Alarms on youth obesity in Mass.
More than one-third of Massachusetts students evaluated during the 2008-2009 school year were overweight or obese, according to a report released yesterday that revealed stark differences in how the obesity epidemic has touched cities and towns.
The study, which reflects weight and height measurements for about 110,000 students, for the first time provides data on separate school districts and underscores the role of poverty and affluence in determining weight.
Pretty neat, huh? Look closely and you'll see what they did: tied obesity - a health problem - to poverty. What this allows them to do - especially in MA where health insurance is mandatory and lower income families can receive state-funded subsidies for insurance - is to call for regulations based on the "public good" of lowering the overall weight profile. They claim that impoverished areas have citizens that can't afford healthy food and/or cannot exercise due to the high crime of the area in which they live.
Both claims are, of course, complete and utter bull droppings.
It's just as cheap to use frozen vegetables, white rice, and chicken or pork for a quick, low calorie/low fat dinner as it is to take the family to McDonald's. Probably cheaper. You can get a large box of white rice for $3; a couple bags of frozen veggies for another $2; and two pounds of chicken for $5. That's $10 to feed a family of four, with enough protein, fiber, and vitamins to keep everyone healthy and well-fed. Compare that to $5-$6 per value meal at McDonald's and you can see their claim falls flat immediately.
What's not taken into consideration is that the McDonald's meal requires no effort other than going to the drive-through. You don't even have to get out of your car to get a meal that contains twice the USRDA of fat, grease, and rat whiskers; compare that to the time needed to prepare, cook, serve, and clean up a home cooked dinner. The home cooked meal is already half the price of a night at McD's; making it 1/3 the price isn't going to motivate the lazy any further.
And as far as not exercising because of unsafe areas? Are you kidding me? Sit-ups and pushups and crunches and squats require no equipment, maybe 18 square feet of floor space, and determination to stick with it. You can go to any shopping mall or grocery store for heated (or cooled) areas to walk - once again, with no equipment required. These people aren't exercising because they don't want to - and all the regulation in the world, or well-meaning government programs, aren't going to magically give them the motivation they need.
In fact, I'd say it's highly likely that more government intervention will result in further decreased motivation, leading to even fatter denizens of low-income areas. The mindset - already inculcated from years of subsidized housing, food stamps, and other well-meaning public assistance works - will further solidify that this is the government's problem to solve. And, given that the government is paying for their health care - which is adversely affected by being grossly overweight - the government will certainly be motivated to "solve" this problem.
Unfortunately, the government is likely to "solve" the obesity problem in very much the same way that it "solved" the poverty problem, or the illicit drug problem, or the gun violence problem. There will be a wide variety of legislation proposed to save us from ourselves, which will not apply to those most in need of it, but rather pestering those of us who need no such intervention. Since ØbamaCare borrows heavily from the MA model of universal health care, it's only a matter of time before we have a "Health Czar" and the DOO (Department of Obesity) issuing mandates and banning foods.
One wonders when daily exercise will become compulsory - it's for the good of Oceania, you know.
That is all.
13 comments:
Pretty neat, huh? Look closely and you'll see what they did: tied obesity - a health problem - to poverty.
There's another factor at work too: the federal guidelines for "overweight" and "obese" are grotesquely distorted.
That's $10 to feed a family of four, with enough protein, fiber, and vitamins to keep everyone healthy and well-fed.
Not exactly. One of the many real problems with modern food supplies is that the cheapest foods are generally processed foods, with very high calorie counts. If you eat enough of them to get all your vitamins and minerals, you'll also get too many calories, and gain weight as a result.
Ya know, I bet that America is the only country in the world that has "poor" people who are overweight. Is it me or is there something just not right about that picture?
Even the poorest of the poor in America is light years better off that some poor bast*rd in a s*it-hole third world country.
Not exercising because of un-safe areas?
Great news -- sue the flipping state to loosen the laws on carrying of firearms NOW.
1.) Carrying a firearm provides greater protection enabling more exercise.
2.) Simply carrying a firearm adds weight meaning more calories are being used -- providing immediate health benefits.
You can get a large box of white rice for $3; a couple bags of frozen veggies for another $2; and two pounds of chicken for $5.
True...but a box of macaroni and cheese mix, a package of hot dogs and a package of buns costs...what...$4?
While true that it is possible to eat healthy relatively cheaply, it's also true that it's possible to eat unhealthy even more cheaply.
Wolfwalker,
I meant $10 to feed your family with a health, low-calorie meal (chicken & rice).
Michael W.,
No kidding. It's pretty interesting that even our poor live much better than most "second world" countries (I believe that's our communist comrades) and even some "first world" nations...
Bob S.,
Heh. I like the way you think...
Sailorcurt,
Hmm, interesting point.
You'll need two boxes of mac 'n' cheese, though, at a minimum. Say $1 each, $2. Hot dogs: $3. Buns: $1. Total $6, which is cheaper, granted.
Something tells me, though, that they're not cooking up mac 'n' cheese & hot dogs - it's more likely to be McD's or a box of Twinkies...
I'm getting a 503 error message when I open the comments. I close and reopen and comments come up. Just to let you know.
Yeah, it's a lot of work to getoff your fatbutt and boil upp some water. Much easier to send the little welfare chits over to the local burger doodle.
Right except for one thing. Rice is a high carbohydrate food. It's not good for losing weight at all. Rice is considered a "poor persons" food because it provides a lot of calories cheaply.
Other than that, you're spot on. Of course the simplest solution would be for the state to put restrictions on what people can buy with EBT cards. If statists can tell people who actually pay for their own food what they can and can't eat, certainly the state can tell people who the taxpayers support what they can buy with their taxpayer dollars, right?
Jay, Jay, Jay. You're missing the whole point of the article. Being fat is NOT their fault. It's all The Man's fault. Keeping 'the poor' fat is just another form of oppression.
"It's just as cheap to use frozen vegetables, white rice, and chicken or pork for a quick, low calorie/low fat dinner as it is to take the family to McDonald's. Probably cheaper."
True dat. I don't see a direct link between being a fat-ass and being poor: Being a fat-ass is a direct result of a lack of self dicipline and a serious case of laziness. Actually cooking takes effort, as opposed to taking your welfare card to the convenience store and buying frozen burritos, chips and a 2 liter soda.
Interstingly enough, those personality defects are also the single largest factors in making one POOR.
Have you seen the price of groceries on the vineyard?
Ye gods - and i thought london was expensive!!
SBW
1 Bag frozen boneless chicken breasts (~6-8, packaged by weight): $10
1 mid-sized Bag medium grain white rice: ~$2
2 bags frozen stir-fry veggies: ~$3
Total: ~$15, feeds 3 for 2 meals.
To feed 3 for 2 meals at McD's would cost about $25-$20.
One thing I've found useful is to assess food purchases on a per meal basis, not a per oz/lb/kg/etc. basis. How many meals you get out of a purchase is a lot more informative, and makes comparisons and budgeting easier.
Preach on, Brother Jay! It's true. I used to fall for that crap about it being more expensive to buy healthy food. I was 370 lbs just two years ago. With a little attention to diet and exercise, I changed that. Didn't even take much, just small changes, over time.
I'm now 291 and still loosing. Faster, in fact, as the changes I see reinforce my motivation and increase my capacity for serious exercise.
It angers me to see people whine about how they can't lose weight. Very, very few actually have medical problems to the point that weight loss is impossible for them through diet and exercise. It's a problem of motivation. I know.
Post a Comment