The Instigator
dthegiantfed
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Saint_Joshua
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Law and Regulation will not fix the problems of Health Care

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,213 times Debate No: 6272
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

dthegiantfed

Pro

Creating Laws and Regulations will not fix the current trends in Health. By current trends I am alluding to the rise in diabetes, obesity, etc and all the side affect related to these issues.
Saint_Joshua

Con

Almost every problem that we have ever had in history can be "fixed" by change. Most haven't been because the need for money and the lack of interest from people. Now if you are specifically talking about the rise in obesity, perhaps if we took the right steps towards eating more healthy (maybe creating a law that no restaurant can sell a single food item that equals over 800cal. since the average person needs just 1,500-2,500cal. a day). If we continue to serve healthier foods in public school for our kids and stop cutting gym class. If health care plans paid for and required that you enter a gym at least once a week to get the service. The biggest problem with obesity is the way we live; it is almost as simple as calories in calories out. Sure there are restrictions such as genetics but if everyone else ate healthy and worked out a couple hours a week there would be no obesity. But again it will take some money; mostly it will take the participation from people to want this change. It could take 100's of years but it can happen.
Debate Round No. 1
dthegiantfed

Pro

First apologies for the poorly worded topic/first argument.

Your basic, argument I'm feeling is that change overall will cause a shift in the current trends. This change should be brought about by various laws (max calories) or regulations (health insurance.)

While I agree to a certain extent this will help some on the edge to be pushed into the healthy category. However I believe the true problem is an erosion in the average person's attitude and motivations. True today jobs are less physically active then those of generations past, however we work less hours and have more vacations(relative to earlier generations). Further more many chose to not do any physical activity during this extra time.

Our reluctance to believe advertising ex Quaker Oatmeal "Maple and Brown Sugar" marked as health with the AHA seal actually has more sugar than a bowl of Fruit Loops. But would more information help? I don't think so all health nutrition information is already listed all you have to do is read a box. Could an informative campaign help, possibly. Still I only think you might change a few peoples choices.

This change that needs to take place I feel can not happen on a global/countrywide scale through, regulation or law. This is just covering a laceration with a band aide.

The fix to me is changing the culture around eating. We need to realize in the modern age(speaking of developed countries) we can easily acquire the calories needed for sustaining life in a relative small portion of food. Industrialization and chemistry have allow calories and nutrition to be packed into everything. However we as the end user need to realize what our bodies actually need much less then we desire. Generations and centuries of struggling to attain proper nutrition have left us eating more and more, though we don't need to. However some may view this as a built in genetic issue. We need to realize that times have "changed" and the average human doesn't need to consume as much as we feel or think we need.

I seem to have countered myself in this argument. I listed that labeling, genetics, and hereditary mindset all contribute to the current health issues in this country(US). While many people believe that this will be/can be fixed by laws, regulations, or money. I believe and maintain that these issues will only be fixed in the next generations if their guardians show them the way. We need to in-still personal responsibility in our kids. To do this we need to show by example not words and laws. We also can't shift the blame to food manufactures or law makers. We have to take pride and know what we are putting in our bodies. Only then will we start to look beyond the food packaging and taste and ask what will be the repercussions this food item be 10 20 years down the road.

I myself have begun doing this and it has change my health, and weight, I've also noticed changes in those closest to me.

So in summation laws and regulations won't do the trick. We need to change ourselves from the lower levels of civilization: family, friends, co-workers. Those areas contain the examples, leadership, and pressure we need to turn the trends in obesity and diabetes around.
Saint_Joshua

Con

No problem, although your argument may have been poorly worded it still seems to be based on your assumption. In a subject, that has already been proven as fact, that would be fine but your argument that "Creating Laws and Regulations will not fix the current trends in Health" cannot be proven without putting the "Laws and Regulations" into effect. Therefore your argument is invalid.

Places you used your assumption or your point of view as backup for your argument:
"However I believe the true problem is an erosion in the average person's attitude and motivations."
"I don't think so all health nutrition information is already listed all you have to do is read a box"
"Still I think you might change a few peoples choices."
"This change that needs to take place I feel can not happen on a global/countrywide scale through, regulation or law."
"The fix to me is changing the culture around eating."
"I believe and maintain that these issues will only be fixed in the next generations if their guardians show them the way."

Let us look at a simple law such as speed limits. These where put into effect so the roads would be safer as people slow down and stay within the given limit. Although many people still choose not to follow this law, others do. This idea to make a speed law could only be proven to work or not to work by making it a law.

As I have said many times throughout, your assumption may be correct but there is no way to prove it without using "Laws and Regulations". Show me factual evidence on how "Creating Laws and Regulations will not fix the current trends in Health."

Thank You
Debate Round No. 2
dthegiantfed

Pro

Alright we'll here are a couple of the current health legislation and regulations. These have only been in affect for a year or less so the true success or failure will only be found out in future years. But I think what they do, how they do it, and the other issues they cause have already made them failures.

First: I live in Wisconsin, I am not sure if this is a state law, or a regulation applied per each school district, but schools have taken all sodas out of vending machines in an attempt to curb childhood obesity. However these slots have been populated by sport drinks and "juice". Both of these alternatives while perceived healthier have the same or more calories and an equivalent amount of sugar as soda. Problem one: unhealthy options are still present for kids. The problem with this to me is that the regulation doesn't accomplish what it was meant to do. Problem two is the fact that we have had to cut school funding to the point where they need the vending machines to help cover costs. Many areas military, unemployment benefits, social security, and Medicare have contributed to budget constraint issues. I like to think the increase in Medicare and those who use it (older people), have moved funding away from helping the younger generations to preserving the old generations. Problem three, proper diet and nutrition need to be taught at home. Having the option for a soda at school shouldn't be an issue, as children would get one maybe two a week as a splurge as most healthy diets allow for.

Second: The banning of trans-fats (New York, Phili, California). These fats are in particular found in oils used to deep fry food. So the obvious problem is people shouldn't be eating deep fried or fried foods to begin with. I don't care what oil you fry French fries in they'll never be healthy enough to eat more then twice a month. Cutting trans-fats maybe healthy but cutting fried foods would be infinitely healthier. With the ban in trans fats we (society) run the risk of now thinking fried foods are healthier and start eating more of them thus negating any gains.

Third: Requiring chain restaurants to list nutrition content. First issue with this why penalize larger companies and not the smaller shops. I understand larger companies do have the economic resources to determine this information. That fact still doesn't mean that the Mom and Pop shop uses any healthier ingredients. Second issue eating out is going to be unhealthy it should be viewed as an occasional treat not as a consistent source of food. Third if people don't realize what they're taking in unless it's printed along side the item, then how do they know what they are eating when preparing their own food?

Fourth: Preventing certain restaurants in certain area's via zoning. The most famous case is in LA preventing any fast food restaurants in South Los Angeles. First they're discriminating based on store differences. Corporate Fast Food no you can't build, Mom and Pop greasy pizza joint go right a head and build. Second they're saying they know what's better for a town or area then the actual inhabitants. This is in fact further trampling on personal freedoms; no longer can we decide what we can put into our own mouth. True it may kill us in 60 years instead of 80 however that is a personal choice that every individual in this country should be allowed to make.
Saint_Joshua

Con

Why these four "legislation and regulations" have worked completely fine and will continue to work.
"schools have taken all sodas out of vending machines in an attempt to curb childhood obesity. However these slots have been populated by sport drinks and "juice". Both of these alternatives while perceived healthier have the same or more calories and an equivalent amount of sugar as soda."

While sports drinks and juice may have the same amount of calories they have a wide verity of nutritious value while soda has almost none. According to Understanding Nutrition Tenth Edition in Appendix H 12-13 it states that Juice, bottled or canned has a significant amount of kcal, carbohydrates, iron, magnesium, potassium, sodium, zinc, Thiamin, Vitamin E, Niacin, Vitamin B6, and Vitamin C. While Soda only has kcal, carbohydrates, and sodium this is a huge difference in the amount of nutrients in this case a child would get from these two types of fluid. The book also states that sports drinks that contain carbohydrates are used to restore muscle glycogen after exercise this type of drink can also be used as a pregame beverage. So any child that is in an after school sport or even enrolled in a gym class can benefit from these sport drinks that you claim to be the same as soda. It turns out this was a great regulation.

"Problem two is the fact that we have had to cut school funding to the point where they need the vending machines to help cover costs."

Well it is a good thing they decided to have a regulation to put healthier drinks in them.

"Many areas military, unemployment benefits, social security, and Medicare have contributed to budget constraint issues. I like to think the increase in Medicare and those who use it (older people), have moved funding away from helping the younger generations to preserving the old generations."

I don't understand what this has to do with anything. This isn't another issue that shows how new drinks in vending machines is a failure. This is just other things that could help in school funding which isn't even the topic we are discussing.

"Problem three, proper diet and nutrition need to be taught at home. Having the option for a soda at school shouldn't be an issue, as children would get one maybe two a week as a splurge as most healthy diets allow for."

Yes, proper diet should be taught at home but is it? We live in a "fast food nation" with the economic crisis we are facing eating healthy is hard, so the parents are heading straight for a McDonalds (or any type of inexpensive food) and the kids will most likely grab a soda there as well. So vending machines with sport drinks in schools are better teachers of nutrition then most home lives are.

"Second: The banning of trans-fats (New York, Phili, California). These fats are in particular found in oils used to deep fry food. So the obvious problem is people shouldn't be eating deep fried or fried foods to begin with."

See statement above about living in a "fast food nation".

"I don't care what oil you fry French fries in they'll never be healthy enough to eat more then twice a month."
False, look at MyPyramid.gov it recommends daily the intake of oils. Canola oil is the best oil for you (if looked at by having the least amount of saturated fat) this oil is also used in a lot of fast food restaurants. In other food pyramids such as the Mediterranean Olive oil is recommended daily (Nutrition concepts and controversies 11th edition page 46). So what is so bad about recommended oil and a potato (French fry)?

"With the ban in trans fats we (society) run the risk of now thinking fried foods are healthier and start eating more of them thus negating any gains."

Where did this statement come from?

"Third: Requiring chain restaurants to list nutrition content. First issue with this why penalize larger companies and not the smaller shops. I understand larger companies do have the economic resources to determine this information. That fact still doesn't mean that the Mom and Pop shop uses any healthier ingredients."

Making chain restaurants list nutrition content is the best start for a bigger plan. By starting with these restaurants that affect the bigger part of the population it puts nutrition into people's faces so they can choose to make better decisions. I don't think this regulation was put into effect to exclude "Mom and Pop" shops it was just a way to start on a large scale and later pass on the same to the smaller restaurants.

"Second issue eating out is going to be unhealthy it should be viewed as an occasional treat not as a consistent source of food."

Eating out can not be defined as unhealthy. Very wise decisions can be made while eating out. If you are referring to fast food so many of them are coming out with salads, veggie burgers, fruit instead of fries and many other healthy choices.

"Third if people don't realize what they're taking in unless it's printed along side the item, then how do they know what they are eating when preparing their own food?"

Because they purchase the food they are preparing at a store with the nutritional information given to them on cans, boxes, or any other sort of packaging food comes in.

"Fourth: Preventing certain restaurants in certain area's via zoning. The most famous case is in LA preventing any fast food restaurants in South Los Angeles. First they're discriminating based on store differences. Corporate Fast Food no you can't build, Mom and Pop greasy pizza joint go right a head and build. Second they're saying they know what's better for a town or area then the actual inhabitants."

This is not an issue because they are not "preventing any fast food restaurants" in South LA. They just chose not allow new fast food restaurants to come in. How are they "trampling on personal freedoms"? It is not our call if a fast food restaurant comes to a town in the first place so why does it matter if there are no more? We can still have the personal freedoms to eat at the ones that already exist if we choose too.

I hope everyone can see that these four regulations that my opponent has brought up have made a significant change in "the current trends in Health" and have "fixed" many problems.

Thanks again.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
By virtue of the resolution being based on assumption the burden can never be proved - con pointed this out. Therefore my vote goes to Saint_Joshua.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
dthegiantfedSaint_JoshuaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Saint_Joshua 8 years ago
Saint_Joshua
dthegiantfedSaint_JoshuaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RequireTruth 8 years ago
RequireTruth
dthegiantfedSaint_JoshuaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by robert.fischer 8 years ago
robert.fischer
dthegiantfedSaint_JoshuaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30