Nanny state horseshit.
I will throw ripe, healthy tomatoes and any politician who advocates this.
Banning refills is awesome, but so many fast food restaurants have the fountain drink dispenser right out in the open.
They should also require all restaurants have an employee stationed there to make sure no-one tries to sneak a refill. These employees could also watch out for people who try to get around the ban by buying a second soda drink. That’s just as bad as a refill.
It’s horseshit, but then I support mandatory seat belts and helmet laws. What’s the difference? The potential for immediate danger I guess. Wearing helmets and seat belts makes a clear difference in surviving a crash.
I wouldn’t support a ban on people smoking in their own homes or in designated spaces outside, because it is only going to harm themselves.
So, I guess the line I draw is on how much potential danger and how immediate is it. Yes for seat belts, no for tobacco, alcohol or gambling.
Banning large sodas makes even less sense than completely banning cigarettes.
I am not against a minimal effort to keep people from fracking themselves up so I could live with drinks only being so big and refills not being free. If lard ass insist on 84 ounces of sugar laden carbonated water with their meal they can pay extra for it. And the good thing about limits on sizes and refills is that people who don’t chug will probably pay less for the amounts they consume.
Your not forcing people to be healthy or restricting their choices. You are just making it mildy more difficult for them to do so and they have to make a small concious effort to do so as opposed to making it so easy to not be healthy (and actually encouraging it with free refills) that there is no immediate downside to doing so.
Something’s gotta be done with all these way too fat people and soon to be way too fat people.
It’s not just that it adds to obesity; it’s that obesity creates a huge impact to the healthcare system. All those heart attacks and new cases of diabetes adds more and more burden to the patient load, and drives up health care costs/insurance premiums.
That said, I think it’s bullshit. People make choices, whether smart or stupid. If you’re stupid enough to down 2,000 calories at a sitting, you deserve to look like you need a piano crate for a coffin. Unlike smoking, a person drinking a 40 oz soda doesn’t impact my health in the slightest. And what’s to prevent people from buying three 15 oz sodas at a time? Legislating personal behavior is pointless.
Nothing. But I think a fair number of folks would be less inclined actually BUY three. The die hard drinkers are going to buy as much as they can stand. Put it this way. I can see something like this working a little bit. I can’t see how it makes things WORSE.
So I can’t sell you a 64oz cup of soda, but I can sell you a 2 liter bottle, or a 12 pack of cans? I foresee fast food restaurants starting to sell 2 liter (or the new 1.5 liter) bottles.
Way to much nanny state. Next they are going to come after my Double Stuff Oreos.
What I would like to see even more is a limit on buying more gets you a discount. At the public retail level the 32 oz drink cost pretty much twice the 16 oz drink, not something like 25 percent more. You want more to drink have at it. But we aren’t going to financially encourage you eat/drink more.
Please don’t take this as a personal attack; it’s merely an attempt to fight ignorance. But the problem with the point you’re trying to make (not just *you *you, but a lot of people who parrot this mantra) is everybody dies. People who eat themselves into the grave by the age of, say, 65 don’t cost money that people who live to 85+ spend on decades more of elder health problems. And that doesn’t even factor in cause of death. Obesity-linked deaths like heart attack and stroke are quick and dirty (and cheap, one ambulance ride to the ER and that’s it). People who survive to their octogenarian or nonagenarian years might also have a stroke or heart attack, but often they have long-term conditions that require years in assisted living. They may also consume expensive palliative care for months before giving up the ghost.
Only the very worst cases of obesity require a high enough short-term investment to compete with the cost of merely surviving another couple of decades. And that doesn’t even take into account the savings in uncollected social security benefits that the deceased was eligible for. Contrast a young, relatively quick death with the end-of-life care required for an elderly non-obese individual… their natural causes can be anything. Various cancers, kidney problems requiring years of dialysis, broken hips, becoming wheelchair-bound, Alzheimer’s… pretty much any sort of disability that may require years in a nursing home.
I found this very interesting article stating that more and more people are living until their 90s, and 20-30% of those nonagenarians live in nursing homes. Also, an extremely high proportion of those who *aren’t *in nursing homes are still disabled (an enormous eighty percent). “Almost all of those in nursing homes are disabled, while about four out of five who live on their own are disabled.”
So, thin people may live longer than obese people, but they are very likely to become disabled before they die. Many of them require nursing home and palliative care. Which one do you think is more of a financial drain* on society?
The real answer, though, is that it doesn’t matter a fig. Because the amount of policing it would take to force everyone in society to conform to a healthy lifestyle (for *financial *reasons, no less) is too abhorrent to consider. If giving fat people liberty gives them death, welp… it’s their choice to make. Ain’t America great?
*I prefer not to refer to old people as “drains,” of course. They’re simply aging resources and have nearly all contributed *something *worthwhile to society–they’ve worked and paid into the system, or given birth and raised families. They’ve made the world a better place by their mere existence. End-of-life care is the *least *any human being deserves, no matter why they need it or how much it costs. But if you think that dying from obesity-related causes is more expensive than dying of old age, you are sorely mistaken.
Those thin (controlling for other factors) people will usually reach the point where they enter that nursing home, however, having needed significantly less medical care and attention that their much younger and fatter counterparts.
I’ve been researching to try to determine which is worse. I found this article from Forbes (with actual figures) that supports my position, although they measured in Euros instead of dollars–not that I think that’s relevant, but you know. So anyway, without further ado (but with serial commas, since those Brits can’t seem to get it right :p):
"The lifetime costs were in Euros:
"Healthy: 281,000
"Obese: 250,000
"Smokers: 220,000
"There are excellent arguments in favour of taxing in order to reduce the occurrence of smoking, excessive boozing[,] and obesity… there are externalities associated with these behaviours (late night drunks, passive smoking[,] and the visual pollution of someone 300 lbs overweight perhaps). But the argument we cannot use is that these behaviours increase the costs of health care.
“The reason we cannot use this argument is that it simply isn’t true. Those who die young save health care systems money, not cost. Thus, if we really are to accept the argument about taxes and the costs of health care then we should be subsidising puffing, browsing[,] and sluicing.”
Right but we live in a society that values life. A healthy person’s lifetime cost of 281,000 euros is undoubtedly the result of a longer life that the respective 250,000 euros that it costs to care for an obese person. Just as the 220,000 for the smoker is indicative of a shorter lifespan.
Dutch data point: this small size is the standard glass of soda in Dutch restaurants and cafes. No free refills. No larger size available, except in McDonalds. Everyone is used to it.
I think you’re arguing past me. The point, as I initially argued in my response to Chefguy, is that obesity is not driving up health care costs and insurance premiums. That is merely a talking point manufactured by politicians with ulterior motives. Obese people die younger and incur *fewer *medical expenses, they certainly don’t cost America money. Greater longevity is more responsible for high healthcare costs than obesity. But since nobody is arguing that we should eradicate longevity due to cost, that same argument is even less appropriate to use in favor of eradicating obesity.
Not, of course, that the truth has ever stopped a politician from soapboxing, but it’s an oft-parroted modern-day truism that people accept because they’ve heard it so much.
To counter the point you brought up, though, I disagree that pushing for greater longevity as a society is worthwhile when it comes at the expense of freedom and personal choice. Perhaps it’s debatable–I’m open to the possibility of being convinced otherwise–but as it stands, I believe it’s purely a matter of personal choice whether 85 years of disciplined self-deprivation and calorie-counting are worth an extra 20 years of life.
Moreover, even *if *we all agreed that longevity at all costs were a worthwhile societal goal, limiting the beverages a restaurant can legally sell is not a way to accomplish that end! This is merely a publicity stunt, because fat people are one of the last groups it’s okay to marginalize. After all, we can agree that only those wretched fatties would ever drink more than 16 ounces of sugary liquid in one sitting, right? wink wink nudge nudge
In the Netherlands you can get used to anything — like a cup of coffee for €10.
Sorry, but you’ve been ripped off. No-one should get used to a 10 euro (14 USD) cup of coffee.
My point is, we have the same effect (reduced of soda intake) not by a sugar tax, but by different industry standards. The market benefits. The consumer does not benefit in the short term (he pays more for less soda) but his net intake of soda is far less. In the long term, he benefits by reduced obesity risk.
Oddly, what you guys have with soda, we have with french fries. There are no standards for the size of a portion of french fries, so every seller increases portions. While you guys have the fixed (tiny imho) size bags of french fries at Mc donalds.
Good idea (attack something which is a prime cause of health issues and therefore screwing up healthcare), bad approach. Don’t ban it, just tax it so it gets really expensive. Being cheap is one of its prime appeals and generally, the more so-called lower classes tend to drink it more. Make it pricey and I think you’ll see quite a drop.
Exactly my first thought. So they ban those 52oz drinks, consumers buy two 32oz drink over the day to compensate or even four 20oz drinks. What has the Nanny taught the student? Nothing except that Nanny wants more revenue while pretending to care about the student’s health.
Nanny state horseshit…although I would be in favor of a test program aimed only at welfare recipients.
… or recipients of government provided healthcare (including government workers).
Why? Obese people cost *fewer *healthcare dollars than non-obese people.