Republicans tell you what you should and shouldn't eat

[ElNono]

California Is First State to Ban Trans Fats
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER

LOS ANGELES — California became the first state in the nation to place a ban on trans fats in restaurants and retail baked goods Friday when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill to phase out their use over the next few years. Under the new law, the artificial fats must be excised from restaurants beginning in 2010, and from all retail baked goods by 2011.

New York City passed a regulation banning the fats in 2006, and the law became fully effective on July 1. Philadelphia, Stamford, Conn., and Montgomery County, Md., have passed similar laws.

“California is a leader in promoting health and nutrition, and I am pleased to continue that tradition by being the first state in the nation to phase out trans fats,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said. “Consuming trans fat is linked to coronary heart disease, and today we are taking a strong step toward creating a healthier future for California.”

The bill, which would end the use of oils, margarine and shortening containing trans fats to prepare foods in restaurants, bakeries, delicatessens, cafeterias and other businesses classified as “food facilities,” was written by Democratic Assemblyman Tony Mendoza, who represents an area in southern California with a large number of fast food restaurants.

Violations would incur fines of $25 to $1,000. Food sold in manufacturer-sealed packaging would be exempt.

California, a frequent public policy bellwether, may well lead the way toward other state-wide bans, which are being considered in over a dozen other states. Such bills are usually opposed by restaurants and their trade groups.

Trans fat has been found in scientific studies to increase bad cholesterol, which can lead to heart disease, contribute to other diseases, such as diabetes and coronary heart disease. Coronary heart disease is California’s leading cause of death.

California, which supplies a great deal of the nation’s specialty crops and other goods, already has some of the toughest food restrictions in the nation, including a ban on junk food, and on trans-fats in school meals.

A ban in the nation’s largest state is likely to push many national restaurant chains to alter their menus. Already, Wendy’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Taco Bell, the Cheesecake Factory and McDonalds have begun to move away from trans fats because of consumer concerns.

LINK (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/us/26fats.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1217016154-9Ga+l7TpcfMEQj8hPtDIzQ)

[johnsmith]

California Is First State to Ban Trans Fats
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER

LOS ANGELES — California became the first state in the nation to place a ban on trans fats in restaurants and retail baked goods Friday when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill to phase out their use over the next few years. Under the new law, the artificial fats must be excised from restaurants beginning in 2010, and from all retail baked goods by 2011.

New York City passed a regulation banning the fats in 2006, and the law became fully effective on July 1. Philadelphia, Stamford, Conn., and Montgomery County, Md., have passed similar laws.

“California is a leader in promoting health and nutrition, and I am pleased to continue that tradition by being the first state in the nation to phase out trans fats,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said. “Consuming trans fat is linked to coronary heart disease, and today we are taking a strong step toward creating a healthier future for California.”

The bill, which would end the use of oils, margarine and shortening containing trans fats to prepare foods in restaurants, bakeries, delicatessens, cafeterias and other businesses classified as “food facilities,” was written by Democratic Assemblyman Tony Mendoza, who represents an area in southern California with a large number of fast food restaurants.

Violations would incur fines of $25 to $1,000. Food sold in manufacturer-sealed packaging would be exempt.

California, a frequent public policy bellwether, may well lead the way toward other state-wide bans, which are being considered in over a dozen other states. Such bills are usually opposed by restaurants and their trade groups.

Trans fat has been found in scientific studies to increase bad cholesterol, which can lead to heart disease, contribute to other diseases, such as diabetes and coronary heart disease. Coronary heart disease is California’s leading cause of death.

California, which supplies a great deal of the nation’s specialty crops and other goods, already has some of the toughest food restrictions in the nation, including a ban on junk food, and on trans-fats in school meals.

A ban in the nation’s largest state is likely to push many national restaurant chains to alter their menus. Already, Wendy’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Taco Bell, the Cheesecake Factory and McDonalds have begun to move away from trans fats because of consumer concerns.

LINK (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/us/26fats.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1217016154-9Ga+l7TpcfMEQj8hPtDIzQ)

LMFAO at the title of this thread.

[Extra Stout]

I'm pretty sure the Legislature in California is Democratic.

But whatever. We're at the end of the period in history where Americans can make responsible decisions for themselves. You can either have freedom to eat whatever unhealthy food you want, OR you can have the government pick up the tab when you get sick. Not both.

[dg7md]

Misleading. I'm pretty sure you can't eat house pets either.

Fact is, trans fats are basically unimportant as a whole and banning them is a push to get this country healthier.

Has anybody here been to the Deep South? I have and let me say it's not pretty on their population.

[DarrinS]

That does it -- I'm joining P.E.T.A.


Peaple Eating Tasty Animals


Man, I'm gonna go grill some ribs.

[boutons_]

trans fats are synthetic chemicals, industrial food-like substance courtesy of predatory corps, strongly associated with disease.

Taking them off the market is as justifiable as withdrawing any other dangerous corporate product, like E coli-infected veg and fruits, car gas tanks that explode, poisonous toys, drugs that kill and maim, etc, etc.

[boutons_]

"We're at the end of the period in history where Americans can make responsible decisions for themselves"

total bullshit. Taking industrial crap off the market is not restricting anybody's freedom.

Beside responsibly avoiding transfats, there's tons of other industrial food-like shit that everybody is free to eat, or avoid.

2/3 of American are overweight or obese, using their wonderful fucking freedom of choice. Very responsible, huh? America is all about total freedom and total irresponsibility.

We all end up paying for the sicko fatties:

"The extra demands made of the healthcare system by overweight and obese elderly amounts to Medicare's spending on average an extra $15,000 on overweight elderly individuals and an extra $26,000 on obese individuals. "

http://www.physorg.com/news136215407.html

[Anti.Hero]

Obese should be banned from movie theaters and airplanes. :downspin:


We're at the end of the period in history where Americans can make responsible decisions for themselves. You can either have freedom to eat whatever unhealthy food you want, OR you can have the government pick up the tab when you get sick. Not both.

WTF? How about they eat what they want, pay for their own medical bills, and suffer any consequences that come from their own bad decision making?


America is all about total freedom and total irresponsibility.

The irresponsible sink to the bottom of society. The responsible enjoy good life. Why punish others because homeboy can't quit buying krispykremes? Not to say no trans fat is really punishment ha.

[Trainwreck2100]

But Transfats are what makes hamburger helper good.

[sabar]

I'm all for this. I live longer and don't have to pay other's medical bills for their 21 heart bypasses.

[jochhejaam]

But Transfats are what makes hamburger helper good.

Substitute the transfats with lard, just as many calories, still great artery clogging potential, and more flavor.






Smokers and the obese should have to pay a much higher share of employer provided health care benefits. It's amazing how many of my coworkers (and they are my friends) are either grossly obese or heavy smokers (we're talking several 250-300 pound "ladies" here, and one four pack a day smoker who, surprise, is in very poor health), they're free to indulge in this self destructive behavior, but it should be on their dime, not mine.

[Extra Stout]

If I say that we're at the end of the period in history where Americans are willing to make responsible decisions for themselves, will boutons stop misunderstanding me?


WTF? How about they eat what they want, pay for their own medical bills, and suffer any consequences that come from their own bad decision making?
If I restate it another way, will Anti.Hero stop misunderstanding what I said?

America can pick one:

A) Have the freedom to live your live as you please, BUT then be totally responsible for the consequences of your decisions.

B) Have the other taxpayers pay for your medical care, BUT then the government gets to regulate your diet and exercise.

What irresponsible Americans (i.e., half the population or so) want is a free ride with no accountability. This is the same thing a 15-year-old wants. Half of America stopped developing cognitively at 15.

[01.20.09]

All you whining health nuts can kiss my fried food loving ass.

[Wild Cobra]

Ok, for those of you in favor of the government regulating our diet choices, what will you say when you get your wish of universal health care and overweight people are put on very restrictive diets. All bad food is banned. Smoking and drinking are banned, and any thing else that may rise the cost of the government providing health care.

[herzlman]

For all of you complaining about government interference in the food industry:

In Japan, they have actually instituted a policy of measuring waistlines at doctor's offices. If you're waistline is too large, you have to take health classes and if you still can't lose weight they fine you.

[01.20.09]

For all of you complaining about government interference in the food industry:

In Japan, they have actually instituted a policy of measuring waistlines at doctor's offices. If you're waistline is too large, you have to take health classes and if you still can't lose weight they fine you.

Who cares what Japan is doing? We are talking about the USA!

[Spurminator]

Meh, the implications are far greater for retailers and restaurants than for consumers, most of whom won't be able to tell the difference. There will probably be a slight initial cost increase for that In-and-Out Burger combo though.

[101A]

I'm all for this. I live longer and don't have to pay other's medical bills for their 21 heart bypasses.


No, you'll pay for chemo, radiation, etc...because they will live long enough to get cancer - and it's helluvalot more expensive.

[DarkReign]

Smokers and the obese should have to pay a much higher share of employer provided health care benefits. It's amazing how many of my coworkers (and they are my friends) are either grossly obese or heavy smokers (we're talking several 250-300 pound "ladies" here, and one four pack a day smoker who, surprise, is in very poor health), they're free to indulge in this self destructive behavior, but it should be on their dime, not mine.

Well its a good thing youre not a smoker or obese. But do you enjoy skydiving? Higher premium.

Do you have one speeding ticket in the last year? Higher premium, because you are now statistically more likely to injure yourself in a car crash.

Do you own a pet? Higher premium, more likley to be victim of an animal bite.

How much horsepower does your car have?

Do you drive a compact? Higher premium, because in the event of a car crash, you are more likely to be injured due to intertia differences with your average sized cars on the road.

Do you regularly eat red meat? Higher premium.

Can you walk and chew bubble gum at the same time? Higher premium.

You get the idea....

One must choose the hill they want to die on. Choose wisely.

[JoeChalupa]

I don't think I have any power to choose what hill I die on. When it is my time it is my time.

[Cry Havoc]

Well its a good thing youre not a smoker or obese. But do you enjoy skydiving? Higher premium.

Do you have one speeding ticket in the last year? Higher premium, because you are now statistically more likely to injure yourself in a car crash.

Do you own a pet? Higher premium, more likley to be victim of an animal bite.

How much horsepower does your car have?

Do you drive a compact? Higher premium, because in the event of a car crash, you are more likely to be injured due to intertia differences with your average sized cars on the road.

Do you regularly eat red meat? Higher premium.

Can you walk and chew bubble gum at the same time? Higher premium.

You get the idea....

One must choose the hill they want to die on. Choose wisely.

The difference is that, statistically speaking, the extremely obese and those who smoke heavily are virtually guaranteed to die younger with more health problems throughout their life. Smoking isn't like a car wreck, where you might or might not ever have a serious one. Smoking is a 99.99% (maybe higher) lock that you will have health problems and die younger. Not a risk. A near certainty. If casino slots had that kind of loss-to-pay percentage, no one would ever play them.

I know tons of people who eat red meat, drive fast, and are still around. I don't know very many heavy smokers who made it into their 60s. I don't know too many 300+ pound people who are that age, either. In fact, my uncle passed about a month ago, at the ripe old age of 55. He smoked his whole life, and it makes me so angry. Mostly at him, but if someone wants to give me an idea of how smoking benefits society, please let me know.

Or, to put it another way: Would you EVER want to see your son or daughter with a cigarette in his or her hand? Would you feel great about their freedom to choose when they are peer pressured, and start a lifelong habit because they are scared of losing friends?

If most people started smoking after turning 30, I'd have less of a problem with it. That's sadly not the way it works, and those of you who argue that it's a rational individuals' right to choose are forgetting all about the demographic that the cigarette companies depend on but are not legally able to sell to.

[boutons_]

People know they should be lean and fit.

If private or national insurance plans starting hitting them with several $K/year on health insurance malus, I bet Americans, who always respond above all to $$$ first, second and third, would get lean and fit to avoid the malus.

There could even be a bonus for people who are are exceptionally lean and fit, via optional performance tessts like treadmill and resistance exercises.

The number who are medically incapable of being lean and fit is minuscule compared to number who believe they are medically incapable.

[DarkReign]

^ all fair points. And in the proper hands of authority, I'd trust just such an argument.

The problem is, reality bites. The moment you start allowing government control of diet and recereation (im not talking about transfat here), you get prohibition.

Its a very slippery slope which will be used to further reduce your choice in life. I am routinely shocked at how willingly people give more power to the government under the facade of some greater cause. Youre essentially giving more power to the already too-powerful to protect us from ourselves.

I am a smoker because I choose to be. I have no interest in life past 70, thanks. You have a misunderstanding, it would seem, of your relationship with your health provider. You pay them (or your employer does) a monthly fee to cover your medical bills that havent even happened yet. The life decisions you make have no consequence on that cost. Do you fill out an application? Then your lifestyle should have been accounted for in their premiums.

Moreover, having smokers/obese people pay more out of their check because they smoke/are obese is ridiculous. It neither helps nor hurts the rates offered by the insurance company. The single-greatest (individual) factor in insurance rate is age. If your employee roster is "older" on average, your rate goes up. That rate is then applied across the 3 categories (at least in Michigan): Single, Two Person and Family.

I have an idea....lets start charging the people with families more! Of course! They absolutely cost the most to the company (more than double a Single employee). You chose to have kids, Im going to charge you more than double what a Single payer does. I know this is done by and large already, but its another illustration to prove the slope you choose.

This idea of "the government has to fix it" is lazy, detrimental and the very reason our country is the way it is today. Dont like something? Make a law about it. Dont agree with someone else's lifestyle? Legislate against it.

Until government controls healthcare, let the insurance companies figure it out.

[DarkReign]

I don't think I have any power to choose what hill I die on. When it is my time it is my time.

Absolutely, patently false.

[JoeChalupa]

Absolutely, patently false.

Well, I guess I do if you count suicide. Other than that it is out of my hands. And that is a fact.

[DarkReign]

Well, I guess I do if you count suicide. Other than that it is out of my hands. And that is a fact.

I meant philosophically, politically, morally, ideally and willfully.

[101A]

The difference is that, statistically speaking, the extremely obese and those who smoke heavily are virtually guaranteed to die younger

Dying younger, yes, but not before they retire.

Which means, they draw Social Security for a shorter amount of time, take maintenance drugs for a shorter amount of time, are LESS healthy when they get that killer disease, and die sooner, with less heroic (expensive) treatments wasted on their half-dead selves.

We could only be so lucky that the baby boomers were ALL fat tubs of nicotine smoking goo! There wouldn't be a Social Security or Medicare crisis. Dead people are CHEAP!!!

[101A]

There could even be a bonus for people who are are exceptionally lean and fit, via optional performance tessts like treadmill and resistance exercises.


And they'll never die!!!!

You know what statistic is most likely to dictate whether someone is REALLY, REALLY sick?

Age.

How much you gonna charge those bastards that didn't have the decency to die young?

[PixelPusher]

. Dead people are CHEAP!!!

Only if they've donated their body to medical science. Mortuaries aren't cheap.

[Cry Havoc]

Dying younger, yes, but not before they retire.

Which means, they draw Social Security for a shorter amount of time, take maintenance drugs for a shorter amount of time, are LESS healthy when they get that killer disease, and die sooner, with less heroic (expensive) treatments wasted on their half-dead selves.

We could only be so lucky that the baby boomers were ALL fat tubs of nicotine smoking goo! There wouldn't be a Social Security or Medicare crisis. Dead people are CHEAP!!!

Tell that to my uncle's family. They'd really like to hear about how hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cancer and radiation treatments are "cheap". Your logic nears that of genocide -- why not get rid of people after 60, so they don't draw SS and we can all prosper from it? Or we could at the very least encourage them to off themselves.

My 61 year old father who still chops wood by himself almost daily with a double-bladed ax might have a problem with being called unhealthy, though.

[101A]

Tell that to my uncle's family. They'd really like to hear about how hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cancer and radiation treatments are "cheap". Your logic nears that of genocide -- why not get rid of people after 60, so they don't draw SS and we can all prosper from it? Or we could at the very least encourage them to off themselves.

My 61 year old father who still chops wood by himself almost daily with a double-bladed ax might have a problem with being called unhealthy, though.

Everybody dies. Most die of things that are expensive. As long as you live through your productive life (to retirement), then the economic contribution you have to give, is given. The sooner you die after that, the cheaper you are.

Not arguing for any Logan's run-esque laws be passed, just pointing out the fallicy of charging smokers or fat people more for their (govt.) health insurance.

[Cry Havoc]

Everybody dies. Most die of things that are expensive. As long as you live through your productive life (to retirement), then the economic contribution you have to give, is given. The sooner you die after that, the cheaper you are.

Not arguing for any Logan's run-esque laws be passed, just pointing out the fallicy of charging smokers or fat people more for their (govt.) health insurance.

By this reasoning, you could compare a physically fit, nutritionally aware individual to a lifelong smoker or compulsive eater who weighs 350 pounds and expect the first person to cost society more? So the accommodations that must be made for smokers and the obese, the medical treatment of the lungs (some starting in their 30s), the specialized ergonomic supports for the overweight, the pills and shots for the inevitable diabetes, is going to cost less than social security for someone who's in relative health most of their life? Social security is almost never stored as income. It's spent, and circulates right back into the economy. If the baby boomers find some way of throwing their SS paycheck in a bank vault, it will have a negative impact on the economy. But that's not going to happen.

Believe me, if Social Security was that big of a giver, 401ks would not exist, and retirement options would be scoffed at as unnecessary. The people who truly benefit from Social Security are those who have been enrolled for SSDI income, which is derived directly from their parents prematurely dying, or setting up a trust for benefits through their employer. Medical costs are staggeringly more expensive than social security income. One or two nights in a hospital can often equal a YEAR of SS checks, if not more.

[Wild Cobra]

Who cares what Japan is doing? We are talking about the USA!

Exactly. Think about how many times the elistist politicians want to impose the ideals of othet cultures upon us.

Ready to give up even more feedomd to the democrats?

[boutons_]

"allowing government control of diet and recereation"

who's talking about that? no matter what you eat or exercise, or don't, is not the govt health insurer's role.

The govt takes quality of health measurements from blood and urine and dimensions, and at the option the insured, performance measurement. One has full freedom to eat and do whatever. The govt health insurer is only interested in the objective measurements of health.

[Cry Havoc]

I also have to bring up another issue that I have with trans fat even being called food. Does this mean that I can be outraged that McDonalds isn't putting wild king cobra snakes in my food? OMG THEY'RE CONTROLLING WHAT I EAT!

But seriously, my point is this: how can anyone consider a substance like trans fat food? It's not, and has almost NO impact on the taste of an edible object. Dunkin' Donuts just removed trans fat from their entire menu -- would they really do that at the risk of business unless it's really not central to the taste of their foodstuffs?

[101A]

By this reasoning, you could compare a physically fit, nutritionally aware individual to a lifelong smoker or compulsive eater who weighs 350 pounds and expect the first person to cost society more? So the accommodations that must be made for smokers and the obese, the medical treatment of the lungs (some starting in their 30s), the specialized ergonomic supports for the overweight, the pills and shots for the inevitable diabetes, is going to cost less than social security for someone who's in relative health most of their life? Social security is almost never stored as income. It's spent, and circulates right back into the economy. If the baby boomers find some way of throwing their SS paycheck in a bank vault, it will have a negative impact on the economy. But that's not going to happen.

Believe me, if Social Security was that big of a giver, 401ks would not exist, and retirement options would be scoffed at as unnecessary. The people who truly benefit from Social Security are those who have been enrolled for SSDI income, which is derived directly from their parents prematurely dying, or setting up a trust for benefits through their employer. Medical costs are staggeringly more expensive than social security income. One or two nights in a hospital can often equal a YEAR of SS checks, if not more.

I don't know how else to explain this: EVERYBODY DIES!!! Tri-Athletes don't just get taken up at 85 - they get heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's - you name it, they get it; just later in life. It's just as expensive to treat them, as it was to treat their deceased peers 20 years earlier!

Social Security isn't expensive?

Got it.

[JoeChalupa]

I wish they'd ban tofu and sushi.

[johnsmith]

I wish they'd ban tofu and sushi.

You say what you want about tofu, but leave sushi out of this.:ihit

[JoeChalupa]

You say what you want about tofu, but leave sushi out of this.:ihit

sushi sucks. Fry that fish and it is a different story.

[boutons_]

"EVERYBODY DIES!!! Tri-Athletes don't just get taken up at 85 - they get heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's - you name it, they get it; just later in life."

The personal goal is to maintain healthy, disease-free quality of life up to the very end, with the societal benefit being minimal consumption of public health resources.

lean, well nourished, fit old people have greatly reduced risk of the diseases you list, even Alzheimer's is amenable to risk reduction.

[Spurminator]

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."

[Cry Havoc]

I don't know how else to explain this: EVERYBODY DIES!!! Tri-Athletes don't just get taken up at 85 - they get heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's - you name it, they get it; just later in life. It's just as expensive to treat them, as it was to treat their deceased peers 20 years earlier!

And smokers and the obese don't just get emphysema or diabetes at 60. They struggle with a number of afflictions throughout their life. Lower level of health = higher cost. Those who take care of themselves and maintain a certain level of fitness are MUCH healthier, on average, than those who smoke or have weight problems.

Since you seem to be so staunchly against the idea that smokers and the obese have maladies throughout their life (as opposed to 2 weeks of cancer and then kicking it, saving us all SO much money) I'll provide some sources.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/69332.php

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029&ct=1

This is, of course, not even discussing the environmental impact of smoking, or the damage that secondhand smoke does to those near the smoker.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1745908

So yes. Kindly tell us again how smoking saves us money? That kind of logic is absolutely ludicrous, and I don't mind calling you out on it.


Social Security isn't expensive?

Got it.

You misunderstand my meaning. Your contention was that those who draw social security for a long time are a drain on the economy. This is faulty for two reasons.

First of all, that money has already been set aside in the social security fund. It was never part of the economy. Every paycheck you get, some of it goes to SS so they can fund you after you retire. You start receiving money on the deposits you made through working. This is an indirect impact on the economy. Social security is not the government melting down bars of gold from the treasury to fund the elderly. Even if a person dies early, the money stays in Social Security. It doesn't go elsewhere because someone lives to be 80.

Secondly, Social Security is not a safety net or a golden parachute. In reality, those with only SSI (Social Security Income) receive far less than is perceived. SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance) is the only type of SS that gives out a disproportional amount to what is put into the system. If there is a problem with SSI, it's the overhead and the governmental costs -- which can hardly be attributed to healthy individuals.

[101A]

First of all, that money has already been set aside in the social security fund. It was never part of the economy.



There is no money, at all, in the SS trust fund. The congress decided LONG AGO to buy government bonds with that money - putting the actual cash into general funds. When the govt. cashes in those bonds, guess where the money is gonna come from to pay it?

You have swallowed the SS kool-aid hook, line and sinker, haven't you?

I own a company that pays the medical claims of over 20,000 people in and around this country. I'm telling you, smokers and fat people simply cost more earlier; not in total. Again, people get sick, stay sick, spend a ton of money in the last 2 months to 3 years of their lives, then die. My dad paid into SS his entire working life, the "Max" - because he earned over the threshold. He smoked, never took a sick day; got cancer at 60 and died before he collected a dime of Social Security, or filed a single Medicare claim. Mom got $250 bucks from SSA when he kicked. Govt. made out like a bandit.

Mom, on the other hand, is healthy, doesn't smoke, but takes numerous maintenance drugs (hormone therapy, Allergy, etc....nothing for blood pressure or cholesterol, but, somehow, docs have signed her up for about 12 she takes daily). She also worked long enough to get the max SS benefits. She's gonna collect, beginning in two years (@67), +- $1,300 per month for the rest of her life - and that will increase via COLA'S. HER mother is currently 87 and going strong, and her grandmother lived to 100. My mom is going to be collecting those dollars, probably, for a long time (knocks on wood). Additionally, her non-smoking, non-obese, works out three times a week self, is going to start collecting Medicare in October; and Medicare is going to begin picking up the charges for those drugs, as well for the doctor's visits necessary to prescribe them. Then, AFTER ALL OF THAT, as she gets really old, she's gonna get something that requires an ICU, possibly Hospice, who knows; but it'll most likely be at least as expensive as the 2 months of cancer treatment dad got before he died.

That particular healthy non-smoker is gonna cost a whole lot more than the smoker.

[Cry Havoc]

There is no money, at all, in the SS trust fund. The congress decided LONG AGO to buy government bonds with that money - putting the actual cash into general funds. When the govt. cashes in those bonds, guess where the money is gonna come from to pay it?

You have swallowed the SS kool-aid hook, line and sinker, haven't you?

I own a company that pays the medical claims of over 20,000 people in and around this country. I'm telling you, smokers and fat people simply cost more earlier; not in total. Again, people get sick, stay sick, spend a ton of money in the last 2 months to 3 years of their lives, then die. My dad paid into SS his entire working life, the "Max" - because he earned over the threshold. He smoked, never took a sick day; got cancer at 60 and died before he collected a dime of Social Security, or filed a single Medicare claim. Mom got $250 bucks from SSA when he kicked. Govt. made out like a bandit.

Mom, on the other hand, is healthy, doesn't smoke, but takes numerous maintenance drugs (hormone therapy, Allergy, etc....nothing for blood pressure or cholesterol, but, somehow, docs have signed her up for about 12 she takes daily). She also worked long enough to get the max SS benefits. She's gonna collect, beginning in two years (@67), +- $1,300 per month for the rest of her life - and that will increase via COLA'S. HER mother is currently 87 and going strong, and her grandmother lived to 100. My mom is going to be collecting those dollars, probably, for a long time (knocks on wood). Additionally, her non-smoking, non-obese, works out three times a week self, is going to start collecting Medicare in October; and Medicare is going to begin picking up the charges for those drugs, as well for the doctor's visits necessary to prescribe them. Then, AFTER ALL OF THAT, as she gets really old, she's gonna get something that requires an ICU, possibly Hospice, who knows; but it'll most likely be at least as expensive as the 2 months of cancer treatment dad got before he died.

That particular healthy non-smoker is gonna cost a whole lot more than the smoker.

Ah, yes, the whole, "Well this one member of my family smoked..." argument that invalidates all the research conducted that is contrary to the matter at hand. I should have saw that coming much earlier. I'm surprised it wasn't the first line of defense you used to justify the idea. People I work with are 30 years old, smoke, and they're already experiencing health problems.

Again, let me pose the question to you: Do you really think smokers are wonderfully healthy until they hit their mid-50s, then suddenly get all these horrific ailments out of nowhere and die quickly?

As for Social Security -- well, I deal with them every day. That should tell you all you need to know. I simply disagree with the idea that smokers are beneficial to this country from a medical cost standpoint.

[101A]

Again, let me pose the question to you: Do you really think smokers are wonderfully healthy until they hit their mid-50s, then suddenly get all these horrific ailments out of nowhere and die quickly?

First of all, you got any comment on the Social Security funding issue?

Next, no, many smokers develop emphysema and are hooked to oxygen tanks, take tons of drugs, etc, before there (by then) miserable lives are allowed to extinguish, but, Again, let me pose the question to you: Do you really think non-smokers are wonderfully healthy until they hit their mid-80s, then suddenly get all these horrific ailments out of nowhere and die quickly?

[101A]

Ah, yes, the whole, "Well this one member of my family smoked..." argument that invalidates all the research conducted that is contrary to the matter at hand. I should have saw that coming much earlier. I'm surprised it wasn't the first line of defense you used to justify the idea. People I work with are 30 years old, smoke, and they're already experiencing health problems.




Oh, I almost forgot to respond to the condescension.....

Ah, yes, the whole, "Well I work with these young smokers, and they are unhealthy" argument that invalidates all of the actual data that smokers don't actually spend more on health care, over the course of their lives, than non-smokers.

[Cry Havoc]

Do you really think non-smokers are wonderfully healthy until they hit their mid-80s, then suddenly get all these horrific ailments out of nowhere and die quickly?

I think the average non-smoker is probably healthy well into their 50s or 60s, and then generally they begin a slow decline of health.

For smokers, that decline of health starts the DAY a person starts smoking, affects everyone who is consistently around the smoker, and ends in a painful death. I guess focusing on the last 2 years of a smoker's life and the last 20 of a non-smoker's life is a particularly handy way to level the playing field.

[Cry Havoc]

Oh, I almost forgot to respond to the condescension.....

Ah, yes, the whole, "Well I work with these young smokers, and they are unhealthy" argument that invalidates all of the actual data that smokers don't actually spend more on health care, over the course of their lives, than non-smokers.

Got any facts and figures to back that up?

What about their children? What about their loved ones? Are they unaffected by the residual health costs, as well?

[101A]

I think the average non-smoker is probably healthy well into their 50s or 60s, and then generally they begin a slow decline of health.

For smokers, that decline of health starts the DAY a person starts smoking, affects everyone who is consistently around the smoker, and ends in a painful death. I guess focusing on the last 2 years of a smoker's life and the last 20 of a non-smoker's life is a particularly handy way to level the playing field.

I think that is my point, isn't it?

[Cry Havoc]

I think that is my point, isn't it?

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. :rolleyes

[101A]

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. :rolleyes

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?

[Cry Havoc]

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.

[Trainwreck2100]

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 shitload of fast food restaurants. No business wants to move in cause they don't want to get jacked.

[DarkReign]

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...

[Cry Havoc]

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/healthNews/idUSN3031836920080730?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.

[Winehole23]

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/19/bloomberg-strikes-again-nyc-bans-food-donations-to-the-homeless/#.T23hDrbiBxQ.facebook

[AFBlue]

Certainly glad CA and NYC don't represent the mainstream philosophy on governance, regardless of party affiliation.

[Winehole23]

was unaware states represented political philosophies, fringe, mainstream or otherwise

[Winehole23]

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

[Wild Cobra]

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/19/bloomberg-strikes-again-nyc-bans-food-donations-to-the-homeless/#.T23hDrbiBxQ.facebook
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.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

was unaware states represented political philosophies, fringe, mainstream or otherwise

it would be a nice change from what actually does represent political philosophy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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?

[spursncowboys]

You base your personal ethics off of fantasy novels? How does that not surprise me?

http://brotherpeacemaker.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/q-is-for-quran.jpg

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSeYa-OPRRvLCcFSc-HRuvet1V5LsOVL1sjOqhpEQk4QrFaSm2kYQ

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSLVYENG5AXVKfkeDlobTsaximl6qzEn WB_QjtPEAsW6K4Tyddd

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTAjOekUb4nS0S_SbtEDUL0ADff-4v6JpQvF3n9REXkQiqo6_JT8w

[Wild Cobra]

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.