Democratic congressman: The federal government has to fight childhood obesity for the budget

posted at 1:20 pm on March 21, 2012 by Tina Korbe

In an opinion piece in Roll Call today, Wisconsin Democratic Rep. Ron Kind, with Donna Katen-Bahensky, argues that the federal government needs to amp up its efforts to combat childhood obesity because the epidemic poses a perilous problem to the federal budget. Kind and Katen-Bahensky write:

Today, our nation spends $147 billion each year on obesity-related health care expenses, and this fails to count the billions more in costs to businesses, communities and families. Clearly, if we don’t address this epidemic, health care costs, already the fastest-growing area of federal spending, will continue to skyrocket. A McKinsey report recently projected that U.S. spending on obesity could be as high as $320 billion annually by 2018. …

Addressing the growing obesity epidemic is a challenge we all share. There is an important role for parents, the community and school leaders to play in making healthy living a priority and the easier choice for our kids. Business leaders can commit to making healthy lifestyles more accessible to workers and their families, while medical providers can do more to address obesity in patients.

And the federal government has an important role to play in investing the resources needed in those programs most likely to yield tangible health and economic benefits for our children and our future. As leaders, we owe it to our children to work together to make these commitments real.

Kind and Katen-Bahensky are right on a couple of points. Under Obamacare, obesity-related health care costs will continue to go up and there is an “important role for parents, the community and school leaders to play in making healthy living a priority and the easier choice for our kids.”

But the various medicines they propose to treat obesity’s effect on the budget sound poisonous to freedom. They want to “reshape” the nation’s food policy “to expand opportunities for farmers, promote local foods and make it easier for consumers to have access to healthy produce.” They advocate “additional strategic investments, from programs to promote physical activity in schools to tax incentives for investments in healthy lifestyles to insurance coverage for proven anti-obesity therapies.” Expanded opportunities for farmers, additional strategic investments … Those sure sound like subsidies to me.

May we please take a step back for a moment? How did we arrive at this place, where it’s plausible that a congressional representative would argue that it is the role of the federal government to tell people what to eat and when to exercise? Perhaps the “food wars” seem insignificant amidst the many battles conservatives have to fight, but they’re highly representative of the alternatives progressivism and conservatism prevent.

Presumably, the vast majority of Americans want to end the obesity epidemic and promote healthy lifestyles. Progressives want to do it through federal government, while conservatives want to do it through personal responsibility. Thanks to Obamacare, the federal government now has a legitimate interest to “reshape food policy” and establish preventative exercise programs — but those new policies and programs would leave individuals with a little less autonomy over their own lives. That’s the choice. It’s not a choice between healthy and unhealthy kids, just as it’s not a choice between contraception or no contraception. When it comes to Obamacare, it is always and everywhere a choice between government control and individual freedom.

The better “solution” to the budgetary problems childhood obesity pose is to repeal Obamacare.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Name me one social engineering or welfare program that has worked?

Insanity….

Oil Can on March 21, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Why do dems want to starve children?

Lost in Jersey on March 21, 2012 at 1:24 PM

To what budget is the good Democratic Rep referring?

Syd B. on March 21, 2012 at 1:25 PM

It all started with the government “food pyramid” so many years ago. This is end stage nannyism.

PattyJ on March 21, 2012 at 1:26 PM

These people were elected. God save the Republic!

celtic warrior on March 21, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Sounds like the Dems are getting desperate for that soccer mom vote.
But then, wouldn’t the children of soccer moms be the least needful of Federal anti-obesity assistance?

de rigueur on March 21, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Wisconsin Democratic Rep. Ron Kind

“Excuse me….do you have a degree in economics or nutrition?”

BobMbx on March 21, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Meanwhile, the feds are trying to eliminate shame/personal pride as reasons for not applying for food assistance.

Kungfoochimp on March 21, 2012 at 1:28 PM

How did we arrive at this place, where it’s plausible that a congressional representative would argue that it is the role of the federal government to tell people what to eat and when to exercise?

I think there is a place for the government to make info available on diet, nutrition, exercize, etc. as it’s done for many years. But regulating what you can eat or put in your kid’s lunch boxes? Nope, never.

whatcat on March 21, 2012 at 1:29 PM

So many of our elected representatives are dumber than a sack of hammers.

In the past few days alone, we’ve got this idiot plus Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) declaring on O’Reilly that the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

This isn’t even getting into the usual gang of morons like Biden, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson-Lee, etc.

teke184 on March 21, 2012 at 1:29 PM

I’m from the government…and I’m here to help.

bntafraid on March 21, 2012 at 1:29 PM

These people were elected. God save the Republic!

celtic warrior on March 21, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Just proves the point that the ONLY qualification an elected official has is that they got one vote more than the other guy.

This is why I wonder why liberals trust these buffoons to control every aspect of their lives.

dirtseller on March 21, 2012 at 1:30 PM

And the march to a totalitarian state continues.

rbj on March 21, 2012 at 1:30 PM

[JUSTICE ROBERTS] – I ask you once again Solicitor General Katyal, can the Federal Government under the PPACA order Americans to eat more broccoli?

[SG Katyal] – Ummm, well, you see Justice Roberts, there’s a substantial burden to, uhh, umm, interstate commerce when kids are fat little chubbies….umm, so yeah, only the Federal Government can make them put down their Goobbers and start eating more Veggies….

[JUSTICE KAGAN in thought bubble] – {Booyah! Slam dunk on that point Neal!! Good thing we practiced your arguments just before I took this job……damn these white lace collars are annoyingly itchy….I wonder if Sonyia wants to hit McDonald’s after we get through this snoozer of a session….}

powerpickle on March 21, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Here we go again. Do it for the children. If you disagree, you hate children, along with women, blacks, hispanics, homosexuals and unions.

What does that leave, puppies?

Hey Dems, why don’t you talk about Obama’s record?

fogw on March 21, 2012 at 1:31 PM

this is the same government that promotes the consumption of cheese because it is dealing with an oversupply of it due to dairy subsidies. Yes, the Department of Agriculture wants us to eat more cheese and the Department of Health and Human Services wants us to eat less fatty foods.

Huh?

How bout the government take a look at itself and determine that it should not subsidize.

Oh but Congressman Kind can’t do that because he is subsidizing his dairy state and fellow cheeseheads in Wisconsin.

FAIL!

islandman78 on March 21, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Hey Big government: My soon-to-be 18 year old is almost 6’1 and weighs around 130-135. I developed an exercise addiction at 16 that I’m still struggling with @ almost 42.
Go eff yourselves!!

annoyinglittletwerp on March 21, 2012 at 1:31 PM

I developed an exercise addiction
annoyinglittletwerp on March 21, 2012 at 1:31 PM

We balance each other out – I developed an exercise aversion.
:D

whatcat on March 21, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Okay, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t schools scotch phys ed classes because they posed such a serious risk to the self-esteem of fat kids (major snark factor there) and aren’t healthy produce products available at every grocery store in the country? So, I guess libs no longer care about fat kids’ self-esteem, just how much medical intervention their obesity is going to require. Liberals are such confusing creatures!

College Prof on March 21, 2012 at 1:35 PM

The government’s involvement in feeding the nation is like one of the oldest lies in the world.

“I realize I made certain representations about what would and would not happen in your mouth.”

It usually doesn’t end well for anyone.

Syd B. on March 21, 2012 at 1:35 PM

If they truly gave a tinker’s damn about childhood obesity and health, they’d get rid of all the touchy/feely educational things they foist on kids (how to put a condom on a cucumber), and get back to recess, phys ed, encouraging activity in school,etc. Heaven forbid. For some children, school is the only safe place they CAN play.

waterytart on March 21, 2012 at 1:36 PM

In an opinion piece in Roll Call today, Wisconsin Democratic Rep. Ron Kind, with Donna Katen-Bahensky, argues that the federal government needs to amp up its efforts to combat childhood obesity because the epidemic poses a perilous problem to the federal budget.
==========

Lemme stab at dis,is the safety of the Federal Budget in danger,
from marauding over-weight children,who might stumble into the Fed
eral Budget location and in an uncontrollable urge to gorge,the bud
get might get eat’n’ed!!

And,its been portrayed as an ‘epidemic’,and gawd forbid,’perilous’,
so,why isn’t the budget more ‘Secured’!!!!

NUTS I say!!(snark)

canopfor on March 21, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Gee, I didn’t know it was obese children that gave us a 15 trillion dollar national debt, I always thought it was the federal government that did that.

Heh, learn something new everyday.

Axion on March 21, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Clearly, if we don’t address this epidemic, health care costs, already the fastest-growing area of federal spending, will continue to skyrocket.

Which party is responsible for that?

Consequences.

ShainS on March 21, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Today, our nation spends $147 billion each year on obesity-related health care expenses, and this fails to count the billions more in costs to businesses, communities and families. Clearly, if we don’t address this epidemic, health care costs, already the fastest-growing area of federal spending, will continue to skyrocket. A McKinsey report recently projected that U.S. spending on obesity could be as high as $320 billion annually by 2018. …

There you go – “Epidemic” + “Healthcare Costs” = Commerce Clause Mandate.

If you don’t think that they will attempt to dictate what we eat … just hang around.

Soon, the “epidemic” will be “violent crimes” and “handguns.”

Once the cattle get used to the State dictating to them, concerning every facet of their lives … the cattle will be told to turn in their weapons … by a mandate.

And the cattle will comply.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 21, 2012 at 1:37 PM

We balance each other out – I developed an exercise aversion.
:D

whatcat on March 21, 2012 at 1:34 PM

I’m walking 4-5 miles today…and because I may not make it to the gym to do weight-work-I’m gonna feel like it’s not enough.
I’ll trade ya.
*grin*

annoyinglittletwerp on March 21, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Government is spending too much on obesity-related costs?

Get government out of health care. Problem solved.

The Rogue Tomato on March 21, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Meanwhile, the feds are trying to eliminate shame/personal pride as reasons for not applying for food assistance.

Kungfoochimp on March 21, 2012 at 1:28 PM

You know, food stamps are a perfect example of this hypocrisy. Because food stamps are funded by taxpayers, why isn’t the types of foods one can obtain via food stamps restricted? Only allow them to be used for meat, fruit, vegetables, milk, juice, the so-called healthy foods. Not on chips, soda, etc. If you have to eat on the taxpayers’ dime, you will have to eat healthy. But we don’t hear this Congressman propose that.

Bitter Clinger on March 21, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Today, our nation spends $147 billion each year on obesity-related health care expenses, and this fails to count the billions more in costs to businesses, communities and families. Clearly, if we don’t address this epidemic, health care costs, already the fastest-growing area of federal spending, will continue to skyrocket. A McKinsey report recently projected that U.S. spending on obesity could be as high as $320 billion annually by 2018.
===============================================================

Putting these words throgh the De-Liberal-Speakalator,it comes out,
as,

WE NEED MORE TAXPAYER LOOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on March 21, 2012 at 1:38 PM

……and they should also tell us what pipe we can use during Construction.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/a-coming-green-war-on-pvc-pipe/

….and they should tell us what kind of showerhead we can use in our homes.

http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=13050

…..and they should tell us how much water we can flush our toilets with.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/program/waterefficiency_bmp6.html

….and they need to tell us that kids can’t work on farms helping their parents.

http://www.usatoday.com/MONEY/usaedition/2012-01-25-farm-work-restored_CV_U.htm

….and we need the government to show up and tell us how to sort our trash, and fine us for non-compliance.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20120320_11_A1_Tencit640442&allcom=1

…..and Mitt Romney believes in MAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING, and bigger government.

And the gop is about to nominate him?

PappyD61 on March 21, 2012 at 1:38 PM

When Dems aren’t busy promoting the abortion of children, they are busy using them as an excuse to take more of our money.

At least they are consistent, kinda.

Axion on March 21, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Childhood obesity is a morals issue — our personal choices in life. Keep the government out of our pantries and refrigerators! Stop the Democratic war on Fritos!

Paul-Cincy on March 21, 2012 at 1:41 PM

How about we fight budget obesity for the benefit of our children?

joe_doufu on March 21, 2012 at 1:41 PM

They can’t pass a budget because of political theater. I just read that someplace.

a capella on March 21, 2012 at 1:42 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYTIgcMRdbU

Shouldn’t we provide Retirement and end of life care for our senior citizens next?

Don’t they deserve the dignity of a grand send off from a grateful nation?

Totalitarian states lead to one end…..and it’s Soylent.

PappyD61 on March 21, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Aha! It’s the fat kid’s fault. I knew it, I knew it!

katy the mean old lady on March 21, 2012 at 1:42 PM

They’re gonna flip when Taco Bell wins the Franchise Wars.

wte9 on March 21, 2012 at 1:44 PM

….and shouldn’t we let the government tell us what kind of shower head we can use?

and what kind of dishwashers we can use?

and what types of washing machines we should be using?

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/program/waterefficiency_bmp6.html

PappyD61 on March 21, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Mmmm- so they are going to basically grow Federal outlays for stuff like farm subsidies, grants and FDA programs under the guise of lowering healthcare costs?

Marcus Traianus on March 21, 2012 at 1:49 PM

oh really? so I’m sure he’s also comfortable with the government fighting homosexuality because of AIDS/HIV

burserker on March 21, 2012 at 1:51 PM

InfoChart!
(sarc)
—–

July 19, 2000
America’s Obese Children
*************************

Nearly 25 percent of the U.S. children are obese–a 50 percent rise since 1970.
***********************************

What is the government doing to combat this health epidemic?
************************************************************

http://www.theonion.com/articles/americas-obese-children,7745/

canopfor on March 21, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Today, our nation spends $147 billion each year on obesity-related health care expenses….

This fool is unwittingly making an argument for personal responsibility and against state-run health insurance.

You want to eat 6 Big Macs a day? Fine, then you pay the consequences.

UltimateBob on March 21, 2012 at 1:52 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIDESZWAlz8

We’re causing Global warming—Mitt Romney

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfiz9WaU0b8

We need to use less energy, Carbon taxes and caps, reduce warming of planet, CAFE standards, and we need to move people into more fuel efficient homes, the world is going to adopt, wishy-washy—Mitt Romney

His own BIG GOVERNMENT loving words.

….and you think he wouldn’t go along with this whole Government asserting even more power and authority?

PappyD61 on March 21, 2012 at 1:53 PM

My Congressman, I’m so proud.

We’re a rural area dominated by dairy farms. You know what helps childhood obesity, a little farm work. To bad they can do that anymore.

lowandslow on March 21, 2012 at 1:53 PM

I’m willing to support this only if it can be funded by taking away the “free contraceptives” provision of Medicare.

(I want to see Democratic heads explode)

Deafdog on March 21, 2012 at 1:54 PM

S/p boo boo,should be through,not (throgh).

canopfor on March 21, 2012 at 1:54 PM

They’re gonna flip when Taco Bell wins the Franchise Wars.

wte9 on March 21, 2012 at 1:44 PMAnd if they screue with Sara Lee, it’s WAR!!!

katy the mean old lady on March 21, 2012 at 1:55 PM

I’m walking 4-5 miles today…and because I may not make it to the gym to do weight-work-I’m gonna feel like it’s not enough.
I’ll trade ya.
*grin*
annoyinglittletwerp on March 21, 2012 at 1:37 PM

My doctor would love that, heh.
I can’t blame a harsh Winter this year for missing long walks. But I do lift weights three times a day – you’d be surprised how heavy a fork can get!

whatcat on March 21, 2012 at 1:57 PM

For you prrps that don’t have a radio near,at hand!

Online Streaming Rush,and any other radio program on da planet!

The Rush Limbaugh Show on 770 KKOB
Conservative from Albuquerque, NM

http://tunein.com/tuner/?ProgramId=20617&
******************************************

TuneIn
——-

http://tunein.com/

canopfor on March 21, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Question: How can I tell if we officially become a banana republic?

Is the Obamacare/Federal Deficit/Obesity/Congressman Kind nexus proof enough?

Deafdog on March 21, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) declaring on O’Reilly that the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

teke184 on March 21, 2012 at 1:29 PM

For some reason the Star-Tribune missed that one.

MNHawk on March 21, 2012 at 2:00 PM

You want to highlight immoral and harmful behavior, how about having kids out of wedlock.

Paul-Cincy on March 21, 2012 at 2:01 PM

The Rush Limbaugh Show on 770 KKOB
Conservative from Albuquerque, NM
canopfor on March 21, 2012 at 1:58 PM

The problem with listening to out of state radio; the time is usually off and so is the weather.

whatcat on March 21, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Somewhere, Hot Air Progressives are twisting in their seats, trying to figure a way to make this article sound like Tina Korbe is an unhinged Right Wing nut.

hawkdriver on March 21, 2012 at 2:02 PM

I see only one solution:

Union provided school lunches!….and breakfast….and dinner.

Pink Slime and Green Algae will save us!

Ditkaca on March 21, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) declaring on O’Reilly that the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.
teke184 on March 21, 2012 at 1:29 PM

It’s okay if he included “Did we give up then?!??!!”.

whatcat on March 21, 2012 at 2:04 PM

My Congressman, I’m so proud.

lowandslow on March 21, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Lucky you. At least that comment was marginally more intelligent than the Congressman who was worried that Guam would tip over if the military relocated the troops from Okinawa.

Happy Nomad on March 21, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Fascism is for our own good… so stop resisting.

mankai on March 21, 2012 at 2:07 PM

As the public school seizes a brown sack lunch, made by Mom – so that the tot can be educated about the health benefits of eating chicken nuggets.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 21, 2012 at 2:08 PM

In an opinion piece in Roll Call today, Wisconsin Democratic Rep. Ron Kind, with Donna Katen-Bahensky, argues that the federal government needs to amp up its efforts to combat childhood obesity because the epidemic poses a perilous problem to the federal budget.

With “pink slime” and Food Police that believe “chicken nuggets” are more nutritious than turkey sandwiches?

I’ve got an idea. How about the Federal government get out of the education? It isn’t like it is doing such a great job. Just look at some of those in DC:

1. We’ve got a Congressman that believes that Guam could tip over from too many Marines.

2. We’ve got a Congresswoman, who believes that Neil Armstrong planted an American flag on Mars in 1969.

3. We had a Congresswoman, who wanted a new House-Senate Select Committee On Assassinations formed to investigate the CIA’s involvement into the “assassinations” of Tupac Shakur, Soulja Slim, Biggie Smalls, Freakie Tay, Mac Dre, Yaki Kadafi, Scott La Rock, Big L, and Jam Master Jay.

4. We have a Congressman, who believes that the Nazis bombed Pearl Harbour.

5. The Democratic former head of the House Judiciary Committee believes that there is a “Good and Plenty Clause” in the Constitution – it is probably after the Snickers Clause and before the Three Musketeers Clause.

With idiots like that in the Federal government, I don’t trust it to get anything right.

Resist We Much on March 21, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Me to Dem Congressman: “What Article/Section/Clause in the U.S. Constitution authorizes spending federal money on obesity? It’s starting to sound to me like you committed perjury before Congress when you took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.”

dominigan on March 21, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Fascism is for our own good… so stop resisting.

mankai on March 21, 2012 at 2:07 PM

We fools must be drug into Utopia. It’s for our own good.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 21, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Reminder: Tina Fey dressed as Sarah Palin said that she could see Russia from her house. Palin is stupid. Did we mention Palin?

/trolls

mankai on March 21, 2012 at 2:12 PM

DEMOCRATS ARE TAKING THE FOOD OUT OF CHILDREN’S MOUTHS!

GarandFan on March 21, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Resist We Much on March 21, 2012 at 2:09 PM

And there was Schumer, educating us about the three branches of the federal government – the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court.

I’ve enjoyed your posts. Keep ‘em comin’.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 21, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Childhood obesity is called by the federal budget. Get rid of hormones and pesticides in food and much of the problem is solved.

huckleberryfriend on March 21, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Ah, good old Ron Kind. I used to pass the plate with him when we ushered at the old Lutheran church he attends. I always marveled then that he seemed to be an invisible member of Congress. Except for his pro-forma appearances at church and the parades where he and his supporters would hand out blue KIND – TO KIDS stickers, that was all you heard of him.

Shucks, looks like that is over now.

JoseQuinones on March 21, 2012 at 2:20 PM

I’ve got a two step plan to fight child obesity.

1. Repeal every law that makes it tougher for people of ordinary means to maintain safe neighborhoods. When it’s safe for people to send their kids outdoors to play, exercise and get fit they will.

2. Eliminate every law that burdens people in exercising, and kill the lawsuit industry so it doesn’t create burdens. For example, don’t require people to wear helmets when cycling, and don’t allow lawsuits when people break their heads. Some people will wind up with broken heads, but many many more will wind up fitter and healthier, and more importantly it will be through their choices, not the government’s.

David Blue on March 21, 2012 at 2:20 PM

#facepalm!#

It all makes sense now!

You see, everything that BHO and Pelosi have been doing to to curb child obesity.
It is hard to be portly when you are living in a world wide depression.

Nathan_OH on March 21, 2012 at 2:22 PM

OhEssYouCowboys on March 21, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Thanks. Here’s a Chuck You, for ya:

“Biking through New York’s boroughs in 2005, I thought about some old friends, Joe and Eileen Bailey. Though they are imaginary, I frequently talk to them.”

- Charles Schumer

From my collection:

Are You Smarter Than A Politician? Probably.

Resist We Much on March 21, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Here we go again. Do it for the children. If you disagree, you hate children, along with women, blacks, hispanics, homosexuals and unions.

What does that leave, puppies?
fogw on March 21, 2012 at 1:31 PM

I think PETA has that angle covered.

Confutus on March 21, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Hey Mr. Democrat, which budget are we talking about exactly?

Machismo on March 21, 2012 at 2:24 PM

It’s a way to track children. And nudge them in the way the government wants them to go.

http://www.missourieducationwatchdog.com/2012/01/why-does-parkway-school-district-want.html

I had a long talk with my superintendent about the BMI measures taken in school. He believes it is the school’s DUTY to do this. He asked me, “don’t you think obesity is a problem?” I replied, “I certainly do, along with anorexia and bulimia. But this is a problem between the child, the parents and the doctor. Many of these issues are grounded in behavioral/genetic issues that a school is ill equipped and unable to address.” I asked him, “do you believe parents are unable to parent their children?” “Yes”, he replied, “most parents don’t know what their children are watching on tv or what they are eating.” I replied, “with all due respect, then, you are educating the wrong group of people. Leave the children alone, teach the academics and talk to the parents.”

There you have it. Kids have to be tracked by the nanny state because the bureaucrats have decided the children cannot become fit workers and they need to monitor their food intake and physical activity.

From an 1998 Australian presentation for Australian Association for Research in Education (remember the push for international standards from our Department of Education):

What we see within schools is that most of what is done is drawn into the production of the ‘flexible’ worker. Parent participation is seen as good, not in relation to the happiness of the child but for the way it can improve a child’s performance in school. Social skills are taught so the child will become a better worker. Physical Education is important as it will produce a fitter healthier worker. In such a curriculum all areas of school life are attuned to the ‘production’ of a ‘flexible’ worker who can stake a claim for the individual or corporation in the market place.

http://www.aare.edu.au/98pap/pit98177.htm

manateespirit on March 21, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Liberal Democrat politicians are freaking nuts of the first degree. They need to be stopped before evolution reverses itself and all the creatures crawl back into the primordial slime. That is of course if you subscribe to the theory of evolution . . . If not, prepare to be banned from Eden.

rplat on March 21, 2012 at 2:26 PM

As a college bachelor, I eat fast food several times a week and have a daily calorie intake of more than 3,000 calories. I lost 40 pounds in the last year. How? Work out every day, no soda, and instead of getting a cheeseburger and fries, get multiple hamburgers (i.e. no cheese).

Trying to convince people to eat more salad is about the worst thing the government could do to promote weight loss. That kind of diet is just going to make people feel dejected. It’s absolutely possible to eat almost anything you want – just stay away from fat and processed sugar – as long as you have an ACTIVE lifestyle. And that does not mean walking around the block after dinner. That means doing some calisthenics for 5 minutes every few hours throughout the day if you spend the day sitting at a desk, it means RUNNING for a half-hour a few times a week at least, and it means lifting weights for a few times a week at least.

As a conservative, I believe that this isn’t a problem that the government needs to correct, but if the Democrats are going to try and propose government solutions then at least propose something smart like offering tax breaks to corporations that set up exercise programs at work and then force their sedate employees to take part as a condition of employment.

solatic on March 21, 2012 at 2:48 PM

And to clarify – I’m not one of those guys who has a ridiculous metabolism. I’m still about 40 pounds overweight and I was one of the fat kids in high school. Weight loss is absolutely achievable to the vast, vast majority of people who are willing to put in the effort needed and not just go through the motions.

solatic on March 21, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Seems to me that when I went to school we had mandatory PT and athletics. “OK, today you’re all going off on a cross-country run…5 miles. Tomorrow is track & field and you will figure out how to pole vault. Wednesday is swimming day. No, not in a pool, in the lake. Thursday you’re playing rugby for two hours. Friday is soccer practice, and Saturday we’ve got a soccer match. Sunday you have off, but you will walk to church and back”.

And I was 8

Trafalgar on March 21, 2012 at 3:07 PM

I have a simple solution that will solve rising health costs, the so called obesity “epidemic” (a.k.a. “let’s label everything an epidemic, catastrophe, or war to get people riled up about it), and these rising costs for the government. Ready? … Because it is a shocking one… Ok, here it goes:

GET THE FRIKKIN’ GOVERMENT OUT OF THE HEALTH CARE BUSINESS!!!!

Let health care be what it hasn’t been for over 70 years (a true free market) and you can solve all three issues:

- without the gov paying for it the budget would be in much better shape and, (dare we say it?), taxes could be lower.
- without all the gov mandates insurers could lower the price of the policies by a large margin.
- having now to compete for clients those same companies would find the way to offer the best, most affordable products, and options would increase dramatically for customers.
- AND, since insurers would be free to set their own rules they could charge more to people that don’t care about their health: “You want to eat burgers everyday, smoke 20 cigarettes a day, and drink hard liquor for breakfast? That’s your call, but your premium will be more expensive”. THAT alone will be a greater incentive to take care of your health and that of your kids than any campaign these senators can come up with.

- Oh, and one more: you wouldn’t be forced to buy a product just as a condition of citizenship.

ptcamn on March 21, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Obviously the solution is to ban fast food. Sheesh, you people are such reactionary knuckle-draggers.

ConservativeLA on March 21, 2012 at 3:18 PM

I appreciate Tina as the lone conservative voice at Hot Air.

iwasbornwithit on March 21, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Barney Frank Hardest Hit!

KOOLAID2 on March 21, 2012 at 3:39 PM

It all started with the government “food pyramid” so many years ago. This is end stage nannyism.

PattyJ on March 21, 2012 at 1:26 PM

No kidding. Much of the obesity of kids (and adults) in this country is due to the fact that for decades the U.S. government has been aggressively promoting dietary guidelines (high carb, low-fat) that make people fat. And a big part of the reason they’ve been doing this is because the FDA has long been in bed with industries that produce and sell the types of food that Americans should eat less of.

But of course, the answer to a problem created by too much government is . . . more government!

AZCoyote on March 21, 2012 at 3:49 PM

IT’S NOT YOUR PROBLEM IF YOU CAN’T SAY NO TO EATING OR SEX, WE GOT THIS!!

John Kettlewell on March 21, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Wisconsin Democratic Rep. Ron Kind, with Donna Katen-Bahensky

Do a brief internet search for this pair…

I did, and would not trust either with my taxpayer dollars

These two nitwits want to increase the size of our already huge, fat, rotund, bloated federal budget…..because “they care” about huge, fat, rotund, bloated kids??… c’mon lib democrats…let’s slim the budget FIRST, and likely out kids will be thinner after that process..

BigSven on March 21, 2012 at 3:56 PM

The Rush Limbaugh Show on 770 KKOB
Conservative from Albuquerque, NM
canopfor on March 21, 2012 at 1:58 PM
————————————–

The problem with listening to out of state radio; the time is usually off and so is the weather.

whatcat on March 21, 2012 at 2:02 PM

whatcat:You can get Rush,in any State,just look under Location!:)

canopfor on March 21, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Nathan_OH on March 21, 2012 at 2:22 PM

MUST proofread! *grumble*

Nathan_OH on March 21, 2012 at 4:36 PM

To what budget is the good Democratic Rep referring?

Syd B. on March 21, 2012 at 1:25 PM

You are too kind to call him “good.” What about naive, foolish, deceptive, or just plain liberal?

chai on March 21, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Democratic congressman: The federal government has to fight childhood obesity for the budget

Fascism.

petefrt on March 21, 2012 at 7:24 PM

And the co-authors of the article both come from that great state that brings us cheese and bratwurst.

RMCS_USN on March 21, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Today, our nation spends $147 billion each year on obesity-related health care expenses

I hate reading this kind of crap. I don’t, frankly, believe it for a single second. Health care for people that are ALSO technically “obese”. I’m 5’10″ and 205. The BMI at which you are “obese” is 30. Mine is 29.4. That is complete nonsense.

The idea that the nation is spending $147 billion on “obesity related health care” is a complete MYTH.

deadrody on March 21, 2012 at 10:34 PM

Oh and the primary culprit in “obesity” ? The federal government that has screwed up the idea of what is healthy and what is “food”. The federal government doesn’t know a damn thing about food or health as it relates to the normal consumption of food.

deadrody on March 21, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Yes, Obesity treatment costs money because they die earlier.

You know what else costs money? Treatment for people who are still alive and elderly.

You know which costs more? And therefore is more costly overall?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19908927

CONCLUSIONS:

Obesity prevention will likely result in savings in the pharmaceutical segment, but substantial additional costs for long-term care. These are important considerations for policy makers concerned with the future sustainability of the healthcare system.

So we get substantial additional costs from his actions to save us money.

I can save us more money… lets not listen to him. Leave people the hell alone and mind your own business… see how much money I’m saving the government?

Sure maybe I could propose saving more by subsidizing Twinkies or something, but that seems like going too far the other way.

Sadly, from a cost/statistics perspective the problem with health care costs in this country isn’t the fat lady you love to hate, or the smoker you love to attack, or even the fat smoker who doesn’t exercise… It’s the guy who jogs every day, eats right, doesn’t smoke, seldom drinks, and will live to be 120. He’s the one breaking the bank.

And I say let him do that, good for him… but trying to force everyone else to be like the guy who will cost us the most overall won’t save us money regardless how much we might want to think it will.

gekkobear on March 22, 2012 at 1:35 PM