Well, when you sign up for market insurance or public insurance like Medicare, you are always joining a pool of people with varying risks, so that the whole pool pays a person's bills instead of bearing the debt alone.

The solution if you don't like the others' risky lifestyles is to go self-insured….as in self-pay.

Good luck as a self-insured if you become one of the people who gets lung cancer without ever having smoked a cigarette; or if you end up like my nurse friend who is very health conscious and is almost a teetotaler, who has cirrhosis of the liver and has had to quit her nursing career/income.

I feel thankful and blessed that I have not so far had to bear the pain and heartache of an incurable disease or a life threatening condition. I am thankful to have never needed a hospital stay nor any kind of surgery at least so far. I am thankful though not quite perfect, my health is overall very good and I only need an annual doctor visit. I am thankful that I have had a good career and that I have been able to totally pay my family's way at least up to this point.

With that said I realize many have not been as blessed and fortunate as I and I do not begrudge those that have tried and struggled but still need help. I realize though I sometimes complain that I should be thankful that I don't have uncontrollable compulsions to eat, drink, smoke, or do other destructive behaviors. I have no problem helping those that are truly in need whether it be food, clothing, or healthcare.

I do believe everyone should try to help themselves and everyone should work for what they receive unless they are truly unable. I am thankful I have not needed assistance as so many seem to do but I do know that life is uncertain and things can change quickly. It is is much better to look upon the plight of the less fortunate with caring, understanding, and maybe a little sympathy if needed. I do believe I am no one that should look down upon anyone and for sure no one should exalt themselves or think themselves better than others when they are actually just more blessed than others and should be thankful their life is so good.

It's pretty clear that that is not what VPL is saying. VPL is saying that reducing obesity would reduce heart surgeries.

And that Medicare and Medicaid pay for a lot of heart surgeries, and other obesity related illness.

And that if banning certain "foods" would reduce obesity, then that would be fewer obesity related illnesses for Medicare and Medicaid to pay for - with our tax dollars.

I'm pretty sure that VPL never said that these measures would eradicate every vestige of heart disease.

Since the original post did not specify USA, the answer is yes, many foods are banned around the world. For example, we eat arsenic laced chicken here (arsenic is added to their food to speed growth), but it is banned in the EU. Farm raised salmon is banned in Australia and New Zealand. There are many more examples of our government kowtowing to big business at the expense of our health.

Didn't NYC ban trans fats? Wasn't saccharine banned?

Thanks, KIR. Makes me very sad that more people don't agree with you. It seems that whenever someone gets sick, the shame-and-blame chorus starts singing about what the person must have done to bring it on themselves. Birth defects or genetic diseases? Something the mother must have done, or eaten, or inhaled, or lived near. This serves to both insulate and glorify the blamer: "That couldn't possibly happen to ME."

There is a virulent undercurrent of hatred and dread towards overweight people in this county. God forbid they get so much as a hangnail, because some claptrap research will be trotted out to say that it's related to obesity. I'm tired of hearing about everyone's freaking tax dollars used to treat alcoholics or addicts or people in persistent vegetative states. The overtone of eugenics and a master race is quite disturbing.

OK, let me start off by saying that I don't smoke marijuana, but for those of you who are so concerned about a nonexistent ban on certain foods or chemicals in foods, doesn't the same argument apply to smoking weed? I'm just curious.

And by the way, the First Lady is not the government and does not make government regulations.

I so agree. AND I agree with Polar Bear. I always seem to.

My post was removed and it was right that it was.

Yes, but banning trans fat is not a ban of any food, it's a ban on using hydrogen to turn oils into trans fat. Hydrogen is not a food, as far as I know.
Oil still exists, it's just not hydrogenated anymore.

In 2010 the EPA stated that saccharin is no longer considered a potential hazard to human health. But one would have to understand how they mean it: They're not saying that it's good or that it promotes good health. I think what they mean is that there's no evidence that it directly causes cancer. That's what it seems the debate was about.

But they can regulate. For example, in Japan there was a high rate of stomach cancer because of high sodium in certain processed foods like canned fish. The government put a limit on sodium content and in subsequent years the rate of stomach cancer declined. It was considered successful and the Japanese can still decide where they will live, how to worship, who to associate with, what occupation they will choose and how many kids they will have.

They shut down the Twinkie factory because of a lack of demand. While they were gone, other less expensive items took over their shelf space. Also they say that people are now looking for healthier items.

Well stated.

Brown bagging it sounds like a good idea if they reject the healthier foods served in the cafeteria.

I wonder what those 11 items were and what the reasons were for banning them. Some might be because of fecal contamination of water used for irrigation or unacceptable pesticide levels etc..

I'm not familiar with the drink you mentioned.