Taking away American choice and infringing on peoples right to freedom

[Sexyeccentric1]

Next thing you know some idiot is going to want to ban foods too high in salt (kinda reminds me of that movie The Island ) Where your pee is monitored for too much salt and sugar..

Maybe they want to make laws barring you from having a damn cookie or candy at the movies..cmon seriously?
-----------------
NYC Proposed Ban On Large Sugary Drinks Drawing Mixed Reaction From NYers

[Sexyeccentric1]

By the way this is the wrong approach to combating obesity. What he needs to do is build parks in the poor areas where children from poor families can play safely and get exercise, and invest in education about healthy eating, and for crying out loud start subsidizing the farmers of local produce so they can bring in fruits and vegetables at a much lower cost because right now fruits and vegetables are more expensive than buying cheap processed food high in sugars and fat. In addition most poor neighborhoods don't have a real grocery store only convenience stores so the food choices are piss poor.

So many things they could do to help with obesity but instead they want to take away peoples freedom of choice and they think that is going to solve the problem. Shakes head...

[Iaintliein]

Yeah,
Sorta like light bulbs.

[ForumPoster]

How about taking corn syrup out of every goddamn edible product? Oh wait a minute, that's not economically feasible.

Lina

[Sexyeccentric1]

Originally Posted by Sensual Lina

How about taking corn syrup out of every goddamn edible product? Oh wait a minute, that's not economically feasible.

Lina

Right now the government is subsidizing the corn farm industry for this and yes if they take away the subsidies then it will reduce this.. however I do think we need to help the produce farmers of fruits and vegetables and that hasn't been done yet. Small local farmers just can't compete. Anyone watch the documentary "weight of the nation"? Talks about all of this. But I still believe you don't take peoples right to choose away. That is part of our freedoms.. being able to have choice.

[ForumPoster]

Originally Posted by Sexyeccentric1

Right now the government is subsidizing the corn farm industry for this and yes if they take away the subsidies then it will reduce this.. however I do think we need to help the produce farmers of fruits and vegetables and that hasn't been done yet. Small local farmers just can't compete. Anyone watch the documentary "weight of the nation"? Talks about all of this. But I still believe you don't take peoples right to choose away. That is part of our freedoms.. being able to have choice.

Oh I agree with you completely!

Subsidies to the corn farm industry and as result low cost of corn syrup allow for abundance of cheap bad food on shelves. Few months ago I completely changed the way of what and how I eat and I have to admit - I doubt majority of working class families can afford to make that kind of change. Nor can they afford to spend couple hours a day in well equipped gym.


Without proper education and easily available affordable healthy food options we are going to keep on sliding into obesity.

Lina

[Chica Chaser]

Originally Posted by Sexyeccentric1

Next thing you know some idiot is going to want to ban foods too high in salt (kinda reminds me of that movie The Island ) Where your pee is monitored for too much salt and sugar..

Maybe they want to make laws barring you from having a damn cookie or candy at the movies..cmon seriously?
-----------------
NYC Proposed Ban On Large Sugary Drinks Drawing Mixed Reaction From NYers

NYC has already banned salt shakers in restaurants.
I thought you are in favor of big government and regulating, taxing and controlling every aspect of peoples lives?

[ForumPoster]

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

NYC has already banned salt shakers in restaurants.

Really? Effective when?

Lina

[Sexyeccentric1]

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

NYC has already banned salt shakers in restaurants.
I thought you are in favor of big government and regulating, taxing and controlling every aspect of peoples lives?

I am in favor of laws and regulations that are reasonable but not making a law for every stupid thing that takes away peoples freedoms and choices. Common sense has to prevail here but obviously these politicians and their supporters have none.

Like that city that made a law outlawing baggy pants...I mean really?

If he banned salt shakers from resturants he is an idiot and I am surprised that the people dont eventually vote his ass out of office. Is he going to ban butter next?

[Sexyeccentric1]

Originally Posted by Sensual Lina

Really? Effective when?

Lina

Haha..I was just going to ask you since you live there!

[Old-T]

I don't think laws should ban salt and sugar--we should just stop subsidizing poor choices by people.

Right now we subsidize people who choose cheap, unhealthy life styles by charging them the same for health care as we do people who make the investment in healthier choices.

The correct approach would be more along the lines of charging obese, out of shape people a lot more for health insurance and medical care. The person who has a heart attack because of a genetic defect is very different from the person who has a heart attack because they weigh 450 pounds and smoke 2 packs a day. The same sin tax that we put on cigarettes & alchohol.

I don't know the details of how to implement that, but philosophically it is the right approach. I suspect the fair thing would be to heavily tax that soft drink by the calorie and put the $ into education, medical treatment, and gyms. Even if it doesn't act to change behaviors it will put the bill closer to where it belongs.

I am far more willing to pay taxes for schools that I have no one in--but at least produce a good for society--than pay for ERs crowded with diet induced strokes and heart attacks, drunk drivers and motorcyclists who think it's macho to ride without a helmet. Those are largely preventable.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I don't think laws should ban salt and sugar--we should just stop subsidizing poor choices by people.

Right now we subsidize people who choose cheap, unhealthy life styles by charging them the same for health care as we do people who make the investment in healthier choices.

The correct approach would be more along the lines of charging obese, out of shape people a lot more for health insurance and medical care. The person who has a heart attack because of a genetic defect is very different from the person who has a heart attack because they weigh 450 pounds and smoke 2 packs a day. The same sin tax that we put on cigarettes & alchohol.

I don't know the details of how to implement that, but philosophically it is the right approach. I suspect the fair thing would be to heavily tax that soft drink by the calorie and put the $ into education, medical treatment, and gyms. Even if it doesn't act to change behaviors it will put the bill closer to where it belongs.

I am far more willing to pay taxes for schools that I have no one in--but at least produce a good for society--than pay for ERs crowded with diet induced strokes and heart attacks, drunk drivers and motorcyclists who think it's macho to ride without a helmet. Those are largely preventable.

I could argue we don’t subsidize them, we pay the same rates as they do. But it doesn’t really matter. Profits are up for insurance providers. Insurance companies have their tables. When was the last time an insurance company failed to make a profit? I’m not talking about the companies that branched out into other endeavors such as mortgages, etc. Even a Katrina evens out because 50 year and 100 year events are figured in.
I agree people should pay the same as other people with similar health characteristics. Economic factors can affect the types of food someone can afford. But there is one group that pays extra to live one of the most unhealthy life styles possible. Smoking is a totally personal choice. No one can complain they smoke because they can't afford to dip, etc. Smokers should be classified as a group and should pay the real cost of present and future care.

[WTF]

+1 to the above the above two posts.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Smoking is a totally personal choice. No one can complain they smoke because they can't afford to dip, etc. Smokers should be classified as a group and should pay the real cost of present and future care. Agree, as is eating 4 Whoppers for dinner and a slab of lard for breakfast.

I could argue we don’t subsidize them, we pay the same rates as they do. We DO subsidize them because those people have consciously decided to increase their risks. If I drive safely I am not charged the same as my neighbor with 10 speeding tickets and a dozen reckless driving citations.

.

[Cpalmson]

Bloomberg is an ass and fool and clueless. Have you ever been out to eat lately? Refills are always free. Most fast food is self serve in terms of drinks. The wait people aren't going to enforce it. Just more fucking government nanny shit forced down our throats. I will be so glad when we have a 2nd American Revolution.