They kind they have every right to make.
I don't know if you've missed my point or if I'm missing yours; my point was that while technically
it's a choice, it turns into "how many days this week do I actually want to eat?" which, in fact, isn't much of a choice at all if you like staying alive and well and using the money you saved to help do things like, say, put gas in your car so you can get to work or any other daily expense you may take for granted. Do I spend $1 on a half pound of overripe bananas if they're on sale or do I spend $1 on a cheeseburger? What is going to keep my stomach full? What is going to be more satisfying to me? I'm not really sure how you can even reason that those two choices are even remotely equal in weight to someone who doesn't have a lot of money. Technically telling someone they can jump into a volcano or eat marshmallows while riding a pony is a choice, but they are not equal decisions to be made unless you're suicidal or otherwise incapable of reason.
Food deserts? I've not heard of this before. What exactly is a "reasonable distance"? I am sure there are people who live a "fer piece" from the nearest grocery store, but I don't recall hearing that this somehow made eating situations terrible. I have known people who have to drive for a good half hour to get to the nearest grocery store, and I don't recall anyone referring to it as a food desert. I'm not saying you're lying. I'm saying this is something I'm skeptical about until I learn some more about it.Time article on food desertsNPR's take
(If you've got the time to spare, I found the video to be very interesting)USDA-led researchMap of approximate 'food deserts' in the US + demographics/stastistics
(I just saw Oniya's provided links, so my apologies if any of these are doubled up)
It's based on distance (usually >1 mile), income, age, accessibility to transportation, and the contents of the nearest food outlet. Of course, when healthful food is available, I don't ignore personal choice, as there are plenty of people who will still choose to eat crap food when given equal footing on both sides, but right now I don't see that the two are weighted equally in either affordability or accessibility to make that call fairly. I'm dubious of some of the reports because they don't seem to report back that even when produce is made more available, that it is within the budget of the low-income people they're using, but it is fair to say that a lot of eating habits go beyond simply what's offered and that making certain things more available by itself isn't the silver bullet; all the same, I don't really see it as an excuse not to try and allow people the choice to begin with and certainly many more than just the poor would benefit from cheaper fruits and vegetables (I know I would).
That assumes a laissez-faire approach is in use, and I am not convinced there is.
Go back to my quote; they aren't being denied a means to make healthy decisions technically (see above for my point about what kind of choice they're actually given), but what is a lack of acknowledgement and attempt to fix a problem but
a laissez-faire approach, as you're suggesting? As I understand it, you're a libertarian -- and (correct me if I'm wrong), if we chalk this up to companies simply doing what's best for them and any attempt by the government to help these people have a fair choice to make is bad, well...I'm not really sure what else you'd call that, exactly. "Let it be" or "leave it alone", as it so happens to translate, is quite fitting.
And notably entirely voluntary.
So if every insurance company chooses to do it this way, are they dictating how I should live my life or is that kind of vocabulary only reserved to when the government does it? What if they're the only insurance company I can afford and the competition is low, so switching off the plan is impossible without giving up insurance entirely? I'll also tentatively state that people who can afford to have insurance in the first place can also probably afford to get healthy. Vicious circle: enter stage left.
And yet, I have still not seen stories about recent outbreaks of child illness or death from the consumption of raw milk. Your cautionary statement almost seems to imply that you think parents who give raw milk to children don't care if the children become ill from drinking it. Perhaps you did not mean to imply that, and I hope you didn't. But I don't buy the "for the children" defense here. I also don't buy the "protect people from themselves" argument. If people were being sold raw milk and told it was pasteurized, that might make sense. But they aren't, and it doesn't. If you get sick and miss work, you say. So? This is different from the regular course of events exactly how?
As others have already addressed most of the stats on disease and the like coming from raw milk, I don't really feel I need to address as much. However, good intent is not enough. I am not saying that parents give their children raw milk because they're hoping in some dark and twisted scheme to give them E. Coli, but I have to stress that your choices are not isolated, which means that if, for any number of reasons be it that you don't trust science or you just haven't read information that debunks the supposed benefits of drinking raw milk, someone else is still mopping up the mess you made, which is exactly the opposite of the whole libertarian tenant that people should be able to make their own choices so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. You are using bad science to hurt children who are dependent on you to choose for them.
As a relevent question of clarification, are you comfortable with this law that was recently passed in Oregon?
Certainly by the logic you've displayed, we have no need for this if the parents didn't mean
to kill their kid and that belief in poor 'alternative medicine/therapies' is harmless.
The purpose of pointing out sick days, by the way, was just as testament that your patriotic, red-blooded American right to choose is not something that stops with you -- your poor decisions ripple outward, some making larger waves than others -- which is why it is short-sighted and occasionally reckless to simply let imperfect people make imperfect decisions with imperfect judgment with imperfect knowledge in an imperfect world. I'm hardly calling for a nanny state, which I would maintain is an equally bad idea as one totally removed from any government intervention, but the 'freebird' approach is hardly a perfect approach, either.
I suppose that brings me to a bit of relevant answering of my own -- I do not rank something like raw milk up there with all the more dangerous things out there in the world that people could be ingesting. I am not unrealistic about the dangers of raw milk in comparison to, say, swallowing battery acid or imbibing large amounts of black tar heroin. I don't think we need to launch a crusade against raw milk and form lynch mobs against farmers who sell it...but I'm not exactly comfortable with standing by while pseudoscience leads people down a severely misguided path, either, and I'm not thrilled with the idea that people are feeding this to their children despite the risk it poses to their demographic especially, among other things. I realize that it also seems contradictory to my tenant that, for instance, people be given a fair chance at having access to fruits and vegetables, but then, I would also support measures that would make sugary junk foods slightly more expensive while lowering the price of fresh produce.
Truthfully, I understand why people are upset over ban measures, but I more strongly side with why they're banning it in the first place, so although I am defending the decision, I don't feel radically aligned with it either. AUGHH CENTRISMMMM.