fascism is a cancer, alive and well in SF. All you need to know is in the South Park episode about the Prius movement.
I grew up having Happy Meals. It was such a treat! What great memories about childhood. Now I choose not to go because I would rather eat healthier. Live and learn.
I'd vote to outlaw McDonald's completely and any other business that makes money by direct marketing to kids 4 and 5 years old. I'd like to be in those marketing strategy meetings: "Let's see [imagine evil man with sly grin and hands rubbing together], what else can we do to make 4 ane 5 years olds beg their parents to buy them something that is terribly unhealthy for them." I think it is immoral. Go ahead and start calling me a facist. It is a despicible business, Corporate Deathburger indeed.
McCranky
no dogintha fight...yet wrote:
Quick thought, childhood obeisity is an epidemic. Diabetes is rising like wildfire.
If we don't start changing shAt like FAST, the health care system is going to be a DISASTER in 15-25 years. Hard working healthy people will suffer because their taxes will go up and up to pay for those with no disipline to get there insulin and more serious hospital costs. It will drag us down and down.
You bums can joke about it and ignore it, but it is coming straight at you and at some point you and your children and loved ones will pay the price for this gluttony and ignorance that is rampant in our society.
Americans have simply become mindless slobs seeking nothing but instant gratification and posessing a false sense of entitlement to everything.
We need to wake up from the trance and realize that if we want to live well and be well, we need some responsibility and that means less credit cards, less buying liabilies with those credit cards, less ignorance and entertainment and more focus on what it takes to be sustainable in both health and finance.
Until then, we are in the downward spiral of what may be referred to as the burp in history known as the USA period, where people so obsessed and engrossed with denial and instant gratification shommited all over themselves and their future of the their children and their childrens children.
I don't know what your rant about credit cards has to do with anything.
You seem to think the solution to have people be responsible comes from government mandates. What if we stopped making healthy people pay for the health insurance of people who have abused their bodies? Stopped requiring hospitals to treat people with no ability to pay? As long as we keep coming at the problem with government mandates we will just distort markets and make people become more creative in ways to get fat.
While we are at it we need to eliminate subsidies for all of the corn and other crap food that we give to agri-business.
The Waterboy wrote:
To all those who say "let them keep happy meals, it is up to the parent" or "it's the parents fault" or "a matter of life at home, controlled by the parent." Yes, parents have a great influence, but understand their job is HARDER if they have to combat outside influences than if those influences weren't there. Let's double the amount of McDonalds adds on TV. Is it still up to the parent? How about make McDonalds legally a part of all school lunches. Still up to the parent? Make the McDonalds meals all have twice as much fat. Still the job of the parent?
You can't blame everything on parents, especially since it's a harder job for them with so many outside sources as opposed to if those didn't exist. It's like people think that there can be as many outside sources as possible and the job of a parent won't change.
What responsible parent sticks their kid in front of a TV for a long enough time that they'd be inundated with McDonald's commercials? Buy a couple DVDs from the bargain bin and avoid commercials all together. Those that have on-demand as an option, use this.
Pack your kid a lunch every day (far cheaper than school lunches and it takes ~3 minutes). Also, no child should have disposable income on them at school so that they could buy the meal themselves.
I'm not sure how doubling the fat in McDonalds' meals changes the responsibility of the parents other than making them less likely to buy them.
I can see the argument that some parents don't have the knowledge or dedication to do these things, and so the government has to step in (not that I agree). To imply that outside forces can somehow makes what their children eat "not up to the parents" is disingenuous at best.
McCranky wrote:
I'd vote to outlaw McDonald's completely and any other business that makes money by direct marketing to kids 4 and 5 years old. I'd like to be in those marketing strategy meetings: "Let's see [imagine evil man with sly grin and hands rubbing together], what else can we do to make 4 ane 5 years olds beg their parents to buy them something that is terribly unhealthy for them." I think it is immoral. Go ahead and start calling me a facist. It is a despicible business, Corporate Deathburger indeed.
McCranky
You are a fascist. Somehow, despite the evil influence of the fast food companies, I have managed to raise 3 kids (one grown, two still in process) without buying them McDonalds. I am not going to start going there either. I still support McDonald's freedom to sell and market in the ways they choose and costumers freedom to eat there or not eat there.
Primordial Ooze wrote:
Sorry to disappoint. Where I live, "food justice" would mean the right to adequate amounts of gravy.
Me too. Sausage gravy, yum.
Why would banning Happy Meals have any effect? Kids don't buy Happy Meals for themselves. The only result will be that when some parent takes his/her kids to McDonald's, they will get a double cheeseburger from the Dollar Menu instead of a Happy Meal.
It's a useless, feel-good move. Who buys the meals? Parents. Why do they buy them? Because they're cheap, owing to all the heavily subsidized ingredients in them. Having a toy inside is a way to market to kids, but the relevance to sales of the meals is probably negligible. The toy is more about marketing other product lines and movies to kids.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Primordial Ooze wrote:Sorry to disappoint. Where I live, "food justice" would mean the right to adequate amounts of gravy.
Me too. Sausage gravy, yum.
I find it interesting that everyone looks at this solely as parent responsibility v. corporate responsibility.
Childhood obesity leads to a number of health related issues such as diabetes and heart diseases. These diseases require drugs and medical intervention that put a strain on the system. This directly leads to the increasing cost of healthcare and impacts what you have to pay for your health.
Are we willing to accept that the quality and cost of everyone's health care including responsible people are affected by the lack of responsibility on both irresponsible parents and fast food corporation.
Most of us in USA are paying for health insurance, private insurance through our own funds/employment and medicare/medicaid through our taxes. The obese are driving up costs for all of us. We have a fiscal responsibilty to change the American lifestyle to be a culture of wellness.
shuffler wrote:
Most of us in USA are paying for health insurance, private insurance through our own funds/employment and medicare/medicaid through our taxes. The obese are driving up costs for all of us. We have a fiscal responsibilty to change the American lifestyle to be a culture of wellness.
Why can't health care costs be more directly related to a person's risk factors? If you're obese, pay extra. High cholesterol, pay extra. High BP, pay extra. Weigh it properly to one's health risks. I think you would see people get healthier when it directly effects their pocketbook.
Umm wrote:
shuffler wrote:Most of us in USA are paying for health insurance, private insurance through our own funds/employment and medicare/medicaid through our taxes. The obese are driving up costs for all of us. We have a fiscal responsibilty to change the American lifestyle to be a culture of wellness.
Why can't health care costs be more directly related to a person's risk factors? If you're obese, pay extra. High cholesterol, pay extra. High BP, pay extra. Weigh it properly to one's health risks. I think you would see people get healthier when it directly effects their pocketbook.
Bingo. The problem is that I am forced to pay for other people's health care.
Umm wrote:
shuffler wrote:
Most of us in USA are paying for health insurance, private insurance through our own funds/employment and medicare/medicaid through our taxes. The obese are driving up costs for all of us. We have a fiscal responsibilty to change the American lifestyle to be a culture of wellness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why can't health care costs be more directly related to a person's risk factors? If you're obese, pay extra. High cholesterol, pay extra. High BP, pay extra. Weigh it properly to one's health risks. I think you would see people get healthier when it directly effects their pocketbook.
Bingo. The problem is that I am forced to pay for other people's health care.
Read more:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3770137&page=3#ixzz14KuV6iZ4Buy your shoes from LetsRun and save 20% everday
http://www.letsrun.com/saveI agree, let's just ban McDonald's completely. My opinion, I think that obese people can actually do something about them being obese. Stop eating so much food, drop the TV remote and go out and walk for an hour. In no time at all will they lose a massive amount of weight. It's simple science, less food, more exercise equals to weight loss. Why can't they figure that out?
Nanny government stay in Europe
People already have plenty of incentive to be healthy.
They will be more attractive. They are likely to make more money.
They will feel better.
No is going to say "being fat is great but I better get in shape because my health premium just went up."
I am not giving an opinion on whether they should pay more, I am just saying it won't cause people to get healthier.
If there is a way to get kids from eating less fast food that would honestly be great.
Taking away the toy won't work.
I like the person who said they can just replace the toy with a cookie to follow the law.
Let's go develop some cheap, healthy fast food joints.
With toys of course.
toro wrote:
People already have plenty of incentive to be healthy.
They will be more attractive. They are likely to make more money.
They will feel better.
No is going to say "being fat is great but I better get in shape because my health premium just went up."
I disagree. People respond to tangible, instant gratifications (money) much better than long term, intangibles ("more attractive", "healthier").
toro wrote:
People already have plenty of incentive to be healthy.
They will be more attractive. They are likely to make more money.
They will feel better.
No is going to say "being fat is great but I better get in shape because my health premium just went up."
I am not giving an opinion on whether they should pay more, I am just saying it won't cause people to get healthier.
If there is a way to get kids from eating less fast food that would honestly be great.
Taking away the toy won't work.
I like the person who said they can just replace the toy with a cookie to follow the law.
Let's go develop some cheap, healthy fast food joints.
With toys of course.
As long as people have to deal with the consequences of their own decisions I do not care if somebody chooses to be fat or not.
Sounds like you have an idea for a business. I hope the government will let you develop it.
toro wrote:
People already have plenty of incentive to be healthy.
They will be more attractive. They are likely to make more money.
They will feel better.
No is going to say "being fat is great but I better get in shape because my health premium just went up."
I am not giving an opinion on whether they should pay more, I am just saying it won't cause people to get healthier.
If there is a way to get kids from eating less fast food that would honestly be great.
Taking away the toy won't work.
I like the person who said they can just replace the toy with a cookie to follow the law.
Let's go develop some cheap, healthy fast food joints.
With toys of course.
Exactly. What do you think these fat fucks eat when they're not shoving fast food into their faces? Frozen dinners, cheetos, and processed convenience foods like that. As long as there is a market (cheap, subsidized ingredients and willing buyers) then someone is going make and sell this crap food. And the toy is just a red herring, it's got nothing to do with anything. That's why the government allowed this move, it's a move that's merely an appearance and has no real impact on Mickey D's ability to sell nutrient-poor food to a willing consumer base. If they were serious about a change that would help peoples' health, they'd increase the incentive (i.e. lower costs) to consume good, whole food.
So, the overall consensus is to increase insurance premiums for "unhealthy people". Let parents be responsible for their obese children.
What if those parent are unable or irresponsible to pay for insurance? Do we not treat their kids?
Since there is a growing majority of obese people, what if there are claims of discrimination against these insurance companies?
What if insurance companies refuse to cover obese people, should the health care system reject treatment of these people?