sethnintendo said:
My line of thinking wasn't that good on that response. I failed to realize your train of thought. Your option would have the same results with no government money needed. I want people to start eating healthier foods. However, you might as well put a gun to most overweight people's head because they won't eat healthy. I see most of the overweight people at my job eating terrible everyday while I bring a big container of fruit and a few crackers (I eat my main meals at home). They are content on being fat because if they weren't then they would at least bring in something healthy to eat everyday. |
Right.
My solution would save money, since we're currently spending billions a year on agriculture subsidies.
The obesity epidemic is (partially) a result of these subsidies. The government subsidizes corn and dairy very heavily. The result is that corn sugar is artificially cheap, therefore soda pop is artificially cheap. Corn is also used in a littany of other unhealthy products, as well as animal feed. You remove the subsidies, then soda, meat, and corn-based foods go up by 20-30% overnight. Take out the dairy subsidies, and the same thing happens there.
Comparatively, I cannot think of a single subsidy given to any fruit or veggie producer. Not one. Since their price remains, you've effectively increased unhealthy food prices by 20-30%, and saved the government billions a year.
Its a win-win.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.







