Monte51Coleman Posted December 6, 2006 Author Share Posted December 6, 2006 EDIT - Am I the only one that noticed that the link doesn't go to the same article that the original poster posted? The Post changed it when they inserted their own article today in place of the AP's yesterday. Blame the liberal press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 I have been called strange before, but never a bird.I agree with you Mr. nelms, that you should be able to eat whatever you want. My little brother likes to eat worms sometimes, and we don't stop him. Just like a bird. You see what I mean now. :laugh: But I think a restaurant that serves trans fats (or worms) should have a sign outside that says so in big red letters. Maybe the restaurants should take the lead on that and not the government. Maybe if people didn't frequent said establishment if they didn't post the warning signs, it would force them too. You know, the whole free enterprise thingy. I also want to apologize. I complained about your posting style without providing any constructive suggestions. For future reference, here are some smileys you could use which are not offensive that my little sister would enjoy: :wavetowel :ciao: :dance: :wave: I think I will continue to post as I normally do. I would suggest telling your little sister (and yourself) to approach any posting of mine with caution. Don't want wittle sister to be scarred for life. Also, as Redskins Diehard says above, you might want to read the description of "The Tailgate" on the welcome page. "Please note that some threads may contain material not suitable for viewing at work or around children – view at your own discretion." Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Ronald McDonald didnt shove a double quarter pounder with cheese down your throat every day for 10 years. That's a scary visual...he's a creepy mascot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RVAbrendan Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mania Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 I have been avoiding transfats for the past year and a half and have lost 25 lbs. My cholesterol dropped 100 points as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 I have been avoiding transfats for the past year and a half and have lost 25 lbs. My cholesterol dropped 100 points as well. Have you reported these results to your local government health management agent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 New York is second only to Massachusetts in government per capita healthcare spending with an average of near $7K per person. Seems to me that New York has the right to pass whatever laws it deems necessary to help reign in those costs. If you don't like the new ban then don't eat in the restaurants. If you still want to eat in restaurants then don't live in or visit the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofAlvinWalton Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 How could anybody be against something that might help some of these fat asses out there lose weight. I for one am tired of seeing fat guts sticking out of the bottom of halter tops and "wife beaters". . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 New York is second only to Massachusetts in government per capita healthcare spending with an average of near $7K per person.Seems to me that New York has the right to pass whatever laws it deems necessary to help reign in those costs. If you don't like the new ban then don't eat in the restaurants. If you still want to eat in restaurants then don't live in or visit the state. Then they should pass a no gun law because there are more than 5,000 gun related injuries every year in NYC. All of these injuries had to be treated medically and ran up the costs of per capita healthcare. This number does NOT include the 1500+ gun related deaths. Whatever law necessary right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Then they should pass a no gun law because there are more than 5,000 gun related injuries every year in NYC. All of these injuries had to be treated medically and ran up the costs of per capita healthcare. This number does NOT include the 1500+ gun related deaths.Whatever law necessary right? New York's estimated obesity-attributable Medicaid expenditures were $3.5 Billion in 2004. You really want to compare that to 5,000 gun-related injuries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Have you reported these results to your local government health management agent? Classic!:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Then they should pass a no gun law because there are more than 5,000 gun related injuries every year in NYC. All of these injuries had to be treated medically and ran up the costs of per capita healthcare. This number does NOT include the 1500+ gun related deaths.Whatever law necessary right? I think they have pretty close to a "No Gun Law" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 This deosn't have that much to do with obesity. They are going to be replaceing these fats with other high calorie fats. This isn't the issue at all. New Yorkers can still have all the greasy food they want. Trans fat was a stupid idea to begin with because it tastes terrible. Prices may go up, but the food will be a little healthier and taste better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 New York's estimated obesity-attributable Medicaid expenditures were $3.5 Billion in 2004. And I'm sure all $3.5 billion can be attributed to trans fats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 New York's estimated obesity-attributable Medicaid expenditures were $3.5 Billion in 2004. You really want to compare that to 5,000 gun-related injuries? Why not mandate that people jog more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLockesGhost Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Why not mandate that people jog more? Why not a state-mandated exercise program a la "1984"? I wish liberty was as intoxicating as tyranny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 What would be the two health issues that have the greatest impact on "Obesity-related" expenditures? It's a rhetorical question but just for sake of argument I'll list them anyway: 1. Heart-disease 2. Diabetes Of all the known fats, which fat per ounce poses the greatest risk for coronary heart disease? 1. Trans fat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLockesGhost Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 I guess you have all the evidence you need. Regulate your heart out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 New York is second only to Massachusetts in government per capita healthcare spending with an average of near $7K per person.Seems to me that New York has the right to pass whatever laws it deems necessary to help reign in those costs. If you don't like the new ban then don't eat in the restaurants. If you still want to eat in restaurants then don't live in or visit the state. I've got a better idea... why dont the states of Massachusetts and New York get out of the health care business and leave it to the private companies that actually know what the hell they're doing. You are right in one thing though... this ban WILL keep me from visiting the City of New York unless it's really necessary and will limit the time that I spend there on those rare occassions that I do visit. When I do visit, I'll be much more apt to look at eating outside the city instead of frequenting restaurants inside the city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 How could anybody be against something that might help some of these fat asses out there lose weight. I for one am tired of seeing fat guts sticking out of the bottom of halter tops and "wife beaters". Ghost, how about because it isn't the place of the city, county, state, or federal government to tell me what I can and cannot eat. If I were to choose to eat nothing other than the largest, greasiest burger and fries I can, three meals a day, seven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year, for twenty-five years why the hell should the government care? "It increases the state's medical costs" you say? How about this.... get the states out of the medical industry. That's a PRIVATE SECTOR BUSINESS, not something the government should have its greasy (lol) hands in to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Ban the FDA. Utterly worthless agency sucking away billions of tax dollars to become one more piece of the Nanny state Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofAlvinWalton Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Ghost, how about because it isn't the place of the city, county, state, or federal government to tell me what I can and cannot eat. If I were to choose to eat nothing other than the largest, greasiest burger and fries I can, three meals a day, seven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year, for twenty-five years why the hell should the government care? obviously you missed the . But if I was serious, I would probably say: Whatever fat ass. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurent Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 I don't understand why so many appear to be upset with this decision. Businesses will continue to be able to sell all the greasy food they want to with the lone exception being that they do not to use hydrogenated oils in the preparation of those foods. Crisco out of business, sucks for them but at the same time they've made billions while significantly contributing to one of the biggest epidemics of the 21st century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pennywise Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Some of us like poison and others like making their own decisions. ~lighting cigarette~ DAMN STRAIGHT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pennywise Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Ghost, how about because it isn't the place of the city, county, state, or federal government to tell me what I can and cannot eat. If I were to choose to eat nothing other than the largest, greasiest burger and fries I can, three meals a day, seven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year, for twenty-five years why the hell should the government care? Because this is more pandering to the insurance industries in an indirect fashion. Less heart disease, fewer payouts. Next thing you know on an application it will quiz you about fatty foods alongside smoking and drinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.