NYC and political boss Bloomberg to even further control New Yorker's lives

[StreetScooby 5]

Bloomberg is ridiculously out of control. He really thinks he knows how best to live your life.

We are all engines of karma

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

He's says you can still get that Venti at Starbucks or that larger size drink at the movies, you just have to get it in smaller size cups.

So instead of buying one 20 oz. drink, I'll have to buy two 12 oz. drinks, for a total of 24 ounces, or even more than I had before. Yeah, that'll help a lot!

And besides, each movie theatre seat only has one drink holder, so where in the heck am I going to put my extra drink cup while I'm waiting to get to it? I don't want to set it on that slimy floor, all gooey with fake popcorn butter and whatever people tracked in on their shoes.

[Bertt 0]

NO more than ten ounces per bottle. No more than ten rounds per magazine. Yeah, that kind of thinking always works.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

He's says you can still get that Venti at Starbucks or that larger size drink at the movies, you just have to get it in smaller size cups.

So instead of buying one 20 oz. drink, I'll have to buy two 12 oz. drinks, for a total of 24 ounces, or even more than I had before. Yeah, that'll help a lot!

And besides, each movie theatre seat only has one drink holder, so where in the heck am I going to put my extra drink cup while I'm waiting to get to it? I don't want to set it on that slimy floor, all gooey with fake popcorn butter and whatever people tracked in on their shoes.

the movie theater would lose the revenue outright, I suspect. The only way they've been able to sell $7 cokes is that it comes in a big ass container and includes free refills (common for the largest size), while the small costs $5+.

From the headline, I thought this might be less ambitious and target the 32oz (Big Gulp) and greater sizes. Going after the 20oz bottle probably makes this proposal DOA.

BTW, why would the Venti be affected? If it's coffee and milk, it wouldn't fall under sweetened drinks. So the latte and the capp are still good. But the mocha or the fraps may.

--
As for the why - the sweetened drinks do account for the lion's share of people's daily calorie surplus and the migration in the 80s from the 12oz can to the 16oz bottle and then the 20 does correspond well to the growth in obesity. As this starts effecting the bottom line (health care spending, by all of us), the question of when to start imposing such measures will come up more and more.

[Skyrad 0]

Sounds like a good idea, its just total piggery and gluttony its obscene that people buy buckets of unhealthy drinks. Good on him! Actually while he's taking the healthy track I think I'll e-mail him and suggest a fat tax.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[davjohns 1]

Outstanding! Can't wait until he requires everyone to attend workouts in Central Park three times per week. Mandatory pedometers that radio back to headquarters that the individual is doing their required number of miles would be good, too!

Seriously, if you want government to pay for your health care, you have to be ready for government to tell you how to care for your health.

Brace yourselves. It's going to be a wild ride.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[DaVinci 0]

This is what happens when people think politicians know better than you how to run your life or spend your money.

Please understand that I don't disagree with his reasons, I just disagree with his actions. He has a point that fat people tend to have gotten fat from over indulgence..... But that is not the responsibility of the Mayor to limit my right because someone has no impulse control.

Expect more of this in the future when the govt has control over your HC. It will be seen and sold as a 'common sense' rule to limit expenditures.

[davjohns 1]

I agree with your comment that it is a common sense way to reduce expenditures. I think even more basic is the idea that authority and responsibility go hand in hand. You can not make government responsible for your health care and simultaneously retain authority. If the government pays the costs of your smoking, the government gets to stop your smoking. If the government pays the costs of your health issues, the government gets to tell you how to take care of yourself. I honestly think that mandatory exercise classes run by the government are reasonable once government is responsible for healthcare. Thus, my desire to keep government out of my life as much as possible.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Outstanding! Can't wait until he requires everyone to attend workouts in Central Park three times per week. Mandatory pedometers that radio back to headquarters that the individual is doing their required number of miles would be good, too!

Seriously, if you want government to pay for your health care, you have to be ready for government to tell you how to care for your health.

Brace yourselves. It's going to be a wild ride.

Well, if the government stands in the shoes of an insurance carrier, that's not totally unreasonable, nor without precedent in the private sector. In a sense, insurance companies already sort-of do that. Example - many health insurers give you premium discounts and/or a health club fee reimbursement if you complete X hours of workout at a health club. Many auto insurers give premium discounts for people completing a driver's ed certification. Why? In each case, it's because the conduct encouraged translates in the long run into fewer funds paid-out in claims.

Another analogy off the top of my head - it's a bit of a stretch, but the logic is sort of similar - is the numerous professions that have mandatory continuing ed requirements in order to maintain one's active license or certification.

Anyhow, it's really not all Commie Boogeyman, folks, just because it's being done by the gummint.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I think even more basic is the idea that authority and responsibility go hand in hand. You can not make government responsible for your health care and simultaneously retain authority.

Agreed. I would be fine if the govt told all the people on federal HC programs that they had to stop smoking, stop eating crap, and start working out or be denied benefits.

Quote

Thus, my desire to keep government out of my life as much as possible.

Agreed... And this is the big danger with the HC mandate. If allowed, there is basically nothing, that is legal, that the govt cannot be stopped from making you do.

My parents used to tell me all the time, "When you quit living out of my wallet/purse, then you can decide what you will and will not do. Until then, we decide." I see that as perfectly reasonable. If I am paying for your lifestyle, then I get to decide if you can or cannot do something.

To make this related to skydiving.... Skydiving is a HOBBY. If you are on govt HC, you should not be skydiving for fun. If you can afford 100 jumps a year, you can afford basic HC coverage. Same for smoking... An average pack of cigarettes cost almost 6 dollars that's 1500-2000 dollars a year, about 180/mth. My wife had Blue Cross with existing conditions for less than that/mth before we were married.

What people want is the benefits without the sacrifice. They want HC coverage without having to sacrifice anything.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Anyhow, it's really not all Commie Boogeyman, folks, just because it's being done by the gummint

I think that is what makes it so 'Commie Boogeyman'. When a company does it, it is by the very definition free market. When a Govt does it and it is compulsory, it is exactly 'Commie Boogeyman'.

[normiss 643]

No kidding.

Large soft drink - illegal.
Smokes - legal.
Liquor stores - legal (except in Chicago)
Weed - depends on the state and the ID in your possession, just don't grow,supply, sell, or possess it.
Prescriptions that can kill you (while making billions of dollars for private companies) - legal.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Anyhow, it's really not all Commie Boogeyman, folks, just because it's being done by the gummint

I think that is what makes it so 'Commie Boogeyman'. When a company does it, it is by the very definition free market. When a Govt does it and it is compulsory, it is exactly 'Commie Boogeyman'.

That's the argument that's been used against mandatory taxation for over 100 years. Hasn't fared very well so far.

[Lefty 0]

Quote

Quote

Anyhow, it's really not all Commie Boogeyman, folks, just because it's being done by the gummint

I think that is what makes it so 'Commie Boogeyman'. When a company does it, it is by the very definition free market. When a Govt does it and it is compulsory, it is exactly 'Commie Boogeyman'.

This. Whole different animal when the government is involved.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[SkyDekker 1,153]

Quote

Quote

Anyhow, it's really not all Commie Boogeyman, folks, just because it's being done by the gummint

I think that is what makes it so 'Commie Boogeyman'. When a company does it, it is by the very definition free market. When a Govt does it and it is compulsory, it is exactly 'Commie Boogeyman'.

Yes in another thread you are vehemently arguing how the government should behave exactly like a business.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

the Enemies Of Pleasure are after your Venti Starbucks latte, hot dog and gyro cart beverages, and those red plastic glasses at the local eatery.

The FLOTUS approves!
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/06/michelle-obama-no-federal-big-soda-ban-125362.html

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Agreed. I would be fine if the govt told all the people on federal HC programs that they had to stop smoking, stop eating crap, and start working out or be denied benefits

Ummmm....something similar was tried back in the '30s in Europe. Few of us would agree with that approach, I'm sure.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

What people want is the benefits without the sacrifice. They want HC coverage without having to sacrifice anything.

Naturally!
How much more sacrifice would be sufficient...over and above the high premiums, that is.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

That's the argument that's been used against mandatory taxation for over 100 years. Hasn't fared very well so far.

Companies do not tax. And even taxes can be looked at as a freemarket situation... Hence the Facebook founder leaving the US, or people leaving CA for places like TX.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Yes in another thread you are vehemently arguing how the government should behave exactly like a business.

Outlawing large drinks is not what a business would do. My position is consistent.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Ummmm....something similar was tried back in the '30s in Europe. Few of us would agree with that approach, I'm sure.

Simply put... If you are going to expect the Govt to pay for your HC, then you should also expect that they are going to have a say in your lifestyle.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Simply put... If you are going to expect the Govt to pay for your HC, then you should also expect that they are going to have a say in your lifestyle.

While I agree that there is some logical connection that is not much comfort for those of us who do not want government paying for healthcare or dictating what we eat and drink.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

While I agree that there is some logical connection that is not much comfort for those of us who do not want government paying for healthcare or dictating what we eat and drink.

And I do not want them telling what I can and cannot do either. But once the Govt has control over your HC, they WILL have a say in what you can and cannot do. It is a simple and logical extension of the consequences of providing HC.

I wonder how many that support govt HC would be OK if that it also required a person to take drug tests, not be allowed to smoke, not be allowed to drink, and they had to show they were exercising and had mandatory 'weigh ins'?

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I wonder how many that support govt HC would be OK if that it also required a person to take drug tests, not be allowed to smoke, not be allowed to drink, and they had to show they were exercising and had mandatory 'weigh ins'?

BOOM!
Every once in a while you put the tag on it.

They'd Occupy the White House.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[normiss 643]

So long as growlers are not outlawed.