Without education you might choose to live on fast food and drive up my health care costs.

That should make no difference on your health care costs, because you pay for your health care, no one else does and you don't pay for any other person's health care either.

Oh, wait, you do want someone else to pay for your care, which obligates you to pay for others care (insurance); so now we get your point.

Yes. It is called shared risk, and I am all for it. I am unlikely, for example, to get prostate cancer, but I am willing to pay a health care premium that covers that treatment for others.

I altruistically want all my fellow citizens to be as healthy as each one can be, since people who are not in good health tend to be unhappy people.

I also, selfishly, want all my fellow citizens to be as healthy as each one can be because treatment of illness affects my insurance premiums.

And if you want me to get REALLY political, I am all for government funded, single payor healthcare... the kind of healthcare we DIDN'T get with the recent reforms.
(Where is my liberal utopia, gosh darn it!!!)

Like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I happen to think that healthcare is also a basic, inalienable, human right.

Sure such a system might come with a layer of bureaucratic inefficiency, but after having worked 25 years in a hospital setting, I have come to firmly believe that keeping people healthy and treating those who are sick should not be a for profit enterprise.

And while I am standing up here on this soapbox, let me just snarkily say that there was a whole lot of talk where I worked about "productivity", "payor mix" and "reimbursement levels" for what, on paper, was a "not for profit" hospital. Don't let a "not for profit" status fool you. Healthcare is appallingly lucrative business in our country.

And if you want me to get REALLY political, I am all for government funded, single payor healthcare... the kind of healthcare we DIDN'T get with the recent reforms.
(Where is my liberal utopia, gosh darn it!!!

If the government is to be involved in health care, single payer is the only viable option. There is no reason to create a additional layer of bureaucrats in private insurance companies, wall street investment bankers wanting their payout, etc.

---

And if you want me to get REALLY political, I am all for government funded, single payor healthcare... the kind of healthcare we DIDN'T get with the recent reforms.
(Where is my liberal utopia, gosh darn it!!!

If the government is to be involved in health care, single payer is the only viable option. There is no reason to create a additional layer of bureaucrats in private insurance companies, wall street investment bankers wanting their payout, etc.

I agree that we have been saddled with a hybrid that is not optimal. President Clinton attempted a more radical overhaul and was torpedoed. President Obama decided to try a hybrid first. I hope it moves fellow Americans in the direction of a single payor system.

And if you want me to get REALLY political, I am all for government funded, single payor healthcare... the kind of healthcare we DIDN'T get with the recent reforms.
(Where is my liberal utopia, gosh darn it!!!

If the government is to be involved in health care, single payer is the only viable option. There is no reason to create a additional layer of bureaucrats in private insurance companies, wall street investment bankers wanting their payout, etc.

I agree that we have been saddled with a hybrid that is not optimal. President Clinton attempted a more radical overhaul and was torpedoed. President Obama decided to try a hybrid first. I hope it moves fellow Americans in the direction of a single payor system.

All good points.

---

OFF TOPIC!

I do like the sugar tax you have in your town Ang.....

Back on topic

---

Ian, the sugar tax is very much "on topic"!!! It is an example of a local government (Berkeley) levying a tax on consumption of a class of foods (high sugar beverages), because heavy consumption of sugary beverages poses public health risk. The money generated from this tax is supposed to be used to educate and support citizens of all ages in the area of making healthier food and beverage choices.

Berkeley was one of the few areas where that measure passed. I hope the idea catches on. I also hope it works!!!

I know there were, and still are, opponents of this measure. I know there will be some inconsistencies in the execution of this tax. I still think it is a step in the right direction.

Ian, the sugar tax is very much "on topic"!!! It is an example of a local government (Berkeley) levying a tax on consumption of a class of foods (high sugar beverages), because heavy consumption of sugary beverages poses public health risk. The money generated from this tax is supposed to be used to educate and support citizens of all ages in the area of making healthier food and beverage choices.

Berkeley was one of the few areas where that measure passed. I hope the idea catches on. I also hope it works!!!

I know there were, and still are, opponents of this measure. I know there will be some inconsistencies in the execution of this tax. I still think it is a step in the right direction.

A sugar tax is a nice idea, but perhaps needed at least as much is a salt tax.

---

A sugar tax is a nice idea, but perhaps needed at least as much is a salt tax.

I believe there are some grassroots movements for this.

My baby brother works for a very large food corporation and companies such as his appear to be getting a little nervous regarding the possibility of mandated sodium reductions in processed foods. Smart money is going into R&D to find ways to lower sodium content and still produce cheap tasty things that people will buy.

Large corporations would like the good PR associated with looking like they are voluntarily being mindful of our health. They are also afraid that grassroots movements will turn into larger movements, and that these will lead to more sweeping legislation.

I'm not really sure why corporations fear sweeping legislation for sodium reduction. If lower sodium becomes "the law of the land", it will hit companies relatively equally. Presumably all soup makers will have similar guidelines, all chip makers will have similar guidelines, all frozen entree makers will have similar guidelines and so forth.

Right now, with voluntary sodium reductions, companies run the risk of having their products taste "worse" than their saltier competitors. No company wants to lose customers, or the brand loyalty that goes along with people who purchase prepared foods regularly. If we retrain our national palate to lower levels of sodium, eventually we might even get used to food tasting like food, and not salt! (I have a dear friend who salts every bite of food she takes. It is terrifying to watch her eat. If ever a palate needed retraining, it is hers!!!)

If I were a big food company executive, I think I would favor sweeping salt legislation over pressure to voluntarily lower salt content in processed foods. Level the playing field so that nobody has an unfair advantage, and remind us all that food should not necessarily make you thirsty!!!

Remember that large corporations are conservative, and conservatives value status quo, they are afraid of change. Two other things come to mind, salt is cheap and adding it seems to make more people buy larger quantities increasing profit margins. The other is their competition finding a spice/blend that they patent and freeze out others from being able to use after a mandatory reduction. Not all R&D is like Seti and done in the open.

Next thing we know there will be a trans-fat tax. ;)

---

Next thing we know there will be a trans-fat tax. ;)

LOL!!! Things are certainly moving in the direction of outlawing trans-fats altogether in our country, and corporations sure do know it!!! Trans-fats are much harder to find in foods than they were ten years ago. Large food corporations saw the writing on the wall for that one and they have gotten out of the trans-fat business fast!!!

I am the grocery shopper in our household. I don't buy a whole lot of prepared foods, but I do walk store aisles and notice trends. Remember those stickers that used to proudly proclaim "No Trans-fats!". They worked short term as a marketing ploy, but now trans-fat use is so reduced, across the board, that even these stickers are harder to find.

I love food and trust me, I have the pudge to prove it. But sadly, we are a very unhealthy nation. We have lost our taste for real foods. We have lost our ability to cook for ourselves. We have munched our way into a public health obesity crisis. Sit outside of any mall in America and just people watch for an hour. Those of us who are chubby sure outnumber those of you who are lucky enough to be slender. And have you noticed that popular food shows on tv are styled to mimic spectator sports. "Cupcake Wars" and "Cut-throat Kitchen" and "Man vs Food" do nothing to teach any of us to be better home cooks.

Our country is ripe for a food revolution and I hope to live long enough to see one.

Isn't the problem that a lot of foods that we like are ones that combine fats and sugar, chocolate, ice cream, cookies, sweets or fats and salt, bacon, burgers, sausage, chips and fries.

I read also, but forget where, that although generally the population has moved to reduced fat milk, that we are consuming more cream.

Isn't the problem that a lot of foods that we like are ones that combine fats and sugar, chocolate, ice cream, cookies, sweets or fats and salt, bacon, burgers, sausage, chips and fries.

I read also, but forget where, that although generally the population has moved to reduced fat milk, that we are consuming more cream.

Mmmmmmmmmmm!!!! All of the above items sound delicious. Here's my plate!

Yes, clearly many of us need to eat less and move more, but some things stand out as being especially bad for us. Trans-fats have been shown to be particularly detrimental to health. High fructose corn syrup is metabolized by our bodies in a manner that is particularly detrimental to health. Excess salt consumption can raise blood pressure, which can lead to a variety of health problems.

Good public health intervention might involve some taxes and regulations, all while hammering home the message that all of those yummy substances we want to eat in great abundance need to become special treats we enjoy every now and again, rather than items than are part of our daily diet. We need to change our relationship with food.

I do think that cooking at home more would help curb American obesity, but who can blame the lower-income single parent, exhausted after a long day's work, from taking the family through the McDonald's drive-thru for dinner? Poverty and a poor quality diet go hand and hand. I've seen it time and time again - preschoolers from upper middle class homes have yogurt, apple slices and gluten free crackers put in their snack bags. Preschoolers growing up in poverty show up swinging a bag of chips.

I don't know that there is any one solution that will improve the American diet. I just happen to believe that we owe it to ourselves to try putting some public policies into place, to see if they help. Smoking tobacco is a pretty addictive thing, yet Americans largely kicked the habit. Food is more complicated. We can't kick food, but perhaps we can change our relationship with it.

I recently had the pleasure of looking at some old photographs with my elderly mother. She showed me pictures of my grandparents - all slender people. She showed me pictures of her wedding in 1962. Most of her wedding guests were what I would consider to be of "normal weight", with a few people here and there who might be considered "chubby". My mother had a large wedding. There were 300 people in attendance. I did not see one person in any of her wedding photos who I would consider to be obese. Yet fifty two years later, a quick google of "CDC - obesity" landed me this tidbit taken from the Journal of the American Medical Association:

"More than one-third (34.9% or 78.6 million) of U.S. adults are obese."

I think that Angela has just found a new career for herself. She makes powerful arguments on this topic, she should take it further and become an official spokesperson somewhere :-)

Now now Chris, both of us having seen Angela's Kitchen ......

---

Yes Chris S, I am Old Fat and A Slob.

Delicious, Tasty Slime Made Me WONDERFULLY So.

I'm Stuffing my Ugly Old Fat Slobby Face right now wif som Premo Slime.

Again, Tasty.

Yep

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

... Delicious, Tasty Slime Made Me WONDERFULLY So ...

Oh Mr. Screaming Again, how lovely of you to drop in!!!

I do not post often in Politics, but I lurk from time to time and in doing so I have stumbled, again and again, upon your charming posts.

As it pertains to the contents of this thread, I am terribly concerned about your health. While I have no doubt that you get plenty of daily exercise stacking chickens and excavating tunnels under bridges, I fear your dietary habits may be negatively impacting your health status. You see, your posts consistently convey to readers a sense of discontent. I suspect that your steady diet of slime may lack sufficient quantities of dietary fiber, for clearly to be as grumpy as you are all the time, you must suffer tremendously from a state of chronic constipation.

Please know, dear Screaming Again, that as a true-blue, Obama voting, healthcare loving, atheist, feminist, destroying America from the inside out, educated elitist, pinko-commie, tax and spend liberal, I would GLADLY suffer the burden of increased taxes if it meant that you, poor dear, had improved access to government subsidized fruits and vegetables.

I haven't been following this thread so I just read most of it in one go and got general sense of the concerns.

Most people seem to agree that there are some problems with the North American diet and the way food is marketed.

Clyde provides a strangely regular counterpoint to the rhythm of the thread with cries of "freedom" and "free choice". You could almost set this thread to music with Clyde on percussion.

The free choice is an interesting argument because of course we all want it for ourselves, which sometimes (as Angela has pointed out) means restricting someone else's poor choices.

What I have noticed with moving from England to Canada is how much harder it is to actually have free choice. Its actually worse when I try to do food shopping in the US.

Why you ask? When America is such a bastion of freedom? How come when i shop in a grocery store in the UK do I have much more free choice than in a grocery store in the US?

Well I'm an avid label reader so I know exactly what I am buying. That way I can actually exercise my free choice.

America and Canada, your labelling sucks. I lost freedom when I moved here. I miss my comprehensive government regulated labelling from England that protected my freedom to choose what I fed my children.

Also, Canada, you really need to sort out the salt content in your food. It drowns out the taste.

America? Why so much damn sugar in everything? Seriously? You put sugar in foods that I never would have even suspected needed sugar in them. It does not taste nice. :(

---

Reality Internet Personality

Beautiful Hair(Hair Represents The HEALTH of The Body-Correct or No?) Said:

Please know, dear Screaming Again, that as a true-blue, Obama voting, healthcare loving, atheist, feminist, destroying America from the inside out, educated elitist, pinko-commie, tax and spend liberal, I would GLADLY suffer the burden of increased taxes if it meant that you, poor dear, had improved access to government subsidized fruits and vegetables.

Freedom and Choice, 'it' 'is' A Beautiful Thang. Now, Can I Get Back to Sucking Up My Delicious Slime? My Roots are SCREAMING fO Slime. Oh My, I Do Love Salty Sweet Soil. Sweetness.

Aah, dat's Better. A GOoD Meal Never Hurts.

Yep.

Slime Slime Slime. All The Time. Pink will Do 'it'.

Got Slime? Salt? Choice? Freedom?
Yep

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Salt, sugar, this is Canada where the government looks for things to
ban. I am no fool, I am putting myself up for the job of 'bath matt'
police. If you ride a motorcycle here you need a helmet by law, or
if you are driving in your car you must do up your seat belt. Does
any one realize how many people die in shower falls? I am writing a
note to our 'Dear Leader' Mr. Harper to help Canada to set up an inspection
agency to monitor bath matts in peoples homes. I always say: "You have to
be ready for any government foolishness. Always!"

:):)



(Way to go Gooba!)

---

AAAAAAAGGGGHHHH!!!!!

Now they want to deliver chips (french fries) from a vending machine.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jan/30/hot-chip-vending-machine-created-by-wa-company-that-believed-it-could-fry

Of course it would have to be localized for the Brits and not serve the same thing is does for the Ozzie.

---