The Associated Press: FDA to review first of 3 new weight loss drugs
USDA Report: Taxing Caloric Sweetened Beverages
No, no, NO! Why should this even be an option? Leave it to the American pharmaceutical companies to make it their very duty in life to get people hooked on "miracle pills" for literally the most minor of "ailments", even though most of these medications prove to be addictive and come with scary side effects.
The so-called obesity "epidemic" in our country has created many concerns in recent years, not only in the healthcare arena, but in the political world as well. The number of fat people has risen greatly, and the costs of medical care for these people takes a significant chunk out of everyone else's healthcare budget, and with our economy the way it is, governments are looking to cut the fat. Our nanny-state legislators see fit to tax, regulate, and ban certain ingredients in food as well as entire products, such as soda, which is currently being taxed in a handful of states, with several more states and the federal government considering similar taxes for the future. Michelle Obama has even made childhood obesity the target of her "First Lady Mission" (or whatever it's called). But is obesity really the medical problem it's been played out to be? Should we be offering pills for this? And the even bigger political question: why should all consumers be taxed for these goods when obese people are the minority? Isn't that taxation without representation?
First I'll target the taxes...most governments that are choosing to place fees on soda are also extending the extra charge to any beverage containing sugar...that means Gatorade, <100% fruit juice, and even chocolate milk. The inclusion of sports drinks particularly frustrates me; in my youth I was a very competitive swimmer, and consistently purchased Gatorade in massive volumes for grueling 3-day meets. Luckily the tax wasn't in effect back then, or else I would have been charged for partaking in activity that encourages the exact opposite of obesity! This is the main problem: that the fees are nondiscriminatory--you could be Paris Hilton and the "obesity tax" would still apply. This leads to an age-old democratic problem: taxation without representation. If obese people are the minority, why should I be taxed if I'm physically fit? Haven't I earned my right to drink some soda by working out and leading a basically healthy lifestyle? My answer is yes. While studies have been done to determine whether or not the tax could actually reduce consumption and/or obesity in general, the point remains that the entire populace should not be penalized for the acts of few, and I expect to see more uprising on the subject in the future in states where the tax has gone into effect.
As far as obesity as a medical ailment goes, I strongly disagree with the notion that being overweight is a sickness. While it most definitely leads to severe health issues such as diabetes, high blood pressure, heart attack, etc., I feel like people have forgotten that obesity is one of the most preventable of all medical problems. There is no substitute for balanced diet and exercise. The only exception I acknowledge is the rare case in which gastric-bypass surgery is needed to fix pre-existing digestive problems. By subsidizing irresponsible lifestyle choices and classifying poor diet as an "epidemic", America has sent the message that there is no cure for fat, which there most definitely is and has been since the dawning of our species. Whether or not these people want to take the initiative to stay fit, it's not the government's duty to control aspects of the food industry, nor should it be the taxpayer's duty to foot the bill for their thoughtless and preventable "condition". It's the sole responsibility of parents and individuals to eat right and get at least minimal physical exercise--we owe it to our bodies.
The medications set before the FDA for consideration this week are even scarier than I imagined. According to the AP article above, two of the three proposed treatments are a mixture of amphetamines and anti-convulsants. Oh yes, that sounds extremely healthy for a person that already displays lack of personal control. Since when is it okay for police to roll around impounding marijuana while highly addictive amphetamines are praised by federal agencies and mass-produced by big pharma? Patients in research studies of these drugs had high dropout rates because of memory and cognitive impairment. That really sounds like something people should be taking in the morning before they drive to work. Furthermore, obesity pills of the past have faced lawsuits and recalls for high risk of heart attack, permanent liver damage, and even anal leakage (gross). If these medications are approved by the FDA, it will prove just how short-sighted and profit-driven our federal agencies and beloved pharmaceutical corporations really are--they're the largest drug cartel on the planet, operating 100% legally within our borders and getting people hooked on pills and rushed to the ER for fatal overdoses by the thousands. They'll continue to do this as long as Americans keep messing up their bodies and looking for the easy way out. I've got a solution for America's obese: Get off the couch and put the McDonald's down.
On a brighter note, check out this pharma company from the UK who has just landed on our turf and has some REAL ideas on effective medical treatment: GW Pharmaceuticals--Creator of Sativex
Share
Showing posts with label healthcare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label healthcare. Show all posts
Monday, July 12, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Leave Obama alone!
Slate Magazine (6.2.10) - "The backward party."
http://www.slate.com/id/2255836/
In this era of partisan politics, the most prominent media figure is undoubtedly President Barack Obama. His first term has been interesting to say the least; he went from being revered as a pop-culture icon to drawing complaints from all over the political spectrum. Personally, I've been on the fence about Obama since the beginning, although I definitely would have voted for him over McCain in 2008 had I been of age. After reading this article, however, I have gained a new respect for our President and the way in which he handles his business. This piece also prompted me to think more philosophically about what the American presidency really stands for.
Obama's opponents are constantly ripping on his eloquent speaking style. They seem to think that he is trying to deceive us all with big words and fancy rhetoric. It seems to me that the people making these claims are making reference to their own ignorance; in listening to the President's speeches and reading articles like this one, I can only admire the composure and logic with which he expresses himself. He knows that his opponents trash-talk him in the media on a daily basis, he knows that people call him a Socialist, and he knows that people drive around with "NOBAMA!" bumper stickers on their cars, after only a year in office. All this disrespect and still he handles himself with tact, firmly yet calmly reminding opponents that their party legislators have been stubborn since before his inauguration and still refuse to compromise on many of his plans. People also seem to expect Obama to possess superhuman qualities, criticizing his response to the Gulf oil spill when he is obviously looking at the problem from every angle and trying to make the best decision for the US.
In addition, haters of Obama's healthcare plan should take a step back and collect themselves when it comes to their protest claims. Those who argue that Obamacare is a step toward Socialism in the US should think about the fact that our President compromised his original plan a great deal in order to accommodate current values, while still taking power away from cash-hungry insurance firms and reaching a helping hand out to lower- and middle- class families. For those who say the country never wanted this healthcare plan in the first place, it helps to think back to his campaign days, when that was his main focus. If people really opposed the plan that much, they would have been much less likely to vote for him in the first place.
It pains me to see how much negative energy is pumping through the mass media these days. Just when you think you've established yourself as an intellectually and morally sound politician, newspapers and TV start grabbing at every negative thing about you. The sad thing is, in this information age, nothing is off-limits--childhood stories, gossip, internet history, testimonies of college friends, sex life--even Obama's citizenship was questioned in the early days.
The bottom line is this: we can only have one President. The position has always come with a certain level of international respect, as well as local reverence in the name of patriotism. Now, our Constitution permits us to be as dissatisfied as we like with our government officials, even to express our ill feelings about them through a variety of media, but does that necessarily mean that we should? Many people go off on these politicians without stopping to really analyze their arguments. Often times people can only see the bad that a President has done, rather than recognizing positive developments of the current administration. For example, Obama just released a memorandum ordering federal agencies to extend fringe benefits to gay and lesbian employees. This measure, while small compared to the bigger civil rights issue at hand, is still groundbreaking and shows that Obama cares about extending American liberty to all groups regardless of social discrimination placed on them by everyone else--an extremely admirable action by our President in my opinion. Obama also announced in the beginning of his term that he would not continue to order federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries and patients that were found to be in compliance with state law. For proponents of legalization, this has meant more opportunities for growth and acceptance within their communities.
My only hope is that someday Americans will learn to love the American presidency again, and that the media will learn to treat our current leader with as much tact as he has treated his opponents. I, for one, have come to respect Obama in spite of the bashing. He went into his first term bravely, facing a failing economy, an angry populus, and a controversial war effort. Through the hardships he has persevered and continues to work on issues that are important in our society. How much more can people really expect? He's only human, after all.
http://www.slate.com/id/2255836/
In this era of partisan politics, the most prominent media figure is undoubtedly President Barack Obama. His first term has been interesting to say the least; he went from being revered as a pop-culture icon to drawing complaints from all over the political spectrum. Personally, I've been on the fence about Obama since the beginning, although I definitely would have voted for him over McCain in 2008 had I been of age. After reading this article, however, I have gained a new respect for our President and the way in which he handles his business. This piece also prompted me to think more philosophically about what the American presidency really stands for.
Obama's opponents are constantly ripping on his eloquent speaking style. They seem to think that he is trying to deceive us all with big words and fancy rhetoric. It seems to me that the people making these claims are making reference to their own ignorance; in listening to the President's speeches and reading articles like this one, I can only admire the composure and logic with which he expresses himself. He knows that his opponents trash-talk him in the media on a daily basis, he knows that people call him a Socialist, and he knows that people drive around with "NOBAMA!" bumper stickers on their cars, after only a year in office. All this disrespect and still he handles himself with tact, firmly yet calmly reminding opponents that their party legislators have been stubborn since before his inauguration and still refuse to compromise on many of his plans. People also seem to expect Obama to possess superhuman qualities, criticizing his response to the Gulf oil spill when he is obviously looking at the problem from every angle and trying to make the best decision for the US.
In addition, haters of Obama's healthcare plan should take a step back and collect themselves when it comes to their protest claims. Those who argue that Obamacare is a step toward Socialism in the US should think about the fact that our President compromised his original plan a great deal in order to accommodate current values, while still taking power away from cash-hungry insurance firms and reaching a helping hand out to lower- and middle- class families. For those who say the country never wanted this healthcare plan in the first place, it helps to think back to his campaign days, when that was his main focus. If people really opposed the plan that much, they would have been much less likely to vote for him in the first place.
It pains me to see how much negative energy is pumping through the mass media these days. Just when you think you've established yourself as an intellectually and morally sound politician, newspapers and TV start grabbing at every negative thing about you. The sad thing is, in this information age, nothing is off-limits--childhood stories, gossip, internet history, testimonies of college friends, sex life--even Obama's citizenship was questioned in the early days.
The bottom line is this: we can only have one President. The position has always come with a certain level of international respect, as well as local reverence in the name of patriotism. Now, our Constitution permits us to be as dissatisfied as we like with our government officials, even to express our ill feelings about them through a variety of media, but does that necessarily mean that we should? Many people go off on these politicians without stopping to really analyze their arguments. Often times people can only see the bad that a President has done, rather than recognizing positive developments of the current administration. For example, Obama just released a memorandum ordering federal agencies to extend fringe benefits to gay and lesbian employees. This measure, while small compared to the bigger civil rights issue at hand, is still groundbreaking and shows that Obama cares about extending American liberty to all groups regardless of social discrimination placed on them by everyone else--an extremely admirable action by our President in my opinion. Obama also announced in the beginning of his term that he would not continue to order federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries and patients that were found to be in compliance with state law. For proponents of legalization, this has meant more opportunities for growth and acceptance within their communities.
My only hope is that someday Americans will learn to love the American presidency again, and that the media will learn to treat our current leader with as much tact as he has treated his opponents. I, for one, have come to respect Obama in spite of the bashing. He went into his first term bravely, facing a failing economy, an angry populus, and a controversial war effort. Through the hardships he has persevered and continues to work on issues that are important in our society. How much more can people really expect? He's only human, after all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)