NYJetsFan.com Forums: Interesting Article About Govt & Obesity - NYJetsFan.com Forums

Jump to content

Toggle shoutbox NYJETSFAN BANTER

Jets Sign Fitzpatrick - 1 Yr 12Mil Guaranteed
vjdbbq Icon : (22 June 2016 - 07:29 AM) No Mario ; you will be there alone .
MikeGangGree... Icon : (25 June 2016 - 07:15 PM) FIRE FITZPATRICK
MikeGangGree... Icon : (30 June 2016 - 12:00 PM) Sheldon Richardson suspended for 1 game for violating league substance abuse policy
ganggreen2003 Icon : (15 July 2016 - 04:06 PM) The JETS shouldn't of signed wilkerson to such a big contract
ganggreen2003 Icon : (15 July 2016 - 04:07 PM) he doesn't deserve $17 mil/year cause he is coming off an injury...he should of earned it by playing this year as the Franchise tag and then if he played lights out then you open the vault
MikeGangGree... Icon : (15 July 2016 - 04:21 PM) WOOOOOOOO
RetireChrebet Icon : (15 July 2016 - 04:58 PM) How much guaranteed money? also does this mean hes here for 6 years since he's tagged? how does that work?
MikeGangGree... Icon : (15 July 2016 - 10:20 PM) Now cut that street thug Wilkerson!!
NJAzrael71 Icon : (16 July 2016 - 03:47 AM) 54 million guaranteed
NJAzrael71 Icon : (16 July 2016 - 03:48 AM) 54 guaranteed against injury but 37 in straight guaranteed money without injury
NJAzrael71 Icon : (16 July 2016 - 03:49 AM) Should've waited till after the season to see how he comes off the injury but I guess they figure he wouldn't have signed if they waited another year
vjdbbq Icon : (17 July 2016 - 07:32 PM) Where is ROB and his ass ?
Jetsfan115 Icon : (18 July 2016 - 10:27 AM) guess that means richardson is gone after this season. Maybe we can franchise and trade him
Jetsman05 Icon : (22 July 2016 - 08:52 AM) whos running fantasy football league this year? brotana?
Jetsfan115 Icon : (22 July 2016 - 10:25 AM) darron lee still isn't signed... greedy street thug lol
MikeGangGree... Icon : (22 July 2016 - 05:31 PM) Rich is under contract for next year and we used a team option for 17 already so he's a jet for 2 more year's for sure unless we trade him.
MikeGangGree... Icon : (23 July 2016 - 02:38 PM) We need to quit screwing around and sign Fitzpatrick
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (24 July 2016 - 11:34 AM) Jets salary cap situation is tough next season, gonna have to make adjustments
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (24 July 2016 - 11:35 AM) the contract for Wilkerson is actually pretty good for both sides, after the first couple seasons nothing is guaranteed and they can cut him.
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (24 July 2016 - 11:36 AM) the jets probably should trade Richardson, hopefully he has a monster season and we have tons of leverage and deal him off for ransom
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (24 July 2016 - 11:36 AM) Because we cannot afford to keep everyone on the DL
Jetsfan115 Icon : (25 July 2016 - 10:20 AM) we have 20 mil in space next offseason and not many people to sign. We should be ok next year. this year was worse. we could tag and trade richardson if need be. I think he will be gone too
vjdbbq Icon : (26 July 2016 - 07:28 AM) WE NEED FITZ WE NEED FITZ WE NEED FITZ
MikeGangGree... Icon : (26 July 2016 - 09:51 AM) Yes we do need Fitz
Jetsfan115 Icon : (26 July 2016 - 10:58 AM) devin hester got cut by ATL today, anyone think we should grab him for special teams?
vjdbbq Icon : (26 July 2016 - 01:56 PM) Grab hester immediately
vjdbbq Icon : (26 July 2016 - 01:56 PM) GM Mike , GET HESTER
vjdbbq Icon : (26 July 2016 - 01:57 PM) Where is everybody ?
santana Icon : (26 July 2016 - 01:59 PM) http://www.thedrawpl...oundhogJets.png
santana Icon : (26 July 2016 - 03:05 PM) Jets don't need Hester. KR is really just not a priority in The nfl anymore
MikeGangGree... Icon : (27 July 2016 - 06:04 PM) We signed Fitzpatrick!!!
MikeGangGree... Icon : (27 July 2016 - 06:04 PM) WOOOOO
MikeGangGree... Icon : (27 July 2016 - 06:04 PM) now let's f***ing go!!!
MikeGangGree... Icon : (27 July 2016 - 06:11 PM) ,we
MikeGangGree... Icon : (27 July 2016 - 06:11 PM) 1 year 12 million
santana Icon : (27 July 2016 - 08:13 PM) so .....
santana Icon : (27 July 2016 - 08:13 PM) what happens now
santana Icon : (27 July 2016 - 08:13 PM) lol
MikeGangGree... Icon : (27 July 2016 - 08:23 PM) Ric flair party!!
MikeGangGree... Icon : (27 July 2016 - 09:21 PM) A
MikeGangGree... Icon : (27 July 2016 - 09:21 PM) Lee Signed also!! WOOOOO
vjdbbq Icon : (Yesterday, 06:03 AM) yeah baby
vjdbbq Icon : (Yesterday, 06:04 AM) playoffs here we come
vjdbbq Icon : (Yesterday, 06:04 AM) We need a punt returner ; grab Hester
vjdbbq Icon : (Yesterday, 06:05 AM) Shut up santana
Resize Shouts Area

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

Interesting Article About Govt & Obesity

#1 User is offline   bobzero11 Icon

  • Line Coach
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: 30-March 05
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 08 July 2005 - 11:02 PM

NYTIMES
http://www.nytimes.c...agewanted=print

July 8, 2005
Free to Choose Obesity?
By PAUL KRUGMAN

The obvious model for those hoping to reverse the fattening of America is the campaign against smoking. Before the surgeon general officially condemned smoking in 1964, rising cigarette consumption seemed an unstoppable trend; since then, consumption per capita has fallen more than 50 percent.

But it may be hard to match that success when it comes to obesity. I'm not talking about the inherent difficulty of the task - getting people to consume fewer calories and/or exercise more may be harder than getting people to stop smoking, but we won't know until we try. I'm talking, instead, about how the political winds have shifted.

Public health activists were successful in taking on smoking in part because at the time corporations didn't know how to play the public opinion game. By today's standards, the political ineptitude of Big Tobacco was awe-inspiring. In a famous 1971 interview on "Face the Nation," the chairman of the board of Philip Morris, confronted with evidence that smoking by mothers leads to low birth weight, replied, "Some women would prefer having smaller babies."

Today's food industry would never make that kind of mistake. In public, the industry's companies proclaim themselves good guys, committed to healthier eating. Meanwhile, they outsource the campaigns against medical researchers and the dissemination of crude anti-anti-obesity propaganda to industry-financed advocacy groups like the Center for Consumer Freedom.

More broadly, the ideological landscape has changed drastically since the 1960's. (That change in the landscape also has a lot to do with corporate financing of advocacy groups, but that's a tale for another article.) In today's America, proposals to do something about rising obesity rates must contend with a public predisposed to believe that the market is always right and that the government always screws things up.

You can see these predispositions at work in an article printed last month in Amber Waves, a magazine published by the Department of Agriculture. The article is titled "Obesity Policy and the Law of Unintended Consequences," suggesting that government efforts to combat obesity are likely to be counterproductive. But the authors don't actually provide any examples of how that might happen.

And the authors suggest, without quite asserting it, that because people freely choose obesity in a free market, it must be a good thing.

"Americans' rapid weight gain may have nothing to do with market failure," the article says. "It may be a rational response to changing technology and prices. ... If consumers willingly trade off increased adiposity for working indoors and spending less time in the kitchen as well as for manageable weight-related health problems, then markets are not failing."

How can medical experts who see obesity as a critical problem deal with an ideological landscape tilted in the direction of doing nothing?

One answer is to focus on the financial costs of obesity, and the fact that many of these costs fall on taxpayers and on the general insurance-buying public, rather than on the obese individuals themselves. (To their credit, the authors of the Amber Waves article do mention this issue, although they play it down.)

It is more important, however, to emphasize that there are situations in which "free to choose" is all wrong - and that this is one of them.

For one thing, the most rapid rise in obesity isn't taking place among adults, who, we hope, can understand the consequences of their decisions. It's taking place among children and adolescents.

And even if children weren't a big part of the problem, only a blind ideologue or an economist could argue with a straight face that Americans were rationally deciding to become obese. In fact, even many economists know better: the most widely cited recent economic analysis of obesity, a 2003 paper by David Cutler, Edward Glaeser and Jesse Shapiro of Harvard University, declares that "at least some food consumption is almost certainly not rational." It goes on to present evidence that even adults have clear problems with self-control.

Above all, we need to put aside our anti-government prejudices and realize that the history of government interventions on behalf of public health, from the construction of sewer systems to the campaign against smoking, is one of consistent, life-enhancing success. Obesity is America's fastest-growing health problem; let's do something about it.
IPB Image<<<Don't know how to update this thing...
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users