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

In order to lower the collective health care costs, in those countries with Socialized Medicine, doesn't it make sense that the Government should legislate what people can and cannot eat?

The single most important thing which affects a person's health is the quality of the nutrition they consume

So Government should...

Ban all foods it deems unhealthy: fast food, cookies, pie, cakes, candy, fried foods, bacon, etc

Mandate all foods it deems healthy: broccoli, bean sprouts, tofu, wheat grass smoothies, etc

Require it's citizens to meet daily nutritional guidelines and maintain an exercise regimen.

Verified by weekly or monthly doctors visits and additional taxes (fines) when those standards aren't met.

Good idea or GREAT IDEA!?

These decisions shouldn't be left up to the public...because they are, in general, ignorant about what's best for them...and especially when we're talking about the collective health of Society.

In societies with Socialized Medicine, individual freedom should be trumped by the greater good, right?

And if you don't have Government-run Socialized Medicine in your country yet, but would like to, feel free to chime in with your agreements here also.

 

That's one major problem with socialized health care. It gives society itself a direct monetary interest in your lifestyle, and a moral imperative for forcing you to live a lifestyle you may not choose to live.

It's gives society the perfect excuse to enter your personal life at the deepest levels.

But hey, Security over freedom right?

 

No, you have a very strange notion of collective health care .

 

Show me 1 "socialized health care" system that does this.

 

absolutely yes! and rectal examinations every day, thought recorders, permission to go to the bathroom, nutrasweet and flouride, when to go to bed and what movies to watch.

I am sure I missed a lot of them but thats at least a good start

 

denmark has banned vegemite.

http://www.insideretailing.com.au/IR/IRNews/Vegemite-banned-in-Denmark-998.aspx

kind of.

 

This is the important point. There is no need at all to ban or restrict the freedom to choose food, and I'm not aware of anywhere where such things happen. The government can (and usually do), however, help to EDUCATE the people about what is good and bad for them (types of foods, exercise, etc.) so that they are no longer 'ignorant about what's best for them' and can make informed choices for themselves.

In the UK, for example, for some years there has been a '5-a-day' campaign running to encourage people to realise that it's a good idea for their health to eat 5 portions of fruit/veg a day. Everyone knows about it, and food manufacturers pick up on this as part of their advertising campaings to help sell products, for example:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvaDBy-EYQ4"]Innocent Smoothies Advert UK[/ame]

Most people don't actually want to be living in poor health (irrespective of the cost to the health service), so most people pay at least a little attention to such things, though most people don't follow the advice to the letter all the time, of course. There is, however, no restriction on the freedom to choose whether to eat '5-a-day' or not - nobody will stop you living on burgers, lard and cream cakes, if that is what you choose to do! You will just know that it's not good if you want to be healthy - I can't see how education for the people in such basic issues is a bad thing.

The other thing the government are able to do is put pressure (not 'forcing' them, though) on processed food manufacturers to reduce the content of certain ingredients, while educating the people so that they are aware that they shouldn't, for example, eat too much salt if they want to stay healthy. By encouraging consumer choice from an informed basis, and encouraging manufacturer to reduce salt (or other substances, like sugar and saturated fat) in their processed products, it actually increases the freedom for people to choose how much salt they eat.

Food manufacturers also rapidly find it in their interests to reduce their salt content, because the public generally want to see less salt in their foods. Consumers can then choose the processed food with less salt (or possibly a 'low salt' version of it), but then choose to add more salt if they want to (knowing that it might not be good for them in the long term). That's more choice than simply either eating the high-salt processed foods or not eating the processed foods at all. Again, I can't see how that is a bad thing - increasing public education and awareness while increasing the freedom for the consumer to make their own informed choices based on increased availability of healthier foods.

No, of course the government shouldn't dictate what people eat. They should educate people about what is good and what is bad, and help to encourage manufacturers to make sure that the healthier stuff is available for people to choose if they want to.

 

While governments are banning the food we eat, why just stop there?

Why not ban smoking, alcohol, coffee and tea, working long hours in stressful jobs, using public roads and highways, participating in contact sports, any kind of risky behaviour like extreme sports etc All of these can be (and are) detrimental to your health.

I believe technobabble has some clouded idea that countries where "socialised medicine" (I detest that term) is available, are governed by some nasty undemocratic regime (call it communist if you like), where citizens have no rights and no freedom of choice.

I've lived with a public health system most of my life, I would not have it any other way. Once you've lived in a country with public health, you'd never go back.

Also, the nice thing about public health is that you have a choice to use the system or not. You can always go in as a private patient, whether you're insured or not.

Choices, choices!!

B.S.

Most people are aware what's good for them or not,, but due to laziness, lifestyle or whatever choose to eat foods which are not the best for them.

 

Not only should the government tell us how to eat and exercise, they should basically control every single aspect of our lives. Freedom is sooooo yesterday. I am sick and tired of making all of these decisions. It would be sooooo much easier to simply be told what to do.

 

That is nonsense. An absurd idea, without no idea of the meaning of public healthcare.

All your comment is showing publicy your high ignorance.

 

Why stop at requiring them to meet a mandated exercise regimen?

Why not have mandatory daily meetings? We can start by raising the flag and reciting a pledge to the flag and our Motherland? Or we could sing? An anthem to the glory of the socialist revolution!!!

And then we could collectively take part in a morning drill with jogging and jumping jack, some aerobics and maybe a little weight training?

We can have daily weigh ins too.


*Has to happen yet but it's coming!

 

Why should I, while living a healthy lifestyle, have to share the cost with those who smoke, become obese and live unhealthy lifestyles?

Where is the motivation for saving money when you have to share the check with everyone in the room.

 

Sacrilege!!!!!!!

 

If the government pays for our healthcare, they have an obligation to the taxpayers to assure that everyone remains healthy.

Check this out.

 

It's a plot to force all british expats and antipodians out of the country

They're crafty, those Danes...

 

In the coming 'perfect Utopian society' not only must government dictate how, what, when and where citizens eat. It must dictate how, what, when and where citizens do everything. Absolute control can only be accomplished via 'absolute control'.

 

In which Utopian society people wants absolut totalitarianship? No one want that.

 

well actually ... vegemite is australian ...


since they have an australian queen ....

is it treason to ban vegemite?

 

Being Australian, maybe she banned it because she has tasted it!

 

Australians banning vegemite?

what planet are you on?

 

I don't mind Vegemite, but I prefer Marmite. Vegemite is a bit too salty and a bit too bitter. But it is nice on toast for a change - but Vegemite sandwiches - eewww!!!

 

Your premise is faulty, since in the USA, many even middle class citizens end up on government healthcare and welfare if they have a health problem and lose everything (even if they have "insurance"). Further, employers do not like to hire people with health histories and ssues because it drives up their health costs.

Since we pay pay double per person what the "socialized medicine" countries pay for health care, it is MORE important for the USA to take control of people's diets!

Your premise is even MORE ridiculous because the all the countries with "Socialized medicine" or other Universal Health Coverage CURRENTLY DO NOT control their citizens' diets in the manner in which you describe, yet have health costs half or less than ours per capita, while COVERING EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN FROM CRADLE TO GRAVE.

Since the Universal Health Coverage could cut so much out of our health care costs and budget, we would not have to worry about draconian control of people's diets as you advocate if we switched to that system.

 

Once she left Australia, she got out of range of the alien mind control devices on that continent that make people there believe that Vegemite is an edible substance!

 

The FDA also dont allow vegemite to be sold legally

reason? It is made from a waste stream in a food processing factory (ie the yeast extract removed from beer manufacturing)

 

It also makes a very good high temperature gasket sealant in diesel engines