Slashdot Mirror
Soda Ban May Hit the Big Apple
An anonymous reader writes "NYC residents may soon be unable to buy big gulps. In an effort to curb obesity, New York City's Mayor Bloomberg is seeking a ban on oversized sodas in restaurants, movie theaters and stadiums officials said on Wednesday. 'Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the U.S., public health officials are wringing their hands saying, "Oh, this is terrible,"' Mayor Bloomberg said. 'New York City is not about wringing your hands; it's about doing something. I think that's what the public wants the mayor to do.'"
Seems like a pretty redundant ban to me. Most places offer free refills on soda...
I would think the public prefers education more than legislation... Could be wrong though
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Instead of banning something entirely (this is still a "free" country, right?), lets just educate consumers on what they're putting into their bodies. For example, if you want to buy a 64 oz. soda, you live in America, you get your big ass soda. However, put the nutrition info on the cup so you, at the very least, can learn that 64 oz. of Pepsi contains 800 calories, about 1/3 recommended daily intake, and 224 grams of carbs, about 3/4 recommended daily intake. That's disgusting and the problem is nobody realizes how disgusting that is.
The nanny state is here!
Let us know how it goes, NYC!
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
... how to live your life. That's why we're infallible and immortal.
When a libertarian wants to do something, he does it without bothering anyone
When a liberal wants to do something, they make everyone do it
When a libertarian doesn't want to do something, he quietly doesn't do it
When a liberal doesn't want to do something, they make it so no-one may do it
Think about that next time you post some anti-libertarian trash on Slashdot. We just want to let you do what you want to do (unless you want to ban people from doing things, I guess that we won't let you do).
Just you wait. This whole thing will blow over once he gets his cut from the sugar and corn lobbyists. Then, he will say it was all an unpopular misunderstanding and how he really cares to make NYers voice be heard. Oh, and he really cares about your health too. Win win win all the way for that man.
Life is not for the lazy.
It's all good until the fatties want free healthcare.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The prices for a pop at a restaurant or movie theater is all about gouging the customer.
I'd rather buy a $0.69 two liter pop at Aldis than a $6.50 12 oz at a movie theater.
Then again, since these places make their money off suckers, maybe they'll raise their rates on their other goods,
God spoke to me
If "that's what the public wants the mayor to do" then the public wouldn't be buying ginormous sized beverages and thus there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. The fact that they are buying the large sodas means the public wants it. I can see slapping a warning on the side of the containers that say "Hey fatty, you keep drinking this much crap and you're going to die from diabeetus," but a ban seems to infringe on peoples' freedom of choice. (Unlike the bans on foie gras, there's no one torturing corn plants to make the soda.)
Sooo... JUST carbonated soft drinks? Does that mean he's banning beer, too? The phrase "beer gut" didn't just arbitrarily appear in dictionaries. What about those "fruit juices" spiked with fructose, the nicotine of food additives?
What a hypocrite.
> Hello. My name is Eliza. How may I help you?
* know it all
> Ahh. Please continue...
* Why don't you ASK YOUR PEOPLE what they want you to do...
> Do you really believe I don't ASK my PEOPLE what they want me to do?
* and don't just open your fat mouth.
> Why are you concerned about my fat mouth?
I think Eliza may have you cornered on this one, AC.
(For the record, the recommendation originates from the NYC Health Department, and Bloomberg points out that you can still easily carry two smaller drinks.)
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Shouldn't there be some kind of actual evidence that big sodas per se are what's making Americans fat before we start banning them? Is he saying that every fat person drinks big gulps?
Any bets on how much hand-wringing about 'big government' 'nanny state' and 'paternalism' there will be now that Bloomberg is targeting large sodas rather than the terrifying marijuana, assassin of youth?
I honestly don't much care for either reefers or Fructose-Extreme Big-Gulp Edition; but I find it endlessly curious how mere time seems to change perception of given public health and public safety crusades. Some city tells smokers to do it outside, or restarauants to cut down on their trans-fats, on pain of some paltry fine and the editorialists are ready to tell you that fascism has finally come to America; but the ones that get hunted down by actual cops and sent to real jail? Apparently not a concern...
I would think the public prefers education more than legislation... Could be wrong though
What's the new saying? Something like "Democracy triumphed over communism. Corporations triumphed over democracy."
"The public" are sheep. They have been programmed, propagandized and beaten into being sheep. If "the public" were not sheep, then a vast majority of modern problems wouldn't exist.
That's the main problem - or maybe a better way to phrase the question is, "why did it get so bad that a mayor had to step in to take matters into his own hands?" One word answer, and here's the hint: (makes baaa baaa sound)
"The mind is a terrible thing to, um, uh, oh bollocks." -- Me
It's all good until the fatties want free healthcare.
DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!! We have a winner!
That's problem with government funded health care. Whoever pays the bills gets to make the rules! If you let government take over your health care, you are giving the government control over your health.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
At the local Kwik Trip (it's like a northern US 7-11 but way nicer) they have a 56 oz "Mega Buddy" drink which is one up from the "Big Buddy" and "Best Buddy" :-P The difference is, over half their choices of things to put in it are diet or low calorie. I fill up on the 0 calorie Lipton Peach Tea or 5 calorie per serving Minute Made Light. And sometimes I am definitely THAT thirsty. So banning big drinks is idiotic. You can drink all you want of something relatively healthy. In fact, drinking a lot IS healthy.
What does piss me off is Burger King. I went there and decided to get a drink with my meal and they basically don't carry anything I'd drink. I'm thirsty as hell and I'm forced to drink one of their awful choices. I'm not a Pepsi or Coke guy and beyond that, they had nothing diet. That's what they should ban, if anything (and I don't think they should ban anything, fatties should make their own damn decisions. If someone's going to drink 800 calories because they don't think diet tastes good enough, they deserve the consequences).
I've been seeing reports that over the past few years, there's been an exodus of quite a number of people leaving NY for other states to get away from the high taxation there....many going to states with no state income taxes, or estate taxes (like FL).
Now the state is trying to tell you wtf you can drink or eat? Sheesh.
Are people so fucking stupid now...they cannot fathom that behavior such as drinking a ton of sugared beverage a day....to wash down nothing but greasy, fat laden burgers...will make them fat? Even if it is the case....why is it the govts responsibility to protect stupid people from their own stupid actions?
Seems like we're trying to circumvent natural selection.....let these people take themselves out of the gene pool....and maybe we'll have fewer stupid people in a couple of generations?
I've honestly started to wonder, with all the problems we're seeing in modern kids, autism on the rise...so many of them with food allergies (I never heard of anyone almost dying from PB&J sandwiches at school when I grew up, and we ALL ate them)...etc.
Maybe we ARE doing too much to protect weak genes in the pool....that might have weeded themselves out in the past....and allowing them to continue to proliferate?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Just out of curiosity, how do you know everyone who drinks soda also want's free healthcare?
People actually decided to take responisbility for their own weight? If you're fat don't complain, stop buying yourself large sodas and fast food, it's the consumer's fault not the company's.
Fatties die young, "healthy" refuse to die and instead spend years collecting social security and living in nursing homes. But you know, why let a little thing like that get in the way of insulting people, right? While we are at it, black people are more likely to suffer from several expensive diseases, should we deny them health care as well or have laws against them having more children? You are an idiot.
Coca Cola and Pepsi Co. must have slipped up and forgot the mayors monthly stipend.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
When our society seemingly turns to government to protect us from the consequences of our stupid decisions*, eventually we end up with a government that is going to want to control our every decision. It makes sense in a world where the government subsidizes your health care, that the government gets a voice in your unhealthy choices.
*to wit:
- I had unprotected sex, the govt should pay for my abortion
- I had kids I can't support, the gov't should pay to help me care for them
- I'm an addict, the gov't should pay for my treatment
- I made shitty life choices and now I'm poor, the gov't should pay for me to have a decent life
- I have a $25,000/year job but signed for a mortgage on a $500,000 home that I now understand I can't afford, the gov't should pay to help me renegotiate
- I'm a bank and I've made a catastrophic series of worthless investments, the gov't should pay to keep me running because I'm "too big to fail"
It has been going on at all levels of American life since at least the Great Society programs, and we as voters have cheerfully voted consistently for the government to 'cushion' more and more of life's hard knocks from our sensitive existences.
Welcome to your self-designed Nanny State.
As they would say in Firefly: "Nee mun doh shr sagwa".
-Styopa
Why would the government get to decide how fat I get to be?
Seems like that should be my choice.
If the government is paying for your health care, that choice is no longer yours.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
there's two definitions of freedom:
the teenager definition "i can do whatever i want with no concern for the consequences"
the adult definition "i can do anything i want that doesn't harm someone else"
for example, the "right" to speed is freedom according to a teenager, as a teenager will never crash their car and hurt an innocent driver who had the ill fortune of sharing the road with the idiot
the "right" to smoke is freedom according to a teenager, as a teenager only exhales pure filtered air in the face of fellow pedestrians and housemates and doesn't raise the healthcare insurance costs of anyone else
likewise, the "right" to mainline fructose is freedom according to a teenager, see healthcare argument above
please note: the term "teenager" in the context of this comment is a mental function measurement independent of chronological age. there are plenty of chronological teenagers who are mental adults and morally mature, and there are 40 year old gasbags who still define freedom according to a mental teenager's definition
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Programmer productivity will suffer.
If the public wanted that, they would either buy smaller drinks, or drink less of the drink... the fact that they're not would indicate they DON'T want the mayor to do anything...
Why'd we even bother fighting the war on terrorism!
Mayor Bloomberg also announced that police would be "stop and frisk"ing individuals with a BMI over 30 to search for contraband oversized sodas.
its legal because people like me who rarely go to the doctor and dont have these problems support it because we don't want to pay for your endless supply of drugs, sleep aids and other nonsense
On the one hand, I hate being told what to do. On the other hand, the "small" drink at the movie theater is about 4 times the size I actually want do drink.
Soda is not my religion.
It is my addiction though.
I've switched over time from 128oz of Mountain Dew a day to a pair of 12oz Mountain Dew Throwback cans a day. I still end up occasionally bowing to the fountain soda in the combo meal at lunch time, but I've also started bringing my lunch four out of five days a week.
With no other changes, no increase in exercise, no major effort other than to bring to eat only what I want to carry around with me in a cooler, I've lost weight. When I have the wherewithal to keep to it (it's hard and I have to occasionally get lunches out when I get tired of cold cuts) it works well, saves me money, and helps me to live better.
We're addicted to food. Unlike most addictions, we can't simply stop eating though. We're surrounded by food that used to be special occasion food. Deserts, deep-fried foods loaded with spices, an overabundance of meats. How the hell are you supposed to eat right when there are almost no options to eat right?
I'd restrict the cup size. I wouldn't go 16oz, probably more like 24. I would ban free refills once one has left the premises. If you're in the restaurant you can continue to get your free refills like normal. If you're at a convenience store, either you bring your own cup to get more than 24oz, or if the store allows it, you drink your drink and refill on the spot.
A simple ban on fast food joints and convenience stores selling cups larger than a certain size will do a lot to curtail it, and won't restrict patrons from larger cups if they bring their own cup.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Never mind the people who actually pay the bill are the taxpayers, not the government. But most people never seem to remember that, maybe because most of the people who will end up paying the most are either the rich (right now, and note I'm not saying this is a bad thing, necessarily, it just makes it a lot easier to get behind government spending when it isn't coming out of your pocket) or the young (later, when the country is $100 trillion in debt, which obviously is a bad thing).
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Banning plastic bags in LA was one of them, now NYC banning soda...
NYC ban is a disgrace epitomizes nanny state transition US is undergoing, stomping at elementary liberties: including a freedom to eat whatever I want, and private transaction between consenting adults: not about selling drugs, not about exchanging sexual favors, Taliban literature, arms, bombs or anything else, just an item of food.
Where are all the Niemoller loudmouths?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
This is the most alarmist rubbish i've seen on Slashdot today. LOL@ governmet taking over your health care. Yeah death panels and all lol. If you are referencing the Affordabe Healthcare Act then that is not free health care you have to pay. The emergency room freeloaders will now have to pay their way rather than me paying for their healthcare. I think i like it that they are forced to pay for their own healthcare thank you very much.
then they came for anti-Semites, then they came for Taliban supporters, and when they came for soda drinkers, everybody was so involved in following zillion channels on the internet to choose from, that nobody gave a damn about it.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
This seems like it goes too far. I'd rather just see a ban on mandatory soda purchases. All those places that require you to buy a big gulp the moment you enter the door and refuse to allow you to leave until you've drunk it.
Oh, wait, you mean there aren't any places like that? We're only talking about banning voluntary purchases? Well we don't need the government to do anything in that case. If "the people" want to stop voluntary purchases they can do that themselves with no government effort or expense at all.
Mission accomplished! Good job mayor.
Its interesting that the bad food is so cheap, in part, because the ingredients are subsidized by the US government. In some neighborhoods, its impossible to purchase food that is actually good for you. Or the pricing structure makes it too expensive.
Not only that, but farmers are going out of business trying to grow stuff that is good to eat. They are not eligible for the subsidies. So they learn to grow stuff that is bad for us instead. Its also greatly slanting the system towards huge factory farms.
If he wants to fix something, put a high state tax on Federal farm subsidies. And put the proceeds towards opening markets for healthy foods. Level the field.
Pass the salt.
I am sorry, salt is bad for you, and thus it is illegal.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
8oz of Coca-Cola Classic has only 97 calories. Compare with other supposedly healthier choices that would not be banned:
8oz orange juice: 100 calories
8oz low fat yogurt: 250 calories
8oz chicken breast meat: 400 calories
8oz 80% lean ground beef: 616 calories
8oz french fries: 741 calories
What kind of an idiot can possibly think that banning sodas will fix the obesity problem?
If you have ever been to NYC, you'll see that the obesity epidemic is not nearly as visible there as in the suburbs. People actually *walk* to get places in NYC, and therefore get exercise whether they planned to or not. And you actually have options as to what to drink in NYC. It is much easier and socially acceptable to have good lifestyle habits in the city.
Here in the suburbs, we have no sidewalks and it is near suicide to consider walking or bicycling on the roads. All the "restaurants" are crappy pizza joints with your choice of Coke or Pepsi or Gatorade (sugar, sugar, or sugar). I have to drive 10 minutes away to find a safe place to walk or bike, and have to have a gym membership in order to get any meaningful exercise. I'd love to live in a city, any city.
...to have a law passed that people be responsible for their own food choices and decisions made in their own lives.
Excuse me Mr. fucking Bloomberg...what if I want to be obese that's the WHOLE POINT OF FREEDOM. I am getting sick to fucking death of all these inane moronic laws being considered / passed to protect people from evolution pruning out the crap from the human gene pool.
but from what I've heard NYC obesity problem is non-existent compared to some other places in US. This looks more like an attempt to lower the doses and up the prices (with the excuse of lower revenue due to this ban).
If there's one basic principal engrained on the American psyche it's "Do what Authority says" We've all seen how well Prohibition and the War on Drugs turned out and everyone is always complaining about the inordinate amount of rights the founding fathers have given them and constantly going on and on about how they hope Congress or the State will do something about that. I mean really, how many rights does one need. Personal choice is something not everyone should have a right to have.
So yes, Mayor Bloomberg is absolutely spot on when he says Americans want to be told what to eat and drink. In fact, I don't think it's enough. He should create a Food Safety Administration to audit every household's weekly meal plan, inspect fridges for contraband and give the lady of the house some tactile pleasuring.
Obese people actually cost less to care for than fit people. Why? They don't live as long, and they tend to die suddenly, rather than over a protracted period.
The only problem I have now is that a medium size sodas at fast food restaurants are now ridiculously huge. A medium soda used to be between 16 and 20 ounces, but now it is closer to 32.
There should be some standard that specifies that specifies the size of what a medium soda should be so drinking 32 ounces of sugary soda isn't considered the new normal. If someone wants a bigger soda, let them order a large or super sized but a medium should be a average sized portion for a healthy person.
Is there anything else they would like to regulate and take away?? Can they list them all now so we can give an appropriate blanket reply??
It's all good until the fatties want free healthcare.
DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!! We have a winner!
That's problem with government funded health care. Whoever pays the bills gets to make the rules! If you let government take over your health care, you are giving the government control over your health.
Society, and the government as a proxy of society, already funds healthcare because hospitals aren't allowed to turn away people who can't pay and let them rot and die. (Or, I suppose, the other way around.)
As long as society feels obligated to help those in need, society should feel absolutely justified in putting strict limitations on the ways that people can take advantage of that.
Any drink with zero calories should be exempt.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Actually fatties live longer.
Google "obesity paradox".
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
Yeah, how about drinking water instead of concentrated weapons-grade diabeetus juice? Why does government have to take responsibility for people who refuse to take personal responsibility? If you want to replace your blood with a mix of HFCS and cholesterole, I couldn't care any less until you expect me to pay your fucking health bill. Banning disgusting fast "food" and slimy drinks these people use won't do it, and neither will legislating 2 hours on the treadmill daily. But I guess a populist legislative response is easier than actually having people take responsibility for once in their lives.
Seems like a pretty redundant ban to me. Most places offer free refills on soda...
And thus the poor who are less likely to be able to come back for a refill (like construction workers on a break) are the ones really screwed over by arbitrary government limits on acceptable beverage size.
If New Yorkers keep voting in people that do this though they have only themselves to blame.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Please! Take action so we don't have to take responsibility for our own lives. Heaven forbid we ever have to think for ourselves.
A better solution may be to force anyone who complains about how this type of thing negatively impacts them to take a class in self control.
Brought to you by: "Al"toids - the curiously weird mint.
Next they will make you stand in line for Bagels, but no schmear for you because it can make you fat.. what will be next Coffee Creamers? Snicker Bars? if they let this happen there would be no end to them telling us how to look.
Just how is obesity linked to diabetes, exactly? Is it, as everyone assumes, gluttony causing obesity causing diabetes? If so, how come many fat people don't have diabetes?
Is it possible that whatever causes diabetes also causes you to store more sugar as fat?
If soda is so bad for you, why does the body process it as food instead of sending it to the liver to be handled like other toxins?
And how on earth did this become the top priority in NYC over crime, housing problems, etc?
whaddarya, some sort of web 2.0 brogrammer?!!
Get a clue jr, and drink coffee, like a real man. Black, not loaded up with sugar and whipped cream like some effete poofta hipster . And larn ya some C. Or FORTRAN at least.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I switched from HFCS soda to sugar based soda with no other diet/activity changes and lost 15 lbs over the course of 4 months. So it's not just abundance of food but also it's composition. Of course, if it wasn't for certain govt. subsidies and tariffs HFCS wouldn't be in every goddamned sweet mass-produced snack.
Yes, that's why here in Canada where we have had government funded healthcare since the 60s I have to go get my lunch at Kentucky Steamed Rice & Vegetables...
No wait. This is the country where we have our fries covered in cheese and gravy.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
If the government is paying for your health care, that choice is no longer yours.
They aren't paying for my health care, so the choice is mine.
And that argument is as good as any for keeping private health care. Once the government pays for your well being, then they have that much more reason to tell you how you should live in order to keep their costs down.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
TL;DNR but I can tell you, this would never happen in an Android market.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Move to New Hampshire if you don't like this crap. We actually had a state rep (Catherine Mulholland, D-Grafton dist. 10) propose a soda tax here in 2010. The bill was defeated, with the help of the most effective liberty lobbying group in the country, and the rep lost her re-election in 2010, also due in no small part to the liberty activists opposing her.
Liberty in your lifetime
In some neighborhoods, its impossible to purchase food that is actually good for you
That is a lie.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Israel bans skinny models; new york bans unhealthy foods. What's next, a ban on unsafe sex? Israel is a screwed-up country so I can't expect much out of it, but the US has some feet in reality. I think that Bloomberg ought to be banned.
List of things that are illegal (or soon may be )which I believe should be legal:
unhealthy foods
skinny models
gambling
file sharing
politically sensitive speech
beer
weed
shrooms
modifying a consumer device which you own
I used to say nudity should be legal, but I have changed my opinion on this since to many people are now fat. I think only the good-looking should be allowed to be nude in public. The problem with this is; who gets to decide? So, let's cover it up for now. For some of you, a niqab or burka should be required.
You do know that healthcare in the US costs about twice as much as say the UK where everybody is covered by the government including unemployed fatties?
The actual outcomes are pretty similar but in the UK you just don't worry about your 'cover' at all. It rarely merits a thought. In the US as I understand it, lack of health cover is a real impediment to starting your own business or changing a job. Particularly if you have an existing chronic condition.
I'm not saying you don't have a point about who makes the rules, but ultimatley the rules in the UK are made by a government that has to be re-elected, how much say do you have over your rules?
So why doesn't Congress or the VA give up their government controlled health care?
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
What about diet soda?
Will they allow giant cups of diet soda?
Adolph Bloomberg can kiss my ass. Wonder how people pouring tons of soda in the hudson will affect it?
I've switched over time from 128oz of Mountain Dew a day to a pair of 12oz Mountain Dew Throwback cans a day.
So given the choice of Moutain Dew or Crab juice, you chose Mountain Dew? Ewwww.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Note - somebody eating themselves to death slowly is that like not wearing a seat belt or possibly committing suicide?
How is the reasoning for food regulations that far from the other stuff we allow?
We still allow suicide to be illegal, in fact we don't let doctors pull the plug when we should die. We legit excuses do we have there which can be extended into other topics?
Not wearing seat belts raises costs for everybody else measurably; so that argument is your "criminal" action costs other people money. Insurance lobbies to save the public money so that law eventually always passes.... Of course, the large savings such a law creates NEVER results in citizens seeing lower insurance rates. I know my car insurance did not go down at all following the passing of that law in my state... Insurance company profitability increased during that span... Does anybody seriously think these insurance lobbies REALLY want to protect people by passing such laws??
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Dude, you mean WATER, like in the toilet?!
gross!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
...so what's to stop King Bloomberg and NYC from dictating that cigarettes shall be no longer than 2", and no more than 5 to a pack, since they're bad for you and thus more is worse?
This is all about removing sugar from the food system and replacing it with laboratory grown chemicals.
Want to curb consumption of high fructose corn syrup? You can start by removing all government subsidy of the corn industry.
I heard it said once that smokers don't cost any extra in health care than non-smokers, they just incur it over a shorter period of time.
:wq
And, if they are [being irresponsible] but aren't harming anyone else, so what?
Being irresponsible harms other family members for whom you are traditionally or even legally expected to provide. Drinking too much sugary soda leads to obesity and diabetes mellitus.
Welcome to the world of second class citizenship, Chunk.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Subject pretty much says it all. Obesity wouldn't be a problem if we didn't make it a problem. If someone makes poor decisions and suffers health problems because of it, then so be it. It's not the public's responsibility to make sure I don't kill myself slowly and it's not the public's responsibility to pick up the check when I decide to participate in activities known to be unhealthy. I don't need/want government to protect me from myself.
That's because people die from the inside out. For fat people, it just takes longer to reach the surface.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
'New York City is not about wringing your hands; it's about doing something. I think that's what the public wants the mayor to do."
Honestly, and speaking as a New Yorker, I think the public wants the mayor to go fuck off. So, would Hizzoner please resign and move to Boston?
Bans like these rapidly turn towards freedom restrictions because Americans are looking to their government to do their thinking for them. Healthy eating is a choice and an easy one to make; we neither need nor want our government officials getting involved that granularly in our lives, especially as it is okay to eat unhealthy on occasion. We want our government involved in our lives in as few ways as possible. Most of us know soda (expecially diet soda) isn't healthy. All you need to do is turn the bottle around and look at the ingredients that non-chemists have difficulty pronouncing. If Americans made the right choices, i.e. whole grains without enrichment or chemicals, then food companies would have to adapt. We make up an entire story around why we eat the worst foods for us when the choice is simple, very simple: there is neither ease nor difficulty surrounding this choice. You just have to make it! I told myself I was eating them to make myself feel better and I actually only felt better for a VERY short period of time and felt worse afterwards. I literally woke up one day and said to myself, that's enough. I'm morbidly obese and just sick of it so I made a choice to start eating good foods and I'm starting to drop some weight while feeling better almost immediately. It also takes patience because I know it took years to gain this weight but I want to lose it right away. Another typical American gotcha .... the quick fix pill. The best fix is patience and letting the body heal itself and return to homeostasis naturally.
I had unprotected sex, the govt should pay for my abortion
The government does not propose to pay for abortion because people should be able to have sex. The logic arises from studies conducted that suggest that legalized and subsidized abortion results in fewer unwanted children and therefore less crime. While you might debate that, the reasoning is that it's cheaper for society to pay for an abortion than it is to have a criminal interred on and off for life. Are you against taxpayer dollars being used to teach contraception in schools? What about tax dollars to hand out free condoms to those most at risk? Subsidizing abortions is a step further in that direction. It is not designed to give people the ability to have sex without protection.
I had kids I can't support, the gov't should pay to help me care for them
Are you aware of what a "dependent" is on a tax form? Again, it's cheaper for society to issue welfare and food stamps than to deal with the societal harms that come from malnourished children and the state assuming control over a child. What exactly is your ideal scenario in this case? That we have street urchins that occasionally die in our streets? That we have social services taking care of tens of thousands more children?
I'm an addict, the gov't should pay for my treatment
Again, you seem to imply that the government is being lobbied by the addicts. Instead it is the cost/benefit of dealing with addicts that have already developed dependencies on illegal addictive substances. You implement awareness programs with taxpayer dollars and the final unfortunate step is helping these people control their addictions so they're not mugging or killing people for money. A lot of these people have to support their habits with crime. Our jails are already overcrowded so the alternate step is to try to treat them and keep them from engaging in such behavior. Again, what is your ideal scenario? That you shake your finger at an addict and say "Welcome to the school of hard knocks, now go beat someone for money for your habit so you can spend the rest of your life in jail where I can pay more money for you to live."
I made shitty life choices and now I'm poor, the gov't should pay for me to have a decent life
Right, because everyone who is poor is poor because of shitty life choices and they should starve for those choices. We have the ability to provide them basic food and subsidize their housing but your ideal scenario is what exactly? You do know that they do not live like kinds and queens?
Welcome to your self-designed Nanny State.
If the alternative is crime ridden neighborhoods, I'll take a little bit of a nanny state. You people that demand one extreme over the other are really annoying and short sighted. Did you know that buildings have to make fire code in order to be constructed? God, what a nanny state we've found ourselves in! Why aren't we working to remove any sort of building and safety codes? PROTIP: A happy medium exists somewhere in between the extremes. When society's total cost is drastically lower to implement a nanny state law, we start to weigh the pros and cons.
My work here is dung.
At least the FDA ruled against the food lobby when they attempted to get HFCS renamed to "Corn Sugar".
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Right, that was the talking point.
The problem is that those people were pretty ignorant, because we've had socialized medicine for over 30 years. It's horrible, expensive, incomplete, and inefficient to get your care in an ER and it has driven many hospitals out of business since no one pays for it... but it is socialized nonetheless.
The whole healthcare "debate" was framed along the typical polarized party-line, with very little constructive discussion at all.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Never mind the people who actually pay the bill are the taxpayers, not the government.
So how does banning Super Glutton Gulp sodas poll with the taxpayers these days, anyway?
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
I used to eat a double cheese burger and large fries for lunch every day, then wash it down with a 32 ounce diet soda. Then I got married and my wife nags me into eating low fat balanced meals. Now I've put on 20 pounds of fat, and I miss the burgers.
:wq
Do you not know the difference between New York City and the state of New York?
Yes, and I also know the difference between a state, meaning a first-level political subdivision, and a state, meaning the entity with a monopoly on violence.
Not the ones I know.
Oh, well, we should frame our whole national policy on the subset of people you know. That will save us money on actual research.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Death (TM) brand cigarettes came in a black box with a skull and crossbones. They were quite popular.
Of course it's not socialist - Obama's (not really, it was congress' plan) plan would make you pay to get a health plan. Those who couldn't afford one would be subsidized; that's not really socialism but rather welfare. It has roots in socialistic behavior.
On the contrary, these people want their healthcare paid for by someone else who isn't the government. It's like socialism, but since it's not the government and they're not sure what the name for it is. They have re-apportioned the word "freedom" to mean "tied to your employer for all of your healthcare needs or hounded by collectors for all of time due to the last emergency room visit you couldn't afford." You can see how that last phrase is a little awkward, whereas Freedom just rolls of the tongue.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Yup. The government wanted to "help" American corn farmers so they subsidized HFCS until it supplanted imported cane sugar. Now everyone's fat. And since they "helped" us a couple years ago by mandating health insurance and creating a taxpayer-funded system for the poor, now everyone's health is everyone else's business. So they want to "help" us all again by banning large-quantity HFCS-laden soft drinks, "helping" people become healthier and "helping" lower the burden on the health care system.
Isn't the government so helpful?
Liberty in your lifetime
Well, maybe if the government got out of the business of parenting humanity from womb to tomb
Would you end child protective services entirely? If not, where do you draw the line between a parent who is abusing his child by living a lifestyle that leads to the parent's death and a parent who is abusing a child otherwise?
I disagree with the ban, but anyone who frames this as a question of freedom is fooling themselves. These major corporations put huge amounts of money into influencing consumers to buy more. In the case of carbonated sugar water, it should be obvious why: the restaurant's major expense is labour. Selling a large instead of a small doesn't increase the cost of labour, but it does increase the revenues (with a minor increase in the cost of materials).
So the government is really stepping up to say that it is protecting us from the corporations. It isn't really stepping up to protect us from ourselves.
If you don't like the term "fatties", then say "fat people" or "the obese" or "differently weighted". I don't really care, and it doesn't change my argument.
Fatties die young, "healthy" refuse to die and instead spend years collecting social security and living in nursing homes.
Citation, please? And before you ask for mine, here is one that estimates obesity costing about $51 billion in medical expenses alone - a cost that would obviously be borne by a socialized health care system.
black people are more likely to suffer from several expensive diseases
This almost certainly has to do with the correlation between race and poverty. If you are "pro" socialized medicine, then it stands to reason that you probably want to cover the poor as well, but I don't want to speak for anyone.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
As a software developer, I can say that many an innovation was birthed in Mountain Dew, junk food, and greasy pizza. Not saying it is healthy, but reality is that people "need" this stuff. If you ban soda at restaurants, people will just find other ways to get their sugar and caffiene high in bulk.
Any drink with zero calories should be exempt.
And it is. From the featured article: "It would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy or alcoholic drinks."
Funny how that works, isn't it? The government creates a system that then justifies further regulation of people's lives. First they eliminate choice in health care, then they can use that as an excuse to eliminate all sorts of other choices in your life.
Yet another reason government-run health care is a terrible idea.
Liberty in your lifetime
If the mayor is really worried about our health, we'd better ban athletics before we ban soda:
More than 3.5 million children ages 14 and under receive medical treatment for sports injuries each year. Injuries associated with participation in sports and recreational activities account for 21 percent of all traumatic brain injuries among children in the United States. Overuse injury, which occurs over time from repeated motion, is responsible for nearly half of all sports injuries to middle-and high-school students. Immature bones, insufficient rest after an injury and poor training or conditioning contribute to overuse injuries among children. Most organized sports related injuries (62 percent) occur during practices rather than games. Despite this fact, a third of parents often do not take the same safety precautions during their child's practices as they would for a game. A recent survey found that among athletes ages 5 to 14, 15 percent of basketball players, 28 percent of football players, 22 percent of soccer players, 25 percent of baseball players and 12 percent of softball players have been injured while playing their respective sports. Children ages 5 to 14 account for nearly 40 percent of all sports-related injuries treated in hospital emergency departments. The rate and severity of sports-related injury increases with a child's age.
In 2001, the number of sport-related injuries for each sport are as follows:
Gymnastics - 99,722
Basketball - 680,307
Baseball - 170,902
Softball - 118,354
Football - 413,620
Soccer - 163,003
Volleyball - 55,860
Track & Field - 15,113
Hockey - 63,945
From 1982-2002, the total numbers of direct and indirect fatalities among high school athletes were:
Baseball - 17
Basketball - 88
Cheerleading - 21
Cross Country - 14
Football - 22
Soccer - 31
Track & Field - 47
Wrestling - 16
http://www.sportssafety.org/sports-injury-facts/
Who gave you the right to think or do otherwise?
Legislators who enacted laws against child neglect. Are you trying to imply that child neglect is not a substantial contributor to instability of a society?
Soda has no redeeming value and a lot of nasty things. People need to drink less.
However, being a liberal, never having voted Republican, I am against the government telling people what they can and can't eat.
I'm surprised that Mayor Bloomberg, a Republican, a party known for beating that drum is initiating this ban.
Folks, I have some disturbing news for you. The government does not love you. There, I said it. Things like this and the insane cigarette tax in New York City (over $10 a pack!) are not about your health but about money and control. The government is conditioning you "big brother" style to accept its stifling control over every area of your life.
Part of the AHA was a major expansion of people covered by Medicaid. Combine this with the correlation between obesity and poverty and you have a pretty strong argument that the fattest people will still not be paying for healthcare. I'm typing from memory, but I recall that 1/3 of the newly covered people in the AHA are college students - they will get covered either by their parent's policies or by purchasing insurance. Another 1/3 are poor people who will fall into the new medicare standards.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Well, you are correct that it is ultimately the people who pay via taxes.
OTOH, we don't get any real/immediate say-so in how it is spent.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Want it or not, they are about to get it.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Yeah, soda is bad. A big container of sugar and chemicals that people assume is required to quench thirst.
But isolating one food product is not going to cure obesity.
So what, large soda drink sizes will be banned, but still allowed are mega-Venti 1 gallon sized quad-quad cream sugar extra foam and whip cream topped, caramel and chocolate syrup triple espresso infused coffees with a side of 10" radius cupcake and a oversized bagel with extra schmear is not a factor in obesity? And that is just a precursor to some street-meat based meal at noon and several pounds worth of ground beef and freedom-fries for supper.
Fatties will find their vices regardless of what form of unconstitutional bullshit a NYC mayor imposes
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Not much, if at all.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If it was ONLY in the sweet, mass-produced snacks, that would still be a vast improvement. When it's in things like fucking bread, for christ's sake, things are really spiraling out of control.
As long as society feels obligated to help those in need, society should feel absolutely justified in putting strict limitations on the ways that people can take advantage of that.
So why not place those restrictions only on those receiving assistance? It wouldn't take much to restrict EBT/Food-Stamp purchases to only vegetables, certain meats (turkey, chicken), and such. As a bonus, anyone receiving government-supplied healthcare (medicaid, Obamacare, whatever) be restricted to a certain diet for as long as they remain on it, and that any violation of that diet equals denied services.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
This really is nanny government. I'm totally for encouraging people to lead more healthy lives but banning things doesn't seem the right way to do this. It would be better to sell people the benefits rather than punish them into submission.
How about free exercise classes, free yoga classes, advertising the benefits of losing a bit of weight or adding a bit of muscle instead? A few adverts featuring sexy girls/guys and a slogan about how they like fit guys/girls would likely be more effective and cheaper than banning sugary drinks.
Lets completely ignore how that isn't true in any country that has single payer health care.
There is decades of data around single payer government systems, but lets keep ignoring it and make decision based on logical fallacies shoved down your throat by the republican party.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Drinking regular soda is like having a piece of cake or a sandwich, but without the satisfaction. Diet has nasty chemicals. Both contribute to osteoporosis and tooth decay.
Tea, on the other hand, has caffeine, comes in a variety of strengths, has next to no calories, does not hurt your stomach like coffee, is CHEAP, is great hot and is great cold.
Forget Lipton and other teas you find in the supermarket. Other countries know that Americans do not know tea and they send us their crap.
Order something nice online, even a pricier tea will be competitive per serving against a tall bottle of soda from a soda machine.
Drink your tea plain. If you can't get used to the taste 1 tsp of sugar will help and is only about 20 calories ( versus 200 + in a soda ). Mixed blends with things like orange or lemon grass will make the tea tasty enough that you may not need to add anything at all.
I find that tea has a "cleaner burn" than soda. I feel alert but calm also at the same time and I've read that the other chemicals in tea do that. Soda after a point makes me irritable.
Obese patients with heart disease do better and live longer than leaner patients with the same severity of disease, according to a study published last week in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
So, it's better to eat your way to a heart attack rather than having a disease weaken your heart.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
The VA is the best medical provider in the world. Consistently rated at the top.
Extend it to all people. Insurance can take care of vanity items.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It is currently against the law for the government to pay for abortions. The money given to planned parenthood is for women's health initiatives, such as preventing women from getting cervical cancer from HPV. I would, in fact, support free abortions. I'd rather have someone irresponsible abort a kid that they can't afford to take care of instead of being robbed by that kid or having taxpayers pay tens of thousands of dollars per year for his prison time.
The problem is that we're all connected and unless you want to be responsible for providing your own roads, drinking water, electricity and defending your compound that is unsafe to leave, we need at least some level of government and socialization. Medical care in that world seems kind of pointless, as you would have no great methods of contacting a provider (no eminent domain to build a network of telephone wires, radio waves would be useless without a central body to set up channels), and they might not be able to reach you quickly through a patchwork of private roads. And you'd better hope you have something worth bartering for care without a nanny state to set up and maintain a common currency. But at least there would be no government to steal your money for taxes or control your actions...just robbers, pirates, criminals.
I'm not saying the government should encourage people to be lazy by any means, just that there are indirect benefits to providing some services.
This is an autocratic nanny-state politician who's listening to a few lobbyists.
Why is lobbying for this move? The big food retailers would be lobbying against it.
Sounds like the guy is doing this for the right reason but like I said in another comment it's still the wrong thing to do.
20 extra pounds of fat from low fat AND balanced meals.
Sure...
Take away the fat and more fat magically appears around your waistline.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
It's a substance that creates craving and addiction and provides the body with no real nourishment, and consistent long-term consumption of it will lead to a degradation of one's health. Try stopping cold turkey and see how you feel after a couple of days.
It's like cigarettes, in that even with daily use, you may not see the long-term consequences for years, but they're there and they come.
It's not the only issue that is creating an obesity epidemic in America, but it's a significant one. If you go back 20-25 years, you wouldn't see such a high-percentage of rotund individuals. Just look at old TV news clips, or newspaper photos, it was much more rare.
But with Bloomberg's plan, I don't see what would stop anyone from buying two 16 oz. drinks of coke instead, so I really wonder how effective this would be.
Frankly, I'm all for individual rights, but how about a Surgeon General's warning instead on the side of every bottle of coke and diet coke (aspartame isn't any better), stop the marketing of it to kids and distribution in school settings, and education and recovery plans to assist anyone who wants to escape a daily high volume sugar intake permanently.
We know prohibition doesn't work, and despite the irrational execution of America's "war on drugs", I'm not advising it. But c'mon, lets stop pretending that there isn't a serious problem with is being marketed and sold as consumable food in America (and it's not just sugar), and actually do something about it.
Ignoring that this is completely fallacious, you don't see the massive difference between what someone does to themselves and what they do to a child?
False Continuum much?
No one said anything about preventing government intervention in cases of actual crime. Also, your assertion that some fat guy is abusing his kids by simple dint of his being fat is nonsensical.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
The issue with soda is more phycological than just free choice vs nanny state.
Our brains are constantly bombarded with advertising convincing us that we want sweetened, colored and fizzy liquids. More than any other form of consumption, beverage purchases are impulsive. Constant prodding drives these impulses. Starbucks needs to have 3 stores on every other block and in each supermarket to capture the consumers impulse before it passes.
The secret is the best and only beverage to satisfy our thirst is water and it's free. Most of these flavored beverages are actually diuretics, which only make you more thirsty causing you to buy and drink more. Now the same advertising geniuses have even convinced everyone that you should pay even more than the flavored liquids for plain tap water filtered and rebottled.
The fact is the beverage industry exists on peoples false perceptions that drinks you pay money for are better than H20. Stop for a minute and look around at how much of our consumer world revolves around transporting, stocking, advertising these useless beverages who's consumption is driven by our subliminal planted cravings. Then think about how much waste and litter is generated by packaging these liquids.
I think an even better solution would be to ban the disposable big cups. If people want a big soda, let them bring their own reusable mug or get refills on the small cups. Also anywhere that sells soda should also provide free water (and not as the lever option on one of the fountain spouts that never works right and always gets synthetic lemonade in your water).
We've had government funded health care for decades. The government has been paying for the fatties and the smokers for quite a long time now.
Eating fat isn't what makes you fat.
And it's funny how all the vegetarians I know are obese.
:wq
"Lifetime Medical Costs of Obesity: Prevention No Cure for Increasing Health Expenditure" by van Baal, et al.
Nope. It's your habit, not your addiction because soda isn't addictive.
Diet control caused you to loose weight? [you don't say]
"How the hell are you supposed to eat right when there are almost no options to eat right? "
Where do you lice where there are no options to eat right. no stores? no vegetables? No place sells salads?
Here is the largest reason fir obesity:
http://makinghealtheasier.org/newabnormal
I wish that also charted availability increase.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Never mind the people who actually pay the bill are the taxpayers, not the government.
That's not really true. The people paying many of the bills in (for instance) Mississippi live in New York. The proportion of political power you have is not directly correlated to the amount of taxes you pay.
There's an interesting funding strategy for government - a fixed poll tax :) In the US, you'd need $2.3 trillion in revenue from the 132,618,580 people who voted in the last presidential election. That would be $17,343 per voter...
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Your metabolism has likely changed, and you can not gain more calories then you intake.
OTOH, if I had a wife that nagged me, I would probably drown myself in more food as well.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Wow... a Strawman wrapped in a "For the chilluns!" argument! That's new.
So - what makes you so certain the guy doesn't have a massive life insurance policy? What makes you sure that the other parent isn't also employed and perfectly capable of caring for the kids in question? Fact is, you don't. Because you don't have such information, you have no ground or basis from which to dictate his behavior. QED: You have no rights to dictate others actions in that regard.
Ah, but instead of thinking it through, you relied on too many self-constructed assumptions, then started screaming about child neglect (which I believe you haven't grasped the actual meaning of...)
Seriously. Get a grip. People are going to do things that, while not criminal, are still dumb long-term. It's not your place to dictate that they behave otherwise, lest the rest of us decide to start dictating to you how you live your life.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
oh yeah, drinking less soda is going to help people lose weight. right.
I'm not suggesting banning soda is a good idea but consuming less calories will cause people to either lose weight faster or gain it slower.
Sorry to break this to you but a lot of Americans are fat, and I mean huge blubber mountain fat. Because of it they lead unhealthy lives and often end up taking all sorts of drugs. This guy wants to improve the situation, that's good, but his methods are wrong. I'd hold free exercise classes, give out exercise books, encourage people to look after themselves with positive messages.
False Continuum much?
A continuum is introduced as a way to work around accusations that a dichotomy is false. What argument technique is recommended as a way to work around accusations that a continuum is false?
No one said anything about preventing government intervention in cases of actual crime.
Which only ends up in a debate over the definition of "crime". Should intentionally failing to provide for your children by committing suicide be considered a crime? Should it be considered a crime if the suicide is slow?
Lets completely ignore how that isn't true in any country that has single payer health care.
There is decades of data around single payer government systems, but lets keep ignoring it and make decision based on logical fallacies shoved down your throat by the republican party.
Really? I ask because I just read a story about how NY is trying to ban sugary drinks because of health care costs. HERE is a link.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So - what makes you so certain the guy doesn't have a massive life insurance policy?
I would support amending this proposal to allow the sale of large sugary fountain drinks to people who carry documents proving life insurance, just as the privilege of driving a motor vehicle requires proof of liability insurance, and the purchase of alcohol, tobacco, or lottery tickets requires proof of age.
What makes you sure that the other parent isn't also employed and perfectly capable of caring for the kids in question?
I would support amending this proposal to allow the sale of large sugary fountain drinks to people who carry documents proving the other parent's financial responsibility.
Ignoring that this is completely fallacious
What's the fallacy, so that I may repair my argument?
you don't see the massive difference between what someone does to themselves and what they do to a child?
I haven't seen strong evidence of this difference, especially when someone's death or permanent disability would deprive the child of necessary support.
High levels of sugars in the diet are a long-term poison and the primary driver of obesity and the cluster of diseases associated with metabolic syndrome (type II diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity, elevated triglycerides, heart disease, even Alzheimer's). Those of you needing a refresher on the biochemistry should watch this video of Dr. Robert Lustig -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM Other references include the excellent work of Gary Taubes on the misguided and scientifically unproven war on dietary fat and the subsequent advocacy of low-fat diets.
It's great to see sugar targeted aggressively, but I don't agree with Bloomberg's ban for a number of reasons. It's anti-choice and it lets juice off the hook, which due to its fructose content is actually worse than something sweetened with sugar (which is glucose/fructose in equal proportions). It's also not nearly broad enough due to the widespread loading of processed food with high fructose corn syrup and sugar.
What needs to be done more generally is not just attacking soda per se, but raising the wholesale price of sugar and corn syrup to about 5 times their current level, either via an excise tax or in combination with elimination of any agricultural subsidies on corn and sugar beet production. This will make it much more expensive for food producers to add in sugars to their products and will hopefully reduce the overall glycemic load on our food supply. Less sugar consumed means less obesity.
Seems like we're trying to circumvent natural selection...
That went out the window with the invention of fire and pointy sticks.
Or do wolfs and bears still regularly eat members of your family?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
It isn't the ONLY thing that makes you fat, but it helps (a lot)!
Based on your original post, it seems like getting married made you fat. Should probably just get that shit annulled for your own health.
LegendMUD
into the lives of people. Really? There is no need for this type if idiotic legislature. If people can't curb their calories, eat, drink, and live responsibly, then they deserve whatever health problems they get as a result. We need less nanny-ism from the government and more commonsense from the public.
--- b2b.mallaidh.org | www.mallaidh.org | www.kidsalive.org/article/kahlil-pfaff/
I was mainly referring to the half an hour that I have for lunch. If I want variety, and do not want to just eat a pre-prepared side salad every day, there are few options.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
1) Stop soda altogether. No carbonated drinks at all. Replace your candy water with flavored vitamin water, and by all means drink 128oz of that a day.
2) Reduce your salt intake drastically. Salt makes you retain water, it's responsible for the spare tire that even healthy people can't get rid of. This alone will let you lose a substantial amount of weight very quickly.
3) Stop eating at least 2 hours before you go to sleep. Digesting food while you sleep slows your metabolism.
4) Eat a lot. By this I mean eat frequently, not necessarily large quantities. Eating frequently, even if just small meals, snacking throughout the day, increases your metabolism. I also advocate eating only good, healthy food but I can't assume you can afford it and everyone has their own idea of what good food is anyway.
5) Eat snack foods that burn energy. Like beef jerky, oatmeal, and fruit. Your stomach will burn your fat for energy in order to get through a bag of jerky.
6) Eat nothing but salad for a week and see how your body feels. You can have your fatty dressings and cheese, you can have bacon in it. Try caesar salad or raw spinach leaves -- they taste the best and use the most nutritious kinds of leaves. The first time I ate salad for a week I couldn't believe how much lighter I "felt" even though it wasn't much on the scale. It was like wearing army boots for a year and switching to tennis shoes. I had a lot of energy too.
7) Do simple warm up exercises when you wake up. Not talking about lifting weights or even push ups. Extend your arms out and rotate them for a full minute, then reverse direction. Do the same with each leg. Jog in place for a full minute. Instead of sit-ups, try these: Hold your arms out in front of you, palms down, and try to kick the opposite hand with each foot. Or assume a push-up position and alternate bringing each foot up to your chest level (called "mountain climbers"). For all of these exercises, it doesn't matter if you can actually do it. The only thing that counts is the effort. If you can do them, it just means you need to do more.
i never capitalize in my posts, it's just not my style. i capitalized this post just for you, don't let it go to waste. (get it? waist? i kill me)
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
If people took responsibility for their own actions, the person who lead a high fat/high cholesterol lifestyle should have planned for an early death. He/she took out insurance policies and saved money for their family to use when then kicked the bucket. Planing for the future should also have been taught to the family. That person's kids should have planned on not relaying on their parent who is heading towards an early grave. I don't mean the kids when they are 1-17 years of age. But at 18 those kids should have enough common sense that mommie or daddy is doing something wrong and is not going to live forever. They better plan for that.
Instead we have a society where many expect others to provide for them. That is a problem. Case in point: the US department of agriculture (USDA) makes the signs that are put in parks that say "Do not feed the animals. Feeding them makes them more dependent and they cannot fend for themselves". The same department also makes food stamps available. That department is happy to provide the record number of people on food stamps. People should be trying to better themselves. Many expect the handout. They do not try to better themselves. Why should they? They are given free food, a free place to live. That is wrong. Somewhere along the line the idea that this assistance was to help you along while you picked yourself up and made your life better was lost. That needs to be corrected.
Whoever pays the bills gets to make the rules! If you let government take over your health care, you are giving the government control over your health
Clearly its much better to leave it to the insurance companies, they clearly have our best interests at heart /sarcasm
Can you say "STUPID!" Why sodas... and not twinkies, or snickers, or all deserts in resteraunts, or any prime ribe over the size of 4 ounces, or beer (high carb so lite only), or non sugarless gum, or milk (high fat), or cool aid, or fruit juices (all are high calorie), or pizza (wow you can really get fat off of eating pizza), or all pastas, or ... Just get rid of all food and give everyone a nutrition card to report to your government controlled nutrition center for your ration of each balanced meal nutritional wafer. You must get only 1 per meal and you must visit 4 times per day... smaller portions are better for you. This will solve the problem, no choice, just do what the governemt says, when it says to do it, and in the manner is tells you to do it. After all free will and choice are evil and must be systematically removed from public use.
After that, then let's welcome in mandatory exercise programs... and it goes on and on and on...
Government regulation on anything is just that... the loss to all of a choice. What do you want to trust the government to do for you? As for me, I want government to do as little as possible to infringe on my liberity. Use it or loose it and those who think not, just watch it slip away.
While I generally don't agree with Americans over what the government's job is - I have to agree with this one. I'm sure there are better ways that the government can involved in dealing with the obesity problem.
Agreed, this is treating the symptoms, not the disease. The problem is that now EVERYTHING we eat has crap tons of HFCS in it, way more than we should be eating. Then to cover up the fact that we're using HFCS and sweeteners, we end up using more salt, and more... ugggh. Just go back to natural cane sugar please.
I drink mexican cokes and throwback mountain dews whenever I can. They're better for you, but they taste better too! So, what the hell?
All the government has to do is stop subsidizing HFCS so goddamn much. They don't need to regulate the population, only THEMSELVES.
GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
We never had any uprisings back then....why would we have them now? Back in the day...no one owed you anything, not even the government, and we got along just fine. Most people, took this as incentive to work their asses off to survive...and even to succeed. Why should it be any different now?
I mean, I'll go for a little modernization...if you're infirmed or old, and just can NOT work, ok...safety net there.
But if you are able bodied at all....well, you must work, and if you fucked up, and had too many kids....well, you need to figure something out. Maybe after awhile with the govt NOT coming to give everyone welfare, etc....and it might take a generation for this lesson to sink in....but after awhile, these idiots might just figure out they need to quit having unprotected sex, having kids...because no one is going to pay them to stay at home, watch tv and breed even more. Let's end this vicious cycle of poverty and dependence which just feeds upon itself and breeds generations that know nothing MORE than the welfare system.
Would it be tough? Sure...but, you have to start some where. We in the US weren't like this originally....we need to go back to that.
And for those that refuse to work and make their own livings...well, lets also turn the clock back, and stop locking people up for ingesting whatever chemical they want for recreation. That would free up TONS of jail space for those few that refuse to learn a lesson and attempt to use crime as a means to earn a living.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You know why men usually die before their wives?
Because they want to.
:wq
HA! uid 234k calling uid 37k a junior hipster. Classic.
LegendMUD
we're restricting food to combat obesity when hunger is still a very real problem. many people who can't afford all the food they need to remain healthy will find that food stamps are very difficult to get without the proper scam in place. next people will complain, 'oh. why should my taxes have to pay for the healthcare of someone who's too lazy to make more money' meanwhile countries that have actual socialist healthcare never talk about unfairly punishing people for being unhealthy.
What's the fallacy, so that I may repair my argument?
You're not just playing the "think of the children" card, which is bad enough, but you're stretching that out another level and attributing societal instability to people getting fat off of soda and leaving their kids behind. You're not just appealing to consequences, but indirect consequences with tons of other causes and variables. You're linking large sodas to fat people, to orphans, to child neglect, to societal instability. Not everyone who drinks large sodas does so to the point of getting fat. Not every fat person dies sooner or unexpectedly. Not all fat people who do die sooner/unexpectedly have kids to leave behind. Not all of the kids left behind are done so without being provided for.
> Hello. My name is Eliza. How may I help you?
* do you know Cybil?
> We were discussing you, not me.
* that was not very helpful to me
> What does that suggest to you?
* that you can't answer questions very well
> You're not really talking about me, are you?
* yes
> I see.
* no, i don't think you do see
> Do you wish to be able to think me do see?
* ok now i'm horny
> Do you believe it is normal to be horny?
it was then that i realized eliza doesn't understand NYC at all, although she would fit in great as a resident.
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
He/she took out insurance policies and saved money for their family to use
And as I wrote here, I would support waiving these restrictions for customers who prove such insurance.
But at 18 those kids should have enough common sense
I'd bump that to at least 19 to give the child time to finish high school first. Compare to current U.S. student aid law, which deems a child financially dependent on parents until age 23.
People should be trying to better themselves.
I agree. But how do you recommend that one plan to provide for oneself should one prove unable to better oneself? For example, how should one plan for becoming permanently disabled and unable to work due to this disability? Or how should one plan to provide for one's child should the child be disabled from childhood?
You got me there: I was assuming the wrong mens rea. These bad habits are not intentional but reckless, meaning "conduct whereby the actor does not desire harmful consequence but...foresees the possibility and consciously takes the risk" according to Black's Law Dictionary. But just as we prosecute reckless homicide and reckless driving, so should we prosecute reckless suicide and reckless neglect of a dependent. I'm willing to fix the rest of the false assumptions in my argument; which should I work on next?
If they now charge $6.50 for a 30 ounce coke, they will then sell the 16 ounce for $6.50.
They might bridge it by offering one free refill, but this is new york, so probably they won't even do that.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
It's the same reason I'm OK with seat belt laws. If I have to pay the bill for somebody (either directly for indigents, or indirectly by increased insurance premiums), he sure as hell should be trying not to smear himself all over the pavement. However, I think laws like this (or the soda ban) should be at the most local level possible.
The problem is that as insurance companies get larger and encompass multiple states, the "most local level possible" becomes the federal level. Although, I guess insurance companies already adjust premiums based on residency, so maybe it's not such a big deal. I would be curious to see if New Yorkers get a discount on their premiums if this ban goes into effect.
To me, it almost seems like this is a benefit of government funded healthcare. We're already footing the bill for idiots, via increased premiums. But the government can't say "we have to make this a law because it's costing us too much money." So now my life is more expensive because my representatives in congress can't make a ban (or at least a tax) on, I don't know, let's say parachuting. I would like to point out that my company actually charges a higher premium for smokers. That's a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, if we want those who pose the biggest risks to bear the brunt of insurance costs, it leads to a dystopian future where those with a familial disposition to cancer or heart disease will pay for it.
I don't know what the right answer is. But I do know that making it costly (or illegal) for people to do stupid or unhealthy things is a good idea.
Beer should come in 1.5 L mugs, like in Paris! Not like those tiny 0.3 L glasses they have in Amsterdam.
Will NYC Mayeor Bloomberg touch beer glass sizes, too? Brrr.
I was under the impression beer fatten too.
oblig
Corn syrup and sugar are[1]. SO, if you want to curb obesity, it's pointless to take out only soda. Even fruit juice[2] contains levels of concentrated sugars which cause all sorts of problems. Yes, even juices without added sugar. Candy bars, licorice, gooey sweets -- most anything you can find in a convenience store is going to be just as bad, if not worse than soda.
Also, many of the products containing corn syrup are made from extracts of the same corn used for large scale meat production; engineered to put on lots of pounds quickly. Corn syrup (and many corn products) are simply a blatant disregard for people's health in many ways.
[1] - http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/
[2] - http://blog.fooducate.com/2009/11/13/orange-juice-is-just-as-bad-as-cola-really/
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Not everyone who drinks large sodas does so to the point of getting fat.
Bars aren't allowed to sell an alcoholic beverage to someone who obviously looks already drunk. Likewise, restaurants and convenience stores wouldn't be allowed to sell a sugary soda to someone who obviously looks already obese.
Not every fat person dies sooner or unexpectedly.
I think the reasoning behind laws like this is that enough untimely deaths prove to arise from obesity to warrant the people's attention.
Not all fat people who do die sooner/unexpectedly have kids to leave behind.
You're right, and I think the presence of people with no dependents will be the hardest part of my argument to fix.
Not all of the kids left behind are done so without being provided for.
Which I mentioned elsewhere with the proof of insurance.
Would you end child protective services entirely?
Perhaps you missed the "...to tomb" part of the the post you quoted. CPS, while not perfect, serves a valid function. There are cases where yes, the government needs to intervene for the welfare of the child. Those cases should be limited to circumstances where the child is likely to be actively and clearly harmed by the parent (i.e., neglect, physical/sexual/emotional abuse, etc.). However, the need for government to intervene on the child's behalf ends when the child is no longer a child. In other words, I neither want nor need the government to protect me from myself when I become an adult.
If not, where do you draw the line between a parent who is abusing his child by living a lifestyle that leads to the parent's death and a parent who is abusing a child otherwise?
That is one of the most absurd things I have read on /., and that's saying a lot. Every one of us is going to die eventually. Some of us may live well beyond the average life span despite very unhealthy habits, and some of us may die early despite doing everything "right." Furthermore, what do you consider to be "living a lifestyle that leads to the parent's death?" Consider me, for example. I am very involved in the outdoors. I ride a motorcycle. I fly airplanes. I rock climb, white water kayak, mountain bike, and I frequently see black bears in my yard because of where I have chosen to live. I don't drink soda, however, I limit consumption of junk food and I exercise regularly. Am I more or less likely to live to see my 11 year old daughter reach adulthood than a parent who drinks a 64 oz. Big Gulp everyday? Should government tell me I can't ride my motorcycle, or do some of the other things I enjoy because those activities involve risk and therefore I might not live to see my daughter grow up?
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
As long as you renounce all claims to any state-funded programs....education, roads, health care, medicare, social security, fire protection, etc.
I'm a Brit who emigrated to the US about 10 years ago.
One thing I found very hard to get used to was that the taste of nearly all food in the US is sickeningly sweet. It makes it all taste the same as you can hardly even taste the natural flavor of the food itself.
There's sugar (presumably actually corn syrup) in large quantities in EVERYTHING, even stuff thats meant to be natural or savory like vegetables, nuts or cheese. Most US bread tastes like cake to me, instead of wheaty or nutty like it does back home.
You don't (re)notice until you leave and come back, but trust me the first couple of days of eating any food in the US tastes horrible.
Then your get acclimatized as your taste buds and waistline get assimilated into the Corn Lobby collective's master plan.
I'm relatively healthy actually. I served in the Army for a while, and while there I learned a thing or two about staying fit. I also have health insurance.
And speak of being brainwashed - on the contrary, socialism requires being brainwashed. If you notice, every time a populace has been converted to communism, it requires violence and re-education camps; in other words, brainwashing (not to mention also being forced to do free labor.) When the communist government falls and no longer enforces communism, the populace naturally reverts to capitalism peacefully.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
There are a lot of studies showing that artificial sweeteners (aspartame, sucralose, acesulfame potassium, saccharine , etc.) aren't particularly healthy.
From to the wikipedia article on artificial sweeteners:
"Rats given sweeteners have steadily increased calorie intake, increased body weight, and increased adiposity (fatness). [6] Furthermore, the natural responses to eating sugary foods (eating less at the next meal and using some of the extra calories to warm the body after the sugary meal) are gradually lost.[8]
A 2005 study by the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio showed that increased weight gain and obesity were associated with increased use of diet soda in a population-based study. The study did not establish whether increased weight gain leads to increased consumption of diet drinks or whether consumption of diet drinks could have an effect on weight gain.[9]"
Now I'm just waiting for some city that's smarter than the rest of us to ban food.
will Obama pull an FDR and threaten to increase the number of Justices and pack the court with his appointees?
He's a little goose-stepping Nazi Statist that needs to mind his own business before he pisses off enough people that he finally pisses off the wrong Barrett M107 owner and/or retired special-ops guy that has no problem with sacrificing his own life to defend the US from domestic enemies, as in the oath.
TSA-like union goon to weigh and check your shit for fiber content and fill out a freakin' government form for each toilet visit?
I don't mean to insult you or anything like that, but could you please tone down the rhetoric? This is exactly the kind of talk that I was referring to.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
"An employer, let us say, pays a seamstress twopence a day, and she does not seem to thrive on it. So little, perhaps, does she thrive on it that the employer has even some difficulty in thriving upon her. There are only two things that he can do, and the distinction between them cuts the whole social and political world in two. It is a touchstone by which we can—not sometimes, but always—distinguish economic equality from servile social reform. He can give the girl some magnificent sum, such as sixpence a day, to do as she likes with, and trust that her improved health and temper will work for the benefit of his business. Or he may keep her to the original sum of a shilling a week, but earmark each of the pennies to be used or not to be used for a particular purpose. If she must not spend this penny on a bunch of violets, or that penny on a novelette, or the other penny on a toy for some baby, it is possible that she will concentrate her expenditure more upon physical necessities, and so become, from the employer's point of view, a more efficient person. Without the trouble of adding twopence to her wages, he has added twopenny-worth to her food. In short, she has the holy satisfaction of being worth more without being paid more.
This Capitalist is an ingenious person, and has many polished characteristics; but I think the most singular thing about him is his staggering lack of shame. Neither the hour of death nor the day of reckoning, neither the tent of exile nor the house of mourning, neither chivalry nor patriotism, neither womanhood nor widowhood, is safe at this supreme moment from his dirty little expedient of dieting the slave."
--G. K. Chesterton, _Utopia of Usurers_
You are talking from an ignorant position, looking at past with rose-colored glasses and seeing some "gilded age" that never actually was.
I don't have the time or inclination to point out all the uprisings to you, or to pick the ones directly related to poverty but feel free to go through them by yourself.
It will take you a while though.
And for those that refuse to work and make their own livings...well, lets also turn the clock back, and stop locking people up for ingesting whatever chemical they want for recreation.
That would free up TONS of jail space for those few that refuse to learn a lesson and attempt to use crime as a means to earn a living.
Sooo... Let me get this straight.
Humanitarian taxpayer dollar for feeding, clothing, educating and keeping the poor healthy is BAD, but it is A-OK to spend that same dollar feeding, clothing, educating and keeping the poor healthy - IN A PRISON.
And since you are suggesting that the drugs convictions are taken off the table - that would be a dollar spent on thieves and murdering thieves.
Instead of on poor single parents and their children.
Who could then grow up to be thieves and murdering thieves.
I.e. Money would be spent on the poor who were dumb enough to get caught stealing your TV/stereo/laptop/car, selling it for a pittance and causing you property damage along the way.
Possibly killing and raping you and your wife/sister/children/mother/father/dog/hamster while they're at it.
Hey... you can't judge people for raping hamsters when they're on all sorts of drugs and the only treatment they can get is a concrete cell.
But wouldn't it be simpler and more effective if you'd simply rape and kill your wife/sister/children/mother/father/dog/hamster, burn your house down and then shoot yourself - leaving all your remaining assets to the local prison population?
You know... cut out the middle man.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I don't mean to insult you or anything like that, but could you please tone down the rhetoric?
No.
Next question?
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Dear Mayor Bloomberg,
I have just two words for you:
1. Fuck
2. You.
Don't have a nice day; have a debilitating aneurysm instead.
You're so insular. Why do you imagine X years ago in America is the ideal model for living?
Scandinavians for example have lots of welfare. And they're much more satisfied with life than Americans.
The American dream is a con. You work hard, have few vacations, little public health, and not much of a safety net when things go wrong. And all to enrich the top 1% more than they are already. The other 99% of you are useful idiots.
Next question?
That's OK, I don't think we'll get anywhere.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
False dichotomy, my friend. "Eat well, exercise regularly, die anyway."
Even if you do everything right, that's no guarantee that you'll be healthy or live longer. At 21, I was fit, I didn't drink, I didn't smoke, I had never done drugs, and my kidneys still quit on me -- right out of the blue. I'm now 41, and I have one of my brother's kidneys. I still eat healthy, exercise, don't smoke, don't do drugs and drink very little (like maybe one or two beers a month), but I understand that life entails risk and that nothing I do guarantees me that I'll live to a ripe old age. Claiming that drinking a 64 oz. Big Gulp is paramount to child neglect implies that you have yet to understand this fact.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
It is currently against the law for the government to pay for abortions. The money given to planned parenthood is for women's health initiatives, such as preventing women from getting cervical cancer from HPV.
That's so sweetly naive and incredibly wrong. My wife and I are married and share a joint checking account. There's no difference between "my money" and "her money" at any important level; even if we kept track of who contributed how much, it still gets stirred into the same pot. It's not like I take her to dinner with "my money" and she buys clothes with "her money", regardless of whether we pretend that's the case.
It's the same with Planned Parenthood. Ultimately, they have a total budget. The government pays for non-abortion services, but the end result is that by financing those services, PP is freed up to spend some of its other-sourced money on abortions.
I'm sure that Planned Parenthood has a spreadsheet that demonstrates that abortion funds and non-abortion funds are separate. That's nice. But realistically, it's all drawn from the same pool.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
So you'd benefit greatly from a single payer system, even more than most of us would.
Probably not.
There is no discussion, negotiation, nor compromise possible with tyranny.
There is only defeating it and those who favor it.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Employer provided health insurance policies may not deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.
What's your source? When I changed jobs last year, my new insurance informed me that they wouldn't cover any costs of a particular type for 6 months, citing a relatively minor and non-chronic incident I had in the previous year. I also personally know someone who had to leave his job because of his son's serious, chronic condition. The company couldn't afford the heavy premiums.
It's not about the social costs of healthcare -- it's about the benefits of a healthier workforce to the employers. By lobbying the government to outlaw obesity, they are getting higher productivity per worker at no cost.
ONLY if they committed a crime, like theft, murder, etc....
How do you figure that? If we weren't locking up so many people for wanting to light up a joint, we'd be saving LOADS of money. How is that taking anything away from poor folks? I don't see the tie between the two. I was basically saying if we weren't wasting money on locking up people that want to smoke or ingest something...we'd have plenty of money and prison space for people committing REAL crimes...things that hurt innocent people (murder, rape, theft, etc).
Most people that do some drugs (booze being a drug) do not go out and rape, murder or otherwise hurt other people around them. If that were the case, the US would have been totally engulfed in flames long ago....most people do some form of chemical recreation here...and most can handle it just fine. Strangely, the one that does seem to cause the most problem, is the legal one....ethyl alcohol.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Growing up in Europe, then moving back stateside in the early 90's was certainly a shocker. Unlimited drinks? King-size fries & soda? No wonder people are complete fatasses now. Limit drinks to 16oz, and charge for refills whether or not they have left the premises. Sure, it won't be popular, but whatever. Hell, charge for Ketchup even. People take too much for granted and have too much of a sense of entitlement. Time for us to Harden the Fuck Up*.
I have the same attitude towards the big, gas-guzzling trucks. When I see them hauling ass, accelerating rapidly only to hit the next street light and have to stop and do it all over again, I amuse myself thinking about how bad it must be hurting their pocketbook. Except then I realize they really don't care.
* http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=unkIVvjZc9Y
What is considered a crime and the severity there of is a societal issue expressed through government legislation. Fill in some of the bits between either end and you'll see that it really isn't a false continuum. To help inspire your imagination I'll start things for you. Obviously the position of some are debatable but also not the point
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
either let people provide their own or charge fair market prices.
The trouble is that if you let people provide their own, they'll sneak in alcohol, and that violates other laws. (Statute citation available upon request.) Banning all outside beverages is cheaper to enforce than banning only outside alcohol.
So the remaining sticking point the movie made was regarding subsidies and pricing of unhealthy foods. I will look for more information.
The other is that soda pretty much *dissolves your bones*. Google it. It's acidic as hell. Even though it tastes so good.
Not any more acidic than apple juice, and far less acidic than cranberry juice. Lemonade, depending on the strength, can be even worse than cranberry juice.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Every one of us is going to die eventually
Please allow me to repair my question: "a lifestyle that leads to the parent's untimely death", or "a lifestyle that leads to the parent's death before the child's self-sufficiency".
Consider me, for example. I am very involved in the outdoors. I ride a motorcycle. I fly airplanes.
And if you have suitable life insurance, your 11 year old daughter is protected. Perhaps the right way is to require parents to carry life insurance rather than restricting how parents can destroy their own health.
If you let government take over your health care, you are giving the government control over your health.
As opposed to the for-profit entities that control my health now? I'll take my chances with the Gov, thanks. At least they won't kill me/bankrupt me so the CEO can make an extra buck.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Back in the day...no one owed you anything, not even the government, and we got along just fine. Most people, took this as incentive to work their asses off to survive...and even to succeed.
Not only that.. people simply lived more optimally. When children grew up, they didnt automatically leave home. They stays and helped out until they got married, and even then they sometimes stayed to help out, enriching both themselves AND their parents in the process.
"His name was James Damore."
Haha. I think the wives could also use the exact same argument.
LegendMUD
If you can not purchase a large the buy two mediums.
If the government is paying for your health care, that choice is no longer yours.
The government gets its money from the people...
...but to be quite specific, the debt is so large that they apparently get it from people that havent even been born yet.
Now you tell me.. who asked the unborn to make this decision, and what justification did the unborn use?
"His name was James Damore."
Oh noes! I lost one whole karma point? Color me unimpressed.
Here - let me burn off a few more to prove the point, child: I have more of them stocked up over the years than you have public hairs, so kindly shut the hell up and crawl back under your rock, oh illiterate and insignificant fucktard.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Lets completely ignore how that isn't true in any country that has single payer health care.
There is decades of data around single payer government systems, but lets keep ignoring it and make decision based on logical fallacies shoved down your throat by the republican party.
Really? I ask because I just read a story about how NY is trying to ban sugary drinks because of health care costs. HERE is a link.
What asshole modded this "OffTopic"? I was responding to a post that said governments don't limit freedom based on unhealthy behaviors. Bullshit! This very article is about governments limiting freedom of choice because that choice might be deemed unhealthy.
I even provided a fucking link to this very article. How can I be off topic when I'm talking about the very topic TFA is about?
If you disagree with my post, take it up with the submitter.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I take it you mean who? There a health nut lobby.
What caused me to post is his sheer audacity. If people are buying large drinks in large enough numbers that stores sell them, and that health nuts think it's a big problem, then ipso facto THAT is what the people want. The mayor is lying.
I don't live in NYC. I didn't vote for the asshole holding the office of mayor. You New Yorkers have exactly what you wanted. Live with it.
If the way things are going pisses you off, then vote the idiots out of office. Elect somebody who doesn't want to run your life for you.
That may be, but here in the US, we have rather a lot more fatties, so it's a vastly larger concern. I have to imagine that our immense obesity problem is at least partially responsible for health care costs.
Support more choices in goverment-Vote 3rd party.
We never had any uprisings back then....why would we have them now? Back in the day...no one owed you anything, not even the government, and we got along just fine. Most people, took this as incentive to work their asses off to survive...and even to succeed. Why should it be any different now?
We have this now because it helps me as a legislator/lobbyist/chairman(*) gain power, increase my sphere of influence and increase my budget. If I helped 5,000 people this year, then helping 10,000 next year is better (for me). If those extra 5,000 do not exist, then we'll just change the goalposts so that they do exist.
Keep enough people on the gravy train long enough (and create more) and eventually they will come to depend on that gravy train, and woe to him who might knock it off the tracks.
* (I'm none of those things, just speaking figuratively)
We never had any uprisings back then....
Seriously? Are you just completely ignorant of US labor history?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Does he plan to ban the sale of booze and tobacco as well? They're far more dangerous to the health of the populace than 32 ounces of Mountain Dew.
Who suffers? Money going to fat cat administration donors don’t stop foreclosures.
The government's job is to promote the common good. That sometimes means helping people who've made mistakes. You seem to be more interested in making people suffer for them. I wonder if your tune would change if you or someone you cared about ever slipped up. But no, that would never happen. You don't make mistakes. You're a god.
Why is the government’s job to help people who make mistakes? People often need help, but vast bureaucracies are the worst way to help individuals. Common laws, yes. Redistributing “wealth” to individuals, no!! What perversion has taken hold that the state is the sole supplier of benefice?
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
"It is a Class C misdemeanor for a person to knowingly carry liquor into a restaurant or place of public entertainment for the purpose of consuming it, displaying it, or selling, furnishing, or giving it away to another person on the premises, or for the purpose of having it served to himself or another person, then and there." (IC 7.1-5-8-6)
It's an amazing episode of complete lack of morals, ethics, and empathy what we are seeing. There is a serious psychosis becoming prevalent in our society, it's a sick mentality that starts at the top and infects all the way to the bottom. When you observe this type of behavior in any species, they will turn on themselves in a flash of teeth and claws.
Yet again I say to good people, read up on fascism and it's history. Contrast and compare it with our current events and political clime. If for some reason you think it's a wonderful idea, ponder how it turned out for the Germans when they tried it. After reading some of these heartless, brutal comments, I have to wonder how far we are from our own camps?
Take the Red Pill.
"A rum and Coke? Here ya go... here is your 44oz Coke and thimble of rum. The dump bucket for rum is over there."
-- Terry
All these health conscious people, who participate in dangerous sports activities, also want free health care...
Overweight people who drink diet soda probably had quite a soda habit before they became overweight (or decided to change it) or they would just not drink soda rather than replacing the regular with the diet.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Free knee surgery for all!
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Oooo, good point. And they can make the seats and cubbies smaller so that they can get more workers in per square foot!
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
There is only defeating it and those who favor it.
Good luck on your quest, brave Quixote.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
In my opinion, the disappearing public water fountain has contributed more to people drinking soda pop instead of water than any Big Gulp ever has.
huh? The public water fountain is disappearing? Do you live in Europe or something? Here in America public water fountains are all over the place. Actually that is one of the things I dislike about Europe... Oh and they don't have large drinks either.
I just got through reading a bunch of these comments. Makes me thirsty, I think I'm going to head down to 7-11 for a Big Gulp... Thankfully I don't live in NYC!
From FTA:
Establishments that skirt the ban would face a $200 fine.
Is that a $200 fine per year? Per incident? I am guessing more like a $200 year fine...
You clowns in NYC deserve what you get. You elected this ldiot! More government involvement into the everyday lives of Americans, because after all...politicians are smarter than everyone else.
Not only that.. people simply lived more optimally. When children grew up, they didnt automatically leave home. They stays and helped out until they got married, and even then they sometimes stayed to help out, enriching both themselves AND their parents in the process.
Well, some of them did. Not the ones that DIED before the age of 5 from such old-fashioned diseases as measles, smallpox, polio.....
sustainable living
Wow.
If you think that promoting freedom and combating tyranny is some sort of Quixotic quest, then you have earned the chains of tyranny you'll wear by forging them yourself.
"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending against all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks." - Samuel Adams
"The truth is, all might be free if they valued freedom and defended it as they ought." - Samuel Adams
"I have sworn upon the alter of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I bet you're 12...
"Strat, clean your room!"
"Mom, you are a deviant representative of the dark psychotic tyanny that is stalking this land!"...
No, but my 12-yo grandson, who was reading over my shoulder, said; "Wow, he's really dumb, huh grandpa? Even I know he's sayin' that stuff 'cuz he can't think of nuthin' else. That's why he didn't put his name on it".
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Here's the thing. Not everyone is going to agree with you, and they aren't going away either. Since you claim to support democracy, the only way you can "defeat" people who don't agree with you is to convince them that your arguments have merit. Putting them on the defensive is a horrible strategy, and will only result in them circling their wagons.
I thought Don Quixote was a pretty good comparison. Your giants are a Nazi Bloomberg and a supreme-court circumventing Obama. The rest of us see a rich guy who happens to be mayor of NYC and a fairly middle-of-the-road President. To most of us, comparing Bloomberg's limiting the serving size of soda to anything commonly associated with the Nazis is so ridiculous that it becomes hard to listen to what you have to say, no matter how well-thought out. Similarly, I'd love to hear how you think that Obama plans on passing anything resembling the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill that FDR couldn't get through a friendly congress.
Anyway, running around attacking what most people regard as figments of your imagination is not the way to win said people over.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I gather you haven't actually lived in Manhattan? Refills aren't free at most restaurants in NYC. It's just another one of those "taxes" that you pay for the privilege of living in the city.
Anyway, I'm glad I no longer live there especially with Bloomberg trying to pull crap like this.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
Here's an idea... mandatory time and a half for all hours over 40 regardless of managerial status. That oughta do it, and solve any unemployment problems that they have to boot.
I'm a bigger guy these days due to all the hours. When I work 40 hours a week, within a year I'm at my target weight and I don't do anything special. But if I have to do 80-100 hour weeks all the time, I just blow up because there's no time to do anything else. I've see similar results with friends I work with.
I might not buy a big gulp if I know I don't have to work for 20 hours straight and need it to stay awake. I tend to get grapefruit juice if I just want a beverage, but soda if I need artificial alertness.
Here's the thing. Not everyone is going to agree with you, and they aren't going away either. Since you claim to support democracy, the only way you can "defeat" people who don't agree with you is to convince them that your arguments have merit. Putting them on the defensive is a horrible strategy, and will only result in them circling their wagons.
I guess you missed the 2010 elections? Most people agree more with me than with the likes of Obama and Bloomberg. We will "defeat" them by winning elections and tossing them out. And keep tossing them out until there are people in office that truly believe in the Rule of Law, fiscal responsibility, and the Constitution.
I thought Don Quixote was a pretty good comparison. Your giants are a Nazi Bloomberg and a supreme-court circumventing Obama.
Actually, my enemies are Liberal/Progressives and other Collectivists and Statists. Obama and Bloomberg are both just puppets of people like George Soros.
The rest of us see a rich guy who happens to be mayor of NYC and a fairly middle-of-the-road President. To most of us, comparing Bloomberg's limiting the serving size of soda to anything commonly associated with the Nazis is so ridiculous that it becomes hard to listen to what you have to say, no matter how well-thought out.
You seem to be under the illusion that most people see things your way. They do not. Most people do not agree with you. This will be borne out this November. Unless, of course, the vote-tabulation corporation SOE and it's parent company Scytl, owned by a major Obama contributor, manage to corrupt the vote tabulation sufficiently.
...the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill that FDR couldn't get through a friendly congress.
FDR didn't have to get it passed. The SCOTUS caved to the threat before it was passed. I have zero confidence that these Justices wouldn't cave if threatened as well.
Anyway, running around attacking what most people regard as figments of your imagination is not the way to win said people over.
LMAO!! Tell that to the Progressives/Democrats! They've been calling people who believe in the Constitution and the Rule of Law everything from Nazis, to racists, homophobes, ignorant rednecks, anti-women, violent radicals, religious extremists, and everything else under the sun.
George Soros, through the Tides Foundation and it's associated groups, Barbara Streisand, and other Left-leaning organizations and individuals have contributed well over a million dollars to the convicted Speedway Bomber Brett Kimberlin to literally terrorize conservative bloggers in an attempt to silence them! And you say *I'm* "attacking" people? Please. Do some Googling on Kimberlin.
But, that's the way those on the Left have always operated...by silencing opposing voices by any means available, even with violence if needed. That's because their ideas cannot stand on their merits when challenged.
And there you go again, assuming most people agree with your views when that is not the case.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Totally what he said and your stomach is totally not acidic...
Fun fact: you stomach secretes hydrochloric acid that has a pH of around 1. You will not eat anything that is that acidic.
Or stomach acids for that matter...
I guess you missed the 2010 elections?
Wow. Did you miss the 2008 elections? Remember when the Democrats controlled both houses of congress and the white house? We've been see-sawing between Democrats and Republicans since the 1940s. One data point is not a trend. So yeah, you will defeat them in one election, and then lose to them in another election.
my enemies are Liberal/Progressives
Right, but they make up about 1/3 of the populace. You're going to have to learn to work with them.
This will be borne out this November.
You mean when 1/3 of the voters vote party line Democrat and 1/3 of the voters go party line Republican and the remaining 1/3 of moderate independents decide between two substantially identical candidates, providing one with a narrow plurality of the vote? Yeah, that will prove a lot.
I have zero confidence that these Justices wouldn't cave if threatened as well.
Cave to what? Obama does not have the ability to get such a bill passed.
LMAO!! Tell that to the Progressives/Democrats! They've been calling people who believe in the Constitution and the Rule of Law everything from Nazis, to racists, homophobes, ignorant rednecks, anti-women, violent radicals, religious extremists, and everything else under the sun.
Exactly - you are both behaving the same way. The only major difference between the two camps is the color that they root for on election night.
Do some Googling on Kimberlin.
Yes, both of you have your demons. If I were having this argument with a party-line Democrat, they'd be throwing names around like Robert Bennett and the Koch brothers. Arguing about who is more evil is not constructive.
And there you go again, assuming most people agree with your views when that is not the case.
You are right of course. Most people (2/3) drink the party Kool Aid and don't really matter because their vote is a fixed point. The only question is whether or not you can convince them to come out and vote. I was speaking for the 1/3 of us who don't hang our hats on a particular party. We are the ones who will decide the election and we are the ones you need to be trying to convince.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Who the hell comes up with stuff that broken anyway....
People always accuse doctors of having a God complex, and in many ways the low fat paradigm is the result of that.
Ancel Keys made some observations and weak correlations about dietary fat and cholesterol being related to heart disease in the mid 1960s. This was fertile ground for researchers and clinicians and many of them staked their careers on it and due to the fact that they could never quite get their studies to prove the relationship between heart disease and dietary fat & cholesterol (and still haven't!) they were able to string this out into an entire career.
Once you have careers and reputations on the line, you have a self-sustaining paradigm -- nobody wants to come out after 30 years of being dedicated to this idea to say "Gee, we were wrong all along." So they never promote research that questions their beliefs -- and that's probably putting it mildly, they actively attack and discount it.
Despite nearly 40 years of this advice, though, obesity is skyrocketing and the low fat paradigm is starting to crumble.
I think there's another unspoken element in this, and that's an American cultural predisposition to promote paradigms which are judgmental and involve denial of pleasure. Certainly by the mid 1960s, overall economic success had made meat an everyday staple for most Americans. It tasted good and made you feel good -- so a solution to heart disease and obesity was penance -- don't eat what you enjoy and what makes you feel good. And if you don't get thin on low-fat? Why you're not trying hard enough -- not enough exercise, not enough self well, it's a weakness of character problem!
Part of why they reacted so severely to Atkins was that he never preached that -- he said "Hey, eat as much of that steak as you like! Put a tab of butter on it! Eat until you're full, don't go hungry!" This was like religious blasphemy, not only did it contradict the fact of low-fat proponents, it contradicted the morality of their position.
You seem to be implying that "Let the chips fall where they may" style comments can be somehow linked to fascism. Unfortunately, the fascists were all about government taking care of and controlling it's populace.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Anarcho-fascist is an oxymoron. The 2 terms are incompatible. A lot of people have tied themselves in knots to pretend that libertarianism leads to fascism so they can avoid dealing with the fact that the fascists were overwhelmingly closer to the progressives and communists of the era than they were to any sort of anarchism or capitalism.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
This sort of action (trying to outlaw stupid behavior) only gets traction in a society that has decided to subsidize or otherwise centrally manage health care. This is why Republicans think that government run medical insurance programs are attacks on freedom. As an analyst in the health care industry (mostly on the medical side) I support these sorts of laws, but as an activist for freedom I deplore them. Wish my health care package covered experimental surgeries on splitting conflicted left(rational)-right(compassion) brains.
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
Where people in "health retreats" were doing some of the most insane things to themselves in the name of good health.
So no more beer boobs?
FTFY. Oh, noes!
Great response! And who made the mayor the official nanny of New York? Government should return to the role of providing services and stay out of people's private lives. "Question Authority" is my motto.
Most folks don't drink 64 oz cranapple juice...jes' sayin'...
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Portion size. Thats why Americans are fat. Food is cheap and portions are huge. When I first moved to New Zealand I ate out a lot. The portions seemed tiny and I was always hungry. Then I just got used to it and now I can't stop losing weight. In fact what used to seem tiny now fills me up.
He's implying that it's non of your fucking business.
I'm not sure that actually answers the question.