America’s losing battle against diabetes • Hacker News Board

Re: America’s losing battle against diabetes

#81

Post by willcipriano » Fri, Aug 13, 2021, 4:30 PM UTC

mumblemumble wrote: post #52

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, a giant corporation outsources their production to china, pays zero carbon tax, and still pollutes the same planet, but Johnny average cannot heat his house and drive his car, because he cannot afford it anymore?

One would assume that you tax carbon across the entire value chain for any product that's to be sold within your borders. Insofar as the atmosphere doesn't confine itself to political boundaries, it certainly seems to me like that would be the sensible way to attempt such a thing. Why faff around? Companies that don't want to pay this tax would, of course, be free to simply not sell their products in the USA. But I d…

The Soviet Union attempted to set prices for all goods in the economy. The trouble was that a raise in the price of say wood, would have downstream effects on things like the price of toothpicks. It was a big mess.

I'd say it's harder to create a measure of carbon output for a given finished product that is remotely accurate. It really depends where each part of the pencil was manufactured, what specific materials are used, what manufacturing processes were applied, how each raw material was shipped, etc. Take that multiply it by a billion products and you have a huge mess.

Re: America’s losing battle against diabetes

#82

Post by hannob » Fri, Aug 13, 2021, 4:30 PM UTC

hansor wrote: post #66

NonContro wrote: post #2

Easiest solution to diabetes: Sugar tax. Easiest solution to climate change: Carbon tax. If we havn't used these solutions, someone high up in the food chain is placing a greater emphasis on profits from the status quo instead of the wellbeing of the population.

>Easiest solution to diabetes: Sugar tax. Wrong. You should BAN High-fructose corn syrup. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup It is way more harmful than natural sugar. It is not banned yet because: - It is made from corn, and corn is heavily substituted by US government. - It is super cheap (high volume of corn available) - It is not only slightly sweet but also prevents spoilage (that's why they…

This HFCS story is a bit of a strange thing.

At some point it was marketed as a more "natural" alternative to plain sugar. Then it became the villain and people said you should use normal sugar.

The truth is: HFCS is not much different from normal sugar. They're both calorie dense and not very healthy.

Re: America’s losing battle against diabetes

#83

Post by tonyedgecombe » Fri, Aug 13, 2021, 4:31 PM UTC

sithlord wrote: post #71

yawaworht1978 wrote: post #41

The health care model in the US doesn't really help much on the matter, but this isn't a battle against diabetes, diabetes is just the result of an overweight population with bad dietary habits. There is the inherited kind, and then there is the "earned" kind. One is genetically unavoidable, the other is mostly preventable. It is not even the food, or fats, or carbs, or sugars, it's too many calories over extended ti…

Type 2 diabetes is also very much a genetic problem. Sure, being overweight may give you a more likely chance of seeing the issues arise (sooner that is)but I know plenty of people who are not overweight and have type 2 diabetes. If someone has the genetic disposition for Type 2 diabetes in younger, more fit people they are still extremely likely to start seeing the effects as they age and lose activity (even if they…

I wonder what percentage of people with T2D are normal weight, because my impression is it's not very many people at all.

Re: America’s losing battle against diabetes

#84

Post by mumblemumble » Fri, Aug 13, 2021, 4:31 PM UTC

willcipriano wrote: post #81

mumblemumble wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One would assume that you tax carbon across the entire value chain for any product that's to be sold within your borders. Insofar as the atmosphere doesn't confine itself to political boundaries, it certainly seems to me like that would be the sensible way to attempt such a thing. Why faff around? Companies that don't want to pay this tax would, of course, be free to simply not sell their products in the USA. But I d…

The Soviet Union attempted to set prices for all goods in the economy. The trouble was that a raise in the price of say wood, would have downstream effects on things like the price of toothpicks. It was a big mess. I'd say it's harder to create a measure of carbon output for a given finished product that is remotely accurate. It really depends where each part of the pencil was manufactured, what specific materials ar…

Excise taxation is not the same thing as price setting, though.

If you want a good explanation for what excise taxation's about, albeit one that uses stodgy, old-fashioned language, you need look no further than Adam Smith's writings on the subject in The Wealth of Nations.

Re: America’s losing battle against diabetes

#85

Post by officialchicken » Fri, Aug 13, 2021, 4:32 PM UTC

ravenstine wrote: post #74

Let's stop pretending we care about diabetes. All the time an article like this gets trotted out and life goes on the minute the world has stopped reading it. If we cared, we'd address the culture that is making us miserable. We can try to address diabetes, obesity, depression, and suicide by passing bills and popping pills, but it doesn't actually address anything. People are miserable whether they know it conscious…

I agree, and luckily, we can all profit from this disease - https://diabeticinvestor.com/

Note: I got tired of others profiting from my pain so I try to share this link with everyone to show just how f&$^@#d up healthcare is in the USA. I'm not the creator, but they are also diabetic.

Re: America’s losing battle against diabetes

#86

Post by ItsMonkk » Fri, Aug 13, 2021, 4:32 PM UTC

fighterpilot wrote: post #57

ItsMonkk wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The tax externalities and dividend system is such an underappreciated idea. Sugar, carbon, and land are things that we move quickly to implement and bring it to more and more externalities.

What do you mean by "dividend" in this context?

UBI. The verbiage comes from the climate plan[0] using the same mechanism.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend

Re: America’s losing battle against diabetes

#87

Post by Jtsummers » Fri, Aug 13, 2021, 4:32 PM UTC

Arrath wrote: post #46

collaborative wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone talks about sugar. But the real problem is food culture (or the lack of). American, and now many European diets now consist of either fast food, oven-ready food or fried food. I recently went shopping and had a look at the "healthy" aisle. I could only find supposedly healthy food consisting of extremely savory dishes -carbonara, paella, etc. This is no way to eat healthy In many western countries, no one is…

Honest question, why the push for 'barely seasoned'? What are the dietary implications of a dash of pepper, paprika, garlic powder, turmeric, garam masala etc. if the salt and sugar is kept in check?

I think it's because people don't know how to cook. Seriously, adding those spices in has essentially no caloric effect on the meal (especially because many spices are strong enough you don't need to add a lot to have a massive effect on the flavor). The result, though, is that you can cook "the same thing" every day, but vary the spices and never get bored with chicken and vegetables or whatever it is you settle on.

Re: America’s losing battle against diabetes

#88

Post by ahnick » Fri, Aug 13, 2021, 4:33 PM UTC

valenterry wrote: post #31

post_break wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop taxing everything. Tax is not the solution for everything. The people buying soda are generally the poor or middle class. All this does it take more money from those who need it the most. What we need to do is regulate how much sugar you can put into foods. But we can't do that. We have to prop up the corn industry with subsidies. Sugar and HFCS is in literally everything. By adding a sugar tax you're basically…

> What we need to do is regulate how much sugar you can put into foods. How about we first find out what actually causes diabetes. Not what correlates with it, but what really causes it. And then how we can stop that. You can tax or forbid sugar all you want, but is it gonna stop diabetes? Will people who eat tons of other "empty carbs" really not get diabetes? I'm not so sure. Instead of restricting peoples lifes, I…

I didn't really think sugar causing obesity (and in turn causing diabetes) was open to debate? People gain weight because they consume too many calories and then eventually overweight people develop diabetes. The big calorie contributor to modern diets is the sugar content in food. For example, there are no shortage of stories of people losing weight just by cutting out soda from their diets.

Now, some people will change their life through incentives and some people won't. The nice thing about a sugar tax is that if the funds are appropriated for health care funding or UBI for low income individuals, then you can provide more of the opportunities you were talking about for people to get healthy (gym discounts, nutrition consults, etc.). The tax is two parts. Disincentivize the purchasing of high sugar content food and fund discounts or incentives that improve health outcomes.

Re: America’s losing battle against diabetes

#89

Post by mdbug » Fri, Aug 13, 2021, 4:34 PM UTC

00deadbeef wrote: post #55

mdbug wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sugar does not cause diabetes.

Too much sugar causes high insulin. Prolonged high insulin causes insulin resistance. Insulin resistance causes diabetes.

This is a common misconception. Insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes is mostly caused by obesity.

Sugar has a relatively high caloric density and can be addictive, leading to obesity. However, you can eat large amounts of sugar if you do a lot of sport, for example, and then burn off the calories again. Then you don't get diabetes from it either.

Re: America’s losing battle against diabetes

#90

Post by wombatmobile » Fri, Aug 13, 2021, 4:34 PM UTC

collaborative wrote: post #34

NonContro wrote: post #2

Easiest solution to diabetes: Sugar tax. Easiest solution to climate change: Carbon tax. If we havn't used these solutions, someone high up in the food chain is placing a greater emphasis on profits from the status quo instead of the wellbeing of the population.

Everyone talks about sugar. But the real problem is food culture (or the lack of). American, and now many European diets now consist of either fast food, oven-ready food or fried food. I recently went shopping and had a look at the "healthy" aisle. I could only find supposedly healthy food consisting of extremely savory dishes -carbonara, paella, etc. This is no way to eat healthy In many western countries, no one is…

You’re talking about processed food - anything that comes in a box, jar, or bottle.

Those products all have brand names and each one has a product manager who wants to grow sales so they add sugar, salt, and fat to manipulate you into craving more.

Healthy food is simple to understand - fresh vegetables, fresh fruits, nuts, grains, pulses, and meat.

That’s it.

It takes time to prepare and cook and the ingredients don’t stay fresh very long so you have to synchronise your shopping day by day.

Who does that? Hardly any couples with kids and a full work schedule, particularly those working three minimum wages jobs. They buy convenience foods in boxes and jars from the supermarket, or fast foods from a drive through.

Convenience ——> Diabetes