That is not true at all. I live in and with a system with universal healthcare and I don't know anybody who feels or behaves the way you just described. Nobody wants to get injured or sick, they just do. Canadians are a very healthy and active people who worry about their health. What you just wrote is not true at all, in any sense.

The problem with universal health care is the cost. And it is the same problem with private health care. As our societies have developed the cost of health care has risen due to new methods, technologies, etc... But the amount of people requiring health care has not really changed, except in cases where technology has allowed for diagnosis and treatment where there was none before.

This topic is not about universal vs. private health care. It is about the ability of the government to regulate the food industry, within reason.

Nobody has yet explained to me why the government is allowed to ban the use of things that bring harm to people in other facets of society, like lead in gasoline, but transfats in your twinkie are untouchable.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

I only said they would not be as interested in keeping themselves healthy. That's all. I didn't say they would strive to get hurt. If I got my tires fixed for free, I wouldn't go looking for nails in the road. It is still a hassle to get my car to the repair place, it's just that I won't evade them as much/wouldn't worry as much about it.Why are we not allowed to use analogies?Yes, I did. Using lead in gasoline might harm the environment and people who live in it who are not necessarily buying and using the gasoline. It also harms the person driving. Eating a twinky ONLY harms you. It's not like eating it releases toxic fumes that harm others. That is the difference. In one case, you are harming YOURSELF only, in the other you are harming OTHER PEOPLE.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Also, if you support banning trans fats, do you also support the drug ban? How about supporting a total ban of all alcoholic and and tobacco products? Sweets, too? What about banning unhealthy/inactive lifestyles?

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

I know. And you are wrong. Most of Europe and Canada practice universal health care, and we are much healthier than americans.
Yes analogies are fine. But i think comparing my body to a tire is a false analogy. I subscribe to a certain stoicism in my life where is some inanimate object is broken i shrug my soldiers and say who the fuck cares, i can replace it. I do not treat my body anywhere close to this.

So you disagree it harms you by upping your health preimiums because of all the preventable coronary diseases that have to be treated? I disagree that it does not harm you, i think you just won't admit it.

Besides, there are carcinogens banned in the food industry that, if we ignore higher health premiums, only hurt the people consuming them. Why do you think they are banned?

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

I would support a ban against cigarettes, definitely. (and i smoke). Cigarettes serve no purpose at all, other than corporate profits. Let me state it more properly though, i would ban the manufacture and sale of cigarrettes. If somebody wants to grow their own tobacco and make their own smokes, that is their choice.

I would not support a ban against alcohol. Alcohol has a function, and is not necessarily harmful, it has been shown to be beneficial in some circumstances. So while alcohol can certainly lead to harm, it is not necessarily harmful, ans so people can choose for themselves.

Transfats are needless, they are lethal, and there is a healthier alternative.

This is not a discussion about banning people from making choices, this is a discusision about banning corporations from using proven lethal ingredients in their products. Ingredients that have no benefit, have alternatives, and are only used to increase profit.

Education is not enough when it has to go up against corporate power and advertising. There needs to be a ban.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

It is logic that dictates that when repairing something is free instead of paid per usage, the incentive to avoid damages decreases. The type of healthcare is not the only difference between Europe and USA, you know. You might just have a more healthy environment regardless of the fact. If it costs more to treat yourself, that is MORE incentive (not the ONLY incentive) to take care of yourself and have more money. This is not rocket science. This is simple economics.In the case of universal healthcare, it is the government that is harming me on behalf of the person. If I use lead, I am harming others directly by releasing it. However, if your argument that the government should restrict dangerous activity because public healthcare exists, then I suggest we ban all dangerous and unhealthy activity altogether.Overreaching politicians and idiot voters, probably. The only thing that should happen is force the food manufacturers to label the products as containing carcinogens.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Why do you oppose free market so much? Why am I not allowed to harm myself if I want to?Heroin has also revealed to have certain benefits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin
Smoking, too.
http://g2public.library.ucsf.edu/tob...l/13300/13328/


Isn't that already a benefit? If it makes the food cheaper? Why don't we force every company to only make products out of the most expensive materials?Maybe not for people who need the government to be their mommy. This is just an excuse to force business to improve their products by people who are too lazy to boycott it. If you don't like the product, DON'T BUY IT. The business has no obligation to improve their product because you don't like it, only the want to improve it if people refuse to do business with them.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

In situations like these, it is no longer "Give me liberty or give me death". It has turned into "Give me cheeseburgers, but don't give me any of the responsibilities that come with liberty. And a side of fries."

With a well informed and educated populace, I think businesses would not stand against it for long, to be honest. How could they? FORCE us to buy it? Not likely. Slon's last post was right. I will use myself as an example. I see dozens of ads for unhealthy crap all day. However, I am what I would call on the average of being informed (just to be fair) and am able to say no -- and I used to eat that junk! Self-educating goes a long way.

Here's a scary link: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/

__________________
Only a liberal would know how hard it is to get a nicotine patch to stick to a monkey.

Ive decided that not having a ban on trans fats actually reduces mty freedom and my choice.

Now, if i care about my health, i have to eat like an ascetic. If trans-fats (and other poisons like them) are banned a whole world of delicious choices are open to me.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

So, basically, you are in favor of having the government force companies into making products that YOU want to eat because you are too lazy to boycott the goods you do not wish to use.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

No. I dont wish to trade government regulations for corporate abuse.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Andrew, if you don't want to buy their product, don't. It's that simple. You don't need the government to hold your hand and force them not to sell the food.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

I am curious - is there anything in which the 10 of you do NOT think the government should be involved?

For pete's sake, government is not supposed to be your fucking mother. Learn how to make your own choices and stop expecting someone else to do it for you.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

That is too much to ask of them.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.