Ivan and Crux have it right.
The assertion that 'food abuse' is at play is, of course, patently ridiculous. Suddenly, America has become a nation of 'abusers'? Classic prohibition rhetoric. The idea that 'something needs to be done' is also questionable. Really? Why?
The idea that food labeling is unnecessary while preaching personal responsibility is similarly ridiculous. "Manage your calories and nutrients properly, citizen, but food producers shouldn't have to disclose either." Now THAT's empowerment. "Oh, but labeling hasn't worked!" Yes it has...just not for those who don't read them. No policy works for 100% of the population. Thank you Ronald Reagan for the bullshit concept of zero tolerance! Your idiotic supplicants are still preaching it.
The worst idea presented yet is to give insurance companies, which have served the public so poorly to date, more power to deny coverage and fleece the public by giving them more control over our personal life choices. Smoking is a relatively unidimensional issue: No amount of smoking is good for you, and the studies on its health effects have produced starkly apparent results. Hence, it's probably appropriate that insurance companies charge smokers more.
Interesting, this same poster managed to slip a little bullshit propaganda about how a single payer system would do exactly what he's proposing private insurers should be able to do. A single payer system would maximize the amortization of everyone's health care costs, remove 18% extra we pay for administrative overhead, and maximize buying power (all basic free market principles - funny how often I have to teach Rfucks about their own religion) resulting in the lowest price for everyone and therefore eliminating the need for any institution, private or public, to micro manage any individuals daily lifestyle choices.
Obesity is another matter. First, there are really no 'bad foods'. Is lard bad? Not really, unless you eat a full tub of it regularly...which you probably could do if you were an avid marathoner.
And take congestive heart failure. There are five major risk factors (the largest two being smoking and genetics, not obesity, BTW) that determine propensity for CHF. To minimize premiums for everyone, insurance companies should deal with teh two most important factors, right? First a) ask about smoking (they do), and b) analyze your DNA and charge accordingly. No privacy issues there, eh? Fair is fair.
Oh, but people have no control over their DNA, sooo....
'Charging for obesity', in practice, would be a highly invasive clusterfuck. "you told us you weighed 190, but your required 6 month weigh in last year (which you must do and pay for to keep coverage) put you at 200...sorry...we're not paying for your heart attack." Awesome idea. Certainly, insurance companies wouldn't use that to screw consumers to maximize profits. Couldn't possibly happen.
All these ideas, whether from the far left or far right, are punitive in nature, and reveal more about their proponents that they inform the debate.
The obesity epidemic has been slow in onset, like obesity itself. Eating an extra 3500 cal will gain you a pound of fat. Eat 200 extra calories a day (one piece of toast w/ butter, coffee, and a little milk, an 'energy' bar, or two grapefruit - doesn't really matter) - and you'll more than a pound a month. Food abuse? Give me a break.
Americans are more sedentary at work (and that's gonna continue), and rest (more screen time). Sugary foods, drinks in particular, are at hand everywhere now. The combination has produce predictable results.
I would guess that the obesity epidemic is already peaking. Awareness about what's in our food and how it's produced in growing rapidly - empowered by mandatory food labeling, which is extremely popular with consumer and absolutely essential for 'personal responsibility' to mean anything. In addition, mobile devices, the web, and a national database of food label information has given individuals the capability of measuring their intake and burn and thus get healthier. The tools are now there, for the first time, to do that in a fast, on the fly, convenient way.
Robust food labeling has enabled a growing percentage of Americans, no pun intended, to take charge of their health and their impact on the environment, animal welfare, and economic justice. The more robust the better: the infrastructure is already in place, so it really doesn't cost food producers jack shit to comply with more comprehensive labeling these days. They just don't want to for obvious marketing reasons.
Those consumers who care should know if a food is GMO, if a chicken is factory farmed (horrific), free range (absolute smokescreen bullshit for the former), or pasture raised (not bullshit - more omega 3's in the final product, etc.). They should be able to determine whether it's natural, organic, or factory. They should know if it's free trade or not, and that that designation is actually meaningful - all in addition to the caloric/nutrient information already provided.
The ideology, and that's all it is, that food producers should be somehow exempt from disclosing what's in their crap and how it's produced neither fits with a philosophy of personal (but not corporate????) responsibility, an informed population (DEFINITELY NOT on the republican agenda, considering how much they obviously despise public education).
My proposal? Add more robust labeling for that growing number of consumers who benefit (greatly) from it, mandatory nutrition education for kids, mandatory sports for kids (you're gonna do a sport, fatty...so pick one), and increased public education for adults on nutrition. Individuals (who generally would prefer to be healthier than not) and the free market (with a whole raft of new mobile based health management tools and a fantastic variety of healthy food choices) will do the rest, to the extent it's going to happen.
Of course, mandatory sports for kids would require funding more than just one sport per season (don't like track? Fuck you, kid!)...something Rfucks are always loath to do.
I also question the whole popular wisdom that 'other fat people are costing me money'. It's the old 'whack a mooch' fetish, popular among tea baggers and progressives alike. Often repeated...and very questionable. Since fat fucks die younger (they do) it's likely that, in the end, they actually cost us all less.
What's really at work here is that fat people disgust us, and the punishment junkies here would enjoy getting their pound (or 50) of flesh rather than enabling fatties to get healthier should they choose to do so. The tools are mostly in place already for that to happen, but, like all slow, long term trends, it's gonna take some time.
Be patient, manage your own fucked up life, and STFU about the legal lifestyle choices others make.
End of Manifesto.
