Soda Ban May Hit the Big Apple 1141
An anonymous reader writes "NYC residents may soon be unable to buy big gulps. In an effort to curb obesity, New York City's Mayor Bloomberg is seeking a ban on oversized sodas in restaurants, movie theaters and stadiums officials said on Wednesday. 'Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the U.S., public health officials are wringing their hands saying, "Oh, this is terrible,"' Mayor Bloomberg said. 'New York City is not about wringing your hands; it's about doing something. I think that's what the public wants the mayor to do.'"
Get a refill.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems like a pretty redundant ban to me. Most places offer free refills on soda...
Yet another reason.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been seeing reports that over the past few years, there's been an exodus of quite a number of people leaving NY for other states to get away from the high taxation there....many going to states with no state income taxes, or estate taxes (like FL).
Now the state is trying to tell you wtf you can drink or eat? Sheesh.
Are people so fucking stupid now...they cannot fathom that behavior such as drinking a ton of sugared beverage a day....to wash down nothing but greasy, fat laden burgers...will make them fat? Even if it is the case....why is it the govts responsibility to protect stupid people from their own stupid actions?
Seems like we're trying to circumvent natural selection.....let these people take themselves out of the gene pool....and maybe we'll have fewer stupid people in a couple of generations?
I've honestly started to wonder, with all the problems we're seeing in modern kids, autism on the rise...so many of them with food allergies (I never heard of anyone almost dying from PB&J sandwiches at school when I grew up, and we ALL ate them)...etc.
Maybe we ARE doing too much to protect weak genes in the pool....that might have weeded themselves out in the past....and allowing them to continue to proliferate?
Re:Yet another reason.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Watch the movie Idiocracy [imdb.com]. It's coming, and I don't know if there's anything we can do about it. I'll paraphrase something that I once read (can't come up with a cite, sorry): "I say we take the safety labels off of everything and let nature work itself out."
Re:Yet another reason.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying that people in the past didn't face nuanced or complicated issues, but it seems nowadays that we have a culture wherein it's not cool to be smart, and would you please shut up, SportsCenter is on [youtube.com].
Re:Yet another reason.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems like we're trying to circumvent natural selection.....let these people take themselves out of the gene pool....and maybe we'll have fewer stupid people in a couple of generations?
If only it worked like that. Unfortunately, the dumber they get the more they breed. And they always do so before the heart attack or cancer gets them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you quit giving them medical care, checks for their children, welfare, food stamps we would be better off.
I am not saying that we make them starve. But how about we go back to big colorful fake money looking food stamps.
That way there would be a bit of stigma attached. More incentive to get a fucking job.
Re:WE would be nothing of the sort... (Score:4, Insightful)
We never had any uprisings back then....why would we have them now? Back in the day...no one owed you anything, not even the government, and we got along just fine. Most people, took this as incentive to work their asses off to survive...and even to succeed. Why should it be any different now?
I mean, I'll go for a little modernization...if you're infirmed or old, and just can NOT work, ok...safety net there.
But if you are able bodied at all....well, you must work, and if you fucked up, and had too many kids....well, you need to figure something out. Maybe after awhile with the govt NOT coming to give everyone welfare, etc....and it might take a generation for this lesson to sink in....but after awhile, these idiots might just figure out they need to quit having unprotected sex, having kids...because no one is going to pay them to stay at home, watch tv and breed even more. Let's end this vicious cycle of poverty and dependence which just feeds upon itself and breeds generations that know nothing MORE than the welfare system.
Would it be tough? Sure...but, you have to start some where. We in the US weren't like this originally....we need to go back to that.
And for those that refuse to work and make their own livings...well, lets also turn the clock back, and stop locking people up for ingesting whatever chemical they want for recreation. That would free up TONS of jail space for those few that refuse to learn a lesson and attempt to use crime as a means to earn a living.
Re:WE would be nothing of the sort... (Score:5, Informative)
We never had any uprisings back then....
Seriously? Are you just completely ignorant of US labor history?
Re:Yet another reason.... (Score:5, Funny)
Yup, that little boy that bangs his head on the wall for fun, He will breed at least 2-3 spawn before the 100+IQ person even get's laid once.
The stupid are outbreeding the smart 5 to 1.
Re:Yet another reason.... (Score:5, Funny)
since evolution doesn't exist... i blame god
Re: (Score:3)
...for people to leave NY.
I've been seeing reports that over the past few years, there's been an exodus of quite a number of people leaving NY for other states to get away from the high taxation there....many going to states with no state income taxes, or estate taxes (like FL).
Now the state is trying to tell you wtf you can drink or eat? Sheesh.
Do you not know the difference between New York City and the state of New York?
Re:Yet another reason.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Having lived in the state, it's pretty clear that even people in the City can't tell the difference. I am convinced that they believe that Albany is actually somewhere in Manhattan... in a slightly less prestigious neighborhood than City Hall.
State != state (Score:3)
Do you not know the difference between New York City and the state of New York?
Yes, and I also know the difference between a state [wikipedia.org], meaning a first-level political subdivision, and a state [wikipedia.org], meaning the entity with a monopoly on violence.
Re: (Score:3)
I've been seeing reports that over the past few years, there's been an exodus of quite a number of people leaving NY
Yeah, the Onion [theonion.com] had an interesting article about the mass exodus from New York City just a couple of weeks before I moved to it.
Re:Yet another reason.... (Score:5, Interesting)
"why is it the govts responsibility to protect stupid people from their own stupid actions?" ... who do you think paid for this?
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-10/news/31320495_1_fire-department-rescue-crews-hazmat [nydailynews.com]
"It took the combined efforts of police, fire department, Hazmat unit and EMTs to finally get a 600-pound man in need of medical attention out of his Pennsylvania home." our tax dollars pay for EMS. Fire, Police and Hazmat (WTF hazmat)... it's not like this was a 20 minute call either. they had to CUT THE HOUSE AWAY to get the kid out.
600 lbs.. I weigh 160. Imagine having me wrapped around your gut almost 4 times over.
Re:Yet another reason.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Make the man pay the cost of the firefighters' bill.
Re:Yet another reason.... (Score:4, Funny)
Well, if they'd waited a bit longer, for him to kill himself....waited till he died, they could have just cut him up and take him out in pieces....made it a ONE time job...and much easier on everyone.
Re:Yet another reason.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Mod this guy up. It is ridiculous that the most sanguine point I have seen yet is being modded as flamebait. Perhaps /. is so addicted to soda they can't handle the truth?
Well here it is: Soda, in huge quantities is bad for you. It is not the government's responsibility to save people who - of their own volition - knowingly destroy their bodies with huge quantities of sugar or fat. This is contrary to natural selection and even common sense.
If someone wants to get so fat that they become impotent and are repulsive/can't physically reproduce, please let them. Evolution works if you leave it the fuck alone. Stop protecting the stupid and evil, and let them get what they deserve.
"That guy ran into traffic, got hit by a bus and was killed!" - "Well I see no other option than to ban buses!"
Re:Get a refill.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Get a refill.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a nudge. The law will induce people to drink less soda even though people are allowed to drink as much soda as they want. A variety of studies have shown that people's eating behavior are highly impacted by serving size.
Don't worry more nudges to come.
Next the city will levy fines on all 8-slice pizzerias. A new mandate will dictate they be cut into 16 slices to reduce the amount of fat consumed by New Yorkers.
Thank god for the law-by-fiat of the Mayor and his self-appointed Health Dept. No need for a City Council when you can just bypass them.
Re:Get a refill.. (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't get it. This is a proposal that curbs the ability of Machiavellian vendors to profit because of people's misunderstanding of basic economics. It's a regulation of the vendors, not the buyers.
Here's how it works:
Most people don't really want the oversized cup. The theaters, stadiums, etc sell it because people will pay $1 more for a larger amount that has an incremental cost for the vendor that is significantly less than selling another cup.
In other words, the vendors sell it for no other reason that it's insanely profitable to get people to pay more for something they don't need at all (but feel as if they should want because it seems like a good price for the excess amount). People see that the second 16 ounces cost significantly less than the first 16 ounces, so they feel compelled to buy it in order to get "a good deal". However, most buyers don't consider that the value to them of the second 16 ounces is close to $0, but they're paying close to $1 for it.
Re:Get a refill.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Most people don't really want the oversized cup.
...and those who don't, won't buy one. Not my place to tell folks what or how they should buy something.
I often buy the smaller ones (or better, a small bottle), since the soda in a cup would go flat long before I'd even make a dent in, say, a typical 64 oz. demi-bucket of the stuff. Nothing really to do with economic analysis; it's just common sense.
But you know? I do find it hilarious that those who look down on folks who buy a monster-sized $1 soda at the fountain are often the same types that will happily walk to the cooler and pull out a $2 bottle of water for purchase.
Re:Get a refill.. (Score:4, Insightful)
...and those who don't, won't buy one. Not my place to tell folks what or how they should buy something.
Did you read and understand the message you're replying to?
It's a psychological trick that influences people to buy the larger size. If you had a business, you could try this out. If you increase the price of the small and the medium drink then more people will buy the large size. It should be obvious that as the price difference decreases more people will opt for the larger size. For example, I doubt anyone would be surprised that if you charged the same for small, medium and large, most people would opt for the large size regardless of whether they actually wanted that size.
Part of the reason for the increase in obesity in America may be portion size. I remember seeing a graph that showed that the average portion size of a fast food meal has quadrupled over the last 60 years. The burger, the fries and the drink are each 4 times larger and probably contain 4 times the calories they used to. Combined the common "motherly" requirement that people finish everything on their plate if they want dessert and you have people programmed to get fat. It's not the whole story, but it is an issue.
Having said that, I don't think this is the right way to approach the issue.
Re: (Score:3)
> nothing to do with curbing eating habits
False: at work now they have apples on the vending machine and it helps a lot to avoid eating chocolate bars.
Re:Get a refill.. (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as the government is intervening in their every day life by providing a safety net for their irresponsible decisions, how is this a bad thing?
Who is the government to tell people that they're being irresponsible? And, if they are but aren't harming anyone else, so what?
Do you really, seriously, truthfully believe that the Nanny State banning big sodas won't prevent soda addicts from... drum roll please... buying two of them?
All this really does is prove that politicians are stupider than people who drink ten liters of soda in a day.
Re:Get a refill.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Who is the government?
We the people. We the people, as a community, have identified a behavior in the community that is unhealthy and expensive due to healthcare costs. Since, in this case, the community is not a small community in which members can exert direct pressure on each other through personal relationships, the community is exerting pressure in another way. If you think this is new or somehow restricted to governments, then you're not paying attention to all of human history. If you want to be free from the pressures of your community and have no responsibility to other people, you're free to live in the wilderness. This has nothing to do with government. It's fine to disagree with this, but framing it as a "nanny state" issue is misleading. Ever since humans evolved culture (and probably before that), we've developed ways to curb the detrimental behaviors of our fellow community members. People are idiots and they're addicted to sugar. It places a cost on the rest of us. I see no reason why your right to be a lardass trumps the community's need to keep healthcare costs down.
People CAN buy two drinks, but I think quite a few people won't. Humans eat/drink what is set before them without noticing. They won't be trained to desire so much soda if they aren't handed so much to begin with.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not an argument for government control over soda, it's an argument against socialized healthcare.
Re:Get a refill.. (Score:4)
"Who is the government?
We the people."
Where do you live? Because I'm from the USA and it has not been "WE the People" for as long as I have been alive. WE don't even vote for our own president, we vote for someone who we hope will vote for our choice in president.
And sorry, but the Poor and middle class outnumber the 1% by 99% yet almost everything is DICTATED To us by the 1%.
So I would love to live in your country of "We the people" because it's not found on the american continent.
Re:Get a refill.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Who are these people to demand a safety net? Why do the LIE by saying they're harming no one else, while reaching into everyone else's wallet to pay for their safety net in order to subsidize their own decisions at public expense?
No, it proves that people who drink ten liters of soda in a day and then go crying to Nanny Government if the Emergency Room doctor turns them away unless they pay in advance, are hypocrits.
Health micromanagement is not the beginning of Nanny Government; it is the logical conclusion of Nanny Government. You can't say the public is responsible for individual people's health, and then not also give the public power to use force to make individuals be healthy despite their wishes.
When you vote for government responsibility, you are voting for government power. That power will come at the expense of people's liberty. It has to. I'm not saying this is good or evil (though I certainly have an opinion), but it is the reality.
Re:Get a refill.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure I agree with this soda ban but it's LOCAL GOVERNMENT so I can't really get upset about Nanny State or the government being too large or anything.
And people being dumb and getting fat IN MASS does harm other people. They drain money and time from society for healthcare costs which has all sorts of side effects (how long you wait for an appointment, availability of appointments, insurance prices, etc).
And it's a nudge, not a prevention. I'm actually kind of ok with this kind of law if it is done right. Do a study beforehand that shows that large servings impact how much people eat, try a law to help people not eat as much, and then do another study to see if the law is actually helping and if not let it expire.
Would you rather they did what they typically do when they don't like when people do something: tax it more?
The perfect world scenario would probably be to educate parents and children but then again in a perfect world people would all have perfect self-control.
Re: (Score:3)
...which is their problem, and not yours, mine, or the government's.
Oh, but then there's that welfare/medicaid thing, yes? Well, maybe if the government got out of the business of parenting humanity from womb to tomb, this wouldn't be such a big problem, now would it?
Re:Get a refill.. (Score:4, Insightful)
actually, there is a known range for this. As the price increases by a certain amount, then there is an expected and consistent amount of people who will quit. This obviously has bounds, but when I smoked and paid attention and cared about this, I was aware of the number of people that were expected to quit with the taxes. It was very relevant in the beginning of Clinton's presidency, when Hillary was tryign to push her health care package, and pay for it on the back of smokers. A very detailed model was needed to find out how many smokers would be there to pay for the system after the price doubled.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Get a refill.. (Score:5, Funny)
As long as the government is intervening in their every day life by providing a safety net for their irresponsible decisions, how is this a bad thing?
You see, according to the government's plan, I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dennis, I didn't know you had a /. account! :)
Re:Get a refill.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Empirically, I'd strongly suspect that only relatively strong tugs of either appetite or repletion drive most people to either get a refill or discard a partially full cup. You just sort of suck on the straw until the fluid stops coming out, without thinking about it much, across a surprisingly large set of cup sizes.
The consumer psychology research people seem to consistently be able to pull hilarious stunts in changing the amounts people eat just by changing their cutlery, or using different sized plates, or changing whether or not the waiters clear away used dishes in an 'all-you-can-eat' scenario...
Re:Get a refill.. (Score:4, Informative)
Its basic psychology, if given larger containers, people consume more.
Cornell University did a study in a Philadelphia movie theater with stale popcorn. Given the larger containers, people still ate more of it, even though it was like eating styrofoam.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16053812 [nih.gov]
Re:Get a refill.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder if this cultural, learned, or genetic behavior?
The reason why I ask is because I find the serving sizes for just about everything in the US to be too big. I grew up in Canada and moved to Boston about 12 years ago. I find that, when I go out to eat, I usually have food left over. I sometimes get flack from my friends about wasting food, but the way I see it is that I stop eating when I've had enough. I never continue to eat just to clean off the plate. The same applies to soda and other drinks.
So, for me, serving size doesn't matter, I simply stop when I've had enough.
Re: (Score:3)
You're lucky. For me, fullness doesn't matter. I simply must empty the plate.
Re:Get a refill.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Get a refill.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention getting one size up is much cheaper than buying two separate drinks for yourself and significant other. Very often at fast food restaurants when trying hard to save money, I'll buy the large drink and split it rather than paying almost twice as much to get two smalls. This "ban" is just making more money for the vendors when people have to buy two separate drinks or two drinks for themselves if they're really addicted.
Re:Get a refill.. (Score:4, Funny)
I would be very annoyed if your fat ass got up four times during the first half of the movie.
Sincerely,
The guy sitting next to you.
Re:Get a refill.. (Score:4, Funny)
A) You completely misunderstand the medical system.
B) Even if we had a good single payer ,medical system, it would STILL be wrong to limit soda size. I can sit next to you and you cna drink all the soda you want and it doesn't impact me.
C) Fat fuckers would also be paying into the system that woudl pay for you thin fuckers medical bills when you fall off you bike.
Re:Get a refill.. (Score:4, Funny)
I wouldn't be able to; it's not BIG enough anymore!
Re:Get a refill.. (Score:5, Informative)
it is.. but it's a specific offering by 7-11 (convenience store chain)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7-Eleven [wikipedia.org]
Among 7-Eleven's offerings are private label products, including Slurpee, a partially frozen soft drink introduced in 1967,[15] and the Big Gulp introduced in 1980[15] that packaged soft drinks in large cups ranging in size from 20 to 64 US fluid ounces (0.59 to 1.9 liters).
absurd.
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Double_big_gulp.jpg [wikipedia.org]
Re:Get a refill.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Also I have been a HUGE soda drinker all my life and I'm underweight. This ban is going to do nothing but waste even more government money. Can't get a 32-ounce ? Buy two 16-ounce drunks! Will the ban prevent that?
What's next? 1 twinkie a month limit?
Re:Advantages to the Ban (Score:4, Interesting)
Not any more acidic than apple juice, and far less acidic than cranberry juice. Lemonade, depending on the strength, can be even worse than cranberry juice.
Re:Get a refill.. (Score:4, Insightful)
But these kinds of bans are just retarded, you aren't gonna fix obesity like this, the reason we are fat is because many of us are stuck in jobs sitting on ass in front of PCs all day.
There's just as many people with jobs as keyboard jockeys in Europe, but nothing like the obesity rate. So that's not it.
In the UK, where food and drinks become more like the US, obesity rates are rising faster than the rest of Europe. In continental Europe, where there's more real food and less fast food, and more sensible portion sizes, obesity is not much of a problem.
It's not large sodas specifically, but they are certainly part of the large helpings of junk food problem.
If they want folks to lose weight a few pieces of exercise equipment at work and exercise breaks would do more than this.
No. A Big Gulp contains over 300 calories. That's going to take the best part of an hour to work off on an exercise bike. Very few people are going to average that much exercise per day. Even for people that do an hour at the gym, they don't tend to do it every day.
Exercise builds muscle and stamina, and all round fitness. But it's a very inefficient way of losing weight. Very few people lose weight simply through exercise, it needs to be combined with reduced calorie intake. And reduced calorie intake alone will do it.
Re:Get a refill.. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you were a couch potato and start working out, you will gain a not so modest amount of muscles.
And if you don't do sports, you won't need a lot of food. Trying to lose weight you'll feel like starving all the time because the food you actually may eat is not really filling. 120 kkal a day is not much at all. If you work out, you can eat more food, thus feeling more comfortable. If you do a good workout, you can even eat the normal daily amount of food and get the calorie deficit purely through sports. Not to speak of other benefits of a workout, like a better working heart, stronger muscles, larger lungs and so on. How much more efficient should it be to satisfy you?
The increased metabolic rate you speak does exist by the way, just not for the rest of the day, maximum for a half an hour or until you eat something. As long as you breathe heavily after a workout or feel your heart beating faster than usual, that's exactly that increased metabolic rate.
Re:Get a refill.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Get a refill.. (Score:5, Funny)
Educate first. (Score:4, Interesting)
Instead of banning something entirely (this is still a "free" country, right?), lets just educate consumers on what they're putting into their bodies. For example, if you want to buy a 64 oz. soda, you live in America, you get your big ass soda. However, put the nutrition info on the cup so you, at the very least, can learn that 64 oz. of Pepsi contains 800 calories, about 1/3 recommended daily intake, and 224 grams of carbs, about 3/4 recommended daily intake. That's disgusting and the problem is nobody realizes how disgusting that is.
Re:Educate first. (Score:5, Funny)
That's math, and as everyone knows math has no relation to daily life. Why do they even try to teach us that useless crap?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I was about to say the same thing. Those numbers probably don't mean much to most people. If they don't know, the only way for that to happen is to give them context - basically a public health bulletin on what your dietary intake should be, and how this is bad, blah blah blah. You put too much text on it and people won't read it. You put arbitrary numbers on it and people don't know what they mean. Either way people don't care, or you're preaching to the choir. If people wanted to be educated, they wou
Re:Educate first. (Score:5, Insightful)
Education doesn't work and the recommended daily intake numbers have more to do with politics than nutrition.
Every single person ordering 20+ ounces of soda knows that water would be a better choice.
This is a regulation of vendors, not consumers. I predict that within 20 years, the executives of major food companies will start facing scrutiny and lawsuits in the same way that tobacco executives did a few years ago. If current trends continue, the damage that companies like Coca Cola and McDonald's are doing will dwarf anything that the tobacco companies did.
Re:Educate first. (Score:4, Informative)
there is another huge problem with what parts of this subject we choose to educate about. Apparently diet sodas are given an exemption here. The amount of healthy that you receive from a diet soda is pretty much nil. Every time I have seen a mention of these types of laws, they always say the full sugared versions are the problem that need to be taxed or banned, but then allowing diet will just have everyone switch to a giant diet soda, and there will be very little gained. If you want to increase health, drink water, not any form of soda.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Diet Soda (Score:4, Funny)
Nanny State (Score:5, Insightful)
The nanny state is here!
Let us know how it goes, NYC!
Re:Nanny State (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, shocking, a gentrifying northeastern city where few use cars to get to work and declining polluting industry is slightly ahead of the median of the country in life expectancy...
A question to you is, if you could live to be 100 as opposed to 80, but someone got to tell you what you could and could not do, would that be worth it?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
hmm (Score:3)
If "that's what the public wants the mayor to do" then the public wouldn't be buying ginormous sized beverages and thus there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. The fact that they are buying the large sodas means the public wants it. I can see slapping a warning on the side of the containers that say "Hey fatty, you keep drinking this much crap and you're going to die from diabeetus," but a ban seems to infringe on peoples' freedom of choice. (Unlike the bans on foie gras, there's no one torturing corn plants to make the soda.)
Carbonated? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sooo... JUST carbonated soft drinks? Does that mean he's banning beer, too? The phrase "beer gut" didn't just arbitrarily appear in dictionaries. What about those "fruit juices" spiked with fructose, the nicotine of food additives?
What a hypocrite.
So... (Score:3, Insightful)
I honestly don't much care for either reefers or Fructose-Extreme Big-Gulp Edition; but I find it endlessly curious how mere time seems to change perception of given public health and public safety crusades. Some city tells smokers to do it outside, or restarauants to cut down on their trans-fats, on pain of some paltry fine and the editorialists are ready to tell you that fascism has finally come to America; but the ones that get hunted down by actual cops and sent to real jail? Apparently not a concern...
And what exactly did we expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
When our society seemingly turns to government to protect us from the consequences of our stupid decisions*, eventually we end up with a government that is going to want to control our every decision. It makes sense in a world where the government subsidizes your health care, that the government gets a voice in your unhealthy choices.
*to wit:
- I had unprotected sex, the govt should pay for my abortion
- I had kids I can't support, the gov't should pay to help me care for them
- I'm an addict, the gov't should pay for my treatment
- I made shitty life choices and now I'm poor, the gov't should pay for me to have a decent life
- I have a $25,000/year job but signed for a mortgage on a $500,000 home that I now understand I can't afford, the gov't should pay to help me renegotiate
- I'm a bank and I've made a catastrophic series of worthless investments, the gov't should pay to keep me running because I'm "too big to fail"
It has been going on at all levels of American life since at least the Great Society programs, and we as voters have cheerfully voted consistently for the government to 'cushion' more and more of life's hard knocks from our sensitive existences.
Welcome to your self-designed Nanny State.
As they would say in Firefly: "Nee mun doh shr sagwa".
Re:And what exactly did we expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
*to wit:
- I had unprotected sex, the govt should pay for my abortion
- I had kids I can't support, the gov't should pay to help me care for them
- I'm an addict, the gov't should pay for my treatment
- I made shitty life choices and now I'm poor, the gov't should pay for me to have a decent life
- I have a $25,000/year job but signed for a mortgage on a $500,000 home that I now understand I can't afford, the gov't should pay to help me renegotiate
- I'm a bank and I've made a catastrophic series of worthless investments, the gov't should pay to keep me running because I'm "too big to fail"
Not that I disagree with your sentiment, but I feel that you are way off-base on some of the justifications for the programs you deride.
Government support for programs like daycare are for the good of the child, not the parent (though the parent may benefit as a byproduct). It is not the child's poor decisions that landed him with shitty parents, and the child should not be condemned to a miserable upbringing. The same thought process that leads to public education is what leads to things like child subsidies.
Addiction programs are not for the good of the addict, but for the good of society. Addicts spread disease and crime. If someone wants a ticket to a rehab center, that's a bargain for society.
The mortgage default situation was caused in part by the government's 30-year mortgage programs. While there is probably some merit in an argument that government should not have gotten into housing in the first place, they are there now and need to clean up their mess. If renegotiating mortgages is a cost-effective way to clean up, then pragmatically I have to support it.
Too big to fail is a similar situation. I'm not willing to watch the entire economy completely melt down just to uphold an ideal. The government had to step in, and where the criticism should be aimed is at the politicians for not having the capacity to correct the underlying problems. If it's any consolation, the stockholders of the bailed-out banks took a serious bath. If you were the unlucky stockholder of Citibank in 2007, your stock is now worth about 5% of what it was. Bank seizure would not have really changed things much for the stockholders, and the government would have been stuck with their toxic assets. Instead, the government made a small profit...
Re:And what exactly did we expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
So let's hear your solutions...
-I had unprotected sex, I should go get a clothes hanger stuck in me in some back alley, and die of an infection if it doesn't work
-I had kids I can't support, they should be forced to live a life of squalor and misery for my mistake
-I'm an addict, I should continue to spiral downwards until I die in the streets
-I made shitty choices and now I'm poor, I should be forced to turn to crime to avoid starvation
-I have a $25,000/year job but can't afford my mortgage, the government should watch the entire economy go down in flames rather than help me out
-I'm a bank and I've made a catastrophic series of worthless investment, the government should stand aside while others suffer horribly for my actions. Meanwhile I'll retire in luxury, since I've already collected millions in bonuses.
The government's job is to promote the common good. That sometimes means helping people who've made mistakes. You seem to be more interested in making people suffer for them. I wonder if your tune would change if you or someone you cared about ever slipped up. But no, that would never happen. You don't make mistakes. You're a god.
What a Vapid Post (Score:5, Insightful)
I had unprotected sex, the govt should pay for my abortion
The government does not propose to pay for abortion because people should be able to have sex. The logic arises from studies conducted [wikipedia.org] that suggest that legalized and subsidized abortion results in fewer unwanted children and therefore less crime. While you might debate that, the reasoning is that it's cheaper for society to pay for an abortion than it is to have a criminal interred on and off for life. Are you against taxpayer dollars being used to teach contraception in schools? What about tax dollars to hand out free condoms to those most at risk? Subsidizing abortions is a step further in that direction. It is not designed to give people the ability to have sex without protection.
I had kids I can't support, the gov't should pay to help me care for them
Are you aware of what a "dependent" is on a tax form? Again, it's cheaper for society to issue welfare and food stamps than to deal with the societal harms that come from malnourished children and the state assuming control over a child. What exactly is your ideal scenario in this case? That we have street urchins that occasionally die in our streets? That we have social services taking care of tens of thousands more children?
I'm an addict, the gov't should pay for my treatment
Again, you seem to imply that the government is being lobbied by the addicts. Instead it is the cost/benefit of dealing with addicts that have already developed dependencies on illegal addictive substances. You implement awareness programs with taxpayer dollars and the final unfortunate step is helping these people control their addictions so they're not mugging or killing people for money. A lot of these people have to support their habits with crime. Our jails are already overcrowded so the alternate step is to try to treat them and keep them from engaging in such behavior. Again, what is your ideal scenario? That you shake your finger at an addict and say "Welcome to the school of hard knocks, now go beat someone for money for your habit so you can spend the rest of your life in jail where I can pay more money for you to live."
I made shitty life choices and now I'm poor, the gov't should pay for me to have a decent life
Right, because everyone who is poor is poor because of shitty life choices and they should starve for those choices. We have the ability to provide them basic food and subsidize their housing but your ideal scenario is what exactly? You do know that they do not live like kinds and queens?
Welcome to your self-designed Nanny State.
If the alternative is crime ridden neighborhoods, I'll take a little bit of a nanny state. You people that demand one extreme over the other are really annoying and short sighted. Did you know that buildings have to make fire code in order to be constructed? God, what a nanny state we've found ourselves in! Why aren't we working to remove any sort of building and safety codes? PROTIP: A happy medium exists somewhere in between the extremes. When society's total cost is drastically lower to implement a nanny state law, we start to weigh the pros and cons.
Re:And what exactly did we expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
While what you mention is somewhat true, what you fail to mention is the opposite: The eras before we created a social net were horrifying by today's standards. One bad crop season, or loss of a job, or getting on the wrong person's bad side could easily leave you a starving wretch (can still happen, but less common).
Also, it's not government that's running a lot of this, it's corporations. I'm sure the corn lobby is loosening up as their dollars are less effective than the military and IP racket these days, and Biggie B (as his friends call him) in teh Big Apple has to do something to make him look good after all this police nonsense and Occupy.
Look, I don't disagree with you that government, in some ways, is getting its mitts on some things it shouldn't. However, maybe looking at what risks government should cover and what they shouldn't ought to merit consideration, not just making a statement implying that you're somehow superior because you happened to be in the right circumstances to make "good" life choices (I assume, though I may be wrong). Check out stuff on the sociology of deviance, I suspect you'll find the subject infuriating to what sounds like your fairly uncompassionate world view (this does not include too big to fail. we can all agree that was pure crime)
BTW..... why don't we worry about the incredible amount of money spent blowing up brown people and spying on and jailing our own citizens before we start moralizing and saying we shouldn't help our Fellow Man because of "blah-di-blah" and then quoting a stupid fucking TV show that too many people worship anyway.
Re:And what exactly did we expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
It has been going on at all levels of American life since at least the Great Society programs, and we as voters have cheerfully voted consistently for the government to 'cushion' more and more of life's hard knocks from our sensitive existences.
Yeah, I mean, look at all these people who want to be cushioned by society. Like NYC banning soda. Or NYC having a health department that makes sure there are no rat feces in your food. I mean, let that be between me and the restaurant. If there's a restaurant that has rat feces in it, I just won't go there anymore. You don't need a health department.
And then they have laws that are prevent landlords from kicking deadbeats out of their apartments. Like, who cares that you've lived in your apartment for 20 years, the price of rent has gone up old lady! You can find another place to live. Just live within your means!
Oh, and let's not forget about the fire department. I mean, if you don't want to install sprinklers and other fire protection in your apartment building, that's your own fault, and you're the one who's going to burn alive. If you want to live in an apartment with sub-standard fire protection, that's your choice. We should all do our own research before you buy into these things.
Don't even get me started on the police. They're always butting into everyone's business. I know, you're going to say, "But what if I get robbed?!" That's why guns need to be legal. We should all be settling these matters ourselves. And traffic lights? Why does the government feel the need to get involved in how I drive my car?
This is all just the nanny state running amok. Look, I test all of my kids toys to make sure the manufacturer isn't using lead-based paint. I do all my own scientific research on the medical procedures I undergo, so I don't need Mr. Government telling me which treatments are effective. I built a bunker under my house and I have a small arsenal in there-- I don't need your nanny-state army to protect me. We should all just go our own way.
Fed government does NOT pay for abortion (Score:4, Interesting)
It is currently against the law for the government to pay for abortions. The money given to planned parenthood is for women's health initiatives, such as preventing women from getting cervical cancer from HPV. I would, in fact, support free abortions. I'd rather have someone irresponsible abort a kid that they can't afford to take care of instead of being robbed by that kid or having taxpayers pay tens of thousands of dollars per year for his prison time.
The problem is that we're all connected and unless you want to be responsible for providing your own roads, drinking water, electricity and defending your compound that is unsafe to leave, we need at least some level of government and socialization. Medical care in that world seems kind of pointless, as you would have no great methods of contacting a provider (no eminent domain to build a network of telephone wires, radio waves would be useless without a central body to set up channels), and they might not be able to reach you quickly through a patchwork of private roads. And you'd better hope you have something worth bartering for care without a nanny state to set up and maintain a common currency. But at least there would be no government to steal your money for taxes or control your actions...just robbers, pirates, criminals.
I'm not saying the government should encourage people to be lazy by any means, just that there are indirect benefits to providing some services.
in before the "freedom!" mel gibson imitators (Score:4, Insightful)
there's two definitions of freedom:
the teenager definition "i can do whatever i want with no concern for the consequences"
the adult definition "i can do anything i want that doesn't harm someone else"
for example, the "right" to speed is freedom according to a teenager, as a teenager will never crash their car and hurt an innocent driver who had the ill fortune of sharing the road with the idiot
the "right" to smoke is freedom according to a teenager, as a teenager only exhales pure filtered air in the face of fellow pedestrians and housemates and doesn't raise the healthcare insurance costs of anyone else
likewise, the "right" to mainline fructose is freedom according to a teenager, see healthcare argument above
please note: the term "teenager" in the context of this comment is a mental function measurement independent of chronological age. there are plenty of chronological teenagers who are mental adults and morally mature, and there are 40 year old gasbags who still define freedom according to a mental teenager's definition
This is on par with other moronic bans (Score:3, Insightful)
Banning plastic bags in LA was one of them, now NYC banning soda...
NYC ban is a disgrace epitomizes nanny state transition US is undergoing, stomping at elementary liberties: including a freedom to eat whatever I want, and private transaction between consenting adults: not about selling drugs, not about exchanging sexual favors, Taliban literature, arms, bombs or anything else, just an item of food.
Where are all the Niemoller loudmouths?
Why not just ban mandatory soda purchase (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems like it goes too far. I'd rather just see a ban on mandatory soda purchases. All those places that require you to buy a big gulp the moment you enter the door and refuse to allow you to leave until you've drunk it.
Oh, wait, you mean there aren't any places like that? We're only talking about banning voluntary purchases? Well we don't need the government to do anything in that case. If "the people" want to stop voluntary purchases they can do that themselves with no government effort or expense at all.
Mission accomplished! Good job mayor.
Watch the "Weight of the Nation" (Score:5, Insightful)
Its interesting that the bad food is so cheap, in part, because the ingredients are subsidized by the US government. In some neighborhoods, its impossible to purchase food that is actually good for you. Or the pricing structure makes it too expensive.
Not only that, but farmers are going out of business trying to grow stuff that is good to eat. They are not eligible for the subsidies. So they learn to grow stuff that is bad for us instead. Its also greatly slanting the system towards huge factory farms.
If he wants to fix something, put a high state tax on Federal farm subsidies. And put the proceeds towards opening markets for healthy foods. Level the field.
Food desert myth debunked (Score:3)
In some neighborhoods, its impossible to purchase food that is actually good for you
That is a lie. [nytimes.com]
Save us... from us. (Score:4, Insightful)
Please! Take action so we don't have to take responsibility for our own lives. Heaven forbid we ever have to think for ourselves.
A better solution may be to force anyone who complains about how this type of thing negatively impacts them to take a class in self control.
There they go again! Bastards. (Score:5, Funny)
Want to do something? (Score:5, Insightful)
TO: Fatties FROM: Smokers (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Funny)
People already know that soda is unhealthy. They just don't care. Reminds me of Dennis Leary talking about cigarettes... same basic idea.
"There's a guy- I don't know if you've heard about this guy, he's been on the news a lot lately. There's a guy- he's English, I don't think we should hold that against him, but apparently this is just his life's dream because he is going from country to country. He has a senate hearing in this country coming up in a couple of weeks. And this is what he wants to do. He wants to make the warnings on the packs bigger. Yeah! He wants the whole front of the pack to be the warning. Like the problem is we just haven't noticed yet. Right? Like he's going to get his way and all of the sudden smokers around the world are going to be going, "Yeah, Bill, I've got some cigarettes.. HOLY SHIT! These things are bad for you! Shit, I thought they were good for you! I thought they had Vitamin C in them and stuff!" You fucking dolt! Doesn't matter how big the warnings are. You could have cigarettes that were called the warnings. You could have cigarettes that come in a black pack, with a skull and a cross bone on the front, called tumors and smokers would be lined up around the block going, "I can't wait to get my hands on these fucking things! I bet you get a tumor as soon as you light up! Numm Numm Numm Numm Numm" Doesn't matter how big the warnings are or how much they cost. Keep raising the prices, we'll break into your houses to get the fucking cigarettes, ok!? They're a drug, we're addicted, ok!? Numm Numm Numm Numm Numm *wheeze*"
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The public are sheep (Score:4, Informative)
The saying you are probably looking for is:
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Informative)
It's all good until the fatties want free healthcare.
Re: (Score:3)
Never mind the people who actually pay the bill are the taxpayers, not the government. But most people never seem to remember that, maybe because most of the people who will end up paying the most are either the rich (right now, and note I'm not saying this is a bad thing, necessarily, it just makes it a lot easier to get behind government spending when it isn't coming out of your pocket) or the young (later, when the country is $100 trillion in debt, which obviously is a bad thing).
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all good until the fatties want free healthcare.
DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!! We have a winner!
That's problem with government funded health care. Whoever pays the bills gets to make the rules! If you let government take over your health care, you are giving the government control over your health.
Society, and the government as a proxy of society, already funds healthcare because hospitals aren't allowed to turn away people who can't pay and let them rot and die. (Or, I suppose, the other way around.)
As long as society feels obligated to help those in need, society should feel absolutely justified in putting strict limitations on the ways that people can take advantage of that.
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that's why here in Canada where we have had government funded healthcare since the 60s I have to go get my lunch at Kentucky Steamed Rice & Vegetables...
No wait. This is the country where we have our fries covered in cheese and gravy.
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
The actual outcomes are pretty similar but in the UK you just don't worry about your 'cover' at all. It rarely merits a thought. In the US as I understand it, lack of health cover is a real impediment to starting your own business or changing a job. Particularly if you have an existing chronic condition.
I'm not saying you don't have a point about who makes the rules, but ultimatley the rules in the UK are made by a government that has to be re-elected, how much say do you have over your rules?
Re:How is this legal? (Score:4, Interesting)
Google "obesity paradox".
Re:How is this legal? (Score:4, Insightful)
its legal because people like me who rarely go to the doctor and dont have these problems support it because we don't want to pay for your endless supply of drugs, sleep aids and other nonsense
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
It is my addiction though.
I've switched over time from 128oz of Mountain Dew a day to a pair of 12oz Mountain Dew Throwback cans a day. I still end up occasionally bowing to the fountain soda in the combo meal at lunch time, but I've also started bringing my lunch four out of five days a week.
With no other changes, no increase in exercise, no major effort other than to bring to eat only what I want to carry around with me in a cooler, I've lost weight. When I have the wherewithal to keep to it (it's hard and I have to occasionally get lunches out when I get tired of cold cuts) it works well, saves me money, and helps me to live better.
We're addicted to food. Unlike most addictions, we can't simply stop eating though. We're surrounded by food that used to be special occasion food. Deserts, deep-fried foods loaded with spices, an overabundance of meats. How the hell are you supposed to eat right when there are almost no options to eat right?
I'd restrict the cup size. I wouldn't go 16oz, probably more like 24. I would ban free refills once one has left the premises. If you're in the restaurant you can continue to get your free refills like normal. If you're at a convenience store, either you bring your own cup to get more than 24oz, or if the store allows it, you drink your drink and refill on the spot.
A simple ban on fast food joints and convenience stores selling cups larger than a certain size will do a lot to curtail it, and won't restrict patrons from larger cups if they bring their own cup.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yup. The government wanted to "help" American corn farmers so they subsidized HFCS until it supplanted imported cane sugar. Now everyone's fat. And since they "helped" us a couple years ago by mandating health insurance and creating a taxpayer-funded system for the poor, now everyone's health is everyone else's business. So they want to "help" us all again by banning large-quantity HFCS-laden soft drinks, "helping" people become healthier and "helping" lower the burden on the health care system.
Isn't the go
Re: (Score:3)
> Hello. My name is Eliza [nlp-addiction.com]. How may I help you?
* know it all
> Ahh. Please continue...
* Why don't you ASK YOUR PEOPLE what they want you to do...
> Do you really believe I don't ASK my PEOPLE what they want me to do?
* and don't just open your fat mouth.
> Why are you concerned about my fat mouth?
I think Eliza may have you cornered on this one, AC.
(For the record, the recommendation originates from the NYC Health Department, and Bloomberg points out that you can still easily carry two smaller drinks.)
Re:How about some evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
That a large cup of non-diet soda contains a large quantity of sugar/HFCS is not up for debate, this is an established fact.
That sugars produce an insulin response is not up for debate and has been scientifically established for nearly 100 years. That insulin is the primary hormonal driver of fat accumulation has been scientifically established since the 1960s.
We know this and have known this for for nearly 50 years. It's less open to debate than evolution, and that's a closed subject.
Banning is probably the wrong approach from an economics perspective, and the details are poor, too -- allowing juice? That's like saying smoking menthols is better than smoking non-menthols. Metabolically there is zero difference, and in many ways juice is much worse due to the fructose content.
Re:Libertarians wouldn't do this to you (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't you mean:
When a libertarian wants to do something, he posts about it on Slashdot.
When a liberal wants to do something, the Libertarian quotes Ron Paul.
When a libertarian doesn't want to do something, he whines about it on Slashdot.
When a liberal doesn't want to do something, the libertarian loudly protests that his freedoms are being taken away.
HFCS's got what plants CRAVE (Score:3)
gross!
Re: (Score:3)
It's all or nothing, buddy. You want the nude supermodels you gotta take the nude Walmartoids.
Hey, it'll toughen you up. Spend some time down south and you'll emerge like a Spartan!
Re: (Score:3)