4 ms·
Obesity is a complex problem and blah blah blah insert standard disclaimers here, but I think there are two things that, combined, contribute significantly to t
by AngryParsley 16y ago
Obesity is a complex problem and blah blah blah insert standard disclaimers here, but I think there are two things that, combined, contribute significantly to the problem:
1. Food is cheap
2. Most people enjoy eating food
Solutions include: Make food more expensive (tax it) or alter peoples' sense of hunger. The latter is actually not infeasible. There are drugs that decrease appetite.
Another idea takes some explaining: I think obesity has quite a bit in common with smoking. The biggest difference is that people need food to survive. Still, the solution to decreasing smoking could work on obesity. Smoking used to be quite popular, but today it isn't nearly as socially acceptable. In most places in the US, cigarrettes are taxed in both currency and social cost. Jokes at a smoker's expense are acceptable. It's not uncommon for friends or coworkers of smokers to suggest they quit.
The same is not true for obesity. Mocking fat people is considered rude. Suggesting they cut down on certain foods is also a delicate matter. An excuse for this taboo is that many fat people can't help it. They were born with genes that caused their metabolisms to run slower, or they feel hunger more strongly than average. But the same is true for many smokers. Their genes make them more susceptible to nicotine, or cause them to feel cravings more strongly than average. Yet we allow poking fun at smokers.
So while this suggestion won't be popular, I think it would be effective: Society needs to treat fatties more like smokers. If you see an overweight person doing something that will most likely increase their weight, picture them as they will be in 20 years: dying from diabetes and heart disease. Vision failing, fingers and toes pale from poor circulation. Possibly even missing a few digits. A premature death; an under-lived life, lacking many experiences healthy people take for granted. They never went rock climbing or surfing. Their extra weight causes them frequent back and joint pain. Think of all that suffering, and think of how you have an opportunity to prevent it. You probably won't be thanked for it, but you might very well save someone's life.
(I'm only half-joking in that last paragraph.)
- yummyfajitas 16y agoActually, the last paragraph is a good idea for another reason. For now, all the costs of obesity are internal costs paid for solely by the obese person. It's like me buying video games - I pay, I get the game, no one besides me and GameStop has a reason to care. However, as of 2014, the costs of obesity become external costs - that is, costs paid for by all. It's more like a factory polluting - the obese person gets all the benefits of their activity, but impose costs on the rest of society. We should try to internalize those costs with an added tax (much like pollution taxes).
- dagw 16y agoAs long as they have some form of health insurance it's an external cost even today. Except it's spread among those who have the same insurance company rather than the whole taxpaying population. Also even if they are completely uninsured it's still an external cost as chances are they'll end up at the hospital emergency room at some point, and being uninsured, the bill will end up with the taxpayers one way or the other. So really the internal vs external thing won't change much. That being said I'm not as such against selective taxing of foods.
- yummyfajitas 16y agoIf the obese are paying their actuarial cost, then it's not an externality. So in any state where it is legal to charge the obese a higher premium, the obese are already paying their fair share.