While
majorities of Republicans and Democrats say obesity has broad social
consequences, there are sharp partisan differences about whether the
government should have a role in reducing obesity. By a margin of
60%-37%, Democrats believe the government should play a significant role
in curbing obesity. But just 20% of Republicans say this, while 77% of
Republicans do not want the government to play a significant role. Among
independents, more say the government should not play a significant
role (56%) than say that it should (41%).There are differences within the Republican Party on this issue. Nearly nine-in-ten (89%) Republicans and Republican leaners who agree with the Tea Party oppose a significant role for the government in reducing obesity. Among non-Tea Party Republicans, 65% oppose a government role.
Not surprisingly, views on what government should do are closely linked to perceptions of what the government can do. About one-in-four adults (26%) think government policies can do “a lot” to reduce obesity and 35% say it can do “some.” Roughly one-in-five (22%) say that government policies can do “not much” and 14% say they can do “nothing at all” to reduce obesity.
Among those who think that government policies and programs can do a lot to reduce obesity, 84% want the government to play a significant role. Nearly the opposite is true of those who believe such policies can do not much or nothing at all – 83% think the government should not play a significant role. Those who think government policies can do some to reduce obesity are split: 47% think the government should play a significant role and 51% say it should not.
Clearly obesity is a big issue in modern America, with the alarming number of children and teens who are well overweight, but the issue is whether the government should step in and do something. Pew Research Center polls show that to Democrats, it is the government's issue but Republicans could care less. Do you think the government should implement soda limits or other precautions to reduce obesity? Or is it up to the individual to maintain a healthy weight? Do you think government funds would be used effectively if used to eradicate obesity? Do you think that the government could even achieve the goal of reducing the amount of people with obesity?
6 comments:
Personally, if we are to be a land where we regard civil liberties as one of the most important possessions we have, then people should be able to do what they like, provided it does not affect others. We allow people to smoke (although you have to be over 18 to buy them), go on Facebook for hours, engage in sometimes unsafe sexual activity, because as a nation we have long held that people should be able to make their own choices. If somebody wants to smoke at home alone, why should anyone else care? If somebody wants to have a Harry Potter marathon for more than a day off of Red Bull and popcorn, why should anyone else care? It only follows that if somebody wishes to gorge themselves on two dozen pancakes, a pound and a half of steak, a dozen 2-liter bottles of soda, provided they don't cost anyone a single penny, why should anyone else care? In America, we pride ourselves in giving people a lot of rope to mess with - you can post just about anything you want, believe in whatever you want, sleep whenever you want. Unfortunately, giving people plenty of rope frequently also means giving them enough to hang themselves with, but I am not willing to sacrifice my personal liberties because somebody else can't keep their mouth shut and their feet moving. Ultimately, obesity is generally a lifestyle problem, and if somebody is perfectly happy with the way they are, who am I to judge?
For me, I believe government has the responsibility to cultivate better and better societies through the legislative process. The preamble of the Constitution states that the government should "promote the general welfare," and the government should do just that when it comes to obesity. However, I take issue not with the goal but with some of the actions floating around to curb the issue.
For reasons obvious to some of you, I am strongly opposed to government action that aims to crush food establishments that many may claim to sell unhealthy food. As an example, I do not agree with taxing soda and banning happy meal toys because that to me government overstepping its bounds and trampling on business as if it were a pinata. However, I am supportive of the requirement for establishments to provide nutritional info to customers.
I think that taking action that helps inform the people is the right approach for government to take. I do not believe that it is appropriate for our politicians to take away our free will and right to make decisions, how poor they may be towards our health. A person should be able to make his own choices. However, encouraging people to make healthy decisions, such as to exercise and eat right, is an excellent approach.
I've always thought the government should play a bigger role in promoting healthy lifestyles - but Nathan does raise an interesting point about our right to live a life we please as long as we do not cause harm to others. Since obesity is a lifestyle disease, I don't think government could make a huge impact even if they wanted to, and this article (http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/26/the-best-cure-for-obesity-personal-responsibility/) makes a good point - the best cure will always be personal responsibility, given obesity stems mostly from personal choices.
Cristina's articles/polls are interesting because they highlight the partisan differences regarding the issue, and I found that almost all top ten most obese states were red states - http://www.livescience.com/27679-gallup-state-obesity-poll.html
I don't know if there is any connection there, but historically I think Democrats have been much more active in programs regarding obesity, such as Michelle Obama's Let's Move campaign to end childhood obesity.
There really isn't a clear solution to obesity, and we may clamor for one because it's such a huge problem in our country, but I really doubt there would be a widespread obesity program rolling out any time soon. For now, spreading information and education is all I think we can really do.
I completely agree with Susan that the best way to prevent widespread obesity is education. This includes having the nutritional information available and possible health complications with unhealthy food. However, I think that many people have a hard time accessing this information and/or refuse to accept these possibilities. For example, nutritional values are usually not clearly posted at restaurants, so if someone would like to know this information, they would have to ask for it. But realistically, (generally speaking) only the people who really watch what they're eating and monitor their health will ask for this information. Also, many people may know that something is unhealthy yet they eat it anyway. They still eat unhealthy food because healthy food is expensive and may not taste as good. Yet the medical bills that an obese person would have to pay would outweigh the cost of healthy food. I think that the government should play a larger role in educating the public on the dangers of obesity and promote healthy lifestyles, like offering healthy cooking classes in schools or making the nutritional information more clear and available.
Like previous commenters, I don’t think the government has the right or the responsibility to monitor a person’s eating and exercise habits. Unfortunately, eating healthily is expensive, and a sizeable portion of Americans lack the time needed for a balanced fitness regimen. Also, establishing rules for every American would take a considerable amount of manpower to enforce, all of which would be better directed elsewhere. Paige brought up the cost of an obese person’s health problems. Research shows a strong correlation between obesity and critical health concerns such as heart disease and diabetes. I am concerned about these costs down the road, especially if obesity is most prevalent among those lacking strong health coverage.
I agree with Brandon that the government should encourage healthier lifestyles--fitness, food, etc--in order to reduce childhood obesity. However, we must also consider the extent of the government's role in our lives. Personally, I would support the government's advocating for healthier lifestyle choices, and, if enough effort is put in, childhood obesity can be significantly lowered. I support some precautions, but Nathan does have a point. When do we draw the line between giving someone a nudge in the right direction and pushing them to a lifestyle they do not want to lead? Perhaps the only difference between the two is the amount of resistance needed to have your own way. Obesity is a serious problem in America, but we as a country cannot do anything until we consider the idea of occasionally sacrificing what we like for what is best.
Post a Comment