AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Arizona and the Fat Fine

27 4365
valkery
offline
valkery
1,255 posts
Nomad

Sorry if some of you have heard about this already, I just haven't gotten the chance to post it.

Basically, Arizona just made a law that says if you are obese and don't follow the dietary regime set by your doctor, you get fined up to 50 dollars.

  • 27 Replies
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

How are they going to tell that the person is following the diet anyways? Lose weight or we take it out of your pocket?

Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

Just $50? It's a waste of money if they are just going to use $50 as punishment. I'm not advocating this at all. However, they are spending money to promote this regulation. Arizona is just making matters worse by shocking their subjects, so to speak, instead of promoting worthwhile programs. There is a difference between forcing and encouraging. I will leave it at that for now....

Nurvana
offline
Nurvana
2,520 posts
Farmer

There are thousands of things that are hazardous to your health, why not fine $50 for all that too?

indie55
offline
indie55
608 posts
Nomad

There is a difference between forcing and encouraging.

Agree with this except that some people don't like encouragement. But then again who cares about them. If people want to be healthier then they and their families should work it out.
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

Yeah, and I work in a hospital located in a low socioeconomic status area, and well over half the people there are grossly obese. What does that tell you?


Indeed. Here in Britain we are facing a problem not far off from America's. I've moved back to East London now, and the number of independent chicken joints that have opened up is staggering, and apparnetly there's a high correlation between these chicken joints, (not other fast food ones, mind you) and poverty.

I digress, the obesity problem seems to be made up of 3 things: culture as strop pointed out, education as gaboloth pointed out and government responsibility, which I think noname was against.

The culture in England is not so aggressively individualistic. However we still have a major hangover from Thatcher. The idea that there is no such thing as community, and only individuals has its drawbacks, and the impact that idea has had on diet is worrying. My brother has a kid that goes to a local school, and one of his friends was round for dinner while I was there. He had never even seen peas or brocolli when they were served to him. Now I'm not for over prescriptive government intervention, but something is seriously wrong here.

My personal preference for solution begins with government. Provide nutritional education at a young age. This will help foster a culture of healthy eating. Which in the long term will go some way to solving the problem.

Something more extreme would be the higher taxation of fatty/salty foods and the subsidy of healthy foods. Often in Britain the cheaper the food, the worse it is for you. Families living on less that 20k a year can't afford to eat healthily, and that is a terrible indictment of society. I recently visited Sweden, where I found microwaved meals and other junk food were the most expensive meals in the supermarkets. It's no wonder they are extremely healthy. I really wouldn't mind seeing the same thing here.

I feel I've strayed too far from the OP though. This whole fining thing seems to be like trying to stop a tank with a slingshot. Fining people $50 isn't going to eradicate the problem, but at the same time, I really wish people would get things into perspective when they go accusing the government of creating draconian penalties, or turning into a fascist state. Government can be very active without being totalitarian. Accusations like that just underpin ignorance of the terms, and distract from the real problems, and any pragmatic solutions to them.
Xzeno
offline
Xzeno
2,301 posts
Nomad

This will help foster a culture of healthy eating.
Prove it. I'm serious. I want to see studies identifying at least a positive correlation between health education and healthy eating habits. Educating kids about the dangers of drugs doesn't appear to reduce drug use. Educating kids on the dangers of sex doesn't seem to curb teen sex. So why will this magically help? Not that I'm against your position, I just think you ought to consider this more.
Strop
offline
Strop
10,816 posts
Bard

Educating kids on the dangers of sex doesn't seem to curb teen sex.


I want to see evidence for this claim, because as far as I'm aware, "sex education" is generally substandard everywhere you go.

Which moves on to another point, this is probably the wrong factor to be looking at. Most of these behavioural and lifestyle factors start from the home and the family. Overweight parents generally tend towards having overweight kids, and I'm pretty sure I could find you good evidence for that.
Strop
offline
Strop
10,816 posts
Bard

I kind of agree. Self-destructive individualism is no good. I'd rather see constructive individualism. That is, rather than attempting to adopt a culture of collectivism, do what we can to become better individuals.


You'd probably have to wait a couple of generations more for the remnant fallout from the Cold War to die away. The extreme individualism and the way it interacted with the supposed threat of Socialism has left a deep impression on the greater portion of the US, so it seems. Which is related to a response I left on a thread about new perspectives on America, actually... the part where I said its history was hugely significant but what it strove to stand for and uphold was precisely the reason that its greatness lay only in the past.

the number of independent chicken joints that have opened up is staggering, and apparnetly there's a high correlation between these chicken joints, (not other fast food ones, mind you) and poverty.


There is, targeted marketing means that privately run corporations (i.e. in this case fast food franchises) will target the most vulnerable sectors. Poorer people have every single conceivable vulnerability to making poor lifestyle decisions, which is why they're generally not only more obese, but also more likely to smoke, do illicit drugs, have unplanned pregnancies etc.

If the government was looking out for people they might perhaps look into targeting the source of the problem instead of fining the individual who arguably, instead of being that autonomous being in charge of actively living their unhealthy lives, is more subject to the vicissitudes of faceless others than an American philosophy might like to have one think.
Xzeno
offline
Xzeno
2,301 posts
Nomad

I want to see evidence for this claim,
You and me both, bud 8) I had a vague memory of Firefly, you, or at least someone half-way respectable saying that in a thread about sex education (and how it sucked). I figured I'd take the gamble and hope it was Firefly. i.e., I sought only to use his conviction as evidence, as I have no real stock and the validity of the point. (8-))

As a brief aside, this is way more interesting than all the other WERP threads.

You'd probably have to wait a couple of generations more for the remnant fallout from the Cold War to die away.
No thanks. Not my style. I'd rather do what I can to try to help than wait.

the part where I said its history was hugely significant but what it strove to stand for and uphold was precisely the reason that its greatness lay only in the past.
What definition of greatness are you using? Clearly not economic or martial force alone, as well you shouldn't, but the term is vague.

instead of being that autonomous being in charge of actively living their unhealthy lives, is more subject to the vicissitudes of faceless others than an American philosophy might like to have one think.
This neatly addresses an issue that seems to creep through the core objections expressed in the OP, and other similar threads. Why is freedom restricted by the government seen as more precious than the freedom we lose to other repressors? More concrete, I suppose.

I'm an individualist. An extreme one, at that. I see the plight of the poor, ect., as exactly why we need to empower the individual more. If someone can break free of their oppression, they can make good decisions regardless of their socioeconomic plight. Rather than trying to change society for people, I'd rather give people the tools to free themselves. I'm not talking about individualism like "look out for number one", I'm talking about self-discovery, self-actualization and every romanticized, humanist platitude you've ever heard. Which seems keeping with what Strop's saying. "Tools to free themselves" is just fancy words for all the social change we all seem to clamor for. Still, I'd rather we worked towards idealized individualism than a "realistic" solution. *shrugs* I've never been accused of pragmatism.

Someday.
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

Not that I'm against your position, I just think you ought to consider this more.


I take what Strop said on board, as it's true education on health issues is generally poor. But as you say the problem often stems from the home, so the education has to counter parents ignorant of the dangers a nigh on impossible task. What I was eluding to was the fact if you start educating one generation of children, hopefully they will pass down some of this info to their kids. You have to start somewhere, or in this case, with one generation right?

Educating kids on the dangers of sex doesn't seem to curb teen sex.


In my opinion sex education should be more focused on telling kids how to have sex with contraception, not telling them flat not to. I also think they are different issues. Lots of young teens have a compulsive desire to have sex due to hormones and general emotional retardedness at that age. People don't have a compulsion to eat unhealthy food. I just think the two should be judged differently, but in the meantime I'll try and dig something up statistic wise.

I had a vague memory of Firefly, you, or at least someone half-way respectable saying that in a thread about sex education (and how it sucked)


I don't remember a topic about it, but I do remember my sex education being very bad. Perhaps it was only my perception of it though, being the juvenile delinquent I was in those days. Very plausible I said it on here though.

Poorer people have every single conceivable vulnerability to making poor lifestyle decisions, which is why they're generally not only more obese, but also more likely to smoke, do illicit drugs, have unplanned pregnancies etc.


Mmm. Regarding the chicken joint example, an innocent teen was recently shot and killed whilst in a chicken joint in a drive by shooting. A chilling validation of this statement if ever there was one.

I see the plight of the poor, ect., as exactly why we need to empower the individual more.


Our main divergence in opinion seems to be how an individual is empowered. I really like the fairly old school social liberal idea that individual freedom is meaningless if one has no economic power. For me, extensive, efficient welfare programs funded through heavy, but fair progressive taxation seems to be the only way to achieve this. A collective solution. The plan outlined in the OP - an individualistic solution to the problem, which as I think we have agreed upon, is not enough to modify behaviour in such a way as would be beneficial to individuals throughout society.

What I'm basically asking you is this. Do you think individualistic solutions can ever work and why? Mabye I think too much in terms of society and not enough of the individual, but I struggle to see many problems of this nature, that could not be better solved through government stimulation of positive societal change.
Strop
offline
Strop
10,816 posts
Bard

What definition of greatness are you using? Clearly not economic or martial force alone, as well you shouldn't, but the term is vague.


Indeed, the "greatness" referred to by that patriotic of patriotic threads was extraordinarily vague.

'm an individualist. An extreme one, at that. I see the plight of the poor, ect., as exactly why we need to empower the individual more. If someone can break free of their oppression, they can make good decisions regardless of their socioeconomic plight. Rather than trying to change society for people, I'd rather give people the tools to free themselves


On a tangential note, as a doctor working in a modern health model, I'm supposed to empower people to take charge of their life.

But if I wanted to attempt to contribute to a larger difference, I would be better off quitting and converting to public medicine.

"Social programs" is a nebulous term, unfathomable to most. You'll only tell the really effective mesures by the things that change over decades, the things that disappear without you really noticing or caring, or perhaps complain about but never quite strongly enough to reinstate them to their former glory. It's impossible to grasp all of society and articulate the state of the cultural milieu in one shot.

This thread has now settled upon the crux of the issue: if badly targeted negative incentives don't work, what actually does?
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

if badly targeted negative incentives don't work, what actually does?


A view I'm seriously considering harbouring is that culture has a far greater impact on the success on economic incentives than proto socialists would like to admit. It's a sad fact that no matter how sensible and well intentioned a government program is, time and time again positive behavioural modification has proven elusive. Just look at how long it took for seat belts to catch on after they were invented. Or indeed the more current issues of alcohol and tobacco abuse. The health and economic benefits of consuming less of both are abundantly clear. Yet, especially with the former, the cultural habit is proving a difficult one to kick.

It seems to me part of the problem is how we define if a program is actually working. I'm talking in terms of time frame. Most successful health campaigns are waged over many decades. I say governments should institute well funded education programs and let father time do the rest. Government programs will never change things overnight, and nor should they strive to. It's the short term political nature by which we judge these things which make them seem ineffective.
Showing 16-27 of 27