In countries with Socialized Medicine, should Government legislate what people eat?

Socialize medicine; while you can't legislate eating habits (It would be too tough to enforce) encourage healthy eating; it'll help to keep down medical costs long term.

 

Yes.

In fact, every modern industrialized nation regulates what people eat regardless of what type of health care system is employed so the idea that governments wouldn't dare do such a thing is naive at best.

 

Please name those countries and what foods are "outlawed".

 

All of them? Surely ye jest.

Let's start with Denmark and Ovaltine. Then go and try to buy raw milk from your local dairy farmer and wait to be arrested.

 

Well, there's your problem -- you're waiting to be arrested.

Okay. So in Denmark, they've banned trans fats? I'm against that. I do think people have to make their own choices, even if they're bound to make stupid ones.

That's still a separate issue from socialized medicine, though. You can have socialized medicine without legislating food choices.

 

Of course you can. But the temptation of certain busy bodies to use the system as a reason to gain social control is just to great. Somewhere out there is basically an advocacy group that wants to ban at least one of every possible behavior or product. They are all looking for an excuse to get people to vote for it.

 

So what's stopping those people from gaining social control now?

We'll always have those busybodies. And whatever avenue exists for them to gain power over others, they'll always try to take it. So we don't let them. We establish that citizens of America have the right to choose what they eat, and we don't let anybody mess with that right.

Case in point: drug laws. The lack of socialized medicine in America has not prevented people from seeking control over other peoples' lives, specifically in terms of what they can take into their bodies.

We'll never stop having to deal with people who want to boss us around. That's a separate issue from socialized medicine.

 

Sure, it is within the realm of possibilities but why would one expect the US, a nation that already legislates food choices, to suddenly refrain from legislating food choices if socialized medicine were implemented?

My point is that ALL modern nations already legislate food choices so the argument that government would never dare do such a thing is absurd.

 

Okay. Granted. But they all do that whether or not they have socialized medicine, so assuming that we'll have more legislation of food choices with socialized medicine is ... well, it's not absurd. Vigilance is certainly warranted. But legislation of food choices is not the inevitable result of socialized medicine.

We should just stop legislating food choices. If only so I can stop using the phrase 'legislating food choices' in conversation. I'm already sick of that combination of words.

 

These fears are hilarious, given that since ALL other industrial countries have UHC and DO NOT regulate foods in the feared manner, and yet only spend half of what the USA does to treat EVERYBODY.

Even more absurd is this idea from SiliconeMagician that if health insurance was "free from the government", everyone would "just consume, consume, consume".

I can see it now! Only in America, we would hear this on the street:

"Hi, Mary! How's it going?"
"Good Joe, I just had a hysterectomy Monday, I got so tired of PMS every month! And now I save $10 very month on Tampons!"
"Good for you, Mary! I understand! I used to have constipation, but now that I get a colonoscopy every month, its no problem at all! And no need to eat bran muffins anymore, either!"

 

It's not inevitable but it is certainly a very real possibility. The argument for socialized medicine itself is "for the good of society" so regulating food choices "for the good of society" is not a huge leap by any means especially with the financial factor in the mix. That is the same logic that the government uses to put astronomical taxes on cigarettes. Higher prices to them means healthier people and lower costs to the state and is therefore justified in their minds.

I don't expect the leopard to suddenly change its spots.

 

I don't even know what "socialized medince" is.

Most European countries for example don't even have what Americans call "socialized medicine" -- notable exception is the UK. But since most Americans can't speak an other language besides English they know very little about countries where English isn't the main language. Which is a shame really.

Countries like France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, The Netherlands, etc. all have a mix.

Besides, the governement doesn't have the right whatsoever to determine what people should, or shouldn't, eat.

However, the government needs to "promote" healthy foods -- but they shouldn't legistlate to ban certain foods. But, I agree with schools banning soda's and sweets from the menu or from the school shops.

Like, the Belgian and Flemish government produces "messages of public profit" that concern food. But ultimately the choice lies with the individial.

Examples of "message of public profit" as aired on television in Belgium, but it's not only about "healthy foods" -- it's also a scheme to boos domestic consumption (e.g. Belgian meat, Belgian cheese -- if something is "Belgian" is a quality food for sure). There even is a commerical to let people eat fries.

1° "All Day Long" (message of public profit to encourage the consumption of fruits and vegatables "all day long" -- aimed at kids.)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHHZ_vC9XR0"]All Day Long[/ame]

2° Bio-week (message of public profit about "organic food-week")

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cETlxHDmGZs"]Bio-Week 2010[/ame]


3° To promote milk (this one is actually HILARIOUS!)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXI6lhWnb0c"]Milk[/ame]

4° To promote the eating of fish (this one is hilarious -- but it will get American Conservatives on their roofs!)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3JPNh1_eqI"]Eating Fish[/ame]

5° To promote the eating of Belgian ham

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYVE5KKQQkw"]Ham[/ame]

 

I some states of Australia, foods of high fat, sugar and salt content are banned from school canteens. This was put in place by the Department of Education

 

This is only normal.

However, in Belgium schools have a lot of "freedom" -- meaning that they don't get their orders from Brussels in how to manage their own school (e.g. schools over here can also go "bankrupt" if they slush all their funds or even too little students want to attend the school).

In my high school it wasn't possible to buy sodas or sweets. You were able to buy those fruit juices from Oxfam in glass bottles and they you had to go to the machine to put your glass bottle in and get €0,2 in return.

Sorry, but schools are (a) a place of education, (b) a place of public profit, (c) entirely paid for by the people -- no unhealthy foods allowed as far as I'm concerend.

I know in elementaty schools they also ban children bringing unhealthy stuff -- but in secondary school they don't.

 

No,...

Doesn't happen -- and it will not happen either.

I understand most Americans aren't that informed and are rather "slave-ish" too.

I couldn't even start to imagine if the gov tries to ban unhealthy foods.

LMAO!

The Belgian people would revolt! Seriously.

We take our food serious.

 

I have to say, I'm a little lost here with the responses this thread has gotten by some people...

We are told by the Liberal Socialists in America, the people who do want Socialized Government-run Health Care, that in order to lower the collective health care costs for Society, Government can force Americans to purchase a good/service.

Right now, that good/service happens to be health insurance.

If forcing Americans to buy this good/service will lower health care costs, then the Liberal Socialists believe Government can force it on the people...and penalize them if they don't buy it.

This was passed into law here in America.

People DO believe in this concept. It's a reality.

If you believe the Federal Government has this power when it comes to health insurance, which doesn't make anyone healthier, then why not also apply it to Food, which does??

 

Really? So stevia (honingkruid) isn't banned in Belgium? What about genetically modified foods? Fluoride chewing gum? (what ever came of that anyways? I know the EU told you guys that you weren't "allowed" to have such a ban. Did you guys cave or did you stick to your guns?)

 

You can't 'consume, consume, consume' - that is prevented because the doctors will only prescribe the treatments and medicines that are actually needed. You can't just go to the doctor and say 'give me this treatment for nothing just because I want it'! You actually have to be diagnosed with something that requires it.

 

I can see the likelyhood of banning waffles, chocolate, chips and mayonaisse in Belgium! About as likely as banning deep fried things in Scotland, or sugary things in Wales! It's just not going to happen - there would be a public revolt!

 

Don't even what "honingkruid" is to be quite honest.

The EFSA has approved the substance, but there still isn't a EU-wide approval.

 

As long as your sugary things aren't sweetened with stevia. If they are then a bobby could throw you in the nick.

 

So, Liberal Socialists, believe in this concept of "lowering the collective Health Care costs" when it comes to forcing citizens to purchase one thing...but when it infringes on something they like, then they're against it!??

who knew...

restriction of freedoms is good to Liberal Socialists, but only to a point, eh?

 

So in other words...it's banned in Belgium.

 

BTW -- genetically modified foods are way dangerous!

I know the USA is trying to bully Europeans in favour of them: but, no way Jose!

That was only one out of many relevations by WikiLeaks.

 

I have put this forward as an idea before, but developed it to prescribing foods for people on benefits.

The elders in my family talked about wartime food rationing and after the war for the remainder of their lives, they continued to base their eating habits on the five food groups constructed by government health officials during the war...i.e. the govt worked out the basic foods you need to eat in order to remain healthy. Most of these people lived into their nineties.

I don't see why people on benefits are not given the same opportunity to benefit from healthy eating guidance.

And that could be extended to the rest of us. But as a choice, not prescribed.