Get Ready for the New entitlement

[CarmelHP]

Before the Industrial Revolution cancer wasn't an issue because you just died.

There is exactly the same amount of cancer there has always been. People are just living long enough to die from it now.

That's correct, and obesity was less of an issue because people did hard physical labor that burned off what was eaten. We still eat as if we're going to farm or factory, but instead just sit on the couch or behind a desk.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I think it was in "Super Freakenomics" that they studied the correlation between reduced heart disease and an increase in cancer cases.

While at first blush it may appear that heart disease meds are causing cancer, the real statistic is that heart disease has been beaten back to such a point that people are living long enough to develop cancer.

If you live long enough, you'll either get cancer, or a major organ/system will try to fail.

 

[5.56'aholic]

The problem is simple, its a choice those on assistance make to buy junk food. The reasons why the stores in impoverished neighborhoods/cities don't carry fresh produce is because people just do not buy it. Fresh produce requires work to prepare and cook, something many of those in these situations simply do not want to do, which is the reason many are in the situation in the first place.

 

[5.56'aholic]

There is a reason you won't find a lot of fresh produce at urban groeceries. It's because they don't sale that much of it.

The grocery stores are simply catering to what their customers. Their customers want to buy bags of chips, soda pop, and junk food, healthy stuff doesn't taste good.

If the government wants them to eat fruits and vegetables, then they need to revamp their food stamp program and cut junk food.

missed your post. I agree 100%. Funny how our government is so worried about making everyone purchase healthcare, but not making those on assistance purchase healthy foods

 

[cncfrench]

it does not surprize me tha tthese entitlement people are obese. They do not do anything but eat from the hand of the hard working american. Maybe the communist administration should consider making these deadbeats on society get off the couch, get a job and earn their own way in life. this would be beneficial in two ways, one; the expenditures on entitlements would decrease, and two; the lazy obese people would lose weight due to having to get off the couch, which would translte intp a form of exercize by default because they would hav to get up every morning and go to work. less time to eat and watch oprah or jerry springer

 

[insanemonkey]

I don't know if I would go as far as saying I was poor growing up. I had what I needed and had good parents. We did not have much money though. We ate good food and my parents shopped smart. We had gardens and watched for sales on other foods. Pop and chips and other junk were not a huge part of my diet. I think the whole problem goes back to taking responsibility for your self.

 

[cobber]

November cannot get here too soon.

Yes, but how will we feel in December?

 

[rambone]

Before the Industrial Revolution cancer wasn't an issue because you just died.

There is exactly the same amount of cancer there has always been. People are just living long enough to die from it now.

I have trouble swallowing that. That's like saying an increased exposure to carcinogens has no effect. Today Americans live more sedentary lifestyles, eat worse diets AND are exposed chemicals every day in their foods, drinks, medicines, cleaners, etc. People eat high fructose corn syrup in every meal and wash it down with artificially sweetened drinks. Parents are told by doctors to inject carcinogenic chemicals into their infant babies and repeatedly throughout their childhood. Even the tap-water is laced with chemicals.

I have to believe that there is more cancer today than ever before.

 

[J_Wales]

Yes, but how will we feel in December?

I suspect much like the guy forced to take ****ty or ****tier.

Without somebody like Paul, the decision will be based on which piece of **** son of a ***** can do the least among of damage until somebody like Paul is in place or a secessionist movement takes hold.

 

[radonc73]

50 years ago 60 was a full life now it is,just the start.

 

[hooky]

I pledge allegiance to the government...
...with dignity and food justice for all.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I have trouble swallowing that. That's like saying an increased exposure to carcinogens has no effect. Today Americans live more sedentary lifestyles, eat worse diets AND are exposed chemicals every day in their foods, drinks, medicines, cleaners, etc. People eat high fructose corn syrup in every meal and wash it down with artificially sweetened drinks. Parents are told by doctors to inject carcinogenic chemicals into their infant babies and repeatedly throughout their childhood. Even the tap-water is laced with chemicals.

I have to believe that there is more cancer today than ever before.

There very well could be an effect, but the available data is still coming in.

In the 1940s, life expectency was only about 60 years old. In the '30s it was even lower.

Furthermore, we have no idea if they died from cancer, liver failure, or heart disease. When you died you got a funeral, the end.

We really don't have any good comparative data, to make an educated guess about cancer rates pre and post industrial revolution.

Perhaps one day when there are no more airborn particulates, and no more chemicals in food, we'll be able to make the call.

I have no doubt that mercury, sulfur, etc floating through the air, and all kinds of what-not in our foods aren't helping. How much are they hurting compared to before? That's the $1M question.

Bottom line is that when people are living to be 80 years old, there's a really good chance they're going to be diagnosed with cancer, heart disease, diabedes, renal failure, alzheimer's, dimentia, etc etc etc.

 

[IndyDave1776]

An activist without a cause is even less useful than a salesman who lacks a product to sell. This is why activists are so good at inventing causes and convincing at least a strong plurality of people that these causes are worthwhile.

 

[Mike H]

I saw where Coke & Pepsi are changing their formulas so they will not have to label their products as cancer causing. I too think that cancer is more prevalant due to processed food and lazy lifestyle.

 

[Boiled Owl]

How about growing food on vacant lots? Maybe some "mindless" gardening would be in order? Maybe the USDA can create a program, so they won't have to spend $5 on seed?

.gov has done a awesome job of creating dependance. Kudos!

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Not arguing for entitlements...but you can be obese by lack of "quality" food. You can be poor and maybe not afford much food. What you can afford is the cheap food. The cheap stuff is the worst food to eat. High in carbs low in nutrients. Eating healthy is EXPENSIVE. Again, I am not saying this should be an entitlement just saying that the cheap food will kill you in the end. Fresh produce is expensive and has a short shelf life even though that should make up the bulk of your daily diet. I shake my head every time I go food shopping and see the "food stamp" shopper ahead of me that has a cart full of cheap junk food...gross.

Denny, I'm not going to wait to see what others have said upthread. Have you ever seen a Vietnamese peasant? Or a Japanese fisherman? Or seen the average Indian low-caste? They live on cheap food and don't get fat. Our obese population, for the most part, makes poor food choices!!! And they don't get enough exercise to burn off the calories they take in. There may be a small minority of folks whose problem is glandular, rather than lack of exercise and poor diet, but it isn't the lack of available good nutritious food that's the problem.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Before the Industrial Revolution cancer wasn't an issue because you just died.

There is exactly the same amount of cancer there has always been. People are just living long enough to die from it now.

You can make that statement, but I'll bet you don't have any factual evidence to prove it. The unhealthy, uncontrolled growth of cells wasn't recognized as "cancer" until the twentieth century, I believe, and its onset has almost certainly been increased due to the increasing variety of chemicals to which we've been exposed.

 

[Denny347]

Denny, I'm not going to wait to see what others have said upthread. Have you ever seen a Vietnamese peasant? Or a Japanese fisherman? Or seen the average Indian low-caste? They live on cheap food and don't get fat. Our obese population, for the most part, makes poor food choices!!! And they don't get enough exercise to burn off the calories they take in. There may be a small minority of folks whose problem is glandular, rather than lack of exercise and poor diet, but it isn't the lack of available good nutritious food that's the problem.

I should have qualified my statement ...OUR cheap food...aka junk food. We are the masters of the deadly foods. It is a bit more complicated than just exercise more. Like you said, poor choices are really the problem. However, talking from experience, knowing what is truly healthy is quite a challenge. Many people trust what the advertisers say is healthy. Look at all the adds for kids cereal. They are quite tricky in their advertising. Just remember...no matter how many nutrients that have...sugary breakfast cereal is NOT good for kids. Low fat is not "healthy"...they replace the fat with carbs...yummy. "Diet" anything in NOT healthy. "Low calorie" does not make it healthy. "High fiber" does not make it healthy. We fatten our chickens, cattle, and swine with grain. We fatten ourselves with the same recipe.

 

[Expat]

I come from a history of poor people. They all had big gardens to feed themselves. They ate what they grew. They ate a lot of pinto beans, fried taters and greens. Traditionally they were very thin people. Now most of them are much heavier. They don't have gardens because they get government assistance and buy the cheap processed foods. The assistance moved them from a healthier diet than what they had.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I take the position that nutrition (or lack thereof) is a principal cause of such problems. I would say that the point at issue is that we have another brainless bureaucrat threatening us with yet another over-funded, ineffective program which will be capital-intensive on the front end before it can be proven ineffective for the stated purpose (although perceived as helpful toward the true goal of reducing automobile use) which we cannot afford, and will function at a level of complexity and inefficiency which would have made Rube Goldberg proud.