Should the government have a say in our diets?

[DeletedUser]

Don't be so heartless. You can't just tell someone to "stop smoking" or "stop eating so much chocolate"

Well that is were you are wrong, people can tell others to stop smoking or eating if it affecting there health, doctors can also refuse treatment if advise given is not taken.

Also as stated before I did not mean this as "actual" fact so saying you hate me just makes me want to go and eat myself silly

 

[Aicy]

I'm sure that's rare. If the patient is just abusing the system and not putting in effort to increase his health.

However, most of the time doctors can't just say "Screw you fatty! It's your fault for eating too much and not exercising!" and then just leave them to die with no treatment.

(Unless you live in America, of course.)

 

[DeletedUser12324]

I understand how it works but i'm sure cigarettes aren't the only things with tax on... that's my point, yes they make money for us but so do other saleables.

 

[DeletedUser]

OK so you are all aware (I am sure) that it doesn't matter where in the world you live, the government always wants to control what people consume!

So I would like to hear your thoughts in the land of Grepolis, should the government be allowed to dictate what we can and cannot eat?

Well since I'm just now giving my opinion. I'll say this..I disagree with the government having a say in what we can/cannot eat. They do have a right to encourage healthy eating as others have said, but TELLING us what we can/cannot do isn't fair to us (the people). It should be the persons responsibility on the action they take to protect their bodies. If they eat a lot and are over weigh well I'd suggest seeing a doctor and see how you could manage your weight at a healthy level.

I think there are a lot of things that put a strain on the NHS and it all routes back to the government!

They say we should eat more healthy, (then stop places like McDonald's opening) they even try and make fast food restaurants more healthy but honestly who goes to Burger King and has a salad...?

Well considering McDonalds makes approx: $10.6 billion a year I don't think they will shut McDonalds down. That is my own personal opinion everyone has their own too.

 

[DeletedUser]

Umm, if the government is footing the bill for your medical expenses, I would say they do indeed have the right to impose some dietary restrictions. you don't want to follow their restrictions, pay your own medical bills.

 

[Aicy]

I understand how it works but i'm sure cigarettes aren't the only things with tax on... that's my point, yes they make money for us but so do other saleables.

In my understanding the only tax is that cigarettes cost £8 now instead of 10p. That £7.90 or whatever it is the tax, and is used to treat people who are dying.

 

[DeletedUser]

Umm, if the government is footing the bill for your medical expenses, I would say they do indeed have the right to impose some dietary restrictions. you don't want to follow their restrictions, pay your own medical bills.

What if they're just big-boned?

(trollface)

 

[DeletedUser18825]

I'm glad that I don't like McDonnalds... Their food just seems disgusting to me.

The government shouldn't be able to control what we eat.

 

[DeletedUser]

Umm, if the government is footing the bill for your medical expenses, I would say they do indeed have the right to impose some dietary restrictions. you don't want to follow their restrictions, pay your own medical bills.

This pretty much, the rediculous cost to tax payers that morbidly obese people are having is growing just as quickly as their waste band. I was flicking through The Sun newspaper (Most reliable source ever?) and saw a rather rotund woman who ate 6,000 calories a day, and was claiming £700 a week in benefits for "disabilities" all due to her weight. Now I know this case might not be entirely true, but I have seen others the same. One man even claiming his only reason for being as big as he was, is so he can be the fattest man in Britain? Why should the taxes of 12(ish) averagely paid, hard working people go into the already clogged colon of someone who has no reason for being the way they are other than they "like to eat".

What if they're just big-boned?

(trollface)

I giggled.

 

[DeletedUser]

I giggled.

Thxbro.

 

[DeletedUser]

Why should the taxes of 12(ish) averagely paid, hard working people go into the already clogged colon of someone who has no reason for being the way they are other than they "like to eat".

An important point, but for a different point than argued above.

Who dictates their "reason?" In many cases, the specific cause of obesity (or other issues) is not determined. In some cases, it takes years, even decades, to determine the medical cause of someone's issues (be they seemingly lazy, overweight, underweight, etc).

This really should not be a discussion of whether we should or should not provide care for someone. And while the question is whether the government should or should not dictate what we eat, what it should be about is whether a consensus of doctors, paid for by the government, should be able to dictate what a person eats.

But then you have the other problem, which is how do you enforce? Denial of medical care? While it is common for doctors to refuse to treat patients who refuse to follow their medical advice (including following rigid diets), we're referring to a sweeping declaration here and a slippery slope argument could readily ensue and we jump right back up to, "should or should not provide care."

In order for the government (or anyone for that matter) to dictate, it must have some means of enforcement.

 

[DeletedUser]

Its really a choice of your liberties versus whats good for society. While you may feel entitled to do what you want, and eat what you want you. As a member of society, a member which reaps the benefits of society, you should also fall under the jurisdiction of your said society. If your government deems it necessary that for your benefit, you need to stop eating a medium pizza a meal, or smoking a pact a day. Then their wishes should be followed, so long as you wish to continue to be apart of said society. People need to realize that in a country with rules and laws, your freedom is not limitless. You can do what you want, so long as it doesn't prevent me from doing what i want. Respect, its a simple enough principle. If by your actions you are hurting or pulling down the community, then its only right that the government should be able to enact restrictions that prevent you from hurting the rest of everyone else. A chronic smoker is a strain on the health care system, just as an obese person is. That is just the tip of the iceberg however, not only are these types of people putting a strain on societies institutions, they are not pulling their weight. A person who smokes a pact a day, is outside smoking at least an hour a day. They aren't nearly as productive as someone who doesn't require that cigarette. That is not to say people who smoke are worthless, so long as your habits are not a detriment to me, it does not matter what you do, which brings us back to my previous point.

So i do believe that its okay for a government to set laws that restrict you from eating a certain hazardous food, your freedoms are never limitless.

As for hellstorms point about how to enforce such laws, i believe denial of medical care is just the solution. I would forever prefer denial of all publicly funded services, but thats a little extreme at this point in time. If you don't want to listen to the advice of a doctor, or the government who are working for your benefit, then we shouldn't continue to care for you. If you know better than us, do it yourself.

 

[DeletedUser]

See, that's part of the concern here, the "assumption" that the government is working for your benefit. I think we can honestly say, the majority of government decisions serve a select few, at the expense and hardship of the greater. To assume they would do otherwise in this case is being overly trusting. The governments are not your parents, and even your parents don't always act in your best interests.

 

[DeletedUser]

I believe that the government should be able to step in and take almost total control of our lives if we reach the stage that by having free will we would be causing harm to ourselves and costing the taxpayers money.
For example, a person who gets morbidly obese but doesn't seek help but only continues to eat and eat and eat should be stopped from eating as much.
By continuing to eat and not seeking help they are causing their body harm which will result in them running to the NHS at some point when their heart stops functioning correctly.
At that point the taxpayer will be forking out money to pay for this person's operations and then what is to say that after this person has recovered, they won't just start eating a lot all over again?
So yes, i say that the government should be able to have a say in our diets- but only in extreme circumstances.
I do NOT think that they should be able to dictate what we can eat on a day to day basis, but when we are no long fit to decide that, yes, they should do it for us.

 

[DeletedUser]

See, that's part of the concern here, the "assumption" that the government is working for your benefit. I think we can honestly say, the majority of government decisions serve a select few, at the expense and hardship of the greater. To assume they would do otherwise in this case is being overly trusting. The governments are not your parents, and even your parents don't always act in your best interests.

I believe that my government and the majority of governments are in fact working for the people, i don't want to get into a debate about " corrupt governments " and all that conspiracy BS either. The purpose of a government is to serve the people, and i think the majority of people believe that the governments are working for our benefit, or there would be a just a few more rioting countries to deal with.

 

[DeletedUser]

I believe that the government should be able to step in and take almost total control of our lives if we reach the stage that by having free will we would be causing harm to ourselves and costing the taxpayers money.

Wow, seriously trusting aren't you?

For example, a person who gets morbidly obese but doesn't seek help but only continues to eat and eat and eat should be stopped from eating as much.

Let me ask you a simple question. Do you think this is cost-effective? Do you think the manpower required to "force" someone (or many) to not eat certain foods is even remotely cost-effective? Do you think it saves money in the long run, for the government to employ a handful of people to ensure someone follows a strict diet? Do you even think it's possible to enforce it without a handful of people to monitor such, 24/7?

I believe that my government and the majority of governments are in fact working for the people, i don't want to get into a debate about " corrupt governments " and all that conspiracy BS either. The purpose of a government is to serve the people, and i think the majority of people believe that the governments are working for our benefit, or there would be a just a few more rioting countries to deal with.

Well, you're entitled to think that, but you're ignoring a tremendous amount of history that indicates you're simply friggin' wrong (no conspiracy BS needed to argue this point btw).

Also, this discussion is SPECIFICALLY about government intervention. It's not a different discussion, it's at the core of this discussion. So speak openly and freely on this, because you can't discuss what the government should or should not do and then sit there and argue we shouldn't discuss history as examples of why we should not trust the government.

 

[DeletedUser]

there is a difference between the governments in history ( monarchies ) and what we have now. Just because you disagree with the policies or actions of a particular government doesn't mean they aren't working for the people. The only cases were governments aren't working for there people today are the dictatorships. The rest of the modern world ( NA, EU ) have a government which looks out for the people. If you'd like to show me how i'm wrong, i'm open to any and every opinion

 

[DeletedUser]

there is a difference between the governments in history ( monarchies ) and what we have now. Just because you disagree with the policies or actions of a particular government doesn't mean they aren't working for the people. The only cases were governments aren't working for there people today are the dictatorships. The rest of the modern world ( NA, EU ) have a government which looks out for the people. If you'd like to show me how i'm wrong, i'm open to any and every opinion

You are assuming only monarchies behaved in such a manner, your assumption is incorrect. Just touching the more extreme example, Hitler was installed as Chancellor within a republic (Weimar Republic). It was not a monarchy.

Returning to the present, where the real argument should be, it is not the "government" that works for the people, it is the respective constitutions which the government was installed under. The confusion you're presenting is that of government as opposed to administration. The government is what is dictated by a constitution, it is the structural outline for how to manage and maintain the goals and ideas instituted in a constitution (or similar declarative). Administrations, on the other hand, are the people installed to occupy a government, and thus perform the duties as entailed.

Administrations are comprised of elected and selected persons, each with their own agendas. People are people, and as such will act according to who they are (more commonly, "what's in it for me?"), not according to some grandiose ideal ("For the people" is a grandiose ideal). People elected, to positions within a government, perform their roles according to their notions (usually, but not always, within the legal constraints of their particular positions). So while candidates may say a lot of things to obtain votes, history (yes, even recent history) clearly shows that what they say is rarely what they do (exceptions always exists. But they are, as indicated, exceptions and not the rule).

At present, in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, the bulk of nations within Europe, and many other "republics," the almighty dollar is demonstrating itself to hold significant sway on politics, and on administrative decisions. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has demonstrated they are not immune to this, when they indicated that "corporations" are not merely entities as far as taxes and lawsuits are concerned, but entities as far as their ability to participate in political backing, thereby being able to not merely indirectly influence politics through powerful (deep-pocket) lobbying, but directly influence politics through election support, donating directly to election campaigns, even being allowed to create their own election campaigns separate from, but in direct support of, existing candidates.

When Abraham Lincoln stated, "of the people, by the people, for the people," he correctly captured the intent of constitutions (indeed, France's Constitution was inspired by such and includes a similarly phrased statement). However, because of actions like that of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision, and actions by various political entities (elected, appointed, and non-government entitites, like so-called think tanks), the credo of "of the people, by the people, for the people," has largely been usurped by a new definition; that of, "of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation."

And while you may decide to claim this is an opinion, there is ample evidence to demonstrate this has, in fact, become the status quo. So, when you make the assertion that a government works for the people's best interests, I must say you really need to get out from under that rock of denial or ignorance. I am not posing a conspiracy, nor am I posing a wild speculation. Actions of administrations, past and present, clearly demonstrate that, "for the people" is not often their first intention and is, instead, a ruse.

Or do you honestly believe it was "for the people" when Bush Jr. (and his administration) deliberately lied to Congress and the People when he inferred that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, thus resulting in not only an incredibly costly event that depleted the U.S. coffers and filled the coffers of so many corporations (many of which had direct and indirect ties to elected/appointed official), but resulted in the death of 4000+ additional U.S. citizens (military and contracted personnel) and over 100,000 innocent civilians in Iraq.

Do you honestly believe, "for the people" was the motivation behind deregulating the banks, or behind the tax cut for the wealthy? Do you honestly believe, "for the people" was the motivation behind a record number of filibusters during 2009 and 2010, or was the reason for redirecting funds away from rebuilding the levees in New Orleans prior to Katrina? Do you believe that Britain's participation in Iraq was, "for the people?"

Even IF elected and appointed persons act in fashions they deem to be, "for the people," they are not always right, may have been misinformed, misguided, misled (lobbyists, etc). The People too have a responsibility to in all this, and cannot assume someone else is going to work in their best interests so they can press the buttons on their remote controls.

It is imperative that, "the people" do not sit back on their laurels and blindly trust that the appointed and elected officials, tasked to governing our respective nations, are going to work in the best interest, "of the people." The means to ensure a good government, is to be a diligent populace. Complacency results in liberties to administrations, and loss of liberties to its respective citizens.

 

[DeletedUser]

WE can all agree that power corrupts and people will do what they can to stay in power. Do you believe that it was "for the people" when Obama forced the Catholic Church to cover contraception? For Catholic Churches to have their tax-exempt status taken away because they say they oppose aborion? For the government to determine what a religious belief is and what isn't? It is not "for the people" and is only to attack religios groups. It is to silence the enemies of the government and benifit their allies. It is to force Catholic Insurers to violate their religion and provide coverage for abortion and contraception. It is to take away our basic religious freedoms from us. It says in the Bible to follow your religion even if it is against the law.

 

[DeletedUser]

WE can all agree that power corrupts and people will do what they can to stay in power. Do you believe that it was "for the people" when Obama forced the Catholic Church to cover contraception? For Catholic Churches to have their tax-exempt status taken away because they say they oppose aborion? For the government to determine what a religious belief is and what isn't? It is not "for the people" and is only to attack religios groups. It is to silence the enemies of the government and benifit their allies. It is to force Catholic Insurers to violate their religion and provide coverage for abortion and contraception. It is to take away our basic religious freedoms from us. It says in the Bible to follow your religion even if it is against the law.

You need to understand one thing there buddy, the Healthcare program that was presented by Congress and pushed through the House & Senate is nothing like what Obama wanted to institute. Obama didn't "force" that scene, it was written by a few zealous Democratic Representatives. When the issue was brought to his attention, he offered a solution, which was for the insurance companies to cover contraception (a creative "interpretation" of what was intended by the writings in the Act).

As to the tax-exempt issue regarding abortion, you're distorting the facts. They can lose their tax-exempt status for attempting to influence politics/laws. ALL non-profit organizations have this very same rule. It is not an argument of separation of Church & State, that's a FALSE SELL. It's "we'll ensure you're tax-exempt if you stay out of the government --- you don't pay into it, so don't touch it."

Tax exemption is conditional, non-profit organizations obtain tax exemption when their mission is charity, education, or religion. You can follow the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud, or the Book of I-Ching. You can run an academic institution or a charity organization. Just don't think you can get away with not paying taxes and still meddle in the affairs of Government. This is not about religion, it's about TAX EXEMPTION and the rules and restrictions associated with such. This isn't about religion vs the people in power, it's the friggin' IRS enforcing the fundamental rules associated with not paying taxes.​

Btw, this is off-topic... Next time you want to run on a totally different issue (with only a sliver of relevance to the OP), create a new thread.