Obesity and Public Policy - will ever the twain meet?

Ran across an interesting article in the paper - a study was done where people were polled on what government policies they would support that were geared to control obesity - check this out:

• Provide individuals with tax credits for gym membership and nutritional counseling. 49.3 percent supported.

• Prohibit all high-fat, high-sugar food advertising on media watched primarily by children. 52.5 percent.

• Require grocers to add surcharge to high-sugar, high-fat foods and use those revenues to decrease prices of fruits and vegetables. 29.2 percent.

• Impose a tax on junk foods similar to that imposed on cigarettes and alcohol. 28.4 percent.

• Require health insurers to charge higher premiums on policyholders who are overweight or fail to exercise regularly, allowing them to reduce the cost of policies for everyone else. 24.6 percent.

So - what are your thoughts?  Do you think the government should step in and attempt ANY regulation - and what's too much or too little if they should? 

I would say yea to the higher premiums - but some insurances don't provide adequate obesity treatment - so how can you charge for something you won't treat?  and the junk food tax is a little 'iffy' to me - I don't know if Oreos should cost more than apples just cause......

So - what are your thoughts?????

I'd say "hell to the no Bobby" ( just on principle) against any government regulation as to what I do with my body. That's the one area that I alone have a say so. I'm willling to suffer the consequences of my own choices.
Hell, I hated when they required that everyone would have to wear seatbelts. I can see it applying to children, but I'm an adult.  Educate me, and then  if I want to go flying through the windshield in a crash, so be  it.

Hmmm - interesting response.... ok - if not regulation, what about incentivizing?  I.E. the tax credits for gym memberships and whatnot. 

and on the seatbelt thing - can't go with you on that one - what if YOUR flying through the winsheild land your dead ass in MY belted in body in my vehicle and injures ME?  Naw - that ain't right!  LOL  

the government is into more than what they should be in, already.

I say NO to goverment regulation of obesity.  They regulated enough stuff which they can not handle. 

Incentives are a great way to encourage people to do the right thing, but who's going to pay for all of that? I hate that the government provides incentives ( money) to women to take their babies for check ups, etc. They  should do that just because. Why should I have to pay  somebody who probably already is dependent on the system to take care of their child?
On the other hand, I know that while everyone dumps on the poor for receiving handouts, rich folk and corporations maintain their wealth through government handouts.  The recent bailout is just the tip of the iceburg.

By the way, should I fly through the windshield, I'm less likely to cause severe damage since I've lost weight. lol

you wrong for that windsheild comment - WRONG!!!!  LOL 

I can get with the cutting back on children's advertising...we don't sell cigs to them, so why sell other killers?

I dont know about a surcharge on "high fat/sugar" foods, but then again, see my response to #1 on cigs...those are taxed at higher rates for being a "luxury" item, but we all know that modern tax increases are based more on the negative press surrounding them than the fact that they are not necessities. People still choose to buy them, despite the heightened costs...i can't imagine ppl wouldnt do the same with the snacks they crave. I pay more for Haagen-Dazs than i will for store brand...choose what you want...but pay the price. This could help with the poor being able to purchase these items (in relation to Ro's post about public assistance/poverty related obesity)

And i would have to say no to insurers increasing premiums....after all, the cant determine who might be a severe alcoholic, incurring thousands in liver related or substance abuse treatments. Or those who may engage in risky sexual/drug behaviors, ending up with AIDS, Hep C, or even "run of the mill" STD's that require treatment. Suppose that bmi scale from the 40s was the standard...how many "fit" people would still be overweight? suppose i had a separate condition (e.g. thyroid disorder or lymphedema) that caused weight gain...penalized for that before the condition may be diagnosed/discovered.

nutritional counseling/gym membership tax credits: everyone can't afford or have access to these things. even if we leave out the economic factor, suppose i enjoy rock climbing or hiking, leaves me plenty fit, but doesnt require me to pay anything...or if i live in a rural area without a gym nearby but work on my farm/walk a lot, etc... I think that then might lead to a subsequent rise in the cost of memberships as well...as the proprieters try to sell the fact that there is a tax credit...putting this access even further out of the reach of many. But it's not altogether a bad idea...just unfair...but America claims equality, not fairness.

I dunno...hard thing to think about...i do think that weight loss/obesity treatments should be covered a lot more by insurers, its just good business sense to me.

I feel you on WLS should be covered.... what about a government plan that would offer it?  Do you think THAT would be too far?

LOL well my govt plan DID offer it...my medicaid paid for everything. I think the question you are asking leads us further than obesity--into nationalized health care. I would have the govt cover WLS if other medical treatments arent covered for all.