This is topic New York plans to ban sugared drinks over 16 oz. in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006690
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-31-2012, 06:34 PM:
In an incredible display of idiocy, even for New York:
New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks
By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM
Published: May 30, 2012
New York City plans to enact a far-reaching ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts, in the most ambitious effort yet by the Bloomberg administration to combat rising obesity.
The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.
The measure would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages; it would not extend to beverages sold in grocery or convenience stores.
“Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, ‘Oh, this is terrible,’ ” Mr. Bloomberg said in an interview on Wednesday in the Governor’s Room at City Hall.
“New York City is not about wringing your hands; it’s about doing something,” he said. “I think that’s what the public wants the mayor to do.”
A spokesman for the New York City Beverage Association, an arm of the soda industry’s national trade group, criticized the city’s proposal on Wednesday. The industry has clashed repeatedly with the city’s health department, saying it has unfairly singled out soda; industry groups have bought subway advertisements promoting their cause.
“The New York City health department’s unhealthy obsession with attacking soft drinks is again pushing them over the top,” the industry spokesman, Stefan Friedman, said. “It’s time for serious health professionals to move on and seek solutions that are going to actually curb obesity. These zealous proposals just distract from the hard work that needs to be done on this front.”
Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal requires the approval of the Board of Health, a step that is considered likely because the members are all appointed by him, and the board’s chairman is the city’s health commissioner, who joined the mayor in supporting the measure on Wednesday.
Mr. Bloomberg has made public health one of the top priorities of his lengthy tenure, and has championed a series of aggressive regulations, including bans on smoking in restaurants and parks, a prohibition against artificial trans fat in restaurant food and a requirement for health inspection grades to be posted in restaurant windows.
The measures have led to occasional derision of the mayor as Nanny Bloomberg, by those who view the restrictions as infringements on personal freedom. But many of the measures adopted in New York have become models for other cities, including restrictions on smoking and trans fats, as well as the use of graphic advertising to combat smoking and soda consumption, and the demand that chain restaurants post calorie contents next to prices.
In recent years, soda has emerged as a battleground in efforts to counter obesity. Across the nation, some school districts have banned the sale of soda in schools, and some cities have banned the sale of soda in public buildings.
In New York City, where more than half of adults are obese or overweight, Dr. Thomas Farley, the health commissioner, blames sweetened drinks for up to half of the increase in city obesity rates over the last 30 years. About a third of New Yorkers drink one or more sugary drinks a day, according to the city. Dr. Farley said the city had seen higher obesity rates in neighborhoods where soda consumption was more common.
The ban would not apply to drinks with fewer than 25 calories per 8-ounce serving, like zero-calorie Vitamin Waters and unsweetened iced teas, as well as diet sodas.
Restaurants, delis, movie theater and ballpark concessions would be affected, because they are regulated by the health department. Carts on sidewalks and in Central Park would also be included, but not vending machines or newsstands that serve only a smattering of fresh food items.
At fast-food chains, where sodas are often dispersed at self-serve fountains, restaurants would be required to hand out cup sizes of 16 ounces or less, regardless of whether a customer opts for a diet drink. But free refills — and additional drink purchases — would be allowed.
Corner stores and bodegas would be affected if they are defined by the city as “food service establishments.” Those stores can most easily be identified by the health department letter grades they are required to display in their windows.
The mayor, who said he occasionally drank a diet soda “on a hot day,” contested the idea that the plan would limit consumers’ choices, saying the option to buy more soda would always be available.
“Your argument, I guess, could be that it’s a little less convenient to have to carry two 16-ounce drinks to your seat in the movie theater rather than one 32 ounce,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a sarcastic tone. “I don’t think you can make the case that we’re taking things away.”
He also said he foresaw no adverse effect on local businesses, and he suggested that restaurants could simply charge more for smaller drinks if their sales were to drop.
The Bloomberg administration had made previous, unsuccessful efforts to make soda consumption less appealing. The mayor supported a state tax on sodas, but the measure died in Albany, and he tried to restrict the use of food stamps to buy sodas, but the idea was rejected by federal regulators.
With the new proposal, City Hall is now trying to see how much it can accomplish without requiring outside approval. Mayoral aides say they are confident that they have the legal authority to restrict soda sales, based on the city’s jurisdiction over local eating establishments, the same oversight that allows for the health department’s letter-grade cleanliness rating system for restaurants.
In interviews at the AMC Loews Village, in the East Village in Manhattan, some filmgoers said restricting large soda sales made sense to them.
“I think it’s a good idea,” said Sara Gochenauer, 21, a personal assistant from the Upper West Side. Soda, she said, “rots your teeth.”
But others said consumers should be free to choose.
“If people want to drink 24 ounces, it’s their decision,” said Zara Atal, 20, a college student from the Upper East Side.
Lawrence Goins, 50, a postal worker who lives in Newark, took a more pragmatic approach.
“Some of those movies are three, three and a half hours long,” Mr. Goins said. “You got to quench your thirst.”
Colin Moynihan contributed reporting.
New York Times article
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-31-2012, 07:16 PM:
Well, there goes the "micro" size for most movie theaters out there, at least in New York anyway. I think the smallest some theaters sell is like 22oz? Not sure why that is.
But there's a loophole! Hardly anything any more has sugar in it. It's all nastified High Fructose Corn Syrup. That's certainly not sugar. I'd rather dump sugar down my innards than HFCS. I'd also rather consume aspartame than HFCS. Unfortunately New York's new law will only make sure we continue to subsidize corn. Damn, we're kind of retarded for doing that.
Another loophole is that they simply sell you two drinks for the price of one.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-31-2012, 08:28 PM:
Right, or you will see the birth of the "unlimited free refill."
If this goes through, the next obvious step will be a limit on how many sodas one person can buy in a day -- which will lead to mass bootlegging of sodas.
What's next? A ban on "Quarter Pounders?" A limit on the number of pieces of chicken you can buy from Colonel Sanders? A ban on fried foods altogether?
This is just a government suit wanting to legislate healthful habits, which the cigarette industry (and the illicit drug industry) is continually proving can't be done. What's wrong with letting people live their own lives anyway?
The scariest part is this is direct from the MAYOR of New York City, who you'd think would be smarter than this.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 05-31-2012, 09:27 PM:
There is no soft drink with sugar unless it is Mexicon Coke. Corn syrup yes, sugar no. Will be interesting to see how they write this bill. Louis
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-31-2012, 10:34 PM:
Pepsi Throwback and Mountain Dew Throwback claim to have sugar instead of corn syrup.
I'm really sick of the nanny state bull crap. So I guess they hope people are too smart to order two or three drinks when they're really thirsty.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-31-2012, 10:38 PM:
That's stupid too.... because it will make the same amount of soda cost more.
Hey wait, I should be SUPPORTING this. Instead of $2.75 for a 44-ounce soda, I'll be able to sell three 16-ouncers for $1.50 each. BONUS! I just nearly doubled my price, thanks to the government.
Nahh, it's too stupid. Support withdrawn (even at the risk of great financial loss.)
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-31-2012, 11:39 PM:
This is even more stupid than the NYC anti-trans-fat law. Why do these people think that they have any right to tell adults what types of foods they can and cannot purchase?
Oh, well, it's not as if I needed any more reasons to not live in NYC.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-01-2012, 12:18 AM:
This proposed soft drink ban isn't very practical. I'll be surprised if it manages to go into effect and not be overturned by various courts.
Nevertheless, this country's ever worsening problem of obesity is costing a tremendous fortune. The situation is NOT sustainable. It will eventually wreck our economy. The problem is very complex and must be battled on a number of different fronts. IMHO, banning the use of High Fructose Corn Syrup would be an excellent start. It is an unnatural sweetener and it is used in a lot more foods than just sweetened drinks. It's very interesting how the trend line of obesity pivoted upward around 1980 to coincide with the food industry's adoption of HFCS as a replacement of natural cane and beet sugar.
Personal responsibility is central to the United States doing anything substantial about the obesity epidemic. This country shouldn't become a "nanny state" about the problem. Instead, it's high time some folks who talk about "freedom" in regard to food choices learn the flip side of that freedom of choice: consequence. If someone really wants to defend the freedom of living badly he also needs to be free to die badly for making those choices.
But no! Whenever anyone is facing a lethal and very costly medical situation particularly one that could have been prevented those principals of freedom, responsibility and consequence get thrown out the window in favor of a bailout -a bailout from insurance companies, hospitals, taxpayers (not to mention employers dealing with all the lost productivity from sick employees and those sick employees driving his health insurance policy costs through the damned roof).
I don't drink or eat anything with HFCS in it. More than that, I get off my damned ass and work out in the gym at least 4 or 5 times a week. I eat responsibly. I think far more Americans should be doing the same thing. But the sad fact is they won't bother doing any of that until they are forced to do so. The general public is simply that irresponsible.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 06-01-2012, 12:48 AM:
quote: Joe Redifer
But there's a loophole! Hardly anything any more has sugar in it. It's all nastified High Fructose Corn Syrup. That's certainly not sugar.
That depends on how the law is actually written. If its a ban on drinks containing "sugars" then drinks containing HFCS would be included in the ban and if it refers to "sugar" instead, the law still could define "sugar" in such a way as to include all types of sugars (including those from HFCS).
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-01-2012, 12:52 AM:
The solution to the obesity problem is really pretty simple:
1. Don't eat so much stuff
2. Don't eat in restaurants, because they tend to serve huge portions and fatty foods. And, avoid fast-food places. If you have to eat in a restaurant, divide one meal for two people or just eat the salads. (Parents: If you have fat kids, check your McDonalds frequency...you may find the problem. And while you're at it, get rid of the video games and make them play outside.)
3. Don't snack between meals.
Of course this solution isn't as much fun for the politicians and law-makers, and there's no money in it either, so it'll never gain wide acceptance.
I've always been skinny my whole life, so imagine my surprise a couple of years ago when my doctor told me I needed to lose 10 to 15 pounds. So what did I do? I stopped eating that nightly snack before I went to bed, which I'd gotten into the habit of doing. Pounds: Gone in about 2 weeks. I still drink Pepsi a lot (too much, actually) but I never snack between meals. I'm also not much of a candy eater ... and I never eat theater popcorn, believe it or not.
I realize it's not that simple for some people, but I seriously think that if everybody followed the three points above, the problem would be way less serious.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-01-2012, 01:01 AM:
Firstly, as a sidenote, despite being engaged to an American, having spent quite a lot of time in the US now and my emigrating being a possible outcome (we're still working through which of us is going to make the move after we're married), I'm afraid I betrayed my European routes just now by having to do a fluid ounce to metric conversion before really understanding what the fuss is about. I'll learn eventually, I guess! To save any other European reader the job, 16 fl/oz is 473ml - about midway between the size of a standard fizzy drink (soda) can (330ml) and a pint (568ml).
Agreed totally with Bobby and everyone else: if people want to drink that much soda they'll find a way around any government regulation placed in their path - and usually with the help of the supplier (e.g. unlimited refills). It's the same syndrome whereby the Scottish Government thinks it can deal with the country's perceived alcoholism problem by setting minimum prices for booze. In both cases, unless they're willing to leave the murderers and rapists to get on with it and have the police spend all their time catching people selling Coke by the pint or cheap bottles of vodka, they're not going to be able to stop it; and frankly, I'd much rather they concentrate on catching the murderers and rapists. Exercising and encouraging common sense/personal responsibility in what you eat and drink and how much exercise you get is much more effective, and if people aren't willing to do that voluntarily, any attempt to force them will almost certainly end in failure.
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 06-01-2012, 07:53 AM:
Coincidentally, the FDC just ruled that HFCS is not sugar, but syrup, thus preventing the corn industry from relabeling it "corn sugar." So now we have a lobbyist wet dream in NYC. (http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofFoods/CFSAN/CFSANFOIAElectronicReadingRoom/ucm305226.htm)
As one would expect, Jon Stewart took apart the new proposal last night:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-may-31-2012/drink-different
Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 06-01-2012, 11:22 AM:
quote: Leo Enticknap
16 fl/oz is 473ml - about midway between the size of a standard fizzy drink (soda) can (330ml) and a pint (568ml).
In Europe a lot of soft drinks are sold in 500ml bottles which would be outlawed under this plan.
Would retailers selling draught drinks be allowed to sell the syrup separately from the water?
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-01-2012, 12:24 PM:
Good point about the bottles. Whereas the ban wouldn't affect normal sized cans, it would cover the half-litre bottles you see on sale all over the place in both Britain and the US. Interestingly, some of the bottles at least are actually 500ml in the US - the one of mineral water I'm drinking right now says 16.9floz/500ml on it. The normal US cans are 12 floz/355ml. I'm guessing, therefore, that this proposed law is designed deliberately to catch the bottles.
I can't work out from the article posted by Mike whether the proposed ban would just affect drinks sold for consumption on the premises, or sealed bottles to take away as well.
quote:
The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.
If this isn't just about restauarants/bars/cafes/concession stands etc., but will cover soda sold in supermarkets as well, it'll cause complete chaos, I'd have thought. Either the manufacturers will have to start making 16 floz bottles just for the New York market (and if they do, there will then be the tinsy problem of modiying tens of thousands of vending machines), or simply withdraw the existing bottles from sale. Anyways, the only outcome I can see is more expensive soda and anyone who wants to drink a pint of the stuff at once just buying two cans.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-01-2012, 01:10 PM:
Thing also is that some people that are large in stature, may have metabolism traits that prevents them from losing weight.
This is really an unfair and horribly peer pressurized, status driven idea - having to conform to the ideal socialized dream of "thin looks healthy".
This goes on the same drift as in the Homeowner's Association for new suburbs that are popping up everywhere: a covenant, that the owner signs with the purchase of the house, that the rules that the HOA drafts up to have "the perfect neighborhood", and charges the homeowner a yearly fee and issues fines to the homeowner if a rule or rules are broken.
I absolutely refuse to live in these circumstances.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-01-2012, 01:58 PM:
Having the size available wouldn't be a problem...that's already a common size and lots of vending machines already sell 16 oz sizes.
It's just not a big enough size for lasting more than a few minutes, unless you are a really frugal sipper.
And, a fountain drink is half ice. (Or it should be.) I guess nobody ever thought of that either.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-01-2012, 02:04 PM:
quote: Monte L. Fullmer
This goes on the same drift as in the Homeowner's Association for new suburbs that are popping up everywhere: a covenant, that the owner signs with the purchase of the house, that the rules that the HOA drafts up to have "the perfect neighborhood", and charges the homeowner a yearly fee and issues fines to the homeowner if a rule or rules are broken.
Veering slightly OT, but my fiancee lives in a development with a HOA, and in some ways they do have their plus points. I found it strange when I first heard about them - not being able to repaint your house or even stick a light fitting on an exterior wall without their permission, or being fined if you don't mow the front lawn ever two weeks is not something I'd ever come across in England. They do seem to deter "neighbours from hell", though, and there seems to be a general view around the place that HOA developments have less of a crime (and especially burglary) problem than areas without one. As against which, the annual fee strikes me as an utter ripoff, and no-one seems to know what the HOA actually does with the money. The other problem seems to be that when there are foreclosed and/or jingle mailed properties in a HOA development they are often left to fall into disrepair if they're owned by the bank for a significant period: if the HOA tries to fine the bank and the bank doesn't pay up, there's not much the HOA can do about it except sue the bank, which they don't want to do because of the cost. And that situation in turn makes it more difficult to sell the empty property, because any propsective buyer knows that they'll have to do a ton of expensive work to get the HOA off their back the moment they move in.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-01-2012, 02:07 PM:
I think most Americans are living in denial when it comes to their health. Many have no idea at all how good or bad their condition may be. They may think they're healthy when they really are not. It just seems more pleasant not knowing the truth and going on with one's life doing what feels good.
A general rule among people into working out goes: you shouldn't drink your calories. Artifically sweetened sodas, coffees and other juices seem like an obvious, easy target.
Unfortunately the obesity problem is far more complex and pervasive. It's going to take a lot more than some soda pop rule to get the desired results. Ultimately Americans are going to be required to take an active role managing their health. IMHO, Americans do more to properly maintain their cars than they do to maintain themselves.
quote: Leo Enticknap
Exercising and encouraging common sense/personal responsibility in what you eat and drink and how much exercise you get is much more effective, and if people aren't willing to do that voluntarily, any attempt to force them will almost certainly end in failure.
It depends on how they're forced. Since our government has little desire or ability to do anything about the obesity problem insurance companies and employers are beginning to weigh in on the matter. It may come down to Americans being forced to manage their wellness in order to keep a job.
We have a company-wide random drug testing policy at my work place. If someone wants the freedom to get high he can try doing so, but he can't work here while he's pursuing that freedom. The costs of liability and workers comp insurance premiums (along with certain DOT regulations) forced us to say "no" to drug user freedoms. Likewise, some companies are now intentionally not hiring smokers and people who are obese in order to hold down the costs of their group health insurance premiums.
The insurance companies are finally starting to realize they'll be making more money by emphasizing wellness management and making it cheaper for people to get preventative medical care. In the long run they'll pay out less in claims than they would by letting policy holders do the usual: just do whatever, go with the flow and then react to medical disaster.
Obviously things like wellness management and preventative health care do not excite anyone with a lot of money invested in medical related stocks.
There's a lot more profit to be made from cutting open some guy's chest, performing a triple bypass and then price gouging him for drugs he has to take for the rest of his life. The problem is that medical business model is not sustainable. The taxpayers can't keep eating the rising costs. High health insurance costs are another reason for businesses to send any jobs they can to other countries or hire American employees and not pay any benefits. This problem is hurting the United States' competitive ability in the global economy.
quote: Mike Blakesley
I've always been skinny my whole life, so imagine my surprise a couple of years ago when my doctor told me I needed to lose 10 to 15 pounds. So what did I do? I stopped eating that nightly snack before I went to bed, which I'd gotten into the habit of doing. Pounds: Gone in about 2 weeks.
Skinny people can die of heart attacks too. High cholesterol and high blood pressure can occur in any adult, not just those suffering from obesity.
One of my closest friends is seriously overweight (over 300 pounds) and has a number of health problems that are really starting to accumulate. I've tried encouraging him to join the gym but had no luck. He told me lately he's been drinking bottled water like it's going out of style. His thirst is suddenly that powerful. I warned him that's a symptom of Type 2 Diabetes and that he ought to see his doctor ASAP. I'm concerned he could drop dead of a heart attack before he is 50. He'll probably keep going with the flow until it happens.
When you think about it the deck is heavily stacked against any American who has the usual lifestyle of working at a desk all day, being a couch potato at home during prime time, staying up too late and then not getting enough sleep.
Lack of physical activity, sleep deprivation and workplace stress makes an already bad situation worse. The body will crave the empty calories found in junk foods and sweetened drinks. The stress hormone cortisol will make the body more efficient at storing those calories in fat cells.
I don't like how the food industry has turned healthy foods into a "luxury asset class." Check the prices in any Whole Foods grocery store and you'll understand why some people jokingly call the place "Whole Paycheck." Likewise, some of the cheapest, most quick to prepare foods are among the most unhealthy. A brick of ramen noodles costs under 20¢. It's no wonder why a disproportionate share of obese Americans are in low income classes (and often without any health insurance either).
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-01-2012, 02:27 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Skinny people can die of heart attacks too. High cholesterol and high blood pressure can occur in any adult, not just those suffering from obesity.
You are always putting thoughts into people's mouths. I never said I wasn't at risk due to being skinny. Anybody can have a heart attack, any time, anywhere, whether you have high cholestorol or blood pressure or you don't.
I had two good friends who were athletic. One was a runner...he died in his sleep at home when he was 19. The other dropped dead while playing basketball at age 23. Both heart attacks. My dad, on the other hand, ate a terrible diet, smoked like a chimney (unfiltered Camels), drank at least a sixer of beer a day, and never exercised a day in his life. He lived to 77.
With sodas, as with everything else, moderation is the key. But we don't need that legislated. The cops have enough to do now.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-01-2012, 03:16 PM:
Sorry, it wasn't my intention to put words in your mouth; I was simply stating the fact skinny people can and do die of heart attacks. It underscores the problem of so many Americans living in denial about their state of health. The high and rising cost of health care is doing more to encourage Americans to stay away from the doctor's office. It's a negative feedback loop making an already bad problem grow worse.
Regarding the stories of who lived and who died doing what, just about anyone I hear defending America's freedom of living unhealthy always has an anecdotal story of someone who lived healthy but died young and another who lived to a ripe old age smoking, drinking excessively and eating badly.
Mike, I'm not saying your defending the right to live badly with your story, but I've heard plenty of others defending the "right" to smoke or do other unhealthy things use those anecdotal stories to spin the idea those high risk activities are just dandy for anyone and that we should just stop worrying about all this health crap.
For every one of those "sister's uncle's 2nd cousin's brother's great grandfather over in the next county" guys who lived to be 110 with a daily diet of 2 packs of cigarettes, a 6-pack of beer, burgers, pizza and no veggies, etc. at least 1000 other people are going to die pretty young doing the same thing. Over 500,000 Americans die every year from heart disease. Type 2 diabetes kills a bunch every year too. Those conditions are preventable.
My cousin Tammy is a few years younger than me. She is a widow to her first husband, who died at the age of 29 from a massive heart attack. He was obese. People aren't supposed to die of heart attacks until they're at least in their 40s, right? With the kinds of foods and drinks being sold over the last 20 years and kids staying indoors, tied to computers and video game consoles, obesity and heart disease are making their starts in people at ever younger ages.
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 06-01-2012, 03:47 PM:
I had emergency surgery May 2nd for an intestinal abscess. It was about 6 inches long 3 inches thick and 2 1/2 inches wide. I was told by the doctor had I waited another 12 hours I would have been dead before they got me in surgery. There was fear of cancer. The it is a common problem caused by age more than anything else. It is called diverticulitis but mine became extrem.
I ignored the pain for 6 months and lost 36 some pounds had I have lost another 10 some since the surgery but am gaining weight again. It was a major surgery not the laparoscopic type and it will be another 3 months before I’m back to normal. In 6 months they will see if the changes can be undone but for now what was done does not make for fun.
I ignored the pain because of fear of what they might find and what it might cost. The surgery took more than twice as long as it should have I was hours away from death and all because I have no insurance and worried about the cost. The pain was like a knife pushed in and turned around and sometimes I could barely get out of bed it hurt so bad.
It is great to be alive and pride, fear of cost or whatever are not going to keep me from having real pains checked out from now on.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-01-2012, 03:55 PM:
quote: Bobby
A general rule among people into working out goes: you shouldn't drink your calories. Artifically sweetened sodas, coffees and other juices seem like an obvious, easy target.
"Artificially sweetened" is a rather ambiguous term. That would also imply anything with Aspartame. Last I checked, there are no calories in Diet Coke® and many other delicious Aspartamey products to drink. I would snort Aspartame if I could. However drinks with sugar in them (real sugar, mind you) DO have calories, so your comment confuses me.
Diet Coke® makes you lose weight because it has "Diet" in the title.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-01-2012, 04:02 PM:
Although I don't necessarily agree with this idea, I'm not as opposed as others. I know many are concerned about the issue of personal choice and living in a "nanny state". But I would point out that obesity is not just a personal health issue, it is a public health issue.
Expanding weight and waistline causes businesses to spend more money buying equipment to accommodate those people. It causes government agencies to spend more money on a variety of health related issues. It would be a different issue if obesity only affected those who lived an unhealthy lifestyle, but when it has implications for all aspects of society, it is a much larger issue.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-01-2012, 04:02 PM:
Americans are a "buy now, pay later" culture.
This is evident in how we relate to money, as well as our health.
If people don't want our government to start acting like parents, then they should refrain from acting like children.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-01-2012, 04:34 PM:
Ha ha! Good one, Manny!
quote: Joe Redifer
"Artificially sweetened" is a rather ambiguous term.
Yeah, I guess I should have clarified that better.
Nevertheless, I consider High Fructose Corn Syrup to be at the very least an unnatural sweetener (instead of artificial). Numerous chemicals are used to create the processed sweetener: caustic soda, hydrochloric acid, alpha-amylase, gluco-amylase, isomerase, powdered carbon, calcium chloride and magnesium sulfate. One of the methods used to create caustic soda involves use of mercury. The human body has a more difficult time metabolizing HFCS than it does the largely sucrose make-up of cane sugar or beet sugar.
No calorie artificial sweeteners (like the Splenda and Nutrasweet brands) are produced using some pretty strange chemicals. But at least they won't add inches to your waist line or help burn out your pancreas and turn you into a diabetic.
quote: Ron Funderburg
It is great to be alive and pride, fear of cost or whatever are not going to keep me from having real pains checked out from now on.
Thank goodness you were able to see a doctor in time, Ron. That sounds like quite a painful ordeal. I hope you make a full recovery soon.
A couple years ago our lead neon tube bender lost his wife to a heart attack. IIRC, she was 49 years old. In the days leading up to her death she had lots of chest pain, some of it really bad. She refused to go to the doctor's office or E.R. out of fear of what the treatment would cost and in the hope the pain would just go away like it always did in the past. One day their college age son came home for lunch and found her dead. She wasn't overweight or obese. She was fairly thin, but didn't exercise and ate stuff like pizza often.
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 06-01-2012, 05:23 PM:
I'm doing much better now back at work 3/4 time right now. When I break any of the restrictions I pay for it though. LOL Can't stand not to do things when I'm at work.
One bright point, I have seen most of the Thunder Games :-) Hard way to get time off BB playoffs.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-01-2012, 07:13 PM:
quote: Justin Hamaker
But I would point out that obesity is not just a personal health issue, it is a public health issue.
This would be a semi-reasonable argument if there were any proof that a law like this is actually effective at reducing obesity. Is there? I seriously doubt it.
Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 06-01-2012, 07:17 PM:
According to the label of a 500ml UK (sugar based) bottle of Coca-Cola it contains 2 x 250ml servings. I suspect that they don't want the nutritional information panel to tell customers that it contains 58% of their daily intake of sugars (and 10% of their calorie intake).
quote: Joe Redifer
Diet Coke® makes you lose weight because it has "Diet" in the title.
I have seen diet drinks with the disclaimer "Can help slimming as part of a calorie controlled diet", similar to that of an infamous brand of tonic wine.:
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-01-2012, 09:42 PM:
I think Diet Coke® is a bad name. But now they're stuck with it because the name itself is so well known. They should have just called it "New Coke® now with Aspartame"
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-01-2012, 09:56 PM:
Scott, I'm not necessarily saying this ban on sweetened drinks would make a difference, but I'm inclined to think it would at least have some impact.
My point is that because obesity - and all it's related health issues and considerations - could be considered a public health issue, I do feel the government has a role in setting policies which could potentially impact weight management. Again, the personal choice argument is fine if your personal choices don't affect others. But the personal choices that lead to obesity do have a variety of implications which affect all of society.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-01-2012, 10:31 PM:
Wouldn't we first have to give a law like this a chance before we start crying out for proof that it makes a difference, or declaring that a law such as this won't help?
As some have indicated, the law might need to specifically prohibit "free refills" of the specified beverages, otherwise that is a glaring loophole.
Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 06-01-2012, 10:35 PM:
This proposal of Mayor Bloomberg is only the latest in his campaign to lessen the enormous drain on New York City's health and financial resources caused by unhealthy habits. Since those habits are promoted by the wealth of corporations that target children and others who are bombarded by television and print commercials, "happy meals", ever-increasing portion up-sizing, etc, he feels there is a need to push back to counter this avalanche of addictive habit-forming propaganda that leads to obesity, diabetis,lung cancer and the debilitation of the city's health, wealth and productivity.
The mayor's ever-unfolding program includes bike paths, a pilot program using 10,000 bicycles for short trips as is done in many European and some Canadian cities, walking paths along waterfronts, upgrading parks, letter-grading restaurants and food carts, permitting sidewalk stands selling fresh fruits and vegetables (vendors'priority to wounded veterans and handicapped), farmers' markets, bans on smoking, etc.
These steps do not diminish freedom of choice, but try to limit the damage we do to ourselves and others while providing far more choices for healthy recreation, it seems to me.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-01-2012, 10:47 PM:
quote: Ron Funderberg
I had emergency surgery May 2nd for an intestinal abscess. It was about 6 inches long 3 inches thick and 2 1/2 inches wide. I was told by the doctor had I waited another 12 hours I would have been dead before they got me in surgery. There was fear of cancer. The it is a common problem caused by age more than anything else. It is called diverticulitis but mine became extrem.
More or less exactly the same thing happened to a former colleague of mine a couple of years ago, except that it was cancer and they didn't catch it in time. We could all see that he was seriously unwell for the best part of a year, but he insisted that it was just "a bug" or that he was "a bit under the weather". Given that he smoked probably over 100 a day and regarded fruit and vegetables as something that only girlie men ate, I suspected that he was in denial. During this period he boasted a couple of times, in all seriousness, that he had never seen any medical professional since the age of 13 (apart from for travel vaccinations) and was proud of it. When he did eventually see a GP he was put on a waiting list for hospital investigations (without wanting to get into a comparison of the British and American healthcare systems, the National Health Service waiting lists are basically our equivalent to the problem of not being able to afford insurance). He collapsed and was hospitalised through the emergency room before that happened: colon cancer, final stages, end of story. Though his chances wouldn't have been great if it had been caught earlier, he would have had a chance.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I don't like how the food industry has turned healthy foods into a "luxury asset class." Check the prices in any Whole Foods grocery store and you'll understand why some people jokingly call the place "Whole Paycheck."
Amen to that! My fiancee is from Loma Linda, CA, the chief claim to fame of which is that it's America's Blue Zone. The population (including her) is mostly Seventh-Day Adventist, a religion that encourages a vegan, whole plant diet. Earlier this year, there was even a campaign to stop McDonald's from opening up in the city! The food is absolutely lovely, and totally defies the stereotype of vegetarian food being bland and boring ... but it's certainly not cheap. A diet based on the local staples of nuts, organic green veg, beans, tofu and rice, costs, I would guess, probably around 30-40% more than GMO-ed and processed up the wazoo traditional meat and potatoes stuff from Staters or WalMart. And it also costs in terms of preparation time. This kind of food does not come in pre-prepared plastic dishes that you can just nuke in the microwave for six minutes, peel off the wrapper and eat. And that's assuming you can get these foods at all: not a problem in Loma Linda, but try buying organic anything in a typical store in the city next door, and you'll be trying for a long time. The problem isn't restricted to America. If you want a diet that is not dominated by processed, salty, cheesy and sugary crap in England, too, achieving one is difficult and expensive. My local supermarket in York doesn't even stock tofu, black beans or organic fresh vegetables.
Edit: Bloomberg's proposal has made the British papers now.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-01-2012, 11:17 PM:
quote: Gerard S. Cohen
he feels there is a need to push back to counter this avalanche of addictive habit-forming propaganda that leads to obesity, diabetis,lung cancer and the debilitation of the city's health, wealth and productivity.
Thing is, though....this soda idea IS NOT GOING TO DO THAT. He said himself that he's "Not removing the choice...people can just buy two 16-ounce drinks if they want to." So he's not saying "drink less soda." He's saying "pay more for soda."
Has anyone thought of the increase in litter this will cause? More cups, more bottles, more lids. More cost to the government to enforce, and more cost to soda-selling establishments too. Result of all of this: Higher prices.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 06-01-2012, 11:51 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
Higher prices.
That's the objective. Higher prices = less consumption. Same reasoning as increasing taxes on tobacco products and/or liquor.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 06-02-2012, 12:27 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Nevertheless, I consider High Fructose Corn Syrup to be at the very least an unnatural sweetener (instead of artificial). Numerous chemicals are used to create the processed sweetener: caustic soda, hydrochloric acid, alpha-amylase, gluco-amylase, isomerase, powdered carbon, calcium chloride and magnesium sulfate.
It's also unnatural in that HFCS is created with the use of genetically modified organisms.
quote: Joe Redifer
They should have just called it "New Coke® now with Aspartame"
Actually, New Coke® was created by taking Diet Coke® and replace the Aspartame with HFCS. New Coke® came second. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 06-02-2012, 01:06 AM:
This is not government's job. It doesn't matter what the rationale. It's not government's job.
This is the reason why people left England and came to America. Because the government tried to pull too much crap over on the people, so we went some place else. Then they tried to follow us and pull more crap over on us. So, we kicked them out. Thirty years later, they came back and tried to pull more crap. So, we kicked them out again!
Now some fucking dick-cheese wants to try to make peoples lives better by telling them what they shouldn't eat? Incredible! Unbelievable! What the fuck?
What's next? Will we all have to wear white jump suits and crew cuts and put little tags in our ears? Will we have to all march around in lock-step everywhere we go? (I'm only half joking... See THX-1138.)
We need to kick fuckers like this out of government. Sue them for misprision. (Negligent dereliction of duty.) Impeach them and remove them from office. These cocksuckers can't even balance the goddamm budget! What the fuck are they doing meddling around in others affairs? Kick them out!
Wasn't it San Francisco that banned toys in Happy Meals? Didn't I say that McDonald's should have closed every restaurant within the SanFrancisco city limits?
That's what they should do in New York City. Every movie theater, every Mickey D's, every convenience store, every one, should lock their doors, send all their employees home and close up shop. They should take out full page ads in the New York Times that say they are going to stay closed until Michael Cock-in-the-Mouth Bloomberg puts a gun to his head and commits suicide on live television.
What a bunch of stupid fucking Polacks we have in charge of our government!
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-02-2012, 02:41 AM:
If the government was truly interested in making a difference, they'd stop subsidizing corn, which they won't. It's all about the money which is more important than the nation's overall health. This is just to make it look like they care, which they don't.
And there's no magical politician that anyone can elect which will make much of a difference, sadly.
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-02-2012, 04:29 AM:
quote: Manny Knowles
If people don't want our government to start acting like parents, then they should refrain from acting like children.
The government works for us, not the other way around.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-02-2012, 01:16 PM:
Anyone can throw around Liberatarian ideals as much as they like. But there's a big catch to it: having the cash to cover those ideals.
If someone wants to live his life making irresponsible choices with his health and is able to pay for the consequences 100% then he can bang that Liberatarian drum as loud as he likes.
The sad fact is the overwhelming majority of Americans don't have pockets deep enough to do that. That makes a purely Liberatarian solution to the nation's health care crisis a Utopian pipe dream.
When government, insurance companies, hospitals and employers are expected to help pay for the consequences of some person's poor life style choices the money those organizations pay gives them a say in the matter. Their skin that person's game makes it their business.
Bloomberg's soda pop law idea won't, by itself, solve the obesity problem in New York City. But then there will never be just one single thing that can solve that very complicated problem. Obesity and the nation's worsening crisis in health care can only be solved by using many solutions to attack the problem from many directions.
One thing is certain: doing nothing and leaving it up to the general public to merely get by on some sort of honor system clearly isn't working.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-02-2012, 01:28 PM:
quote: Mark J. Marshall
The government works for us, not the other way around.
You forgot to add "in theory." ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote: Bobby Henderson
One thing is certain: doing nothing and leaving it up to the general public to merely get by on some sort of honor system clearly isn't working.
Amen to that!
Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 06-02-2012, 03:53 PM:
Bloomberg seems to think he can extend lives by decree, well, somebody needs to tell him he ain't god, and so far as is known everybody dies, yes and even Bloomberg himself will croak, he can't stop it. Surely NYC has more important issues that he can attempt to remedy. Are there some dollars he's going to make with this? Vote the son of a bitch out of office.
Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 06-02-2012, 06:31 PM:
The proposal to ban the serving of giant size sweet drinks is a proposal, not a decree. It will be followed by several months of hearings and discussions, as is the usual course in such things. And it is but a small part of a larger health initiative.
Carbonated sweet drinks were removed from vending machines in the schools long ago, and replaced by fruit and less fattening drinks. Nutritionists were called in to advise on healthier school breakfasts and lunches. In the subway today I read a poster from the NYC Health Department showing four cans; a sports drink,an iced tea,a cola and a soda, with a mountain of packets above, and the caption, "PUTTING ON WEIGHT? THESE CONTAIN THE EQUIVALENT OF 68 PACKETS OF SUGAR." (My translation from Spanish--the car was crowded, so I couldn't see a poster in English.)
Maybe some communities don't have serious problems with obesity,
but New York City does, and it affects the poor and uninsured most severely. Maybe there are communities that don't have to ban the import and use of fireworks, that can allow the import and carrying of unlicensed handguns, that can allow right turns on red lights, but the conditions of life in the big city are different.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-02-2012, 06:38 PM:
quote: Bill Enos
Vote the son of a bitch out of office.
It shouldn't be hard to vote him out, assuming that the majority of the obese feel their "right to be fat" is being trampled upon.
But then I will blame them for whatever fate betides them for rejecting what I feel is a small step in the right direction.
Posted by Travis Cape (Member # 466) on 06-02-2012, 08:20 PM:
I understand the issue with restricting personal freedoms, but we either need to restrict some life choices or not subsidize healthcare.
We do eat too much of the wrong things. Maybe someone older than me can tell me for certain, the 6oz Coke bottle was standard until 1960, then it went to 12 oz, to 16.9 oz, the 32 oz, and the 2 liter. How did anyone survive with a 6oz Coke!
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 06-02-2012, 09:17 PM:
This isn't about some "Libertarian ideal." This isn't about some "right" to be fat. The government is simply off-topic.
We hire people to be in the government to do very specific things: Defense, commerce, coinage, etc. They can't even do that yet they presume to have the wisdom to know what people should or should not drink.
When they get the economy even half-way straightened out, THEN we can talk about other things.
What I am talking about is the equivalent of sending your kids to their rooms without any supper until they have finished doing their homework.
If our government officials were even doing "C+" work, I might be willing to entertain some discussions about what constitutes the greater good but, as it stands, a "D-" would be a generous grade for most of them. I'm not willing to think about shit like this for even a half a second unless they clean up their act and start doing the jobs they are supposed to be doing.
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-02-2012, 10:31 PM:
quote: Manny Knowles
You forgot to add "in theory."
No I didn't. It's everyone else who seems to be forgetting that that is the way our system is setup. We, as free individuals lend power to the government so that it can take care of certain basic functions that are needed in a civilized society. The government in this country is setup by the people to serve the people.
Our freedoms (including the freedom to drink large sodas if we want to) are not granted by the government, and can not be taken away by the government. When citizens forget that, or fail to understand it (like so many do), that's when they get into ridiculous situations like this one.
It is fixable. It just depends on whether or not the citizens of NYC wake up any time soon.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-03-2012, 12:54 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
One thing is certain: doing nothing and leaving it up to the general public to merely get by on some sort of honor system clearly isn't working.
So you propose to mandate what people eat and drink? To rule over them? That's unconstitutional. You give them an inch they will go a mile. They like power despite the cheery good intentions. Good intentions will always be pleaded for by every assumption of authority. It's hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are people from all over who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. You give them that inch, they will take it and run with it. And anyone can beat any kind of drum they want. It's a free country, mostly. At least for now. I will not tell anyone what they can and cannot say based on their finances or health.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-03-2012, 03:18 AM:
Randy, one of the reasons why we have such a budget/fiscal crisis in America is due to entitlement programs - such as MediCare - which consume a large portion of the budge. There are many reasons why these entitlement programs are in trouble, but one of the reasons is because too much is being spent to treat expensive health conditions like diabetes.
Americans don't seem to understand that part of the reason we spend so much on health care is because we don't do enough preventative care. If we placed more emphasis on early detection and healthy living, we would spend less money treating late stages of disease. If we focused on healthy living, we would improve quality of life and productivity because of fewer lost work days from injury and illness. But as Americans we don't want to hear that nonsense. We want to government out of our lives when we're making unhealthy choices, but we want our Medi-Care and other government benefits when we can no longer take care of ourselves.
As I said before, issues like this soda proposal (and smoking bans and so forth) would be so much easier to dismiss if it was strictly a personal cause/effect question. But the consequences of our own health choices wind up having broader public health implications. And because of this, I do believe the government has a role to play. If we truly want to have the government stay out of our lives on these personal choice issues, then perhaps it's time for us all to give up on things like Medi-Care and Social Security. And maybe it's time to accept that if we live an unhealthy life and get diabetes, we will just have to die early if we can't afford our own treatments.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-03-2012, 03:41 AM:
You seem to have a very limited knowledge of diabetes.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-03-2012, 05:29 AM:
You're right Joe, I'm not an expert. However, I do know it's been on the rise in the US over the last ~30 years, along with obesity and other health issues. While there may not be a definite causal link between diet and these health issues, I don't think it's simply coincidence the rise mirrors the change in our diets to more processed foods and higher soda consumption.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 06-03-2012, 08:40 AM:
quote: Justin Hamaker
If we truly want to have the government stay out of our lives on these personal choice issues, then perhaps it's time for us all to give up on things like Medi-Care and Social Security. And maybe it's time to accept that if we live an unhealthy life and get diabetes, we will just have to die early if we can't afford our own treatments.
Ummm... Yes.
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-03-2012, 10:33 AM:
quote: Joe Redifer
They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
They're called "public SERVANTS" for a reason. They're not masters of anything. WE are the masters. They are employed by us to work for us, and we can fire them. Anyone who claims to want to be a good "master" should never get hired in the first place. Not arguing with you, Joe, just re-emphasizing my point.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-03-2012, 12:16 PM:
The bottom line is that both Joe and Bobby are right. Politicians of all colours, as a general rule, go into politics because they think they know better than the rest of us and want the chance to put their theories into practice. Some genuinely believe that doing so will make the world a better place, while others just get off on exercising power. Going right down to the bottom of the tree, if you look at the kind of people who tend to run in students' union elections, parish council elections etc., right up to the leaders of the world's biggest economies, all of them tend to have one thing in common: the belief that they know how to run your life better than you do. Most of the time, they don't.
I also agree with Bobby on the public health issue, though, and largely through very personal experience, namely meeting and becoming engaged to someone who is vegan, teetotal and has spent more or less her entire life learning about and caring about food and health issues. Before then I wasn't the worst eater in the world (I don't think, anyway): possibly because I have always had a dairy allergy - if I eat anything with milk, butter, eggs or cheese in it the result is vomiting, nausea and other not fun outcomes, and so I've always been forced into a relatively low fat diet. But until recently, I'd always eaten quite a bit of red meat, probably because if you take dairy off the table, it's one of the few quick and easy forms of protein available. And I'd also been eating quite a lot of fried potato stuff, drinking prodigous quantities of coffee (very easily going through 2-3 pounds of coffee beans a week), and significantly more booze than government types think is good for you.
Two years later, for reasons I never guessed would materialise, my meat, fried potato (both fries and crisps/chips) alcohol and caffeine intake is probably down around 90%, with the protein intake being replaced by fish and protein-rich veg such as nuts, mushrooms and peppers. I might have a can of Coke once every couple of months (e.g. feeling a bit tired and still a couple of hours to drive - a situation like that) And I feel one hell of a lot better for it - less waking up in the night, able to concentrate longer and haven't had a cold or 'flu type bug in over a year.
But I really don't think you can force people to do what I did through the tax system. In Britain, the excise duty on cigarettes and most alcoholic beverages is increased in real terms (i.e. above the rate of inflation) year on year since the late 1990s, but sales of these products are not decreasing. In fact, there is evidence that people are cutting back spending in other areas to be able to continue drinking and smoking the same amount. And then the healthcare system (however it's run) has to pick up the tab. Ultimately, only public education can work. In 1950, three quarters of the population smoked: now it's a quarter (and has been, pretty constantly, since around the turn of the century: there appears to be a hard core 25% that just doesn't want to get the message). That has not been achieved by taxation (the inflation busting duty hikes of the last decade), but rather by gradually increasing public awareness as to what tobacco does to you (between around 1950-2000). It might take another half century for whole populations to take on board what excessively processed foods do to you, but, sadly, I can't see that happening any other way.
Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 06-03-2012, 12:27 PM:
quote: Justin Haymaker
one of the reasons why we have such a budget/fiscal crisis in America is due to entitlement programs
Such as police protection, fire protection, and public schools. While every one of us will need medical care at some point in our lives, having children is a personal choice and I see no reason why I should have to pay to educate other people children. In fact, I see no difference between the government legislating how much soda I can drink and how many children I can have.
Sorry, moderators, I know we are drifting dangerously close to discussing politics.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-03-2012, 02:16 PM:
Justin, I was able to get diabetes by weighing only 140 pounds and being 6 feet tall. Do you think it had to do with my exuberant overeating and unhealthy lifestyle? No. Genetics! I hate it when people generalize about diabetes, thinking everyone who has is is an irresponsible fat fuck. And just about everyone who doesn't have it generalizes and judges diabetics for it. People need to fuck off.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-03-2012, 03:09 PM:
Joe, I never made any kind of comment that could even be construed as saying everyone who has diabetes got it as a result of an unhealthy diet. I know it's not nearly that simple and I know there are people who get the disease without any of the typical risk factors - just like there are non-smokers who get lung cancer, vegans who have heart disease, and so forth.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-03-2012, 03:49 PM:
Some people develop diabetes due to genetics. Most develop Type 2 "adult onset" diabetes by being overweight. The vast majority of new diabetes cases are preventable, if only people would take better care of themselves.
quote: Randy Stankey
This isn't about some "Libertarian ideal." This isn't about some "right" to be fat. The government is simply off-topic.
More entities than just the government are being forced to wade into this issue since they're having to pay for it.
Insurance companies are forced to raise the price of their premiums because so many of their customers can't be bothered to take care of themselves and lower their risk. This isn't any different than some butt hole paying $3000 every 6 months for car insurance because he gets into accidents all the time. If the person is a high risk customer he deserves the price gouging he gets.
Unfortunately, so many other people with health insurance are seeing the cost of their premiums skyrocket because they're having to help pay the extreme high cost of those high risk patients.
Hospitals write off countless millions of dollars in unpaid medical bills due to treating low income people (and even people in the country illegally) who can't pay. They end up increasing their prices to cover costs and pass that along to patients and insurance companies who can pay (as well as pass off a big bill to the US taxpayers). Here in Comanche County, OK roughly 2/3 of the smokers in this county have no health insurance. When they get sick other people will have to provide a bail out.
Many small businesses can't afford to provide health insurance due to high costs. Larger businesses are now being forced to consider the health of possible new employees and how they could impact their group policy.
quote: Justin Hamaker
And maybe it's time to accept that if we live an unhealthy life and get diabetes, we will just have to die early if we can't afford our own treatments.
It sounds vacant, but that would probably be fine if the only problem with the unhealthy individual was an expensive medical bill. Society is a lot more inter-connected than that. This health care crisis is ultimately bad for business. Employers lose a hell of a lot each year in terms of lost productivity.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-03-2012, 05:57 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
If the person is a high risk customer he deserves the price gouging he gets.
I have diabetes so that makes me a high risk for health insurance. So you're saying I deserve the price gouging because of my shitty genes? Things aren't as black and white as you make them sound. You also seem to take an elitist view of other people. Can people be healthier? You bet. Can everybody be perfectly fit? No way! It just can't happen. Not everyone can be thin. Everyone can't become vegetarians. For one, I absolutely abhor the taste of most vegetables. They need to make things that are good for you AND taste good. There's not a lot of variety in that area, unfortunately. For you, maybe, but everyone doesn't have the same taste and you can't expect them to. Most people who lose weight gain it back. Going back and forth like that has got to be tremendously stressful on the body. Also, the BMI index or whatever it is called, the one that decides if a person is officially obese by the amount of body fat they have, is royally messed up. I guarantee you that you and I are both morbidly obese by that index. Some fat is OK and actually healthy.
So I will go back to my original point: Stop subsidizing corn. To hell with the farmers. Nobody cares about them anyway. We have digital now. But please, continue to grow wheat and potatoes. Just calm the hell down on the corn. But again, like I said this will never ever EVER happen. Immediate money right now is more important than the nation's health. And NOBODY you vote into office will do a damn thing about it.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 06-03-2012, 06:48 PM:
There just shouldn't be any health insurance at all.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-03-2012, 07:39 PM:
If you don't have any health insurance at all, what's the alternative? The only one I can think of is paying for whatever medical care you need at the point you need it. That's great if you're wealthy and healthy, but if you're an average earner and suddenly need a triple heart bypass, you're buggered.
The problem is to create a health insurance (doesn't really matter whether we're talking European style, i.e. run by governments, or US style, run by the private sector, for the purpose of this argument) system that provides a realistic safety net at a reasonable price, while at the same time discouraging stupid risk taking. And because it's health we're talking about, it's a very emotive issue. If you told some a-hole who'd caused a 20-vehicle pileup while high on crack that you weren't going to sell him car insurance and that if he tried to drive without it you'd throw him in jail, very few would object. But if you told someone who lives on a diet of cheeseburgers and never exercises that he has to pay cash up front for his bypass if and when he needs it, and that if he can't you're going to leave him to die, there'd be pushback on a huge scale. And furthermore, how do you prove that he's lived on a diet of cheeseburgers and never exercised?
That's about the one and only argument I can think of in favour of using legal regulation (what Bloomberg is proposing) and/or the tax system to encourage a healthy diet - it avoids having to pass those sorts of judgments on people and provides a mechanism for the people who eat/drink the stuff that causes the health problems to foot the bill for paying for them. The problem is that unless you live in a dictatorship, unpopular laws don't work - they are either ignored (both by violators and law enforcement most of the time), circumvented or eventually got rid of by popular demand.
Posted by Melanie Loggins (Member # 6454) on 06-03-2012, 08:33 PM:
Hey, what happened to "no politics"?
*ducks and runs*
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-03-2012, 08:38 PM:
quote: Joe Redifer
I have diabetes so that makes me a high risk for health insurance. So you're saying I deserve the price gouging because of my shitty genes?
No. I said someone who knowingly makes bad health decisions and ends up with a case of diabetes he could have prevented deserves to get price gouged. He knew what he was doing and chose to take the risks anyway.
Yes, some people get diabetes simply due to genetics -particularly children who are born with the condition. They don't deserve to get price gouged. If it weren't for the legions of other people coming down with preventable cases of diabetes it wouldn't cost so damned much to people who developed diabetes through no fault of their own.
quote:
Things aren't as black and white as you make them sound. You also seem to take an elitist view of other people. Can people be healthier? You bet. Can everybody be perfectly fit? No way!
I'm not asking for everyone to have the body of an elite athlete. However, I think everyone needs to know their own health risks and actively manage them. Most Americans do not. They blindly live in denial eating whatever tastes good, eating too much of it and not getting any exercise.
quote: Joe Redifer
Not everyone can be thin. Everyone can't become vegetarians. For one, I absolutely abhor the taste of most vegetables. They need to make things that are good for you AND taste good.
I don't know if the food industry could do that, but right now they're not the slightest bit interested in trying. They're into making food that is cheap, quick to prepare and more profitable. That food is shit in terms of nutritional quality.
It's unfortunate that fresh fruit and vegetables aren't as tasty as a bag of Doritos®. Nevertheless, everyone should be eating more of that stuff and far less in the way of junk food.
quote: Joe Redifer
Also, the BMI index or whatever it is called, the one that decides if a person is officially obese by the amount of body fat they have, is royally messed up.
The BMI index is a grossly outdated tool. All it measures is ratio of height versus weight. I'm considered "normal" under that, but a professional body builder the same height as me would be considered overweight or obese for all the extra muscle mass he built onto his frame.
There are better methods that do measure body fat. However, body fat measurements alone aren't enough. Like I said in earlier posts, skinny people can die of heart attacks. They can have high cholesterol, high blood pressure, clogged arteries, etc.
quote: Randy Stankey
There just shouldn't be any health insurance at all.
If hospitals had to survive only on what patients could pay out of pocket -no insurance, no Medicare/Medicaid- just about every hospital in this country would close. Most doctors and other health care workers would find something else to do for a living.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-03-2012, 08:43 PM:
After reading all the posts here, I can see where a regulation might be a good idea on sizes, BUT it needs to be a reasonable regulation that can be enforced.
1. A 16-ounce soda at a movie theatre doesn't contain 16-ounces of soda. If you put the proper amount of ice in, maybe you get 10 ounces. Even back in the 1970s, when there were no fat people and nobody ever died of anything, a "Large" was at least 24 ounces. A "Small" was about 12 ounces maybe.
2. Even if you had 16 ounces of fluid, that's not really enough to quench your thirst for a two-or-three-hour movie.
3. If you can go buy another soda, then what's the point of the regulation? Clearly, what's needed is some form of chip implanted in everyone where we can regulate the amount of any product they buy in a day. (Kidding with this idea)
Bottom line, I seriously doubt that very many people are overweight simply because of soda. This is obviously a foot-in-door effort and the next target will be double burgers, or the number of pieces in an order of KFC, or something.
quote: Bobby Henderson
He knew what he was doing and chose to take the risks anyway.
I get in my pickup everyday and drive it, knowing full well I could be killed in a horrible wreck. Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to drive (or have my mileage limited)?
I'm just trying to make the point that there are no easy answers to this question. What if everyone suddenly stopped drinking soda-pop? Can you imagine the millions of jobs lost? If everyone started living a "healthy" lifestyle, it would decimate the health-care industry.
I have a buddy who is a fireman. He's constantly preaching fire safety, but he told me the best part of his job is when there's a fire. So....obviously fire prevention is good for people, but bad for firemen.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-03-2012, 09:19 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
Even back in the 1970s, when there were no fat people and nobody ever died of anything, a "Large" was at least 24 ounces. A "Small" was about 12 ounces maybe.
This is what I don't understand about movie theaters in general. I can understand offering bigger sizes than the large, but why is the smallest drink or bucket of popcorn so damned huge? What is the point of that? It makes it so I have no reason to buy anything larger than a small... if I bought anything at the stand ever.
12oz is the size of a soda can (if you don't get any ice and fill it to the rim). A soda can can last me through an entire movie. I usually won't even finish it because it requires effort for me to grab it and consume it when I'd rather be paying attention to the movie. I always get disturbed by people looking at their food and missing what is happening on the screen. One thing that I don't understand is why people MUST eat while they watch something.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 06-03-2012, 09:52 PM:
In 1996, Professor James Fox of Northeastern University in Boston did a study on auto insurance and testified to the State Attorney General on his findings.
He bought several used cars. Each of them were identical models, except for the color. (e.g. One was red and one was blue.) He damaged them in identical ways. (Smashing in the fenders or breaking the headlights, etc.) He hired some college students to drive these identically damaged cars around to various repair shops in the area to get quotes for the cost of repairs. The students were instructed to flip a coin and, when asked whether the car was insured for collision, to say "Yes" or "No" based on the coin flip. They collected several quotes from different repair shops and returned the paperwork to the university where the cost was analyzed.
In every case, the cost to repair the insured cars was higher than the cost to repair an uninsured car by an average factor of two.
Identical cars with identical damage cost twice as much to fix simply because the owner had insurance!
Do you not think this is going on in the heath insurance racket as well?
Simply put, the very existence of heath insurance very likely drives up the cost of heath care. Without insurance, heath care providers could not jack up their prices and they would be forced to charge only prices that the market would bear. If (theoretically) heath insurance was made illegal, the cost of heath care would drop by at least half, practically overnight.
I, personally, have been turned away from doctors simply because I did not have insurance.
I had a case of step throat and called a doctor for an appointment. The FIRST thing I was asked, even before I got to tell the receptionist my problem was, "Do you have insurance?" I answered, truthfully, "No." I was immediately put on hold for more than 15 minutes. Then, when the woman returned, I was told that the doctor didn't have any appointments available for three months. I hung up and called back in about a half hour. This time, I lied and said that I did have insurance. Again, without asking about my problem, I was given an appointment for the next day.
When I got there, the receptionist asked me for my insurance information and I said that I didn't have any. She got mad at ME for lying! When I confronted her and said that I had called earlier but was turned down for not having insurance, she got real quiet.
I paid cash money and the total bill came out to something like $150 including the throat culture. Tell me how much that would have cost if the bill had been sent to the insurance company? $300 or more?
The government, stepping outside of its original mandate, saw fit to meddle in affairs that they have no business trifling with and drove up heath care costs for everybody. Now they have to deal with the unintended consequences of their actions by enacting silly laws that dictate what people should or should not eat. That's lunacy!
Our governments need to stop meddling where they have no business intruding and get back to the basics we hired them for. When and IF they ever do that, I might be willing to discuss other issues but not until.
If I was a projectionist at your theater and I kept fucking up the movies and damaging the equipment would you keep me as an employee? No! When you called me into the office to fire me but I said that I cleaned the windows in the box office would you say, "That's all right?" Would you, then, send me downstairs to pick up empty popcorn and soda cups in the auditoriums? Hell no! You'd tell me to get lost!
Why are we letting our government(s) fuck up their jobs so badly but then telling them, "That's all right," then sending them downstairs to pick up the trash?
Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 06-03-2012, 10:39 PM:
Actually, health insurance works the exact opposite of what Randy posted. The insurance companies pay a small fraction of what an uninsured patient would pay for an office visit, lab work, home health aids, etc. If the patient has Medicare (seniors), they get paid an even smaller fraction of what they normally charge, and if they have Medicaid (the poor), they get reimbursed at such a low rate that many doctors will no longer accept Medicaid. Many of these plans, including Medicare & Medicaid, prohibit the billing of the patient for the difference as part of the contract.
The office staff at Randy's doctor's office is either uninformed on how medical billing works, or the office has been stiffed by uninsured patients who show up but can not pay for the visit.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-03-2012, 10:39 PM:
quote: Joe Redifer
why is the smallest drink or bucket of popcorn so damned huge?
I don't get this either. We were at the AMC 24 in Downtown Disney, in Florida, and their 'small' is 32 ounces. The only way to get the kid-size soda that I could see was to purchase the $5 kid tray pack.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-03-2012, 11:08 PM:
Our smallest sizes are the 46oz popcorn and the 16oz soda. While I understand that many consumers want to jumbo size everything, I like having the smaller sizes. If for no other reason, it helps lure in those who don't want a bucket size.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-04-2012, 01:29 AM:
Exactly! Not everyone wants to eat twice their own mass in popcorn.
The doctor's office Randy went to was a shitty one, no two ways about it. But I do know that most health insurance companies don't even bother looking at the bill, they just automatically pay it. I overheard a dentist talking with his assistants about this the other day. Not that they were corrupt or anything as the dentist was writing a prescription for someone for some antibiotic with a bunch of 150mg pills instead of half as many 300mg pills because the 300mg pills cost twice as much even though the dosage and the total mg amount in the bottle are the same. I don't have dental insurance and they never batted an eye.
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-04-2012, 05:47 AM:
Did you guys ever see the movie The Matrix?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-04-2012, 11:43 AM:
quote: Joe Redifer
But I do know that most health insurance companies don't even bother looking at the bill, they just automatically pay it.
The insurance companies we have used (and we shop around and change providers somewhat frequently) absolutely do look at prices and play all sorts of games when paying claims. Last year my dentist and I had to fight with Principal for months to get a Cerec inlay (a filling replacement) covered. We switched to Coventry just recently. Some things got better, but one of my coworker's diabetes drug co-pays doubled in price as a result. It's commonplace for insurance companies to deny claims and get patients to fight for coverage. The game is set that way so some patients might give up and pay for something 100% out of pocket when some or all of the cost should have been covered by the insurance company. When the patients don't fight the insurance company makes more profit.
The federal government may be asleep at the wheel when it comes to health care. But the businesses taking part in the big charade are not. They know exactly what they're doing. They're making a lot of money doing so and making investors very happy in the process.
This is why it is very likely entities other than the government -like insurance companies and employers are going to force people into living their lives differently. It's one thing to cry about socialism when the government tries to meddle with a person's freedoms. But how is that person going to bitch when the insurance company or employer leverages his coverage or job against his bad lifestyle choices?
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-04-2012, 08:33 PM:
The lawyers are, predictably, salivating over this.
Wall Street Journal
June 1, 2012, 10:18 p.m. ET
Legal Debate Pops Over Soda Plan
By MICHAEL HOWARD SAUL and TAMER EL-GHOBASHY
Beverage and restaurant industry executives are exploring their options—including the possibility of filing a lawsuit—for blocking Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposal to ban city restaurants and a variety of other venues from selling sugary drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces.
"Everything is on the table," said Christopher Gindlesperger, director of public affairs for the American Beverage Association in Washington.
Mr. Bloomberg spent the better part of the week trumpeting his plan as a creative health initiative that would pass legal muster, an opinion several attorneys specializing in civil matters backed. But some industry experts disagreed, saying they believe there's ample room to challenge the proposal in court.
"It's a pretty slam-dunk win," said Robert Bookman, an attorney who has long represented the restaurant industry. He added: "They don't have the authority to interfere with interstate commerce. Just because they license restaurants doesn't mean that they can determine every item that could be sold in a restaurant or the sizes of it."
Mr. Bookman said it would be "impossible for there to be a food industry" if every locality in the U.S. established its own set of rules governing, for example, product sizes. Size of products is specifically regulated by the federal government, he said.
Other lawyers suggested a legal argument could center around sugar, asking why the sugar in soda is being singled-out while that in candy is not.
The mayor and members of his administration have said repeatedly they believe the city's Board of Health, an 11-member panel appointed by the mayor, has the authority to prohibit venues—such as restaurants, mobile food carts, delis and concession stands at movies, stadiums and arenas—from selling sugary beverages in cups or containers larger than 16 ounces.
City officials said they don't expect the ban to be imposed before March of next year. With Mr. Bloomberg set to leave office in December 2013 and the possibility that litigation could tie the matter up in court for months, some say the proposal's opponents could succeed by delaying the ban until Mr. Bloomberg's successor takes the helm.
Some mayoral candidates have already signaled they have reservations about the mayor's proposal. One potential candidate, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, said Friday he's leaning toward supporting the proposal, but believes it needs further public scrutiny.
Scott Greenfield, an attorney, said the government is permitted "reasonable regulation," and a proposal that is stated to be in the interest of public health could pass "rational scrutiny" in court. "Everybody can think it's a dumb idea but it doesn't make it unconstitutional," he said.
Ron Kuby, a civil-rights attorney who is known for his challenges of government policies and practices, agreed, saying that governments are given broad powers to regulate "the general area of sales and goods and general economic activity."
Mr. Kuby said he believes there is no legal requirement to explain banning large sodas versus large chocolate bars. In the area of sales and goods, "rights can be regulated with a very blunt instrument" as long as they don't infringe on fundamental constitutional rights.
A legal challenge, Mr. Kuby said, would ultimately fail. The only way "to remedy this," he said, "is through the democratic process."
On Friday, McDonald's weighed in via Twitter: "@MikeBloomberg We trust our customers to make the choices that are best for them."
While the industry scrambles to craft a legal strategy to block the proposal, other avenues are also being considered. Executives are discussing the possibility of trying to persuade the City Council or state Legislature to block the ban via legislation.
Jamie McShane, a spokesman for the council, said council lawyers have determined that the board has the authority to deal with this type of proposal. It has yet to be determined whether the council has the power to try to block it, or whether it will try to do so, he said.
A spokesman for Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Manhattan Democrat, said the speaker has reservations about the mayor's proposal but he "does not envision legislation to stop" it before the sessions ends this month.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Friday he doesn't believe the mayor's proposal can do "any harm." If voters disapprove of it, they can elect a new mayor next year who could undo the ban, he said.
Industry executives said they will continue aggressive efforts to inform the public about the impact of sugar-sweetened beverages on obesity. While there will be an opportunity to lobby the Board of Health, many say that could prove futile since the members are appointed by the mayor.
The proposal is slated to be introduced at the board's June 12 meeting.
Wall Street Journal link
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-19-2012, 09:50 AM:
Unbelievably, the mayor of Cambridge, Massachusetts is considering a similar ban, although the specifics have not yet been decided. The chances of passage seem iffy at best.
Full article (not worth quoting) can be found
here.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-19-2012, 10:27 AM:
I just noticed this:
quote: Wall Street Journal
Industry executives said they will continue aggressive efforts to inform the public about the impact of sugar-sweetened beverages on obesity.
I guess that's another way of saying soft drink industry executives will aggressively advertise lies to the public claiming high fructose corn syrup is perfectly natural and safe to consume in large quantities.
Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 06-19-2012, 11:54 AM:
> I guess that's another way of saying soft drink industry executives will aggressively advertise lies to the public claiming high fructose corn syrup is perfectly natural and safe to consume in large quantities.
Next Bobby will be telling us that global warming is real... ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-19-2012, 02:11 PM:
So with your wink you're jokingly saying high fructose corn syrup is perfectly fine? Maybe the nation's increasingly expensive problem with obesity is just a figment of someone's imagination as well?
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-19-2012, 03:17 PM:
That's just the same thing as the tobacco people continuing to educate the public on how dangerous tobacco is, while trying to sell more tobacco.
Like all things, soda is OK in moderation. If a person drinks nothing else, that's bad. I drink too much of the stuff myself, but I do watch my weight. I figure, I don't smoke, drink (much), or gamble, so I gotta have one vice!
Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 06-19-2012, 07:54 PM:
For me soda is a bad thing. When I first started working at a theater when I was 16 I drank a TON of soda because it was free and I love Pibb. Just so happens Pibb is full of both caffeine and high fructose syrup. After a few months I gained weight and started feeling like poo. Im hypersensitive to caffine so if I drink too much it gives me a high heart beat and tires me out. Once I started drinking water only at work I lost the weight and felt better pretty quickly. For me soda is terrible.
Iv also seen someone drink 3, yes THREE 44 oz Pepsi's in a single movie. Im not sure how they werent a diabetic...
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 06-20-2012, 01:15 AM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
That's just the same thing as the tobacco people continuing to educate the public on how dangerous tobacco is, while trying to sell more tobacco.
To be fair, they aren't trying to be hypocrites... they're forced to do so. The education stuff they do comes from that huge settlement they had with the government. They are obligated to spend a certain amount on educating people on the bad effects of smoking.
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-20-2012, 06:01 AM:
quote: Mitchell Dvoskin was the last to post
I guess that's another way of saying soft drink industry executives will aggressively advertise lies to the public claiming high fructose corn syrup is perfectly natural and safe to consume in large quantities.
There is nothing particularly "dangerous" about high fructose corn syrup. A calorie is a calorie. Drinking sugar sweetened soda isn't any better for you. The issue with high fructose corn syrup is that the farm subsidies make it cheaper than sugar. Therefore it helps make high calorie unhealthy foods and drinks cheaper than healthier stuff.
That said, the "war on soda" is retarded. Orange Juice has more calories per ounce than some sodas (and only slightly less than Mountain Dew). If I guzzle OJ all day I'll get just as fat as if I guzzle Coke.
I agree with Bobby completely about the costs of obesity. The solution isn't dumb totalitarian state solutions like this. The solution is to allow there to be consequences for being unhealthy. Health insurance should cost more for people with risk factors for having health problems (smoking, obesity, etc.). Hell, allow airlines to charge by weight.
And for the "genetics" argument. There are an extremely miniscule percentage of people that have such a slow metabolism that they will become 400 lbs no matter what they do. I guarantee you that if you take a fat slob and get them in the gym a few hours a week and have them eat just a little bit better they will lose weight. Two of my mom's friends are some of the most obese people you will ever see. However, both of them were fit and trim in their 20's. They got married, had kids and became enormous due to their own eating and lack of exercise.
Back to the topic. I should have the freedom to buy whatever I want. I work out 4 or 5 times a week so that I can treat myself to a large soda once in a while.
The solution is in the consequences. People should stop having sex with obese people no matter how desparate they are. Then there will be an incentive not to be obese!
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-20-2012, 06:17 AM:
Lyle, you are correct that a calorie is a calorie. The difference between orange juice and soda is that orange juice has other things your body needs for good nutrition. But yes, drinking a couple 44oz cups of OJ every day would have the same effect as drinking a couple 44oz cups of soda.
The point about farm subsidies making corn syrup so cheap is really the critical point. Unfortunately this is a main part of the reason there is an inverse relationship between income and rates of obesity. Those with more money can afford to eat and live healthier, so they tend to have lower rates of obesity. Unfortunately, nutrition is only part of the reason why a lower income person is more likely to be overweight.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-20-2012, 09:43 AM:
There's a price penalty to drinking 44oz of OJ -- it would cost a whole lot more than soda -- that's probably why nobody's out there doing it.
That's also ONE OF the main reasons why people aren't eating healthy food -- it's too expensive.
Also, isn't corn still a subsidized commodity? Isn't that part of the economic incentive to sweeten with corn, as opposed to cane? Did I see this in FOOD, INC or KING CORN? -- it was one of those documentaries.
I can guarantee you, if we had to pay top-dollar for corn, it would go back to being a side dish.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-20-2012, 01:18 PM:
quote: Manny Knowles
There's a price penalty to drinking 44oz of OJ -- it would cost a whole lot more than soda -- that's probably why nobody's out there doing it.
Nope. The reason people drink soda more than OJ is because they LIKE THE TASTE BETTER. Price has very little to do with it.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-20-2012, 01:31 PM:
quote: Lyle Romer
There is nothing particularly "dangerous" about high fructose corn syrup. A calorie is a calorie. Drinking sugar sweetened soda isn't any better for you. The issue with high fructose corn syrup is that the farm subsidies make it cheaper than sugar. Therefore it helps make high calorie unhealthy foods and drinks cheaper than healthier stuff.
There are key differences between natural cane/beet sugar and high frutose corn syrup at the molecular level.
Table sugar (sucrose) has equal levels of two simple sugars, 50% glucose and 50% fructose. Every fructose molecule is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule. The fructose in table sugar must go through an extra metabolic step before the body can process it.
That isn't the case with HFCS. Its ratio is 55% fructose, 42% glucose and 3% higher saccharides. Due to how HFCS is processed the fructose molecules in it are free and not bound to glucose molecules. The body can absorb the fructose immediately and metabolize it to produce fat. Glucose is primarily used for energy, but if it is stored it is primarily stored as a carbohydrate called glycogen in the liver and muscles.
Either way, Americans consume way too much added sugar in their diets. High Fructose Corn Syrup is especially insidious because it is found in all sorts of other foods, not just soda pop. Add to this the fast & loose nature the food industry has with stating the truth on its labels. Recently a number of fruit juice brands sold in dollar stores drew fire from a consumer watch dog group because their "100% Fruit Juice" products really had only 10% to 33% fruit juice -the rest of it was artificial crap, including high fructose corn syrup.
The American Heart Association says the average adult woman shouldn't consume more than 100 calories worth of added sugar per day; adult men shouldn't take in more than 150 calories worth of added sugar per day. Just one 12 ounce can of Dr. Pepper has 150 calories, all of it listed as "sugars" on the nutritional label.
Some scientists and nutrionists point the effect added sugar has on our appetite. The body uses insulin to process sugar. Consume excess sugar and the body must produce more insulin to handle it. The theory is a roller coaster inertia effect is created where the body not only metabolizes all that sugar but does so to the point where blood sugar levels end up going too low and increasing the appetite.
The statement "a calorie is a calorie" is very broad and could easily be misinterpreted by someone trying to say there is no quality difference between junk food and healthy food. Our bodies run on more than mere calories. Calories taken in from soda pop and junk food are largely devoid of nutrients. They're empty calories. The consumer can eat/drink that stuff and he'll quickly be hungry for even more of it since he's not giving his body the healthy fuel it really needs.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-20-2012, 03:42 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
The reason people drink soda more than OJ is because they LIKE THE TASTE BETTER. Price has very little to do with it.
Okay, I could go along with this. That's certainly why I drink Coke versus OJ.
But cost is nonetheless an important factor in why people choose poorly when it comes to nutrition. I guess convenience would also rank pretty high. That's why I choose McDonald's -- it's delicious and (usually) convenient. I know there are better food choices, but they are less convenient and cost more. (I don't eat McD a lot and, when I do, it's usually the child-size portions, and I almost never eat all of the fries.)
So, I believe that making it inconvenient (not impossible, mind you) to drink a lot of soda (etc) would give people an adequate moment to have "second thoughts" about consuming more. If you really want more, you'll have to make the extra effort to get it.
Even if this ban doesn't pass, it has certainly put a spotlight on the issue. What's interesting is that so many people prefer to focus on the issue of "freedoms" over the health issues. I'm not saying anybody is wrong for that. Just that I find it interesting that health takes the back seat.
It actually calls to mind the situation with the MPAA and CARA. Self-regulation to prevent government involvement. Maybe the "defenders of freedom" should pledge to eat right and get plenty of exercise. If the problem subsides after "x number of years," then the ban falls off the table. But if the obesity crisis continues, the ban kicks in.
At the moment, the situation (obesity crisis) can be blamed on ignorance and food industry labeling practices. But now that the issue is being argued -- If the ban doesn't pass -- might this suggest that the people of New York are consciously choosing poor dietary habits?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-21-2012, 12:08 PM:
Our popular culture champions making poor dietary choices. You're not a real man if eat salad and avoid junk food.
Consider the advertising situation. Food related advertising is dominated by fast food restaurants and junk food. Not as many commercials are run for more healthy foods. I can't remember the last time I saw a grocery store TV commercial showing prices of fresh vegetables.
If someone wants to eat healthy that person must develop a deliberate plan to do so and then go out of his way to find those healthier foods and often pay more for them. Someone is who already obese and serious about losing weight must do all of that and other things, like keeping a food diary of what he eats. For most Americans that's just too much of a pain in the ass.
Convenience definitely is huge factor in what's worsening this obesity problem. It may even be a more important factor than the cost premium of healthier foods. It takes a lot more time to prepare a healthy, balanced meal than it does to put a couple of sandwiches and a pile of potato chips on a plate. Many junk foods are ready to eat in the package. Others may take only a couple or so minutes in the microwave or oven to be ready.
quote: Manny Knowles
What's interesting is that so many people prefer to focus on the issue of "freedoms" over the health issues. I'm not saying anybody is wrong for that. Just that I find it interesting that health takes the back seat.
Yeah, it's "freedom" without any of the associated responsibility and consequence that should be tied to it. Americans want the freedom to make a bad choice and then they want employers, hospitals, insurance companies and all the other taxpayers to save their lives and help pay the bill. It's hypocrisy.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 06-21-2012, 01:57 PM:
You can't legislate responsibility. Sometimes, you just have to let people do things even if they are wrong, as long as they aren't breaking the law. You use that as an excuse for the government to create more laws which usurp authority from the people.
Remember, I'm the guy who is against this proposed law AND I am against insurance, too.
(Or, at least, think it should be radically restructured from the way it is, now.)
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-21-2012, 02:19 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Americans want the freedom to make a bad choice and then they want employers, hospitals, insurance companies and all the other taxpayers to save their lives and help pay the bill. It's hypocrisy.
Might this be an example of the rampant "entitlement mentality" that I keep hearing so much about? quote: Randy Stankey
You can't legislate responsibility. Sometimes, you just have to let people do things even if they are wrong, as long as they aren't breaking the law.
But if you did legislate responsibility, then being irresponsible would be against the law.
And then, you'd have to be in favor of it, wouldn't you?
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 06-21-2012, 02:40 PM:
The purposely inflammatory comments I made above speak directly to that point: We must be in favor of new laws, no matter how restrictive, lest we be labeled enemies of the government. The government always knows what's good for the people and anybody who doesn't go along is obviously detrimental to the public order.
It's a Catch-22 that the government uses to justify new laws.
Regardless how good that law seems on the surface, when government takes more authority, it is almost always bad.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-21-2012, 02:52 PM:
quote: Randy Stankey
Regardless how good that law seems on the surface, when government takes more authority, it is almost always bad.
Sigh.
In general, I'm inclined to agree with your point, Randy.
I guess I'm in "not opposed" to this particular idea because I wouldn't personally be inconvenienced too terribly.
But, on the other hand, one need look no further than the current air travel (in)security situation -- I don't care if it's deemed a "necessary evil" -- that one does somehow manage to irritate me nonetheless.
What both of these issues have in common, is that "the innocent are forced to suffer with the guilty."
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-21-2012, 05:49 PM:
I was just thinking about sizes of restaurant etc. foods today vs. when I was growing up.
When I bought the movie theatre we had two sizes: 12 oz and 16 oz. They were served without ice. Now we have 4 sizes, 12 to 46 oz., but they all have ice now of course.
We used to have ONE size of buttered corn: 24 oz. Now we sell a 164 oz version, and three smaller sizes. (our most popular is the 85 ounce.)
At the cafe up the street from here, a "small" Coke was one of those restaurant-style wavy glass glasses, probably held about 8 or 10 ounces. A "large" was a taller version of the same glass, holding about 12 ounces. They had 24 ounce paper cups, but those were "milkshake cups" and they didn't sell soda in them.
There was no such things as free refills or even paid refills, where now in the typical nice restaurant they'll bring you a whole new soda if they see you've downed more than half of yours.
Their hamburger had probably a 3 ounce slab of ground beef. (Which I actually liked better than the stupid "half pound" burgers you get today.) When I was in high school (1970-74) you could buy a burger, fries and a coke for $1.00.
I remember when we got into the theater business one of the first things we did was get an ice machine and some larger cup sizes. The biggest we had at first was 24 ounce. It was by FAR our biggest seller, so we decided to try a 32 ounce. It sold even better than the 24, so we tried the 46. It did OK, but the 32-ounce settled in as our most popular size and has been ever since. (To be fair, we use that size in our combos too, which helps its popularity.)
No doubt, sizes ARE getting bigger, but government regulation on this is just silly. Public education is better. I used to always order the "large soda" whenever I went anywhere, but now I almost always ask for a medium if I'm not sure what size I'm getting, because Large is almost always more than I want to drink.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-21-2012, 06:51 PM:
The general public is taking advantage of the government, employers and the health care system with its failure in health management. Manny is right in saying there is an entitlement mentality at work in the public having it both ways in terms of freedoms and lack of consequence.
I keep mentioning employers and privately run insurance companies and our so-called "private" health care system. That's because if government isn't going to make any substantial effort to fight this problem those private entities will be forced to do so. They're carrying more and more of the burden. At some point that has to stop. And all the people worried about government intervention will be blind sided by business intervention. And when business intervenes the constitution and government will be irrelevant. The freedom to live badly crowd can then scream about their lost freedoms to the wind.
If the general public really wants to avoid letting the government, their employer, insurance companies or health care companies tell them how to live then the general public needs to start making positive changes immediately. The general public deserves by far most of the blame for health care costs getting out of control.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-21-2012, 08:33 PM:
quote: Bobby
Our popular culture champions making poor dietary choices. You're not a real man if eat salad and avoid junk food.
I don't think avoiding junk food is considered unmanly, but eating salad definitely is. Salads are like eating air. Nasty-tasting air. You're probably burning more calories eating them than you're taking in. Salads are a pansy food. But you don't need salads to be healthy. Also, even if eating salads is effeminate, there seems to be more obese women than men that I've noticed. Society doesn't shun women eating salads.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 06-21-2012, 09:09 PM:
quote: Manny Knowles
I guess I'm in "not opposed" to this particular idea because I wouldn't personally be inconvenienced too terribly.
That's part of the ruse. If they just find a whole lot of little things that nobody cares too much about, they can gradually alter the law in, as Frank Zappa wrote, "In tiny paragraphs" until, one day, we are surprised at how much authority we've unwittingly given away.
Personally, I don't care, either. I think people who drink 128 zillion ounce sodas are pigs but, one, it's not my pancreas and, two, regardless of the ostensible reason, the government is stepping over the line on this one.
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-22-2012, 09:21 AM:
quote: Manny Knowles
I guess I'm in "not opposed" to this particular idea because I wouldn't personally be inconvenienced too terribly.
To echo Randy, this is how the slippery slope gets started on. I only drink rarely so I wouldn't be personally inconvenienced if prohibition was brought back. However, just because it wouldn't bother me doesn't mean that the governement should be telling others what they can and can't do.
I do 100% agree with Bobby that with freedom SHOULD come consequences. Somebody that eats 3 supersized McDonald's meals a day and sits on the couch watching Jerry Springer every second that they aren't stuffing their face with crap food shouldn't have the same healthcare cost that I do when I eat pretty well and exercise 4+ times per week to stay in shape and healthy.
That should have been a part of the "Affordable Care Act" (no matter if you support or oppose it). Insurance companies should be compelled to charge more for higher risk individuals (smokers, obese people). If you want to be unhealthy on purpose then you should have to pay your "fair share" of the risk pool. Obesity is rarely a disease and in the cases where it is it can be treated with gastric bypass surgery. For 90%+ of the obese population they are obese becasue they eat too much and don't exercise at all.
I used to work in an office on the 2nd floor of the building. It always struck me how the in shape people would walk up and down the stairs while the fat slobs would be packed in the elevator to go up and down 1 freaking floor. The elevator should have been for handicapped only and anybody that can walk should have been forced to use the stairs!
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-22-2012, 09:39 AM:
quote:
anybody that can walk should have been forced to use the stairs!
Forced by who? The government?
Pretty easy to get sucked into the notion of bending people's behavior to your own will, eh? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-22-2012, 09:45 AM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
Forced by who? The government?
Pretty easy to get sucked into the notion of bending people's behavior to your own will, eh?
Touche!
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 06-22-2012, 10:12 AM:
I took that to be an expression of frustration or disapproval, much in the way people used to exclaim, "There ought to be a law..."
Do I want there to be a law requiring able-bodied people to always use the stairs? No, but I often feel frustrated when I see an elevator full of fat people.
BTW: My personal rule is to take the stairs if it's only one flight up or two flights down. Sometimes more if I'm feeling well but sometimes less if I'm tired or feel poorly. If I've got packages or something to carry, that's a different story but overall, it's often faster just to take the stairs, even if I don't hurry.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-22-2012, 02:34 PM:
Seems appropriate here:
Nanny State Bans
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2