[The Sons of Liberty]

It may be a good idea, but I'll be damned if I'm going to allow some liberal bureaucrat dictate to me whether I can get a large coke or not!

[Red Badger]

People will just by TWO smaller drinks....Hey, Maybe it will be a good thing after all!...........

[Lazamataz]

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.

Shouldn't he have called it The Final Solution?

[GOPJ]

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.

[Pollster1]

That's the reason Americans overwhelmingly support the notion that health insurance companies should be allowed to offer discounts to non-smokers.

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.

[Casie]

They can't even effectively police illegal drug use, how do they expect to enforce government controls on calorie counting? Hahaha! Drones at the dinner table?

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!)

[fruser1]

“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.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Central planners suck.

Nanny State PING!

[Vigilantcitizen]

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!