Drop the soda or else!!!!! [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

TjM

04-13-2011, 05:53 AM

Jane is a god damn cunt

4-09-2011 @4:58PM Jane said... Personally, I think this is a great idea and one that should be implemented all over the country.

There is no reason we need to drink soda. None. It provides no nutritional value and just makes our country one that is full of fat and unhealthy citizens, which is the reason our healthcare costs are out of control.

It amazes me the number of people in this country who have no problem controlling abortion or gay marriage, but get angry when the government wants to take charge and try to reverse problems that actually affect every single one of us.

If you want to fix the healthcare problems in this country, it starts by education and example. If our kids are constantly bombarded by this garbage everywhere they go, they think it's okay and in turn teach their kids the same. It's a vicious cycle that can only be fixed by small moves like this, which hopefully turn into downright bans.

Call me a socialist or a tree hugging liberal, I don't care. You can spend your time trying to force people to do things that don't affect you or you can worry about an issue that is a real problem for this country, that's up to you. I hope a day comes when soda and sugary junkfood is only a memory. We'll all be better off for it.

Read more: http://slashfood.com/2011/04/08/boston-bans-soda-on-city-property/#ixzz1JPYMV2AK

A.J.

04-13-2011, 05:53 AM

Are they going to dress like Indians and then dump all the soda into Boston Harbor?

WRESTLINGFAN

04-13-2011, 06:01 AM

The Coke party has just been formed

realmenhatelife

04-13-2011, 06:08 AM

Not a big deal. I understand the idea that if you're providing healthcare to employees you also wouldn't want to help excellerate health issues in those same people. Bring your soda from home. If this were some company doing the same thing you never would've heard about it.

Jujubees2

04-13-2011, 06:41 AM

Judge Smails

04-13-2011, 06:46 AM

You can have my soda when you pry it from my pudgy, diabetic hands.

WRESTLINGFAN

04-13-2011, 07:25 AM

The way the Sox have been playing, no wonder alcohol isn't banned. :lol:

Leave it to my Yankees to lose 2 of 3 to them

underdog

04-13-2011, 07:31 AM

They're just banning the sale, not actually banning you drinking soda.

Dudeman

04-13-2011, 07:41 AM

WRESTLINGFAN

04-13-2011, 07:50 AM

WF complains about this because there is nothing more that he loves than paying for other people's irresponsibility. If they want to have irresponsible health habits, like smoking and drinking excessive amounts of soda, which result in diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, kidney disease, etc, he really really wants our healthcare expenditures to contribute to our deficit because he wants to pay for their CABG.

No one is forcing them to eat fast food or drink excessively.

Let people poison their bodies, but let them pay the consequences why should you or anyone pay? We own our bodies. If someone decides on their own to smoke 3 packs a day its their choice, but banning the sale of a legal item is an example of a nanny state trying to protect people from their own behavior in which they choose to participate on their own free will

foodcourtdruide

04-13-2011, 07:53 AM

Let people poison their bodies, but let them pay the consequences why should you or anyone pay? We own our bodies. If someone decides on their own to smoke 3 packs a day its their choice, but banning the sale of a legal item is an example of a nanny state trying to protect people from their own behavior in which they choose to participate on their own free will

Half a thought. There's no scenario where the American people will simply let people die or suffer on the streets. Also, how do you differentiate between people who have destroyed their own body and people who took care of themselves but had a tough break and deserve our compassion? I think we all agree with the idea you have here, but it's impossible in practice.

WRESTLINGFAN

04-13-2011, 07:58 AM

Half a thought. There's no scenario where the American people will simply let people die or suffer on the streets. Also, how do you differentiate between people who have destroyed their own body and people who took care of themselves but had a tough break and deserve our compassion? I think we all agree with the idea you have here, but it's impossible in practice.

There are always some exceptions to the rules, but generally speaking someone who goes to the gym or works out 3-4 times a week and eats right, sometimes having alchohol in moderation will be a victim to an unexpected heart attack. No one is advocating lack of compassion, but the only way to combat heart disease, diabetes,etc is to ban all sodas juices energy drinks fast foods etc but that will never happen. too many corporate interests involved.

Dudeman

04-13-2011, 08:09 AM

No one is forcing them to eat fast food or drink excessively.

Let people poison their bodies, but let them pay the consequences why should you or anyone pay? We own our bodies. If someone decides on their own to smoke 3 packs a day its their choice, but banning the sale of a legal item is an example of a nanny state trying to protect people from their own behavior in which they choose to participate on their own free will

It isn't the nanny state trying to protect people from their own behavior, it is the rest of us not wanting to pay for those people's irresponsibility!!!!

If someone smokes and gets emphysema or has a heart attack, that is their fault. If someone gets diabetic nephropathy and needs dialysis after a life of etting junk food and soda, that is their fault.

Even if I don't want to stop them from doing that for their own good, I certainly don't want our burdensome healthcare expenditures going through the roof because of their bad choices.

I think we can agree- I don't want our healthcare expenditures to be high because of people's irresponsible health decisions. I'm looking for ways to reduce that.

How can we make those people who have made the irresponsible choices to drink excessive amounts or soda or who chose to smoke pay for the healthcare required to treat those complications?

I'm trying to frame this in a personal responsibility and deficit/fiscal responsibility framework- and if you look at it that way, I think you might have a different take.

Dudeman

04-13-2011, 08:10 AM

TripleSkeet

04-13-2011, 08:11 AM

WF complains about this because there is nothing more that he loves than paying for other people's irresponsibility. If they want to have irresponsible health habits, like smoking and drinking excessive amounts of soda, which result in diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, kidney disease, etc, he really really wants our healthcare expenditures to contribute to our deficit because he wants to pay for their CABG.

Its the price you pay for living in a free country. We take care of the sick, and have the right to live unhealthy lives if we choose to. Theres nothing wrong with that. Id much rather live that way then be told what the fuck I can eat or drink.

TripleSkeet

04-13-2011, 08:13 AM

It isn't the nanny state trying to protect people from their own behavior, it is the rest of us not wanting to pay for those people's irresponsibility!!!!

If someone smokes and gets emphysema or has a heart attack, that is their fault. If someone gets diabetic nephropathy and needs dialysis after a life of etting junk food and soda, that is their fault.

Even if I don't want to stop them from doing that for their own good, I certainly don't want our burdensome healthcare expenditures going through the roof because of their bad choices.

I think we can agree- I don't want our healthcare expenditures to be high because of people's irresponsible health decisions. I'm looking for ways to reduce that.

How can we make those people who have made the irresponsible choices to drink excessive amounts or soda or who chose to smoke pay for the healthcare required to treat those complications?

I'm trying to frame this in a personal responsibility and deficit/fiscal responsibility framework- and if you look at it that way, I think you might have a different take.

So force these people to live healthier lifestyles so you can save money? Land of the free indeed.

Dude!

04-13-2011, 08:13 AM

I[B]
Even if I don't want to stop them from doing that for their own good, I certainly don't want our burdensome healthcare expenditures going through the roof because of their bad choices.

I think we can agree- I don't want our healthcare expenditures to be high because of people's irresponsible health decisions. I'm looking for ways to reduce that.

How can we make those people who have made the irresponsible choices to drink excessive amounts or soda or who chose to smoke pay for the healthcare required to treat those complications?

I'm trying to frame this in a personal responsibility and deficit/fiscal responsibility framework- and if you look at it that way, I think you might have a different take.

aids-spreading
gay sex should be controlled
for the same reason

foodcourtdruide

04-13-2011, 08:17 AM

There are always some exceptions to the rules, but generally speaking someone who goes to the gym or works out 3-4 times a week and eats right, sometimes having alchohol in moderation will be a victim to an unexpected heart attack.

Sorry, but this just isn't reality WF. People with extremely healthy lifestyles get unexpected diseases that cost a fortune to treat ALL THE TIME. This is not a rare occurance. Not at ALL.

Jujubees2

04-13-2011, 08:19 AM

So force these people to live healthier lifestyles so you can save money? Land of the free indeed.

This case isn't about forcing anyone to do (or not do) anything. It's that the city will not serve as an enabler in helping people do something that is detrimental to their health.

foodcourtdruide

04-13-2011, 08:21 AM

Its the price you pay for living in a free country. We take care of the sick, and have the right to live unhealthy lives if we choose to. Theres nothing wrong with that. Id much rather live that way then be told what the fuck I can eat or drink.

But beyond living in a "free country", we live in reality. What happens when health care expenses for those who don't care about what they eat or drink becomes more than the rest of society can bare? Saying things like "this is a nanny state" is really just bumper sticker talk. It's a few words that try to dismiss an incredibly complicated debate.

TjM

04-13-2011, 08:27 AM

It isn't the nanny state trying to protect people from their own behavior, it is the rest of us not wanting to pay for those people's irresponsibility!!!!

If someone smokes and gets emphysema or has a heart attack, that is their fault. If someone gets diabetic nephropathy and needs dialysis after a life of etting junk food and soda, that is their fault.

Even if I don't want to stop them from doing that for their own good, I certainly don't want our burdensome healthcare expenditures going through the roof because of their bad choices.

I think we can agree- I don't want our healthcare expenditures to be high because of people's irresponsible health decisions. I'm looking for ways to reduce that.

How can we make those people who have made the irresponsible choices to drink excessive amounts or soda or who chose to smoke pay for the healthcare required to treat those complications?

I'm trying to frame this in a personal responsibility and deficit/fiscal responsibility framework- and if you look at it that way, I think you might have a different take.

Keep letting them take your freedoms and choice in the name of health care priemiums. They'll get around to something you like eventually.

Dudeman

04-13-2011, 08:30 AM

So force these people to live healthier lifestyles so you can save money? Land of the free indeed.

When it comes to funding school lunches, WIC, etc, then the argument from the Right is:
-People have made poor choices we can't "reward" those poor choices. And we need to cut government spending. So we will defund those programs.

When it comes to paying for the healthcare of people who make the poor choices to smoke and eat junk food, like soda, then the argument from the Right is:
-Don't be a "nanny state" and tell us what choices to make. Don't save money by forcing people what to do.

I'm confused.

I'm trying to frame this issue in WF terms- don't reward poor choices; look to reduce the costs of one of the biggest contributors to our economy (healthcare).

If we have to make choices, I'd rather pay for kids school lunches (even if their parents were irresponsible to have a kid when they couldn't afford to) than pay for the dialysis or CABG of a 50 year old who smokes and drinks a lot of soda.

TripleSkeet

04-13-2011, 08:32 AM

This case isn't about forcing anyone to do (or not do) anything. It's that the city will not serve as an enabler in helping people do something that is detrimental to their health.

I know that. Im not really talking about this case which basically just bans soda machines.

TripleSkeet

04-13-2011, 08:32 AM

But beyond living in a "free country", we live in reality. What happens when health care expenses for those who don't care about what they eat or drink becomes more than the rest of society can bare? Saying things like "this is a nanny state" is really just bumper sticker talk. It's a few words that try to dismiss an incredibly complicated debate.

Im talking about people that want to force others to eat and drink healthy so that it keeps their health insurance cheaper. It DOESNT go beyond living in a free country. Fuck your health insurance. The freedom to live and eat and drink what we want trumps your fucking bills.

Maybe the problem is the healthcare system wants too much money for their treatment and medicine, not that people arent as healthy as they should be. Its not a complicated debate. We pay for things that dont have anything to do with us all the fucking time. Should people without children have to pay lower property taxes because they dont use the public schools? Maybe...but they dont, and they arent going to change that. Should people that dont drive have to pay taxes that go to highways? Maybe not, but they do because thats how it works.

Im betting you dream of a day when the world looks like San Angeles from Demolition Man.

TripleSkeet

04-13-2011, 08:34 AM

When it comes to funding school lunches, WIC, etc, then the argument from the Right is:
-People have made poor choices we can't "reward" those poor choices. And we need to cut government spending. So we will defund those programs.

When it comes to paying for the healthcare of people who make the poor choices to smoke and eat junk food, like soda, then the argument from the Right is:
-Don't be a "nanny state" and tell us what choices to make. Don't save money by forcing people what to do.

I'm confused.

I'm trying to frame this issue in WF terms- don't reward poor choices; look to reduce the costs of one of the biggest contributors to our economy (healthcare).

If we have to make choices, I'd rather pay for kids school lunches (even if their parents were irresponsible to have a kid when they couldn't afford to) than pay for the dialysis or CABG of a 50 year old who smokes and drinks a lot of soda.

For the record, Im not right wing and dont agree with cutting those programs either. My dad worked like a dog when I was in grade school and still made such little money that I was eligible for the school lunch program.

WRESTLINGFAN

04-13-2011, 08:52 AM

Dudeman

04-13-2011, 08:54 AM

For the record, Im not right wing and dont agree with cutting those programs either. My dad worked like a dog when I was in grade school and still made such little money that I was eligible for the school lunch program.

Fair enough. Didn't mean to label you. My comments were more directed at WF and his types.

I think you can see that the desire to deal with people smoking, drinking excessive soda, or having other poor lifestyle choices isn't about wanting to be a nanny state. For people who want to control expenditures and who don't like paying for other people's poor decisions, it seems like this would be a great area to try to deal with. There are no easy solutions, however.

Dudeman

04-13-2011, 08:58 AM

How about a school banning what parents can give their kids for lunch ? This mentality of the government trying to meddle in what parents give to their children doesnt raise an alarm. ?

Im not trying to sound like Beck but at what point does it go too far? I know with the school lunch program Monsanto has a big vested interest.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110411/us_yblog_thelookout/chicago-school-bans-homemade-lunches-the-latest-in-national-food-fight

There are no easy solutions.

I think we agree that we don't want to pay for other people's poor decisions in this case. I think we agree that health care expenditures are a major factor in our economy. It would be nice if there were a way to reduce the effects of the poor lifestyle choices on both the economy as well as on the individuals themselves.

WRESTLINGFAN

04-13-2011, 09:00 AM

Fair enough. Didn't mean to label you. My comments were more directed at WF and his types.

I think you can see that the desire to deal with people smoking, drinking excessive soda, or having other poor lifestyle choices isn't about wanting to be a nanny state. For people who want to control expenditures and who don't like paying for other people's poor decisions, it seems like this would be a great area to try to deal with. There are no easy solutions, however.

The only solution is just to ban all harmful food, cigarettes etc.

Dudeman

04-13-2011, 09:03 AM

The only solution is just to ban all harmful food, cigarettes etc.

I think you can still buy cigarettes and oreos and soda. No one has completely cut that off. Not having soda in school isn't the same as banning all harmful food, cigarettes etc.

(You hate when others misrepresent you, so don't misrepresent the other side.)

TripleSkeet

04-13-2011, 09:21 AM

There are no easy solutions.

I think we agree that we don't want to pay for other people's poor decisions in this case. I think we agree that health care expenditures are a major factor in our economy. It would be nice if there were a way to reduce the effects of the poor lifestyle choices on both the economy as well as on the individuals themselves.

I agree there are no easy solutions, but what Im seeing reminds me of the Oscar Wylde quote about "It is always with the best intentions that the worst work is done."

In all seriousness. As a society it would be barbaric to not offer healthcare to everyone, including those that eat poorly or are out of shape. But forcing people to live healthy goes against everything this country was founded on. Freedom of choice. The choice to live how you want to live. Now I dont have a problem with what this article says. If the state doesnt want to sell soda on its property to try and give people healthier choices, Im fine with that. I just dont want to start the trek down the slope that would come with banning people from bringing their own soda.

You cant say it would never come to that as we've seen it happen with cigarettes. First it was hospitals and airplanes. 2 places I thought were personally reasonable. Then it was restaurants and bars, something I thought went overboard as I thought it shouldve been left up to the owners discretion, but even so, couldve been handled. Now you are seeing places banning smoking from parks and outdoor places. Am I wrong to think that we've gone overboard now?

Somebody said it best earlier, nobody gives a fuck until its something THEY like being taken away.

TripleSkeet

04-13-2011, 09:24 AM

I think you can still buy cigarettes and oreos and soda. No one has completely cut that off. Not having soda in school isn't the same as banning all harmful food, cigarettes etc.

(You hate when others misrepresent you, so don't misrepresent the other side.)

Not offering it, and banning it from a school are 2 different things. If I want to let my kid take a couple oreos to eat with his lunch I dont think its any business of the school and they really should stay out of it.

WRESTLINGFAN

04-13-2011, 09:47 AM

I think you can still buy cigarettes and oreos and soda. No one has completely cut that off. Not having soda in school isn't the same as banning all harmful food, cigarettes etc.

(You hate when others misrepresent you, so don't misrepresent the other side.)

If a school chooses not to sell junk food than thats their choice but why should banning anything be justified

Dudeman

04-13-2011, 12:39 PM

foodcourtdruide

04-13-2011, 01:02 PM

Im talking about people that want to force others to eat and drink healthy so that it keeps their health insurance cheaper. It DOESNT go beyond living in a free country. Fuck your health insurance. The freedom to live and eat and drink what we want trumps your fucking bills.

Maybe the problem is the healthcare system wants too much money for their treatment and medicine, not that people arent as healthy as they should be. Its not a complicated debate. We pay for things that dont have anything to do with us all the fucking time. Should people without children have to pay lower property taxes because they dont use the public schools? Maybe...but they dont, and they arent going to change that. Should people that dont drive have to pay taxes that go to highways? Maybe not, but they do because thats how it works.

Im betting you dream of a day when the world looks like San Angeles from Demolition Man.

I don't want the world to look like San Angeles, but I think we have the following dilemma:

- People want to "live free" and do WHATEVER they want.
- People want medical care from conditions that are directly a result of their "free" lifestyle.

I agree with a lot of what you've said (especially about the cost of health care, at what point will we say, "why the FUCK is this so expensive?"), but where I disagree is that this IS an insanely complicated debate.

TripleSkeet

04-13-2011, 01:59 PM

From the newspaper yesterday. Not trying to make this a partisan/ slogan throwing fight. I think we all agree on the problem. I think we all agree it is difficult to find a solution.

"For the first time in history, lifestyle diseases like diabetes, heart disease, some cancers and others kill more people than communicable ones. Treating these diseases — and futile attempts to “cure” them — costs a fortune, more than one-seventh of our GDP."

"But they’re preventable, and you prevent them the same way you cause them: lifestyle."

"I don’t have an easy answer; no one does." (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/how-to-save-a-trillion-dollars/?hp)

I still dont see the reason to prevent them. Id rather eat, drink and do what I want and die at 70 then give up everything good and die at 100. Whats this fascination with keeping people alive forever?? The reason the worlds such a wreck right now is because people arent dying fast enough.

TripleSkeet

04-13-2011, 02:04 PM

I don't want the world to look like San Angeles, but I think we have the following dilemma:

- People want to "live free" and do WHATEVER they want.
- People want medical care from conditions that are directly a result of their "free" lifestyle.
I agree with a lot of what you've said (especially about the cost of health care, at what point will we say, "why the FUCK is this so expensive?"), but where I disagree is that this IS an insanely complicated debate.

Yea well thats what comes with living in a free country. Medical care is something that everyone should have. Regardless of why they need it. Thats my personal opinion and I think only heartless bastards would disagree with that.

You live in a free country and there are going to be all kinds of shit people can do that you wont like, things that can and will effect you. But you put up with that in order to reap the benefits that living in a free country gives you.

You cant FORCE people to be healthy or just deny them medical treatment and still call it a free country. I mean you could but it wouldnt be the truth.

Dudeman

04-13-2011, 02:13 PM

I still dont see the reason to prevent them. Id rather eat, drink and do what I want and die at 70 then give up everything good and die at 100. Whats this fascination with keeping people alive forever?? The reason the worlds such a wreck right now is because people arent dying fast enough.

Getting these people to live longer isn't really the driving force; rather it is the fact that their unhealthy lifestyle is a major contributor to our economic woes.

The problem, as the article points out, is that so many resources go into treating people with these lifestyle related diseases- CAD, type II diabetes, etc. When they develop these diseases at relatively young ages (50 years old), they want maximum treatment- CABG, dialysis, etc. I don't think they ever say, hey fuck it, I smoked and drank soda and ate McDonalds every day, so let me die and not see my kids or grandkids grow up. And certainly the doctors can't restrict the treatment provided. Their bad lifestyle choices, as the article points out, doesn't just harm them- it harms our economy. If there is a way to improve their lifestyle choices and help the economy, great. Finding the way to do that is not easy- actually I think we agree that public health education would be preferable to a ban.

StanUpshaw

04-13-2011, 02:57 PM

Getting these people to live longer isn't really the driving force; rather it is the fact that their unhealthy lifestyle is a major contributor to our economic woes.

The problem, as the article points out, is that so many resources go into treating people with these lifestyle related diseases- CAD, type II diabetes, etc. When they develop these diseases at relatively young ages (50 years old), they want maximum treatment- CABG, dialysis, etc. I don't think they ever say, hey fuck it, I smoked and drank soda and ate McDonalds every day, so let me die and not see my kids or grandkids grow up. And certainly the doctors can't restrict the treatment provided. Their bad lifestyle choices, as the article points out, doesn't just harm them- it harms our economy. If there is a way to improve their lifestyle choices and help the economy, great. Finding the way to do that is not easy- actually I think we agree that public health education would be preferable to a ban.

I'm pretty sure what you just described is known by your people as "stimulus".

sailor

04-13-2011, 04:34 PM

disneyspy

04-13-2011, 04:57 PM

it wont be much longer and we'll be killing people on their 65th birthday

keithy_19

04-13-2011, 05:02 PM

it wont be much longer and we'll be killing people on their 65th birthday

I can only hope they drop it to 23.

disneyspy

04-13-2011, 05:05 PM

I can only hope they drop it to 23.

you'll be posting even more to yourself then

keithy_19

04-13-2011, 05:08 PM

you'll be posting even more to yourself then

But come May I'll be posting just as much as everyone else.

disneyspy

04-13-2011, 05:09 PM

But come May I'll be posting just as much as everyone else.

this place is closing in may?

goodbye

keithy_19

04-13-2011, 05:41 PM

this place is closing in may?

goodbye

I hope not. That'd be an awful birthday present to me.

disneyspy

04-13-2011, 05:43 PM

I hope not. That'd be an awful birthday present to me.

for your birthday i hope you get a devils playoff win

oh ya um.....

keithy_19

04-13-2011, 06:22 PM

for your birthday i hope you get a devils playoff win

oh ya um.....

This comment after I pick the Red Wings to win the cup...

SonOfSmeagol

04-13-2011, 06:27 PM

Just put big per unit taxes on it, with revenue to go to help offset care as well as studies to improve the bigger picture. You eat or drink "unhealthy" - you pay. You smoke - you pay. No bans, just personal cost/benefit decisions on a per unit basis. Just try to get it through the lobbies though.

keithy_19

04-13-2011, 06:28 PM

SonOfSmeagol

04-13-2011, 06:48 PM

Like tea and stamps...

um, not really

keithy_19

04-13-2011, 06:59 PM

um, not really

Shh. Let me run with my list of historical taxes.

StanUpshaw

04-13-2011, 07:24 PM

http://i.imgur.com/Www0E.jpg

TripleSkeet

04-13-2011, 10:51 PM

Getting these people to live longer isn't really the driving force; rather it is the fact that their unhealthy lifestyle is a major contributor to our economic woes.

The problem, as the article points out, is that so many resources go into treating people with these lifestyle related diseases- CAD, type II diabetes, etc. When they develop these diseases at relatively young ages (50 years old), they want maximum treatment- CABG, dialysis, etc. I don't think they ever say, hey fuck it, I smoked and drank soda and ate McDonalds every day, so let me die and not see my kids or grandkids grow up. And certainly the doctors can't restrict the treatment provided. Their bad lifestyle choices, as the article points out, doesn't just harm them- it harms our economy. If there is a way to improve their lifestyle choices and help the economy, great. Finding the way to do that is not easy- actually I think we agree that public health education would be preferable to a ban.

Again, Im betting how costly it is has got more to do with the 800% profit margin they charge on these services then the actual services themselves.

foodcourtdruide

04-14-2011, 05:50 AM

Again, Im betting how costly it is has got more to do with the 800% profit margin they charge on these services then the actual services themselves.

This is a totally different debate, and one that actually is a great example of how free-market capitalism simply doesn't work.

TjM

04-14-2011, 06:37 AM

This is a totally different debate, and one that actually is a great example of how free-market capitalism simply doesn't work.

COMMIE! COMMIE! TRAITOR TO OUR COUNTRY!

Dudeman

04-14-2011, 07:01 AM

Again, Im betting how costly it is has got more to do with the 800% profit margin they charge on these services then the actual services themselves.

I disagree. That makes it sound as though the reason the costs from obesity related diseases has increased is because hospitals have decided to raise prices, rather than because the prevalence of those diseases has increased.

The fact that there is an obesity epidemic is incontrovertible.
The fact that obesity is associated with adverse health outcomes is incontrovertible.

-Some evidence from the New England Journal of Medicine:
-- Our findings suggest that as children are becoming heavier worldwide, greater numbers of them are at risk of having CHD in adulthood. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18057335)

-- Childhood obesity, epidemic in the United States, has been accompanied by an increase in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes among children and adolescents. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11893791)

TripleSkeet

04-14-2011, 09:19 AM

I disagree. That makes it sound as though the reason the costs from obesity related diseases has increased is because hospitals have decided to raise prices, rather than because the prevalence of those diseases has increased.

The fact that there is an obesity epidemic is incontrovertible.
The fact that obesity is associated with adverse health outcomes is incontrovertible.

-Some evidence from the New England Journal of Medicine:
-- Our findings suggest that as children are becoming heavier worldwide, greater numbers of them are at risk of having CHD in adulthood. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18057335)

-- Childhood obesity, epidemic in the United States, has been accompanied by an increase in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes among children and adolescents. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11893791)

No I wasnt saying obesity hasnt increased alot in this country, mine was a response that because they need medical care its contributing to our economic woes. Sure more people needing the services is going to mean more money, but at some point we should look at just how much profit these doctors and pharmaceutical companies make on these services instead of just saying "Well, its always been expensive."

If the cost is too high, I would rather they take a look and see why we pay 10 times the amount for the same medication then people in other countries do. Rather then try and force someone to eat differently.

Dudeman

04-14-2011, 09:47 AM

No I wasnt saying obesity hasnt increased alot in this country, mine was a response that because they need medical care its contributing to our economic woes. Sure more people needing the services is going to mean more money, but at some point we should look at just how much profit these doctors and pharmaceutical companies make on these services instead of just saying "Well, its always been expensive."

If the cost is too high, I would rather they take a look and see why we pay 10 times the amount for the same medication then people in other countries do. Rather then try and force someone to eat differently.

Perhaps there is a component- a small component- of increase in prices that is contributing to the problem. I don't think it is from hospitals turning a bigger profit; and I know it isn't from the primary care doc's who deal with the hypertension and type II diabetes issues making a bigger profit. Yes, the pharm companies are probably doing better, especially with meds for type II diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, and hypertension. But the contribution of CAD and type II diabetes complications to the health care expenditures comes from much more than just the meds- ESRD requiring dialysis, a CABG, or a stent are super expensive, regardless of profit.

The role of increasing profits is debatable, and at best minimal.
The role of an increasing obesity epidemic is unquestionable.

BTW, there are things I'd rather do before restricting access to junk food and cigs:
-increasing public health initiatives, esp in public school
-reimbursing primary care docs and pediatricians for nutrition counseling (ie. make it more profitable to have a patient not get diabetes or hypertension, rather than actually having the doc make more money if the patient is sicker)
-taxes at point of purchase (both to discourage and to make those making the bad health care choices increase their share of payments into the system)
-work to increase access to fresh food in inner cities, which are sorely lacking in grocery stores

If a pharm company is turning a crazy profit on a type Ii diabetes/hypercholesterolemia/hypertension drug (beyond what is vital to support Research and Development or beyond what is necessary to support the production of drugs for less prevalent diseases), lets look at that too.

Dudeman

04-17-2011, 07:43 AM

The cover article in today's NYTimes magazine.

If Lustig is right, then our excessive consumption of sugar is the primary reason that the numbers of obese and diabetic Americans have skyrocketed in the past 30 years. But his argument implies more than that. If Lustig is right, it would mean that sugar is also the likely dietary cause of several other chronic ailments widely considered to be diseases of Western lifestyles — heart disease, hypertension and many common cancers among them. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine)

Skip to 0:10:00 to see the soda problem.
Skip to 1:20:00 to see soda vs. beer.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dBnniua6-oM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Jujubees2

04-17-2011, 07:59 AM

StanUpshaw

04-17-2011, 08:19 AM

Breaking News: Sugar is bad for you

Dudeman

04-17-2011, 08:46 AM

Breaking News: Sugar is bad for you

"There is no association between sugar consumption and obesity."
Richard Adamson
Scientist for National Soft Drink Association
BMJ 326, March 2003

StanUpshaw

04-17-2011, 09:13 AM

Breaking news: Industry says positive things about itself

Dudeman

04-17-2011, 09:31 AM

Breaking news: Industry says positive things about itself

Yeah, but people on here want the free market to regulate itself- like the consumer would be able to figure out the effects of fructose biochemistry on their own.

StanUpshaw

04-17-2011, 09:50 AM

Yeah, but people on here want the free market to regulate itself- like the consumer would be able to figure out the effects of fructose biochemistry on their own.

People don't read press releases from the soda lobby any more than they read scientific journals. Yet somehow everyone knows sugar is bad (or at least they did before the conspiracy retards thought it would be a good idea to single out corn syrup as the real enemy).

There isn't a person on earth that thinks candy or soda is good for them.

Dudeman

04-17-2011, 10:18 AM

There isn't a person on earth that thinks candy or soda is good for them.

Marketing, especially to kids, says if you want to "be like Mike"... drink shit loads of sugar and salt in Gatorade and Coke. Or if you want to conquer your hunger eat Snickers (not an apple?)

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/b0AGiq9j_Ak" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wN4E-7kaWs0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/X1Sv_z9jm8A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

StanUpshaw

04-17-2011, 10:25 AM

You're absolutely right...despite all of that propaganda, there isn't a person on earth that thinks candy or soda is good for them.

Good point.

Dudeman

04-17-2011, 10:35 AM

You're absolutely right...despite all of that propaganda, there isn't a person on earth that thinks candy or soda is good for them.

Good point.

I don't know. If you asked a lot of kids/teens if they think Gatorade is good for them, I think you wouldn't get 100% who said "No."

And kids/teens see those types of commercials with the guys playing basketball and drinking Sprite or playing football and eating Snickers, and they think "I'll drink sprite or eat a Snickers if I'm hungry or thirsty while playing with my friends", not that they're going to have a banana and some water.

Dudeman

04-17-2011, 10:43 AM

I don't know. If you asked a lot of kids/teens if they think Gatorade is good for them, I think you wouldn't get 100% who said "No."

And kids/teens see those types of commercials with the guys playing basketball and drinking Sprite or playing football and eating Snickers, and they think "I'll drink sprite or eat a Snickers if I'm hungry or thirsty while playing with my friends", not that they're going to have a banana and some water.

We can argue, but it would be better to cite legit studies published in highly regarded, peer reviewed medical journals. From the journal "Pediatrics", the publication of the American Academy of Pediatrics:

An example regarding FSB (flavored and sports beverages)... although not for soda:

Consumption of FSBs coexists with healthy dietary and physical activity behaviors, which suggests popular misperception of these beverages as being consistent with a healthy lifestyle. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20876172)

And ultimately, it doesn't matter why they are eating and drinking the junk, the teens/kids are, the marketing is contributing to the problem, and it is a problem- both for them and the society who's health care expenditures can't support the increasing consequences of the obesity epidemic.

StanUpshaw

04-17-2011, 10:50 AM

Breaking news: Gatorade is associated with sports

Dudeman

04-17-2011, 10:54 AM

Breaking news: Gatorade is associated with sports

The study I cited doesn;t say Gatorade is associated with sports, but rather that it is associated with a healthy lifestyle.

And the commercials try to associate Sprite, Coke, and Snickers with sports (and ultimately a healthy lifestyle) too.

But Gatorade, Sprite, Coke, and Snickers should be associated (not just in adults minds, but in kids and teens) with insulin resistance.

A.J.

04-17-2011, 11:00 AM

Skip to 1:20:00 to see soda vs. beer.

Come on...we all know beer is better than soda.

StanUpshaw

04-17-2011, 11:05 AM

The study I cited doesn;t say Gatorade is associated with sports, but rather that it is associated with a healthy lifestyle.

And the commercials try to associate Sprite, Coke, and Snickers with sports (and ultimately a healthy lifestyle) too.

But Gatorade, Sprite, Coke, and Snickers should be associated (not just in adults minds, but in kids and teens) with insulin resistance.

You just showed us a study that says no one associates soda with a healthy lifestyle, so clearly commercials have no effect. Why do you keep bringing up commercials?

Dudeman

04-17-2011, 11:18 AM

I have work to do, and you are right:

-No kids or teens see commercials with athletes drinking soda or guys eating Snickers to get energy for playing football and associate those things with satisfying your hunger or thirst.

-Everyone understands that sugar isn't just empty calories that harm your teeth, but have biochemical effects, beyond the calories, that precipitate obesity, insulin resistance, and type II diabetes.

-The free market will solve the obesity epidemic- kids will ignore marketing and appreciate the biochemical consequences of their choices, resulting in a backlash against those companies that make gatorade, soda, and candy bars.

StanUpshaw

04-17-2011, 11:24 AM

People know bad food is bad. People will eat it anyway because it tastes good. People realize that everyone dies no matter what. People say, "who the fuck are you to tell me how to live?"

Dudeman

04-17-2011, 11:32 AM

People know bad food is bad. People will eat it anyway because it tastes good. People realize that everyone dies no matter what. People say, "who the fuck are you to tell me how to live?"

My last points:

1. We've had the same debate about cigarettes.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_g23luxfc5AY/TJSecbOATeI/AAAAAAAAgGg/Qj37reTOeh0/s1600/cigarette_composition.gif

2. People on here talk about not rewarding people for personal irresponsibility. Why does the rest of society have to have our health care system expenditures going through the roof, in part, because of the consequences of people eating excessive junk food.

3. As I posted before:

BTW, there are things I'd rather do before restricting access to junk food and cigs:
-increasing public health initiatives, esp in public school
-reimbursing primary care docs and pediatricians for nutrition counseling (ie. make it more profitable to have a patient not get diabetes or hypertension, rather than actually having the doc make more money if the patient is sicker)
-taxes at point of purchase (both to discourage and to make those making the bad health care choices increase their share of payments into the system)
-work to increase access to fresh food in inner cities, which are sorely lacking in grocery stores
-If a pharm company is turning a crazy profit on a type II diabetes/ hypercholesterolemia/ hypertension drug (beyond what is vital to support Research and Development or beyond what is necessary to support the production of drugs for less prevalent diseases), lets look at that too.

Snacks

04-17-2011, 12:04 PM

I don't know. If you asked a lot of kids/teens if they think Gatorade is good for them, I think you wouldn't get 100% who said "No."

And kids/teens see those types of commercials with the guys playing basketball and drinking Sprite or playing football and eating Snickers, and they think "I'll drink sprite or eat a Snickers if I'm hungry or thirsty while playing with my friends", not that they're going to have a banana and some water.

And just like religion thats why you get them when they are young. To train them! Yes no adult thinks sugar is good for you but we are so trained and so addicted to it by the time we are adults that it is hard to stop and becomes part of our routines and desire!

It still comes down to parents and them saying no. But the problem is its hard to fight billion dollar commercials that lie. Regulation is important because shit like this happens all the time. Snickers bas do not do anything good for you and they shouldnt be able to advertise that. Everything curbs your hunger and most anything will give you a boost of energy when you are hungry and weak. Its what happens 30 minutes later thats important.

Snacks

04-17-2011, 12:12 PM

People know bad food is bad. People will eat it anyway because it tastes good. People realize that everyone dies no matter what. People say, "who the fuck are you to tell me how to live?"

I agree people are going to do what they want to do and should. I dont want anyone to stop doing anything if they dont want to. But I do think this should be treated just like smoking. Dont allow advertising, regulate it more, tax it more and if people still want to use it fine but they are paying more to cover their hospital stay because their fat asses will be the ones using hospitals more.

This is another reason for national health care so that everyone pays but the more you abuse your body the more you pay in taxes. I used to be a smoker and stopped because I knew what it was doing but not everyone can or wants to. Thats fine but cig companies cant advertise on tv or billboards or pretty much anywhere. Maybe our govt should be advertising eating an apple instead of a snickers bar? I dont know but its in the best interest of the govt to help its people out. So dont make it illegal to eat anything or buy it from anywhere. Just dont allow advertising, tax the shit out of it and educate better about whats good.

I actually think almost everything should be legal. Just tax it people will pay more for the things that are so called bad for them. This way everyone gets what they want not just a select group and this way we have more revenue stream! Want a hooker, fine pay a tax, want some weed? pay a tax want a soda pay a tax eat an apple no tax!!!

StanUpshaw

04-17-2011, 12:41 PM

Am I the only mother fucker capable of remembering my childhood?!

NO ONE -- ADULT NOR CHILD -- HAS ANY DIFFICULTY DISTINGUISHING SHITTY FOOD FROM HEALTHY FOOD!!!!!

Commercials might serve as an introduction to a product, but no one is compelled by them. You try something, then if you like it, you continue to consume it. None of the thousands upon thousands of soda commercials throughout my entire childhood ever got me to drink a soda, because I learned early on that I abhor carbonated drinks. On the other hand, I don't think I've ever seen a YooHoo commercial, but I was wild for the stuff.

You are right about one thing though: my food tastes were established long before I had choice over what I ate. I see people feeding their babies ice cream and I want to kick them in the face.

Jujubees2

04-17-2011, 01:41 PM

People know bad food is bad. People will eat it anyway because it tastes good. People realize that everyone dies no matter what. People say, "who the fuck are you to tell me how to live?"

If people who ate shitty food just died that wouldn't be a problem. The problem is that they develop all sorts of medical problems before they die and that affects everyone in the form of increased health care costs.

foodcourtdruide

04-17-2011, 01:47 PM

If people who ate shitty food just died that wouldn't be a problem. The problem is that they develop all sorts of medical problems before they die and that affects everyone in the form of increased health care costs.

And not many people will say "I know I'm dying because of my poor life decisions, so please do not spend money on my health care."

Also, Stan, do you really think commercials don't have an impact on our purchasing decisions? Commercials do not only serve as an introduction to a product and it's not as simple as, "product a is being advertised, so I will buy product a," the long-term affects of advertising go much deeper than that.

StanUpshaw

04-17-2011, 02:30 PM

Also, Stan, do you really think commercials don't have an impact on our purchasing decisions? Commercials do not only serve as an introduction to a product and it's not as simple as, "product a is being advertised, so I will buy product a," the long-term affects of advertising go much deeper than that.

They don't compel behavior. Once you decide upon a behavior, then shit like brand awareness comes into play.

Like I said, I don't like carbonation...no amount of soda commercials sports stars or skydiving bros have made me desire their products. No amount of big-tittied beer sluts have made me desire their products. If commercials worked the way people like to imagine they do, then I should feel at least some drive to have the product being advertised.

Dudeman

04-17-2011, 02:45 PM

They don't compel behavior. Once you decide upon a behavior, then shit like brand awareness comes into play.

Like I said, I don't like carbonation...no amount of soda commercials sports stars or skydiving bros have made me desire their products. No amount of big-tittied beer sluts have made me desire their products. If commercials worked the way people like to imagine they do, then I should feel at least some drive to have the product being advertised.

You are just one person. Just because something doesn't affect you, that doesn't mean it doesn't do anything for someone else, especially some teenagers. Not all types of ad's work for everyone- they're hoping to get 1%, 5%, 25%; not 100%.

damn it, i thought i was done with this posting...

Zorro

04-17-2011, 02:54 PM

Just wondering why the obesity rates have skyrocketed in the last 30 years right along with the introduction of Diet Sodas?

StanUpshaw

04-17-2011, 02:56 PM

You are just one person. Just because something doesn't affect you, that doesn't mean it doesn't do anything for someone else, especially some teenagers. Not all types of ad's work for everyone- they're hoping to get 1%, 5%, 25%; not 100%.

damn it, i thought i was done with this posting...

At least we found something we can agree on: I am exceptional.

Dudeman

04-17-2011, 03:31 PM

Just wondering why the obesity rates have skyrocketed in the last 30 years right along with the introduction of Diet Sodas?

that is partly what the video I posted on the prior page trys to address. i think he claims that the changes over the past 30 yrs have been:
-change in type of sugar in processed food to fructose
-low fat products being sold as healthy, but having higher sugar content to maintain flavor (check out @ 39 minutes)

so actually people end up eating more and worse sugars

Dudeman

04-17-2011, 03:33 PM

At least we found something we can agree on: I am exceptional.

http://www.ltvdynamics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/hand-shake.33680231_std.jpg

StanUpshaw

04-17-2011, 03:33 PM

HFCS has the same glucose to fructose ratio as normal sugar.

Snacks

04-17-2011, 03:42 PM

HFCS has the same glucose to fructose ratio as normal sugar.

but it breaks down in your body differently. Just because something is similar doesnt mean its the same natural is so much better. When you start to alter or add to something your body stores it and breaks it down differently. Watch "king corn" to see how fucked we are and addicted to corn. Its kind of sad to know that corn used to be able to be eaten as soon as it was harvested. Now this new altered corn has to be processed before it can be eaten even as corn, never mind what they have to do to it to make it into all the other shit its used for.