These days our society is characterized by adults and children who are not making wise decisions in regards to their overall health, eating habits, and lifestyle. These unhealthy choices are not necessarily because they prefer to have an unhealthy lifestyle, but, instead because citizens may be ignorant of the serious consequences their damaging decisions. This is especially noticeable when it comes toover indulgence in the consumption of fast foods. In his article “Don’t Blame the Eater”. David Zinczenko confirms these fears by point out the fears of increasing health issue like Type 2 diabetes among today youth. Also the increase of health care cost a year, which affects all Americans in this era and health care moments.
According to David when it comes to the abundance of unhealthy children in our society, it is the products and caregivers that are to blame, and not the children. Zinzenko tries to convince the reader of some of the ideologies that he believes are applicable to the current state of the countries health. For instants the ideology of more accountability on food industries incorporating warning labels and health hazards labeling on fast food companies. This would in courage citizens to make better decision about their food diet or consumption. David Zinczenko writes to convince the reader of the importance of these issues. Still, if you look at the issue closely and with a critical eye, you can clearly see that the methods fast food companies use to market their product is not conducive to a healthy society and in particular leaves children vulnerable to their marketing tactics.
While David focuses on the government and corporations, in sharp contrast, Radley Balko, asserts in “What you eat is your business”, that people should be encourage to make better choices regarding what they eat, how they exercise, and the financial consequences of living an unhealthy lifestyle versus a healthy one. Radley Balko argues against collective ownership of private health as a matter of public concern. The piece states that “the bestway to alleviate the obesity public health crisis is to remove obesity from the realm of public health” Balko believes the choices one makes regarding diet, exercise, and personal health are very private matters and should not be decided on by policymakers by way of federal restriction. His article panders to concepts such as fear of federal food restrictions, fear of socialism, and what feels like a general shaming of those who make poor health decisions.
Balko explains that political involvement and legislature calling for things like fat taxes on high-
Calorie foods, bans on snacks and sodas in schools, and nutritional menu –labeling requirements at
Restaurants are the wrong ways to fight obesity. The author calls it “manipulating or intervening in the array of food options available to American consumers, “and says instead our government should find a way to create a sense of responsibility in our own well-being. The author believes that to instill a more health – conscience environment we must create of fear to those who are less healthy by penalization from insurance companies, and offer benefits to those who do not use their health insurance monies by allowing a roll-over into retirement funds.
The fear of socialism is very apparent in this piece. The author seems concerned over having to pay for the mistakes of others who have not made good health choices. “This collective ownership of private health then paves the way for even more federal restrictions on consumer choice and civil liberties.” Balko paints the images of a government that has forbidden McDonalds and your local supermarkets to stock your favorite cheat treats in the name of socialism. He then continues to denounce the idea of socialization of medicine by finger-wagging with shame at the individual for not paying for the consequences of their own choices on their own, forcing the public to pay on their behalf.
In conclusion, Balko’s piece adamantly calls for a return to individual ownership of health, financially and medically, as incentive to making the correct decisions regarding consumption. I find his piece to be a right wing, conservative perspective that does not address the education of proper foods, or financial inabilities of the impoverished communities that often rely on inexpensive and unhealthy food to survive. He appeals to the reader by asserting that corporations, government, and citizens should foster a greater sense of responsibility as a whole. Pathos is at play here, because the audience is being encouraged to take personal responsibility for their choices. Logos is seen when the audience is encouraged to make better choices.
Chapter 2Reflection On Essay
The following reflection will be composed using all and only information from Chapter 1I will be breaking down the entire 6 paragraphs into i. ii. Iii. (3 Phases)
This first phase will break down the introductory paragraph and highlight the key components and the delivery of thesis and the next two phases will be in parralell to their paragraphs in relation to the essay.
- The first paragraph comes out with the problem right away and set ‘s a great tone for the essay, grabs the readers attention and exclaims “Hey, this is what we are discussing, this is an epidemic and lets hypothesize some serious answers.” Right off the bat I was quite in tune with how the flow of the essay was going to go and was interested which side the author was going to side on. It shows in strong context that the author is strongly opinionated in the matter of what I will call “fast food, fat folks” and drops some fundamental issues right off the bat which is the cost of health care is taking a tremendous hit when it comes to rising health costs and states very clearly that the youth are just practicing what they were taught, basic role model of the modern age.
- I now want to focus on the middle content where the author brings in two known references and quotes some from both. The first gentlemen is more of a passive and hopeful approach on the situation while the second really brings down the iron first and is actually referred to as a Socialist Idealistic belief but some of his far right winged points are actually in my opinion great ideas. This was a great contrasting of two characters here which were not even opposing each other but just different degrees and strategies of their pursuit of a healthy America.
- The last paragraph in my eyes shows the man who is subjected as the far right wing radical breaking it down simply into governments, families, citizens, communities should take a disciplined and immediate plan of action to build a Healthy America.
