The real solution to having to pay for other people's unhealthy choices is to not pay for other people's health care and just have everyone pay for their own health care.
You see those white 'things' that contain the hamburger - the top and bottom part? Those things are made from white flour, and dough conditioners, and dough emulsifiers and other additives. Why would anyone want to eat one oof those things with perservatives, that was produced thousands of miles away, and sat in a warehouse for months, when they can go to a good quality bakery, and buy a fresh loaf of bread, made yesterday, with good quality ingredients?????????
Why????????????
Someone answer that question.
Because hamburgers and cheeseburgers taste yummy....
The real solution to having to pay for other people's unhealthy choices is to not pay for other people's health care and just have everyone pay for their own health care.
How dare you question a primary Canadian value, to pay for the poor choices of others. You're inciting a shit storm with a sensible comment like that.
If the goal is to encourage people to eat healthy foods then why not lower the cost of healthy foods.
One of the reasons people eat "junk food" is because it is cheaper.
Other times it is because of convenience. Most of the time it is quicker to eat a Big Mac at McDonalds then to order an healthy meal at a restaurant...
And as someone asked earlier, please define junk foods?
If the goal is to encourage people to eat healthy foods then why not lower the cost of healthy foods.
Who do you want to do that? The government? Then we move into a communist dictatorship or we subsidize certain types of foods and we've seen the issues with doing that already.
And as someone asked earlier, please define junk foods?
As I responded earlier, "I'm certain though, that we could reach a compromise on what definitely constitutes as junk food - soft drinks, energy drinks, chocolate bars, donuts, etc."
The real solution to having to pay for other people's unhealthy choices is to not pay for other people's health care and just have everyone pay for their own health care.
oddly, I knew this woman who was a real health food night, she was terrified she'd die of cancer one day. She avoided all junk food, alcohol, smoking, refined sugars and wheat, anything toasted or BBQ'd. Of course, she got cancer. In a case like that, would we tell her to pay for her own health care? Just wondering.
The real solution to having to pay for other people's unhealthy choices is to not pay for other people's health care and just have everyone pay for their own health care.
oddly, I knew this woman who was a real health food night, she was terrified she'd die of cancer one day. She avoided all junk food, alcohol, smoking, refined sugars and wheat, anything toasted or BBQ'd. Of course, she got cancer. In a case like that, would we tell her to pay for her own health care? Just wondering.
The only thing this post reveals is your complete lack of knowledge of science and mathematics. Stunning Yes, suprizing NO. Why.......... because you have a bird brain...yuck yuck
Why wasn't the woman in this made up scenario paying for health care before she was diagnosed with cancer?
I imagine she was through taxes, her and her husband. Not like she died young, she was in her 50's, but that's still young enough.
Well, ensuring that we're referring to the same context of Tenar's suggestion,
Tenar said: "The real solution to having to pay for other people's unhealthy choices is to not pay for other people's health care and just have everyone pay for their own health care."
You asked: "She avoided all junk food, alcohol, smoking, refined sugars and wheat, anything toasted or BBQ'd. Of course, she got cancer. In a case like that, would we tell her to pay for her own health care?"
Your question doesn't make sense since this woman, in Tenar's fantasy world, would have been receiving a great deal on her health insurance since she was making an effort to live a healthy life.
It's the same as house insurance, you lower your premiums by installing a security system, installing various detectors, upgrading your locks, etc.
We probably shouldn't get too far on this though, as we're referring to a fantasy scenario while debating a tax that won't be implemented.
If the goal is to encourage people to eat healthy foods then why not lower the cost of healthy foods.
Who do you want to do that? The government? Then we move into a communist dictatorship or we subsidize certain types of foods and we've seen the issues with doing that already.
NO... I do not believe in communism or dictatorships of any sort. I do not advocate the Nanny State...
Here is a question for the Ontario Medical Association:
Should the greedy pharmaceutical industry who makes hundreds of $billions of dollars in N America - be taxed - and organic fruits and vegetables be promoted and subsidized?
I'm fairly fit, I sometimes go all out and eat fast food or foods not really healthy to eat. but then I go to the gym and work it off. Why should I be taxed? Why don't they tax people overweight? Look you're fat and need to be taxed. It's not unhealthy food that they need to go after, its peoples lifestyle. If all they do is sit and watch tv/video games then eat unhealthy, then there's your problem. Why don't we do some sort of morning exercise like some asian countries?
Your question doesn't make sense since this woman, in Tenar's fantasy world, would have been receiving a great deal on her health insurance since she was making an effort to live a healthy life.
It's the same as house insurance, you lower your premiums by installing a security system, installing various detectors, upgrading your locks, etc.
We probably shouldn't get too far on this though, as we're referring to a fantasy scenario while debating a tax that won't be implemented.
I agree, yes, the woman in the story would have been paying for health care insurance her whole life and getting a good deal on it by passing occasional physicals.
We could also implement physicals to lower or increase taxes for someone. It would make more sense than taxing just the food which is only a potential risk factor for specific illnesses.
Eating "bad" foods and being "over weight" doesn't guarantee illness any more than avoiding "bad" foods can guarantee not getting ANY illnesses. Genetics can be a larger factor in analyzing your risk for illness than what you had for lunch.
There is also no problem with eating occasional "bad" foods. Because damn it, McDonald's Fires are delicious!! The problem is eating too much bad foods combined with other lifestyle factors such as lack of exercise, that again can increase risk of illness but only for certain illness. Lots of times getting sick has little to do with what you eat.
If you eat nothing but the healthiest food(s) in the world in scenario number one you will gain weight regardless of your current weight and gain fat.
Agreed, and I've pointed this out. I'm perfectly capable of gaining weight eating nothing that would qualify as junk food. I still think education, BMR testing, and nutrition help being paid for by the health service would do far more for people in the long run. I've sustained a 2lb/week loss since the end of April - eating probably double what some 'diet plans' out there would suggest.
For me, based on my activity level, this works (barely sit at my desk during the day). It likely wouldn't work for others. Someone like myself trying to lose weight on half of what I eat is a recipe for disaster (either energy levels drop or they can't stick it).
In terms primarily with regards to weight and health problems associated with that my opinion based upon research or reading all major sources/theories and upon my individual extensive long-term varied experience, (YMMV) is in the simplified version is:
Other than from a long-term lifestyle nutritional, (everyone agrees we need good or adequate nutrition), standpoint, food's role in of itself in our health though important is overrated and misunderstood. The foods sources that provide adequate nutrition are not that important. The nutrition is the key not so much the source. As long as you are getting within a general range the right amount of nutrition, calories, fiber, carbohydrates, protein, fat, plus vitamins and minerals it matters little what the food source.
You need the proper range of calories. In other words your weight is not important unless significantly excessive AND minimally time wise over a moderately length of time.
Aerobic exercise is not necessary for good overall health but a solid regular aerobic workout is the most underrated tool to having good health and an important element of many to maintaining a healthy and attractive weight.
All though this one topic is a bit OT is certainly is related as the indirect topic here is your health: You should be aggressive in controlling your cholesterol level at recommended levels set by all of the leading mainstream organizations such as the American Heart Association other such recognized valid organizations.
A balanced nutritional diet of food in moderation and exercise in moderation, adequate and quality sleep covers most everything you need to do to stay looking good, feeling good, and being healthy. That sounds pretty simple in principle. That's because it actually is!
I'd have to disagree with that, based on personal experience. After I made significant adjustments to my diet. from a nutrient point of view. to the finer degrees of OCD attention I feel very different.
A trial run that was intended for a season has lead to a 2 year run which I haven't strayed from and in return I haven't had a common cold, flu or any other sort of malady since that day and I'm more 'optimized' now than ever before. No insomnia, more energy into the night yet I'm tired at the appropriate times to sleep, etc.
My caloric intake hasn't really changed and my level of exercise has remained the same, and other habits have remained the same as well. I tried to find alternative explanations or influences but the only thing I can come up with is that my previous diet lead to nutritional deficiencies.
I agree that a person requires the appropriate amount of calories but I disagree that nutrition is not that important. I feel they're both important and there's the possibility that optimizing a varied intake of nutrition may lead to a lower requirement of food.
I think you misread the poorly* written part of my post that you quoted from.
Regarding nutrition, I said, (rather poorly from a writing standpoint) is that nutrition is important. However, what food is the source of the nutrition is not important.
So it doesn't matter where you get your vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients just as long as DO get them. Adequate nutrition is very important.
Over the decades because of my profession before retirement I had occasion to interview on an investigative or fact finding level many people 85-100 years old.
Those in bad health lived at most to their mid-eightes with the fact that they had been in ill health for quite a few years. It showed physically and mentally.
Those that were 85-100 tended for the most part to be surprisingly healthy, spry, mentally sharp and physically pretty good too. Plus they all had one thing in common. They were thin/normal. It was really obviously. I don't recall ever meeting a 90 plus person that was clearly overweight.
Finally when they died they maintained their good health up until death or close to death and they usually died rather suddenly. In other words they didn't go through a period of obvious steady decline. The just seemed to be "programmed" like an android to have a warranty of X-amount of years, stayed healthy as an android and when the programmed time was up they shut down.
I've all ways wondered about the relevancy or connection of those circumstances that I've attempted to describe.
My experiences are similar to yours concerning weight and longevity however I do accept that could be a genetic thing more than a healthy living thing. I doubt we'll have the ability to accurately gauge that until technology advances, since the people studying would need to outlive the people studied.
You know there are many people that saying taxing junk food is a bad or stupid idea. Others disagree. I'll just say taxing junk food is not a good idea IMO. YOMV!
But I bet we all agree that there is no shortage of stupid ideas popping up all the time here and there.
Some other nominations for consideration: You can't get a soft drink larger than X amount in New York so we can fight obesity or we shut down and kill the logging industry in a large region wiping out the economy to protect the XYZ bird and its nest, etc.
Obviously the bad ideas whatever they are and where the majority agree often result in bad policies and affects us ordinary folks just trying to get by in the big game of life.
How about a policy where bad ideas result in some tax, fine or other similar form?
Maybe that would eliminate a lot of what is by consensus is considered bad or some say stupid rules, regulations, or policies.
But I bet we all agree that there is no shortage of stupid ideas popping up all the time here and there.
It's probably because we've exhausted what regular people would consider 'smart ideas' to work within our society and its having no effect. It's almost as though we're trying these hail mary ideas since people just aren't getting it...
Since at least the 50's, people have known that you need to regularly engage in calisthenics to stay healthy and have a balanced meal and then we learned the science behind 'why' and we understand the human body and food so well; yet our society is moving in the opposite direction of what our years of experience and newfound knowledge is telling us.
I almost want to throw up my hands in frustration. Typically I'd keep my opinion and advice on such topics within a small group of friends, but about 15 or so years ago I saw that a local elementary school decided to drop another day of phys-d, bringing us down to 3 days a week and I realized how these trends are affecting the future of our society. (Fortunately enough people like me encouraged enough people to have this changed shortly after.) Since then I now offer a ringing endorsement for any idea that may have a positive impact on the health of our society.
