Posted on 06/08/2012 7:03:42 AM PDT by Kaslin
Mayor Michael Bloomberg ignited a firestorm of debate with his proposal to ban super-size sugary drinks in New York City. Critics bashed his nanny-statism, but supporters like first lady Michelle Obama hailed his courage.
Nationally, just 24 percent of American adults think the ban is a good idea, while 65 percent oppose it. This response is similar to the high level of opposition found for efforts to impose so-called "sin taxes" on soda and junk food. People never like it when the government picks winners and losers, and they are especially resistant to having the government determine what foods we should eat.
Those who advocate sin taxes or plans like Bloomberg's often express frustration that voters don't seem to realize the seriousness of the nation's obesity problem. However, the facts suggest that the American people are well aware of reality. Sixty-two percent recognize that exercise, diet and lifestyle choices have a bigger impact on someone's health than health insurance and medical care. Nearly half consider themselves overweight. Eighty percent see childhood obesity as a serious problem.
To some, numbers like that should naturally translate to support for government regulation to fix the problem. They simply can't see other possible solutions.
Harvard professor Daniel E. Lieberman writes in The New York Times that there are only three options in the obesity debate. The first is to do nothing. The second is better nutritional education. "The final option," he says, "is to collectively restore our diets to a more natural state through regulations." This approach is consistent with the way America's political class likes to frame every debate as a choice between doing nothing and letting the government do it.
In the case of nutritional issues, most Americans see a fourth option, one that is consistent with traditional American values: Let individuals make their own choices, and then let them bear the burden or reap the reward of those choices. That's the reason Americans overwhelmingly support the notion that health insurance companies should be allowed to offer discounts to non-smokers.
The same logic applies to other lifestyle choices. Sixty-three percent think insurance companies should offer discounts to individuals who exercise regularly. By a 54 percent to 34 percent margin, Americans think those who eat healthier also should be eligible for insurance discounts.
With such an approach, people who exercise and eat better would not only end up feeling better, they'd save money along the way. Those who don't take care of themselves would pay extra for the right to do so. People would quickly see which behaviors help them save money and how much other behaviors really cost. It would lead to a much healthier nation and a much healthier relationship between individuals and the government.
Ultimately, Bloomberg's ban on large sugary drinks highlights the gap between the American people and their political leaders. Most Americans are looking for ways to change the system so that they can make their own health care choices rather than have decisions imposed on them. The political class wants to make those choices for us. That's the key question in the health care debate. Who do you trust more with important decisions: the government or the people?
People will just by TWO smaller drinks....Hey, Maybe it will be a good thing after all!...........
“He can’t even run his own life, I’ll be damned if he’ll run mine.”
Shouldn't he have called it The Final Solution?
Starbucks has high sugar drinks. Let’s go after the stuff liberals like... No reason they should have the corner on being creepy control freaks... might be fun being jerks... they seem to enjoy it.
Allowed? What happened to liberty, freedom, enumerated powers, limited government, and the other facets of personal responsibility that were taken for granted until the past few decades. Medical insurance (not "health insurance") should be a private contract between a company and an individual to cover large unanticipated expenses, and the parties to the contract should decide what is "allowed" as free people. If the customer doesn't like a price structure, he can go elsewhere. If my insurance company wants to give a discount to me as a non-smoker or add a surcharge based on body mass index, I can accept that, negotiate a better deal, or go elsewhere. Short of banning fraud, the government has no business saying what is allowed.
Great song from the 70s!
But murdering unborn babies? Support for homosexuals that expose themselves to AIDS and STDs? Oh yeah! That kind of risky behavior is totally protected!
I'm cooking spaghetti with garlic bread for my family tonight! I even have vanilla ice cream with fresh Louisiana peaches to cut up on top for dessert! Kiss my booty Michelle! (Its still 33.33% smaller than yours!)
People will just by TWO smaller drinks....
I’m surprised no one guessed the reason why.
One 20oz soda $1.99 + 8% tax
One 12oz soda ($1.49 + 8% tax) X 2
I’m lousy in math, freepers can perform the calcs
“The same logic applies to other lifestyle choices.”
That’s right, so people would pay more for, let’s say, participating in contact sports where the RISK of injury is higher.
Or maybe if you’re a homosexual male you have a higher RISK of contracting AIDS.
Or maybe, the more sex partners you have, the more you pay, since you have increased RISK of catching venereal disease, some of which are fatal.
Aside from the above, there is additional hypocrisy here to point out.
I think most folks who want others to pay more for lifestyle also do not want people to be charged more for pre-existing conditions.
But think about it. A pre-existing condition means that you WILL DEFINITELY be incurring higher medical expenses NOW.
However a risky lifestyle only means that there is a RISK or CHANCE that you MAY incur higher medical expenses sometime in the FUTURE.
Hence, if you want to charge more for lifestyle, you should rationally want to charge more for pre-existing conditions.
AND, you should charge more for ALL activities that have risk, not just the ones you don’t like.
I agree with you on risk-adjusted payments. In fact, I have a wood stove and pay extra on my homeowner’s insurance to have it. On the other hand, I have a decent credit score and pay a lot less as a result of that.
I also agree about pre-existing conditions, but with a caveat. I think we should have a one-time grace period and allow EVERYBODY in the country to sign up for health insurance without consideration of pre-existing conditions. Do this during a nation-wide conversion to all private-company health insurance. Kids turning 18, or 19, would have the same grace period, say 90 days, to sign up at the regular rate regardless of pre-existing conditions.
Then, if a person lets their policy lapse, or doesn’t take advantage of the grace period offered, well, they’re on their own. They’ve assumed the risk themselves.
I also think letting companies legally assign risk for lifestyle choices makes sense, but that the particular “choices” should have to be individually authorized by law, with limits put on how much of a premium should be charged for unhealthy choices. Otherwise, insurance companies could quickly price many who’ve made higher risk choices out of the market. I know it’s more complicated than that, but given free rein, most insurance companies would immediately put obesity on the list of choices, and the obese would quickly find insurance becoming unaffordable. The resulting political backlash would probably be the law’s undoing.
This man perfectly expresses my opinion of Starbucks and the people who frequent Starbucks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4Mjnzqi5gs
Central planners suck.
Nanny State PING!
Thanks for the ping!
One 12oz soda ($1.49 + 8% tax) X 2 = $0.24
I'm surprised Bloomy didn't tax anything over a 12oz at 12%
(would hit the same tax amount)
This isn't a soda ban - it's a container ban. Corralling consumers into a standard measurement...I can see a sin-tax implemented next.
If this was really about "health" - NYC would tax bottled water at zero%
Now the NYC board of health will be checking cup-size along with checking if there are any ashtrays in the backrooms.
It's a lot like me trying to sing my old-ass songs to my Grandkids - gotta explain too much .......................................... FRegards
When Bloomberg can outrun/outwork this 45 yo smoker, eater of fatty foods and drinker of sodas...he can tell me wtf I can do.
F*CK OFF YOU NANNY STATE BASTAGE!
Why is he still there? Is he like the Mayor for Life now? I know he weaseled to get around term limits. Does he have a lock on the levers of city power now? Because I can’t imagine anyone is very happy with him except all his liberal media complex buddies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.