Am I the only one who supported the soda ban?

[KnobbyWalsh]

"Reuters is reporting that obesity in America is now adding an astounding $190 billion to the annual national healthcare price tag, exceeding smoking as public health enemy number one when it comes to cost."

Americans consume approximately 47 billion lbs of sugar a year. How about a tax of $4.00 / lb on refined sugar to cover the costs of the health care bill? If such an action forces manufacturers of products containing sugar to switch to lower cost and lower calorie alternatives like saccharin, that's great.

I personly cant wait till we have weigh-in-centers. they figure your tax rate every april by how fat you are. wonder if that would wake people up to how low we have gone?

True story - I work with people (co workers) who CAN'T even get on a scale! The numbers don't go that high. There's something fundamentally wrong with that.

 

[Scorpion]

Let's face it. Some people can't handle themselves. The idea of personal freedom is not the bigger picture. The bigger picture is for the greater good. With all of the health problems that obesity causes, it needs to be curbed. Afflictions like diabetes are a drain on the economy with the health care cost associated with it. Sure this policy would have only made a small dent, but it is a start.

New Yorkers can still live happy fulfilling lives without buying an extra large soda

Are you the only fascist in the world? Don't worry, you aren't.

Hell no he's not. You his counterbalance? You guys like to dictate women's choices, what God to worship, what government programs are worthy and which are not. Ad nausium.............[/QUOTE
Simply because something is legal does not make it moral or ethical.
Most women (and men) know the potential consequences of unprotected sex.
They have numerous options to prevent such an occurrence.
If the couple is responsible, abortions would not be necessary.

Who dictates what God to worship or not?

The left seems content to dictate the worthiness of government programs.
You would prevent the right from injecting their opinion on the worthiness of those programs as well?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hell no he's not. You his counterbalance? You guys like to dictate women's choices, what God to worship, what government programs are worthy and which are not. Ad nausium.............

I like that? When did that happen?

You're not a right wing Republican? Sorry if I'm wrong.

I have never been, and never will be, a Republican.

 

[Wyatt earp]

"Reuters is reporting that obesity in America is now adding an astounding $190 billion to the annual national healthcare price tag, exceeding smoking as public health enemy number one when it comes to cost."

Americans consume approximately 47 billion lbs of sugar a year. How about a tax of $4.00 / lb on refined sugar to cover the costs of the health care bill? If such an action forces manufacturers of products containing sugar to switch to lower cost and lower calorie alternatives like saccharin, that's great.

I personly cant wait till we have weigh-in-centers. they figure your tax rate every april by how fat you are. wonder if that would wake people up to how low we have gone?

True story - I work with people (co workers) who CAN'T even get on a scale! The numbers don't go that high. There's something fundamentally wrong with that.

lmao.... but seriously. I never get that, just have regular sex or walk or something... whats so hard about burning off calories? ?? get rid of the remote and at least walk to the t.v. to change the channel.

 

[Papageorgio]

But the cost of their health care to the taxpayer is the entire point. You just can't figure that out.

Simple answer, Quit paying for peoples health care. If they want an unhealthy lifestyle. let them die. It's their choice and one of the and their personal responsibility to pay for their own health care.

How about a new tax? A "sugar tax". What if society taxed food products based on their sugar content? Consider just soft drinks. A sugar tax would make diet soft drinks which contain 0 calories less expensive for the consumer to purchase than their sugar laden alternatives. Hopefully the tax would discourage the purchase of sugary foods and beverages, and the proceeds from the tax would go into the government fund that pays for health care, including diabetes.

So we let people drink soda with aspartame, which has said to have bad side effects. Also, drinking any soda will inhibit weight loss. Taxing people, for what? Because government want to control and tax more. It is tough to believe the government would actually send money where it is intended.

 

[Little-Acorn]

You guys like to dictate women's choices, what God to worship, .............

Do you suffer from these attacks of hysterical ranting frequently?

Help is available.

 

[westwall]

Let's face it. Some people can't handle themselves. The idea of personal freedom is not the bigger picture. The bigger picture is for the greater good. With all of the health problems that obesity causes, it needs to be curbed. Afflictions like diabetes are a drain on the economy with the health care cost associated with it. Sure this policy would have only made a small dent, but it is a start.

New Yorkers can still live happy fulfilling lives without buying an extra large soda

To each according to his needs eh comrade? Thank you, but I'm an adult and will drink whatever the hell I wish, when I wish and however much I wish. The legislation as written benefited the soda companies and the places selling them because they got to sell more.

I wonder how Bloomie was going to profit from that particular piece of legislative tyranny.

 

[KaliAndersson]

If 44 big gulps are outlawed,I guess only outlaws will get big gulps....
.Now for the real question.....Where do we go from here?.....

Can one leave the yard without breaking some kind of law?
My neighbors found out that they cannot now 'legally' fill the truck with propane from their own tank anymore with a bleeder hose thanks to our democrat lawmakers in Denver....Come on,it's not like the're stealing drip from the natural gas wells like some guys do about three in the morning.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Let's face it. Some people can't handle themselves. The idea of personal freedom is not the bigger picture. The bigger picture is for the greater good. With all of the health problems that obesity causes, it needs to be curbed. Afflictions like diabetes are a drain on the economy with the health care cost associated with it. Sure this policy would have only made a small dent, but it is a start.

New Yorkers can still live happy fulfilling lives without buying an extra large soda

The greater good is irrelevant.

It's the camel's nose under the tent.

The next thing you know you'll be mandated to eat so many lbs of broccoli a year or else be fined.

It's none of your business what someone else eats, drinks, smokes etc.

These guys would agree!

So what?

It's none of your business. Period.

 

[jtpr312]

Let's face it. Some people can't handle themselves. The idea of personal freedom is not the bigger picture. The bigger picture is for the greater good. With all of the health problems that obesity causes, it needs to be curbed. Afflictions like diabetes are a drain on the economy with the health care cost associated with it. Sure this policy would have only made a small dent, but it is a start.

New Yorkers can still live happy fulfilling lives without buying an extra large soda

My advice, move your ass to North Korea where the govt can control your life like you're a pet. In THIS nation we are guaranteed personal freedom. By the way, banning 20oz sodas will do absolutely NOTHING to stop obestity. People with no disipline, no self respect and no self control will continue to stuff their fat faces with greasy foods, 10 16oz sodas and all other manner of fat producing garbage, so banning 20oz drinks is just another form of govt control that accomplishes nothing. It would not have made ANY dent, small, miniscule, or miscroscopic. It would do zip, zero nothing other than violate the Constitution, which the govt in general, especially those bastards on the left, think nothing of doing every day.

 

[jtpr312]

"Reuters is reporting that obesity in America is now adding an astounding $190 billion to the annual national healthcare price tag, exceeding smoking as public health enemy number one when it comes to cost."

Americans consume approximately 47 billion lbs of sugar a year. How about a tax of $4.00 / lb on refined sugar to cover the costs of the health care bill? If such an action forces manufacturers of products containing sugar to switch to lower cost and lower calorie alternatives like saccharin, that's great.

Then the answer would be to limit tax payer funded health care to self destrcutive people which I'm all in favor of. You got health issues because you're a lard ass that stuffs Big Macs down your throat like they were life savers, pay for your own health care. You got health problems because you smoked for a dozen years AFTER learning how harmful it is, tough luck, pay your own medical bills. You burn yourself up cooking meth, pay your own hospital bill. You got health issues because you smoked crack, tough luck, pay your own health care costs. If you can't, tough luck, you should not have treated your body like it was a dumpster and the tax payer should not be burdened because you are an undisiplined moron.

 

[Mac1958]

.

It seems blazingly obvious that the country would be better off as a whole if people took better care of themselves. A highly obese populace contributes significantly to expensive health issues such as heart disease and diabetes, and this situation costs us all in health care expenses. So a reasonable person could conclude that if we took better care of ourselves we would all save money and live healthier lives. Would that not be a positive?

At the same time, the abject lack of self-discipline that Americans show in general is a clear cultural issue that cannot be "fixed" by governmental decree, nor is it the right or reponsbility of the government of a "free" people to put mandates on what we're "allowed" to eat and drink.

So it seems we have a bit of a problem. It would be nice, of course, if we had true leaders in our society (in or out of government) who could step up and help to change our slovenly, narcissistic, me-first-at-any-cost culture. But evidently no one is up to the task.

So we're stuck with people like Bloomberg (who thinks the government should be able to limit the fucking size of a fucking soda) and Palin (who thinks it's a real "hoot" to parade onstage with a Big Gulp without acknowledging the fact that Big Gulps are not very fucking good for you).

Our culture is in decay and I don't see any "leaders" changing that.

.

 

[eots]

Let's face it. Some people can't handle themselves. The idea of personal freedom is not the bigger picture. The bigger picture is for the greater good. With all of the health problems that obesity causes, it needs to be curbed. Afflictions like diabetes are a drain on the economy with the health care cost associated with it. Sure this policy would have only made a small dent, but it is a start.

New Yorkers can still live happy fulfilling lives without buying an extra large soda

Go fuck yourself...comrade

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

The greater good is irrelevant.

It's the camel's nose under the tent.

The next thing you know you'll be mandated to eat so many lbs of broccoli a year or else be fined.

It's none of your business what someone else eats, drinks, smokes etc.

These guys would agree!

So what?

It's none of your business. Period.

Yea, and thank God for that!

 

[Skull Pilot]

These guys would agree!

So what?

It's none of your business. Period.

Yea, and thank God for that!

And yet you still want to control people.

 

[dblack]

.

It seems blazingly obvious that the country would be better off as a whole if people took better care of themselves. A highly obese populace contributes significantly to expensive health issues such as heart disease and diabetes, and this situation costs us all in health care expenses. So a reasonable person could conclude that if we took better care of ourselves we would all save money and live healthier lives. Would that not be a positive?

It's the underlined portion that is the problem. This is why libertarians are opposed to the welfare state. It's not because it redistributes wealth - it actually does less of that than many other tax and spend policies. It's because whenever we make an area of our lives a government concern, we forfeit control.

We're going to see more and more of these kinds of intrusive laws as the government takes over more and more responsibility for life's necessities. They'll be telling us how to live for the good of the state - a classic trait of fascism. For those of you who feel this is hysterical alarmism, well, it's you who are paving the way toward losing what's left of our freedom.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

So what?

It's none of your business. Period.

Yea, and thank God for that!

And yet you still want to control people.

I do? Where'd I say that, Empty Skull?

 

[Mac1958]

.

It seems blazingly obvious that the country would be better off as a whole if people took better care of themselves. A highly obese populace contributes significantly to expensive health issues such as heart disease and diabetes, and this situation costs us all in health care expenses. So a reasonable person could conclude that if we took better care of ourselves we would all save money and live healthier lives. Would that not be a positive?

It's the underlined portion that is the problem. This is why libertarians are opposed to the welfare state. It's not because it redistributes wealth - it actually does less of that than many other tax and spend policies. It's because whenever we make an area of our lives a government concern, we forfeit control.

We're going to see more and more of these kinds of intrusive laws as the government takes over more and more responsibility for life's necessities. They'll be telling us how to live for the good of the state - a classic trait of fascism. For those of you who feel this is hysterical alarmism, well, it's you who are paving the way toward losing what's left of our freedom.

Did you not read the rest of my post?

.

 

[dblack]

.

It seems blazingly obvious that the country would be better off as a whole if people took better care of themselves. A highly obese populace contributes significantly to expensive health issues such as heart disease and diabetes, and this situation costs us all in health care expenses. So a reasonable person could conclude that if we took better care of ourselves we would all save money and live healthier lives. Would that not be a positive?

It's the underlined portion that is the problem. This is why libertarians are opposed to the welfare state. It's not because it redistributes wealth - it actually does less of that than many other tax and spend policies. It's because whenever we make an area of our lives a government concern, we forfeit control.

We're going to see more and more of these kinds of intrusive laws as the government takes over more and more responsibility for life's necessities. They'll be telling us how to live for the good of the state - a classic trait of fascism. For those of you who feel this is hysterical alarmism, well, it's you who are paving the way toward losing what's left of our freedom.

Did you not read the rest of my post?

.

Yeah, and I had no disagreement with it. I just wanted to emphasize the connection between the caretaker government and losing our freedoms. When we assign the state responsibility for our health, it essentially makes our personal health habits a public concern. If it wasn't clear, "For those of you ..." wasn't addressed to you or your post.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

"The idea of personal freedom is not the bigger picture. The bigger picture is for the greater good. With all of the health problems that obesity causes, it needs to be curbed........."


The GREATER GOOD ??????? The mindless utterance of Communists the world over.....