17
   

Mayor Bloomberg proposes super-sized soda ban

 
 
BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2012 09:25 am
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
As long as we are to be a society that isn't going to just let the poor and sick just die off we will bear some of the costs of everyone's healthcare choices


So it anyone does anything that might increase their use to health care then it is the business of the whole society to interfere with their choices in life?

By the logic there is no repeat no aspect of life that the government would not be free to interfere with.

Let see the time you spend in the sun as there is a cost for the treatment of skin cancer, you take part in sports where you can get broken bones we need to interfere with those sports activity on your part, you have 'too' many sexual partners and we hear that you do not use protection so we will need to get you on a drug to reduce your sex drive as that is far cheaper then treating hiv for example.

The kind of big nanny society would be far more awful to live under then any run of the mill third world dictatorship in my opinion.
tsarstepan
 
  3  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2012 10:38 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

At the same time, the libertarian in me doesn't like banning the sizes. Instead, what I prefer is a junk calorie tax, that goes toward supporting the societal cost* of the health problems they contribute towards.

*As long as we are to be a society that isn't going to just let the poor and sick just die off we will bear some of the costs of everyone's healthcare choices. Instead of prohibiting people from hurting themselves, however, I favor taxing the problematic behavior to cover the societal cost. It also has the additional benefit of raising the cost of destructive behavior and making it a bit less economically attractive. While I am also wary of "sin taxes" I think on soda we have it ass-backwards, subsidizing cheap corn syrup that has enormous impact to the nation's health, helping pay for it with public money.

I totally agree with this approach over the actual ban. It'd be far more easy to administer and enforce then this ban which like I said elsewhere has TOO MANY loopholes to get around the ban. The sin tax plus actual education on the subject of sugar, sugar consumption, moderation, and healthy diet should be taught in the schools would make a much more effective campaign against the obesity epidemic.
tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2012 10:44 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

The kind of big nanny society would be far more awful to live under then any run of the mill third world dictatorship in my opinion.

This is freaking goofy hyperbole at its worst. Then you know what to do. Seriously consider moving to Haiti, Somalia, or the Sudan. Bring lots of guns and a good deal of money and you'll live like a king. Beware of kidnapping rings because the non-interfering/almost nonexistent governments (pure libertarian fetish governments) there WON'T do anything to help you.
firefly
 
  4  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2012 11:04 am
@tsarstepan,
I agree with a "sin tax" on sugary drinks as well, rather than trying to control the vendors with a size ban. And that was Bloomberg's preference also--he and David Paterson, while he was governor, tried to get that through the NYS legislation but they hit too much political opposition. And the soda industry is seemingly prepared to spend almost limitless amounts to fight that sort of thing.

This article was also in the NYT.
http://bittman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/a-cardiologist-makes-the-case-for-taxing-soda/
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2012 11:19 am
@tsarstepan,
Sure if you think that having every damn aspect of how you live you life under the control of the government using the excuse that it to reduce health costs would not make a third dictatorship look like a walk in the park you are crazy

Third world dictatorships are too poor to make a good job of controlling it citizens compare to first world nations.

An all that control would be for your own damn good also...........

To repeat there is no logical end point once you decide that you need to control your citizens for health care cost reasons until no aspect of a person life that would not be under the control of the government if we start down that road.
tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2012 11:35 am
@BillRM,
Once AGAIN (!), I believe government exists for a reason. I'm happy living where I live. I didn't vote for Bloomberg but I do like and appreciate much of his policies.

Thusly, I will remain living in NYC indefinitely and do so happily. You can live in your Unibomber style dream shack in the backwoods of East Marryyoursisterandpaynotaxes, Montana if you so choose. Your very primitive/very conservative ideals don't appeal to me and aren't very convincing.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2012 12:18 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
So it anyone does anything that might increase their use to health care then it is the business of the whole society to interfere with their choices in life?


No, just to send them the bill, when appropriate.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2012 12:29 pm
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:

BillRM wrote:

The kind of big nanny society would be far more awful to live under then any run of the mill third world dictatorship in my opinion.

This is freaking goofy hyperbole at its worst. Then you know what to do. Seriously consider moving to Haiti, Somalia, or the Sudan. Bring lots of guns and a good deal of money and you'll live like a king. Beware of kidnapping rings because the non-interfering/almost nonexistent governments (pure libertarian fetish governments) there WON'T do anything to help you.


AND kidnap insurance is nearly impossible to get in places like that - and where you can buy it, it is wildly expensive
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  5  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2012 12:31 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
To repeat there is no logical end point once you decide that you need to control your citizens for health care cost reasons until no aspect of a person life that would not be under the control of the government if we start down that road.


Fallacy: Slippery Slope.
BillRM
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2012 03:51 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
Fallacy: Slippery Slope.


Not at all name me one logical stopping point once we grant the government power to begin to control our personal behaviors such as our diet for health cost reasons.

PS I am cover by private insurance so can I have a large soda if I care to or does this health care cost argument also cover private insurance holders?
hawkeye10
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2012 03:59 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Fallacy: Slippery Slope.


Not at all name me one logical stopping point once we grant the government power to begin to control our personal behaviors such as our diet for health cost reasons.

PS I am cover by private insurance so can I have a large soda if I care to or does this health care cost argument also cover private insurance holders?

The woman who grants her man explicit rights to determine for her what she drinks is going to be hard pressed to find a good argument to use against him when he decides that he should be able tell her how to **** too....
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2012 11:08 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
New York (CNN) -- New York City's Board of Health did not have the authority to approve a ban on certain sales of sugar-sweetened beverages larger than 16 ounces, according to a lawsuit filed Friday by a group of business owners and workers.
The suit from the American Beverage Association and other business and trade associations states that the city's unelected Board of Health overstepped its power when it voted for the ban to be implemented.
"This board has the authority to enforce policy, not the authority to enact it," said Caroline Starke, a spokeswoman for the plaintiffs. "That power is reserved for the City Council."
The lawsuit also claims that "the regulation is arbitrary and capricious," is filled with irrational exclusions and loopholes, and harms thousands of small businesses in the city.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/us/new-york-sugary-drinks/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

still have yet to find a legal expert who thinks this will work, though I certainly dont think that NY leaders should be allowed to subcontract out lawmaking to unelected groups....NYC can ban serving sizes through standard law making but maybe the board of health can not.

I believe that our wise man BillRM has previously claimed as much. It will be interesting to see if he is proven correct again.
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jan, 2013 11:36 am
Take this ad campaign with a HUGE grain of salt!
Here Is Coca-Cola’s First Anti-Obesity Ad, ‘Coming Together’
http://newyork.grubstreet.com/2013/01/coca-cola-anti-obesity-ad.html?mid=facebook_nymag
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2013 12:27 am
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:

Take this ad campaign with a HUGE grain of salt!
Here Is Coca-Cola’s First Anti-Obesity Ad, ‘Coming Together’
http://newyork.grubstreet.com/2013/01/coca-cola-anti-obesity-ad.html?mid=facebook_nymag


coke will get no goodwill from this....it is thus a bad idea. the intent is to sell you that you can still drink their stuff if you want to be healthy, the result however is to project the image of appeasement, aka weakness.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2013 09:04 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
the intent is to sell you that you can still drink their stuff if you want to be healthy, the result however is to project the image of appeasement, aka weakness.

They have no choice but to try appeasement in the face of declining sales to consumers, moves to try to impose soda taxes, or Bloomberg's initiative to limit serving sizes, as well as the mounting evidence that the types of calories from sugary soda drinks are making a unique contribution to the obesity epidemic.

But, it's not just a matter of the "image of appeasement" being a bad idea, it's also a very deceptive marketing campaign. Being downplayed is the entire idea that their product might be unhealthy or harmful. It's not just that "all calories count" so people should exercise more, or opt for their newer smaller sized cans, it's also that some types of calories have more negative effects than others, including those in the products they are still urging people to drink.

They are certainly taking a risk with this ad campaign, by linking their products to obesity, and they are trying to minimize that risk by claiming they are helping to promote a solution, and it remains to be seen whether the public will buy this damage-control PR. So far, the critics of these sugary-drinks aren't buying it, based on their immediate responses after seeing the ad.
Quote:
“They are clearly running scared and for good reason,” said Harold Goldstein, executive director of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, which led the charge to get sugary sodas out of schools.

Dr. Goldstein said that if Coke really wanted to do something to reduce consumption of sugary sodas, it would sell them for a higher price than its other low- and no-calorie beverages. “Instead of spending millions on a P.R. campaign that will do nothing to combat obesity, diabetes and tooth decay, they would reap profits and change the beverage consumption of Americans in a big and beneficial way,” he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/business/media/coke-tv-ads-confront-obesity-and-sodas-role.html


BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2013 09:09 am
@firefly,
Quote:
being a bad idea, it's also a very deceptive marketing campaign. Being downplayed is the entire idea that their product might be unhealthy or harmful


Almost anything is harmful including water if consume in too large amounts too often.

Having a coke every now and then is not harmful in any way or in any manner even if drinking enough that it is a large fraction of your total fluid intake is.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2013 09:41 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
Having a coke every now and then...

But that's the one thing that they're not urging in their ad that allegedly purports to be about their corporate commitment to healthy lifestyles and obesity reduction. They aren't suggesting that people significantly limit how often they consume their sugary sodas, or even their artificially sweetened ones--as well as limiting the serving size when they do have them. And that's part of what makes this damage-control ad quite deceptive. They really aren't part of a commitment to promoting public health or to reducing the problems with obesity or diabetes, as their PR implies. Making smaller can sizes available, and telling people to exercise more, isn't much of a commitment at all.

tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2013 05:17 pm
@firefly,
Someone took the video of the new and allegedly responsible Coke and placed their own much more honest message:
Watch the ‘Honest’ Version of Coca Cola’s Anti-Obesity Commercial
http://newyork.grubstreet.com/2013/01/honest-coca-cola-anti-obesity-ad.html?mid=grubstreet--20130117
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2013 08:14 pm
@tsarstepan,
I love it. Laughing
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2013 12:41 am
@firefly,
Quote:
So far, the critics of these sugary-drinks aren't buying it, based on their immediate responses after seeing the ad.

the critics were never going to buy Coke.
 

Related Topics

Immortality and Doctor Volkov - Discussion by edgarblythe
Sleep Paralysis - Discussion by Nick Ashley
On the edge and toppling off.... - Discussion by Izzie
Surgery--Again - Discussion by Roberta
PTSD, is it caused by a blow to the head? - Question by Rickoshay75
THE GIRL IS ILL - Discussion by Setanta
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/23/2022 at 11:53:47