Page 44 of 52  •  Prev 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 ... 52 Next
Switch to Forum Live View
Locked: Big Apple Soda Ban
2 years ago  ::  Jul 02, 2012 - 2:18PM #431
Erey
Posts: 19,149

Jul 2, 2012 -- 10:31AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Jul 1, 2012 -- 11:32PM, Erey wrote:


Obesity rates are down for children - that is good news.  This article is from april


articles.boston.com/2012-04-23/lifestyle...


So education is doing SOME good.



Non sequitur.


Obesity rates likely are down because people in the crisis don't afford so much food any more.




no sequitur my (not so fat) ass!  Bull shite!  are you suggesting that people are so stupid, so idiotic that it really does not occur to them to try to limit their portion sizes and limit sugar (as the article suggests) to thin down?  And that further it does not occur to parents that increased activity and less processed foods might keep childhood obesity at bay? 



 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 02, 2012 - 2:28PM #432
Erey
Posts: 19,149

Jul 2, 2012 -- 10:05AM, Cesmom wrote:


Jul 1, 2012 -- 5:24PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Jul 1, 2012 -- 4:08PM, Cesmom wrote:


The best way to combat obesity is by allowing consumers to make informed choices.



On what evidence do you base that fairy tale from la-la-land?


If one thing does NOT work for sure, it's information campaigns.


Make a test: in the supermarket, just count the number of obese or overweight people who read lists of ingredients. Five fingers will suffice, based on my own counting experience.




On what evidence do you possibly think that Bloomberg's fairy tale ideas are going to do any good?  




Bloomberg is on record for saying he does not believe this soda size limit will do anything in regards to obesity.  It is a statement for him, not much more than that.


And yes information campaigns work well.  Increased breastfeeding for one, lots of things to do with babies like side sleeping, etc.  Teeth flossing, americans.  Americans make alot more efforts to exercise than they used to do because exercise (esp for women) was not the thing.  The list is endless. Don't litter, spay and nueter your pets 


 




 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 02, 2012 - 5:33PM #433
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Jul 2, 2012 -- 10:36AM, Cesmom wrote:


Everyone knows that high carb, high fat foods are cheaper than healthy foods.  If it were all about the financial crisis, people would be getting fatter not thinner.



I'm not so sure about this.


If one thing works for sure in society, it is the law of demand.


Less money to spend, less things will be bought.


Jul 2, 2012 -- 2:18PM, Erey wrote:


... are you suggesting that people are so stupid, so idiotic that it really does not occur to them to try to limit their portion sizes and limit sugar (as the article suggests) to thin down?  And that further it does not occur to parents that increased activity and less processed foods might keep childhood obesity at bay?



We speak about "welfare queens" here, Erey, not "people".


It's those whom you'd never want government to spend your tax money on.


Are you really so sure about their intellectual capabilities?

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 02, 2012 - 6:25PM #434
jane2
Posts: 14,295

Jul 2, 2012 -- 5:33PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Jul 2, 2012 -- 10:36AM, Cesmom wrote:


Everyone knows that high carb, high fat foods are cheaper than healthy foods.  If it were all about the financial crisis, people would be getting fatter not thinner.



I'm not so sure about this.


If one thing works for sure in society, it is the law of demand.


Less money to spend, less things will be bought.


Jul 2, 2012 -- 2:18PM, Erey wrote:


... are you suggesting that people are so stupid, so idiotic that it really does not occur to them to try to limit their portion sizes and limit sugar (as the article suggests) to thin down?  And that further it does not occur to parents that increased activity and less processed foods might keep childhood obesity at bay?



We speak about "welfare queens" here, Erey, not "people".


It's those whom you'd never want government to spend your tax money on.


Are you really so sure about their intellectual capabilities?




I suppose there are "welfare queens". Two generations ago I did social casework in the Southern Tier of New York State. I had no "welfare queens" in my caseload of about 120 families, mainly on ADC. I worked with mothers on how to best use "surplus food". My mother was a certified public health nurse and she too worked with mothers on nutrition; she worked in Albany County.


Most middle and upper-middle class youngsters in the US drink very few soft drinks. Some even have their preferred brand of bottled water. We chuckle at the sort of people who order "Big Gulps". I first heard about them on a morning talk show hosted by a right-winger who appeals to "red necks" about 20 years ago. All of this was in the Atlanta area. (I do like many aspects of living here.)


Many of us have been aware of the mainly Republican penchant for a dumbing down the populace. When I was teaching in NYS in the 60s even our "slow" children were taught to think. I don't think that still obtains in many schools.


 




 

discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 02, 2012 - 6:48PM #435
Erey
Posts: 19,149

Jul 2, 2012 -- 5:33PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Jul 2, 2012 -- 10:36AM, Cesmom wrote:


Everyone knows that high carb, high fat foods are cheaper than healthy foods.  If it were all about the financial crisis, people would be getting fatter not thinner.



I'm not so sure about this.


If one thing works for sure in society, it is the law of demand.


Less money to spend, less things will be bought.


Jul 2, 2012 -- 2:18PM, Erey wrote:


... are you suggesting that people are so stupid, so idiotic that it really does not occur to them to try to limit their portion sizes and limit sugar (as the article suggests) to thin down?  And that further it does not occur to parents that increased activity and less processed foods might keep childhood obesity at bay?



We speak about "welfare queens" here, Erey, not "people".


It's those whom you'd never want government to spend your tax money on.


Are you really so sure about their intellectual capabilities?




 


Your welfare queen quip would be relevant if it were just ladies on welfare that are obese.  We all know this is not true.  Obesity is higher in the lower income groups than the upper income groups but that is about all we can say.  Other than that it hits all groups, thats the problem isn't it?  It hits black welfare queens and asian accountants and not a few people one might call wealthy.  Even Oprah, often ranked the wealthiest self-made woman has some problem with the chub.  I don't believe she drinks soda.   


And yes, I don't think it is a huge leap for low income ladies to figure out how to maximize their own health. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 02, 2012 - 6:59PM #436
Erey
Posts: 19,149

speaking of soda here is a fun quote from Andy Warhol:


 


"What’s great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coke, Liz Taylor drinks Coke, and just think, you can drink Coke, too. A Coke is a Coke and no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same and all the Cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it."

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 02, 2012 - 10:16PM #437
TRUECHRISTIAN
Posts: 1,284

 


Jul 1, 2012 -- 11:32PM, Erey wrote:


Obesity rates are down for children - that is good news.  This article is from april


articles.boston.com/2012-04-23/lifestyle...


So education is doing SOME good.




Jul 2, 2012 -- 10:31AM, CharikIeia wrote:

 Non sequitur.


Obesity rates likely are down because people in the crisis don't afford so much food any more.




What doesn't follow from the evidence is that the rate of obesity declined because of a drop in the wealth of the consumers.   


The article from the link did not conclude that the drop in the rate of obesity was due to a drop in wealth. 


For a conclusion to be true the premises in the statement must be true.  


There is no evidence that the premise, that a drop in wealth is likely to be the cause in the drop in obesity.   


However if your premise is true and your conclusion is therefore also true.  Then a further drop in wealth would produce a further drop in the obesity rates.  


North Korea is one of the poorest countries on the planet.  North Korea has  


 




 

I could be wrong.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 03, 2012 - 12:39AM #438
rabello
Posts: 22,023

Jul 2, 2012 -- 5:33PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Jul 2, 2012 -- 2:18PM, Erey wrote:


... are you suggesting that people are so stupid, so idiotic that it really does not occur to them to try to limit their portion sizes and limit sugar (as the article suggests) to thin down?  And that further it does not occur to parents that increased activity and less processed foods might keep childhood obesity at bay?




We speak about "welfare queens" here, Erey, not "people".


It's those whom you'd never want government to spend your tax money on.


Are you really so sure about their intellectual capabilities?




Thank you, Charikleia.  It's not about "dummies" or "stupid" people.  It is about unhealthy people who happen to live in a country that has chosen to have no national health care and, if the Tea Partying Republicans are any indication, ready and willing to have another Civil War over providing health care to all Americans using precious tax dollars.


 


Jul 2, 2012 -- 6:48PM, Erey wrote:


Your welfare queen quip would be relevant if it were just ladies on welfare that are obese.  We all know this is not true.  Obesity is higher in the lower income groups than the upper income groups but that is about all we can say.  Other than that it hits all groups, thats the problem isn't it?  It hits black welfare queens and asian accountants and not a few people one might call wealthy.  Even Oprah, often ranked the wealthiest self-made woman has some problem with the chub.  I don't believe she drinks soda.   


And yes, I don't think it is a huge leap for low income ladies to figure out how to maximize their own health. 




It's not about the "ladies" who are obese, whether it's a "black" single mother on welfare and medicaid or an "asian" accountant with one of the cadillac plans.  It's about the cost obesity-related illnesses that affect the society, at large, across the board, in either higher insurance premiums or increased charges for medical care received, and also the amount local, state and federal government has to spend using precious tax dollars to cover those costs for those without health care plans, which is more than 40 million Americans. 


Time to stop harping about soda and look at the bigger picture, I think.


***


Just a little over one month ago, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) presented a study at a conference, which stated that if current trends continue, up to 43% of American could be obese by 2030, with 11% of them being morbidly obese.   Also stating that if substantive public health efforts are not undertaken, now, things are going to get worse.  They also provided statistics that showed in 1960, 19% of Americans were obese, compared to 36% today, and showed that the obesity epidemic started in the go-go 80s. 


***


The single biggest reason obesity rates in children may have stablized is that so many schools across the country removed soda machines, snack machines, snack bars, and stopped serving things like bread sticks and marinara, in a clear violation of the students' individual rights, I presume.   Also, as Charikleia stated, parents buying less crappy snack food like pizza pockets for the kids to snack on when they get home.   That doesn't mean there aren't a lot of obese kids & young adults out there, still buying 42 ounce "Large" sugary drinks when they're out there on there own.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 03, 2012 - 12:47AM #439
Erey
Posts: 19,149

Jul 3, 2012 -- 12:39AM, rabello wrote:


Jul 2, 2012 -- 5:33PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Jul 2, 2012 -- 2:18PM, Erey wrote:


... are you suggesting that people are so stupid, so idiotic that it really does not occur to them to try to limit their portion sizes and limit sugar (as the article suggests) to thin down?  And that further it does not occur to parents that increased activity and less processed foods might keep childhood obesity at bay?




We speak about "welfare queens" here, Erey, not "people".


It's those whom you'd never want government to spend your tax money on.


Are you really so sure about their intellectual capabilities?




Thank you, Charikleia.  It's not about "dummies" or "stupid" people.  It is about unhealthy people who happen to live in a country that has chosen to have no national health care and, if the Tea Partying Republicans are any indication, ready and willing to have another Civil War over providing health care to all Americans using precious tax dollars.


 


Jul 2, 2012 -- 6:48PM, Erey wrote:


Your welfare queen quip would be relevant if it were just ladies on welfare that are obese.  We all know this is not true.  Obesity is higher in the lower income groups than the upper income groups but that is about all we can say.  Other than that it hits all groups, thats the problem isn't it?  It hits black welfare queens and asian accountants and not a few people one might call wealthy.  Even Oprah, often ranked the wealthiest self-made woman has some problem with the chub.  I don't believe she drinks soda.   


And yes, I don't think it is a huge leap for low income ladies to figure out how to maximize their own health. 




It's not about the "ladies" who are obese, whether it's a "black" single mother on welfare and medicaid or an "asian" accountant with one of the cadillac plans.  It's about the cost obesity-related illnesses that affect the society, at large, across the board, in either higher insurance premiums or increased charges for medical care received, and also the amount local, state and federal government has to spend using precious tax dollars to cover those costs for those without health care plans, which is more than 40 million Americans. 


Time to stop harping about soda and look at the bigger picture, I think.


***


Just a little over one month ago, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) presented a study at a conference, which stated that if current trends continue, up to 43% of American could be obese by 2030, with 11% of them being morbidly obese.   Also stating that if substantive public health efforts are not undertaken, now, things are going to get worse.  They also provided statistics that showed in 1960, 19% of Americans were obese, compared to 36% today, and showed that the obesity epidemic started in the go-go 80s. 


***


The single biggest reason obesity rates in children may have stablized is that so many schools across the country removed soda machines, snack machines, snack bars, and stopped serving things like bread sticks and marinara, in a clear violation of the students' individual rights, I presume.   Also, as Charikleia stated, parents buying less crappy snack food like pizza pockets for the kids to snack on when they get home.   That doesn't mean there aren't a lot of obese kids & young adults out there, still buying 42 ounce "Large" sugary drinks when they're out there on there own.




You have decreed (in a very bossy manner) that this THREAD IS ABOUT THE COST OF OBESITY TO SOCIETY.  When at first (untill you ran that argument into the ground) it was about the effectiveness or according to Bloomberg himself the very dubious effectiveness of this kind of thing having any effect whatsoever on the obesity rate. 


So OK we can discuss the cost to society of obesity.  Fine, obesity is expensive.  Not as expensive as say smoking or hard drug use but yes it costs.


If Bloomberg himself has said this is not going to effect obesity why are you holding out so fiercely that it will?   And what in the hell do you have against public education on the subject?  Why do you have such a low opinion of the self determination and intelligence of common people?    And further, since Mayor Bloomberg himself does not hold alot of hope for this kind of law enforced size control what do you suggest?  Why will your suggestion work better or be superior to educational efforts?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 03, 2012 - 1:42AM #440
rabello
Posts: 22,023

Jul 3, 2012 -- 12:47AM, Erey wrote:


You have decreed (in a very bossy manner) that this THREAD IS ABOUT THE COST OF OBESITY TO SOCIETY.  When at first (untill you ran that argument into the ground) it was about the effectiveness or according to Bloomberg himself the very dubious effectiveness of this kind of thing having any effect whatsoever on the obesity rate. 




You are, once again, misrepresenting what I have argued on this thread.   Not once, did I say it was about the "effectiveness" of Bloomberg's plan.   I didn't say because I don't know if it will be effective, or not -- and nobody else posting here knows, either, btw -- but there's a good chance that it will help some, if not a lot of people....just like making cigarettes more expensive and harder to imbibe helped a lot of people quit smoking.  In my world view, even a few helped is worth it, especially when what is being sold isn't necessary or healthy to begin with.


What I DID say is that a) people who sell things to the general public have a moral obligation to make sure what they are selling and the amount that they are selling isn't going to harm the people buying their product, and that b) nobody needs a 42 ounce sugar drink to wash down their meat lovers pizza, and that c) obesity-related illnesses are costing EVERYBODY in this society, even those asian accountants with cadillac insurance plans.


But I have known from the beginning, you just weren't getting my point -- probably because you don't want to.


Jul 3, 2012 -- 12:47AM, Erey wrote:


So OK we can discuss the cost to society of obesity.  Fine, obesity is expensive.  Not as expensive as say smoking or hard drug use but yes it costs.




Who says it's not as expensive?  Not public health officials.  More of our health care dollars go for obesity-related illnesses than either smoking-related illness or illness related to drug abuse.   A lifetime of disability is more expensive, in all categories, than an acute illness brought on by smoking or using drugs.  That's just fact.


Jul 3, 2012 -- 12:47AM, Erey wrote:


If Bloomberg himself has said this is not going to effect obesity why are you holding out so fiercely that it will?  




Never did.  Like I said, you never did get it after 22 pages of discussion.  It's "affect" not "effect" btw.


Jul 3, 2012 -- 12:47AM, Erey wrote:


And what in the hell do you have against public education on the subject? 




You still haven't said a single word about how "public education"  is going to work, nor have you said who's going to pay for it.   The word "public" implies precious tax dollars....do you favor using precious tax dollars to pay for your still undefined "public" education program?  And no, I'm not going to pay you for justifying your own positions on a discussion board.  Either you have an idea of what you're talking about or you don't.  Ebon did it and gave an excellent description, alas we still come back to who is going to pay for it?


Jul 3, 2012 -- 12:47AM, Erey wrote:


Why do you have such a low opinion of the self determination and intelligence of common people? 




Why do you think that is even an issue at play here?  Have you never seen the drive up lines at the fast food joints?  Have you never seen that the majority of customers at such places are teenagers and young adults without parents to tell them what to buy or to pay for them?  Have you never seen kids and young adults, chugging down a huge glass of pop in a place that gives free "bottomless" refills. 


Why "in the hell" can't you see that it's about a public health issue instead of your typical judgments?


Jul 3, 2012 -- 12:47AM, Erey wrote:


And further, since Mayor Bloomberg himself does not hold alot of hope for this kind of law enforced size control what do you suggest? 




His plan, as he said, is an effort.  I can see a reason for such an effort, in a city wehre MORE THAN 50% OF MINOR-AGED CHILDREN ARE OBESE. You can't.  OK. so what should society do about a situation where more that half the kids are dangerously overweight?  However, I do not understand what you are asking, based on the way your question is worded.


Jul 3, 2012 -- 12:47AM, Erey wrote:


Why will your suggestion work better or be superior to educational efforts?




Why would your suggestion to provide some un-funded kind of "public" education do what it has not been able to do as of yet?  Why would doing nothing but leaving it up to the consumers work better or be superior?  Don't you agree that sellers have a moral responsiblity to make sure the products they sell to the general public (meaning, for example, kids who ALREADY have diabetes) are safe and that the amount they sell to the general public is safe.  Don't you agree that children, especially have a right to expect the stuff that is sold to them won't hurt them?  Don't you agree that society should take care of the medical costs of the sick and disabled?   Or....do you think sellers should get carte blanche and people should be forced to live in the "bed they made" with their bad choices and die yount?

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 44 of 52  •  Prev 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 ... 52 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook