New York City / Rights Without Responsibility / The Cost

[Villages PL]

If you live in New York City, you have a right to drink as much sugary-soft-drinks as you want, not to mention your right to consume other high calorie processed foods. And, if all of that makes you overweight or obese, you have a right to be that way. And if being that way causes you to have a stroke or heart attack, you may have a right to get a "free" bypass operation or whatever treatment you may need (compliments of New York City).

The above rights are untouchable. It may cost the average New Yorker upwards of $500,000,000 per year to supply the "free" medical services but that makes no difference. You may have to give up some of your money to pay for those services if you live there, but so what? What makes you think you have any rights?

You may have to give up some of your money but don't expect soda drinkers to give up even 4 ounces of their cherished soda. It's just too big of a sacrifice, and you have no right to expect it.

Let's talk about the rights of those who pay the bills! What rights do we have?

[pooh]

Who really has the right to tell someone what and how much of anything they may eat or drink?

[graciegirl]

Boy HOWDY HOWDY HOWDY!!!!!!!!

[gomoho]

Well, on the other hand a lot of women think it is their right to have as many babies as they choose which we will also support. How do you suggest we fix that? which is probably a much larger drain on society than some people drinking pop.

The the problem with right and responsibilities - who gets to make the decision. I for one believe in the United States it is each person's right to choose than suffer the consequences - so maybe that is where we are off base - saving people from consequences they have created for themselves.

[Villages PL]

Who really has the right to tell someone what and how much of anything they may eat or drink?

Who really has the right to tell someone that they must pay for the healthcare of someone who has health issues related to being overweight or obese?

[gomoho]

Who really has the right to tell someone that they must pay for the healthcare of someone who has health issues related to being overweight or obese?

News flash - we're paying for a whole lot more healthcare for folks other than issues of being overweight or obese and I would guess statistics would show that is the least of our problems.

[Patty55]

Y'know, this is not exclusively a New York problem. Big Gulps are sold nationwide. People are breeding without a license everywhere.

[Uptown Girl]

News flash - we're paying for a whole lot more healthcare for folks other than issues of being overweight or obese and I would guess statistics would show that is the least of our problems.

I was just gonna say that. Now I don't have to. Thanks.

[cbg150]

Y'know, this is not exclusively a New York problem. Big Gulps are sold nationwide. People are breeding without a license everywhere.

Thank you Patty! NYC was just trying to give consumers a chance to have some small gulps too! NYC also led the country in putting calorie counts on menus, so that consumers could make educated choices! I am proud of my city for that!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[villagerjack]

If you live in New York City, you have a right to drink as much sugary-soft-drinks as you want, not to mention your right to consume other high calorie processed foods. And, if all of that makes you overweight or obese, you have a right to be that way. And if being that way causes you to have a stroke or heart attack, you may have a right to get a "free" bypass operation or whatever treatment you may need (compliments of New York City).

The above rights are untouchable. It may cost the average New Yorker upwards of $500,000,000 per year to supply the "free" medical services but that makes no difference. You may have to give up some of your money to pay for those services if you live there, but so what? What makes you think you have any rights?

You may have to give up some of your money but don't expect soda drinkers to give up even 4 ounces of their cherished soda. It's just too big of a sacrifice, and you have no right to expect it.

Let's talk about the rights of those who pay the bills! What rights do we have?

Can you correlate the amount if soda someone drinks with the number of. pounds put on as a result of drinking that soda? Go ahead and do it for me,
.
Yes it is a challenge and I m betting you come up blank.

[Villages PL]

..... so maybe that is where we are off base - saving people from consequences they have created for themselves.

I tend to agree, somewhat. But here's the thing: If the New York City health department (or Blumeburg) sees a health hazard developing, like obesity, they should have some latitude to deal with it. It's sad that it has come to this but the only other way to deal with it is to keep raising taxes, and it seems that the city doesn't want to do that. And for that I applaud them.

Given the choice between ever higher taxes and protecting people from themselves, I come down on the side of protecting people from themselves, not to mention protecting them from the fast food industry.

[graciegirl]

///

[Villages PL]

News flash - we're paying for a whole lot more healthcare for folks other than issues of being overweight or obese and I would guess statistics would show that is the least of our problems.

You're changing the subject; one topic at a time.

[Mack184]

It's amazing how many people are willing to sell their souls & freedoms so cheaply.

[pooh]

Who really has the right to tell someone that they must pay for the healthcare of someone who has health issues related to being overweight or obese?

It's a valid point, BUT what if other types of foods were deemed not appropriate?
Someone is telling me what I can or cannot eat? I think not! Imagine if you were told that a particular food you enjoy is now "off limits?"
You eat a diet that keeps you fit and healthy. Others have different diets that also keep them fit and healthy and contrary to what some might think, a treat every once in a while is not the problem. Telling anyone that legislation will be passed because, seems very wrong. Other approaches might be better.....education for one.

[Patty55]

Thank you Patty! NYC was just trying to give consumers a chance to have some small gulps too! NYC also led the country in putting calorie counts on menus, so that consumers could make educated choices! I am proud of my city for that!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They already had the chance to drink "small gulps", just don't buy the big one. I really don't think the Mayor needed to insert himself into the situation.

I hate to see this being referred to as a NY problem. Truth be told, my food choices in NY were much healthier than here in TV

[Villages PL]

Y'know, this is not exclusively a New York problem. Big Gulps are sold nationwide.

Exactly, that's part of the reason we have an epidemic of people being overweight and obese.

[nitehawk]

Well, on the other hand a lot of women think it is their right to have as many babies as they choose which we will also support. How do you suggest we fix that? which is probably a much larger drain on society than some people drinking pop.

The the problem with right and responsibilities - who gets to make the decision. I for one believe in the United States it is each person's right to choose than suffer the consequences - so maybe that is where we are off base - saving people from consequences they have created for themselves.

Forced Sterilization :bigbow::bigbow::bigbow::bigbow::bigbow::bigbow:

[Mack184]

At 60 years old my father was in better physical shape than I have ever been in my whole life. He did not drink or smoke. He was not obese or diabetic. He watched everything he ate & drank. At 60 years old he could still fit into his WW-2 pilot's uniform. He did 100 sit-ups & 100 push-up each morning after he got up. He was the kind of guy that your doctor would point at and say..you should be like "him". 3 out of his 4 grandparents lived to be over 100. His maternal grandfather died at 73 after being run over by a drunk driver, so we will never know how long he would have lived. At 96 his paternal grandfather (who lived to be 102) was a PA Dutch preacher & farmer was still preaching each and every Sunday in his church and still living on the farm that had no electricity or running water. His mother & father both lived to be 87. NONE of them was diabetic or obese. None of them had chronic disease. Now this those genes in his blood, and his own personal care of his body at 60 years old...He dropped dead of a massive heart attack.

Now while I don't suggest you go home & suck on a stick of butter at night, taking the very best care you can take of your body guarantees..NOTHING.

And I'm not willing to sell my soul & my freedoms just because some jerk with money thinks he knows better than I do. No, thank-you.

[Mikeod]

Exactly, that's part of the reason we have an epidemic of people being overweight and obese.
Big gulps are doing this? Nope. Not even close.

So, it appears you would be OK with limiting other foods that you and the government deem responsible for obesity. Then we can have rationing to make sure no one has more than the government allocation of red meat, or butter/margarine, or white bread, or . . . . Then we can have mandated exercise classes. Sorry, that's not the way I want our nation to go.

Perhaps there needs to be some incentive for people to achieve a healthy weight. But forcing a particular diet on them is not the way.

BTW, did you notice the government you seem to want involved in the obesity problem just agreed to buy 400,000 tons of sugar to help keep the price down?

[cbg150]

They already had the chance to drink "small gulps", just don't buy the big one. I really don't think the Mayor needed to insert himself into the situation.

I hate to see this being referred to as a NY problem. Truth be told, my food choices in NY were much healthier than here in TV

I guess there is a disconnect here. In many fast food establishments in NYC (and perhaps elsewhere?) smaller cups are just not available!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ilovetv]

I guess there is a disconnect here. In many fast food establishments in NYC (and perhaps elsewhere?) smaller cups are just not available!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There certainly is a disconnect. Why does the size of the CUP determine how much the person drinks?????? Do soda drinkers not have a BRAIN to decide to stop drinking when they're no longer thirsty????

Maybe this is odd, but I stop drinking when I'm no longer thirsty!! What law says a person has to drink all that is served??? GEEZ......

People are supposed to be responsible for THEMSELVES!!!

[Vinny]

If you live in New York City, you have a right to drink as much sugary-soft-drinks as you want, not to mention your right to consume other high calorie processed foods. And, if all of that makes you overweight or obese, you have a right to be that way. And if being that way causes you to have a stroke or heart attack, you may have a right to get a "free" bypass operation or whatever treatment you may need (compliments of New York City).

The above rights are untouchable. It may cost the average New Yorker upwards of $500,000,000 per year to supply the "free" medical services but that makes no difference. You may have to give up some of your money to pay for those services if you live there, but so what? What makes you think you have any rights?

You may have to give up some of your money but don't expect soda drinkers to give up even 4 ounces of their cherished soda. It's just too big of a sacrifice, and you have no right to expect it.

Let's talk about the rights of those who pay the bills! What rights do we have?

There are always those eager to take away freedoms that do not affect them. The whole concept of insurance is shared risk. How would you like to pay for health insurance based on your diet, amount of exercise and prior health problems? Be careful of what you wish for because you may get it. I can say that based on the lack of driving skills I see every day around TV, many should be paying much more for auto insurance. Why should I subsidize their accidents since I am a good driver who never had an accident? Why should young people pay into Social Security when they may not be alive to collect? Your thinking leads down a very slippery slope indeed.

[ilovetv]

There are always those eager to take away freedoms that do not affect them. The whole concept of insurance is shared risk. How would you like to pay for health insurance based on your diet, amount of exercise and prior health problems? Be careful of what you wish for because you may get it. I can say that based on the lack of driving skills I see every day around TV, many should be paying much more for auto insurance. Why should I subsidize their accidents since I am a good driver who never had an accident? Why should young people pay into Social Security when they may not be alive to collect? Your thinking leads down a very slippery slope indeed.

I think this is the most insightful post I've ever read here!!

[njbchbum]

I tend to agree, somewhat. But here's the thing: If the New York City health department (or Blumeburg) sees a health hazard developing, like obesity, they should have some latitude to deal with it. It's sad that it has come to this but the only other way to deal with it is to keep raising taxes, and it seems that the city doesn't want to do that. And for that I applaud them.

Given the choice between ever higher taxes and protecting people from themselves, I come down on the side of protecting people from themselves, not to mention protecting them from the fast food industry.



and who will protect the people who do not want to be protected by the people who think they have to protect people from themselves?

let the dept of health recognize a health hazard and conduct an effective campaign about it. let the people who feel strongly about the hazard PARTICIPATE in such a campaign.

no one [other than a parent/guardian] has ANY right to CONTROL another's behavior!

[blueash]

Can you correlate the amount if soda someone drinks with the number of. pounds put on as a result of drinking that soda? Go ahead and do it for me,
.
Yes it is a challenge and I m betting you come up blank.

Sweet Drinks Tied to Higher Calorie Intake in Kids (http://consumer.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=674293)
Sweet drinks tied to a Higher Calorie intake in kids
"Among all age groups analyzed, the energy density (calories per gram) of food consumed increased with higher sugar-sweetened beverage intake," lead investigator Kevin Mathias, of the department of nutrition at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in a journal news release.

He said the findings suggest that higher consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is associated with consumption of foods with high levels of calories.

"This is concerning because many foods that are associated with higher sugar-sweetened beverage consumption (e.g., pizza, cakes/cookies/pies, fried potatoes, and sweets) are also top sources of solid fats and added sugars; components of the diet that the 2010 Dietary Guidelines recommends Americans should limit"

[Barefoot]

hThere are always those eager to take away freedoms that do not affect them. The whole concept of insurance is shared risk. How would you like to pay for health insurance based on your diet, amount of exercise and prior health problems? Be careful of what you wish for because you may get it. I can say that based on the lack of driving skills I see every day around TV, many should be paying much more for auto insurance. Why should I subsidize their accidents since I am a good driver who never had an accident? Why should young people pay into Social Security when they may not be alive to collect? Your thinking leads down a very slippery slope indeed.

Vinny, well said!

[CFrance]

I think Bloomberg went too far on this one. Actually, I think he went too far on the trans fat one too. Making sure the nutritional content is available is one thing; shutting sugar and trans fat down down is going too far into people's rights.JMO. Why not ban the ale of cigarettes in NYC? That's even more harmful than trans fat or sugar.

[KeepingItReal]

There are always those eager to take away freedoms that do not affect them. The whole concept of insurance is shared risk. How would you like to pay for health insurance based on your diet, amount of exercise and prior health problems? Be careful of what you wish for because you may get it. I can say that based on the lack of driving skills I see every day around TV, many should be paying much more for auto insurance. Why should I subsidize their accidents since I am a good driver who never had an accident? Why should young people pay into Social Security when they may not be alive to collect? Your thinking leads down a very slippery slope indeed.

Excellent Post

Not one is perfect, sure don't want to point a finger at the faults of another until I can say I have none of my own! Not my place to look at anyone and tell them what they are doing wrong unless I'm their parent.

[DougB]

Excellent Post

Not one is perfect, sure don't want to point a finger at the faults of another until I can say I have none of my own! Booze does more harm than sugar I would say..not much said about limiting the size of a drink or how many beers can be consumed..

I'll drink to that!

[Indydealmaker]

Calorie intake is inconsequential if balanced by physical activity.

If the government wants to be involved in the obesity epidemic, why not put "real" physical education back in our schools.

[wendyquat]

Calorie intake is inconsequential if balanced by physical activity.

If the government wants to be involved in the obesity epidemic, why not put "real" physical education back in our schools.

Gosh Steven, just when I think I have "heard it all" you come up with a very sensible post!

I should let it end there but can't resist this one! I see many "obese" people at the several Dunkin Donuts locations here in the villages. They appear to be drinking coffee instead of colas BUT the round pastries may be the culprits. Perhaps that can be "nanny" B's next target!

As for insurance one of my doctors let it slip that the out of pocket costs for care may soon be tied to ones BMI!

[DougB]

Calorie intake is inconsequential if balanced by physical activity.

If the government wants to be involved in the obesity epidemic, why not put "real" physical education back in our schools.

Can you define "real" physical education????

Florida law requires each district school board to provide 150 minutes of physical education each week for students in kindergarten through grade 5 and for students in grade 6 who are enrolled in a school that contains one or more elementary grades so that on any day during which physical education instruction is conducted there are at least 30 consecutive minutes per day. Beginning with the 2009-2010 school year, the equivalent of one class period per day of physical education for one semester of each year is required for students enrolled in grades 6 through 8.

Florida's Next Generation Sunshine State Standards for Physical Education specify the content standards
student should know and be able to do as the result of a quality physical education program.

[DougB]

Gosh Steven, just when I think I have "heard it all" you come up with a very sensible post!

I should let it end there but can't resist this one! I see many "obese" people at the several Dunkin Donuts locations here in the villages. They appear to be drinking coffee instead of colas BUT the round pastries may be the culprits. Perhaps that can be "nanny" B's next target!

As for insurance one of my doctors let it slip that the out of pocket costs for care may soon be tied to ones BMI!

Sorry Wendy, I fail to see the connection between what you refer to as "obese" people eating round pastries in The Villages to Physical Education in our schools. Could you explain?

[graciegirl]

...

[Uptown Girl]

If you live in New York City, you have a right to drink as much sugary-soft-drinks as you want, not to mention your right to consume other high calorie processed foods. And, if all of that makes you overweight or obese, you have a right to be that way. And if being that way causes you to have a stroke or heart attack, you may have a right to get a "free" bypass operation or whatever treatment you may need (compliments of New York City).

The above rights are untouchable. It may cost the average New Yorker upwards of $500,000,000 per year to supply the "free" medical services but that makes no difference. You may have to give up some of your money to pay for those services if you live there, but so what? What makes you think you have any rights?

You may have to give up some of your money but don't expect soda drinkers to give up even 4 ounces of their cherished soda. It's just too big of a sacrifice, and you have no right to expect it.

Let's talk about the rights of those who pay the bills! What rights do we have?

As I understand your posts (starting with this one, for example) your beef is that you are being forced to foot the bill for health costs for people who have medical problems related to obesity.
It would appear that you are greatly upset with these individuals because they are causing your 'rights' to be trampled upon by indulging in high calorie/non nutritional food consumption.
When Gomoho mentioned that there are many other medical expenses that we as a nation are paying for that we may not be on board with personally, you considered it a 'change of topic'. (I agreed with Gomoho, by the way)

It's NOT a change of topic, if your beef is about footing the bill when you don't want to. (your rights being trampled)

To be honest, over time in reading your posts (here and in other threads you have generated recently), the message I get is that you really have distain for people who are fat. To focus on this brings more of it to your attention and you bang your drum and push against it and get your innards in a twist.

That's not healthy.... and personally, I don't want to pay for the medical problems this negativity may cause your body down the road.... when it shouldn't be necessary, as you have a choice not to INDULGE in this behavior ......... but I probably will anyway. See? :shrug:

[Mack184]

There are always those eager to take away freedoms that do not affect them. The whole concept of insurance is shared risk. How would you like to pay for health insurance based on your diet, amount of exercise and prior health problems? Be careful of what you wish for because you may get it. I can say that based on the lack of driving skills I see every day around TV, many should be paying much more for auto insurance. Why should I subsidize their accidents since I am a good driver who never had an accident? Why should young people pay into Social Security when they may not be alive to collect? Your thinking leads down a very slippery slope indeed.
Abso-F-ing-Lutely brilliant!!!! Thank-You.

As far as the driving goes a couple years ago the insurance company called Progressive came up with an option called "Snapshot" where you plug a little unit into your car's diagnotic port and it tattles on how you drive. If Progressive LIKES the way you drive then you get a discount. If it DOESN'T like the way you drive..oh..well..it works AGAINST you. According to stories that have been written by the AP, the NY Post & the Baltimore Sun the other insurance companies and the GOVERNMENT like this little item so much that there is serious consideration being given to making it MANDATORY for you to get car insurance. The system uses a lot of interesting nonsense to "grade" you like if you drive at night. Under their assumption you are out partying if you are driving at night. Thus they charge you more. Unfortunately it makes no provision for people who are WORKING at night and driving to & from their jobs.

All of this stuff is a most slippery slope indeed. Thank-you Mr. Vinnie for a most insightful post!

[billethkid]

the big gulp is just one very small aspect of the obesity problem. The major problem is the amount of food, good/bad and junk that some keep jamming in their pie hole....along with being couch potatoes.....and no doubt the lack of needing to work to live by so many in the entitlement life style.

The big gulp issue is symbolic with no real impact to be made on the real reasons for our tonnage.

btk

[Mack184]

Calorie intake is inconsequential if balanced by physical activity.

If the government wants to be involved in the obesity epidemic, why not put "real" physical education back in our schools.
Absolutely correct. When Michael Phelps is training for the Olympics he eats 20,000 calories a day. Anybody seen Michael Phelps lately? Sorry..I couldn't find his beer gut from all that eating.

Most people on this board are old enough to remember that when we were anywhere from grade school to 20-somethings our parents required us to MOVE. They wanted us out of the house playing or doing chores or whatever. We were not allowed to sit in front of the TV forever, not allowed to yak on the dial-up wall phone for hours in the kitchen, and there was no such thing as a computer in your house to play with. I.D.M makes the point that if PE classes in school actually were "physical", that would go a long way toward working against obesity. Back then you looked at the gym teacher cross-eyed and you spent your 45 minutes running gym laps. Today kids have "rights" and the PE teachers can't make them do anything.

In those days you could eat like a horse and you didn't put on a pound because you were MOVING. Today kids come home and parents allow them to park their butts in front of the TV and/or computer and lock themselves in their rooms. If you don't move you can eat grass clippings and gain weight.

We keep hearing about the link to weight and diabetes. Yes, that's true. However, there are many other factors relating to diabetes. A great deal of it is genetics. I am diabetic. I was adopted as an infant. I was never at all interested in finding my "birth" family. A couple of years ago by accident they found me. I found that I had 7 bio-brothers & sisters. Virtually everyone with a dose of that family's blood has diabetes. Everyone. Doesn't matter if they are as skinny as a broom handle or big as a house. If you're in that family you will develop diabetes.

I've had two doctors tell me that genetics plays a huge part in whether or not you contract diabetes. Genetics also plays a large role in diseases such as autism, food allegies and so on. Would some people here who are so angry towards heavy and/or diabetic people for "costing them money" show the same anger & hatred for someone with autism or other diseases that have genetic triggers?

Probably not.. because there is a feeling..touted by many..that people who are overweight are lazy and of a "lower class". So overweight=diabetes which=people of a lower class, and because "WE" of a higher class know better & are thus superior "WE" have the right to force our superior knowledge on these people because "WE" know better. Hogwash!

[Cisco Kid]

Absolutely correct. When Michael Phelps is training for the Olympics he eats 20,000 calories a day. Anybody seen Michael Phelps lately? Sorry..I couldn't find his beer gut from all that eating.

Most people on this board are old enough to remember that when we were anywhere from grade school to 20-somethings our parents required us to MOVE. They wanted us out of the house playing or doing chores or whatever. We were not allowed to sit in front of the TV forever, not allowed to yak on the dial-up wall phone for hours in the kitchen, and there was no such thing as a computer in your house to play with. I.D.M makes the point that if PE classes in school actually were "physical", that would go a long way toward working against obesity. Back then you looked at the gym teacher cross-eyed and you spent your 45 minutes running gym laps. Today kids have "rights" and the PE teachers can't make them do anything.

In those days you could eat like a horse and you didn't put on a pound because you were MOVING. Today kids come home and parents allow them to park their butts in front of the TV and/or computer and lock themselves in their rooms. If you don't move you can eat grass clippings and gain weight.

We keep hearing about the link to weight and diabetes. Yes, that's true. However, there are many other factors relating to diabetes. A great deal of it is genetics. I am diabetic. I was adopted as an infant. I was never at all interested in finding my "birth" family. A couple of years ago by accident they found me. I found that I had 7 bio-brothers & sisters. Virtually everyone with a dose of that family's blood has diabetes. Everyone. Doesn't matter if they are as skinny as a broom handle or big as a house. If you're in that family you will develop diabetes.

I've had two doctors tell me that genetics plays a huge part in whether or not you contract diabetes. Genetics also plays a large role in diseases such as autism, food allegies and so on. Would some people here who are so angry towards heavy and/or diabetic people for "costing them money" show the same anger & hatred for someone with autism or other diseases that have genetic triggers?

Probably not.. because there is a feeling..touted by many..that people who are overweight are lazy and of a "lower class". So overweight=diabetes which=people of a lower class, and because "WE" of a higher class know better & are thus superior "WE" have the right to force our superior knowledge on these people because "WE" know better. Hogwash!


All good points mack

And how about the jobs you took as a kid.
I walk beans, detasseled corn, mowed yards.
And dad alway had a list ready for the lazy boy.
All hot an sweaty
Never did have a I-pod stuck in front of my face for hours on in.

[Mack184]

All good points mack

And how about the jobs you took as a kid.
I walk beans, detasseled corn, mowed yards.
And dad alway had a list ready for the lazy boy.
All hot an sweaty
Never did have a I-pod stuck in front of my face for hours on in.
I worked for a guy who had a small milk company. Worked on the trucks with him from the time I was about 12. I worked for a couple of local farmers as well helping to bring in the hay & corn. And yo're right. My dad always had a list for this lazy boy too!! :laugh:

[billethkid]

when ever I address a subject like obesity, I alway, always exclude those with conditions beyond their control for what ever the reason or cause. My commentary is alwys aimed at the other 95% who voluntarily continue to stuff their face.

How can we ever expect to change what people do? Smoking as another example odf what is proven to be bad enough to kill one and yet far too many still smoke....especially the young parents with kids....my favorite is the do good Mom in a car with the windows up, smoking, with kids in infant seats in the back.

Testimony to the fact there is a large...too large number of people who just do not care....and unfortunately in that number is a lot of stupid as well. And we all know ya can't fix stupid!!

btk

[memason]

Seem to me that intolerance of others is also hard to fix...

[Cisco Kid]

I worked for a guy who had a small milk company. Worked on the trucks with him from the time I was about 12. I worked for a couple of local farmers as well helping to bring in the hay & corn. And yo're right. My dad always had a list for this lazy boy too!! :laugh:

I forgot about hay.
That one was just about to much for me.
Every time I was not looking there was a snake.

[cbg150]

Seem to me that intolerance of others is also hard to fix...

Agreed!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[billethkid]

intollerance is such a subjective perspective which results in varying perceptions of intent.

btk

[Villages PL]

It's a valid point, BUT what if other types of foods were deemed not appropriate?

If there are other types of foods that are deemed to be a hazard, I would be glad to cut back.

Someone is telling me what I can or cannot eat?

No, not exactly. No food has ever been banned.

You eat a diet that keeps you fit and healthy. Others have different diets that also keep them fit and healthy and contrary to what some might think, a treat every once in a while is not the problem.

If the law eventually passes, you would be allowed to buy a 16 ounce soda. And I believe you would still be able to buy larger sodas in the supermarket.

Telling anyone that legislation will be passed because, seems very wrong. Other approaches might be better.....education for one.

I agree that education is a better approach but where is it?

[gomoho]

Well Mrs POTUS is trying to educate about healthy eating - not sure she is having much luck - costs a lot of money to eat fresh fruits and veggies. Do you think we should pay for that?

[Villages PL]

Can you correlate the amount if soda someone drinks with the number of. pounds put on as a result of drinking that soda? Go ahead and do it for me,
.
Yes it is a challenge and I m betting you come up blank.

No one was ever trying to come up with an exact correlation. That was never the point. I'm not certain but I believe it was simply based on statistics of how many sodas were being consumed by the average soda drinker. From there they calculated the added number of calories per day from sugar.

They also have statistics on obesity. If excess calories cause weight gain then the plan is to find a way to cut some of those calories without interfering with nutrition.

[wendyquat]

Sorry Wendy, I fail to see the connection between what you refer to as "obese" people eating round pastries in The Villages to Physical Education in our schools. Could you explain?

ACTUALLY agreeing with Stevens post about countering calorie consumption with exercise! I have no knowledge about what is offered in the educational system! Sorry if I gave that impression!

My comment about donuts just shows how ridiculous it is to ban large sodas when there are MANY, MANY culprits that may contribute to weight gain. You just can't ban them all!

[DougB]

Hi Wendy. Thank you for clarifying. Sorry I misunderstood.

[Gerald]

For some people the only rights you can have are the ones they think are ok. LOL.
There is always some group or person who thinks they have all the answers. Just take peoples rights away. Yea . I believe there were wars because of that same issue.
Guess who always wins. Taking peoples rights away is wrong.

[njbchbum]

No one was ever trying to come up with an exact correlation. That was never the point. I'm not certain but I believe it was simply based on statistics of how many sodas were being consumed by the average soda drinker. From there they calculated the added number of calories per day from sugar.

They also have statistics on obesity. If excess calories cause weight gain then the plan is to find a way to cut some of those calories without interfering with nutrition.

wonder why the plan does not focus on exercising the excess calories away - regardless of where they came from! "they" need to rethink "their" plan!

[tommy steam]

Well Mrs POTUS is trying to educate about healthy eating - not sure she is having much luck - costs a lot of money to eat fresh fruits and veggies. Do you think we should pay for that?

The bottom line is eating healthy is expensive . It's up to each person if they want to make an investment in their health. It just might pay off in the future

[pooh]

I agree that education is a better approach but where is it?

Needs to start in the schools, in advertising....everyone is trying to make a buck....but it might not....and even if it doesn't, officials must tread lightly when it seems they will be forcing food decisions upon the masses. We as Americans take our freedoms for granted....until someone decides we are unable to make choices on our own....right or wrong, we still have the right to decide what we, as individuals, will ingest. All this over cup size....just imagine what it would be like if actual food portions came under scrutiny.

[Mack184]

The bottom line is eating healthy is expensive . It's up to each person if they want to make an investment in their health. It just might pay off in the future
I suppose it depends on how you define "healthy". I doubt I am the only person here who's mother provided decent non-junk meals on a regular basis while living within a limited budget. It can be done without breaking the bank, but you also have TONS of people these days who are incapable of making a simple roast chicken so they go to Popeyes instead.

[cbg150]

There was a time in this country when single portion sizes were the norm and obesity was less of a national concern. Were we any less free then? No, of course not. Just less manipulated by greedy corporate interests who have found big money in cultivating a bigger is better mentality!

Sent from my KFJWI using Tapatalk 2

[gomoho]

The bottom line is eating healthy is expensive . It's up to each person if they want to make an investment in their health. It just might pay off in the future

Problem is not everyone is in a position to pay for those healthy choices. We are currently substituting spaghetti squash for pasta - I can buy a box of pasta for .99 a spaghetti squash costs $4. Would hate to try a feed a family of 4 something like that. Have you priced fresh broccolli lately or cauliflower - it's crazy.

[graciegirl]

Problem is not everyone is in a position to pay for those healthy choices. We are currently substituting spaghetti squash for pasta - I can buy a box of pasta for .99 a spaghetti squash costs $4. Would hate to try a feed a family of 4 something like that. Have you priced fresh broccolli lately or cauliflower - it's crazy.

You are right again. What used to be a cheap healthy diet is an expensive healthy diet. Cutting back on meat does help...a little. Three lemons for TWO bucks???? In Florida???????????

[Mack184]

There was a time in this country when single portion sizes were the norm and obesity was less of a national concern. Were we any less free then? No, of course not. Just less manipulated by greedy corporate interests who have found big money in cultivating a bigger is better mentality!

Sent from my KFJWI using Tapatalk 2
Yeah..I've really noticed how those "greedy" corporate types show up at my house each day and put a gun to my head and force me to buy things. What nonsense!

[Cisco Kid]

Yeah..I've really noticed how those "greedy" corporate types show up at my house each day and put a gun to my head and force me to buy things. What nonsense!

I have on making me work right now has I write this post waiting to retire to TV.
An it is a big one.

:loco:

The blood sucking state is always after them.

[ugotme]

We are all responsible for ourselves !
We make choices - some good, some bad! Who determines which ones are bad? We do!
I do not want ANYONE making choices for me - whether it is what I eat, what I drink, where I go etc. etc.

THIS IS AMERICA !

We have the right to the pursuit of happiness.

As long as I am not hurting anyone - LEAVE ME ALONE !


:mad:

[Villages PL]

There are always those eager to take away freedoms that do not affect them. The whole concept of insurance is shared risk. How would you like to pay for health insurance based on your diet, amount of exercise and prior health problems? Be careful of what you wish for because you may get it. I can say that based on the lack of driving skills I see every day around TV, many should be paying much more for auto insurance. Why should I subsidize their accidents since I am a good driver who never had an accident? Why should young people pay into Social Security when they may not be alive to collect? Your thinking leads down a very slippery slope indeed.

Freedoms can also be taken away through taxation. And there are always those who are eager to take someone elses money because it doesn't affect them. Those who are taxed, lose the freedom to spend their money as they choose.

This is not about insurance. Those who get the free bypass operations etc. are those who can't afford it and don't have insurance.

You talked about subsidizing accidents and you're right about that. If someone gets into an accident their insurance goes up. And yours might go up a little too. But why should I subsidize someones bypass operation when it's related to being overweight or obese?

The slippery slope also applies to taxing one person to pay for the bypass of another. And it's not about Social Security, fire insurance or car insurance. This is about New York City protecting itself from fiscal ruination. When it sees an epidemic such as obesity, it has a right, on behalf of taxpayers, to take some defensive measures. And it all started many years ago when New York City had some very serious fiscal problems. There's a limit to how many bypass operations New York City can give away for free.

[Villages PL]

and who will protect the people who do not want to be protected by the people who think they have to protect people from themselves?

No one. It's like Social Security. Some people don't want Social Security and don't need Social Security. But it's mandatory. Why? Because too many people have proved that they are not capable of saving for their own retirement.

let the dept of health recognize a health hazard and conduct an effective campaign about it. let the people who feel strongly about the hazard PARTICIPATE in such a campaign.

Well, I'm not an expert on this but someone else on this thread said that often food vendors don't have smaller sizes available. How can one participate if the smaller sizes are not available?

no one [other than a parent/guardian] has ANY right to CONTROL another's behavior!

My behavior is controlled when someone confiscates my money through taxation to pay for the medical costs of an obesity epidemic.

[Villages PL]

I think Bloomberg went too far on this one. Actually, I think he went too far on the trans fat one too. Making sure the nutritional content is available is one thing; shutting sugar and trans fat down down is going too far into people's rights.JMO. Why not ban the ale of cigarettes in NYC? That's even more harmful than trans fat or sugar.

Do you really think that going from 20 ounces of soda to 16 ounces is going to far? That's only 4 ounces! Can you picture a 4 ounce juice glass? That's 2gulps.

[Villages PL]

Excellent Post

Not one is perfect, sure don't want to point a finger at the faults of another until I can say I have none of my own! Not my place to look at anyone and tell them what they are doing wrong unless I'm their parent.

Sure, it's not my place either. But it's the place of Blumeberg and the health department to save New York City from financial ruin. That's what they were facing when they started this campaign.

[Villages PL]

Calorie intake is inconsequential if balanced by physical activity.

If the government wants to be involved in the obesity epidemic, why not put "real" physical education back in our schools.

They put physical education back in Florida schools and what good has it done? It won't do any good if kids don't eat right.

[gomoho]

Sure, it not my place either. But it's the place of Blumeberg and the health department to save New York City from financial ruin. That's what they were facing when they started this campaign.

I doubt that obesity is causing financial ruin. It's probably more like exhorbitant wages for city workers with outrageous pension plans.

[Villages PL]

Gosh Steven, just when I think I have "heard it all" you come up with a very sensible post!

I should let it end there but can't resist this one! I see many "obese" people at the several Dunkin Donuts locations here in the villages. They appear to be drinking coffee instead of colas BUT the round pastries may be the culprits. Perhaps that can be "nanny" B's next target!

Let me remind you that no food has ever been banned. But that's the way the talk goes. Back when they were putting a ban on trans fat, people were saying, "the next thing you know, they will try to ban hamburgers". Well, that was several years ago and I'm still waiting to see it.

As for insurance one of my doctors let it slip that the out of pocket costs for care may soon be tied to ones BMI!

That's GREAT news! Thank you, thank you, thank you. However, that kind of talk might just be idle gossip. It sounds too good to be true.

[Villages PL]

As I understand your posts (starting with this one, for example) your beef is that you are being forced to foot the bill for health costs for people who have medical problems related to obesity.
It would appear that you are greatly upset with these individuals because they are causing your 'rights' to be trampled upon by indulging in high calorie/non nutritional food consumption.
When Gomoho mentioned that there are many other medical expenses that we as a nation are paying for that we may not be on board with personally, you considered it a 'change of topic'. (I agreed with Gomoho, by the way)

It's NOT a change of topic, if your beef is about footing the bill when you don't want to. (your rights being trampled)

Nice try but your argument doesn't hold water. The focus of this thread was on the recent news about New York City and soda consumption. Not abortion or anything else. And I didn't intend for it to go nation wide either.

o be honest, over time in reading your posts (here and in other threads you have generated recently), the message I get is that you really have distain for people who are fat. To focus on this brings more of it to your attention and you bang your drum and push against it and get your innards in a twist.

Sorry, wrong again. When I was in high school my best friend was obese and he was one of the greatest friends I ever had. And when I moved to The Villages my obese neighbor became one of my best friends.

By the way, one of the rules on this board is to avoid personal attacks. Attack the subject, not the person.

[Indydealmaker]

They put physical education back in Florida schools and what good has it done? It won't do any good by itself if kids don't eat right.
It is pure chemistry. Calories in and calories out. Also I think you will find that physical education today is not as rigorous as when we were in school. Today, kids play games, although physical they do not involve nonstop activity for each kid. We had calisthenics for the whole period.

[Villages PL]

the big gulp is just one very small aspect of the obesity problem. The major problem is the amount of food, good/bad and junk that some keep jamming in their pie hole....along with being couch potatoes.....and no doubt the lack of needing to work to live by so many in the entitlement life style.

The big gulp issue is symbolic with no real impact to be made on the real reasons for our tonnage.

btk

I can't deny that you are right about it not solving the obesity epidemic but then I don't think the plan was that this measure would solve everything. I believe the intention is to nudge things in the right direction. And any improvement would put New York City in better shape fiscally. Taxes in New York City are already high. I think they pay state, city and federal taxes. Can you imagine what that must be like? So they can't just keep raising city taxes as the medical costs of the obesity epidemic keep climbing.

All the little steps they have taken may have an impact, believe it or not. They got rid of trans fat, smoking has gone down and soda may be next. It's a tough thing but when the ship is sinking, tough choices have to be made. It's a choice between lifestyle freedoms and the freedom to not be taxed to death (the freedom to keep some of the money you earn).

[Villages PL]

It is pure chemistry. Calories in and calories out. Also I think you will find that physical education today is not as rigorous as when we were in school. Today, kids play games, although physical they do not involve nonstop activity for each kid. We had calisthenics for the whole period.

Yes, not only did I have gym but I walked to school and rode my bike after school. But my mother was a big help too as she refused to ever keep any soda in the refrigerator. Daily snacks such as cookies or potato chips were not allowed. (Only on special occasions.)

I have seen many instances where people work out vigorusly and never seem to lose any weight. I saw them years ago when I belonged to The wellness Center. I had a friend who made deliveries for a family business; that was a tough job but he never lost weight until he paid attention to what he was eating. I have a neighbor who spends a lot of time walking walking walking several miles a day but he always looks the same (very large waistline).

Last I heard, the average boy drinks 3 sodas per day and girls drink 2. That's about 24 to 36 teaspoons of sugar respectively. How long does it take to burn all those calories? I believe they would be fighting a losing battle unless they curb their bad eating habits.

[wendyquat]

I can't deny that you are right about it not solving the obesity epidemic but then I don't think the plan was that this measure would solve everything. I believe the intention is to nudge things in the right direction. And any improvement would put New York City in better shape fiscally. Taxes in New York City are already high. I think they pay state, city and federal taxes. Can you imagine what that must be like? So they can't just keep raising city taxes as the medical costs of the obesity epidemic keep climbing.

All the little steps they have taken may have an impact, believe it or not. They got rid of trans fat, smoking has gone down and soda may be next. It's a tough thing but when the ship is sinking, tough choices have to be made. It's a choice between lifestyle freedoms and the freedom to not be taxed to death (the freedom to keep some of the money you earn).

Sorry, I, respectfully, disagree that government should legislate what I eat!:police:

[Villages PL]

Absolutely correct. When Michael Phelps is training for the Olympics he eats 20,000 calories a day. Anybody seen Michael Phelps lately? Sorry..I couldn't find his beer gut from all that eating.

I live in Real-ville, (along with a famous person that you might know) and the average person in the U.S. is overweight. To think that they will all suddenly become super athletes is not realistic.

We keep hearing about the link to weight and diabetes. Yes, that's true. However, there are many other factors relating to diabetes. A great deal of it is genetics. I am diabetic. I was adopted as an infant. I was never at all interested in finding my "birth" family. A couple of years ago by accident they found me. I found that I had 7 bio-brothers & sisters. Virtually everyone with a dose of that family's blood has diabetes. Everyone. Doesn't matter if they are as skinny as a broom handle or big as a house. If you're in that family you will develop diabetes.

I've had two doctors tell me that genetics plays a huge part in whether or not you contract diabetes. Genetics also plays a large role in diseases such as autism, food allegies and so on. Would some people here who are so angry towards heavy and/or diabetic people for "costing them money" show the same anger & hatred for someone with autism or other diseases that have genetic triggers?

Genetic excuses can only be made for a very small percentage of the population. The vast majority of people are overweight and obese because of poor lifestyle choices.

Probably not.. because there is a feeling..touted by many..that people who are overweight are lazy and of a "lower class". So overweight=diabetes which=people of a lower class, and because "WE" of a higher class know better & are thus superior "WE" have the right to force our superior knowledge on these people because "WE" know better. Hogwash!

Straw man alert! Straw man alert! No one on this thread ever said that overweight people are lazy, dumb or lower class.

[Villages PL]

For some people the only rights you can have are the ones they think are ok. LOL.
There is always some group or person who thinks they have all the answers. Just take peoples rights away. Yea . I believe there were wars because of that same issue.
Guess who always wins. Taking peoples rights away is wrong.

Something is missing here because you are only looking at certain limited rights and not the rights of all. There's more than one side of this equation. There's the consumer and there's the taxpayer (in New York City). And there is Blumeberg and the city health department trying to save the city from sinking into fiscal oblivion because of all the free healthcare related to obesity.

[skyc6]

And we are off to the races again!

[Uptown Girl]

:mornincoffee:
I'm done.

[ilovetv]

Something is missing here because you are only looking at certain limited rights and not the rights of all. There's more than one side of this equation. There's the consumer and there's the taxpayer (in New York City). And there is Blumeberg and the city health department trying to save the city from sinking into fiscal oblivion because of all the free healthcare related to obesity.

"All the free healthcare related to obesity"??? Really?

How about all the free healthcare taxpayers pay for related to acute and chronic diseases due to.....SMOKING cigarettes and cigars....smoking pot (which is being legalized in various states).....alcoholism.....sedentary, couch-potato lifestyle because getting up and going to work and burning some calories--by being too busy to fix food and eat constantly--is an unknown concept in the household?????

Government is enabling all these things to go unchecked, and I'm not so sure the liquor and cigarette taxes actually go directly toward the care of alcoholics and COPDer/emphysema/lung-cancer patients.

Of course obesity is costly, but so are all the above and other contributing factors. What good does it do to limit the size of sugary sodas from the fountain (while you can purchase 4-5 20-oz bottles to carry and consume in the next 3 hours before a big fat-loaded carbo-holic dinner), while the sale of CIGARETTES, cigars, alcohol, and pot are seen as okay and legal or about to be legal as pot is???

[Cisco Kid]

I said stop right there !

[CFrance]

I said stop right there !

Actually, it should be "They came for the trans-fat and I said nothing."

However... NYC's fat ban paying off - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/16/health/nyc-fat-ban-paying-off)

There's two sides, and I don't know which one I'm on.

[allus70]

Cola
12 oz (355 ml) Can
Sugars, total: 39g
Calories, total: 140
Calories from sugar: 140*
20 oz (590 ml) Bottle
Sugars, total: 65g
Calories, total: 240
Calories from sugar: 240
1 Liter (34 oz) Bottle
Sugars, total: 108g
Calories, total: 400
Calories from sugar: 400

Approximate calories
Pound/fat 3,500 or the equivalent contained in about 8 1 liter bottles of cola

Exercise required to burn 1 pound of fat...about 7 hours of high impact aerobics for a man weighing 160 pounds.

[rubicon]

Well I believe that Bloomberg is on to something. i don't like the idea of people having more money than me. so what I am going to push for equal distribution of all monies so that everyone of us has enough to fly to Bermuda on the weekend.

Actually, I think it is really shortsighted to believe that the cause for someone being obsese is concentrated on a big gulp.

I guess some folks who believe that another person, organization government can have the right to dictate to them means that the reasons for living in america was somehow lost on them. for me give me liberty or give me death "" down with bloombergers once and for all

And by the way when Bloomberg manision on the water sinks in the sea all homeowners will foot the bill to have it paid for nd subsidze it for insurance

What in the world has happen to the true individuals. John Waynewhere are you when you are needed As my hero Popeye says "I can't stands no more.

[Cisco Kid]

Let add a bum tax to the one percenters the buy over sized properties in TV.
Then we can subsidies me.
Take from the rich and give to me.
Pay you fair share to me.
Works for me.

[CFrance]

Okay, here's my dilemma. I don't think it's right that Bloomberg can dictate to the people of NYC what they can or cannot eat (trans fat) or drink (sugar).

On the other hand, I do believe in the law regarding the use of seat belts because I don't want to pay, through higher insurance bills, for the longterm care of those who are thrown through a windshield or out of the car and survive, only to be severely incapacitated.

I don't know the answer.

[TomOB]

Villagerjack and anyone interested should read this article.

Soda Statistics: How Those Empty Calories Add Up - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/soda-statistics-empty-calories-add/story?id=10303246)

That wasn't hard to find. The response is "If you consume two of those drinks every day ... you'll gain a pound every week from them. And if you just think about that over the course of a year, that's 52 extra pounds that you could put on your body. And that is really dangerous for anybody."

[Barefoot]

"All the free healthcare related to obesity"??? Really?

How about all the free healthcare taxpayers pay for related to acute and chronic diseases due to.....SMOKING cigarettes and cigars....smoking pot (which is being legalized in various states).....alcoholism.....sedentary, couch-potato lifestyle because getting up and going to work and burning some calories--by being too busy to fix food and eat constantly--is an unknown concept in the household?????

Government is enabling all these things to go unchecked, and I'm not so sure the liquor and cigarette taxes actually go directly toward the care of alcoholics and COPDer/emphysema/lung-cancer patients.

Of course obesity is costly, but so are all the above and other contributing factors. What good does it do to limit the size of sugary sodas from the fountain (while you can purchase 4-5 20-oz bottles to carry and consume in the next 3 hours before a big fat-loaded carbo-holic dinner), while the sale of CIGARETTES, cigars, alcohol, and pot are seen as okay and legal or about to be legal as pot is???

:agree: This post makes a lot of sense to me. I think it's wrong to micro-manage what people eat. It's a slippery slope.

[Mack184]

Okay, here's my dilemma. I don't think it's right that Bloomberg can dictate to the people of NYC what they can or cannot eat (trans fat) or drink (sugar).

On the other hand, I do believe in the law regarding the use of seat belts because I don't want to pay, through higher insurance bills, for the longterm care of those who are thrown through a windshield or out of the car and survive, only to be severely incapacitated.

I don't know the answer.
The seatbelt theme is interesting. I think only one or two states don't have seatbelt laws. The theme is that seatbelts save lives. (I've never worn one) However how many states that REQUIRE you to wear a seatbelt lest you be ticketed by your friendly neighbrhood policeman say it's perfectly OK for motorcyclists to ride out on the highway without wearing a brain bucket?

Choice & personal responsibility. Our nation was founded on it.

[Suzi]

I agree with all the personal freedoms we, as Americas, enjoy. Don't wear a helmut - no problem. Don't wear a seatbelt - no problem. Eat fatty, sugar-laced food and develop obesity-related diabetes - OK. All of these freedoms are GREAT but they come at a cost. Each American has inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As a country, we have decided that no one goes hungry- that they should have shelter and they need to be cared for if ill. The best we can hope for at this juncture of what everyone is entitiled to are limits on how MUCH.
I suggest a "standard" by which people can "purchase" the lifestyle they choose to follow.
I am NOT an math or a financial expert but lets just use round numbers. Lets say each American is entitled to $10,000 of health care IN AN ACCOUNT every year. If you did not use it this year, it would roll over to next year. Any amount over that account balance would be paid by each individual. Therefore, you could make a lifestyle choice based on your account balance. This, however, would require that people save for unexpected medical expenses or go without care. The choice would be up to the individual. The use of $10,000 is arbitrary and could be $100,000 but the point is still the same. If you went to the emergency room versus your private doctor the difference would be paid out of your account. No judgements by anyone on how you should live your life or spend your account. If you "saved" your account for many, many years - the end-of-life expenses could be covered easily or with little cost to you.
The same goes for many of the current entitlements that Americans currently enjoy. Accounts for food, shelter, insurance, etc.
I believe EVERYONE has the right to live their life the way they choose. But I also believe in self responsibility. If you have a job, then you have more money to personally spend on the things in life. If you have no job, you have those accounts that you can do as you choose. The caveat here is that unless you have money stashed away - you will not GET MORE THAN EVERYONE ELSE - so plan your life accordingly.

We used to be self-determining people...we need to get back to our roots. This is an idea of how to do that.

[ilovetv]

Suzi: Bravo for the health savings account concept!!

"...The new flexible spending account limits will eventually make it much more attractive to contribute to a health savings account, if you have a choice between the two (you generally can’t contribute to both in the same year). Like an FSA, an HSA lets you set aside pretax money that you can use tax-free for medical expenses. But you won’t lose the money in an HSA if you don’t use it by the end of the year. Instead, money in the account can grow tax-deferred for future expenses, and you can keep the account even if you switch jobs.

You must have a high-deductible health-insurance policy -- either through your employer or purchased on your own -- to qualify to make contributions to an HSA.....

Read more at Kiplinger - Interstitial (http://www.kiplinger.com/article/insurance/T027-C001-S001-what-health-reform-means-for-fsas-and-hsas.html#DBVrzU69ehrIq39w.99)

[ilovetv]

Puritans told to "stay out of my bedroom".....but "move into my kitchen"......

"Puritanism in the historical sense is as dead as the Salem witches. The religious group that settled in New England outlawed theater, rejected any form of sex except marital intercourse, banned celebration of Christmas and spent hours in church listening to horrifying depictions of Hell.

But the term has come to be a synonym for any disapproval or discouragement of carnal pleasure. Sexual puritanism has receded even among devout Christians, who generally see nothing wrong with husbands and wives gratifying each other however they please.

In society as a whole, things have changed even more drastically. Virginity is no longer held up as an ideal for young people; TV has an abundance of flesh and raunch; and the majority of Americans no longer see homosexual acts as "always wrong."

Most people don't think it's their place to tell others what sort of sexual behavior is acceptable. With few exceptions, it has become a private matter of individual preference. Laws against sodomy are extinct. Divorce is easy to get. Your sex life is off-limits to government regulation. Busybodies have little impact on policy.

But puritans haven't vanished. They've merely changed the subject. The expansion of freedom in matters of sex has coincided with a shrinkage in matters of health. New Yorkers would laugh at laws policing sex, but they elected a mayor who has no problem trying to control other physical indulgences.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg brought forth a ban on large sugar-laden beverages, which this week was struck down by a state court. But the idea won't go away that easily: The city will appeal the ruling, and other cities are considering similar laws....."

The Tyranny of the Virtuous
The Tyranny of the Virtuous - Reason.com (http://reason.com/archives/2013/03/14/the-tyranny-of-the-virtuous)

[Villages PL]

Puritans told to "stay out of my bedroom".....but "move into my kitchen"......

"Puritanism in the historical sense is as dead as the Salem witches. The religious group that settled in New England outlawed theater, rejected any form of sex except marital intercourse, banned celebration of Christmas and spent hours in church listening to horrifying depictions of Hell.

But the term has come to be a synonym for any disapproval or discouragement of carnal pleasure. Sexual puritanism has receded even among devout Christians, who generally see nothing wrong with husbands and wives gratifying each other however they please.

In society as a whole, things have changed even more drastically. Virginity is no longer held up as an ideal for young people; TV has an abundance of flesh and raunch; and the majority of Americans no longer see homosexual acts as "always wrong."

Most people don't think it's their place to tell others what sort of sexual behavior is acceptable. With few exceptions, it has become a private matter of individual preference. Laws against sodomy are extinct. Divorce is easy to get. Your sex life is off-limits to government regulation. Busybodies have little impact on policy.

But puritans haven't vanished. They've merely changed the subject. The expansion of freedom in matters of sex has coincided with a shrinkage in matters of health. New Yorkers would laugh at laws policing sex, but they elected a mayor who has no problem trying to control other physical indulgences.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg brought forth a ban on large sugar-laden beverages, which this week was struck down by a state court. But the idea won't go away that easily: The city will appeal the ruling, and other cities are considering similar laws....."

The Tyranny of the Virtuous
The Tyranny of the Virtuous - Reason.com (http://reason.com/archives/2013/03/14/the-tyranny-of-the-virtuous)

It appears that the pendulum has swung the other way: We got rid of the Puritans only to be plagued by the unpure. That is to say the overweight and obese who want unlimited new taxes to pay for their healthcare (i.e., bypass operations, stints, and many other items related to being overweight).

Overall, taxes are so high for New York City dwellers (for those who pay taxes) many of them are moving away to other places. They are leaving in droves. And yet, those who are left behind still demand their free services like bypass operations etc.. Taxpayers in New York City pay federal, state and city taxes. When you add in all other taxes like property taxes etc., about 60% of their income goes to taxes.

Meddling in other peoples lives also applies to people who keep reaching into your pocket for more money to pay for their unhealthy lifestyles.

[CFrance]

It appears that the pendulum has swung the other way: We got rid of the Puritans only to be plagued by the unpure. That is to say the overweight and obese who want unlimited new taxes to pay for their healthcare (i.e., bypass operations, stints, and many other items related to being overweight).

Overall, taxes are so high for New York City dwellers (for those who pay taxes) many of them are moving away to other places. They are leaving in droves. And yet, those who are left behind still demand their free services like bypass operations etc.. Taxpayers in New York City pay federal, state and city taxes. When you add in all other taxes like property taxes etc., about 60% of their income goes to taxes.

Meddling in other peoples lives also applies to people who keep reaching into your pocket for more money to pay for their unhealthy lifestyles.

Actually, NBC News reported last evening that NYC gained more population than it lost in 2012. NYC gained more people than it lost in 2012, reversing decadeslong trend - DailyFreeman.com (http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2013/03/14/news/doc51420b043ce71591272638.txt)

I guess they're all tea drinkers.

[Villages PL]

I doubt that obesity is causing financial ruin. It's probably more like exhorbitant wages for city workers with outrageous pension plans.

I don't know what the exact costs are for different items in the city budget and, unfortunately, I don't have the time to do the research. Perhaps you, or someone else, might give it a try.

But I can tell you that Bloomberg does not agree with you. I found an article online with the following heading:

"Mayor Bloomberg says costs of treating obesity will bury all of us"
You would think they would give a dollar amount in the article but I didn't find any.


Note: In previous posts I mispelled Bloomberg. Sorry!

[Golfingnut]

Who really has the right to tell someone that they must pay for the healthcare of someone who has health issues related to being overweight or obese?

I don't think it is a rights issue. I believe we should pay for the healthcare of someone that volunteered to go into the military and go to Iraq even though they knew it was bad for their health. I feel it is the responsibility of those of us who are fortunate enough to have money and health to care for those that do not no matter what the circumstances are that put them in that position. I don't think they are sick or poor on purpose.

[Golfingnut]

Well I believe that Bloomberg is on to something. i don't like the idea of people having more money than me. so what I am going to push for equal distribution of all monies so that everyone of us has enough to fly to Bermuda on the weekend.

Actually, I think it is really shortsighted to believe that the cause for someone being obsese is concentrated on a big gulp.

I guess some folks who believe that another person, organization government can have the right to dictate to them means that the reasons for living in america was somehow lost on them. for me give me liberty or give me death "" down with bloombergers once and for all

And by the way when Bloomberg manision on the water sinks in the sea all homeowners will foot the bill to have it paid for nd subsidze it for insurance

What in the world has happen to the true individuals. John Waynewhere are you when you are needed As my hero Popeye says "I can't stands no more.

John Wayne was a fictional actor in many western films. The man that played that actor was Marion Morrison from Iowa. He smoked to much and drank to much and died of stomach cancer. God rest his soul.

[Villages PL]

Needs to start in the schools, in advertising....everyone is trying to make a buck....but it might not....and even if it doesn't, officials must tread lightly when it seems they will be forcing food decisions upon the masses.

It needs to start in the schools you say. Well, that seems logical but local vendors, like burger joints etc., don't want teachers telling students that burgers, fries and a coke are bad for them. They will say that they pay taxes too and they don't want their tax money going to nutrition teachers who will tell kids that fast food is bad for their health. And just a reminder: The food industy is very powerful.

If they do teach it in school, they will be told not to say that anything is bad. Don't forget they will have to be mindful of possible lawsuits from the food industry. Teachers will be told to just say what is good. Therefore, it will be so watered down that it will be nearly worthless.

Right now it seems like food decisions are being forced through emotional manipulation from advertising. Kids, and their parents, are bombarded with advertising everyday. And processed foods are everywhere.


We as Americans take our freedoms for granted....until someone decides we are unable to make choices on our own....right or wrong, we still have the right to decide what we, as individuals, will ingest. All this over cup size....just imagine what it would be like if actual food portions came under scrutiny.

Allow me to remind you: No food has ever been banned and no one is talking about banning any food.

Also, some of us might take another freedom for granted: That is the freedom to aquire savings (for retirement etc..) and not have it all taxed away to pay for those who, for whatever reason, have decided to live unhealthy lifestyles. An obesity epidemic means an ever growing demand for tax revenue to pay for their healthcare.

[Villages PL]

Actually, NBC News reported last evening that NYC gained more population than it lost in 2012. NYC gained more people than it lost in 2012, reversing decadeslong trend - DailyFreeman.com (http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2013/03/14/news/doc51420b043ce71591272638.txt)

I guess they're all tea drinkers.

I think you missed my point; perhaps I didn't explain it well enough. When I said people are moving out in droves, I was referring to high income people who pay most of the taxes. They are moving out because they want to protect their income.

What kind of people moved in? I would bet they are mostly lower income people who have nothing to lose but everyting to gain from the liberal amount city services that are offered.

[Villages PL]

I don't think it is a rights issue. I believe we should pay for the healthcare of someone that volunteered to go into the military and go to Iraq even though they knew it was bad for their health.

If you don't mind, here's where you went wrong with that analogy: Military people risk their lives to fight for our freedom and so they deserve to get healthcare on that basis. They are our heroes.


I feel it is the responsibility of those of us who are fortunate enough to have money and health to care for those that do not no matter what the circumstances are that put them in that position. I don't think they are sick or poor on purpose.

You are correct. I only ask where their right is when someone asks me where the right is for New York City to lower the soda size from 20 ounces to 16. No one is ever deprived of healthcare and no one is suggesting that anyone should be.

The city of New York wants to make this minor change hoping to nudge things in the right direction and thereby help save New York from it's fiscal problems. And I might add that it looks like a pretty darn good trade off for all the millions of people who don't pay any taxes. And for those who do pay taxes, Bloomberg is acting on their behalf by holding the line on taxation.

[gomoho]

If you don't mind, here's where you went wrong with that analogy: Military people risk their lives to fight for our freedom and so they deserve to get healthcare on that basis. They are our heroes.




You are correct. I only ask where their right is when someone asks me where the right is for New York City to lower the soda size from 20 ounces to 16. No one is ever deprived of healthcare and no one is suggesting that anyone should be.

The city of New York wants to make this minor change hoping to nudge things in the right direction and thereby help save New York from it's fiscal problems. And I might add that it looks like a pretty darn good trade off for all the millions of people who don't pay any taxes. And for those who do pay taxes, Bloomberg is acting on their behalf by holding the line on taxation.


I think where your argument raises the hair on the back of my neck is when you say "make this minor change hoping to nudge things in the right direction" so who decides what is the right direction and when it should stop. That is a VERY slippery slope to head down.

[Heartnsoul]

Bloomberg is a complete idiot and if people don't see it's about CONTROL more than soda than they deserve him in NY.!! No gov't should be big enough to TELL us what we can and cannot have!! I am a health fanatic myself but in no way, shape or form do I feel it is MY business to tell you what you can and cannot eat. People make choices and therein lie the consequences. That's what our country is supposed to stand for - the FREEDOM to make choices.

[cbg150]

I don't think it is a rights issue. I believe we should pay for the healthcare of someone that volunteered to go into the military and go to Iraq even though they knew it was bad for their health. I feel it is the responsibility of those of us who are fortunate enough to have money and health to care for those that do not no matter what the circumstances are that put them in that position. I don't think they are sick or poor on purpose.

Nice to see some human compassion on display here! How does a discussion about providing consumers choices and incentives to consume reasonable portions morph into I won't pay for you! When did people become so selfish?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CFrance]

I think you missed my point; perhaps I didn't explain it well enough. When I said people are moving out in droves, I was referring to high income people who pay most of the taxes. They are moving out because they want to protect their income.

What kind of people moved in? I would bet they are mostly lower income people who have nothing to lose but everyting to gain from the liberal amount city services that are offered.

I get your point, but then... if taxes are so high that people are moving out, how could the lower income people afford to move in?

I need to check this out further, Villages PL.

[graciegirl]

How about...........if everyone drank diet coke?

[gomoho]

Gracie - lots of bad stuff in that as well - probably next on the hit list!

[Heartnsoul]

Nice to see some human compassion on display here! How does a discussion about providing consumers choices and incentives to consume reasonable portions morph into I won't pay for you! When did people become so selfish?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NOBODY volunteered to go to Iraq because it was bad for their health. they volunteered to go because of their 'LOVE OF THEIR COUNTRY" and their belief in FREEDOM AND LIBERTY!! So as far as helping them, I have NO problem. For those who stand over near Walmart looking for FREE handouts who look perfectly "healthy" to me, they can go get a job, no maybe two or three. How about FOUR like my husband and I worked our entire lives to retire and live in the villages?? OH Thank God, we're out of NY. Let the loonies stay up there. they deserve to drink their "small portions of kool-aide" everyday!! just opening a can of worms when you try to tell people what they can or cannot eat. Because after soda, its' no candy, no cookies, no b-day cakes, no processed foods and on and on. Plenty of education out there on Food and drinks. Let people be responsiblity for their "own" choices
that's what makes America great - FREEDOM TO CHOOSE