Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 64 of 64
  1. #51
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    Yes. Your point is that smokers are 100% healthy and incur no health costs until the very end of their life then die suddenly in 3 days of lung cancer before they can even be seen by a doctor, so we should cheer the fact that they didn't cost us a dime of medical costs.
    Um, no. My point is that in a mythical socialized medical system in this country - taking into account all expenses to the government a citizen is, and the fact that, ultimately, everybody get unhealthy and dies, smokers will cost LESS than non-smokers on balance.

    You ever gonna comment on Social Security funding?

  2. #52
    No darkness Cry Havoc's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    33,654
    Um, no. My point is that in a mythical socialized medical system in this country - taking into account all expenses to the government a citizen is, and the fact that, ultimately, everybody get unhealthy and dies, smokers will cost LESS than non-smokers on balance.

    You ever gonna comment on Social Security funding?
    I edited one of my posts above a while back.

  3. #53
    A neverending cycle Trainwreck2100's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    40,646
    In related news....

    http://health.yahoo.com/news/ap/fast_food_ban.html

    Los Angeles wants to take bite out of fast food
    By CHRISTINA HOAG, Associated Press Writer - Tue Jul 29, 4:50 AM PDT

    LOS ANGELES - In the impoverished neighborhood of South Los Angeles, fast food is the easiest cuisine to find — and that's a problem for elected officials who see it as an unhealthy source of calories and cholesterol.

    The City Council was poised to vote Tuesday on a moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in a swath of the city where a proliferation of such eateries goes hand-in-hand with obesity.

    "Our communities have an extreme shortage of quality foods," City Councilman Bernard Parks said.

    The aim of the yearlong moratorium, which was approved last week in committee, is to give the city time to try to attract restaurants that serve healthier food.

    The California Restaurant Association says the moratorium, which could be extended up to two years, is misguided.

    Fast food "is the only industry that wants to be in South LA," said association spokesman Andrew Casana. "Sit-down restaurants don't want to go in. If they did, they'd be there. This moratorium isn't going to help them relocate."

    The proposed ban comes at a time when governments of all levels are increasingly viewing menus as a matter of public health. Last Friday, California became the first state in the nation to bar trans fats, which lowers levels of good cholesterol and increases bad cholesterol.

    It also comes as the Los Angeles City Council tackles issues beyond safety, schools and streets. The council last week decided to outlaw plastic bags.

    Fast-food restaurants have found themselves in the frying pan in a number of cities. Some places, including Carmel-by-the Sea and Calistoga, have barred "formula" restaurants altogether; others have placed a cap on them — Arcata allows a maximum of nine fast-food eateries; others have prohibited the restaurants in certain areas, such as Port Jefferson, N.Y., in its waterfront area.

    Most initiatives were designed to preserve a city's historic character. The Los Angeles bid is one of few that cite residents' health.

    The mounting pressure has caused chains to insert healthier food choices in their menus. McDonalds offers salads and low-fat dressings; Burger King stocks Kids Meals with milk and apple pieces.

    That's why the restaurant industry says it's unfair to blame them for fat people.

    "What's next — security guards at the door saying 'You're overweight, you can't have a cheeseburger'?" Casana said.

    But public health officials say obesity has reached epidemic proportions in low-income areas such as South Los Angeles and diet is the key reason.

    According to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, 30 percent of adults in South Los Angeles area are obese, compared to 19.1 percent for the metropolitan area and 14.1 percent for the affluent westside. Minorities are particularly affected: 28.7 percent of Latinos and 27.7 percent of blacks are obese, compared to 16.6 percent of whites.

    Perry says that's no accident. South LA residents lack healthy food options, including grocery stores, fresh produce markets — and full-service restaurants with wait staff and food prepared to order.

    A report by the Community Health Councils found 73 percent of South L.A. restaurants were fast food, compared to 42 percent in West Los Angeles.

    If the moratorium is passed, Perry wants to lure restaurateurs and grocery retailers to area.

    Rebeca Torres, a South Los Angeles mother of four, said she would welcome more dining choices, even if she had to pay a little more. "They should have better things for children," she said. "This fast-food really fattens them up."
    I saw a story about that on ABC once there was 1 tiny grocery store and a load of fast food restaurants. No business wants to move in cause they don't want to get jacked.

  4. #54
    Live by what you Speak. DarkReign's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    10,571
    Perry says that's no accident. South LA residents lack healthy food options, including grocery stores, fresh produce markets — and full-service restaurants with wait staff and food prepared to order.
    They live in South LA. Do you think they could afford a sit-down, service restaurant?

    I dont. God forbid you have to cook your own food...

  5. #55
    No darkness Cry Havoc's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    33,654
    Um, no. My point is that in a mythical socialized medical system in this country - taking into account all expenses to the government a citizen is, and the fact that, ultimately, everybody get unhealthy and dies, smokers will cost LESS than non-smokers on balance.

    You ever gonna comment on Social Security funding?
    http://www.reuters.com/article/healt...0080730?rpc=64

    BOSTON (Reuters) - Scotland's 2006 ban on smoking in public places cut the heart attack rate by 17 percent within one year, with non-smokers benefiting most, researchers reported on Wednesday.

    The study is the first real-time, large-scale look at how a ban on second-hand smoke might benefit smokers and nonsmokers. Earlier research looked at the effect of smoking bans in individual cities, or had other limitations.

    "A total of 67 percent of the decrease involved non-smokers," Dr. Jill Pell of the University of Glasgow and colleagues wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine.

    The number of people admitted to nine Scottish hospitals for a heart attack dropped 14 percent among smokers, 19 percent among former smokers and 21 percent for those who had never smoked.

    In contrast, the rate declined only by 4 percent in England during that period, before a ban went into effect there. Historically, heart attack rates in Scotland had been dropping 3 percent per year.

    "There are a number of countries considering whether to impose similar bans, and obviously the more evidence of the effectiveness of such intervention, the more likely they are to do that," Pell said in a telephone interview.

    Among the 5,919 cases she and her colleagues studied, women seemed to benefit the most. The heart attack rate among smokers dropped 19 percent compared to an 11 percent decline among men. It dropped 23 percent among female nonsmokers versus 18 percent among nonsmoking males.

    There had been concern at the start of the ban that it would increase the amount of smoking in private homes.

    Using measurements of a chemical that gauges exposure to cigarette smoke, the researchers found that the fear was unfounded, and exposure to secondhand smoke declined by 42 percent.

    "So it seems that the ban is not only protecting non-smokers, it is changing society's idea of what is normal," said Pell.

    When New York imposed tough restrictions on public smoking, exposure levels declined by 47 percent.

    The United States does not have national smoking restrictions. Limits are placed by individual states or municipalities.

    ----


    Just, you know, FYI.

  6. #56
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,421

  7. #57
    Veteran AFBlue's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Post Count
    10,762
    Certainly glad CA and NYC don't represent the mainstream philosophy on governance, regardless of party affiliation.

  8. #58
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,421
    was unaware states represented political philosophies, fringe, mainstream or otherwise

  9. #59
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,421
    at any rate, if two of the biggest states do not belong to the vast, gooey middle they are not negligible for that.

    54 million people; one sixth of the country. dismissed for being "unrepresentative of the whole"

    neat trick

  10. #60
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    LOL...

    This is both funny and sad.

    What is the 2nd wizards rule... I think it goes something like this:

    The greatest harm comes from the best of intentions.

  11. #61
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    was unaware states represented political philosophies, fringe, mainstream or otherwise
    it would be a nice change from what actually does represent political philosophy.

  12. #62
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    LOL...

    This is both funny and sad.

    What is the 2nd wizards rule... I think it goes something like this:

    The greatest harm comes from the best of intentions.
    You base your personal ethics off of fantasy novels? How does that not surprise me?

  13. #63
    Rising above the Fray spursncowboys's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    7,669
    You base your personal ethics off of fantasy novels? How does that not surprise me?







  14. #64
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    You base your personal ethics off of fantasy novels? How does that not surprise me?
    Once again, you prove to assume things you don't know. Assuming my actions/intent when you are clueless. That's OK, I'm getting used to your stupidity and ignorance.

    I just thought the comparison was just. Utopia is a fantasy, and all these laws government wants to make, to protect ourselves, cause problems.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •