It's funny my schools had the sugary snacks to purchase and eat. But due to rules at home and the way i was raised I didn't partake but every so often. I didn't get heavy until I was older and started sitting all day at work. And by heavy I am 245 lb ATM and over six foot so not really bad. Start a new gym work out tomorrow . Am excited.
Anyhow maybe the healthy eating habits should be instilled in the home by parents active in their childrens lives. And not government.
And +1 on finding the local fresh produce and non processed meats also.
I was raised the same way and don't really care for sweets, but it is getting harder for parents to actually find anything that isn't loaded with sugar. Also, when you consider that most of these health problems caused by poor lifestyle choices almost directly cause tax payer strain - I think it should be taxed accordingly. There are A LOT of people on medicaid and medicare due to their inability to work related to their poor lifestyle choices.
I agree that the government should have a limited role, but one of the government's roles is to attempt to protect its citizenry. The government protects us from lead paint - why can't they protect us from unhealthy food (which is related to unhealthy being cheaper). I don't think this stuff should be illegal, but just like tobacco - enjoy it fine, but pay for it as well.
Lots of political threads today
Maybe they could do some tests when I'm born and plan my entire nutritional life along with appropriate activity for my well being and school and work. This way I can have no personal responsibility and live the way the is deemed best for me.
Or better yet, when you have that heart attack at 41 years of age due to irresponsible health habits and then end up going into heart failure due to losing that much cardiac muscle and then losing your job due to the inability to climb two steps without becoming short of breath and then losing your health insurance due to your inability to work and then your spouse cannot pick you up on her insurance due to pre-existing condition clauses (these still exist) and then you cannot work and cannot provide for your family or buy the medications you really should be taking and then you expect the government to pick up your bill why? ::gasps for air::
Now the US life expectancy plummets because the government doesn't think it should pick up the tab on your mistake (I wouldn't) and you die at the ripe old age of oh... maybe you make it to 43. Heck, lets let ER's refuse treatment again so if you don't have insurance and you can't provide payment up front - you will probably die at the age of 41 and a half due to an episode of flash pulmonary edema secondary to your worsening heart failure secondary to your inability to afford medications secondary to your inability to work or maintain health insurance.
Instead of creating a thoughtful post you go straight to an extreme like that of Gattica - Brilliant! Do you become this melodramatic about seat belt laws and speed limits, or is it just the taxation of high fructose corn syrup mass marketed in today's major food stores?
My buddy and i argue this same point all the time. But recently we figured came to a conclusion. I am on the side of free market w/o the gov. being in it and he is on the side of a more socialized medical plan. We both agree though that this half in half out crap is making everything worse, they need to either be all in or all out. I prefer all out but if the country chose to have an all in system thats that. Though i highly doubt either or would ever happen.
As to the other point ya we do have same end goal, and the only way to promote personal responsibility is education imho. when presented with a situation where you can do what you want and know that someone else will foot the bill its easy to make the bad choices. So the other side would be to stop hand outs. That won't happen but we could put more limits on them to maybe spur rational decisions. But maybe thats just hoping in the end.