Obamacare and the price of gorceries

[Quantum Windbag]

Against information??

I want you to be able to go get whatever information you want.. bug the hell out of people.. demand it of those you do business with... knock yourself out

But the government is not in existence to ensure your salad bar has caloric information, or that Oscar Meyer lists the name of the pig making your bologna, or that there are exactly 74 poppy seeds on your muffin

Fair enough. So you think the clerk behind the counter knows how everything is prepared?

So your position would be, "if they can't supply you with the information you want, don't buy their stuff. And the free market will determine what information is shared." Am I right?

I get that and I can appreciate your position if I have assessed it correctly.

But in looking back through American history, I've concluded that free market principles alone just haven't done a good enough job. I don't favor burdensome, senseless regulations. But this just makes sense to me.

Do you care how many calories are in a tomato slice? Be honest now.

 

[Scorpion]

It is a strange world we live in where people attack the idea of transparent food labeling.

Really, QW, maybe it is time to accept that Obama was re-elected. You get to vote again in a couple of years, and you can vote against the food labels if that is the key issue for you.

It is a strange world we live in when you think that me pointing out the absurd costs of stupid regulations means I am attacking something entirely different.Do you often get tickets because you confuse the Stop sign for something else?

Regulations cost money. Driving up the cost of a salad at the grocery store is not going to encourage people to eat healthy when they can go and get a bag of chips for less.

I'd be curious to know, statistically speaking, the percentage of welfare recipients (those who are on Medicaid and SNAP) who meet the criteria for being overweight or obese and who have other health risk factors.
Also, are members of this group generally less educated than those who are employed and have, currently, private health insurance.

The issue should be addressed with those who are at the highest risk for unhealthy behavior.

Begin with educating the poor about good health and start by restricting the foods they can purchase with SNAP dollars. Soda, chips, many frozen entrees should be banned from that program.
You want to micromanage people's eating habits, start with the ones getting the FREE STUFF.
And I don't want to hear about how unfair or Draconian that would be.
It's relative common knowledge that the higher income and education one has, the more likely that person will lead a healthy lifestyle.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obama did this with Fast Food businesses last year. He's driving up prices any way he can.

It is truly terrifying to think that American consumers might be better informed about what they are eating.

Hitler was all about listing ingredients.

It is silly that you think that is what this is about.

 

[Stephanie]

You see people, liberals want in all of your business until it come to ABORTIONS
scratch a liberal find a FASCIST

How many right wing anti abortion people are ready to pay the taxes for raising unwanted children in the foster care or welfare system or for the special education classes they need because they grow up in abusive homes or for the legal system costs when they break the law or go to prison? The irony is that you are the fascists. How many of you are willing to pay the higher insurance costs and higher taxes for health care when people who abuse their bodies need health care? You can't have it both ways.

The irony is you insist you have a right to dictate to me what I do with my body while insisting that I cannot reciprocate.

Think about that for a while, then come back, apologize, and demand an end to Obamacare.

can you believe the nerve of that person?
like I said, scratch a liberal find a fascist FITS them

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And that makes sense because nobody has food allergies.

You allergy is the government's problem or responsibility?? It is the problem or the responsibility of the store or restaurant??

No.. it is up to you to ask, research, or whatever else.. not up to government to force others to give you the information up front, whether you need it, ask for it, or not

Yes, it is. It's the government's responsibility to prevent the PS from failing to disclose potentially life-saving information. I'm of the belief that a food allergy shouldn't restrict you from eating out and contributing to your local economy.

And, like it or not, social Darwinism isn't an applicable policy measure. People make mistakes, and we survive by helping each other out.

I know people with peanut allergies that managed to eat out before the government got involved. They did it by avoiding places that use peanut products, and we never once entered a restaurant that was unwilling to tell him up front if they used them. All the government regualtions accomplished was forcing me to know about it even though I know longer eat out with him.

Frankly, I don't care enough about food allergies to think it is worth the trouble it causes me. And, if someone is too stupid to ask, they don't deserve to live anyway, so it actually degrades the gene pool.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is a strange world we live in where people attack the idea of transparent food labeling.

Really, QW, maybe it is time to accept that Obama was re-elected. You get to vote again in a couple of years, and you can vote against the food labels if that is the key issue for you.

It is a strange world we live in when you think that me pointing out the absurd costs of stupid regulations means I am attacking something entirely different.Do you often get tickets because you confuse the Stop sign for something else?

Regulations cost money. Driving up the cost of a salad at the grocery store is not going to encourage people to eat healthy when they can go and get a bag of chips for less.

I'd be curious to know, statistically speaking, the percentage of welfare recipients (those who are on Medicaid and SNAP) who meet the criteria for being overweight or obese and who have other health risk factors.
Also, are members of this group generally less educated than those who are employed and have, currently, private health insurance.

The issue should be addressed with those who are at the highest risk for unhealthy behavior.

Begin with educating the poor about good health and start by restricting the foods they can purchase with SNAP dollars. Soda, chips, many frozen entrees should be banned from that program.
You want to micromanage people's eating habits, start with the ones getting the FREE STUFF.
And I don't want to hear about how unfair or Draconian that would be.
It's relative common knowledge that the higher income and education one has, the more likely that person will lead a healthy lifestyle.

Statically speaking, obesity actually reduces overall health care spending. That actually blows any argument for requiring this information as a basis of health care reform out of the water.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Against information??

I want you to be able to go get whatever information you want.. bug the hell out of people.. demand it of those you do business with... knock yourself out

But the government is not in existence to ensure your salad bar has caloric information, or that Oscar Meyer lists the name of the pig making your bologna, or that there are exactly 74 poppy seeds on your muffin

Fair enough. So you think the clerk behind the counter knows how everything is prepared?

So your position would be, "if they can't supply you with the information you want, don't buy their stuff. And the free market will determine what information is shared." Am I right?

I get that and I can appreciate your position if I have assessed it correctly.

But in looking back through American history, I've concluded that free market principles alone just haven't done a good enough job. I don't favor burdensome, senseless regulations. But this just makes sense to me.

Yes it does.

I monitor my caloric intake fairly closely and the calorie count in restaurant food affects the choices I make.

I don't see a problem with this rule given the obesity crisis this country is facing.

 

[Decus]

It's the margins that some chains operate at. If the cost to implement these new information requirements is accurate and I am taking the the article's statement at face value, then the possibility of closing a section of the store is a real possibility. To provide you with an example I know fairly well and that you might understand, in Europe hypermarkets generate a significant percentage of their revenues on listing fees - brands have to pay the stores a fee (not a small amount) to be on their shelves. With hypermarkets they also have to agree to a number of product promotions each year. On top of that, brands often have to agree to virtually break-even pricing because hypermarkets are ruthless negotiators and offer large volume sales to the brands.
.

I take your point, but the costs incurred by supermarkets will probably be infinitesimal. I can't imagine any business closing because of this.

I remember when VAT was introduced here, the wailing about businesses closing was hysterical for months. In reality, no businesses closed - they just adapted. The costs were not great at all.

Consumers should support this, and I imagine most do and will.

Do you ever read what someone answers to you? I never talked about stores closing. I said that if the costs for new signage mentioned in the article were as significant as those mentioned in the op's article, then there is "the possibility of closing a section of the store". I also said: "Add additional cost to the deli operation and it becomes a reason to discontinue the service." Again, I never mentioned that stores would have to be closed. See post 31. Why do you respond to arguments that were never made?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Against information??

I want you to be able to go get whatever information you want.. bug the hell out of people.. demand it of those you do business with... knock yourself out

But the government is not in existence to ensure your salad bar has caloric information, or that Oscar Meyer lists the name of the pig making your bologna, or that there are exactly 74 poppy seeds on your muffin

Fair enough. So you think the clerk behind the counter knows how everything is prepared?

So your position would be, "if they can't supply you with the information you want, don't buy their stuff. And the free market will determine what information is shared." Am I right?

I get that and I can appreciate your position if I have assessed it correctly.

But in looking back through American history, I've concluded that free market principles alone just haven't done a good enough job. I don't favor burdensome, senseless regulations. But this just makes sense to me.

Yes it does.

I monitor my caloric intake fairly closely and the calorie count in restaurant food affects the choices I make.

I don't see a problem with this rule given the obesity crisis this country is facing.

Then patronize places that give detailed information on everything, and stop patronizing places that do not! This is NOT complicated!

(Note: I believe Subway already does.)

 

[dblack]

I still think it's worth noting that these kinds of laws regulate customers as much, or more, than they regulate business. They're telling us that we can't buy food from someone unless they label it as ordered by the state??? Why shouldn't we be allowed to do that? Why does the state get to dictate that kind of decision?

 

[Blooper]

You allergy is the government's problem or responsibility?? It is the problem or the responsibility of the store or restaurant??

No.. it is up to you to ask, research, or whatever else.. not up to government to force others to give you the information up front, whether you need it, ask for it, or not

Yes, it is. It's the government's responsibility to prevent the PS from failing to disclose potentially life-saving information. I'm of the belief that a food allergy shouldn't restrict you from eating out and contributing to your local economy.

And, like it or not, social Darwinism isn't an applicable policy measure. People make mistakes, and we survive by helping each other out.

yeah ok, like they want to ban large soda cups?
so instead of buying one soda you just BUY TWO, but hey, all any two bit person elected knows what is best....
gawd help this country if this is what people believe

Stop creating straw men. I've never supported that bit of policy.

 

[MeBelle]

It is our business what other people eat because poor eating habits lead to health problems which cause higher health care costs which everyone pays for. When people think they are making a healthy choice by going to a salad bar, and when, in fact, it isn't a healthy choice, they should know about it. A salad bar meal can be higher in fat and starches than a Big Mac meal. People don't realize that.

Would this be the appropriate place to ask the question; should WE demand that food stamps only be used for HEALTHY food?
It is our business after all.

 

[dblack]

It is our business what other people eat because poor eating habits lead to health problems which cause higher health care costs which everyone pays for. When people think they are making a healthy choice by going to a salad bar, and when, in fact, it isn't a healthy choice, they should know about it. A salad bar meal can be higher in fat and starches than a Big Mac meal. People don't realize that.

Would this be the appropriate place to ask the question; should WE demand that food stamps only be used for HEALTHY food?
It is our business after all.

What's the point of a democracy if you can't force your idea of virtue and the good life on others?

 

[Esmeralda]

It is a strange world we live in when you think that me pointing out the absurd costs of stupid regulations means I am attacking something entirely different.Do you often get tickets because you confuse the Stop sign for something else?

Regulations cost money. Driving up the cost of a salad at the grocery store is not going to encourage people to eat healthy when they can go and get a bag of chips for less.

I'd be curious to know, statistically speaking, the percentage of welfare recipients (those who are on Medicaid and SNAP) who meet the criteria for being overweight or obese and who have other health risk factors.
Also, are members of this group generally less educated than those who are employed and have, currently, private health insurance.

The issue should be addressed with those who are at the highest risk for unhealthy behavior.

Begin with educating the poor about good health and start by restricting the foods they can purchase with SNAP dollars. Soda, chips, many frozen entrees should be banned from that program.
You want to micromanage people's eating habits, start with the ones getting the FREE STUFF.
And I don't want to hear about how unfair or Draconian that would be.
It's relative common knowledge that the higher income and education one has, the more likely that person will lead a healthy lifestyle.

Statically speaking, obesity actually reduces overall health care spending. That actually blows any argument for requiring this information as a basis of health care reform out of the water.

Obesity does not "reduce overall health care spending." Where did you get that 'fact'? Please cite the source.

Obesity is one of the major causes of health problems in the US. It is directly related to diabetes, stroke, and heart disease. It is also related to arthritis and other joint problems, and many other problems.

"If you are obese and have unhealthy eating or activity habits, you have a higher risk for gallstones, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and triglycerides, coronary artery disease (CAD), a stroke, and sleep apnea, among other conditions." Obesity-Health Risks of Obesity

 

[DiamondDave]

And that makes sense because nobody has food allergies.

You allergy is the government's problem or responsibility?? It is the problem or the responsibility of the store or restaurant??

No.. it is up to you to ask, research, or whatever else.. not up to government to force others to give you the information up front, whether you need it, ask for it, or not

Yes, it is. It's the government's responsibility to prevent the PS from failing to disclose potentially life-saving information. I'm of the belief that a food allergy shouldn't restrict you from eating out and contributing to your local economy.

And, like it or not, social Darwinism isn't an applicable policy measure. People make mistakes, and we survive by helping each other out.

No.. it is not... it is up to you to understand what you are putting in your body... YOU have the responsibility to ask.. and if they don't know, YOU have the responsibility to do the right thing and NOT FUCKING EAT IT..

Do I think it is a good move for a restaurant to provide ingredients when asked?? Yep.. and I am one with a pretty damn weird food allergy... But there is no way that this is government's job.... it is goddamn stupid nanny-staters who suddenly think government is there for every last part of your life.. taking total responsibility.. well, sorry, the government was not set up that way and should not be that way

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Fair enough. So you think the clerk behind the counter knows how everything is prepared?

So your position would be, "if they can't supply you with the information you want, don't buy their stuff. And the free market will determine what information is shared." Am I right?

I get that and I can appreciate your position if I have assessed it correctly.

But in looking back through American history, I've concluded that free market principles alone just haven't done a good enough job. I don't favor burdensome, senseless regulations. But this just makes sense to me.

Yes it does.

I monitor my caloric intake fairly closely and the calorie count in restaurant food affects the choices I make.

I don't see a problem with this rule given the obesity crisis this country is facing.

Then patronize places that give detailed information on everything, and stop patronizing places that do not! This is NOT complicated!

(Note: I believe Subway already does.)

Note: Subway's menus will not pass muster under the proposed Obamacare regulations.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'd be curious to know, statistically speaking, the percentage of welfare recipients (those who are on Medicaid and SNAP) who meet the criteria for being overweight or obese and who have other health risk factors.
Also, are members of this group generally less educated than those who are employed and have, currently, private health insurance.

The issue should be addressed with those who are at the highest risk for unhealthy behavior.

Begin with educating the poor about good health and start by restricting the foods they can purchase with SNAP dollars. Soda, chips, many frozen entrees should be banned from that program.
You want to micromanage people's eating habits, start with the ones getting the FREE STUFF.
And I don't want to hear about how unfair or Draconian that would be.
It's relative common knowledge that the higher income and education one has, the more likely that person will lead a healthy lifestyle.

Statically speaking, obesity actually reduces overall health care spending. That actually blows any argument for requiring this information as a basis of health care reform out of the water.

Obesity does not "reduce overall health care spending." Where did you get that 'fact'? Please cite the source.

Obesity is one of the major causes of health problems in the US. It is directly related to diabetes, stroke, and heart disease. It is also related to arthritis and other joint problems, and many other problems.

"If you are obese and have unhealthy eating or activity habits, you have a higher risk for gallstones, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and triglycerides, coronary artery disease (CAD), a stroke, and sleep apnea, among other conditions." Obesity-Health Risks of Obesity

I talk about the statistical impact of obesity on total health care spending, and you reply with an article about how obesity negatively impacts an individuals health.

They are tow separate, and unequal, things.

How reducing obesity would affect both total (rather than per capita) spending for health care and the federal budget over time is less clear. To the extent that people, on average, lived longer because fewer individuals were obese, savings from lower per capita spending would be at least partially offset by additional expenditures for health care during those added years of life. Moreover, the impact on the federal budget would include not only changes in federal spending on health care but also changes in tax revenues and in spending for retirement programs such as Social Security, for which costs are directly tied to longevity. As a result, the net impact of reductions in obesity rates on national health care expenditures and on federal budget deficits would depend on the magnitude of those various effects. This brief does not address the changes in longevity that might arise from a changing weight distribution or the potential impact of such changes on total health care expenditures.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/21772

 

[Esmeralda]

You see people, liberals want in all of your business until it come to ABORTIONS
scratch a liberal find a FASCIST

How many right wing anti abortion people are ready to pay the taxes for raising unwanted children in the foster care or welfare system or for the special education classes they need because they grow up in abusive homes or for the legal system costs when they break the law or go to prison? The irony is that you are the fascists. How many of you are willing to pay the higher insurance costs and higher taxes for health care when people who abuse their bodies need health care? You can't have it both ways.

The irony is you insist you have a right to dictate to me what I do with my body while insisting that I cannot reciprocate.

Think about that for a while, then come back, apologize, and demand an end to Obamacare.

This is a chronic type of response from the right (whether you call yourself a Republican or not, your rhetoric is right wing extremism): constantly using hyperbole and over simplification. And, as well, turning everything into a blame Obama fest.

Just as no one is proposing 'taking away our guns,' no one is "dictating" to you what you do with your body. Putting informative labels on foods is not dictacting anything; it is informing. No one will be forced to read the labels. No one will be forced to choose only certain products from the salad bar.

 

[lukelk]

Apparently our benevolent, all knowing, father is not satisfied with driving up the cost of health care, so he has passed down the word that we need to drive up the price of the salad bar in the grocery store.

If the Food and Drug Administration gets its way, your trip to the grocery store could get a tad pricier.
Supermarket owners argue a pending federal food-labeling rule that stems from the new health care law would overburden thousands of grocers and convenience store owners -- to the tune of $1 billion in the first year alone.
Store owner Tom Heinen said the industry's profit margins already are razor thin. "When you incur a significant cost, there is no way that that doesn't get passed on to the customer in some form," he said.
The rule stems from an ObamaCare mandate that restaurants provide nutrition information on menus. Most in the restaurant industry were supportive of the idea, but when the FDA decided to extend the provision to also affect thousands of supermarkets and convenience stores, the backlash was swift.
The proposed regulation would require store owners to label prepared, unpackaged foods found in salad bars and food bars, soups and bakery items. Erik Lieberman, regulatory counsel at the Food Marketing Institute, said testing foods for nutritional data will require either expensive software or even more costly off-site laboratory assessments.

Supermarkets cry foul as FDA proposes new food labeling rule under ObamaCare | Fox News
​

God I thank you for this bubble cons live in, thank you.

 

[Esmeralda]

Statically speaking, obesity actually reduces overall health care spending. That actually blows any argument for requiring this information as a basis of health care reform out of the water.

Obesity does not "reduce overall health care spending." Where did you get that 'fact'? Please cite the source.

Obesity is one of the major causes of health problems in the US. It is directly related to diabetes, stroke, and heart disease. It is also related to arthritis and other joint problems, and many other problems.

"If you are obese and have unhealthy eating or activity habits, you have a higher risk for gallstones, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and triglycerides, coronary artery disease (CAD), a stroke, and sleep apnea, among other conditions." Obesity-Health Risks of Obesity

I talk about the statistical impact of obesity on total health care spending, and you reply with an article about how obesity negatively impacts an individuals health.

They are tow separate, and unequal, things.

LOL No they are not two separate things at all! If people have health problems, such as stroke, diabetes, heart disease, heart attack, joint problems, arthritis, etc., they are going to need medical care, which, obviously, will impact total healthh care spending. Obesity can also lead to liver failure, which means more liver transplants. Obesity leads to more liver disease than alcohol. How much more obvious does it get?

http://calorielab.com/news/2008/11/22/fatty-liver-obesity/