"Fast Food Nation" by journalist Eric Schlosser

[bloviatrix]

Interesting, but naive.  You're not allowed to deny people healthcare because of lifestlye choices.  With your logic, a person with HIV should be denied care because the "powers that be" don't approve of alternative lifestlye choices.

←

Not speaking for NulloMondo, but I don't think he said he was denying care, just not willing to pay for it.

Dangerous sex isn't a part of being gay (I'm assuming it's not a choice, just who you are.) But should the rest of us pay for someone who knowingly has unsafe sex after say, 1986? We know how you get exposed to HIV. We know what happens when you point a loaded gun. My point is I don't think people know exactly what the cause and effect of eating fast food is.

I'm not speaking in absolutes here. Just thinking out loud about personal responsibility.

Can I say how much appreciate the tone of this discussion? What a nice change after seeing NBA players and fans beat each other up.

←

I realize I might not be clear either, and my analogy might not have been the best one.

I just think that stating that denying care or making people bear the entire health care cost based because of personal choices won't work. There's something elitist about it. Fast food is really cheap and there are people out there who don't earn enough to pay for healthy food (read Barbara Ehrenreich) or they live in places with no cooking equipment so their only option is to grab a meal in these places. To now say they have to pay the full freight of their healthcare costs is piling on.

[John Whiting]

munchymom,Nov 22 2004, 07:22 AM says:

Education really is the key here, and making nutritional information easily accessible is the most important first step.

It's an uphill battle. Allow me to quote from my posting in the Super Size Me thread:

The greatest volume of instruction that children get, and the most expertly targeted, is from TV commercials. They form children into mutually reenforcing pressure groups against those among them who, from their own or their parents convictions, try to hold out. And when the school meal provision joins the conspiracy, the nonconformists haven't a hope in hell. Classroom education, in the words of Marshal MacLuhan, is reduced to "a form of civil defence against media fallout".

[tryska]

i read the book, and found it to be a great read.

one would think with the mad cow scare our meat manufacturing methods would have changed soemwhat, but no. not really. and not bound to change either as long as the likes of conagra and monsanto are lobbying the hell out of this administration.

but - some things have changed - in menu options at least, especially for kids.

[AlexP]

Fast Food Nation is an excellent work. A must read. Another book that might interest somebody is Beyond Beef by Jeremy Rifkin. It makes you look at beef and food production in a different way.

I read both at the same time and I have not had a burger from a fast food restaurant since then. Actually, I have probably eaten fast food (Chipotle or United Noodles) a only couple times since then.

I wish works like these would change some of the industry practices, but I am highly skeptical. However, informed people can make change.

Alex

[NulloModo]

Interesting, but naive.  You're not allowed to deny people healthcare because of lifestlye choices.  With your logic, a person with HIV should be denied care because the "powers that be" don't approve of alternative lifestlye choices.

←

Not speaking for NulloMondo, but I don't think he said he was denying care, just not willing to pay for it.

Dangerous sex isn't a part of being gay (I'm assuming it's not a choice, just who you are.) But should the rest of us pay for someone who knowingly has unsafe sex after say, 1986? We know how you get exposed to HIV. We know what happens when you point a loaded gun. My point is I don't think people know exactly what the cause and effect of eating fast food is.

I'm not speaking in absolutes here. Just thinking out loud about personal responsibility.

Can I say how much appreciate the tone of this discussion? What a nice change after seeing NBA players and fans beat each other up.

←

I realize I might not be clear either, and my analogy might not have been the best one.

I just think that stating that denying care or making people bear the entire health care cost based because of personal choices won't work. There's something elitist about it. Fast food is really cheap and there are people out there who don't earn enough to pay for healthy food (read Barbara Ehrenreich) or they live in places with no cooking equipment so their only option is to grab a meal in these places. To now say they have to pay the full freight of their healthcare costs is piling on.

←

I personally don't see the elitism is forcing people to answer for their own actions, as long as this policy is enforced all of the way up and down the social ladder.

Perhaps denying coverage would be a tad extreme in restrospect, but I see nothing wrong with raising premiums on those who have exceedingly poor health due to smoking/excessive drinking/excessive fast-food or other junk intake. The companies could then recoupe the money lost on extra care through the higher premiums and the financial penalty over time might force some of those fast-food junkies to think about chaning their diet.

I have to disagree about anyone being forced to live on fast-food however. In the poor rural areas cooking equipment is still availible, as is generally cheap produce from the local farmers. In the poorest urban areas, where I am assuming you feel these people live, there are still welfare programs, food stamps, community kitchens, and other resources availible so one never truly has to turn to McDonalds as the only econmic means of sustenance.

[tryska]

maybe i'm some sort of socialist for thinking this, but healthcare is just not something to be toyed with or something to be stripped or used as a punitive tool.

that doesn't sit right with my conscience at all.

Edited November 23, 2004 by tryska (log)

[ghostrider]

Perhaps denying coverage would be a tad extreme in restrospect, but I see nothing wrong with raising premiums on those who have exceedingly poor health due to smoking/excessive drinking/excessive fast-food or other junk intake.  The companies could then recoupe the money lost on extra care through the higher premiums and the financial penalty over time might force some of those fast-food junkies to think about chaning their diet.

←

I see something very wrong with that notion. There seems to be a genetic factor that predisposes some people towards alcoholism. Punishing people for their genes gets into some very scary territory.

And I don't believe that there's a definitive medical test for excessive junk food intake. How would an insurer determine what a person's diet has been over the course of a lifetime?

[Hest88]

I loved Fast Food Nation, but I think it has the greatest impact on people who are already pre-disposed to ponder food issues. A person who is not already aware of the issues probably wouldn't be picking up such a book by his own volition anyway.

[robyn]

And I agree with you on your other points - my only point was once a decision has been made to eat fast food, what seems like a healthier option may not be one.

←

Sounds good to me. I don't know what Panera is but i think I assumed it was some kind of artison sandwich. I think we mostly agree on things. I was thinking a higher fat/higer cal "real" meal is more often than not a better "deal" than McAnything, nutrionally. aesthetically and spiritually.

Robyn writes:

So what food do you buy where the people who produce it are well-paid and well-off?

Farmers markets? At least it's somewhat better. UFW-picked fruits and vegetables form California?...

←

Panera is a chain - mostly soup and sandwiches.

I took a quick look at the UFW website. The UFW doesn't seem to cover too many companies. I suspect the Teamsters is a much larger player.

Florida (where I live) is pretty much a non-union state. And as labor problems mount in agriculture - the response has generally been 2-fold: 1) try to get technology to do the work of manual laborers; or 2) switch to crops that are less labor-intensive.

As for farmers markets - I don't have a problem with them - but the stuff that's grown locally where I live isn't particularly varied - mostly cabbage and potatoes. The local farmers markets tend to sell the same stuff that's sold in grocery stores. Robyn

[robyn]

Interesting, but naive.  You're not allowed to deny people healthcare because of lifestlye choices.  With your logic, a person with HIV should be denied care because the "powers that be" don't approve of alternative lifestlye choices.

←

But health insurance companies can and do charge higher premiums (or deny coverage) for people whose health profiles make them higher risk (everything from people who have high blood pressure - to people who smoke - to people who are fat - etc.). Robyn

Edited November 23, 2004 by robyn (log)

[ghostrider]

Interesting, but naive.  You're not allowed to deny people healthcare because of lifestlye choices.  With your logic, a person with HIV should be denied care because the "powers that be" don't approve of alternative lifestlye choices.

←

But health insurance companies can and do charge higher premiums (or deny coverage) for people whose health profiles make them higher risk (everything from people who have high blood pressure - to people who smoke - to people who are fat - etc.). Robyn

←

There are also legal limits on the specific medical conditions for which health insurers can deny coverage &/or rate a person. The specifications vary widely from state to state, just one of the many interesting features of our health care system.

[bloviatrix]

Interesting, but naive.  You're not allowed to deny people healthcare because of lifestlye choices.  With your logic, a person with HIV should be denied care because the "powers that be" don't approve of alternative lifestlye choices.

←

But health insurance companies can and do charge higher premiums (or deny coverage) for people whose health profiles make them higher risk (everything from people who have high blood pressure - to people who smoke - to people who are fat - etc.). Robyn

←

There are also legal limits on the specific medical conditions for which health insurers can deny coverage &/or rate a person. The specifications vary widely from state to state, just one of the many interesting features of our health care system.

←

I think it's important to point out that this only applies to individual policies not group policies.

[ghostrider]

Interesting, but naive.  You're not allowed to deny people healthcare because of lifestlye choices.  With your logic, a person with HIV should be denied care because the "powers that be" don't approve of alternative lifestlye choices.

←

But health insurance companies can and do charge higher premiums (or deny coverage) for people whose health profiles make them higher risk (everything from people who have high blood pressure - to people who smoke - to people who are fat - etc.). Robyn

←

There are also legal limits on the specific medical conditions for which health insurers can deny coverage &/or rate a person. The specifications vary widely from state to state, just one of the many interesting features of our health care system.

←

I think it's important to point out that this only applies to individual policies not group policies.

←

I think you meant to quote Robyn but not me there.