Is It Fair For Unhealthy Lifestyle Choices?

On a yearly basis 18 million dollars are spent on school lunches for schools all over America. And taxpayers, are the ones paying for part of that. Government is trying to get the United States to eat healthier, but in the end money is being wasted and people are not happy about it. Overall the government should not be regulating what we eat.

The issue of whether the government's regulation of what we eat and drink is fair, this question has started many debates of whether the government should regulate what we eat and drink. On one hand people don't the government to interfere with their lives. On the other hand there are those who say the government should regulate what we and drink . Although arguments on whether the government's regulation of what we eat and drink sounds valid, there are some problems with them. Yes!! Government regulation of what we eat drink is fair>

The most supportive argument why people are in an agreement with the government controlling what we eat is because of all the obese people in the country with medical problems. In fact obesity is one of the many problems

The need to protect National Security is far more important than individual privacy. The greatest part of living in the United States of America is the freedom that we have. That freedom and the right to live freely is protected by various government agencies. From time to time, the privacy a person has may have to be invaded to guarantee the security of the country and other citizens. Everyone has the right to not have their life controlled by the government, but it has the right to make sure that citizens are not doing anything to threaten the security of

The idea of the respect for privacy antedates American law. Over one thousand years ago a Roman statesman by the name of Cicero says that there is nothing that should be less dishonored than the home of man and it is immoral to violate his place of safety. Although this may true, government has always had a thirst for information. One major example of this is between the English kingdom and the thirteen colonies. Until 1768 there was something known as the salutary neglect were Britain wasn’t enforcing many of their laws. Due to the major debt from the French and Indian war, laws involving taxes and controlling American smugglers, needed to be put in place. One key aspect that helped enforce these

The government is not responsible for the consequences of poor dietary choices made by individuals. The government is how ever needed to change the way we see health care. In America we have been taking on the burden of others issues unwillingly through the healthcare system. The article What You Eat Is Your Business by Radley Balko explains how premiums on healthcare due to “Your heart attack drives up the cost of [other’s]”. When others are paying for your personal health issues, it makes it easier to not “put down the cheese burger”. Other than motivation from the government we as individuals

In Radley Balko’s essay “What You Eat Is Your Business,” Balko argues that what we put into our bodies is our business, not the government’s, and that personal responsibility should be primary in our nutrition choices. I agree wholeheartedly. However, while I do agree that personal responsibility is paramount, in the new age of the Affordable Care Act (which had not been implemented prior to Balko’s writing), it is becoming hard to say that the government should stay out of my business, when healthcare is now, by law, the government’s business. Critics of personal choice argue, like David Zinczenko does in his essay “Don’t Blame the Eater,”. These two authors both help me understand each other that the government must regulate the fast food industry similar to how they regulate the tobacco companies. How absurd it is that the government needs to regulate my waistline?

The personal rights that lead to a good life are important but the most important right is the right to privacy. People have been talking for years about the right of privacy. The use of computers made access to Americans personal data very easy. The government knowledge about people’s privacy and personal information can be a benefit to Americans but it also can lead to a serious damage. From the bright side, knowing these information makes it easier to pass social security checks, making medical

Sugary drinks and fast foods are constantly being consumed by Americans, causing an increase in health problems. Government regulation of what we eat and drink is fair because it will increase awareness of what individuals eat and can prevent higher rates of obesity. The article by Ryan Jaslow, "Sugary drinks over 16-ounces banned in New York City, Board of Health Votes" clearly supports the banning. However, “Should the Government Regulate What We Eat?" argues that the ban puts the American values of freedom at risk. Such regulations are necessary in order to maintain a healthy environment.

In "What You Eat Is Your Business" I agree with Radley Balko that people should care more about what they eat, the authorities should not be involved in that at all. In my opinion is wrong that the government is also trying to make other people pay for obese people's mistake, or lifestyle. Someone else's weight should not be a public topic since is something so personal, but with the states not allowing insurance companies charge a higher wages on obese people what is going to drive them to lose the weight necessary? also with the authorities paying for their food and medication it is even harder for them to stop living the way they do. But I do agree with one thing in "What You Eat Is Your Business," which is that fast food companies and restaurants

“Prior to 1996, there was no federal law regulating the privacy of health information. Even though many other countries at the time regulated personal privacy broadly and uniformly, the United States’ privacy regulation

After reading Balko’s essay, “What You Eat is Your Business” Balko argues that should not be government business to determine what people can eat. He argument that “all agitating for a panoply of government anti-obesity initiatives, including prohibiting junk food in school vending machines, federal funding for new bike trails and sidewalks, more demanding labels on foodstuffs, restrictive food marketing to children, and prodding for industry into more “responsible” behavior” which the author argue that is “bringing government between you and your waistline. He claims that “This is the wrong way to fight obesity. Instead of manipulating or intervening in the array of food options available to American consumers, our government ought to be working to foster a sense of responsibility in and ownership of our own health and well-being. Basically, he is saying that we need less public intervention and more personal’s responsibility.

The government is trying to do its best to regulate what is healthy and unhealthy for

Over the past 50 years, the way we eat has changed more than it had in the previous 10,000. Now, 60% of Americans over the age of 20 are overweight. The fast-food industry is highly responsible for today’s health epidemic. Some people choose to blame the government for not balancing individual rights, and the common good. However, the government is not forcing you to eat. You put yourself at risk of diet related health problems.

"Privacy. There seems to be no legal issue today that cuts so wide a swath through conflicts confronting American society: from AIDS tests to wiretaps, polygraph test to computerized data bases, the common denominator has been whether the right to privacy outweighs other concerns of society…" This quote from Robert Ellis Smith explains, in one sentence, the absolute need to ensure privacy in the workplace. One of the most interesting, yet controversial, areas concerning public personnel is employee privacy. What limits are there to employers’ intrusions into, and control over, employees’ behaviors and personal properties?