[Hydrogen]

Hurt? Actually I laughed. You committed such an obvious act of faulty reasoning while pontificating about skills in education. It worked well to undermine your (supposed) point, afransen.

You're not really up on the analytical approach to clarifying definitions, are you? Sorry to have challenged you with a question beyond you capacity.

 

[Roy G Biv]

I'd be careful about implementing some sort of fat-tax. Setting the parameters could be a logistical and legal (and moral?) nightmare. I have no problem with new legislation being used to "push" towards a more fit population, but I'd like to see it targeted at producers and not consumers. We need less corn syrup and bad fats, and more whole grains and good fats in readily available (and more importantly, affordable) food products. You can't have a single-tier universal health care system while allowing complete freedom in food choices. If the payer can reduce risk, they should (yes, I see how this line of thinking could be applied to motorcycle riders etc).

Let's make it harder to get fat.

 

[afransen]

Hurt? Actually I laughed. You committed such an obvious act of faulty reasoning while pontificating about skills in education. It worked well to undermine your (supposed) point, afransen.

You're not really up on the analytical approach to clarifying definitions, are you? Sorry to have challenged you with a question beyond you capacity.

I don't feel like humouring you. You are obviously in a mood to be an insufferable jackass, and nothing I say could satisfy you, so why should I waste any effort?

 

[afransen]

I'd be careful about implementing some sort of fat-tax. Setting the parameters could be a logistical and legal (and moral?) nightmare. I have no problem with new legislation being used to "push" towards a more fit population, but I'd like to see it targeted at producers and not consumers. We need less corn syrup and bad fats, and more whole grains and good fats in readily available (and more importantly, affordable) food products. You can't have a single-tier universal health care system while allowing complete freedom in food choices. If the payer can reduce risk, they should (yes, I see how this line of thinking could be applied to motorcycle riders etc).

Let's make it harder to get fat.

I think it's more authoritarian to outright ban foods than to provide financial incentives not to consume them. I'd be in favour of prohibiting certain kinds of advertisements and requiring disclosure of nutritional information in restaurants (which would be a huge improvement over the status quo), but telling people they can't have deep-fried mars bars or whatever seems a step too far.

 

[kEiThZ]

I think its just harder to administer tests with adults. It also brings up the issue that Hydrogen raised. How do you define and assess fitness?

In the case of students though it's relatively easier because we can do what generations before us have done and what school systems the world over do: define fitness by a certain level of athleticism. For example, if you consider the test employed by the military this is exactly what happens. The military has taken common tasks required of all military members and translated them into athletic criteria (push-ups, sit-ups, run times, etc.) that would define that individual as fit for the job. Police services, fire departments and combat units in the Army do things differently. They often use obstacle courses, weighted marches, timed carries, etc. to test fitness. Either way the effect is the same. It requires a certain level of athleticism to complete. And it defines you fit for the job.

If you want to test students for fitness, perhaps kinesiologists can design fitness tests to assess basic athleticism in the same way that they do for military members. Personally, I don't think the military standard is all that onerous. And even most chubby high school kids would be able to pass with a sincere effort. So I would save the research effort and use that bar.

The other option could be require gym class every year in high school or mandate after-school sports. That would require a lot more resources though. Setting the bar and letting kids figure it out is far easier. They could stay fit how they want. No need to spend time at after-school intramurals if you prefer playing basketball in the driveway or riding your bike.

 

[afransen]

I think its just harder to administer tests with adults. It also brings up the issue that Hydrogen raised. How do you define and assess fitness?

I agree that defining fitness for a wider range of ages is more challenging, but no different that assessing fitness for a particular age, or for particular occupations. He seems to be suggesting that the measurement of fitness is a novelty, which it is not. Whatever test is used seems incidental.

 

[Hydrogen]

Any test for fitness is not merely incidental, it is a product of assumptions about what fitness is presumed to be - and this is something you don't want to see.

You are attempting to appeal to some quality which is indefinable. You've run into a definitional fallacy and refuse to see it. There is no such thing as fitness; there are assumptions, constructs, beliefs and prejudices about what fitness is. Nothing more. You can't define fitness because you find it impossible to give objective meaning to an indefinable property.

Any notion of fitness is an artifice, and the artifice of one person (or society, or generation, or organization) may differ considerably from another.

 

[afransen]

You mean we have no public policy based on arbitrary measures?

 

[Hydrogen]

Of course there are arbitrary measures. It's a rather silly question to ask. The real question you ought to be asking, however, is why certain arbitrary measures are selected in the first place, and others are not. You might want to consider the actual problem of accepting arbitrary measures rather than just assuming that if such a practice exists somewhere, its always okay.

Any measure of fitness is arbitrary, so constructing tax policy or school leaving regulations on the basis of an undefined property leaves it to work as a prejudice because it assumes all persons are the same and ought to function at exactly the same levels. You might want to assume that being able to do 50 push-ups constitutes fitness, but it really means being able to do fifty push-ups. You might also want to assume that a blood cholesterol of a certain level suggests a quality of fitness, but what if the cholesterol levels of a person who eats what is defined as a "healthy" diet is higher than that of a person who doesn't?

Since the notion of fitness is arbitrary, it's also adjustable. Some people who may once have been considered unfit can suddenly be made fit through tweaking some variables (or the reverse). These individuals can only hope that they had not been penalized by some silly tax policy or school-leaving regulations in the meantime.

Tell me this, who would you see doing all this policing over the bodies of people?

 

[Roy G Biv]

I think it's more authoritarian to outright ban foods than to provide financial incentives not to consume them. I'd be in favour of prohibiting certain kinds of advertisements and requiring disclosure of nutritional information in restaurants (which would be a huge improvement over the status quo), but telling people they can't have deep-fried mars bars or whatever seems a step too far.

Well, trans-fats are basically akin to poison, and currently, chefs are not allowed to pour anti-freeze into a chili con carne....

 

[afransen]

Of course there are arbitrary measures. It's a rather silly question to ask. The real question you ought to be asking, however, is why certain arbitrary measures are selected in the first place, and others are not. You might want to consider the actual problem of accepting arbitrary measures rather than just assuming that if such a practice exists somewhere, its always okay.

Agreed. However, a policy tool is not disqualified merely because it is based on an arbitrary measurement. That's all that needs to be said.

Any measure of fitness is arbitrary, so constructing tax policy or school leaving regulations on the basis of an undefined property leaves it to work as a prejudice because it assumes all persons are the same and ought to function at exactly the same levels.

It need not. The measure could take into account things like age, ethnicity, gender, etc. In other words, try to back out any non-lifestyle factors, as lifestyle is what you're trying to create incentive to change.

You might also want to assume that a blood cholesterol of a certain level suggests a quality of fitness, but what if the cholesterol levels of a person who eats what is defined as a "healthy" diet is higher than that of a person who doesn't?

It seems to me that it should be based on criteria that are significant risk factors in the most common and resource-taxing diseases requiring treatment, including heart disease/stroke, lung cancer, diabetes, etc.

Now, of course this can't be perfectly fair. No policy ever is. For instance, students must pay EI premiums on income that is not insurable.

Since the notion of fitness is arbitrary, it's also adjustable. Some people who may once have been considered unfit can suddenly be made fit through tweaking some variables (or the reverse). These individuals can only hope that they had not been penalized by some silly tax policy or school-leaving regulations in the meantime.

This is an issue for all public policy, and not anything specific to this issue. Immigration comes to mind, and that is higher stakes than a tax credit.

Tell me this, who would you see doing all this policing over the bodies of people?

Health care professionals could be involved in gathering the necessary data, perhaps as part of an annual physical. You sound like I'm advocating a Participaction Gestapo that would steal people from their beds and force them onto treadmills. I'm not saying we should require people to participate--if they want to forego a tax credit, that's their prerogative.

 

[afransen]

Well, trans-fats are basically akin to poison, and currently, chefs are not allowed to pour anti-freeze into a chili con carne....

Oh, I don't think Hydrogen would like that line of reasoning. Trans fat is a naturally occurring part of our diet. The fact that so much of the trans fat in our diets is 'artificial' (due to processing techniques) is moot.

 

[Brandon716]

Brandon: I agree with you concerning Universal Health Care in the USA!

I feel that doing something to assist the upwards of 50 million US residents with no insurance should be a high priority!

It makes me angry when Republicans in particular argue against health care and mention the Government bureaucrat that would stand between you and your Doctor - but you have a for-profit Insurance Company in between today!

I remember seeing a show on how other Industrialized societies provide health care-I believe if you want to keep private insurance or care you should be able to opt out if you choose-Like The Netherlands allows I believe.

Those same anti single-payer types complain about people waiting for care in Canada but at least they are getting the care - the Uninsured in the US may NEVER get it because they CAN NOT AFFORD IT!!!

This is why I feel that it is the Great American Dilemma!

- Opinion and insight from Long Island Mike -

The problem isn't with just 50 million uninsured. If you have an insurance plan that isn't properly backed (generously backed by a corporate job or government job) many times the plan simply won't pay benefits even if you have health insurance.

 

[Hydrogen]

Agreed. However, a policy tool is not disqualified merely because it is based on an arbitrary measurement. That's all that needs to be said.

As I've already stated, there are arbitrary measures in public policy. But that is not all that needs to be said simply because you wish to conclude at that thought.

First, stating that some policy is based on arbitrary measures does not mean that all policy should be. Second, it also does not mean that arbitrary measures are all equally useful, comparable or valid. Third, it's also worth remembering that the world is not bisected into the arbitrary and non-arbitrary. There are degrees of usefulness when it comes to arbitrary measures.

It need not. The measure could take into account things like age, ethnicity, gender, etc. In other words, try to back out any non-lifestyle factors, as lifestyle is what you're trying to create incentive to change.

Again, your suggestion indicates that there is no standard or clear attributes for fitness, and as a result, no definition. You are presuming that any set of assumptions of what fitness is are natural. That is incorrect.

Additionally, are there set standards of fitness for every single ethnicity, gender, age group and lifestyle? No. None. Besides, how would you go about calculating the fitness of a woman of one mixed ethnicity and a certain lifestyle and a man of another mixed ethnicity and race, and his own specific lifestyle? Do you have clear and complete health knowledge concerning differences between all genders, ethnicities and age groups? Do have similar knowledge that pertains to every known 'lifestyle' that people engage in? You don't; no one has such knowledge.

As for incentive to change, change to what? You still have not defined what fitness is.

It seems to me that it should be based on criteria that are significant risk factors in the most common and resource-taxing diseases requiring treatment, including heart disease/stroke, lung cancer, diabetes, etc.

Your point is not clear here. If you are suggesting that fitness be related to the appearance of disease in a person, then you should know all the possible root causes of these diseases first. Smoking increases the risk for lung cancer, but there are still a very large number of people who get lung cancer who never smoked. There are also smokers who never get lung cancer (the majority). People can lead what is presumed to be very healthy lives and still suffer from any one of the above afflictions.

This is an issue for all public policy, and not anything specific to this issue. Immigration comes to mind, and that is higher stakes than a tax credit.

This has nothing to do with immigration. You are attempting to label the entire population with an arbitrary measure for taxation and for exiting school. If your policy is to be so universal, you had better define fitness in clear details, and recognize that the choice of details is always arbitrary, incomplete and subject to change. Furthermore, you would be attempting to legislate the quality of human bodies - and people's lives. The comparison to EI is completely invalid.

Oh, I don't think Hydrogen would like that line of reasoning. Trans fat is a naturally occurring part of our diet. The fact that so much of the trans fat in our diets is 'artificial' (due to processing techniques) is moot.

More confused thinking on your part. Remember, I was the one who informed you that everything is toxic in large enough quantities. That's literally the first rule of ecotoxicology.


You still have failed to define what fitness is, and you also have neglected to state who you would see doing all this policing over the bodies of people. Rather than to presume to answer for others, try describe how you would regulate and police the bodies of the entire population.

 

[Roy G Biv]

Defining fitness and using said definition to police fat people won't work.

If you want a current example, look at all the electric-scooter riders that dismount, and stroll (in quite an able fasion) into Timmy's to grab a Blueberry fritter to go.

Genetic predisposition complicated things, as it's not kosher to punish "programmed behaviour" unless it's to protect society (criminals). The best we can do is make it easier to excercise, and harder to eat junk. Call it social engineering if you want, but that's a slope we started on LONG ago.