I can’t help but think that that use gastric bypasses is like combating fire with fire, while the heart of the problem is not to start the fire in the first place.

I don’t know the prices in the UK, but I believe you, and as the UK is ranked #2 in the article I linked, we have to look elsewhere. Is it being choosy or is there something else that makes the bad alternatives more attractive? To my mind come convenience, advertising and, related to that, our built-in preference of foods that yield high energy, which was made sense in a time when food was scarce.

Yep, it is exactly as you say and as I said in my reply to Combat, that behavior directly hurts the welfare of country – and most polticians probably know it. Therefore something is going wrong – but how can it be righted?

Yes, Msychly, they know to play the system to a t. But what to do? As John Adams said: “While all other sciences have advanced, that of government is at a standstill – little better understood, little better practiced now than three or four thousand years ago”.

Of course. If the beginning of the chain wasn’t as heavily subsidized, meat would be more expensive.

The sick only make money for the healthcare industry and the taxes they pay don’t make up for the losses. Let’s take an example: The government sends you through school free of charge, it has therefore invested in you. The you get a college education, which you have either paid for yourself or, as in some countries, was also paid for by the government, which would indebt you further. The only way for your country to get its investment back is if you are productive: Have a job, pay taxes and have enough money to buy stuff, which in return ensures that other people keep their jobs.

If you got that education, but then became chronically sick the invested money and the other effects would be lost and if you government finds it unethical to let its sick just die, it also has to pay for the healthcare costs.

Thanks for the friendly words, Sean!

Yes, it is not as our governments aren’t aware of these discrepancies, but there is a whole world of lobbying going on in Washington, Brussels, Berlin, Paris, London and whatever other capital in the world you can think of. Just today’s news will give you dozens of examples. And these lobbyists have a multitude of ways to get their way: They know politicians want to be reelected and need money for their campaigns, they know that most politicians can’t know every detail of every topic they have to decide on, so they bombard them with one-sided information positive to what they want, and they can pour tons of money into swinging public opinion, which then puts politicians under a lot of pressure if they have to make a right, but unpopular, decision.

This isn’t strictly related – but in terms of the “paying off” idea, this article I read a couple of weeks ago highlights points i’d never thought of at the benefits of offering gastric bypass en-mass to the obese:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/health-10877140

“It is cost-effective, with gastric bypass paying for itself within three-and-a-half years due to reduced drug costs and hospital admissions, and this is before we take into account the individual’s renewed productivity, and benefit – rather than burden – to the economy. ”

As for the main article – here in the UK it is nonsense that healthier food is more expensive. Much more often than not it’s simply less appealing – the number of markets and small vegetable shops dotted around, there is always a cheap, healthier option. What IS more expensive are packets of ‘ready-made salad’ or prestine organic tomatoes imported from the other side of the world, etc. etc.. And fruit and vegetables in season (from as simple as apples to luxurious as strawberries) can be bought very cheaply across the entire country.

The problem isn’t cost; once more it’s people being overly choosy.

Could you imagine the P.R. nightmare that would come out of governments not at least acknoweledging the obesity epidemic in a negative fashion? After the release of “Super Size Me”, Many Americans saw fast food (and other unhealthy industries) as “bad”, but did little to change their personal habits reguarding them, let alone their commercial ones. Once the problem was put into light, politicians had to look like they were doing something, rather than fixing the problem (and creating another one, which you pointed out at the top of your post).

“Politicians care more about votes than people”
-Me, 10 seconds ago

The subsidizing of the food industry in the US is but one example of the insanity that occurs when there’s too much corporate influence in politics.

“General Electric, which generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, ended up owing nothing to the IRS. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion. Big Oil giant Exxon Mobil, which last year reported a record $45.2 billion profit, paid the most taxes of any corporation, but none of it went to the IRS”

I mean, no sane government would ever allow that! These companies pay taxes in other countries, but not the US. The only way that makes any sense whatsoever, is corruption.