6 ms·

I used to strongly support people getting fat. I thought: this is a free country, you should be able to do what you want. But what I've seen in the US has made

I used to strongly support people getting fat. I thought: this is a free country, you should be able to do what you want. But what I've seen in the US has made me think differently. Most people who get fat eventually end up not being able to live like normal adults. And no one willingly goes to get help or treatment. The problem will stick around because politicians care more about how things look. They'll say the numbers are wrong, or focus on wedge issues like transgender, guns, but they're not going to do anything on hard issues like this one. Does anyone have ideas on what we should do? Should we make fast food illegal again and force people into rehab? Should we require weight tests for homeless people to receive government help like CAAP payments?

basicoperation 3y ago
This but unironically
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
styren 3y ago
Not sure what point you're trying to make here? Policymaking to limit access to unhealthy food isn't particularly controversial and if there weren't more pressing issues were I live I'd love for politicians to push it further.
- seadan83 3y ago
  Limiting access to any kind of food AFAIK is extremely controversial! For starters there are the massive astro-turf campaigns that make a lot of noise. Beyond this, food regulation is catnip for the culture wars. > Taxes on sugar‐sweetened beverages reduce consumption, but a strong public backlash holds that they compromise consumers’ liberty, freedom, and autonomy. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6916313/#:~:text=One%20such%20initiative%E2%80%94taxes%20on,with%20individuals'%20freedom%20and%20autonomy https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6916313/#:~:tex.... Recall when there was a hint that Biden would limit hamburgers? (This idea was a bad extrapolation, nobody was proposing it as law - but nonetheless the mere mentioned brewed a holy-shit storm of foaming at the mouth outrage): - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/conservatives-beef-with-biden-over-false-red-meat-claims https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/conservatives-beef-with-bi... - https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/04/27/fact-check-joe-biden-isnt-banning-burgers-politicians-fuel-narrative/4855501001/ https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/202... - https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/26/republicans-meat-biden-climate-plan/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/26/republicans...
  - photonerd 3y ago
    > Limiting access to any kind of food AFAIK is extremely controversial! Where? Not in the US it’s not & it’s much more common to do so in the rest of the world too. Try buying proper raw milk cheese in the US for example.
    - seadan83 3y ago
      > Where? Not in the US it’s not & it’s much more common to do so in the rest of the world too. I can't find personally any examples in the US where regulations that limited access to certain foods was not met with an unholy backlash. Here are examples: - https://crosscut.com/equity/2022/08/study-finds-seattles-controversial-soda-tax-can-improve-equity https://crosscut.com/equity/2022/08/study-finds-seattles-con... (the point there is that the ordinance was very controversial) - https://thefern.org/2022/12/how-food-became-a-weapon-in-americas-culture-war/ https://thefern.org/2022/12/how-food-became-a-weapon-in-amer... (this resource describes how/where food is controversial and has become part of the culture war; which means everything related to it is unnecessarily controversial) Trying to find such examples, even lead in food is not regulated! [1] The FDA only has guidelines around lead and does sporadic testing. Fail those tests and the FDA only shames you, no jail, no required testing, no required compliance. The example of the raw-milk-cheese is actually (according to this resourced) a poster-child of limiting access to certain foods as being contentious: > There are many laws and regulations affecting the cheese and dairy industry in the United States. However, none is more contentious than the FDA-mandated pasteurization of all milk products for human consumption that was instituted in 1987. [2] To be clear, food safety guidelines are very different from limiting access to food. This is a case though where access to certain foods was restricted and the cited resources states that as an example of the most contentious regulation. I wondered as well what regulations have actually come from the FDA in the last 20 years and how were those received? It seems like the answer to that is the FDA has long been unpopular and structurely castrated to not be able to do anything regarding food [3]. Why that is the case, how it came to be - I could only speculate. My bets would be that it is easy to use the FDA as a punching bag, gutting it from the inside is certainly part and parcel to the 'small government' push that has been advocated of late [6]. It could also be part that the agency has fallen pray to corruption and is in the pocket of those it is there to regulate [4][7]. Looking at the list of 'milestones' from the FDA, published by the FDA itself, the list seems very underwhelming to me regarding anything food related going back 20 years, even 40 years (nutrition labels are one of the biggest items on that list; very underwhelming to me) [5] Do you have examples where access to a given food was limited that was _not_ super contentious? I'm honestly not aware of any examples. [1] https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-food/lead-food-foodwares-and-dietary-supplements#:~:text=Lead%20may%20be%20present%20in,grown%2C%20raised%2C%20or%20processed https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-food/lea.... [2] https://www.foodandwine.com/lifestyle/why-americans-dont-get-eat-delicious-raw-milk-cheese https://www.foodandwine.com/lifestyle/why-americans-dont-get... [3] https://www.politico.com/interactives/2022/fda-fails-regulate-food-health-safety-hazards/ https://www.politico.com/interactives/2022/fda-fails-regulat... [4] https://time.com/4130043/lobbying-politics-dietary-guidelines/ https://time.com/4130043/lobbying-politics-dietary-guideline... [5] https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-history/milestones-us-food-and-drug-law https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-history/milestones-us-food... [6] https://www.news-journalonline.com/story/news/2012/04/05/budget-cuts-as-backdoor-deregulation/30585002007/ https://www.news-journalonline.com/story/news/2012/04/05/bud... [7] https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2022/05/fda-food-safety-inspections-plummet-despite-congressional-mandate https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2022/05/fda-food-safe...
- GeoAtreides 3y ago
  But nobody would propose making sugar illegal and putting people that eat sugar in jail.
  - brightlancer 3y ago
    > But nobody would propose making sugar illegal and putting people that eat sugar in jail. Michael Bloomberg has entered the chat. As an almost absolute rule, "nobody is saying" is false. Lots of crazies are saying it. Sometimes they're well respected politicians. "But Bloomberg never did that!" Right, he did the first _step_ by targeting the sale of "large" sodas. But if you look at his actions on tobacco for ADULTS and the larger War On Drugs, it starts with selling, then buying, then possessing. There are authoritarians who want to ban anything and everything you can imagine (plus many more). They start with what's popular and then move on to what is, crying "What about the children?!?!" and "Do you just want people to die?!?!" the whole time.
  - Apes 3y ago
    Of course such an extreme proposal is going to seem silly - but what about outlawing any advertisement for sugary goods towards children, coupled with a heavy tax on sugary goods? Now that not only seems possible, but seems like only a matter of time.
  - zeroCalories 3y ago
    It wouldn't be 1-to-1, but I wouldn't mind a war on sugar. Letting your kids be fat should be treated as child abuse, and you should lose access to medicare/medicaid if you've been fat for too long. People have gotten too soft(pun intended) about the right to do whatever you want.
    - RoyalHenOil 3y ago
      >you should lose access to medicare/medicaid if you've been fat for too long. Right, so you want to compound the problem, not actually solve it.
      - 3y ago
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  It very much is. My city, Chicago, instituted a sugar tax. It was so unpopular that it didn't even last a couple months. I'd say it's not just controversial but outright deeply unpopular.
tomp 3y ago
People should be allowed to be fat. But if you're so fat you need 2 airline seats, you should pay for 2 seats, just like a non-fat person who wants 2 seats. People should be allowed to use drugs and be drug addicts. But if you're so drugged up that you shit in the street and attack other people, you should go to jail, just like a non-drug user who shits in the street or attacks people.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  And how about payment for surgery for coronary artery disease/type 2 diabetes medications/etc?
  - Apes 3y ago
    I guess for you that might be an upside of the American Healthcare system - fat people pay more for health insurance, and have to pay money out of pocket for their surgery and medications.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      No, they do not. After age 65, the federal government picks up the hospital tab via Medicare, and depending on how many qualified assets you have, Medicaid helps with the rest. Before 65, health insurance can only use a few factors to determine premiums, but none are related to one's health. https://www.healthcare.gov/how-plans-set-your-premiums/ https://www.healthcare.gov/how-plans-set-your-premiums/ >Factors that can’t affect premiums >They also can’t take your current health or medical history into account. All health plans must cover treatment for pre-existing conditions from the day coverage starts.
      - Apes 3y ago
        The ACA changed the insurance cost, but it doesn't change having to pay for the surgery and medication.
        3y ago
downvotetruth 3y ago
I used to strongly support people getting guns. I thought: this is a free country, you should be able to do what you want. But what I've seen in the US has made me think differently. Most people who get guns eventually end up not being able to live like normal adults. And no one willingly goes to get help or treatment. The problem will stick around because politicians care more about how things look. They'll say the numbers are wrong, or focus on wedge issues like LBGTQ or drugs, but they're not going to do anything on hard issues like this one. Does anyone have ideas on what we should do? Should we make guns illegal and force people into rehab? Should we require background checks for homeless people to receive government help?
- GeoAtreides 3y ago
  There is a difference between things that only affect me (or my body) and things that affect other people. Guns heavily skew towards the latter.
  - dabluecaboose 3y ago
    Funny how my closet full of guns is just randomly killing people who walk outside my apartment. I should get better lead shielding. From a less snarky perspective, something absurd like 2/3rds of all gun deaths are suicide*. Which pretty definitively skews towards affecting one's own body over others. EDIT: 54% in 2021, according to Pew Research [1] [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-...
- FormerBandmate 3y ago
  Legal guns do way less damage than drugs by a long shot. Even illegal guns kill less people, and you don’t solve illegal guns by banning guns, the millions of illegal guns aren’t going to turn in themselves We do need gun control but it is an absurdly tiny issue compared to drugs. Barely anyone dies in mass shootings with legally purchased guns, it’s up there with lightning strikes
  - 3y ago
unethical_ban 3y ago
Is your attempt at satire trying to say "being against legal hard drugs is like being against legal obesity"? Are you saying that trying to curb hard drug use is as immoral in a free society as trying to curb unhealthy eating?
- cmilton 3y ago
  I interpreted it as: We shouldn’t treat the addictions all that differently.
imgabe 3y ago
> Most people who get fat eventually end up not being able to live like normal adults. And no one willingly goes to get help or treatment. This is where your analogy falls apart. Most fat people are able to live like normal adults. They do not get fired from their jobs and lose their homes because they're camped out on the street eating McDonald's all day. Many of them do willingly get help or treatment. There is a multi-billion dollar industry of helping people lose weight.

basicoperation 3y ago

This but unironically

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

styren 3y ago

Not sure what point you're trying to make here? Policymaking to limit access to unhealthy food isn't particularly controversial and if there weren't more pressing issues were I live I'd love for politicians to push it further.

seadan83 3y ago
Limiting access to any kind of food AFAIK is extremely controversial! For starters there are the massive astro-turf campaigns that make a lot of noise. Beyond this, food regulation is catnip for the culture wars. > Taxes on sugar‐sweetened beverages reduce consumption, but a strong public backlash holds that they compromise consumers’ liberty, freedom, and autonomy. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6916313/#:~:text=One%20such%20initiative%E2%80%94taxes%20on,with%20individuals'%20freedom%20and%20autonomy https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6916313/#:~:tex.... Recall when there was a hint that Biden would limit hamburgers? (This idea was a bad extrapolation, nobody was proposing it as law - but nonetheless the mere mentioned brewed a holy-shit storm of foaming at the mouth outrage): - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/conservatives-beef-with-biden-over-false-red-meat-claims https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/conservatives-beef-with-bi... - https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/04/27/fact-check-joe-biden-isnt-banning-burgers-politicians-fuel-narrative/4855501001/ https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/202... - https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/26/republicans-meat-biden-climate-plan/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/26/republicans...
- photonerd 3y ago
  > Limiting access to any kind of food AFAIK is extremely controversial! Where? Not in the US it’s not & it’s much more common to do so in the rest of the world too. Try buying proper raw milk cheese in the US for example.
  - seadan83 3y ago
    > Where? Not in the US it’s not & it’s much more common to do so in the rest of the world too. I can't find personally any examples in the US where regulations that limited access to certain foods was not met with an unholy backlash. Here are examples: - https://crosscut.com/equity/2022/08/study-finds-seattles-controversial-soda-tax-can-improve-equity https://crosscut.com/equity/2022/08/study-finds-seattles-con... (the point there is that the ordinance was very controversial) - https://thefern.org/2022/12/how-food-became-a-weapon-in-americas-culture-war/ https://thefern.org/2022/12/how-food-became-a-weapon-in-amer... (this resource describes how/where food is controversial and has become part of the culture war; which means everything related to it is unnecessarily controversial) Trying to find such examples, even lead in food is not regulated! [1] The FDA only has guidelines around lead and does sporadic testing. Fail those tests and the FDA only shames you, no jail, no required testing, no required compliance. The example of the raw-milk-cheese is actually (according to this resourced) a poster-child of limiting access to certain foods as being contentious: > There are many laws and regulations affecting the cheese and dairy industry in the United States. However, none is more contentious than the FDA-mandated pasteurization of all milk products for human consumption that was instituted in 1987. [2] To be clear, food safety guidelines are very different from limiting access to food. This is a case though where access to certain foods was restricted and the cited resources states that as an example of the most contentious regulation. I wondered as well what regulations have actually come from the FDA in the last 20 years and how were those received? It seems like the answer to that is the FDA has long been unpopular and structurely castrated to not be able to do anything regarding food [3]. Why that is the case, how it came to be - I could only speculate. My bets would be that it is easy to use the FDA as a punching bag, gutting it from the inside is certainly part and parcel to the 'small government' push that has been advocated of late [6]. It could also be part that the agency has fallen pray to corruption and is in the pocket of those it is there to regulate [4][7]. Looking at the list of 'milestones' from the FDA, published by the FDA itself, the list seems very underwhelming to me regarding anything food related going back 20 years, even 40 years (nutrition labels are one of the biggest items on that list; very underwhelming to me) [5] Do you have examples where access to a given food was limited that was _not_ super contentious? I'm honestly not aware of any examples. [1] https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-food/lead-food-foodwares-and-dietary-supplements#:~:text=Lead%20may%20be%20present%20in,grown%2C%20raised%2C%20or%20processed https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-food/lea.... [2] https://www.foodandwine.com/lifestyle/why-americans-dont-get-eat-delicious-raw-milk-cheese https://www.foodandwine.com/lifestyle/why-americans-dont-get... [3] https://www.politico.com/interactives/2022/fda-fails-regulate-food-health-safety-hazards/ https://www.politico.com/interactives/2022/fda-fails-regulat... [4] https://time.com/4130043/lobbying-politics-dietary-guidelines/ https://time.com/4130043/lobbying-politics-dietary-guideline... [5] https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-history/milestones-us-food-and-drug-law https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-history/milestones-us-food... [6] https://www.news-journalonline.com/story/news/2012/04/05/budget-cuts-as-backdoor-deregulation/30585002007/ https://www.news-journalonline.com/story/news/2012/04/05/bud... [7] https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2022/05/fda-food-safety-inspections-plummet-despite-congressional-mandate https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2022/05/fda-food-safe...
GeoAtreides 3y ago
But nobody would propose making sugar illegal and putting people that eat sugar in jail.
- brightlancer 3y ago
  > But nobody would propose making sugar illegal and putting people that eat sugar in jail. Michael Bloomberg has entered the chat. As an almost absolute rule, "nobody is saying" is false. Lots of crazies are saying it. Sometimes they're well respected politicians. "But Bloomberg never did that!" Right, he did the first _step_ by targeting the sale of "large" sodas. But if you look at his actions on tobacco for ADULTS and the larger War On Drugs, it starts with selling, then buying, then possessing. There are authoritarians who want to ban anything and everything you can imagine (plus many more). They start with what's popular and then move on to what is, crying "What about the children?!?!" and "Do you just want people to die?!?!" the whole time.
- Apes 3y ago
  Of course such an extreme proposal is going to seem silly - but what about outlawing any advertisement for sugary goods towards children, coupled with a heavy tax on sugary goods? Now that not only seems possible, but seems like only a matter of time.
- zeroCalories 3y ago
  It wouldn't be 1-to-1, but I wouldn't mind a war on sugar. Letting your kids be fat should be treated as child abuse, and you should lose access to medicare/medicaid if you've been fat for too long. People have gotten too soft(pun intended) about the right to do whatever you want.
  - RoyalHenOil 3y ago
    >you should lose access to medicare/medicaid if you've been fat for too long. Right, so you want to compound the problem, not actually solve it.
    - 3y ago
HDThoreaun 3y ago
It very much is. My city, Chicago, instituted a sugar tax. It was so unpopular that it didn't even last a couple months. I'd say it's not just controversial but outright deeply unpopular.

tomp 3y ago

People should be allowed to be fat. But if you're so fat you need 2 airline seats, you should pay for 2 seats, just like a non-fat person who wants 2 seats. People should be allowed to use drugs and be drug addicts. But if you're so drugged up that you shit in the street and attack other people, you should go to jail, just like a non-drug user who shits in the street or attacks people.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
And how about payment for surgery for coronary artery disease/type 2 diabetes medications/etc?
- Apes 3y ago
  I guess for you that might be an upside of the American Healthcare system - fat people pay more for health insurance, and have to pay money out of pocket for their surgery and medications.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    No, they do not. After age 65, the federal government picks up the hospital tab via Medicare, and depending on how many qualified assets you have, Medicaid helps with the rest. Before 65, health insurance can only use a few factors to determine premiums, but none are related to one's health. https://www.healthcare.gov/how-plans-set-your-premiums/ https://www.healthcare.gov/how-plans-set-your-premiums/ >Factors that can’t affect premiums >They also can’t take your current health or medical history into account. All health plans must cover treatment for pre-existing conditions from the day coverage starts.
    - Apes 3y ago
      The ACA changed the insurance cost, but it doesn't change having to pay for the surgery and medication.
      - 3y ago

downvotetruth 3y ago

I used to strongly support people getting guns. I thought: this is a free country, you should be able to do what you want. But what I've seen in the US has made me think differently. Most people who get guns eventually end up not being able to live like normal adults. And no one willingly goes to get help or treatment. The problem will stick around because politicians care more about how things look. They'll say the numbers are wrong, or focus on wedge issues like LBGTQ or drugs, but they're not going to do anything on hard issues like this one. Does anyone have ideas on what we should do? Should we make guns illegal and force people into rehab? Should we require background checks for homeless people to receive government help?

GeoAtreides 3y ago
There is a difference between things that only affect me (or my body) and things that affect other people. Guns heavily skew towards the latter.
- dabluecaboose 3y ago
  Funny how my closet full of guns is just randomly killing people who walk outside my apartment. I should get better lead shielding. From a less snarky perspective, something absurd like 2/3rds of all gun deaths are suicide*. Which pretty definitively skews towards affecting one's own body over others. EDIT: 54% in 2021, according to Pew Research [1] [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-...
FormerBandmate 3y ago
Legal guns do way less damage than drugs by a long shot. Even illegal guns kill less people, and you don’t solve illegal guns by banning guns, the millions of illegal guns aren’t going to turn in themselves We do need gun control but it is an absurdly tiny issue compared to drugs. Barely anyone dies in mass shootings with legally purchased guns, it’s up there with lightning strikes
- 3y ago

unethical_ban 3y ago

Is your attempt at satire trying to say "being against legal hard drugs is like being against legal obesity"? Are you saying that trying to curb hard drug use is as immoral in a free society as trying to curb unhealthy eating?

cmilton 3y ago
I interpreted it as: We shouldn’t treat the addictions all that differently.

imgabe 3y ago

> Most people who get fat eventually end up not being able to live like normal adults. And no one willingly goes to get help or treatment. This is where your analogy falls apart. Most fat people are able to live like normal adults. They do not get fired from their jobs and lose their homes because they're camped out on the street eating McDonald's all day. Many of them do willingly get help or treatment. There is a multi-billion dollar industry of helping people lose weight.