Soda ban...good idea or misguided nanny state horseshit?

[Crafter_Man]

Bad idea. Selling or purchasing soda in large containers does not infringe upon the rights of others.

Businesses should have the freedom to sell soda in any container of any size.

People should have the freedom to purchase soda in any container of any size.

Last I checked, this is a free country.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Ambivalid

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.

Ah, but now you’re shifting the goalposts into the ethereal plane.

[chappachula]

@ZenBeam

They should also require all restaurants have an employee stationed there to make sure no-one tries to sneak a refill.

Why station an employee at the drink machine?
Why not a National Guardsman? With a rifle. And hand grenades

The state maintains the Guard for your own protection, ya know.

[Chefguy]

@rachelellogram

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.”

Just because it may cost less to support an obese person’s health care vs a healthy person’s health care does NOT mean that one of them doesn’t contribute to rising health costs, while the other one does. The impact of obesity is yet to be seen, as the rapid fattening of America is a fairly recent phenomenon.

[elfkin477]

@rachelellogram

Why? Obese people cost *fewer *healthcare dollars than non-obese people.

We don’t know that without a breakdown of cost vs timespan. If it’s taking the obese person 60 years to get to $250,000 and the normal weight person 85 years to get to $280,000, the obsese person costs the health care system significantly more over the span of their life than the other does.

[Rachellelogram]

@elfkin477

We don’t know that without a breakdown of cost vs timespan. If it’s taking the obese person 60 years to get to $250,000 and the normal weight person 85 years to get to $280,000, the obsese person costs the health care system significantly more over the span of their life than the other does.

Once someone dies, though, they begin costing the system $0 a year. I’m not sure why the annual measurement matters, given that insurance companies think in terms of actuarial tables and long-term statistical analysis. Your point is only relevant if obese people start living for a much longer time than they currently do.

[What_the]

@rachelellogram

Why? Obese people cost *fewer *healthcare dollars than non-obese people.

My motive is the same as Bloomberg’s…maybe.

[Dendarii_Dame]

@rachelellogram

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.

I saw a Yes, Minister episode in which Sir Humphrey made this exact point.

Something else to keep in mind: If people are allowed to order two small size drinks (which Bloomberg has said will be okay) then that will increase the amount of trash in landfills.

And while we’re on the subject, drinking water’s healthy and all that, but what is it about water bottles that makes (some) people drop them on the ground the second they’re empty? Sorry, that’s probably another thread…

[Baker]

I don’t approve of the super size stuff, but it’s not my choice to make. People should be free to make their own decisions. My philosophy it that “if it doesn’t harm the person or property of another, it should be legal.”

Did anybody hear ever read the story “With Folded Hands” by Jack Williamson, and written in 1947? It’s the one about robots that protect people from harm, but go too far.

With Folded Hands

[Harmonious_Discord]

Less laws and government, more personal rights and take the results as your own responsibility. The government needs to keep the fuck out of peoples lives.

[Maastricht]

@Harmonious_Discord

Less laws and government, more personal rights and take the results as your own responsibility. The government needs to keep the fuck out of peoples lives.

So the corporations can step the fuck in? Corporations that will employ every marketing trick in the book, to get you to pay for ingesting their left-over corn syrup so they can make a profit?

[Lord_Feldon]

I wonder what the city’s official reason is for not targeting all “sugary drinks.” (I suspect that the real reason is one or a combination of “but juice is natural” and pop having an image that’s low-class enough that it’s easier to use sanctimony and shame to boost this idea’s popularity. It would just be wrong to target someone’s sassy little cranmango juice blaster or whatever, even though it’s just as sugary and doesn’t really have a whole lot of other redeeming nutritional features.)

[notsoheavyd3]

@Lord_Feldon

I wonder what the city’s official reason is for not targeting all “sugary drinks.” (I suspect that the real reason is one or a combination of “but juice is natural” and pop having an image that’s low-class enough that it’s easier to use sanctimony and shame to boost this idea’s popularity. It would just be wrong to target someone’s sassy little cranmango juice blaster or whatever, even though it’s just as sugary and doesn’t really have a whole lot of other redeeming nutritional features.)

Hell, disolve a vitamin C tablet in your soda and it’s pretty much as nutritious as juice. (Hey, didn’t Orange Crush used to have that added to it? Guess that makes it a “Healthy” drink.)

[chorpler]

If this measure was passed, would the restaurants respond by coming out with more and more diet sodas? That could be good. Those of us who like diet soda have had to put up with just Diet Coke / Diet Pepsi (and now Coke Zero) for too long, I say! It’s time for Sprite Zero, Diet Hawaiian Punch, and Diet Orange Crush to rule the day!

[sleestak]

@Maastricht

So the corporations can step the fuck in? Corporations that will employ every marketing trick in the book, to get you to pay for ingesting their left-over corn syrup so they can make a profit?

Holy shit, you are right! I was going to post this earlier but I saw an ad for a fast food joint on my way to work. Had to stop. Then there was an ad for a gas station. Had to top off. Then there was a radio commercial for a car dealership. I didn’t really want a new car but I heard the ad. On the way to the car dealer there was a billboard for laser hair removal. My fiancee is going to be surprised, not by just the new car but the new hairless me. Luckily, she ought to like the new bed as I passed an ad for a sale at a bed store. Of course, since I pass this sign every day, she is getting upset with the 3,869 beds we have in the back yard. Damned those bed advertisers! If they stopped advertising I’d have room in my back yard.

And my boss is getting a bit mad. But it really isn’t my fault those evil advertisers put up the signs for the strip club right on my way to work. I think I’ll suggest that he take a new route to work. If he passes the sign then he’ll have to go in, I mean it is an ad and we all have to obey those. Then he can’t get mad at me for being in a strip club instead of work, 'cause it really isn’t my fault. He will understand, it is the ads fault after all.

Aw crap, not a girdle. MSNBC.com had a girdle ad posted for Macys. I really don’t need a girdle. Gotta run to the store.

Slee

[Incomprehension]

People don’t take prohibition kindly. I disagree with the ban due to a general lack of choice. I do think less consumption of soda could be a good thing, but this isn’t how you accomplish that. If you want the general population to consume less soda you need to teach them from a young age that it is detrimental to your health. Their general logic is that humans are too stupid to make their own choices, therefore their choices should be decided for them.

[palacheck]

@Maastricht

So the corporations can step the fuck in? Corporations that will employ every marketing trick in the book, to get you to pay for ingesting their left-over corn syrup so they can make a profit?

Whether the problem has a .com or a .gov on it makes no difference to me. In the words of George Carlin, it’s bullshit and it’s bad for ya.

Oh and don’t you Dutch heathens serve your sodas without ice? I bet if you added ice to those glasses you linked to earlier you’d have your standard soda served at American fast food joints.

[Bosstone]

@sleestak

Holy shit, you are right! I was going to post this earlier but I saw an ad for a fast food joint on my way to work. Had to stop.

I’m glad for you that you apparently have omniscience and perfect information about the market at all times.

The problem with things like HFCS is that it gets shoved into foodstuffs without the public’s knowledge or consent. If we do notice and ask questions, it gets dressed up in happy-marketing speak which we can’t easily penetrate and see the truth behind because, hey, trade secrets, plus the majority of individuals typically don’t have the skills to test and verify these things for themselves. By the time someone (like the gummint) runs the tests and is able to conclusively verify that, holy shit, this stuff’s bad for you, it’s already been so deeply integrated into standard society that it’s nearly impossible to remove it by consent-based means.

[Hari_Seldon]

Nanny state horseshit. Just like the drug laws.

I don’t like to see people kill themselves, but the harm done by the drug laws far exceeds the good it might do. This is not quite as bad since you can always legally buy another soda, but it tends in the same direction.

[BigT]

@Bosstone

I’m glad for you that you apparently have omniscience and perfect information about the market at all times.

The problem with things like HFCS is that it gets shoved into foodstuffs without the public’s knowledge or consent. If we do notice and ask questions, it gets dressed up in happy-marketing speak which we can’t easily penetrate and see the truth behind because, hey, trade secrets, plus the majority of individuals typically don’t have the skills to test and verify these things for themselves. By the time someone (like the gummint) runs the tests and is able to conclusively verify that, holy shit, this stuff’s bad for you, it’s already been so deeply integrated into standard society that it’s nearly impossible to remove it by consent-based means.

Well, that and the fact that the only reason it’s getting put into so much stuff is because of the government subsidy on corn making it cheaper than sugar. HFCS is really not that hard to test, so, without that, they might have had time.