WAMU

ZING!!!!! (post of the week!! for sure!!!)


and am i wrong, but if one were going to get individual health care, wouldnt it be cheaper if they were not overweight, didnt smoke and had no other health issues?

sure, when you are getting benefits from your work, its a group rate, which you choose to take, but if you wanted, you could get your own. sure it'd be more expensive than your work rate, but you could at least get the "i dont smoke" break and feel all warm and fuzzy inside!!

Your tax money is going to pay for the federal workers who spend much of their day hanging out in the smoke break room, not the ones on the internet boards. At least I can attempt to multitask!

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
And please don't ask me to contribute my tax money to pay for the salaries of federal government employees who spend all day on internet message boards.

Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
Well then please don't ask me to contribute my tax money to pay for the Medicaid that benefits those who deliberately abuse their bodies. And while I'm at it, shouldn't my health care premiums be lower than those who deliberately choose to abuse their bodies?

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:

Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
Some people AREN'T smart enough to make good decisions, and aren't even aware of what the good choice is.

oh, so the government is fit to figure out who is smart and who isn't as to what's best for themselves? it's a person's choice to decide what to do with their body.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
it's a person's choice to decide what to do with their body.

so let's give peeps the information required to make said decision. oh, wait, you're opposed to that. so people should make informed decisions without information… great logic :roll:

Originally posted by sweetcell:

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
it's a person's choice to decide what to do with their body.

so let's give peeps the information required to make said decision. oh, wait, you're opposed to that. so people should make informed decisions without information… great logic :roll:

Why do you nanny-staters always assume that the general public is so stupid? Did it ever occour to you that people might actually realize that they are eating something that is terribly unhealthy when they go out to eat, and just don't care?

People are alot smarter than you think.

I agree 100%; I think the general public never gets enough credit. Just look at our absurdly simplistic "terror warnings"…

That being said, I have to ask what the harm is in making this information mandatory? You're right; many people either don't give a shit, or purposefully eat unhealthy foods because they taste great. These same people, if given the information, are most likely going to ignore it anyway.

But for the group that does want to know how healthy a menu item is, shouldn't they be allowed to reasonable and easily find this out? Printing certain quick health stats won't take away from the enjoyment of people that love greasy food and would choose it over a salad any day, and in no way is this banning fatty foods. It's giving information, which the FDA already enforces on store-bought products.

Doesn't it make sense to give some information out in restaurants? And since no one here is talking about removing unhealthy food choices all-together (hell, I try to eat healthy, but that sure doesn't stop me from grubbing down a Big 'N Tasty at McDonald's every now and again), how is printing calories and fat content on a menu infringing on the unhealthy's rights?

Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:

Originally posted by sweetcell:

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
it's a person's choice to decide what to do with their body.

so let's give peeps the information required to make said decision. oh, wait, you're opposed to that. so people should make informed decisions without information… great logic :roll:

Why do you nanny-staters always assume that the general public is so stupid? Did it ever occour to you that people might actually realize that they are eating something that is terribly unhealthy when they go out to eat, and just don't care?

People are alot smarter than you think.

I agree 100%; I think the general public never gets enough credit. Just look at our absurdly simplistic "terror warnings"…

Terror was something that was very real, and politicians wanted to make people think they were doing something. Eventually people wised up and realized that they were more posturing than actual warnings, which is why they don't do those anymore.

That being said, I have to ask what the harm is in making this information mandatory? You're right; many people either don't give a shit, or purposefully eat unhealthy foods because they taste great. These same people, if given the information, are most likely going to ignore it anyway.

But for the group that does want to know how healthy a menu item is, shouldn't they be allowed to reasonable and easily find this out? Printing certain quick health stats won't take away from the enjoyment of people that love greasy food and would choose it over a salad any day, and in no way is this banning fatty foods. It's giving information, which the FDA already enforces on store-bought products.

Doesn't it make sense to give some information out in restaurants? And since no one here is talking about removing unhealthy food choices all-together (hell, I try to eat healthy, but that sure doesn't stop me from grubbing down a Big 'N Tasty at McDonald's every now and again), how is printing calories and fat content on a menu infringing on the unhealthy's rights?

The problem is, this bill is only requiring chain resturaunts to provide this information. Many of those already offer this information on their corporate websites.

So, this bill is either:

A. Pointless political posturing, addressing a problem that largely does not exist
B. Unfair to larger businesses and individual franchise owners
C. A and B

Originally posted by nkotb:

That being said, I have to ask what the harm is in making this information mandatory?

i think its the principal, which some people just dont seem to be able to grasp. law and politics always set precedents, and once one silly law passes through…it paves way for a bunch of other laws that sound similar but start eerily drifting towards something else.

sure, its just menu information now, but whos to say this wont start the ball rolling towards banning certain foods at restaurants or certain foods altogether?

and if you cant see thats a freedom being taken away, you have a real real real problem seeing!

but i suppose some freedoms shouldnt really be ours to have anymore!

But food manufacturers are already required to put this on store-bought food. Is anyone lobbying to change that? Is that a violation of your civil liberties?

I think you're being a tad Chicken Little (thanks, Dupek!) with your doomsday prophecy that this will lead into a ban on all foods that are not proven to have significant nutritional value, but I can at least see your point. My only question is why is it acceptable in one case and not in another? Seems that consistency would make sense in this case, no?

Not that all of this matters in the grand scheme of things, though. Personally, I find it to not be a cause worth fighting for. Although I would use the information and would find it helpful when ordering, my life will be just fine without it. I'm just more interested in why people on both sides get so worked up over such an innocuous thing…

Originally posted by le sonick:
i think its the principal, which some people just dont seem to be able to grasp. law and politics always set precedents, and once one silly law passes through…it paves way for a bunch of other laws that sound similar but start eerily drifting towards something else.

sure, its just menu information now, but whos to say this wont start the ball rolling towards banning certain foods at restaurants or certain foods altogether?

and if you cant see thats a freedom being taken away, you have a real real real problem seeing!

but i suppose some freedoms shouldnt really be ours to have anymore!

Do y'all realize if the government hasn't stepped in, whites and blacks would still be eating at separate restuarants and drinking from separate water fountains?

yeah, well, if the gov't hadn't over-reached and interfered with race relations, the market would have taken care of that all by itself :roll:

I wonder if you'll feel that way when you're 65 and your insides are rotting and you feel like shit everyday. See if your life is "just fine" then. ;)

Originally posted by nkotb:


Not that all of this matters in the grand scheme of things, though. Personally, I find it to not be a cause worth fighting for. Although I would use the information and would find it helpful when ordering, my life will be just fine without it. I'm just more interested in why people on both sides get so worked up over such an innocuous thing…

[/QB]

Ah, but I'm a relatively healthy eater by nature (save for the small handful of fast food trips a year). That's why, health stats or no, my life will be reasonable the same.

Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
I wonder if you'll feel that way when you're 65 and your insides are rotting and you feel like shit everyday. See if your life is "just fine" then. ;)

Originally posted by sweetcell:

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
it's a person's choice to decide what to do with their body.

so let's give peeps the information required to make said decision. oh, wait, you're opposed to that. so people should make informed decisions without information… great logic :roll:

it's not that i'm against making the information available. . i'm against government mandating that the information be made available. like i said before, nutritional information is already available at fast food restaurants (either at the restaurant or online).

Like I'm sure your typical fast food restuarant patron spends a lot of time online.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:

Originally posted by sweetcell:

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
it's a person's choice to decide what to do with their body.

so let's give peeps the information required to make said decision. oh, wait, you're opposed to that. so people should make informed decisions without information… great logic :roll:

it's not that i'm against making the information available. . i'm against government mandating that the information be made available. like i said before, nutritional information is already available at fast food restaurants (either at the restaurant or online).

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Like I'm sure your typical fast food restuarant patron spends a lot of time online.

and your point is. . .oh wait. . .that's right, there is none.

I guess it's all relative. But still, I would tend to think that some things probably aren't as healthy as we tend to think they are. But I've got my wife beside me to make me tow the line, and she seems to have a sixth sense to sniff out trans-fats and hydrogenated oils. It took her all the strength she could muster to not lecture the poor little girl scout who was selling Samoas that despite the claim to no trans-fats, the ingredients would indicate otherwise.

Originally posted by nkotb:
Ah, but I'm a relatively healthy eater by nature (save for the small handful of fast food trips a year). That's why, health stats or no, my life will be reasonable the same.

Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
I wonder if you'll feel that way when you're 65 and your insides are rotting and you feel like shit everyday. See if your life is "just fine" then. ;)

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
I guess it's all relative. But still, I would tend to think that some things probably aren't as healthy as we tend to think they are. But I've got my wife beside me to make me tow the line, and she seems to have a sixth sense to sniff out trans-fats and hydrogenated oils. It took her all the strength she could muster to not lecture the poor little girl scout who was selling Samoas that despite the claim to no trans-fats, the ingredients would indicate otherwise.

to be no trans-fat, it has to be less than 1/2 gram. unfortunately, real butter contains just over that percentage, so it's technically a trans-fat, even though most nutritionists would agree that butter's trans-fats are nowhere near as bad as artificially created trans-fats. the new york times ran an article on this issue last week because of the difficulties bakers are having in meeting these demands without using butter since the rule does not differentiate between natural and artificial trans-fat.

in any event, the larger issue isn't trans-fat, it's portion control. if you want a cookie with trans-fat, then go ahead, but don't eat 10 cookies in one sitting with trans-fat.

Originally posted by nkotb:

I think you're being a tad Chicken Little (thanks, Dupek!) with your doomsday prophecy that this will lead into a ban on all foods that are not proven to have significant nutritional value, but I can at least see your point. My only question is why is it acceptable in one case and not in another? Seems that consistency would make sense in this case, no?

oh,. please dont misinterpret me (or should i say, please dont allow me to be misinterpreted)

I really dont care about this particular issue. First of all, i will eat whatever i want to at restaurants, and i am not a very unhealthy eater by upbringing. sure i eat meat (gasp) but i wont order the double bacon pork cheeseburger with nacho gravy fries either. and i am not someone who fights their weight, this is definitely not in my range or topics i give two shits about.

i also have a passion for cooking, so i rarely even go out to eat!

i have no doomsday prophecy (you calling my statement that is doing the same thing to my words as you claim i have done to the initial topic) but i see how things go from bad to worse.

someone on here said , give the govt an inch, they'll take a mile.

i cant believe i have said THIS much on this topic. boss isnt here, must be why.

i'm off to electronics class, should be more interesting! !!!!!!

Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
I wonder if you'll feel that way when you're 65 and your insides are rotting and you feel like shit everyday. See if your life is "just fine" then. ;)

i bet he'll still be less of an asshole than you are now!!! even while his insides are rotting out and he feels like shit

what makes you think your lifestyle is so much fucking better than anyone else's on here?

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
It took her all the strength she could muster to not lecture the poor little girl scout who was selling Samoas that despite the claim to no trans-fats, the ingredients would indicate otherwise.

you two are like the poster-children for the people i pray to god my future wife and i never ever become. seriously!