Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Soda Wars: New York
Friday, June 1, 2012 12:02 PM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Quote: New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been on a years-long crusade against obesity, or at least against the cultural and commercial forces that promote it. In his latest step, he's proposing to ban the sale of super-sized sugary drinks by restaurants, cinemas, street vendors and stadium concessionaires. The move exemplifies the tension between individual liberty and societal responsibility that's particularly acute in the field of public health. Americans cherish their freedom to live as they choose, without "nanny state" dictates from the government. But because they're not willing to deny medical care to people who urgently need it, society has to pick up the tab for those who make heedless choices. Striking the right balance between the two will be one of the central challenges for government in the coming decades, as rising healthcare costs put an increasing strain on federal, state and local budgets. Almost everything government does restricts the freedom of the governed in some way. Spending programs have to be paid for with taxes that leave people less money to use as they see fit. Laws limit what people can do without risking fines, lawsuits or incarceration. People tend to accept these limits without complaint when there's a clear connection to public safety and civil order, or a clear benefit from the spending that's proportionate to the cost. The support weakens when the connection to public safety isn't so clear or the benefits are more abstract. For example, seat belt laws are widely supported: There's no question that they save lives and reduce the severity of injuries. But when the federal government lowered the speed limit on all interstate highways to 55 miles per hour in 1974, numerous states rebelled, insisting that there was no public safety reason for such a low limit in rural areas. Similarly, the public accepts some governmental intrusion into what people eat and drink. There is an assortment of restrictions on alcoholic beverages, including a minimum drinking age, drunk-driving laws and regulations governing when and where liquor may be advertised. There are food safety standards and nutritional mandates on school lunch programs. Manufacturers have to list the ingredients, calorie and fat content of packaged foods, and local governments are increasingly demanding the same kinds of disclosures from restaurants. But telling the average person that he has to eat X or cannot eat Y goes a step further. It intrudes on personal decisions that consumers make with their own dollars that affect just their own bodies. That's what makes even a relatively tame proposal such as Bloomberg's big-cup ban so controversial. Bloomberg's plan, which is pending before the city's Board of Health, would outlaw the sale of sweetened drinks larger than 16 ounces. But somewhat arbitrarily, it wouldn't apply to groceries or convenience stores, to calorie-laden lattes or fruit juices, or even to restaurants that offered two 16-ounce sodas for the price of one. The mayor's initiative also rests on a shaky scientific foundation. Researchers have found that people who regularly drink soda are more likely to be overweight, and that those who increase their soda intake have a greater chance of becoming obese and diabetic. But there's little data to support the idea that a ban on large cups and bottles of sugary beverages would make a real difference in obesity, especially a ban as porous as the one Bloomberg has proposed. With no precedents to show the effectiveness of Bloomberg's approach, a better way to balance the competing interests of public health and personal choice would be to require more effective disclosure about the calories in soda and a more aggressive effort to educate the public about the associated risks and costs. There are nearly 400 calories in 32 ounces of Coca-Cola Classic, which is almost as much as aMcDonald's quarter-pound hamburger. Raising awareness about calorie counts may also encourage restaurants to compete to offer the healthiest goods, not just the biggest portions. Considering that 36% of the U.S. population is obese, far too many Americans aren't connecting the dots between weight and chronic disease, particularly diabetes and heart disease. And that's not just a personal health issue. Studies have shown that preventable diseases linked to behavioral choices are responsible for about half the premature deaths in the U.S. annually, and for much of the demand for costly medical care. At least some of those costs are borne directly by Medicare, Medicaid and other taxpayer-funded public programs, and indirectly by healthy people who carry private insurance. The larger and more difficult question for the public is where to draw the line between an appropriate government effort to improve public health and an inappropriate interference with individual autonomy. If the only consideration were reducing how much taxpayers had to spend on healthcare, then Bloomberg's next logical step would be to require restaurants to serve vegetables with every food order, or to require every New Yorker to join a health club, or to ban ice cream. He's not about to do that, though, because Bloomberg is a canny politician. Ultimately, society will decide what limits to place on individuals in the name of public health, and officials who go further than their constituents are ready to go will be tossed out at the next election. New Yorkers have given Bloomberg a lot of leeway on health issues so far, which suggests his views reflect their concerns about diet and obesity. Others who follow his lead may not find their constituents to be so tolerant.
Friday, June 1, 2012 1:37 PM
NEWOLDBROWNCOAT
Friday, June 1, 2012 1:48 PM
Friday, June 1, 2012 2:05 PM
WHOZIT
Friday, June 1, 2012 2:17 PM
Quote:Originally posted by whozit: This is Bloombag governing by NYC dinner party, even the N.Y. Dems are against this.
Friday, June 1, 2012 4:02 PM
GEEZER
Keep the Shiny side up
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Can you choose to order cat or dog at a restaurant?
Quote:Horse?
Friday, June 1, 2012 4:11 PM
ANTHONYT
Freedom is Important because People are Important
Quote:I'm conflicted. Sure, obesity is an issue. But aren't we free to choose our own food?
Quote: Are we? Are we really?
Quote: Can you choose to order cat or dog at a restaurant? Horse?
Quote: If I want to kill myself with sugary drinks, isn't that my business?
Quote: What if I want to kill myself with a gun? Are you legally REQUIRED to sell me ammo, even if you can tell that I'm a danger to myself?
Friday, June 1, 2012 4:37 PM
FREMDFIRMA
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Thoughts?
Friday, June 1, 2012 4:40 PM
Saturday, June 2, 2012 2:02 AM
PENGUIN
Quote:Originally posted by ANTHONYT: Quote:I'm conflicted. Sure, obesity is an issue. But aren't we free to choose our own food? Yes. Quote: Are we? Are we really? Yes. Quote: Can you choose to order cat or dog at a restaurant? Horse? Yes. And if not, let's fix that straight away. Quote: If I want to kill myself with sugary drinks, isn't that my business? Yes. Quote: What if I want to kill myself with a gun? Are you legally REQUIRED to sell me ammo, even if you can tell that I'm a danger to myself? This is an interesting and insightful question. My feeling is Yes. You can off yourself however you choose. Your life belongs to you. --Anthony
Saturday, June 2, 2012 2:12 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Penguin: Quote:Originally posted by ANTHONYT: Quote: What if I want to kill myself with a gun? Are you legally REQUIRED to sell me ammo, even if you can tell that I'm a danger to myself? This is an interesting and insightful question. My feeling is Yes. You can off yourself however you choose. Your life belongs to you. --Anthony Just don't take anyone else with you...
Quote:Originally posted by ANTHONYT: Quote: What if I want to kill myself with a gun? Are you legally REQUIRED to sell me ammo, even if you can tell that I'm a danger to myself? This is an interesting and insightful question. My feeling is Yes. You can off yourself however you choose. Your life belongs to you. --Anthony
Saturday, June 2, 2012 2:23 AM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: But aren't we free to choose our own food?
Saturday, June 2, 2012 2:24 AM
PIZMOBEACH
... fully loaded, safety off...
Saturday, June 2, 2012 2:54 AM
Quote:The fact that it is being discussed out here on the rim suggests to me that the campaign is working.
Saturday, June 2, 2012 3:15 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote:The fact that it is being discussed out here on the rim suggests to me that the campaign is working. How is it 'working' already ? I mean, of course, folks are talking about this, because it's a stupid, over bearing, nanny state act by Bloomberg, but exactly how is it achieving its goal ? Who has lost an ounce of weight because of this ?
Saturday, June 2, 2012 4:26 AM
Saturday, June 2, 2012 4:52 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:Obesity results in physical changes outside of individuals' waistlines - from wider stadium seats to sturdier, floor-mounted toilets (in comparison to the wall-mounted kind), businesses need to spend more to accommodate widening bodies. The Daily Mail reported at the country's fourth largest hospital at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, administrators have had to widen doors, replace wall-mounted toilets with floor models able to hold more than 250 pounds, bought plus-size wheelchairs (costing double the price of a regular model) as well as get mini-cranes to hoist obese patients out of bed. Cars burn nearly a billion gallons of gasoline more a year than they did in 1960, due to heavier passengers and in the skies, fuel costs have risen to carry carry heavier customers. Not to mention the skyrocketing costs of missed work days from people taking off because of poor health. The impact of obesity is everywhere. "Smoking added about 20 percent a year to medical costs," Dr. James Naessens, researcher at the Mayo Clinic, told Reuters. "Obesity was similar, but morbid obesity increased those costs by 50 percent a year." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57424148-10391704/u.s-obesity-costs-soar-as-nation-packs-on-pounds/ extra weight carried by vehicles as a result of obese and overweight Americans is responsible for almost one billion additional gallons of gasoline being burned each year by our automobiles—nearly 1 percent of our total gasoline usage. How serious is the problem? Obesity has risen a full 34% since 1960 while morbid obesity is up sixfold. Making the cost impact all the more troubling is the fact that, unlike smokers, obese people tend to live almost as long as those who keep their weight under control. ”Smokers die early enough that they save Social Security, private pensions, and Medicare trillions of dollars”, said Duke’s Eric Finkelstein. “But mortality isn’t that much higher among the obese.”
Quote:What you may not know is that the Affordable Care Act directly confronts this crisis in a number of ways— beginning with empowering employers to battle obesity by allowing them to charge obese employees 30 to 50 percent more in what they contribute toward their health insurance benefit should an employee refuse to participate in a qualified wellness program designed to help them lose weight. You may also not know that the reform law includes incentives to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries to get them into a primary care doctor to discuss and execute a weight loss program. Obamacare even funds community programs designed to help people take off the extra pounds. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/04/30/obesity-now-costs-americans-more-in-healthcare-costs-than-smoking/, I don't see that as government intervention...I see it as giving employers, health insurers, Medicare and Medicaid tools with which to ACTUALLY confront the issue. But go ahead, root for them to strike it down, but bear in mind: "While the preventative medicine approach to cost controls which lay at the very heart of the Affordable Care Act directly tackles the serious impact of obesity on our healthcare costs, nothing in the GOP proposals now emerging as potential replacement legislation, should the ACA be stricken by the Supreme Court, appear to address the problem in any meaningful way." Bitch and moan all you want about efforts to tackle this very real problem, even stupid ones like this, but don't think it doesn't impact you, even if you're very responsible about your health. You wanna discuss the issue, discuss the ISSUE, not the silly things people are trying to do to deal with it.
Saturday, June 2, 2012 5:05 AM
Quote:Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA: *growls* I Repeat. ARE. YOU. WILLING. TO. KILL. SOMEONE. OVER. THIS. ? Don't play coy, don't pretend I didn't say it - IF you want a law, a regulation, THEN you are authorizing Agents of The State to enforce it, with whatever force it takes. Doesn't matter than your finger, personally, will not be on the trigger, the moment you say "Yes", then you have issued your express consent to enforce compliance, up to and including lethal force. Cause, yanno, that's what laws are. No excuses. -Frem
Saturday, June 2, 2012 6:37 AM
Saturday, June 2, 2012 6:41 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: But aren't we free to choose our own food? No, you are not. And make no mistake, nothing is being taken from you. You're simply being forced, by the govt, to understand what's good for you.
Quote: Which is completely counter to what he says, during the interview, where he says they give us the information, and let the people decide what they want. " We have the responsibility to tell you, and then you have the responsibility to take care of yourself and be in charge of your own destiny." Just not when it comes to sugared sodas. You can enjoy the world's largest donut, just don't wash it down with a 'full sugar' soda.
Saturday, June 2, 2012 6:45 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:Originally posted by whozit: This is Bloombag governing by NYC dinner party, even the N.Y. Dems are against this. Reagan's Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican. You mean St. Ronald was wrong? ETA: Looks like Bloomberg's not a Republican this year after all. Now he's an "independent". Allegedly. "I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero "I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
Saturday, June 2, 2012 7:07 AM
Quote:Originally posted by whozit: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:Originally posted by whozit: This is Bloombag governing by NYC dinner party, even the N.Y. Dems are against this. Reagan's Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican. You mean St. Ronald was wrong? ETA: Looks like Bloomberg's not a Republican this year after all. Now he's an "independent". Allegedly. "I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero "I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy I just checked Wikipedia, Mickey is now an "Independent".....and a douche.
Saturday, June 2, 2012 7:19 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:Originally posted by whozit: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:Originally posted by whozit: This is Bloombag governing by NYC dinner party, even the N.Y. Dems are against this. Reagan's Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican. You mean St. Ronald was wrong? ETA: Looks like Bloomberg's not a Republican this year after all. Now he's an "independent". Allegedly. "I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero "I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy I just checked Wikipedia, Mickey is now an "Independent".....and a douche. Yeah, I get that. You righties never have been fond of the independents, have you? "I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero "I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
Saturday, June 2, 2012 7:29 AM
Quote:Originally posted by whozit: I bet all the Cannibals we've been reading about lately are "Independents", just a bunch of gay juckie flesh eatting Zombie Independents.
Saturday, June 2, 2012 8:02 AM
Saturday, June 2, 2012 8:41 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Seems the Zit is none too fond of Browncoats...
Saturday, June 2, 2012 9:17 AM
Quote:Originally posted by pizmobeach: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote:The fact that it is being discussed out here on the rim suggests to me that the campaign is working. How is it 'working' already ? I mean, of course, folks are talking about this, because it's a stupid, over bearing, nanny state act by Bloomberg, but exactly how is it achieving its goal ? Who has lost an ounce of weight because of this ? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/03/09/weight-loss-success-kim-konkel_n_1316533.html
Saturday, June 2, 2012 11:26 AM
WULFENSTAR
http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg
Saturday, June 2, 2012 11:48 AM
Quote:Originally posted by WULFENSTAR: Why am I not surprised at the usual suspects defending this? I'm continually disapointed by these people here who claim to have watched Firefly defending the works of the purple-bellies. Drinking a 300 ounce Coke as I write this.
Saturday, June 2, 2012 3:42 PM
MAGONSDAUGHTER
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: http://www.latimes.com/health/la-ed-soda-ban-bloomberg-20120601,0,3737836.story Thoughts? I'm conflicted. Sure, obesity is an issue. But aren't we free to choose our own food? Are we? Are we really? Can you choose to order cat or dog at a restaurant? Horse? If I want to kill myself with sugary drinks, isn't that my business? What if I want to kill myself with a gun? Are you legally REQUIRED to sell me ammo, even if you can tell that I'm a danger to myself? I'm glad Bloomberg is concerned, but I'm not sure I want him THIS concerned!
Sunday, June 3, 2012 2:05 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Magonsdaughter: My solution - if you market and sell unhealthy products then part of your profit needs to go to health care costs. Why should tax payers be responsible?
Sunday, June 3, 2012 3:57 AM
Quote:As long as what is being sold is legal, let the free market decide what products get bought and sold.
Sunday, June 3, 2012 4:34 AM
M52NICKERSON
DALEK!
Quote:Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Thoughts? No. All Laws are, ultimately, backed by lethal force. I've pointed it out, actually went and described in detail how a parking ticket could lead to death. Eric Peters does it here in regards to seat belt laws. http://ericpetersautos.com/2012/05/23/a-small-thing-can-lead-to-big-trouble/ Even the smallest, tiniest, nitpick of an ordinance - eventually defiance WILL lead to a man with a gun in your face, and defying THAT will get you dead, especially if you show any hint of being able to successfully do so, since that would bring into question the unbridled power of the Almighty State. So... Are you willing to KILL someone, are you willing to see someone dead, for enjoying a double big gulp ? If the answer to that question is no, then you've utterly no right, ryhme or reason to support such an idea. -Frem
Sunday, June 3, 2012 5:02 AM
Quote:Businesses, advertisers, marketing people know all this, and they spend many billions of dollars researching human behaviour, and what influences behaviour. They can and do target each and every one of us with our differences, and use very sophisticated methods to influence our behaviour, and not for our individual betterment, but for the profit of their business. And if the two class, as it does with things like tobacco, alcohol, fast food, then once again, its said to be about solely individual choice. Any attempt to counter this influence is met with howls of outrage around individual rights. But these aren't individuals, they are massive corporations earning billions of dollars, who have, past and present, been at least partially responsible for massive health issues.
Sunday, June 3, 2012 9:00 AM
Sunday, June 3, 2012 12:09 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Then why market your products at all ? You're saying it's ok for them to sell their goods and make a little profit, but not a lot ? Who decides how much is too much ? And as long as they're selling drinks that have sugar in them, and not rat poison, advertised as sugar, why punish them at all ? Tax payers shouldn't be any more responsible for hc costs than those selling the goods, imo. As long as what is being sold is legal, let the free market decide what products get bought and s
Sunday, June 3, 2012 12:45 PM
Sunday, June 3, 2012 1:01 PM
Sunday, June 3, 2012 1:20 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: The tobacco companies colluded to hide the facts, and try to tell us something counter to what we already knew.... prolonged use of tobacco leads to cancer. ( The terms 'cancer sticks' and 'coffin nails' go back to the 1800's. ) That's not what we have here. No one is claiming that sugary sodas are 'healthy'.
Quote:But if you want to continue to be as a hapless member of a focus group, and let others decide for you how to live your life, go right ahead.
Sunday, June 3, 2012 1:31 PM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: You should know that no one is defending this Rappy. I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
Sunday, June 3, 2012 1:37 PM
Quote: Tobacco companies, for many years at least, never marketed tobacco as being healthy either
Sunday, June 3, 2012 1:41 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Maybe not on THIS particular issue, but some sure do seem to want to make a bogie man out of 'marketing', and the evils of trying to reach customers.
Quote:My point is that it's not something sinister or to be feared. Understood, perhaps, but not scorned. It's information.
Quote:And putting a 'pin prick' in the profit of beverage companies isn't the goal here, is it ? I thought it was to alert folks that drinking too much soda is bad for them. So, which is it
Quote:If you allow the govt to start making these decisions for you, what next ? This is beyond the proper function of govt. Period.
Sunday, June 3, 2012 1:46 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote: Tobacco companies, for many years at least, never marketed tobacco as being healthy either Maybe not 'healthy', bu the implication is clear enough....
Sunday, June 3, 2012 2:04 PM
1KIKI
Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.
Sunday, June 3, 2012 2:05 PM
Sunday, June 3, 2012 2:09 PM
Quote: Harper's Weekly 04/11/1896 COFFIN NAILS. MILLIONS OF MEN ARE DRIVING THEM HOME DAILY. A CHAPTER FULL OF WARNING TO THOSE WHO WOULD AVOID MENTAL AND MORAL DECAY. An English Courtier said during Walter Raleigh's im- prisonment that he deserved freedom, for he had done more for mankind in introducing tobacco in Europe than had Columbus by the discovery of the new world. Amid luxury, folly, and vice, the pleasure of the hour was enhanced and an affliction entailed on mankind that is now being realized, 400 years later, and all the mischief turned loose upon the world by that impish Pandora's Box —Tobacco—is coming home keenly to this generation. The alarming growth of the cigarette habit in the United States is a sad commentary on our condition from an eco- nomical, as well as an ethical, standpoint.
Sunday, June 3, 2012 2:10 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: I love it when people debate little Rappy with facts. It’s fun to watch his brain blow up.
Sunday, June 3, 2012 2:13 PM
Sunday, June 3, 2012 2:24 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: THANKS for the laugh!
Sunday, June 3, 2012 2:36 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote: Harper's Weekly 04/11/1896 COFFIN NAILS. MILLIONS OF MEN ARE DRIVING THEM HOME DAILY. A CHAPTER FULL OF WARNING TO THOSE WHO WOULD AVOID MENTAL AND MORAL DECAY. An English Courtier said during Walter Raleigh's im- prisonment that he deserved freedom, for he had done more for mankind in introducing tobacco in Europe than had Columbus by the discovery of the new world. Amid luxury, folly, and vice, the pleasure of the hour was enhanced and an affliction entailed on mankind that is now being realized, 400 years later, and all the mischief turned loose upon the world by that impish Pandora's Box —Tobacco—is coming home keenly to this generation. The alarming growth of the cigarette habit in the United States is a sad commentary on our condition from an eco- nomical, as well as an ethical, standpoint.
Quote:I mean, it's almost like living the saga of Battlestar Galactica, minus the Cylons and world ending wars. We keep living the same story, over and over, and act as if this has never happened before.
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL