Originally Posted By mawnck >>I won't do any harm to others by drinking a Super Big Gulp<< When they wheel your broke and bulbous ass into the emergency room, and my insurance premiums go up as a result?
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 I drink about a liter of soda a day, I also run 20 to 30 miles a week and am better shape than a majority of Americans. I am 5 foot 10 and weigh 170, I am not in danger of having the American tax payer support my fat arse any time soon... Like was mentioned earlier, you want to change how people act, tax the crap out of it, don't try to micromanage it....
Originally Posted By TomSawyer The hospital that I work for is seeing an increasing number of worker's comp claims from injuries sustained while moving obese patients. We've spent a ton of money on various machines for lifting and moving patients, but those don't prevent all of the injuries. That same story is repeated in every hospital in this country.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer "I am not in danger of having the American tax payer support my fat arse any time soon..." Aren't you in the Army?
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 "I am not in danger of having the American tax payer support my fat arse any time soon..." Aren't you in the Army?<< That's not the point, the point is, drinking soda does not necesarily mean you are overweight or a health risk... If we are going to start making decisions on how people live in order to save our health care system we might as well ensure people don't do the following Drink more than 2 alcoholic beverages per day. Sky dive or do any other extreme sports eat more than 1 candy bar per day or limit the number and size of deserts watch more than 3 hours of TV a day don't exercise at least 3 times per week... I could go on and on... The fact remains though, we are opening up a Pandora's box by going after large sodas....This solves absolutely nothing in the long run, as if I truly want a large soda, I'll order 2...
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder And then you'll become a diabetic, get mustered out, and we WILL be supporting your fat arse.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Just read that in 2010 Bloomberg tried unsuccessfully to pass a law in NYC that would prevent poor New Yorkers from buying sugary soda with foodstamps. Today a Bloomberg employee said that there is no limit to the number of sugary soda and candy made available for free to employees at Bloomberg's company in NYC. Hey Mayor Bloomberg, why don't you practice what you preach.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Implying diet soda is that much better. <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20075358-10391704/new-study-is-wake-up-call-for-diet-soda-drinkers/" target="_blank">http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50...rinkers/</a>
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< "I am not in danger of having the American tax payer support my fat arse any time soon..." Aren't you in the Army?<< That's not the point >>> I think that's entirely the point. The American taxpayer is already supporting you.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer The taxpayers will support William in his job as long as he is meeting certain physical standards. If he stops exercising, he loses his job. If he gets fat, he loses his job. If he becomes an alcoholic, he loses his job. William, the requirements of your job are not matched in most of the civilian world. Very few professions require the physical standards that the Army requires, so your soda consumption is mitigated by the exercise that you are getting. And your taxpayer-provided health care is there for you as long as you are in the Army. If you don't exercise, you lose your job and your health care coverage. If you don't exercise while maintaining your soda consumption levels, you're going to gain weight. It isn't the few people who expend 5000 calories a day in exercise that are the issue - it is the kids who consume twice the calories they expend, or the office worker who is required to sit at his or her desk 8 hours a day. Bloomberg's city is filled with more of the latter than it is with soldiers who exercise every day as part of their jobs.
Originally Posted By fkurucz "I think that's entirely the point. The American taxpayer is already supporting you." You see, it's not welfare when I suckle at the government's teat, because I've earned it!
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 SO you are implying working for the Government is the same as collecting welfare? And people wonder why I stay away from message boards from the most part, hard to have intelligent conversations with certain individuals... I could make 6+ figures on the "outside" but have stayed in the Army because I love my country...
Originally Posted By ecdc >>SO you are implying working for the Government is the same as collecting welfare?<< I'm not. I don't get the comparison at all, actually. I'm glad we have welfare and the social safety net. But it's a far cry from being a soldier in the military, or other government employee, many of whom work very hard for not so great of pay.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "SO you are implying working for the Government is the same as collecting welfare?" I was wondering the same thing, seeing as how I work for the government as well. These blanket "sucking at the government teat" statements rile me no end. Yeah, the taxpayers pay me, and you know what? For the crap most of us endure, it isn't nearly enough. Before Wall Street decided to do away with pensions in favor of more money for the shareholders, government workers weren't public enemy number one. As William said, on the whole, we do indeed make less going public as opposed to private. Hence, the pension trade off. That simplifies things, but that's reasonably accurate. Now, as I've ranted on before, we get our names published in the paper right next to our job titles with exactly what we make as if we're on some most wanted list. The public then shows its appreciation the other day in a place like San Jose by cutting pensions for EXISTING RETIREES for crissakes, as well as voting to violating pension agreements for existing employee contracts. One erudite 60 year old voter in San Jose was quoted in the Mercury News as saying "they don't give ME no pension, why should they get one?" Nice. As far as welfare goes, seeing as how I deal with people who get it every day in my job, you better believe it's a necessary component. I've seen far too many children whose deadbeat dads cut and run and who wouldn't have even a dilapidated roof over their heads if it wasn't for welfare. Yeah, people abuse it, people abuse everything, but that's no reason to deny those who need it.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer William, you're doing a valuable job that the taxpayers as a whole have no problem supporting. Most taxpayers think that it's worthwhile to pay for your health care because of the risks you might have to face on our behalf. But we are running in to problems finding people to take over your job when you retire. The obesity epidemic is affecting recruiting efforts. Kids who want to join the Army can't because they are just too fat. The obesity rate isn't showing any sign of ending, and people who have to worry about where our military is going to come from in 2030 and beyond look at our kids and realize that we have a major problem ahead of us. And when the government looks at expected medical expenses that the taxpayers are going to have to cover through Medicaid and Medicare, they see the higher expenses caused by obesity that triple health care costs on average. I wouldn't be surprised to see the military ban soft drink sales on their bases entirely in the next five years. And I wouldn't be surprised to see drinking non-diet sodas to be as socially unacceptable as smoking is in ten to twenty years.
Originally Posted By fkurucz "I could make 6+ figures on the "outside" but have stayed in the Army because I love my country..." Funny, most college educated FedGov employees I know make handsome six figure salaries (and from what I have read, 1/4 of all FedGov employees make over $100,000 a year, and I'll bet that once you filter out the non professional positions that percentage becomes a lot higher), have fat pensions waiting for them when they retire and they don't have to worry about the offshoring monster. Had I known 20+ years ago what I know now, I would have gone for a FedGov job when I graduated from college. This especially hit me when I met a retired (younger than me) Air Force Major who now has a 100K+ FedGov job. He seems to be doing just fine. "I was wondering the same thing, seeing as how I work for the government as well. These blanket "sucking at the government teat" statements rile me no end. Yeah, the taxpayers pay me, and you know what? For the crap most of us endure, it isn't nearly enough." Trust me, it ain't no walk in the park in the private sector. That said, my statements are mostly about FedGov employees. The bread isn't as well buttered for state and municipal employees, that much is certain. Their pay and bennies aren't as good as with the Feds and they do get laid off when budgets are tight. And I do see the value in what they do. Anyway, I have no problem with anti poverty programs, especially considering the devastation the offshoring monster has inflicted on the middle class. I just find it ironic that people who collect a taxpayer funded paycheck for what some might consider a questionable service somehow look down at those who receive tax payer funded aid.
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb <a href="http://www.rodale.com/facts-about-soda?page=0" target="_blank">http://www.rodale.com/facts-ab...a?page=0</a> I'm not saying I agree with Bloomberg on his proposed ban because I see both sides of the argument on this one, but the above link has some interesting facts about sodas in general. I myself bought Diet Dr Pepper buy the case for years and usually drank one or more a day. I have since cut way back to one or two sodas a month and limit the sodas my son drinks for health reasons. I think I'll have him read this in the hopes he'll be more on board with my limiting his consumption of Dr Pepper. We'll see how THAT goes :-/.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>the above link has some interesting facts about sodas in general.<< Setting aside the main question of how bad soda is for you, no Dr. Pepper-liking skeptic is going to buy this junk science article. You need better evidence than this. There are a lot of "there are only a harmless little 14 micrograms in the stuff, but IT'S 14 MICROGRAMS OF POISON, I TELL YA! POISON!! We searched until we found a scientist in Amsterdam that says so!" I also liked how artificial sweeteners have all these awful health effects on slide 3, but then they "don't break down in our bodies, nor do wastewater-treatment plants catch them" in slide 6. Not saying you're wrong. I'm saying find better articles.
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb Dude, drink soda or don't I don't care. I saw the article and thought it was interesting. I don't care what you do with it, but I feel healthier for giving them up. You want a better article find it yourself.
