81–88 of 88 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does grain finishing get grass-fed-tasting compounds out of the meat?
Probably. I can only cop to having read about it some. One of the big goals is to increase the fat content of the meat.
The basic problem is that one intervention is seeking to fix another. Crop subsidies are the reason why these antibiotics are so widely used. Farmers are encouraged to feed animals food they aren't meant to eat which makes them so sick they need antibiotics to stay alive long enough to be slaughtered. Just end those crop subsidies and let things take care of themselves. A few agribusinesses will be pissed but the res…
Better off in what way? Meat will get a lot more expensive, and it's already gone up a lot in the past couple of years.
The basic problem is that one intervention is seeking to fix another. Crop subsidies are the reason why these antibiotics are so widely used. Farmers are encouraged to feed animals food they aren't meant to eat which makes them so sick they need antibiotics to stay alive long enough to be slaughtered. Just end those crop subsidies and let things take care of themselves. A few agribusinesses will be pissed but the res…
The animals aren't generally sick. They are fed antibiotics at a very low dose because one of the side-effects is faster weight gain.
Too little, too late. There was a CDC report that the 'age of antibiotics' is over and there is little point in limiting their use now. Lets move the conversation on to something productive: what next?
Bollocks. The complete loss of effectiveness of antibiotics is not something that has already happened; they are still saving lives as I write this post. It is something that will happen if we don't change our behavior. Whether we change our behavior quickly enough has still to be decided.
Its useful to think in more than black and white. But sometimes thresholds are crossed; the 'prevent the creation of difficult diseases' threshold has been passed years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once we've chosen to subsidize health care, then everyone has a financial interest in everyone else's behavior. I agree that it's a vile situation, but I tend to think it's a reason to avoid government-subsidized health care in the first place. Once we've got it, ignoring the financial consequences is just stupid.
This cuts both ways, though — with private insurance, insurers have a financial interest in focusing on current rather than lifetime expenditures, leading to both subpar outcomes in general and overestimation of costs related to lifespan-shortening behaviors like smoking. With that said, high taxes on tobacco products in particular are primarily seen (by proponents and detractors) as means to reduce smoking for gener…
Tobacco taxes are certainly justified in many different ways, but public health is one of those ways. I'm also reminded of the big settlement the tobacco companies had to pay to all the states about 10-15 years ago, which was justified by the extra expense imposed on Medicare/Medicaid. That wasn't a tax, though it was functionally similar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with your overall point. However, the implicit claim that there are no externalities to cigarette smoking is silly. There are clearly effects on everyone who might be nearby when you're smoking. In the event that you're covered by any sort of public health insurance, which is nearly certain in old age with Medicare and increasingly probable at younger ages, then the effects on your own health become a problem…
>There are clearly effects on everyone who might be nearby when you're smoking. I don't think this is true. It only applies when indoors and probably for a very long period of time (ie living with the person, not just being at a restaurant.) Furthermore you can ban public smoking indoors as many places do, that's not the same as a tax. >In the event that you're covered by any sort of public health insurance, which is…
To your particular example of being in a restaurant, the increasingly-popular ban on smoking in bars and restaurants was largely driven by the negative health effects on the staff. Though again, I believe the effects on other patrons were non-zero.
>>This is a problem with public healthcare, not smoking. We're agreed there. But getting rid of the public healthcare doesn't seem to be a realistic option at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just end those crop subsidies and let things take care of themselves. A few agribusinesses will be pissed but the rest of us will be much better off. I don't disagree with your conclusion about what needs to be done, but you can't "just end those crop subsidies" with a flip of a switch. We're talking about millions of people and tens of thousands of jobs directly affected, and huge secondary effects to the entire f…
I realize all that but pulling the cord is the only sane thing to do. The food that gets produced is basically poison anyway so excluding it isn't the end of the world. I would be fine with increasing food stamps before continuing these market distorting crop subsidies.
That's nice hyperbole but there are literally millions subsisting on those artificially cheap, subsidized corn syrup calories.
Not having sufficient carbohydrate intake without resorting to stealing is certainly worse for them, can't you agree?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I realize all that but pulling the cord is the only sane thing to do. The food that gets produced is basically poison anyway so excluding it isn't the end of the world. I would be fine with increasing food stamps before continuing these market distorting crop subsidies.
> The food that gets produced is basically poison anyway That's nice hyperbole but there are literally millions subsisting on those artificially cheap, subsidized corn syrup calories. Not having sufficient carbohydrate intake without resorting to stealing is certainly worse for them, can't you agree?