Obesity in America: How should we handle it?

[posterX]

<p>Colleges/employers could collect weight figures (as well as smoking information) from applicants and give preference to non-obese, non-smoking students/employees, on the rationale that obese or smoking students/employees will die earlier and therefore be less likely to contribute to the school/business over the long term. It's very harsh, and totally politically incorrect, but it could work. Being obese is a serious health problem. Obviously it would have to be coupled with major government-funded programs to find jobs for and help people who had those health problems lead a healthier life.</p>

<p>More seriously, the best way to reduce obesity might be to increase the gasoline tax by $10.00 per gallon and use the funds to build bicycle trails, local organic farms and invest in sustainable industries (e.g., things other than nuclear bombs and tanks). Then people would actually start walking to work and living in denser areas.</p>

[ChuckNorris]

<p>
[quote]
More seriously, the best way to reduce obesity might be to increase the gasoline tax by $10.00 per gallon and use the funds to build bicycle trails, local organic farms and invest in sustainable industries (e.g., things other than nuclear bombs and tanks). Then people would actually start walking to work and living in denser areas

[/quote]

By increasing the gas tax, you will fatten the pockets of the fed, and do nothing about the obesity problem. In case you are unaware, gasoline is an inelastic commodity. People will buy it no matter what it costs. Just like cigarettes-you can tax them to kingdom come, but smokers will continue to buy them. Bicycle trails? What would that accomplish? Cars are a faster and more efficient means to travel. Organic farms? You are not under the illusion that organic produce is any more healthy than regular produce, are you? Invest in sustainable energies? Did you think of the opportunity costs? Sustainable energies cannot even hold a candle to coal and oil, even in countries like Japan or some in the EU.</p>

[pip-pip]

<hr>

<p>Oh, PosterX....</p>

<p>I'm not saying a small-to-moderate tax to finance measures to combat obesity is necessarily a bad idea, but, eeek, you make me wince with the token "liberal" suggestions. Organic farms? We're going to get kids to go from Happy Meals to wheat-berry salad? I wouldn't touch that stuff with a 10 foot pole, and I can count on one hand the number of times I've been to la McDo.</p>

<p>As for bicycle trails, how do you suggest we get ppl who work from 8:30 AM to 6:30 PM to wake up an hour earlier to take the "scenic route". Similarly, how could we expect them to bicycle home afterwards? Considering how far most people work from home, it just isn't feasible. For a number of reasons, America just isn't set up for that. However, increasing the number of bike lanes in cities might be smarter and efficient.</p>

<p>Finally, why gas? The 67% of Americans who aren't obese are already paying more for the indiscretions of the other 33%. Why tax an inelastic commodity, as ChuckNorris pointed out? It seems that any additional tax revenue would be best applied to a more relevant good, best administered by individual states, and better spent financing incentives for responsible behavior. Imposing taxes on unhealthy foods--as ppl do on alcohol and cigarettes--may be more appropriate than a gas tax; and it is based on consumer choice. Rates of obesity vary from state to state, as does insurance-relaated legislation (and therefore premiums), and perhaps most compelling of all--everything's cheaper when you do it at the state level.</p>

<hr>

<hr>

<p>ChuckNorris:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>RE: OPPTY COST AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY:
ChuckNorris, ppl like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan (of whom I am assuming you're fond) were applauded for having some degree of long-term vision. It is possible that the long-term benefits of investment in sustainable energy would outweigh their initial opportunity cost. China is investing heavily in sustainable energy. If we do not do it ourselves, we may be buying the technology from them someday. That being said, I fail to see how investment in sustainable energy is a relevant solution to this problem.</p></li>
<li><p>OBESITY AND INCREASED HEALTH EXPENDITURES:
"Overall, employers and privately insured families spent $36.5 billion on obesity-linked illnesses in 2002, up from an inflation-adjusted $3.6 billion in 1987." Furthermore, it costs $1244 more to treat an obese person than it does a normal person. These findings are from an Emory University School of Public Health self-funded study.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>"Insurance premiums are set at the expected level of expenditures for the whole insurance pool" (Bhattacharya & Sood). The more obese people are in the pool, the higher the premiums will be. So even though obese ppl may have to make more co-pays, everyone still has to pay a higher premium.</p>

<ol>
<li>TAXES (I KNOW YOU HATE 'EM, BUT LET'S SEE HOW PAINLESS WE CAN MAKE THEM):
What if states increased taxes and administered incentives? Do you dislike state govts as well? (I personally drastically prefer them to the fed; they tend to be far more responsive.) Furthermore, it's particularly appropriate in this instance b.c. obesity (like so many other things) varies regionally in the United States.</li>
</ol>

[pip-pip]

<p>ED: <<that being="" said,="" i="" fail="" to="" see="" how="" investment="" in="" sustainable="" energy="" is="" a="" relevant="" solution="" the="" problem="" of="" obesity.="">></that></p>