If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Beyond Personal Responsibility"
jmk wrote in message ...
On 6/5/2004 11:37 AM, Radley Balko wrote: Congress is now considering menu-labeling legislation, which would force restaurants to send every menu item to the laboratory for nutritional testing. This is the wrong way to fight obesity. Instead of manipulating or intervening in the array of food options available to American consumers, our government ought to be working to foster a sense of responsibility in and ownership of our own health and well-being. But we're doing just the opposite. How is having restaurants provide nutritional information so that consumers can more easily make educated choices not fostering a sense of responsibility? The responsibility lied completely with the consumer. If a restaurant doesn't provide nutritional information, then the consumer needs to take that into account in deciding whether or not to eat that food. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Beyond Personal Responsibility"
as a person who fills vending machines for a living, I will tell you that
junk is a much easier buck, but if you put in the right "better" foods kids will buy them more than adults, raisins and sunflower meats come to mind, and from what I am seeing and hearing a part of the problem is the nasty food fed to kids now. My mother has taken a partime job in the lunch rooms of the school district and sister is a substitute teacher, they confirm what the children tell me, one good meal in about seven, Lee Fred wrote in message ... And how does one make reasonable and responsible decisions if the food at restaurants is not labeled. What the hell is wrong with banning (in the words of this article's author) JUNK FOODS from school vending machines? What is wrong with funding bike paths and building sidewalks. Socialism? Labeled foodstuffs - how, well, communistic! Sheesh.............. On 5 Jun 2004 15:37:30 -0000, Radley Balko wrote: This June, Time magazine and ABC News will host a three-day summit on obesity. ABC News anchor Peter Jennings, who last December anchored the prime time special "How to Get Fat Without Really Trying," will host. Judging by the scheduled program, the summit promises to be pep rally for media, nutrition activists, and policy makers -- all agitating for a panoply of government anti-obesity initiatives, including prohibiting junk food in school vending machines, federal funding for new bike trails and sidewalks, more demanding labels on foodstuffs, restrictive food marketing to children, and prodding the food industry into more "responsible" behavior. In other words, bringing government between you and your waistline. Politicians have already climbed aboard. President Bush earmarked $200 million in his budget for anti-obesity measures. State legislatures and school boards across the country have begun banning snacks and soda from school campuses and vending machines. Sen. Joe Lieberman and Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown, among others, have called for a "fat tax" on high-calorie foods. Congress is now considering menu-labeling legislation, which would force restaurants to send every menu item to the laboratory for nutritional testing. This is the wrong way to fight obesity. Instead of manipulating or intervening in the array of food options available to American consumers, our government ought to be working to foster a sense of responsibility in and ownership of our own health and well-being. But we're doing just the opposite. For decades now, America's health care system has been migrating toward socialism. Your well-being, shape, and condition have increasingly been deemed matters of "public health," instead of matters of personal responsibility. Our lawmakers just enacted a huge entitlement that requires some people to pay for other people's medicine. Sen. Hillary Clinton just penned a lengthy article in the New York Times Magazine calling for yet more federal control of health care. All of the Democrat candidates for president boasted plans to push health care further into the public sector. More and more, states are preventing private health insurers from charging overweight and obese clients higher premiums, which effectively removes any financial incentive for maintaining a healthy lifestyle. We're becoming less responsible for our own health, and more responsible for everyone else's. Your heart attack drives up the cost of my premiums and office visits. And if the government is paying for my anti-cholesterol medication, what incentive is there for me to put down the cheeseburger? This collective ownership of private health then paves the way for even more federal restrictions on consumer choice and civil liberties. A society where everyone is responsible for everyone else's well-being is a society more apt to accept government restrictions, for example -- on what McDonalds can put on its menu, what Safeway or Kroger can put on grocery shelves, or holding food companies responsible for the bad habits of unhealthy consumers. A growing army of nutritionist activists and food industry foes are egging the process on. Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest has said, "we've got to move beyond 'personal responsibility.'" The largest organization of trial lawyers now encourages its members to weed jury pools of candidates who show "personal responsibility bias." The title of Jennings' special from last December -- "How to Get Fat Without Really Trying" -- reveals his intent, which is to relieve viewers of responsibility for their own condition. Indeed, Jennings ended the program with an impassioned plea for government intervention to fight obesity. The best way to alleviate the obesity "public health" crisis is to remove obesity from the realm of public health. It doesn't belong there. It's difficult to think of anything more private and of less public concern than what we choose to put into our bodies. It only becomes a public matter when we force the public to pay for the consequences of those choices. If policymakers want to fight obesity, they'll halt the creeping socialization of medicine, and move to return individual Americans' ownership of their own health and well-being back to individual Americans. That means freeing insurance companies to reward healthy lifestyles, and penalize poor ones. It means halting plans to further socialize medicine and health care. Congress should also increase access to medical and health savings accounts, which give consumers the option of rolling money reserved for health care into a retirement account. These accounts introduce accountability into the health care system, and encourage caution with one's health care dollar. When money we spend on health care doesn't belong to our employer or the government, but is money we could devote to our own retirement, we're less likely to run to the doctor at the first sign of a cold. We'll all make better choices about diet, exercise, and personal health when someone else isn't paying for the consequences of those choices. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Beyond Personal Responsibility"
Y'know, we are just talking about this in class (I'm taking Human
Nutrition). Here in NY they put vending machines in the locker rooms in schools, and the vending machines sell Snapple's "Juiced" and their bottled water. The "Juiced" product is basically sugar water, with juice for flavoring. It's no better than Coca Cola, but it's being touted as a healthier option. This makes me furious. I am, in fact, refusing to purchase any Snapple products because of it. -- DEBORAH WUNDER "Fred" wrote in message ... Thanks for the confirmation. On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:03:52 -0500, "Miss Violette" wrote: as a person who fills vending machines for a living, I will tell you that junk is a much easier buck, but if you put in the right "better" foods kids will buy them more than adults, raisins and sunflower meats come to mind, and from what I am seeing and hearing a part of the problem is the nasty food fed to kids now. My mother has taken a partime job in the lunch rooms of the school district and sister is a substitute teacher, they confirm what the children tell me, one good meal in about seven, Lee Fred wrote in message .. . And how does one make reasonable and responsible decisions if the food at restaurants is not labeled. What the hell is wrong with banning (in the words of this article's author) JUNK FOODS from school vending machines? What is wrong with funding bike paths and building sidewalks. Socialism? Labeled foodstuffs - how, well, communistic! Sheesh.............. On 5 Jun 2004 15:37:30 -0000, Radley Balko wrote: This June, Time magazine and ABC News will host a three-day summit on obesity. ABC News anchor Peter Jennings, who last December anchored the prime time special "How to Get Fat Without Really Trying," will host. Judging by the scheduled program, the summit promises to be pep rally for media, nutrition activists, and policy makers -- all agitating for a panoply of government anti-obesity initiatives, including prohibiting junk food in school vending machines, federal funding for new bike trails and sidewalks, more demanding labels on foodstuffs, restrictive food marketing to children, and prodding the food industry into more "responsible" behavior. In other words, bringing government between you and your waistline. Politicians have already climbed aboard. President Bush earmarked $200 million in his budget for anti-obesity measures. State legislatures and school boards across the country have begun banning snacks and soda from school campuses and vending machines. Sen. Joe Lieberman and Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown, among others, have called for a "fat tax" on high-calorie foods. Congress is now considering menu-labeling legislation, which would force restaurants to send every menu item to the laboratory for nutritional testing. This is the wrong way to fight obesity. Instead of manipulating or intervening in the array of food options available to American consumers, our government ought to be working to foster a sense of responsibility in and ownership of our own health and well-being. But we're doing just the opposite. For decades now, America's health care system has been migrating toward socialism. Your well-being, shape, and condition have increasingly been deemed matters of "public health," instead of matters of personal responsibility. Our lawmakers just enacted a huge entitlement that requires some people to pay for other people's medicine. Sen. Hillary Clinton just penned a lengthy article in the New York Times Magazine calling for yet more federal control of health care. All of the Democrat candidates for president boasted plans to push health care further into the public sector. More and more, states are preventing private health insurers from charging overweight and obese clients higher premiums, which effectively removes any financial incentive for maintaining a healthy lifestyle. We're becoming less responsible for our own health, and more responsible for everyone else's. Your heart attack drives up the cost of my premiums and office visits. And if the government is paying for my anti-cholesterol medication, what incentive is there for me to put down the cheeseburger? This collective ownership of private health then paves the way for even more federal restrictions on consumer choice and civil liberties. A society where everyone is responsible for everyone else's well-being is a society more apt to accept government restrictions, for example -- on what McDonalds can put on its menu, what Safeway or Kroger can put on grocery shelves, or holding food companies responsible for the bad habits of unhealthy consumers. A growing army of nutritionist activists and food industry foes are egging the process on. Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest has said, "we've got to move beyond 'personal responsibility.'" The largest organization of trial lawyers now encourages its members to weed jury pools of candidates who show "personal responsibility bias." The title of Jennings' special from last December -- "How to Get Fat Without Really Trying" -- reveals his intent, which is to relieve viewers of responsibility for their own condition. Indeed, Jennings ended the program with an impassioned plea for government intervention to fight obesity. The best way to alleviate the obesity "public health" crisis is to remove obesity from the realm of public health. It doesn't belong there. It's difficult to think of anything more private and of less public concern than what we choose to put into our bodies. It only becomes a public matter when we force the public to pay for the consequences of those choices. If policymakers want to fight obesity, they'll halt the creeping socialization of medicine, and move to return individual Americans' ownership of their own health and well-being back to individual Americans. That means freeing insurance companies to reward healthy lifestyles, and penalize poor ones. It means halting plans to further socialize medicine and health care. Congress should also increase access to medical and health savings accounts, which give consumers the option of rolling money reserved for health care into a retirement account. These accounts introduce accountability into the health care system, and encourage caution with one's health care dollar. When money we spend on health care doesn't belong to our employer or the government, but is money we could devote to our own retirement, we're less likely to run to the doctor at the first sign of a cold. We'll all make better choices about diet, exercise, and personal health when someone else isn't paying for the consequences of those choices. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Beyond Personal Responsibility"
"Lady Veteran" wrote in message
... Notice hoe it is only fat people that are being called upon to take some sort of individual responsibility? I have a serious problem with that because it generalizes. There are some people that refuse to be responsible and it has nothing to do with how much a person weighs. Fat people are a HUGE problem. They are less productive and that costs everybody money. They are less healthy and that costs everybody money. They usually smell bad and that's no fun. - ------------------------------------------------ People who hide behind anonymous remailers and ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no motive but malice. - --------------------------------------------- Fat people need 24/7 supervision so STOP EATING SO ****ING MUCH! |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Beyond Personal Responsibility"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 12:39:06 GMT, "Crazy *******" wrote: "Lady Veteran" wrote in message .. . Notice hoe it is only fat people that are being called upon to take some sort of individual responsibility? I have a serious problem with that because it generalizes. There are some people that refuse to be responsible and it has nothing to do with how much a person weighs. Fat people are a HUGE problem. They are less productive and that costs everybody money. They are less healthy and that costs everybody money. They usually smell bad and that's no fun. Everything is all black and white in your world? Oh, I forgot. Your brain isn't large enough to process color. Too bad. LV Lady Veteran - ----------------------------------- "I rode a tank and held a general's rank when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..." - -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil - ------------------------------------------------ People who hide behind anonymous remailers and ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no motive but malice. - --------------------------------------------- "To Do Is To Be" Socrates "To Be Is To Do" Plato "Do Be Do Be Do" Sinatra - ------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBQM3mWMjazA1WMM1JEQLvjgCg/CA5U0fy8/5ZmNTRC0N88L4pdoEAn3mD RoLgYGjgA/IVb2433F3CXBk7 =mq96 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Beyond Personal Responsibility"
"Lady Veteran" wrote in message
... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 12:39:06 GMT, "Crazy *******" wrote: "Lady Veteran" wrote in message .. . Notice hoe it is only fat people that are being called upon to take some sort of individual responsibility? I have a serious problem with that because it generalizes. There are some people that refuse to be responsible and it has nothing to do with how much a person weighs. Fat people are a HUGE problem. They are less productive and that costs everybody money. They are less healthy and that costs everybody money. They usually smell bad and that's no fun. Everything is all black and white in your world? Oh, I forgot. Your brain isn't large enough to process color. Too bad. What the **** does black, white and color have to do with FAT PEOPLE??? Fat people are fat people, it doesn't matter what color they are! What the **** is wrong with you??? Its a fact: Fat people miss more work days than healthy people. Its a fact: Fat people steal from the poor by eating too much food! Its a fact: Fat people have MORE health problems than healthy people, that increases healthcare costs which ALL PEOPLE have to bear. As a healthy person I object to having to pay more to cover the increased cost of FAT PEOPLE. Its a fact: Fat people don't fit in airplane seats!! Its a fact: Fat people sweat more, they smell. Its a fact: The aroma from the sweaty ass crack of a FAT PERSON could clear a stadium! Its a fact: Fat people are hard to wrestle to the ground. Its a fact: ****ing a fat broad is a workout!! Its a fact: Fat people should sit in the last row of a movie theatre so they don't block the view. Its a fact: If you were in trouble you could bend a fat person over and show a movie on their ass!!! Its a fact: After the Apocalypse fat people can be rendered for fuel. And it doesn't matter if they are black, or white or ****ing colorful!!! |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Beyond Personal Responsibility" | Radley Balko | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 46 | June 14th, 2004 10:14 PM |
#1 Site on Self-help and Personal Developmet | Olav Mehl Ludvigsen | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 1 | January 4th, 2004 10:41 PM |
#1 Site on Self-help and Personal Developmet | Olav Mehl Ludvigsen | Weightwatchers | 0 | January 4th, 2004 05:16 PM |
#1 Site on Self-help and Personal Developmet | Olav Mehl Ludvigsen | Medications related to Weight Control | 0 | January 4th, 2004 05:16 PM |
#1 Site on Self-help and Personal Developmet | Olav Mehl Ludvigsen | Fit For Life | 0 | January 4th, 2004 05:16 PM |