight so the better result is in fact achieved for them.

The merciless economic incentives of this proposed system would cause overweight people to rapidly take the effort to lose weight so the better result is in fact achieved for them.

Or, alternatively, in 'reality', it would make little or no difference, and may actually increase in a short-term sudden rise in overweight people - as the health programs that are currently helping people lose weight in healthy ways, are cut on a large proportion.

The merciless economic incentives of this proposed system would cause overweight people to rapidly take the effort to lose weight so the better result is in fact achieved for them.

You really don't understand the amount of denial people are willing to use to dismiss the unhealthy aspects of being overweight. A large proportion of people will only confront the issue when faced with the actual medical impact it has had on their lives

How are people that can't afford healthcare going to get their BMI below 25?

This is not one of the better thought out plans I've heard... :rolleyes:
Calorie restriction. Eat less food. Doing so would save lower-income people money too, in addition to improving their health.

The expensive "Atkins Diet", "South Beach Diet" and other overpriced "designer diets", are BS. All body weight boils down to is calories in minus calories out. This is Laws of Thermodynamics. When someone is trying to tell you otherwise, they're trying to sell you something.

That's likely a huge part of it as well as a higher rate of exercise (i.e. walking) compared to Americans. The same is true of Japan, for that matter. So, they smoke and drink more but somehow not only have drastically lower incidences of lung cancer and heart disease but have massively lower mortality rates for those conditions. They also have lower incidence of other health conditions that have nothing to do with smoking or other factors and on average are far healthier in old age than their counterparts in the United States. So, if they're healthier and happier than us despite having fewer restrictions on behavior and more incidence of certain unhealthy behaviors, where are we going wrong?

It's curious to say the least. Perhaps it's the Golden Arches and General Motors that are killing us, although I don't think anyone would ever want to admit that. After all, getting rid of corn and gasoline subsidies would punish family farmers and the middle class, remember?

the exercise is population density. the higher end population densities in Europe (2 to 3 times last i checked) makes public transportation more affordable and accessible. We also have certain populations that have a higher incidence of disease.

You could likely write a 300 page book jsut on the difference in Europe and the US that leads to different health rates.

You really don't understand the amount of denial people are willing to use to dismiss the unhealthy aspects of being overweight. A large proportion of people will only confront the issue when faced with the actual medical impact it has had on their lives

Oh I'm familiar with the denial. I see it all the time, but that's only because there's no line drawn.

When the line is drawn in the sand for all to see, improved health for the population will naturally result. When the first few fat people die from being unable to access the national health insurance, the rest of the fat population will realize the stakes here.

The merciless economic incentives of this proposed system would cause overweight people to rapidly take the effort to lose weight so the better result is in fact achieved for them.

Of course, the downside is that many people would pursue unhealthy behaviors to lose weight rapidly; if you want people to be healthy, you need to use positive reinforcement that makes it easy for them to pursue those choices rather than taking away things they enjoy or restricting their use.

Speaking personally, I eat a lot more fruits and vegetables and walk more than in the past because there's a good public transportation system around campus and plenty of local suppliers that provide fresh foods at reasonable prices. Mind you, these are both funded in part by local taxes (and my college fees...) but the benefits are pretty clear and a lot of people respond positively to them. You don't need ridiculous things like anonymous tip lines that allow people to rat on their neighbors or sin taxes when these options are widely and economically available.

We've got this strange idea in the US that the only way to solve problems is through medication, regulation, and taxation when in fact we could address them far more effectively if we simply encouraged the kinds of behaviors that were more common in the days before fast food and cars.

Of course, the downside is that many people would pursue unhealthy behaviors to lose weight rapidly; if you want people to be healthy, you need to use positive reinforcement that makes it easy for them to pursue those choices rather than taking away things they enjoy or restricting their use.

That doesn't work. Thousands of pages of medical studies in JAMA, NEJM, and other research journals prove that partaking in more of "things they enjoy" like cheesecakes and tiramisus will not result in weight loss.

Calorie restriction. Eat less food. Doing so would save lower-income people money too, in addition to improving their health.

The expensive "Atkins Diet", "South Beach Diet" and other overpriced "designer diets", are BS. All body weight boils down to is calories in minus calories out. This is Laws of Thermodynamics. When someone is trying to tell you otherwise, they're trying to sell you something.

If I had as little clue as you are demonstrating, I'd shut the fuck up.

Pure calorie restriction doesn't work for healthy weight loss.

By your 'logic', the most efficient way to run your car is to stop adding fuel. Let's see how well that works for you.

the exercise is population density. the higher end population densities in Europe (2 to 3 times last i checked) makes public transportation more affordable and accessible. We also have certain populations that have a higher incidence of disease.

You could likely write a 300 page book jsut on the difference in Europe and the US that leads to different health rates.

That's true, although it's also true that the US had similar systems of public transportation, locally produced food and walkable communities prior to the automobile, and those that didn't live near cities were often highly self-sufficient. Even the Soviet Union had a solid public transportation system and its cities were highly dense despite possessing considerably more land than the United States; of course, they compensated for that with atrocious environmental abuses and other factors that offset the benefits.

However, I think we need to realize that suburban sprawl in particular hides a lot of ugly things behind its superficially pleasant appearance and that it is causing considerable damage to our health while we search in vain for something else to blame for the problems caused by it.

Calorie restriction. Eat less food. Doing so would save lower-income people money too, in addition to improving their health.

The expensive "Atkins Diet", "South Beach Diet" and other overpriced "designer diets", are BS. All body weight boils down to is calories in minus calories out. This is Laws of Thermodynamics. When someone is trying to tell you otherwise, they're trying to sell you something.

Read up on the effectiveness of low and very low calorie diets in the long term and then come back. They're shit. Plain and simple

Oh I'm familiar with the denial. I see it all the time, but that's only because there's no line drawn.

When the line is drawn in the sand for all to see, improved health for the population will naturally result. When the first few fat people die from being unable to access the national health insurance, the rest of the fat population will realize the stakes here.

The rest of the 'fat population' will do what they've always done i.e. adopt a "it won't happen to me" attitude

If I had as little clue as you are demonstrating, I'd shut the fuck up.

Pure calorie restriction doesn't work for healthy weight loss.

By your 'logic', the most efficient way to run your car is to stop adding fuel. Let's see how well that works for you.

Your car analogy is laughable. I hate to pull rank any time but I'm an actual biochemist and you are way out of your depth here.

Of course, calorie restriction has to be accompanied by exercise. Even poor people can walk around the block. Your claim that poor people can't afford to "eat less and exercise more" is astonishing.

Again, good exercise doesn't have involve expensive exercise equipment, and anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something. Even 30 minutes walking around the neighborhood will result in increases in health.

Read up on the effectiveness of low and very low calorie diets in the long term and then come back. They're shit. Plain and simple

I don't mean "low and very low calorie diet". I mean a diet that is about 2000 calories, which is the consensus recommendation for a healthy adult. Most Americans eat way more than 2000 calories a day, so getting people to bring down their intake to 2000 would be a revolution in terms of calorie restriction.

The rest of the 'fat population' will do what they've always done i.e. adopt a "it won't happen to me" attitude

That's why the economic incentives must be rigidly enforced. Once it does "happen to me" then I'd be screwed if I didn't comply with the rules of the national health insurance. People who see this happening to their friends and families will see this with their own eyes and start to be mindful of their own health, and eventually very high compliance will be achieved in the population.

That doesn't work. Thousands of pages of medical studies in JAMA, NEJM, and other research journals prove that partaking in more of "things they enjoy" like cheesecakes and tiramisus will not result in weight loss.

Well, of course. However, slapping sin taxes on them and telling people they're going to die if they don't stop eating them isn't going to produce any kind of benefit. If you emphasize the importance of moderation and provide people with the means to enjoy good, healthy food, they're likely going to respond far more favorably and will keep living healthily because they actually enjoy it. Truth is, barring a particular medical condition eating a piece of cake or candy isn't going to harm you at all, let alone kill you if you do it in moderation. Unfortunately, the bulk of public awareness efforts seem to be more obsessed with scaring people (ideally scaring them enough in to "talking with their doctor about [insert prescription drug of your choice] that's shown on TV) than they are encouraging them to pursue healthy living for their own sake.

The "quit or die" approach fails and will consistently continue to fail because people don't respond to threats like that; even worse, it can encourage people to do more because of the rebellion involved. If you encourage moderation and provide ways to enjoy healthy alternatives without judging or threatening people in the process, they're likely to respond far more positively.

That's why the economic incentives must be rigidly enforced. Once it does "happen to me" then I'd be screwed if I didn't comply with the rules of the national health insurance. People who see this happening to their friends and families will see this with their own eyes and start to be mindful of their own health, and eventually very high compliance will be achieved in the population.

Fortunately this very idea would go against the principle medical ethics

Your car analogy is laughable.


Your lack of ability to grasp how the laws of thermodynamics apply in open systems is laughable.


I hate to pull rank any time but I'm an actual biochemist and you are way out of your depth here.


I hate to pull rank, but I'm an actual chemist. Which is - of course - irrelevent, because appeals to authority (especially when unprovable,a s they are here) are logical fallacies.


Of course, calorie restriction has to be accompanied by exercise. Even poor people can walk around the block. Your claim that poor people can't afford to "eat less and exercise more" is astonishing.


Pure calorie restriction doesn't work - even with exercise. Try talking to someone who is actually qualified in that field. They'll quickly tell you that calorie restriction below certain levels is actual harmful to weightloss, and very hearmful to healthy weightloss.

As for making up arguments you wish I'd said? That's just dishonest.


Again, good exercise doesn't have involve expensive exercise equipment, and anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something. Even 30 minutes walking around the neighborhood will result in increases in health.

Again, you're talking shit. Walking for 30 minutes could kill some patients, which isn't an increase in health, per se.

No one is denying that a good exercise program can help with weight loss. No one is denying that controlling calories can help with weight loss. But that's not what you're saying, is it.

I mean a diet that is about 2000 calories, which is the consensus recommendation for a healthy adult.

And here's the evidence that you've no idea what you're talking about - and are, in fact, dangerous.

Well, of course. However, slapping sin taxes on them and telling people they're going to die if they don't stop eating them isn't going to produce any kind of benefit. If you emphasize the importance of moderation and provide people with the means to enjoy good, healthy food, they're likely going to respond far more favorably and will keep living healthily because they actually enjoy it.

The "quit or die" approach fails and will consistently continue to fail because people don't respond to threats like that; even worse, it can encourage people to do more because of the rebellion involved.

Most people don't rebel against their own economic self-interest. The small minority who does, and continues to scarf down cheesecakes are truly intractable and can be ignored for all practical purposes, just like zoophiles, trainspotters, and other eccentric queer folks.

If you encourage moderation and provide ways to enjoy healthy alternatives without judging or threatening people in the process, they're likely to respond far more positively.
Economic incentives are the only incentives people respond to. People don't respond to exhortations, recommendations, and propaganda. This has also been shown to be the case in the medical literature. In experimental situations, people given monetary incentives are more able to lose weight and keep their weight down than people who are merely given "encouragements." In the same line of experimentation, people who get money taken away from them and only get their money back if they lose weight and keep their weight down, do better than the control groups exposed to "encouragements."

The very palpable economic advantages of national health insurance would ensure high compliance rates, especially as people can see with their own eyes the fates of their friends and relatives who can't get health insurance because their BMI isn't compliant.

Europeans don't walk more because they've been "encouraged" to walk more. Europeans walk more because they have more of an economic advantage to walk (to the store for example) unlike Americans who could live 2 miles away from the nearest supermarket and has more of an economic advantage to drive instead of walk.

Fortunately this very idea would go against the principle medical ethics

It doesn't actually. Doctors regularly turn away patients for economic reasons.

And here's the evidence that you've no idea what you're talking about - and are, in fact, dangerous.

You're the dangerous one. No doctor and no legitimate chemist would agree with you that "eat less, exercise more" will ruin your health, as you seem to be claiming.

It doesn't actually. Doctors regularly turn away patients for economic reasons.

We live in different societies and I could see a very large majority here having issues in regards to non-maleficence, benificence and social justice.

We live in different societies and I could see a very large majority here having issues in regards to non-maleficence, benificence and social justice.

There won't be a choice, soon. Continuing down our current path, the medical system will go bankrupt trying to accompany the huge caseload of overweight, diabetic, artherosclerotic patients with the result that nobody can find any health care at all.

Oh to clear up any misunderstanding- I'm not advocating under this hypothetical situation for people to starve themselves in order to achieve explosive weight loss. Time period for compliance would obviously be reasonable, perhaps 4 or 5 years, to get BMI down to the agreed upon figure, and a less period of time for children and younger people.

You're the dangerous one. No doctor and no legitimate chemist would agree with you that "eat less, exercise more" will ruin your health, as you seem to be claiming.

The difference between you and I, is that there are other NSers who have actually met me - and - should it come to a matter of citing who is a 'legitimate' something, that would put me at considerable advantage.

However - as I said - your appeal to your alleged authority is a logical fallacy, and it would be a logical fallacy for me to make the same sort of claims - which is why I'm NOT claiming that my trade gives me some insider knowledge, simply pointing out the points at which you clearly don't have ANY clue of what you're talking about - like your assertions about human weightloss relating to the laws of thermodynamics, or your idea that the problem in a low-income diet is the quantity of the food.

I don't have to 'pull rank' as you tried to do - I simply have to point out where you sy nonsensical things.

I'm having a hard time researching the "other side" of corporate accountability. Here is the issue:

Law-makers want tobacco companies to contribute to the health care system, because smoking cause diseases.

I think that tobacco companies shouldn't have to responsible for any of the healthcare costs, provided that the consumers are informed (smokers aware of health problems who still want the benefits of a good smoke).

What tobacco companies SHOULD contribute to is government-run addiction-therapy programs, because afterall, addiction is an illness that we want to help cure.



What are the arguments of the "for" side? If tobacco corporations are required to cover healthcare costs, should other companies, such as oil companies and fast-food restaurants cover their negative externalities as well?


Fuck that! Corporations' only responsibility is to pay taxes to the government and to return a profit to their shareholders! Paying out MORE to the health care system is double taxation!

The difference between you and I, is that there are other NSers who have actually met me - and - should it come to a matter of citing who is a 'legitimate' something, that would put me at considerable advantage.

However - as I said - your appeal to your alleged authority is a logical fallacy, and it would be a logical fallacy for me to make the same sort of claims - which is why I'm NOT claiming that my trade gives me some insider knowledge, simply pointing out the points at which you clearly don't have ANY clue of what you're talking about - like your assertions about human weightloss relating to the laws of thermodynamics, or your idea that the problem in a low-income diet is the quantity of the food.

I don't have to 'pull rank' as you tried to do - I simply have to point out where you sy nonsensical things.
I've sat through P chem and I know what the laws of thermodynamics are. I only invoked them here in a tongue in cheek manner.

The problem in a low-income diet is in fact quantity- in other words excessive calories.

I've sat through P chem and I know what the laws of thermodynamics are. I only invoked them here in a tongue in cheek manner.


It looks like you're shifting a whole lot of goalposts since you got shown to be a fraud. I'm not surprised you're moving this one.


The problem in a low-income diet is in fact quantity- in other words excessive calories.

No, it isn't. And the simple fact that - when faced with this option to phrase it simply, you completely screwed up - is further evidence that you really have no clue what you are talking about.

Simple question for you - what is the caloric value of wood?

It looks like you're shifting a whole lot of goalposts since you got shown to be a fraud. I'm not surprised you're moving this one.

Uh...

No, it isn't. And the simple fact that - when faced with this option to phrase it simply, you completely screwed up - is further evidence that you really have no clue what you are talking about.

Simple question for you - what is the caloric value of wood?

Lol. We're talking about nutrition, not physical chemistry here. Hopefully after you realize that fact, we can clear up the misunderstanding. Calorie in medical parlance refers to digestible calories from the digestible carbohydrates, fats and amino acids. This is why there is a "Calories" section on the nutrition facts table on a box of corn flakes, and a separate "Fiber" section.

Lol. We're talking about nutrition, not physical chemistry here.


...says the person who 'invoked' the laws of thermodynamics...


Hopefully after you realize that fact, we can clear up the misunderstanding. Calorie in medical parlance refers to digestible calories from the digestible carbohydrates, fats and amino acids. This is why there is a "Calories" section on the nutrition facts table on a box of corn flakes, and a separate "Fiber" section.

The point I was making is that calories are not equal. So arguing that PURE caloric value is accountable for anything, is obviously nonsensical.

The evidence that you are a fraud, is that I'm having to elad to to each of these points, and that you argue them until you are shown to be talking through your ass, and then pretend you were saying something else.

For the sake of all concerned, please, I beg you - stop pretending you know what you're talking about, in case someone actually thinks you've said something worthwhile, and tries to follow your nonsensical advice.

...says the person who 'invoked' the laws of thermodynamics...

Alright, my bad. I was trying to make a joke. I know it's difficult to convey such things across the internet.

The point I was making is that calories are not equal. So arguing that PURE caloric value is accountable for anything, is obviously nonsensical.

How does your example of the calories from the wood illustrate the point you claim you're trying to make? In nutrition, running wood through your gut gives you not very much more than zero digestable calories, no matter what the bomb calorimeter says. The dietetic use of the word calorie is very specific and a "caloric value" in nutrition is vastly different from a "caloric value" in P chem.

The evidence that you are a fraud, is that I'm having to elad to to each of these points, and that you argue them until you are shown to be talking through your ass, and then pretend you were saying something else.
I don't know why you "led" me to your strange thought experiment of determining the "caloric value of wood" because if you actually knew what you're talking about you would've realized from the beginning that dietetic calories have nothing to do with indigestible chemical bonds- which do have their place in the world just not here.

For the sake of all concerned, please, I beg you - stop pretending you know what you're talking about, in case someone actually thinks you've said something worthwhile, and tries to follow your nonsensical advice.

You're the one talking out your ass. All you're trying to do is to bombard the reader with illogical triangulations to support your absurd claim that poor people are "too poor" to lose weight. When in fact the "secret" of weight loss isn't a secret and isn't expensive. Calorie restriction is part and parcel of this, despite your repeated attempts to redefine what a "calorie" is or isn't.