4 ms·

It's not a mystery. America's corporations invest billions of dollars promoting unhealthy food in unhealthy quantities, and more billions in promoting drugs of

It's not a mystery. America's corporations invest billions of dollars promoting unhealthy food in unhealthy quantities, and more billions in promoting drugs of dubious therapeutic value direct to consumers. It's not a bug, it's a feature of the country's light approach to regulation and its core fallacy that what's good for private equity is ultimately good for everyone.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
How would you fix it? I agree- but I don't know how to fix it. Any attempt to regulate this would be unpopular with the public. It boils down to waiting for public outrage. Change is slow. They need to tax the shit out of added saturated fat and sugar so it slowly dies off economically like cigarettes.
- Teever 4y ago
  Imagine a near future where bioterrorists threaten to destroy the world economy by releasing a highly infectious virus that genetically modifies the infected so that they no longer crave unhealthy garbage food. Would be kind of crazy if the world's first large scale bioattack was done for altruistic purposes.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  Not to mention no ceiling for drug costs and old medicines that have long had their research paid for are still having their prices raised.
- vannevar 4y ago
  >Any attempt to regulate this would be unpopular with the public. I don't think it would. I think we're limited by our leadership and what they're willing to talk about publicly, given their obligations to corporate lobbyists. In part, that's why populists like Trump and Sanders have so much support. For all his (many, many) flaws, if Donald Trump had suggested single payer healthcare, his supporters would've eaten it up as long as he used his own terminology for it. And of course, Bernie does advocate for it. Yes, he lost the nomination, but I really don't think that his stand on healthcare was a significant reason.
  - throwaway6734 4y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drinks_portion_cap_rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drinks_portion_cap_ru... One of the big things a lot of people remember from Bloomberg's time as mayor is this. Americans are a stubborn bunch
    - lockhouse 4y ago
      It’s not being stubborn it’s a strong distaste for government overreach and meddling. Bloomberg is one of the biggest “Karens” of our time. His failed presidential run made it very clear how little appetite the average American has for his nanny state we know better than you policies. I’ll eat and drink what I damn well please thank you very much.
      - manuelabeledo 4y ago
        > It’s not being stubborn it’s a strong distaste for government overreach and meddling. > I’ll eat and drink what I damn well please thank you very much. I would agree with these statements, if it weren't because not everyone is informed enough to actually eat and drink what they _want_, e.g. this makes a great case for using gutter oil in restaurant kitchens.
        lockhouse 4y ago
        Well, then the government should focus on educating. I’d rather die in my 60s enjoying a life of eating and drinking what I want instead of living to be 100 eating Soylent Green.
        manuelabeledo 4y ago
        > Well, then the government should focus on educating. That's not how any of this works. "Education" would not have saved you from asbestos in the roof or lead in the paint. You are making the point that it is acceptable for people to die from preventable issues in ignorance, as long as you get your fix. If so, well, maybe you are the one not fit to live in a society after all.
- lockhouse 4y ago
  > They need to tax the shit out of added saturated fat and sugar so it slowly dies off economically like cigarettes. What is the appeal of the nanny state? Why would I want or need big brother to tell me what to eat? I wholeheartedly disagree with everything about this. Let the government ensure that nutritional data is accurate and robust enough to empower me to make healthy decisions. Provide us with the necessary education to be able to read these warning labels. However, why is it the government’s job to prevent a grown adult from making unhealthy choices? If I want to eat ice cream for breakfast, deep fried cheeseburgers for lunch, and have a 6-pack of beer for dinner, why can’t I? Who am I harming other than myself?
  - mirror_neuron 4y ago
    In a society with socialized healthcare, you would be harming others by making it more expensive to care for you in the future. In a society where the price of healthcare is set by market forces alone, perhaps you should have unlimited freedom to make bad decisions. It seems like a lot of people would prefer socialized healthcare over that unlimited freedom.
    - lockhouse 4y ago
      This is the slipperiest of slopes. Where do we draw the line then if we’re talking about personal decisions that make it more expensive to care for you in the future? Should the government prevent people from being sexually promiscuous since contracting HIV would harm others by making it more expensive to care for you in the future? Should they sterilize women after a certain age since the likelihood of pregnancy complications gets higher the older they get? Maybe we should limit couples to having only one child. Safe child birth and pre- and post-natal care is very expensive. Is just wearing a cloth mask enough? Maybe we should wear an N95 mask and full universal precautions PPE everywhere we go just to make sure we don’t harm others.
      - manuelabeledo 4y ago
        > This is the slipperiest of slopes. It really isn't. Drinking and eating crap is a choice. One may as well be addicted to it, but addiction may be treatable. You are comparing a biological drive like sex and reproduction, with a desire for Coke, cigarettes, and fatty beef. Also, societies will survive without sugary drinks. Without sex and children? I doubt it.
Georgelemental 4y ago
It's not just "light regulation." Much of the regulation that does exist is the product of regulatory capture and actually makes things even worse (for example, agriculture subsidies).

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

How would you fix it? I agree- but I don't know how to fix it. Any attempt to regulate this would be unpopular with the public. It boils down to waiting for public outrage. Change is slow. They need to tax the shit out of added saturated fat and sugar so it slowly dies off economically like cigarettes.

Teever 4y ago
Imagine a near future where bioterrorists threaten to destroy the world economy by releasing a highly infectious virus that genetically modifies the infected so that they no longer crave unhealthy garbage food. Would be kind of crazy if the world's first large scale bioattack was done for altruistic purposes.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
stjohnswarts 4y ago
Not to mention no ceiling for drug costs and old medicines that have long had their research paid for are still having their prices raised.
vannevar 4y ago
>Any attempt to regulate this would be unpopular with the public. I don't think it would. I think we're limited by our leadership and what they're willing to talk about publicly, given their obligations to corporate lobbyists. In part, that's why populists like Trump and Sanders have so much support. For all his (many, many) flaws, if Donald Trump had suggested single payer healthcare, his supporters would've eaten it up as long as he used his own terminology for it. And of course, Bernie does advocate for it. Yes, he lost the nomination, but I really don't think that his stand on healthcare was a significant reason.
- throwaway6734 4y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drinks_portion_cap_rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drinks_portion_cap_ru... One of the big things a lot of people remember from Bloomberg's time as mayor is this. Americans are a stubborn bunch
  - lockhouse 4y ago
    It’s not being stubborn it’s a strong distaste for government overreach and meddling. Bloomberg is one of the biggest “Karens” of our time. His failed presidential run made it very clear how little appetite the average American has for his nanny state we know better than you policies. I’ll eat and drink what I damn well please thank you very much.
    - manuelabeledo 4y ago
      > It’s not being stubborn it’s a strong distaste for government overreach and meddling. > I’ll eat and drink what I damn well please thank you very much. I would agree with these statements, if it weren't because not everyone is informed enough to actually eat and drink what they _want_, e.g. this makes a great case for using gutter oil in restaurant kitchens.
      - lockhouse 4y ago
        Well, then the government should focus on educating. I’d rather die in my 60s enjoying a life of eating and drinking what I want instead of living to be 100 eating Soylent Green.
        manuelabeledo 4y ago
        > Well, then the government should focus on educating. That's not how any of this works. "Education" would not have saved you from asbestos in the roof or lead in the paint. You are making the point that it is acceptable for people to die from preventable issues in ignorance, as long as you get your fix. If so, well, maybe you are the one not fit to live in a society after all.
lockhouse 4y ago
> They need to tax the shit out of added saturated fat and sugar so it slowly dies off economically like cigarettes. What is the appeal of the nanny state? Why would I want or need big brother to tell me what to eat? I wholeheartedly disagree with everything about this. Let the government ensure that nutritional data is accurate and robust enough to empower me to make healthy decisions. Provide us with the necessary education to be able to read these warning labels. However, why is it the government’s job to prevent a grown adult from making unhealthy choices? If I want to eat ice cream for breakfast, deep fried cheeseburgers for lunch, and have a 6-pack of beer for dinner, why can’t I? Who am I harming other than myself?
- mirror_neuron 4y ago
  In a society with socialized healthcare, you would be harming others by making it more expensive to care for you in the future. In a society where the price of healthcare is set by market forces alone, perhaps you should have unlimited freedom to make bad decisions. It seems like a lot of people would prefer socialized healthcare over that unlimited freedom.
  - lockhouse 4y ago
    This is the slipperiest of slopes. Where do we draw the line then if we’re talking about personal decisions that make it more expensive to care for you in the future? Should the government prevent people from being sexually promiscuous since contracting HIV would harm others by making it more expensive to care for you in the future? Should they sterilize women after a certain age since the likelihood of pregnancy complications gets higher the older they get? Maybe we should limit couples to having only one child. Safe child birth and pre- and post-natal care is very expensive. Is just wearing a cloth mask enough? Maybe we should wear an N95 mask and full universal precautions PPE everywhere we go just to make sure we don’t harm others.
    - manuelabeledo 4y ago
      > This is the slipperiest of slopes. It really isn't. Drinking and eating crap is a choice. One may as well be addicted to it, but addiction may be treatable. You are comparing a biological drive like sex and reproduction, with a desire for Coke, cigarettes, and fatty beef. Also, societies will survive without sugary drinks. Without sex and children? I doubt it.

Georgelemental 4y ago

It's not just "light regulation." Much of the regulation that does exist is the product of regulatory capture and actually makes things even worse (for example, agriculture subsidies).