Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
My interest in government involvement starts and stops with the fact that 87% of food ads targeted towards children ages 6-11 are for saturated fat, sugar and sodium. That's also why I am all for banning toys in McDonald's Crappy Meals and any other corporate marketing tool designed to get kids to consume more junk.
Other than than, the incentive to get adults to lose weight should hit them in their wallets and pocketbooks.
How's this for a solution:
For every pound overweight, you pay an incremental increase in your insurance premiums, offsetting the premium costs for those who keep their weight in check.
If your insurance premiums are subsidized by the government under the Healthcare Reform, then the additional cost added because of your weight is subtracted from the other welfare benefits you might receive from the government like Section 8 or foodstamps.
Gov't already regulates all forms of media, so get gov't out of the media if you want major reform.
If you want private insurance companies rates to be based on someone or an entire family's health, that makes perfect sense.
What you're advocating for is exactly gov't controlling literally every single thing a person does throughout the day, it's like a clone of Stalin was implanted here in the U.S.
"If I eat this, will gov't tax me more?"
"My knee hurts, if I skip getting on the treadmill today will I get a fine?"
Under your plan people will be penalized for being injured or having a medical condition.
Please explain how getting government out of regulating media is going to halt the corporate marketing tools designed to get children to eat more saturated fat, sugar and sodium. If government already regulates media, how is it then that 87% of ads today are targeted towards kids for that purpose? You think that percentage will decrease if government gets out?
Hurting your knee may prevent one from getting on the treadmill but it doesn't prevent one from consuming less calories.
And you're not paying attention. Under my plan, for those on subsidized healthcare, consuming more calories won't bring an additional tax, it will divert benefits from one program to another. Foodstamps and Section 8 payments are reduced to cover the increase in insurance premiums.
I agree kids watch too much tv and eat too much fast food. That's the parents fault, gov't doesn't make people good parents.
Not sure how me speaking out against gov't regulated cup sizes is evidence of me "ignoring the problem." Sounds like a blind, dumb ASSumption by you.
I support all these things, just don't support gov't forcing people to abide by these principles.
A new report released Monday, “Accelerat*ing Progress in Obesity Prevention: Solving the Weight of the Nation,” by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), the health group of the National Academy of Sciences, outlines obesity prevention actions that they believe can accelerate societal-level prevention, including:
Integrating physical activity into people’s daily lives
Making healthy food and beverage options available everywhere
Transforming marketing and messages about nutrition and activity
Making schools a gateway to healthy weights
Galvanizing employers and health care professionals to support healthy lifestyles
I've already stated in this very thread that I find how seriously we americans take physical fitness and health to be an embarassment. But gov't can't force people to be healthy nor should they be trying to.
My interest in government involvement starts and stops with the fact that 87% of food ads targeted towards children ages 6-11 are for saturated fat, sugar and sodium. That's also why I am all for banning toys in McDonald's Crappy Meals and any other corporate marketing tool designed to get kids to consume more junk.
Other than than, the incentive to get adults to lose weight should hit them in their wallets and pocketbooks.
How's this for a solution:
For every pound overweight, you pay an incremental increase in your insurance premiums, offsetting the premium costs for those who keep their weight in check.
If your insurance premiums are subsidized by the government under the Healthcare Reform, then the additional cost added because of your weight is subtracted from the other welfare benefits you might receive from the government like Section 8 or foodstamps.
Hey sf... wondering if you'd answer my question from earlier:
Do you recognize any limits on government power to interfere in personal decisions?
Yes
Where do you draw the line?
Right now I'm talking about corporate marketing towards kids.
Would you let them tell you who you can marry?
No
How many kids you can have?
No
What religion to follow? All of these issues have an impact on society and are arguably more consequential than what size sodas we drink.
Should we pass similar laws protecting people from screwing up these decisions as well?
I don't see how marrying the same sex is going to cost society 147 billion dollars a year but I'm sure you'll find a reason.
Are fatsos the only people you're after? Or would you be willing to use this kind of power on anyone else who steps out of line?
My interest in government involvement starts and stops with the fact that 87% of food ads targeted towards children ages 6-11 are for saturated fat, sugar and sodium. That's also why I am all for banning toys in McDonald's Crappy Meals and any other corporate marketing tool designed to get kids to consume more junk.
Other than than, the incentive to get adults to lose weight should hit them in their wallets and pocketbooks.
How's this for a solution:
For every pound overweight, you pay an incremental increase in your insurance premiums, offsetting the premium costs for those who keep their weight in check.
If your insurance premiums are subsidized by the government under the Healthcare Reform, then the additional cost added because of your weight is subtracted from the other welfare benefits you might receive from the government like Section 8 or foodstamps.
Hey sf... wondering if you'd answer my question from earlier:
Do you recognize any limits on government power to interfere in personal decisions?
Yes
Where do you draw the line?
Right now I'm talking about corporate marketing towards kids.
Would you let them tell you who you can marry?
No
How many kids you can have?
No
What religion to follow? All of these issues have an impact on society and are arguably more consequential than what size sodas we drink.
Should we pass similar laws protecting people from screwing up these decisions as well?
I don't see how my choice to marry the same sex is going to cost society 147 billion dollars a year but I'm sure you'll find a reason.
Are fatsos the only people you're after? Or would you be willing to use this kind of power on anyone else who steps out of line?
Right now we're talking about the obesity problem in America.
Statist obscession with nothing that is any of thier business unless they happen to be obese themselves...but then if I were them? I'd be looking in the mirror and given a good talking to.Hey sf... wondering if you'd answer my question from earlier:
Are fatsos the only people you're after? Or would you be willing to use this kind of power on anyone else who steps out of line?
Right now we're talking about the obesity problem in America.
That statement does speak volumes.
Hey sf... wondering if you'd answer my question from earlier:
Are fatsos the only people you're after? Or would you be willing to use this kind of power on anyone else who steps out of line?
Right now we're talking about the obesity problem in America.
That statement does speak volumes.
Hey sf... wondering if you'd answer my question from earlier:
Do you recognize any limits on government power to interfere in personal decisions?
Yes
Where do you draw the line?
Right now I'm talking about corporate marketing towards kids.
Would you let them tell you who you can marry?
No
How many kids you can have?
No
What religion to follow? All of these issues have an impact on society and are arguably more consequential than what size sodas we drink.
Should we pass similar laws protecting people from screwing up these decisions as well?
I don't see how marrying the same sex is going to cost society 147 billion dollars a year but I'm sure you'll find a reason.
Are fatsos the only people you're after? Or would you be willing to use this kind of power on anyone else who steps out of line?
Right now we're talking about the obesity problem in America.
Gov't already regulates all forms of media, so get gov't out of the media if you want major reform.
If you want private insurance companies rates to be based on someone or an entire family's health, that makes perfect sense.
What you're advocating for is exactly gov't controlling literally every single thing a person does throughout the day, it's like a clone of Stalin was implanted here in the U.S.
"If I eat this, will gov't tax me more?"
"My knee hurts, if I skip getting on the treadmill today will I get a fine?"
Under your plan people will be penalized for being injured or having a medical condition.
Please explain how getting government out of regulating media is going to halt the corporate marketing tools designed to get children to eat more saturated fat, sugar and sodium. If government already regulates media, how is it then that 87% of ads today are targeted towards kids for that purpose? You think that percentage will decrease if government gets out?
Hurting your knee may prevent one from getting on the treadmill but it doesn't prevent one from consuming less calories.
And you're not paying attention. Under my plan, for those on subsidized healthcare, consuming more calories won't bring an additional tax, it will divert benefits from one program to another. Foodstamps and Section 8 payments are reduced to cover the increase in insurance premiums.
Because the free market is a better regulator of media than gov't. If you're against how the media is currently regulated, would seem like common sense to change who regulates it.
Yes exactly, penalized by gov't based in part on your genetics. That sounds perfectly rational and reasonable to me. Gov't should be on standby for every these humans ingest, and should take body fat % measurements throughout the day. Also people who aren't participating should be taxed more in order to pay for this.
"We" don't...are you a gustapo? It's not up to us, and it's not up to the government, SF.Please explain how getting government out of regulating media is going to halt the corporate marketing tools designed to get children to eat more saturated fat, sugar and sodium. If government already regulates media, how is it then that 87% of ads today are targeted towards kids for that purpose? You think that percentage will decrease if government gets out?
Hurting your knee may prevent one from getting on the treadmill but it doesn't prevent one from consuming less calories.
And you're not paying attention. Under my plan, for those on subsidized healthcare, consuming more calories won't bring an additional tax, it will divert benefits from one program to another. Foodstamps and Section 8 payments are reduced to cover the increase in insurance premiums.
Because the free market is a better regulator of media than gov't. If you're against how the media is currently regulated, would seem like common sense to change who regulates it.
Yes exactly, penalized by gov't based in part on your genetics. That sounds perfectly rational and reasonable to me. Gov't should be on standby for every these humans ingest, and should take body fat % measurements throughout the day. Also people who aren't participating should be taxed more in order to pay for this.
That's a great, conservative stand-by line but it doesn't explain how.
If there was no government regulation in media, how do you see the free market curtailing corporate marketing tools designed to get kids to consume more junk? By boycotting those products? Can't we just boycott today? If we are able to boycott those products today, how is it that today 87% of ads geared towards kids 6-11 are for crappy food?
So if you don't like the idea that people should pay more insurance premiums because they are overweight, what's your idea? How do you propose we get adults to lose weight? What's your incentive idea?
The real world. Do you really have NO liberal friends?
Please explain how getting government out of regulating media is going to halt the corporate marketing tools designed to get children to eat more saturated fat, sugar and sodium. If government already regulates media, how is it then that 87% of ads today are targeted towards kids for that purpose? You think that percentage will decrease if government gets out?
Hurting your knee may prevent one from getting on the treadmill but it doesn't prevent one from consuming less calories.
And you're not paying attention. Under my plan, for those on subsidized healthcare, consuming more calories won't bring an additional tax, it will divert benefits from one program to another. Foodstamps and Section 8 payments are reduced to cover the increase in insurance premiums.
Because the free market is a better regulator of media than gov't. If you're against how the media is currently regulated, would seem like common sense to change who regulates it.
Yes exactly, penalized by gov't based in part on your genetics. That sounds perfectly rational and reasonable to me. Gov't should be on standby for every these humans ingest, and should take body fat % measurements throughout the day. Also people who aren't participating should be taxed more in order to pay for this.
That's a great, conservative stand-by line but it doesn't explain how.
If there was no government regulation in media, how do you see the free market curtailing corporate marketing tools designed to get kids to consume more junk? By boycotting those products? Can't we just boycott today? If we are able to boycott those products today, how is it that today 87% of ads geared towards kids 6-11 are for crappy food?
So if you don't like the idea that people should pay more insurance premiums because they are overweight, what's your idea? How do you propose we get adults to lose weight? What's your incentive idea?
Hey sf... wondering if you'd answer my question from earlier:
Are fatsos the only people you're after? Or would you be willing to use this kind of power on anyone else who steps out of line?
Right now we're talking about the obesity problem in America.
Right, but what is different about the obesity problem from any of the other problems we face as a society. You must have noticed that part of the opposition to your vendetta against fat people, is the concern that this same kind of campaign could be waged toward anyone who is deemed a problem by the state. I'm trying to get you to clarify your views here. What sort of guidelines are you going by? Why, for instance, is dictating how many kids we can have off-limits, but telling us what kind of sodas we can have is not? Arguably, the number of children we have has a greater impact on society than a Big Gulp.
I'm asking where you draw the line, and you respond with 'right now I'm talking about corporate marketing to kids'. But I'm asking what you might be talking about next. If we indulge your ambitions and endorse state efforts to control marketing of sodas, what else might you seek to control? That's the concern. Surely you can imagine how this kind of power could turn out badly if people with a different agenda from yours seize control. Don't you want to see sensible limits in place?
I don't think anyone here opposing the soft drink ban is opposed to insurance companies charging more for overweight customers. As long as they're up front with the terms, they should be able to write whatever kinds of policies they want, and charge whomever they want whatever they want.So if you don't like the idea that people should pay more insurance premiums because they are overweight, what's your idea?
How do you propose we get adults to lose weight? What's your incentive idea?
The real world. Do you really have NO liberal friends?
Honestly, I think the leadership of the democrats ARE sinister and ARE looking to create an (more) authoritarian system. I find most left leaning people to be either disinterested or uninformed.
Obamacare wasn't proposed to 'help' anyone, it is a means to gain greater control of the populace by our rulers and to offer looting opportunities to the well connected. The average dolt voting for Obama may be generally good hearted, and simply sucked in by party schemes to strip the populace of liberty. But when I think of the left, I think of the leaders who shape the direction of the party, not the rank and file who vote the way the union tells them to vote.
147 billion dollar cost (and increasing) to society is my guideline.
Can you think of any other societal problems we have with that kind of pricetag?
You're not paying attention either. I'm not endorsing a marketing control of sodas to adults. Just kids.
And when you refer to sensible limits, are you actually implying NO limits? Or do you see sensible limits as well?
Yeah, just as I thought. You're full of shit.
Fact is, there are NO bath houses in San Francisco.
There are two sex clubs in San Francisco and one bath house in BERKELEY.
SF News: San Francisco Named Top Healthiest City for Families
America's Ten Healthiest Cities | TheSurvivorsClub.org
Healthy city smackdown: San Francisco v. Hartford - San Francisco Business Times
The Bay Area has one of the lowest smoking and obesity rates in the U.S. San Franciscos iconic hilly streets provide plenty of opportunities for turning a daily walk into an endurance exercise. The extensive public transit system offers easy access to charming urban parks, miles of beachfront and top-notch recreational facilities.
The 5 Healthiest Cities in America - San Francisco, Boston and More - ... - AARP
Now tell us where your crappy little town falls on these lists?
Because the free market is a better regulator of media than gov't. If you're against how the media is currently regulated, would seem like common sense to change who regulates it.
Yes exactly, penalized by gov't based in part on your genetics. That sounds perfectly rational and reasonable to me. Gov't should be on standby for every these humans ingest, and should take body fat % measurements throughout the day. Also people who aren't participating should be taxed more in order to pay for this.
That's a great, conservative stand-by line but it doesn't explain how.
If there was no government regulation in media, how do you see the free market curtailing corporate marketing tools designed to get kids to consume more junk? By boycotting those products? Can't we just boycott today? If we are able to boycott those products today, how is it that today 87% of ads geared towards kids 6-11 are for crappy food?
So if you don't like the idea that people should pay more insurance premiums because they are overweight, what's your idea? How do you propose we get adults to lose weight? What's your incentive idea?
Because if parents don't want their kids seeing that they'll turn the channel, once they turn the channel it'll change how companies market.
I do like people paying more to PRIVATE health insurances IF that's how the insurance wants to base their rates.
I don't want MY tax dollars being used to tax other people based on their genetic make up, eating habits, and medical condition. Call me crazy, I think that's one of the most psycho plans I've heard in my life. So psycho the U.S. gov't may actually like it.
Yeah, just as I thought. You're full of shit.
Fact is, there are NO bath houses in San Francisco.
There are two sex clubs in San Francisco and one bath house in BERKELEY.
SF News: San Francisco Named Top Healthiest City for Families
America's Ten Healthiest Cities | TheSurvivorsClub.org
Healthy city smackdown: San Francisco v. Hartford - San Francisco Business Times
The Bay Area has one of the lowest smoking and obesity rates in the U.S. San Franciscos iconic hilly streets provide plenty of opportunities for turning a daily walk into an endurance exercise. The extensive public transit system offers easy access to charming urban parks, miles of beachfront and top-notch recreational facilities.
The 5 Healthiest Cities in America - San Francisco, Boston and More - ... - AARP
Now tell us where your crappy little town falls on these lists?
Lol of course they found a way to attribute the city being healthy to where the bus stops are.
That's a great, conservative stand-by line but it doesn't explain how.
If there was no government regulation in media, how do you see the free market curtailing corporate marketing tools designed to get kids to consume more junk? By boycotting those products? Can't we just boycott today? If we are able to boycott those products today, how is it that today 87% of ads geared towards kids 6-11 are for crappy food?
So if you don't like the idea that people should pay more insurance premiums because they are overweight, what's your idea? How do you propose we get adults to lose weight? What's your incentive idea?
Because if parents don't want their kids seeing that they'll turn the channel, once they turn the channel it'll change how companies market.
I do like people paying more to PRIVATE health insurances IF that's how the insurance wants to base their rates.
I don't want MY tax dollars being used to tax other people based on their genetic make up, eating habits, and medical condition. Call me crazy, I think that's one of the most psycho plans I've heard in my life. So psycho the U.S. gov't may actually like it.
And you're telling us that it's because of government regulations that parents can't turn the channel today???
How is less government regulation going to get parents to turn the channel?
