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

Dude,...

You are asking the opinions of non-Americans, then, please, don't use American concepts.

"Liberal Socialists" don't bloody excist.

In fact: Liberals <=> Socialists

 

Is that a scientific fact or just your feelings on the matter?

 

Yes, in some degree. As in the entire EU, except for France where they use it in Fanta Zero.

 

Scientific fact, sir.

Have to go now since I had to be somewhere like an hour ago -- I like to make a late and dramtic entry!

No just kidding!

 

sure they exist.

They're Leftists and Socialists.

In America, the Leftists are the Liberals...they are also Socialists.

ergo...Liberal Socialists.

now, let's get back to my question.

If you believe in Socialized Government-run health care in order to lower the collective health care costs, why not MANDATE what people should eat?

Surely that would lower health care costs even more...right??

You're already restricting some freedoms by having Socialized medicine...why not restrict them more, for the greater good??

 

A source you may find credible: A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001-2010)

 

Such as what? Name a few. You should have an ample list since it's done all the time.

 

It's not moral. It's financial. The gov't has to pay for everyone. Letting everyone do whatever they want and paying for every bad habit, poor diet, and risky behavior is simply irresponsible stewardship of the national tax dollar. The government would be derelict if it didn't regulate diet and exercise regimens as part of the national health care program.

 

it shouldn't stop there...

Government should also restrict Internet and Television usage...too much can be unhealthy.

It should also regulate what people view on the Internet and Television.

Too much reality tv viewing may be unhealthy. Too much YouTube use...unhealthy.

Too much FOX News...unhealthy.

Government and especially Obama and the Liberal Socialists in Congress should regulate this.

It's for the collective good of Society.

 

That's "do not regulate foods yet."

That's because you don't understand American culture. We're a nation of consumers. If it's available we want it. If it comes in a bigger size, give us two. Rather than your (I'm sure you agree) silly scenario, imagine having a maximum number of sick days, paid if the employee brings a doctor's note. Sick absences will go up, doctor's visits will go up, resultant costs for both the employer and gov't will likewise go up. Hospitals will become crowded, reducing speed and/or quality of care.

Again, wrong country. You're talking about America now, where doctors routinely give excess preventative tests to ward off any possibility of being sued. Since most legislators are lawyers, and most of their corporate sponsors are lawyers, tort reform never makes it past the campaign promise stage.

 

ANY amount of Fox news is patently unhealthy!

 

You're right, it's not a huge leap. But it's a leap. It's somewhat more than a hop, the difference between government doing something for people (at the individual's request) and government doing something to people (against the individual's will).

 

What one thing are you talking about? You lost me.

I think that actually describes virtually everyone. Even the most freedom-oriented person still believes in some restriction of freedom, and even the most authoritarian person still believes in some allowances.

I think practically everyone in this discussion is pretty freedom-oriented. The question is really over which strategy will achieve that freedom. Personally, I feel that socialized medicine will make everyone more free, 'cause when you or your family find yourselves buried under a mountain of medical debt, you're not really free.

 

If that's the only difference then it isn't even a hop, it's more of a shimmy or a wiggle. Really, not even that, it would just be a continuation of business as usual. The government already puts people in cages for consuming that which they deem verboten.

 

Nonsense.

You have Social-Liberals -- but Liberal Socialists don't excist. Liberals and Socialist are like water and fire.

It's not the government's job to force people what to eat -- it is as simple as that.

Possibly.

No, we are not restricting any freedoms whatsoever.

Freedom has a price. In this case, literally.

 

are you trying to present an argument for socialised mental health care?

 

Please explain this in common English, not some conceptual vocabulary hardly anyone understands..

 

You haven't got a clue what you're talking about!

You have never lived with a public health system so your agument is meaningless. Live with a public health system for awhile, then get back to us.

I'm not holding my breath.

 

What a twisted thought process you must have. It's not actually socialised medicine either, that's just your right wing slander of what it actually is.

Smoothies are extremely bad for you by the way, so you blew it with your attempt at categorising.

Why don't you go and find somewhere to live that suits your attitude, like Burma.

 

I agree with you janpor. Quite a few years ago in Australia, there was a grave concern about childhood obesity. A campaign hit the airways and print media warning parents of this problem. The Department of Education took up the call so unhealthy foods were banned from school cantines.

BTW,, in Australia, we don't really have a school feeding programme per se like some European countries and in parts of the USA. But children can buy food at a subsidised cost at their school. These cantines are staffed by parents on a volunteer basis, where now only wholesome food is offered. No sweets, cakes, fatty and salty food. You can't even buy carbonated soft drinks like Coke and Pepsi,, fruit juice, milk and bottled water are offered.

Most children bring a packed lunch from home or if they live close enough they'll go home for lunch. In most primary schools (5 to 12 year olds), teachers will even monitor what a child brings from home.

Some years ago, McDonalds wanted to introduce a defacto school feeding programme in some cities. It was quickly knocked on the head, and rightly so.

 

Not really,, it depends on what is in them. Here I can buy a fruit smoothies made only of crushed ice and fresh fruit and then put into a blender. No sugar, no dairy products. Just fresh fruit and water.

 

I was watching the 'Jamie's Food Revolution' thing the other day, and the owner of the fast food place was objecting to his description of something made of just milk, yoghurt and fruit as a 'milkshake', because it wasn't stuffed full of ice cream. I found that a bit odd! Personally, I'd make a milkshake with just fruit and milk, and I'd call it a 'milkshake'!

Milkshakes and smoothies are only unhealthy if they are filled with unhealthy stuff (sugar, ice cream, etc.). If they are just made from fruit, skimmed (or semi-skimmed, possibly, at a push) milk, ice/water and fruit they can be very healthy.

 

In countries with socialized care, they don't legislate what you can eat, but there are often taxes associated with certain foods that are supposed to cover some of the health risks associated with them.

Also, regulation of food content is often stricter.

This isn't always a bad thing, but it is a slippery slope.

 

We don't have "socialized" care or medicine in Australia. We have a public health system. Britain calls their's National Health Service (NHS). We in Australia call it Medicare.

I've never heard of the term socalised medicine until the recent debates in the USA.

The American right wing called it socialized as if it's some kind of boogey man as many Americans associate social/socialized with communism. Good or poor marketing from the right, depending where you stand.

 

good point.

it isn't called "socialised" medicine anywhere I have been, so you are probably right - the term is a marketing ploy by the right wing who equate any socialised, or socialism, with bogeymen.

if you can make your market afraid of it, the won't even think about whether there are sound arguments in favour of the system - or whether they themselves would benefit from it.