San Francisco bans Happy Meals

Let them eat cake.

elibad wrote:

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?

Mr. Obvious wrote:

elibad wrote:

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? YES {/b]

So, how would you do that then since physicians "can do no harm"? According to that hippocratic oath, they have to treat these children. Also, no political party would survive if kids are dying from diabetes.

Since there is a growing majority of obese people, what if there are claims of discrimination against these insurance companies? ignore them

Article 3 of the constitution

What if insurance companies refuse to cover obese people, should the health care system reject treatment of these people? yes

refer back to the 1st response

Another example of government overstepping its bounds. Have you ever looked at the nutrition content of Panera? Starbucks? Chilis? McDonald's is no worse than any of these, other than it is cheaper, faster and more successful. Idiot politicians make moves like this to gain attention and act like they are helping us.

I eat at all of these places I just mentioned and so do my kids. However, we eat junk in moderation and exercise regularly. You don't want a a toy with your happy meal, don't go to McDonald's. That is the wonderful choice of the free market.

The hippocratic oath is purely a ceremonial aspect of medical school graduation. It has no legal force in any way whatsoever. If doctors wish to treat people without compensation they are free to do so. If political parties did not survive that would be a great side benefit but I believe that is unlikely.

I have no idea what Article 3 of the consitution has to do with ignoring people who whine. There is nothing in there about a right to insurance. Fat people are not a protected class in any area of the constitution. Auto insurance is variably adjusted to reflect actual risk. I have no idea why independent companies should not be allowed to do this with health insurance.

Mr. Obvious,

The hippocratic oath has no effect? Really? You do not think it effects a physician's behaviour?

Since you believe the oath has no legal effect, if an obese child comes into an emergency room for insulin shock, a physician can not turn the child away and must stabilize the child. Emergency room care costs 3x what normal care costs. If the child dies from the physician's inaction, the is malpractice and will cost more money.

The Article 3 talks is the establishment of the judicial system. If people believe that they are being discriminatated against because of their health status, they will file lawsuits. This might not be true for private insurers so much, but what about state and federally funded programs such as medicare and medicaid? That costs money.

I am glad that threads here about total nonsense now go 5+ pages where the real running threads stop after 2 or 3. No, nothing here has changed at all.

elibad wrote:

Mr. Obvious,

The hippocratic oath has no effect? Really? You do not think it effects a physician's behaviour?

Since you believe the oath has no legal effect, if an obese child comes into an emergency room for insulin shock, a physician can not turn the child away and must stabilize the child. Emergency room care costs 3x what normal care costs. If the child dies from the physician's inaction, the is malpractice and will cost more money.

The Article 3 talks is the establishment of the judicial system. If people believe that they are being discriminatated against because of their health status, they will file lawsuits. This might not be true for private insurers so much, but what about state and federally funded programs such as medicare and medicaid? That costs money.

You really need to learn what you are talking about. EMTALA is the reason physicians and hospitals cannot turn away emergency room patients (technically they can but not if they are in need of urgent care or stablization but the legal climate means everybody gets extensive tests to rule out anything even if they come to the emergency room with gas).

Private physicians are allowed to turn away patients for lack of ability to pay and do so all the time. It is possible the moral reasoning of the hippocratic oath influences some doctors to treat patients without any reimbursement but that is their right as a private individual. It is not required.

Again, being fat is not a protected category. I have no idea why insurance shouldn't be allowed to be priced on risk. Fat people are at higher risk.

Mr. Obvious,

Was I wrong about EMTALA and its impact then? If an obese child comes in to the ER for insulin shock, does a physician have to treat or at least stabilize the child? Does that treatment have a financial cost and will it be exacerbated by the lack of preventive care?

Courts have been more likely to recognize obesity as a disability. This is more along the lines of employment by it has an effect on health insurance as well as Medicare and Medicaid. Even if your argument of obesity not being a protect class is correct, will obese people still not file lawsuits and place a burden on the courts?

So Mr. Obvious,

You'd agree that say, alchol should be available to kids and the parents can decide if they to buy it for their kids or not? Laws that prohibit cigarette complanies from marketing to choldren should also be abandoned? That is the logic. We have all kinds of laws designed to protect people and society in general. And you actually missed the general point. I personally think that those that work in the industry that actively markets bad things to kids are basically bad people. I would not be able to wake up every morning and look myself in the mirror and be happy about what I do if that was my job. If my job ws to try and think of ways to convince children to eat food that was very very bad for their health. That was actually the main point. Given a voting choice I would definitely still vote for no McDonalds.

McCranky

So Mr. Obvious,

You'd agree that say, alchol should be available to kids and the parents can decide if they to buy it for their kids or not? Laws that prohibit cigarette complanies from marketing to choldren should also be abandoned? That is the logic. We have all kinds of laws designed to protect people and society in general. And you actually missed the general point. I personally think that those that work in the industry that actively markets bad things to kids are basically bad people. I would not be able to wake up every morning and look myself in the mirror and be happy about what I do if that was my job. If my job ws to try and think of ways to convince children to eat food that was very very bad for their health. That was actually the main point. Given a voting choice I would definitely still vote for no McDonalds.

McCranky

elibad wrote:

Mr. Obvious,

Was I wrong about EMTALA and its impact then? If an obese child comes in to the ER for insulin shock, does a physician have to treat or at least stabilize the child? Does that treatment have a financial cost and will it be exacerbated by the lack of preventive care?

Courts have been more likely to recognize obesity as a disability. This is more along the lines of employment by it has an effect on health insurance as well as Medicare and Medicaid. Even if your argument of obesity not being a protect class is correct, will obese people still not file lawsuits and place a burden on the courts?

Somewhere you are missing the basics of my position. I am a libertarian. I am against all sorts of nanny-state nonesense, including banning toys at McDonalds. I am in favor of individual freedom.

I already acknowledged that EMTALA has must-treat provisions. I belive that is morally wrong.

I do not believe Obesity is a disability.

I fully acknowledge that these stances are apparently not widely shared and do not reflect current government policies.

I still find the banning of toys (which now McDonald's has said they are going to sell separately for .50) a ridiculous restriciton on freedom for both McDonalds and the consumer.

Mint Berry Crunch wrote:

what a bunch of idiots, just like cartman i have taken a vow to never step foot in san francisco, the hippy capital of the world

Ever ridden in a car with a friend's brainwashed child that screams and cries like a banshee because you won't stop and buy the brat the meal with the toy?

It is horribly manipulative advertising.

Of course, just don't raise your kids with TV and that will stem some of the problem.

Hate SF all you want...and then realize that within about 20 years most new ideas out of that part of the country become common place across the nation.

Sex before marriage openly admitted? Shacking up without marrying? These things and more predominated in the SF Bay Area...before they spread like wildfire to the East Coast and into common place in US societal norms.

Now, even Republicans have sexual relationships before marriage in their official histories.

Imagine THAT in 1960.

Everyone is calling the food "unhealthy". It's just a hamburger, fries, and a drink. The soda is empty calories but the burger has some protein and the fries have some vitamins along with the fat. When I grew up, we had something similar after a football game or bb game. It's not meant to be eaten every day.

No one in my elementary school class was obese. Very few were even chubby. We played on the playground at recess and during lunch. After school we rode bikes and played whatever sport was in season. We didn't watch television until it was too dark to play outside.

It's not the food. It's the portion size, the snacking (we ate 3 meals a day, no snacks), and the lack of physical activity.

1) Tax unhealthy food

2) Give tax breaks for healthy food

No nanny state, no fascist leftists. Just economic incentives, plain and simple. So people are fat because cheap food is bad for you? Make food that is bad for you more expensive. Worked for cigarettes.

Sodomy-yes

Sugar&Fat-no

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Media watcher wrote:

They are mad because "happy" is too close a term to gay.

If they renamed it a "Gay Meal" could they put toys in them again?

I'm sure they put plenty of toys in "them".....it's SF for Christ's sake.

gfdagasdffs wrote:

1) Tax unhealthy food

2) Give tax breaks for healthy food

No nanny state, no fascist leftists. Just economic incentives, plain and simple. So people are fat because cheap food is bad for you? Make food that is bad for you more expensive. Worked for cigarettes.

See... now there is thinking that aligns with my viewpoint. It can be revenue and cost neutral but shift behaviors considerably to work out costs elsewhere in the system. A gas tax would do similar things for transport the environment...

... but neither will ever get legs thanks to the corn and oil lobbies. We're just too stupid and afraid to stand up for investing in something better - only maintaining the status quo at our own expense.

If people don't take a stand they will be coming after your bacon next....Sic Semper Tyrannis

gfdagasdffs wrote:

1) Tax unhealthy food

2) Give tax breaks for healthy food

No nanny state, no fascist leftists. Just economic incentives, plain and simple. So people are fat because cheap food is bad for you? Make food that is bad for you more expensive. Worked for cigarettes.

Not a bad idea, but difficult to implement. Cigarettes are bad for you, period. Defining what food is bad for you and what is good for you is not black and white. Unless you single out fast food, it becomes difficult to enforce as cooking is more art than science.

Plenty of expensive food is bad for you too. Kobe beef, lobster drowned in butter, foie gras, etc.