Bloomberg Soda Ban Blocked

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, if Bloomberg paid for my Healthcare then maybe he should have a say in my lifestyle choices. Since he does not, buzz off Bloomey! Anyway, I think its more a lack of movement than the consumption of sugar that makes us fat.
 
Bestwifeever said:
No kidding. Like someone wouldn't just buy two mediums instead of one extra large.
Click to expand...

And what really concerns me, is the 'opportunity cost' - don't these guys have some real problems to address? Last time I checked, most places had budget issues, crime issues, pension issues, unemployment issues - the list goes on and on.

But no, we will try to micro-manage your soda purchases. :facepalm:

Makes me want to scream. Sometimes I do, and DW calls down, "What's all the racket about!", "Nothing, I'm just yelling at the TV (again)!".

-ERD50
 
Isn't the way to get people to modify their behavior to offer them incentives (carrots) rather than prohibitions (sticks)?

He could use some of his billions for rewards for New Yorkers to lose weight, increase fitness, etc., couldn't he? After all, that has been proven to work.

But no, he likes to just tell them what to do and demand obedience.

Bloomberg is also the guy waging a constant war against other citizens having 2nd Amendment rights, yet he travels with armed bodyguards. Consistency is not his forte.
 
HFWR said:
"I'll have two triple cheeseburgers, a large order of fries, and [-]a super large diet cola[/-] two medium diet colas..." :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I have been known many years ago to order the Diet Coke with my hot fudge sundae. D'oh!
 
The 'law' should have been overturned...

And if you read about it, there actually was no 'law'.... it was not passed by the city, but was created by the health dept....

I know that here in Texas the regulator have a lot of power and can make 'laws' like this one... I do not like it, but it happens all the time...
 
GrayHare said:
Bloomberg [-]is[/-] was a smart man, but a terrible nanny.
Click to expand...

Now he's just a senile old control freak. Doesn't he have more important things to worry about rather than someone getting their 32oz of Coke in 1 glass or 2?
 
The whole thing with this law is stupid. I'm not arguing obesity and what should or should not be eaten and how this law comes into play. I'm talking the fact that the rule only applies to those establishments that fall under the laws of the city and not the state. As I understand it, restaurants and fast food places must abide by the law but not convenient stores like 7-11's, mini marts and other gas station/carryouts. Those facilities are not under city control so you can still get a "big gulp" or similar giant drink at those places. How stupid is that?
 
Good intentions, obesity is a serious issue IMO, don't we rail about healthcare costs here every day (and obesity is one of many factors)? But it's easy to fault the law he put forth, so not surprising that it's fallen.

I am not all that familiar with Bloomberg. But it's interesting how many people carry on about politicians who can't get anything done-play it safe-follow party lines/special interests, and yet when one comes along that tries to think outside the box and do something proactive, he's a &*%^#. Somehow I suspect this setback is all in a day's work for Bloomberg, if he can find another way to shift the curve on obesity, I assume he will. We'd all benefit from a healthier society, individually and/or collectively. YMMV
 
Last edited:
Backpacker said:
Years ago I used to work with a lady (rather large lady) that used to have a "Tab" (the one calorie cola) and a package of twinkies for lunch:facepalm:
Click to expand...
Didn't she also tell you 'they cancel each other out?'
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Midpack said:
I am not all that familiar with Bloomberg. But it's interesting how many people carry on about politicians who can't get anything done-play it safe-follow party lines/special interests, and yet when one comes along that tries to think outside the box and do something proactive, he's a &*%^#.
Click to expand...

Yes, but a stupid idea is a stupid idea, regardless if it is 'inside the box', 'outside the box', or it is the box (I'll leave out quantum mechanics where it might be both at the same time?). I'm judging it on merit alone, not the intention or creativity or anything else. Results matter.

Considering the usual 'herding cats' tendency of this forum, there is an interesting and unusual consensus on this subject. It's a stupid law.

Oh, and to proactively address a 'criticize with no better idea' response - yes, I have a better idea. Education, maybe positive incentives (not necessarily $, but social status, awareness, etc). Just because that may not have worked in the past does not make it a bad idea, maybe just a new/better approach is in order.

-ERD50
 
Midpack said:
Good intentions, obesity is a serious issue IMO, don't we rail about healthcare costs here every day (and obesity is one of many factors)? But it's easy to fault the law he put forth, so not surprising that it's fallen.

I am not all that familiar with Bloomberg. But it's interesting how many people carry on about politicians who can't get anything done-play it safe-follow party lines/special interests, and yet when one comes along that tries to think outside the box and do something proactive, he's a &*%^#. Somehow I suspect this setback is all in a day's work for Bloomberg, if he can find another way to shift the curve on obesity, I assume he will. We'd all benefit from a healthier society, individually and/or collectively. YMMV
Click to expand...

Yes, but a nanny state is a nanny state... and I do not want to live in a nanny state...

Any why stop at large sugar drinks:confused: Why not ban those big pizza slices they sell... or ice cream... or donuts, or the hot dog carts or bagel carts etc. etc... Also, what if I wanted a large diet drink:confused: I would not be allowed since I might fill it up with a sugar drink....

Yep, stupid law... and probably would not have made a single person lose a single pound of weight....
 
Midpack said:
Good intentions, obesity is a serious issue IMO, don't we rail about healthcare costs here every day (and obesity is one of many factors)? But it's easy to fault the law he put forth, so not surprising that it's fallen.

I am not all that familiar with Bloomberg. But it's interesting how many people carry on about politicians who can't get anything done-play it safe-follow party lines/special interests, and yet when one comes along that tries to think outside the box and do something proactive, he's a &*%^#. Somehow I suspect this setback is all in a day's work for Bloomberg, if he can find another way to shift the curve on obesity, I assume he will. We'd all benefit from a healthier society, individually and/or collectively. YMMV
Click to expand...

I assume the Mayor didn't read (or maybe he did, but disputes the findings) one of our recent threads that showed statistics that state obese people and smokers over the course of their life consume less healthcare dollars than healthy people do? :)
 
Mulligan said:
I assume the Mayor didn't read (or maybe he did, but disputes the findings) one of our recent threads that showed statistics that state obese people and smokers over the course of their life consume less healthcare dollars than healthy people do? :)
Click to expand...
That ran through my mind, hard to believe IMO but I read several sources saying the same thing after your last post and couldn't find obvious holes in them. :confused:
 
P.J. O'Rourke has it right.
 

Attachments

  • pj orourke.jpg
    pj orourke.jpg
    60.7 KB · Views: 7
Midpack said:
That ran through my mind, hard to believe IMO but I read several sources saying the same thing after your last post and couldn't find obvious holes in them. :confused:
Click to expand...

It also would help keep SS solvent too! Those stats still crack me up. Wouldn't that throw the country in a "passionate discussion" if a national advertising campaign was implemented to help curtail our nations exploding healthcare costs: Smoke daily and get your body fat up by over consuming junk food and Big Gulps.
 
Mulligan said:
It also would help keep SS solvent too! Those stats still crack me up. Wouldn't that throw the country in a "passionate discussion" if a national advertising campaign was implemented to help curtail our nations exploding healthcare costs: Smoke daily and get your body fat up by over consuming junk food and Big Gulps.
Click to expand...
Though my follow up indicated that to age 56, smokers and the obese do cost significantly more than non smokers and non obese folks. Pointed to excessive end of life costs as the offset after 56, and end of life health care expenses were the most expensive procedures categories on average, though I did not find a conclusive study during that search. Just putting pieces together so far...
 
Midpack said:
Though my follow up indicated that to age 56, smokers and the obese do cost significantly more than non smokers and non obese folks. Pointed to excessive end of life costs as the offset after 56, and end of life health care expenses were the most expensive procedures categories on average, though I did not find a conclusive study during that search. Just putting pieces together so far...
Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable to me... I guess it is very much in the interests of the insurance companies for us to live healthy lifestyles, so we can them be pushed off unto the government for the expensive years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
Burn Out-Finances Longest intro in History?
4 5 6
Replies
134
Views
16K
Larro Darro
Larro Darro
REWahoo
  • Sticky
The History of Early-Retirement.org
3 4 5
Replies
111
Views
108K
Helen
Helen

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom