Nanny/Police State: NYC Ban On Large Sugared Drinks...

[Dr.Drock]

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 Francisco’s 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.

I posted all that stuff and THAT'S what you focus on? That's the best you could do?

Settle down, I was poking fun.

I think the main reason the city is healthy is because the people are rich financially and the climate allows people to go outside year round. I don't think it's because there's no power rangers in a bag at Mcdonald's.

 

[sfcalifornia]

147 billion dollar cost (and increasing) to society is my guideline.

A "magic" number with no basis

Obesity-related illness treatments cost an estimated $190.2 billion annually, for example, which is 21 percent of annual medical spending in the United States. Researchers project this will only get worse, estimating costs will rise to $549.5 billion by 2030, according to a report in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Businesses also suffer, facing an approximate $4.3 billion in losses as a result of obesity-related absenteeism.
A Systems Approach to Solving America's Obesity Problem - Forbes

Oops, my bad. 147 billion was in 2008 dollars. Now it's 190.2 billion. as of a month ago.

 

[sfcalifornia]

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?

No, I'm saying gov't regulations don't make people watch healthier tv, you're whining about media regulations, well blame the regulator (gov't).

Your plan sounds like you want humans to become hamsters, have their owners put an exercise wheel, water and alfalfa in a box for supreme health.

I'm not saying government regulations are going to make people watch healthier TV either. I'm saying government regulations need to eliminate junk food ads targeted towards kids, just as they've done with cigarette ads and liquor.

 

[dblack]

147 billion dollar cost (and increasing) to society is my guideline.

A "magic" number with no basis

Obesity-related illness treatments cost an estimated $190.2 billion annually, for example, which is 21 percent of annual medical spending in the United States. Researchers project this will only get worse, estimating costs will rise to $549.5 billion by 2030, according to a report in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Businesses also suffer, facing an approximate $4.3 billion in losses as a result of obesity-related absenteeism.
A Systems Approach to Solving America's Obesity Problem - Forbes

Oops, my bad. 147 billion was in 2008 dollars. Now it's 190.2 billion. as of a month ago.

But you're ignoring the point of the argument. You justify going after soft drink consumption based on the idea that it's a principal cause of obesity, and higher "costs to society" - how is that any different than banning gay sex, given that it is the principal transmission of AIDS, and higher "costs to society". Both of these are based on the same logic, and are equally corrupt as abuses of government power.

 

[Dr.Drock]

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?

No, I'm saying gov't regulations don't make people watch healthier tv, you're whining about media regulations, well blame the regulator (gov't).

Your plan sounds like you want humans to become hamsters, have their owners put an exercise wheel, water and alfalfa in a box for supreme health.

I'm not saying government regulations are going to make people watch healthier TV either. I'm saying government regulations need to eliminate junk food ads targeted towards kids, just as they've done with cigarette ads and liquor.

I see, so you're just simply promoting fascism and speaking out against capitalism.

If McDonald's outbids Chiquita for a commerical spot, screw them, give the spot to Chiquita and force the network to continue giving them the air time whether it hurts their profits or not. Also the people who are fired from the network for this regulation because of the decrease in revenue should thank the gov't for the opportunity to be fired thanks to such a great, moral cause.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Lol of course they found a way to attribute the city being healthy to where the bus stops are.

I posted all that stuff and THAT'S what you focus on? That's the best you could do?

Settle down, I was poking fun.

I think the main reason the city is healthy is because the people are rich financially and the climate allows people to go outside year round. I don't think it's because there's no power rangers in a bag at Mcdonald's.

It's not one or two reasons why SF is a healthy city. It is ALL the aspects of SF which make it a healthy city, including the ban on Crappy Meal toys.

And by the way, if you've ever been to SF, it's usually pretty cold here, summertime generally being the worst. As the article above says, SF is very hilly and is one of the best walking cities in America.

 

[sfcalifornia]

A "magic" number with no basis

Obesity-related illness treatments cost an estimated $190.2 billion annually, for example, which is 21 percent of annual medical spending in the United States. Researchers project this will only get worse, estimating costs will rise to $549.5 billion by 2030, according to a report in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Businesses also suffer, facing an approximate $4.3 billion in losses as a result of obesity-related absenteeism.
A Systems Approach to Solving America's Obesity Problem - Forbes

Oops, my bad. 147 billion was in 2008 dollars. Now it's 190.2 billion. as of a month ago.

But you're ignoring the point of the argument. You justify going after soft drink consumption based on the idea that it's a principal cause of obesity, and higher "costs to society" - how is that any different than banning gay sex, given that it is the principal transmission of AIDS, and higher "costs to society". Both of these are based on the same logic, and are equally corrupt as abuses of government power.

You are ignoring the fact that I'm going after soft drink consumption marketing targeted towards kids. I'm not for the ban proposed by Bloomberg. I think it's an overreach.

Why ban gay sex when the use of a condom greatly reduces HIV transmission? And btw, HIV is not just transmitted between gay men.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I posted all that stuff and THAT'S what you focus on? That's the best you could do?

Settle down, I was poking fun.

I think the main reason the city is healthy is because the people are rich financially and the climate allows people to go outside year round. I don't think it's because there's no power rangers in a bag at Mcdonald's.

It's not one or two reasons why SF is a healthy city. It is ALL the aspects of SF which make it a healthy city, including the ban on Crappy Meal toys.

And by the way, if you've ever been to SF, it's usually pretty cold here, summertime generally being the worst. As the article above says, SF is very hilly and is one of the best walking cities in America.

Well I live in Columbus Oh, tell me how you define "cold." 50-60 degrees during the day?

Is it rainy? Snowy? You know things that may impede someone's ability to be active outdoors?

And no, again the toys in the meals does nothing. Would you buy more happy meals for kids if they had toys in them?

 

[Dr.Drock]

And this is what happens when idiot bureacrats go up against smart capitalists. We always know who wins in those "battles."

McDonald's toy sale skirts Happy Meal restrictions | Reuters

Reuters) - McDonald's Corp is skirting a new San Francisco law that aims to curb toy giveaways in sugar- and fat-laden restaurant meals for children by selling its popular Happy Meal toys for 10 cents each.

The law, which goes into effect on December 1, requires that restaurant kids' meals meet certain nutritional standards before they could be sold with free toys.

 

[dblack]

You are ignoring the fact that I'm going after soft drink consumption marketing targeted towards kids. I'm not for the ban proposed by Bloomberg. I think it's an overreach.

Why ban gay sex when the use of a condom greatly reduces HIV transmission? And btw, HIV is not just transmitted between gay men.

Agreed. And obesity is not just caused by marketing targeted toward kids.

So, let's follow the analogy through. Since gay sex is the principal transmission of AIDS, I suppose you'd be against any marketing that encouraged gay sex, right? Should government ban "Modern Family"? Or maybe just force them to air condom ads?

Seriously, how is it any different?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Really? Which ones? Names please.

Let me google that for you

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 Francisco’s 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?

What a fucking idiot you are.

San Francisco Bathhouses & Sex Clubs - GayCities San Francisco

No wonder you vote for Obama.

 

[sfcalifornia]

No, I'm saying gov't regulations don't make people watch healthier tv, you're whining about media regulations, well blame the regulator (gov't).

Your plan sounds like you want humans to become hamsters, have their owners put an exercise wheel, water and alfalfa in a box for supreme health.

I'm not saying government regulations are going to make people watch healthier TV either. I'm saying government regulations need to eliminate junk food ads targeted towards kids, just as they've done with cigarette ads and liquor.

I see, so you're just simply promoting fascism and speaking out against capitalism.

If McDonald's outbids Chiquita for a commerical spot, screw them, give the spot to Chiquita and force the network to continue giving them the air time whether it hurts their profits or not. Also the people who are fired from the network for this regulation because of the decrease in revenue should thank the gov't for the opportunity to be fired thanks to such a great, moral cause.

We have all kinds of laws protecting children, I hardly see that as promoting fascism.

And I still don't see how eliminating government regulations protecting kids from predatory corporate marketing is going to somehow make more parents change the channel when they can do that already today.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Obesity-related illness treatments cost an estimated $190.2 billion annually, for example, which is 21 percent of annual medical spending in the United States. Researchers project this will only get worse, estimating costs will rise to $549.5 billion by 2030, according to a report in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Businesses also suffer, facing an approximate $4.3 billion in losses as a result of obesity-related absenteeism.
A Systems Approach to Solving America's Obesity Problem - Forbes

Oops, my bad. 147 billion was in 2008 dollars. Now it's 190.2 billion. as of a month ago.

{the prevalence of obesity was 28%. Among men, 79% incurred some medical expenditures in the survey year, and the unconditional average medical expenditures in that year were $1,999 in 2005 dollars. Among women, 88% incurred some medical expenditures, and the unconditional average medical expenditures in that year were $2,617. }


That's quite a methodology. First off, they peg a 28% BMI as "obese." This is an area where terms no longer have meaning. If 28% is "obese" then a 6' man who weighs 180 is "obese." an absurdity at the outset.

Then there is the problem of causation, always one that morons fail to grasp. We noted that on sunny days, people tend to buy ice cream. Therefor, the sun causes ice cream.

Well, maybe not. The stats don't measure what costs are related to obesity, not at all. Even if some of those listed were actually obese, we can't really say that obesity caused dandruff or nail fungus - but your study takes those costs and accrues them to "obesity."

Sorry dude, it's a bunch of shit.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Settle down, I was poking fun.

I think the main reason the city is healthy is because the people are rich financially and the climate allows people to go outside year round. I don't think it's because there's no power rangers in a bag at Mcdonald's.

It's not one or two reasons why SF is a healthy city. It is ALL the aspects of SF which make it a healthy city, including the ban on Crappy Meal toys.

And by the way, if you've ever been to SF, it's usually pretty cold here, summertime generally being the worst. As the article above says, SF is very hilly and is one of the best walking cities in America.

Well I live in Columbus Oh, tell me how you define "cold." 50-60 degrees during the day?

Is it rainy? Snowy? You know things that may impede someone's ability to be active outdoors?

And no, again the toys in the meals does nothing. Would you buy more happy meals for kids if they had toys in them?

I would be happy if McDonalds gave away free toys when kids bought a salad instead of a burger or a pink slime Nugget.

LOL Is it rainy in SF? We had pretty low amounts of rain this year but it's rained for six solid months in the past.

Seattle came out healthier than SF did on one of those links I posted. Are you wondering if it rains much there?

The temperature or climate may keep someone indoors but it doesn't mean they have to sit inside and go crazy consuming calories.

 

[Meister]

I'm not saying government regulations are going to make people watch healthier TV either. I'm saying government regulations need to eliminate junk food ads targeted towards kids, just as they've done with cigarette ads and liquor.

I see, so you're just simply promoting fascism and speaking out against capitalism.

If McDonald's outbids Chiquita for a commerical spot, screw them, give the spot to Chiquita and force the network to continue giving them the air time whether it hurts their profits or not. Also the people who are fired from the network for this regulation because of the decrease in revenue should thank the gov't for the opportunity to be fired thanks to such a great, moral cause.

We have all kinds of laws protecting children, I hardly see that as promoting fascism.

And I still don't see how eliminating government regulations protecting kids from predatory corporate marketing is going to somehow make more parents change the channel when they can do that already today.

Perhaps the government should also get rid of the Game Boys, Xbox, etc. it inhibits the children to get outside and burn calories like they did in previous generations.
This government thing could really take off if just given a chance.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Obesity-related illness treatments cost an estimated $190.2 billion annually, for example, which is 21 percent of annual medical spending in the United States. Researchers project this will only get worse, estimating costs will rise to $549.5 billion by 2030, according to a report in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Businesses also suffer, facing an approximate $4.3 billion in losses as a result of obesity-related absenteeism.
A Systems Approach to Solving America's Obesity Problem - Forbes

Oops, my bad. 147 billion was in 2008 dollars. Now it's 190.2 billion. as of a month ago.

{the prevalence of obesity was 28%. Among men, 79% incurred some medical expenditures in the survey year, and the unconditional average medical expenditures in that year were $1,999 in 2005 dollars. Among women, 88% incurred some medical expenditures, and the unconditional average medical expenditures in that year were $2,617. }


That's quite a methodology. First off, they peg a 28% BMI as "obese." This is an area where terms no longer have meaning. If 28% is "obese" then a 6' man who weighs 180 is "obese." an absurdity at the outset.

Then there is the problem of causation, always one that morons fail to grasp. We noted that on sunny days, people tend to buy ice cream. Therefor, the sun causes ice cream.

Well, maybe not. The stats don't measure what costs are related to obesity, not at all. Even if some of those listed were actually obese, we can't really say that obesity caused dandruff or nail fungus - but your study takes those costs and accrues them to "obesity."

Sorry dude, it's a bunch of shit.

Body Mass Index (BMI) Chart

The BMI index takes height into account when determining obesity. A 6' man is considered obese at 220lbs, or 30%.

 

[Meister]

Obesity-related illness treatments cost an estimated $190.2 billion annually, for example, which is 21 percent of annual medical spending in the United States. Researchers project this will only get worse, estimating costs will rise to $549.5 billion by 2030, according to a report in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Businesses also suffer, facing an approximate $4.3 billion in losses as a result of obesity-related absenteeism.
A Systems Approach to Solving America's Obesity Problem - Forbes

Oops, my bad. 147 billion was in 2008 dollars. Now it's 190.2 billion. as of a month ago.

{the prevalence of obesity was 28%. Among men, 79% incurred some medical expenditures in the survey year, and the unconditional average medical expenditures in that year were $1,999 in 2005 dollars. Among women, 88% incurred some medical expenditures, and the unconditional average medical expenditures in that year were $2,617. }


That's quite a methodology. First off, they peg a 28% BMI as "obese." This is an area where terms no longer have meaning. If 28% is "obese" then a 6' man who weighs 180 is "obese." an absurdity at the outset.

Then there is the problem of causation, always one that morons fail to grasp. We noted that on sunny days, people tend to buy ice cream. Therefor, the sun causes ice cream.

Well, maybe not. The stats don't measure what costs are related to obesity, not at all. Even if some of those listed were actually obese, we can't really say that obesity caused dandruff or nail fungus - but your study takes those costs and accrues them to "obesity."

Sorry dude, it's a bunch of shit.

Body Mass Index (BMI) Chart

The BMI index takes height into account when determining obesity. A 6' man is considered obese at 220lbs, or 30%.

How about bone mass?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Body Mass Index (BMI) Chart

The BMI index takes height into account when determining obesity. A 6' man is considered obese at 220lbs, or 30%.

Yet the Forbes backing calculate 28% as Obese.

That was the point, sparky.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I'm not saying government regulations are going to make people watch healthier TV either. I'm saying government regulations need to eliminate junk food ads targeted towards kids, just as they've done with cigarette ads and liquor.

I see, so you're just simply promoting fascism and speaking out against capitalism.

If McDonald's outbids Chiquita for a commerical spot, screw them, give the spot to Chiquita and force the network to continue giving them the air time whether it hurts their profits or not. Also the people who are fired from the network for this regulation because of the decrease in revenue should thank the gov't for the opportunity to be fired thanks to such a great, moral cause.

We have all kinds of laws protecting children, I hardly see that as promoting fascism.

And I still don't see how eliminating government regulations protecting kids from predatory corporate marketing is going to somehow make more parents change the channel when they can do that already today.

You wouldn't, you think more regulations that end up with children with unemployed broke parents helps kids.

It's because you still believe the lie that gov't gives a damn if children are obese or not, and you're willing to go all in on that lie and give gov't more rights in child raising than parents.

Good move on ignoring my link that shows mcdonald's toys are going right back in happy meals. Capitalism defeats bureacrats once again, however I'm sure you'll still throw flowers at their feet as if they've accomplished something heroic.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Body Mass Index (BMI) Chart

The BMI index takes height into account when determining obesity. A 6' man is considered obese at 220lbs, or 30%.

Yet the Forbes backing calculate 28% as Obese.

That was the point, sparky.

28% prevalency means 28% of the population is obese dipshit. Not 28% BMI is the level considered obese.

30% BMI is considered obese by the websites I've been looking at and it takes height into account.