U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-17-2012, 01:28 PM
bg7
 
7,695 posts, read 9,870,678 times
Reputation: 15255

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
One would have hoped you'd have noticed we are addressing the other items NY has banned besides just soda.
One could also hope that people keep things in perspective.

Go buy yourself 3 liters at the supermarket and drown your sorrows. Oh but you can't do that becuase "they banned soda" right? Which hyperbole will be news to Bloomberg I'm sure.

Last edited by bg7; 09-17-2012 at 01:44 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-17-2012, 03:15 PM
 
8,747 posts, read 17,664,574 times
Reputation: 4168
Mathguy..banning transfats is not consumption...you still get to eat your fried chicken, just without the part of it which may cause a heartattack! While your at it, you should probably be complaining about the government taking ecoli and cow feces out of your ground beef...how dare they...FREEDOM!

Like I said...you should really enjoy life in China..where you serve your dog a treat and it dies from poisoning. Or you brush your teeth with toothpaste and get sick from mercury. That's life without those pesky government regulations....GO and be FREE to have corporations make you sick and exploit you all for a buck, under the guise of FREEDOM. ENJOY!

Secondly...the goverment is not affecting your choices. Instead of getting a 60 ounce coke, you have to buy 5 12 ounce cokes...so where is the restriction? Using your argument, you should be complaining to Coke that they don't offer a 120 ounce coke....they are restricting your freedom to make your own choices. You choose to have a 120 ounce and they won't give it to you...demand FREEDOM and demand your 120 ounce Coke...right?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2012, 05:14 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
7,844 posts, read 12,548,246 times
Reputation: 9238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred314X View Post
When our control freak of a Mayor first announced his proposal for a ban on big sodas, the soda bottling industry promised a big, expensive campaign to counter it. Now that the ban has become reality, let's see what they do to promote large quantities of soda.

Also, I believe this was not a blanket ban. Doesn't it only affect supermarkets and big chains? I think you'll still be able to buy big cups of soda at mom-and-pop establishments. So if someone finally passed a law that might actually help small, local businesses...maybe it isn't the worst thing in the world. Or even in the city.
No, you can still get your 3-Liter of soda at the supermarket and the 20 oz bottles at the corner mom & pop store. The ban only applied to where there are letter gradings, concession stands, cafeterias and movie theaters. I believe 7-11's with their 32 oz syrupy slushies are still ok.

So does this mean I can't get my giant $1 Sweet Tea from Mc'D's any more? The other debate is the iced coffees and frappes that are loaded with syrup but I believe the ban doesn't apply if the drink is mostly milk. Better off getting an extra tall iced grande and add your own sugar
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2012, 06:13 PM
 
Location: NYPD"s 30th Precinct
2,566 posts, read 5,205,351 times
Reputation: 2679
Quote:
Originally Posted by bellakin123 View Post
No, you can still get your 3-Liter of soda at the supermarket and the 20 oz bottles at the corner mom & pop store. The ban only applied to where there are letter gradings, concession stands, cafeterias and movie theaters. I believe 7-11's with their 32 oz syrupy slushies are still ok.
It also only applies to fountain style drinks, so bottled drinks can be as huge as you please.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2012, 06:29 PM
 
30,336 posts, read 43,302,303 times
Reputation: 12858
Quote:
Originally Posted by SobroGuy View Post
And when people don't have insurance to pay for their bad habits, the government (aka taxpayers) pay for their lifetime of treatments, and if they can't work due to these health problems the government (aka taxpayers) support them for life.

Explain this. Because the last time I checked, if you go to the hospital without insurance they just send you a bill in the mail. I believe you want to introduce Medicare somehow into the argument but haven't quite found out yet how to do this....
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence

Forum TOS: //www.city-data.com/forumtos.html
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2012, 07:28 PM
 
Location: London, NYC, DC
1,118 posts, read 2,186,884 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeventhFloor View Post
Explain this. Because the last time I checked, if you go to the hospital without insurance they just send you a bill in the mail. I believe you want to introduce Medicare somehow into the argument but haven't quite found out yet how to do this....
I think the problem is that even if you bill them, it still takes away from the resources of the hospital and ability to treat other patients, ones who do have insurance.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2012, 07:53 PM
 
264 posts, read 256,835 times
Reputation: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
Given the absurdity of this ban, it doesn't take a slippery slope argument as this one has set the bar extremely low.

A slippery slope argument would be that they will eventually ban drinking fluids of any kind.

A realistic argument is that if they are going to regulate the portion sizes of an item they find to be unhealthy that they may next apply it to sweets, potato chips, alchohol and so forth. That is not a slippery slope argument but rather one of parallels.

In short, you're position is that you are ok with the city having the right to restrict your food consumption, portion sizes, food content etc. as they deem fit with regards to your health.
I remember times when you could "supersize" your meals in fast food restaurants. I believe the industry changed it policy seeing objection of doctors and people responsible for public health.
In my eyes this is the same kaind of issue.
Nobody is forcing you to drink smaller portions, you can still buy two sodas, or buy a two litter one in the store. It's all about developing proper habits in kids who often frequent fast food restaurants with their parent.

Anybody crying over lack of "supersize" option in McDonald?
Nobody will cry over the lack of large soda there, either...
Just give it three months.

Last edited by noworneveragain; 09-17-2012 at 09:04 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2012, 08:30 PM
 
30,336 posts, read 43,302,303 times
Reputation: 12858
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoking66 View Post
I think the problem is that even if you bill them, it still takes away from the resources of the hospital and ability to treat other patients, ones who do have insurance.
There are private hospitals and public hospitals....
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence

Forum TOS: //www.city-data.com/forumtos.html
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2012, 09:03 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD / NY
781 posts, read 1,129,795 times
Reputation: 434
SobroGuy: And when people don't have insurance to pay for their bad habits, the government (aka taxpayers) pay for their lifetime of treatments, and if they can't work due to these health problems the government (aka taxpayers) support them for life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeventhFloor View Post
Explain this. Because the last time I checked, if you go to the hospital without insurance they just send you a bill in the mail. I believe you want to introduce Medicare somehow into the argument but haven't quite found out yet how to do this....
This isn't really related to the soda ban debate, but, just to clarify:

No hospital is legally permitted to deny a patient emergency medical care or care for childbirth; however, they are allowed to refer a non-emergency patient to an outside physician or clinic (without being seen), and/or transfer an emergency patient to another facility once stabilized.

I believe what he was getting at was the following: Low-income individuals without health insurance (whether working PT, not eligible for subsidized insurance, illegal residents, etc.), will put off a visit to a primary care physician for a preventable/treatable condition due to lack of funds. The condition often exacerbates over time due to lack of treatment, and eventually the individual ends up in the emergency room of a hospital. As mentioned, virtually no hospital is permitted to deny a patient emergency care (if they enter through ER); these individuals are 'billed later' or put on a payment plan, but, research shows these bills are rarely paid in their entirety, if, at all. The 'billed' amount for these types of visits ends up in collections, and, the hospital eventually writes it off as bad debt. To recoup the funds lost from these types of transactions, it has been argued that hospitals practice cost-shifting and increase rates for insured patients, (i.e., my astronomical $2K bill at Hopkins for an IV and a shot last year), contributing to medical inflation, and subsequently extra burden on the insured.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2012, 09:11 PM
 
Location: New York City
559 posts, read 1,066,702 times
Reputation: 387
The logic is not quite right. Since the justification for the maximum amount of sugar-laden sodas is the health of the person, one should therefore expect that the next law is to require the use of condoms, NOT a CEILING on how many condoms to buy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gesarsenal View Post
65 inch flat screen cap and up to 4 packs of Remi weave only!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:




Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top