Reply With Quote
If you don't mind me asking what is your tax bracket?
incentives towards positive physicals/low blood pressure/. As I'm thinking honestly about your question I'm wondering what business is it of a city mayor to decide what to do to keep me healthy... Once again attack my freedoms to push what's best for people as if the govt are our parents. I cannot believe smart people are honestly arguing for this. I don't want to waste a second thought on this. IMO taxes should only be taken if it is taken from everyone and will benefit everyone. Just my opinion.
If you don't mind me asking what is your tax bracket?
What kind of incentives?
As long as all taxpayers are paying for your health bill when you get old and get dumped from the for-profit insurance to the government-run healthcare because you're "high risk", it will be the government (especially governor) responsibility to make sure that bill doesn't get out of hand. Arguably, prevention is actually the *smart* thing to do here.
I mean, give me something here. Perhaps sign an affidavit renouncing to government healthcare and then get issued an all-you-can-eat card?
Well technically the government is taking money from me every month. So any SS and medicare I use will be paid and full. Especially if you count the compound interest they should be making. In a realistic idea, putting into account the morons in office right now I think making incentives for anyone living a healthier life. Incentives like tax rebates for having a gym membership. No fees for parks. More hiking trails.
And if you are living a unhealthy lifestyle you shouldn't get the same healthcare fees as myself. I think it says alot about our society that there is such a combined problem of poor and unhealthy/overweight.
What about you ElNono...
This was a good law but it's blatant corporate favoritism was stupid
Technically, the government is taking money off you now that pay for Medicare/SS now, with the promise future generations will do the same for you when you're old. But that's mostly the *federal* government, a whole different ballgame, since, as we know, they cannot go bankrupt.
State governments, however, are in no such position since they cannot create their own money, and they're on the hook at least with their portion of Medicaid, which isn't chump change.
Personally I don't think such incentives work, but I appreciate you taking the time to come up with them. I mean, Central Park is open and full of activities all year round, and if you ever lived near the big Apple, you know it's a great city to walk.
I would agree some stuff works against it though. Traffic is killer and everything is severely overpriced. I live 40 minutes away from Manhattan, and driving means at least $20 toll on the bridge + parking. If I take the train, that's $25 a pop for a roundtrip ticket. It's just difficult to justify such expense for leisure on any regular basis.
Overall, I don't think it's a topic with an easy solution. But I do think sooner rather than later it needs to be addressed. People seemingly don't want any part of personal responsibility when it comes to extra large sugary drinks. At least in NY.
So....
How many of you are sorry that this authoritarian act, was struck down?
well that was precisely my point; that try as we may to make a scapegoat out of the obese demographic, they are not the reason we have spiraling out of control health costs. placing a tax or ban on products that are targeted to the former just lends more ammo to those who would argue what i was sarcastically referencing.
Because unhealthy people have emergency complications more often, which they then go to the emergency room for. Unless you're going to start turning people away at the ER doors if they don't have the cash.
If it's true this law only banned sodas in restaurants and not convenience stores, then I'm glad it got struck down as that's favoritism and convenience stores probably even more to blame than restaurants. If people only drank soda when they were eating it wouldn't be an issue, the real issue is how many people stop at circle-k twice a day in the morning and during lunch to get a big gulp because their body has developed a constant need for soda and they can't be productive at work without it.
IMO, the solution is to not restrict the sizes of soda at all, but ban the usage of hugh fructose corn syrup so soda companies have to use real sugar as the sweetener. If that were the case people wouldn't be able to drink high quan ies like we can now and no one would develop the crazy soda addiction a lot of people have. High fructose corn syrup is the problem, not the soda. The fact marijuana is illegal but high fructose corn syrup isn't is a total joke.
i have to agree with that entirely. HFCS is deadly. there are other components to sodas that are unhealthy but it really is the corn syrup that is so terrible.
Last edited by rjv; 03-12-2013 at 12:58 PM.
Unfortunately the FDA is maybe the most corrupt federal agency in America (which is saying a lot) and they're in the corn industry's back pocket. Otherwise lobbying groups like the Corn Refiners Association wouldn't be able to publish completely dishonest and flat out false information that "corn sugar" is chemically identical to cane sugar on bull sites like sweetsurprise.com, and the FDA might have actually done something when it found out HFCS actually has mercury in it.
As much as Bloomberg would like to do about this, nothing he does will matter as long as corporate agriculture lobbying controls the people who are supposed to regulate corporate agriculture.
i remember the first time i saw the CRA's commercial on how HCFS is the same as sugar. it was such a blatant attempt at propaganda it was almost surreal.
I try to avoid it like the plague, tbh, which is difficult since it's imbued into almost seemingly everything these days.
Yeah I've gone the last few months eating virtually no HFCS, but grocery shopping for stuff that doesn't have any of it is tough.
Even Mxican soda doesn't use HFCS because of how bad it is.
http://news.yahoo.com/americas-love-...--finance.html
NEW YORK (AP) — It wasn't too long ago that America had a love affair with soda. Now, an old flame has the country's heart.
As New York City grapples with the legality of a ban on the sale of large cups of soda and other sugary drinks at some businesses, one thing is clear: soda's run as the nation's beverage of choice has fizzled.
In its place? A favorite for much of history: Plain old H2O.
For more than two decades, soda was the No. 1 drink in the U.S. with per capita consumption peaking in 1998 at 54 gallons a year, according industry tracker Beverage Digest. Americans drank just 42 gallons a year of water at the time.
But over the years, as soda increasingly came under fire for fueling the nation's rising obesity rates, water quietly rose to knock it off the top spot.
Americans now drink an average of 44 gallons of soda a year, a 17 percent drop from the peak in 1998. Over the same time, the average amount of water people drink has increased 38 percent to about 58 gallons a year. Bottled water has led that growth, with consumption nearly doubling to 21 gallons a year.
Maybe I am a little more optimistic about health trends. I do think the market can be used to guide people to make good choices, but I do not want this to be legislated to us. I am glad this was overturned.
If you take one sip, you instantly become morbidly obese. True story.
What's worse for you? A 32 oz Big Gulp with Coca Cola? Or a 24 oz Starbucks Mocha Chip Frappuccino?
I only have an anecdote. I drank Coca Cola made with sugar cane all my life growing up. Never gained weight.
After a few years in the US, my weight started to balloon like crazy. Eventually, I decided to just try switching from regular Coke to Coke Zero, which has no HFCS... lost nearly 30 pounds in a matter of months. Still losing weight right now as I keep on trying to avoid that crap. Since the wife went on a carb-counting diet and we started reading all the labels on everything, it's just crazy what they put that on. Literally almost everything.
They're both bad if not consumed with moderation. And that's seemingly the problem, the average New Yorker doesn't give a crap about moderation.
Well the medicare is distributed throughout the states. I think those incentives work for people who want to get healthier. But yeah as a society I don't think it will be the end all fix. But it would do a much better job than making a law against buying a 21 oz drink. Colorado has alot of public transportation. Most of Col SPrings uses it. There are also trails all over as well as bike lanes. From what I can tell, not based on facts, there seems to be alot more healthier living. There's a cemented lit trail from Colorado Springs to Denver and it is used. I think there needs to be a grown up look at where you live. Every area has their own culture and I think that should be where you start. But I don't see the govt, in any capacity, has any real answers except to diminish my rights in the name of helping.
Restating what I said earlier, it is a big problem that there is a large amount of people who are on welfare and excessively overweight. I also think it is a form of child abuse to allow your child to be overweight.
Disclaimer: when I state overweight, I mean excessively. I don't mean a beer belly or anything like that. But where it is lowering your life expectancy.
Neither one is as bad for you as bleach or laundry detergent. Surprised no one is talking about those.
i see the logic behind banning cokes. cokes contain cocaine and you don't need much advanced technology to extract the cocaine out of it so 's more like a cheap source of drug material in this regard. the government has every reason to ban or denature that imho
Now you want to take away my right to drink laundry detergent? You ing liberals never stop!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
