17
   

Mayor Bloomberg proposes super-sized soda ban

 
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 03:39 pm
@BillRM,
Are you even aware there is a public health problem with obesity? And that this affects health care and insurance costs, as well as government expenditures for health care? It's an economic issue, as well as a health issue.

You seemingly fail to understand that the obesity-related health and medical problems, which result in more needed medical care, medications, and hospitalizations, for those affected, winds up increasing the health care costs and premium costs for everyone--regardless of whether they have private or public insurance. And we all wind up paying for the uninsured in that group as well.

You didn't answer tsar's question.
Quote:
Would you agree to forcing morbidly obese individuals and/or life long smokers to be exempt/disallowed from Medicaid/Medicare in order to make health insurance more affordable?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 04:13 pm
@firefly,
So once more the state should have the power to interfere with adult’s choices if they can make any kind of case that it needed to reduce health care cost!!!!

One hell of a lot of the private life of adults can be control under that theory.

Now why stop at 16 oz drinks as the state should be able to control our complete diet under the theory that we need to get our average weight down. Whole foods could be ban as bad for us such as pizzas and no whole milk unless you can get a doctor order for it.

Next let fight the overweight problem by having all elevators in high-rises only serve every ten floors in high rises.

Get people climbing those steps.

Let do away with parking spaces within a 100 feet of stores in shopping centers so people will need to walk further.

Subways stops let shut down two third of them so once more people will need to walk further and burn off that fat.

How about a city sire charge on the city income tax if your body weight is on the high end.

Somehow the government should not be allow to get into our personal decisions even if they might cause our health care cost to go up.


BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 04:21 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Would you agree to forcing morbidly obese individuals and/or life long smokers to be exempt/disallowed from Medicaid/Medicare in order to make health insurance more affordable?


Hell no anymore then I should had been stop from sky diving as a hobbly as a young man.

Next the government is already taxing the hell out of cigarettes that would likely cover the cost of smokers health care.

Second as smokers and overwieght people tend to die decades younger then others I am not sure that they might not be saving us money instead of costing us money.

After all people who drop dead of a heart attack at 50 is not going to be running up large bills as elderly citizens.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 04:34 pm
@firefly,
By the way Firefly if you wish to condemn people who life style you do not approve of to death due to allowing no medical care why stop at the overweight and the smokers?

People who been out in the sun too must as young people should not have treatments for skin cancer for example.

Women who had ruin their health by being too thin should not have medical treatment just as the overweight.

An so on..........



0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 05:06 pm
Next question to you Firefly why do you care about the cost to the society of medical care for the overweight or smokers when you are happy when someone get thirty years in prison for crimes that would get no such time in any other country in the world at a cost of around 40,000 a year?

Billions and trillions to lock people up but we can not afford health care for the over weight or the smokers?

Of course is all about having the society having control over it citizens both those who had been convicted of a crime and now those who are guilty of the 'crime' of being overweight.

firefly
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 05:19 pm
@BillRM,
Why are you addressing your posts to me, and not to tsar? He's the one who raised certain issues with you, including the issue of smokers.

And you still didn't answer tsar's question.

And you still show no awareness of the fact that widespread public health problems, like obesity, create economic problems, for both the government and individual citizens, by increasing the demand for needed medical treatments and hospitalizations, which results in higher expenditures by both the government and private insurers. to cover those costs, and those increases wind up being passed along to, and affecting, everyone.
Quote:
So once more the state should have the power to interfere with adult’s choices if they can make any kind of case that it needed to reduce health care cost!!!!

Stop being so hysterical.

The state isn't interfering with anyone's choices. That's a red herring. People will still be able to guzzle as much soda, or other sugary drink, as they wish--even in restaurants, theaters, stadiums, etc. Someone who craves 32 oz of soda can get two 16 oz size glasses, or three, or four, 16 oz glasses. The ban just limits the maximum serving size of a single portion to 16 oz.

This ban really isn't aimed directly at the consumer, the patron in a restaurant or theater, it's aimed at the seller, with regard to portion size-- and with good reason. It's the sellers of these beverages who have manipulated, and distorted, the public perception of portion size over a period of decades. Where a serving of coke in a glass used to be 8 ozs, it gradually became 12 oz, and then 16 oz, just for the small size. A "medium" became 24 oz and a "large" a whopping 32 oz. Naturally, doing that increased the amount of soda sold, and it allowed more to be charged, and more profits to be made. But it also insidiously altered public perception of portion size, and what constitutes a small, medium, or large portion--all in the direction of considerably larger amounts, as a marketing strategy.

And portion size, in general, is a major contributory factor in obesity. Our notion of a "portion" has grown considerably--and, consequently, so have American waistlines.

So I feel this ban is aimed exactly at the right group--the sellers who have manipulated and distorted the portion sizes of sugary beverages--so they're not going to be allowed to continue pushing mega-sized servings on the public. They can still sell as much as they want, and the public can still drink as much as they want, the only thing affected is the portion size of each serving by limiting it to 16 oz.

Hopefully, when the public is no longer accustomed to being offered mega-sized drinks, they may become aware that a smaller size can be just as satisfying, or, if they have to order more than one, to get a larger amount, that will heighten their awareness of intake. But everyone is still free to buy and drink as much as they want.

The success of Bloomberg's other initiatives, such as the ban on trans-fats in foods, led to nationwide changes which removed these harmful substances from foods--something individual consumers could not accomplish for themselves without government intervention--and removing the trans-fats did not affect the test or appeal of the food, it just made it a little healthier. It is hard to fault Bloomberg for doing something that positive in terms of public heath.

And while this soft drink "ban" might make only a tiny dent in the obesity problem, a tiny dent is better than nothing. It's also raised awareness of the enormous amounts of sugar in those mega-sized drinks, and that's all for the good as well.

You obviously have as little concern for public health as you do for public safety on the roads. Some of us actually see ourselves as connected to the larger society, you don't seem to feel that way.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 05:25 pm
@BillRM,
Tell you what Firefly as you are talking about allowing the overweight to die due to us not being able to afford the cost of health care for them as we spend 300 billions a year to keep 2.5 millions citizens in prison if we released half of them we would free up 150 billions a years to take care of the oeverweight and we still have five times the number of our citizens under lock and key as the UK does.

Not only that but we would not need to released one person convicted of a violence crime.

Seem a win win to me...................

BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 05:29 pm
@firefly,
The ban is aim as the first small step to be able to get the idea accepted that the government can interfere with adults free choices with the excuse it will cut public health care cost.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 05:38 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Tell you what Firefly as you are talking about allowing the overweight to die due to us not being able to afford the cost of health care for them..

Where did I say that--or even infer it? Could you please quote me.

You seem totally out of contact with reality, judging by the comments you are attributing to me.
Quote:
The ban is aim as the first small step to be able to get the idea accepted that the government can interfere with adults free choices

Now you are paranoid as well as hysterical.

The "ban" isn't interfering with anyone's choice of what to drink, and people will still be able to guzzle as much soda, and other sugary drinks, as they wish. So, what's your beef?

Try dealing with reality, BillRM, the reality of what I do say in my posts, and the reality of what I don't say--instead of making things up and attributing them to me. And try dealing with the reality of this soft drink "ban"--instead of your paranoid fantasies about it.




tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 05:40 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Next the government is already taxing the hell out of cigarettes that would likely cover the cost of smokers health care.


I bet you pulled this thought out of your ass. Source this alleged fact please.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 05:45 pm
@firefly,
Sorry dear but you was the one who wishes me to answer the question concerning the idea of denialing health care to smokers and the overweight on the public dime.

Yes, I know you did not bring it up first but you did wished me to reply to the silly idea and post such a request for me to do so.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 05:47 pm
@tsarstepan,
I
Quote:
bet you pulled this thought out of your ass. Source this alleged fact please.


That government at all levels are taxing the hell out of smokes that raised many many billions a year is that what you are questioning?

Not to mention the deal the states reach with the tobacco companies that was suppose to cover the states health care cost due to smoking.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 05:55 pm
@tsarstepan,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/19/nyregion/19tax.html

Cigarette taxes in New York would jump by $1.60 a pack under a tentative deal reached between Gov. David A. Paterson and legislative leaders, which would give New York the nation’s highest state cigarette taxes.

The proposal, which officials said Mr. Paterson would include in an emergency budget bill due for a vote on Monday, would also raise wholesale taxes on other tobacco products like chewing tobacco, bringing the tax on those products closer in line with those of cigarettes.

In New York City, which levies steep taxes of its own on tobacco products, a pack of cigarettes would come with a tax of $5.85, making it the nation’s first city to break $5, antismoking advocates said. That would bring the overall cost of a pack of premium cigarettes above $10 in many stores in the city.

The legislation will also include a plan to begin collecting taxes on cigarettes sold off the reservation by Indian tribes in New York, an issue that has provoked confrontations between State Police officers and protesting tribe members in years past.

The proposal would generate $440 million in revenue this year, helping close a state budget gap estimated at over $9 billion. But it is unclear whether there are enough votes to approve the plan in the State Senate, where Republicans have threatened to vote against any emergency budget bill that includes tax increases and some Democrats oppose efforts to collect taxes on cigarettes sold by the tribes
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 06:00 pm
@tsarstepan,
Not a US citizens is that why you do not know of the states and tobacco companies deal to cover the states health care costs due to smoking?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement

Tobacco Master Settlement AgreementFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search

The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) was entered in November 1998, originally between the four largest United States tobacco companies (Philip Morris Inc., R. J. Reynolds, Brown & Williamson and Lorillard – the original participating manufacturers) and the attorney general of 46 states. The states settled their Medicaid lawsuits against the tobacco industry for recovery of their tobacco-related health-care costs, and also exempted the companies from private tort liability regarding harm caused by tobacco use.[1]:25 In exchange, the companies agreed to curtail or cease certain tobacco marketing practices, as well as to pay, in perpetuity, various annual payments to the states to compensate them for some of the medical costs of caring for persons with smoking-related illnesses. The money also funds a new anti-smoking advocacy group, called the American Legacy Foundation, that is responsible for such campaigns as The Truth. The settlement also dissolved the tobacco industry groups Tobacco Institute, the Center for Indoor Air Research, and the Council for Tobacco Research. In the MSA, the original participating manufacturers (OPM) agreed to pay a minimum of $206 billion over the first twenty-five years of the agreement.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 06:01 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Sorry dear but you was the one who wishes me to answer the question concerning the idea of denialing health care to smokers and the overweight on the public dime.

Obviously, the person who asked you the question was the one who wanted you to answer it--that was tsar. I just reminded you that you hadn't answered him.

You still haven't answered him.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 06:04 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Obviously, the person who asked you the question was the one who wanted you to answer it--that was tsar. I just reminded you that you hadn't answered him.


A good and dishonest Firefly try.....and to make you happy I surely did answer that question in detail as a matter of fact.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 06:13 pm
@BillRM,
Nothing in this two year old article you posted, about raising cigarette taxes in New York, says anything about the increased tax revenue going to cover the cost of smoker's health care in New York State.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/19/nyregion/19tax.html

The tax increase on cigarettes in NY was just a way to raise revenue to cover the budget gap in the state budget. And that's why they also went after the Native American tribes who were selling cigarettes without a tax stamp in NYS.

I don't think you provided tsar with a valid link to back up your claim that the increased tax on cigarettes was a way to cover the increased health costs incurred by smokers.
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 06:19 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
A good and dishonest Firefly try.....and to make you happy I surely did answer that question in detail as a matter of fact.

Nothing dishonest about it, I'm not the one who asked you the question, tsar did. Again, you seem out of touch with reality.

And this was tsar's question, in case you've forgotten it.
Quote:
Would you agree to forcing morbidly obese individuals and/or life long smokers to be exempt/disallowed from Medicaid/Medicare in order to make health insurance more affordable?

And, if you did answer it, in detail yet, I can't seem to find your answer. Which post was it in?
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 06:33 pm
Riffing, as is my way, somewhat tangentially to the soda ban hazarai - what is going on about large glasses? I just get tap water with lemon in restaurants, but it is always served in a giganto glass I've little interest in holding, that also takes up a lot of visible table space. Taking a sip or a gulp of it is sort of like moving an unwieldy boat around the table. Around here, I don't think our lower end establishments even stock ordinary (sic) smaller glasses or paper cups.

Aesthetics and wieldability aside, is this all about servers having to refill less often?

(I could whine about the lemon thing too - what is with the divided slice? that is very hard to get juice out of).

Maybe I'll start asking for a cup of water. Do they make cups anymore?


edit - I already said I'm not comfortable with the ban. I'm just missing ordinary glasses, soon to be collectors' items.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 06:48 pm
@firefly,
Dear heart the money is there and if the state wish to used the cash flow for other things that their business however smokers sure the hell pay more then enough taxes to cover their health care cost to say nothing of the 200 billions plus settlements the states and the tobacco firms reach to cover the same cost.
0 Replies
 
 

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 0.05 seconds on 01/18/2022 at 02:08:01