NationStates

The Committee of Presidents of Medical Colleges, representing bodies including the Royal Australian College of GPs, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians and the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, has developed a six-point obesity action plan to tackle what it calls the most pressing public health issue.

Professor Nick Talley, head of the Committee of the Presidents of Medical Colleges, said urgent definitive action was needed.

"We need leadership, not just telling people to lose weight," he said.

"With smoking and tobacco control, we took risks and it had a dramatic effect."

He said obesity was a "real disease, not simply a lifestyle choice".

The group's six point plan includes:

Reclassifying obesity as a chronic disease
Introducing a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages
Advocating for better options for treating obesity including more cost effective medications and better access to bariatric surgery
Targeted training for all medical and health professionals to ensure a focus on nutrition, physical activity and obesity prevention and management
Lead by example in encouraging healthy food choices
Expand prenatal and early childhood obesity prevention strategies
Medical groups said they would lead by example by encouraging medical colleges, hospitals, universities and health services to offer healthier food choices to staff and limiting access to sugar-sweetened beverages.

Royal Australian College of GPs president Dr Bastian Seidel said the medical profession needed to lead the way on healthy eating.

"We need to live by the advice that we are giving to our patients," he said.

Rahul Raghuraman wrote:I am pro sugar tax

Lots of obesity problems derive from an unhealthy diet, including sodas, including not-so-diet soda.

My nation does have a 5% extra tax on the sale of all soda, energy drinks, etc.

Community Values wrote:We wouldn't be required to have a healthy society if we didn't have to pay for people's health.

just sayin'

Dumb Ideologies wrote:I think it's somewhat reasonable for the state to make it more difficult and expensive for people to make persistently unhealthy decisions.

Socialist Tera wrote:

Rahul Raghuraman wrote:I am pro sugar tax

Lots of obesity problems derive from an unhealthy diet, including sodas, including not-so-diet soda.

My nation does have a 5% extra tax on the sale of all soda, energy drinks, etc.

5% is not enough to make a noticeable dip in consumption. You would have to put in absorbent taxes. e.g. 60%

Socialist Tera wrote:

Community Values wrote:We wouldn't be required to have a healthy society if we didn't have to pay for people's health.

just sayin'

That's a little bit of a loaded answer. We aren't discussing whether health should be public or private.

Dumb Ideologies wrote:I think it's somewhat reasonable for the state to make it more difficult and expensive for people to make persistently unhealthy decisions.

The question is though, how far do we let them before it becomes an invasion of privacy and your own right to your body? I drink like 4 bottles of soft drink a weeb and I'm not fat.

Saiwania wrote:I'm in favor because it is more or less common sense in terms of policy. Nobody has to buy items containing sugars but slightly higher prices for sweets might provide the incentive for some people to consider healthier alternatives. It is high time that the sugar/corn syrup subsidies go away.

Internationalist Bastard wrote:

Saiwania wrote:I'm in favor because it is more or less common sense in terms of policy. Nobody has to buy items containing sugars but slightly higher prices for sweets might provide the incentive for some people to consider healthier alternatives. It is high time that the sugar/corn syrup subsidies go away.

Oh no, I work hard to eat garbage. Do you know how many addictions I've substituted for sugar? I'm drawing a line

Socialist Tera wrote:The question is though, how far do we let them before it becomes an invasion of privacy and your own right to your body? I drink like 4 bottles of soft drink a weeb and I'm not fat.

Community Values wrote:We wouldn't be required to have a healthy society if we didn't have to pay for people's health.

just sayin'

Nocturnalis wrote:What the hell is it with folk trying to get obesity classified as a disease?

Minarchismusland wrote:Not really my opinion but a thought of mine on controlling alcohol/tobacco/unhealthy food is: let people do whatever they want with their bodies, but don't allow them to treat whatever problems the usage of those can cause freely by a public healthcare system. Less demand aka less taxes, and perhaps this would make people think a bit more before doing anything unhealthy with themselves, differently from just saying "drugs are bad, but we're still going to take care of you even if you use them, eh buddy?"

There are some problems with that kind of decision. People with enough money to pay for private healthcare shouldn't really care, the chances of some people not caring and continuing using drugs/other unhealthy things and then facing the consequences later and dying, etc.

Galloism wrote:

Minarchismusland wrote:Not really my opinion but a thought of mine on controlling alcohol/tobacco/unhealthy food is: let people do whatever they want with their bodies, but don't allow them to treat whatever problems the usage of those can cause freely by a public healthcare system. Less demand aka less taxes, and perhaps this would make people think a bit more before doing anything unhealthy with themselves, differently from just saying "drugs are bad, but we're still going to take care of you even if you use them, eh buddy?"

There are some problems with that kind of decision. People with enough money to pay for private healthcare shouldn't really care, the chances of some people not caring and continuing using drugs/other unhealthy things and then facing the consequences later and dying, etc.

I guarantee you most people don't think 40 years ahead when deciding whether or not to have that soda.

Galloism wrote:

Minarchismusland wrote:Not really my opinion but a thought of mine on controlling alcohol/tobacco/unhealthy food is: let people do whatever they want with their bodies, but don't allow them to treat whatever problems the usage of those can cause freely by a public healthcare system. Less demand aka less taxes, and perhaps this would make people think a bit more before doing anything unhealthy with themselves, differently from just saying "drugs are bad, but we're still going to take care of you even if you use them, eh buddy?"

There are some problems with that kind of decision. People with enough money to pay for private healthcare shouldn't really care, the chances of some people not caring and continuing using drugs/other unhealthy things and then facing the consequences later and dying, etc.

I guarantee you most people don't think 40 years ahead when deciding whether or not to have that soda.

Minarchismusland wrote:

Galloism wrote:I guarantee you most people don't think 40 years ahead when deciding whether or not to have that soda.

Which is the problem with that idea. Maybe a few years of people dying from not caring later the population in general would start to take care of themselves, but I don't think making a ton of people die so the others learn the lesson isn't very moral.