Prince Charles: Ban the Big Mac (1 Viewer)

[jdn9201]

Pfft..I don't take much stock in what Prince Charles has to say anyhow. However, the gov't banning fast food annoys me. I do get the argument that the increasing health problems resulting from obesity will cause medical costs to go up, and probably taxes to go up (to pay for medical programs). I think if our gov't would focus more on getting people in this country to be more active (such as getting PE and recess back in schools), I think that'd be more effective. It is sad how inactive people are in this country. I think if they'd get their butts up off the couch 5 days a week and do some legitimate exercise, they probably wouldn't have to worry about what they ate at all (within reason). I'll use myself as an example- I'm 23 and have always been on the heavy side. In the past year, I've dropped 25-30 lbs by exercising 5 days a wk at the Y, and not really watching what I eat at all. Granted, I could have lost it much faster by eliminating stuff, but I still feel much better at this point than I did a year ago. I also know that if I go out and have a piece of cake or something, it doesn't bother me because I know that I'll burn it off at the gym later that day.

 

[Geaux_Saints]

I couldn't agree more with him ... You can notice ever since the past 5 years that obesity is becoming a serious problem.

 

[crosswatt]

Where you guys are wrong on the "nanny state" stuff is that taxpayers have to pay for your bad habits.

TPS

That, to me, is the main problem. I'm not willing to trade my food choices now for government care down the road. I can tell you that the government way is not always the best way.

 

[Redlands Saints]

if I had the kitchen staff Charles has I would eat better too. since the week after thanksgiving I have been on a diet and have lost 25 pounds, and have been able to reduce the amount of meds I take for diabetes by have. my doctor says that if I can get down another 5-7 pounds I may be able to stop taking the meds all together which will make my kidneys last longer. while I have changed the food I eat its the amount that changed the most, smaller meals more often. also a more balanced meal. the real problem with fast food is that most people will eat the 2000 calorie meal two or three times a day and get no exercise, mcdonalds should be a treat not the family kitchen and no I do not want the food police telling me what to eat, they can't get it right either their the one that made the schools in california stop selling coke and sell fruit juice instead which has almost as much sugar in it.

 

[TPS]

>>Okay, if they add no nutritional value or taste to the food, what's the purpose of hydrogenized oils.

They add maybe texture and a little flavor. It's just an extra hydrogen atom or something attached to the molecule.
-------------------------------------------------------
>>Great. Then the government should certainly define what we eat, drink, smoke, drive, live in, etc. Since societal cost is the underlying factor, all behavior that increases the possibility of adverse health effects should either be banned or taxed into oblivion. Then we can all live safe, government-approved lives. By the way, TPS, we all have to pay for the ill effects of your smoking. When you're old and shipped off to the nursing home and Medicare is picking up the costs that your insurance carrier does not, is not society paying for that?

No. I pay for it since cigarette tax pretty much makes a pack $3.00 or so now. And alcohol and other sin taxes are much heavier in Louisiana than what it costs for food or medicine. So no, they're not the same. And no, I don't want the government really saying what we can and can't consume at all. But they should probably lead by example. Instead of having ADM or whomever buying all that extra corn syrup, sell their arses some sugar cane or something. Rotten teeth are an easier fix than diabetes. But just the same, check out the commensurate rise in diabetes cases along with the rise in high fructose corn syrup along with the rise in wastelines in America since the mid 1980's. They can use their bully pulplit or something to remind welfare moms that diets high in McDonalds and/or Burger King probably aren't particularly good for them. And they could stop buying stuff with TFA's thereby limiting the market. And they could educate the hell out of everyone with PSA's and the like....

TPS

 

[Saint Mike]

I couldn't agree more with him ... You can notice ever since the past 5 years that obesity is becoming a serious problem.

In other words, you are in favor of the government telling us what we can and cannot eat, correct?

 

[TPS]

>>That, to me, is the main problem. I'm not willing to trade my food choices now for government care down the road. I can tell you that the government way is not always the best way.

Maybe so. But when it's pretty much "the only way", you play with the cards that are dealt. Let's look at some anecdotal evidence: outside of crackheads, how many welfare-types do you see that are physically fit? And b) since most senior citizens pretty much can't afford health insurance outside of medicare (except to supplement it), you don't end up with much of a choice.

JMO

TPS

 

[Sandman]

It ain't about the nanny state when I gotta pay for it bros.

TPS

Take my Big Mac....and I'll take your booze.

http://www.hopenetworks.org/Economic costs of alcohol abuse in Louisiana .pdf

 

[bclemms]

The Prince may have said it but I think the King is behind this.

 

[Saint Mike]

>>Okay, if they add no nutritional value or taste to the food, what's the purpose of hydrogenized oils.

They add maybe texture and a little flavor. It's just an extra hydrogen atom or something attached to the molecule.
-------------------------------------------------------
>>Great. Then the government should certainly define what we eat, drink, smoke, drive, live in, etc. Since societal cost is the underlying factor, all behavior that increases the possibility of adverse health effects should either be banned or taxed into oblivion. Then we can all live safe, government-approved lives. By the way, TPS, we all have to pay for the ill effects of your smoking. When you're old and shipped off to the nursing home and Medicare is picking up the costs that your insurance carrier does not, is not society paying for that?

No. I pay for it since cigarette tax pretty much makes a pack $3.00 or so now. And alcohol and other sin taxes are much heavier in Louisiana than what it costs for food or medicine. So no, they're not the same. And no, I don't want the government really saying what we can and can't consume at all. But they should probably lead by example. Instead of having ADM or whomever buying all that extra corn syrup, sell their arses some sugar cane or something. Rotten teeth are an easier fix than diabetes. But just the same, check out the commensurate rise in diabetes cases along with the rise in high fructose corn syrup along with the rise in wastelines in America since the mid 1980's. They can use their bully pulplit or something to remind welfare moms that diets high in McDonalds and/or Burger King probably aren't particularly good for them. And they could stop buying stuff with TFA's thereby limiting the market. And they could educate the hell out of everyone with PSA's and the like....

TPS

I hate to break it to you, but your tobacco and alcohol taxes are not used to offset medical costs. Most go into the state's general fund or are earmarked for highway upkeep, etc. Otherwise, I agree that the government should educate, but how dumb does a person have to be to not realize that eating at McDonald's 3 times a day every day is bad for you?

 

[Saint Mike]

The Prince may have said it but I think the King is behind this.

:_rofl:

 

[RebSaint]

>>Okay, if they add no nutritional value or taste to the food, what's the purpose of hydrogenized oils.

They add maybe texture and a little flavor. It's just an extra hydrogen atom or something attached to the molecule.

Actually, it seems that my first inclination was correct. Most foods with H-oils have it to increase the shelf life or as a preservative. My problem with government getting involved in banning something like this is A. What happens to the price of food if companies aren't allowed to use this stuff? Surely, food will not last as long and there may be an attendant risk with spoilage. Without this stuff surely food such as breakfast cereals, frozen foods, and easy-to-prepare stuff will spoil sooner. Many poor families rely on on this stuff to keep going, despite it being not very healthy. It may not be healthy, but poor people can't afford to buy organic.

B. Where does this kind of thing end? There is a point where the nanny state can do damage. I understand limiting smoking in planes, hospitals, etc. but BANNING something outright is serious business. Make sure people know the risk, but banning it outright? Don't know if that would be a good strategy.

 

[TPS]

>>I hate to break it to you, but your tobacco and alcohol taxes are not used to offset medical costs. Most go into the state's general fund or are earmarked for highway upkeep, etc. Otherwise, I agree that the government should educate, but how dumb does a person have to be to not realize that eating at McDonald's 3 times a day every day is bad for you

Initially, they pass-back costs to fund the settlement (that was the increase in cigarette prices). Now, yeah, the taxes aren't probably earmarked for healthrisks. But they're still commensurately higher than food or medicine taxes.

TPS

 

[saints2061]

I can't believe he gave up Princess Diana for that thing he is married to now.

 

[jpcdolphan]

Where you guys are wrong on the "nanny state" stuff is that taxpayers have to pay for your bad habits. Yes indeed. I have my own insurance, so as a smoker, the only charge is my higher life insurance premiums and the risk pool I'm in...



...It ain't about the nanny state when I gotta pay for it bros.

TPS

At some point everybody that either pays their taxes or has health/life insurance is paying for something that doesn't affect them personally. Those higher premiums you are paying don't even begin to truly cover the risk associated with your behavior. So, nonsmokers are subsidizing your habits...and if, for instance, you need a lung transplant, nonsmokers will be picking up the tab for that (mostly).

On the other hand, you are kindly paying to have some total stranger's arteries uncolgged somewhere, so don't feel too guilty about that.

You can't ban everything. I know you didn't suggest that but just pointing out that 99.9 % of the population engages in some type of risky behavior that could have potential and costly long term expenses down the road for which the rest of us have to, at least partially, pick up the tab.