Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

LA Times: San Francisco bans Happy Meals


#98QBKiller

Recommended Posts

Well maybe I want my kid to have his hamburger fries soda and toy without having some fart sniffing (South Park reference) retarded city council tell me that I can't.

Well, then buy him a hamburger, fries, soda and then go to Walmart or ToysRUs and stimulate the economy.

Jeez... who'd have thought that Conservatives are so entitled that they thought that one of their inalienable rights is toys. When I was a kid we got a box and a stick and we were damn happy about it. You get food! That's a bonus! Now, the world is ending because you can't have your little toy from China with its combo lead and toxic paint job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who'd have thought that Liberals are so devoid of intellect that they thought removing a plastic toy from a Happy Meal would solve the evils of child obesity lol...

Well, that just faux-ragious! I'm so faux-outraged right now, I can barely speak. My tofu and brussel sprouts are going to have a word with you.

I think your position is out of kilter, Califan... it's almost out of Kilmer (to speak in ES paralance) No one has or would ever suggest that banning toys would prevent on its own childhood or adult obesity. In fact, no one in SF is even trying to ban the substances that cause human obesity... (is it possible to ban the human brain? We seem to try. The brain is the cause of human obesity after all)...

Could this prevent an arm tug? Could it help infinitessimally? Could it create a ripple in the pond that leads to the greater ocean of health and fitness that would make kids capable of running for five minutes before collapsing in exhaustion or stop seven year old boys from developing man-breasts!

Is that what you are an advocate of!!! Is that really what this world needs more of??? Man breasts!!!!

I say NO.

Say no to Bill Parcells! And say NO to toys in Happy Meals!

And God bless America!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, i am sure this isn't the only thing the city council did with their session. I'd be willing to bet they also tried to address more pressing needs. But, childhood obesity is one of those pressing needs.

Considering all of the statistics proving the burden obesity puts on society,, all of the additional costs we all absorb due to the problems cause by obesity, I'd say the long run is just what this is meant to help.

It's weird.. so many people in here sit and complain all the time about how they don't want their hard earned money paying for someone else's laziness / stupidity / incompetence, etc.

And yet given the fact that we know the costs of obesity related health problems is passed DIRECTLY to us in the form of higher insurance premiums, all of that goes out the window.

This is most definitely a case of other people's bad decisions directly costing you your hard earned money , and unlike taxes, offers absolutely no benefit to you personally other than to make your wallet lighter and easier to carry around. And the company who has been forced to change has actively marketed to people who think nothing of allowing you to pay for their child's future health problems.

Seems a pretty steep price to pay for that fat kid's bag of fries. We seem more than willing to remove actual needs from people because we don't want our taxes paying for it, but we don't mind paying higher premiums because irresponsible people make bad coices for their kids.

??

~Bang

This is a city-wide law with a loophole. It's not a sweeping, federal legislation that's going to change the way kids eat. And even if the law were adopted nationwide, it means little in the grand scheme of trying to prevent obesity. This is a "Look at us doing something about childhood obesity (but not really), so we can add it to the list of things we've 'accomplished' come next election" move.

If lawmakers really want to buckle down and do something about obesity, they'll start in schools where physical education and athletic programs are falling victim to budget cuts. Sedentary lifestyles of video games, internet and tv are doing more to make kids fat than banning a 200 calorie order of fries and toy from being served together in a Happy Meal. There also has to be some kind of balance between personal responsibility and the law protecting you from yourself.

Make P.E. required in school, including a curriculum on nutrition. Teach kids about the importance of balance in diet and exercise. Show them that being healthy doesn't mean that you can only eat carrots and celery sticks. Let them learn for themselves how good the body and mind feels after exercising. Have lawmakers go into schools and look at what they are serving kids for lunch. Make funding for healthy foods that still taste good. Teach the kids how to read nutritional information and provide that information in the cafeteria underneath each lunch choice. Let the kids see that there are good-tasting recipes that are still good for you. Show them that there are tons of fun physical activities. Teach them to reward themselves from time to time with a nice fatty meal and some "me time" doing leisure activities, but don't make it the norm.

It goes back to the old "give me a fish/teach me to fish" saying. There's a big difference between planting the seeds for a healthy future generation and making a half-assed law that won't let kids get toys with their fries. If you're going to do it, do it right.

??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that just faux-ragious! I'm so faux-outraged right now, I can barely speak. My tofu and brussel sprouts are going to have a word with you.

I think your position is out of kilter, Califan... it's almost out of Kilmer (to speak in ES paralance) No one has or would ever suggest that banning toys would prevent on its own childhood or adult obesity. In fact, no one in SF is even trying to ban the substances that cause human obesity... (is it possible to ban the human brain? We seem to try. The brain is the cause of human obesity after all)...

Could this prevent an arm tug? Could it help infinitessimally? Could it create a ripple in the pond that leads to the greater ocean of health and fitness that would make kids capable of running for five minutes before collapsing in exhaustion or stop seven year old boys from developing man-breasts!

Is that what you are an advocate of!!! Is that really what this world needs more of??? Man breasts!!!!

I say NO.

Say no to Bill Parcells! And say NO to toys in Happy Meals!

And God bless America!

I know, but I was trying to be as simplistic/facetious in my response about Librulls as your were being (I assumed) in your post about Conservatives lol...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>

You seem very focused on talking about a singular instance of an encounter with this new ordinance. Take a step back and ask yourself: If this new law pushes 2% of 1000 kids to choose apples instead of fries so they can get a toy, is it worth it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well maybe I want my kid to have his hamburger fries soda and toy without having some fart sniffing (South Park reference) retarded city council tell me that I can't.

Fine, then when your kid develops a heart murmur, make sure you pay for it yourself so my insurance rates don't go up.

I'll be damned if I want to pay for your stupid choices.

Sound familar?

All I hear is ****ing about wanting the cake and also eating it,, after it's been topped with bacon and cheese sauce.

Besides, who ever taught you that you always get what you want?

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem very focused on talking about a singular instance of an encounter with this new ordinance. Take a step back and ask yourself: If this new law pushes 2% of 1000 kids to choose apples instead of fries so they can get a toy, is it worth it?

Nope, it's not. Because I don't want the "2%" argument to be used as some sort of fall-back excuse for any and all government actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It goes back to the old "give me a fish/teach me to fish" saying. There's a big difference between planting the seeds for a healthy future generation and making a half-assed law that won't let kids get toys with their fries. If you're going to do it, do it right.

??

No sense in starting somewhere, I guess.

If enough people were teaching their kids to fish, so to speak, then this wouldn't be a problem.

But as it is, you're actively supporting their right to choose to cost you money.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rousseau would be proud.

Nothing like politicians telling you what you can and cannot put in your body.

Happy Meals are bad for your kid, of course; but isn't it the responsibility of the parent to say "hey, I'm not gonna let my kid eat this three times a day."

I know my folks did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is to say what is healthy and what is not? Who is to say that toys are bad? Who is to say what qualifies as a toy? Is a beanie baby a toy? Why? Prove it? What if happy meal came with pedometers? What if there was a sticker of Hello Kitty on the Pedometer, would it be a toy then? What if they wanted to give away American flags in happy meals, would that be against the law?

Why should we not have the choice to decide weather we think it is worth getting a happy meal as it is? You can ask to remove the toy yourself. You can pull the toy out of the box yourself.

This is just another example of people that think they are smarter than everyone else, thinking they are doing good by eliminating choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they should also let them have the standard happy meal if kid does 5 minutes of jumping jacks while waiting in line. Perhaps they could have a nurse to check blood pressure and cholesterol. It's not hard to see where this is heading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is to say what is healthy and what is not? Who is to say that toys are bad? Who is to say what qualifies as a toy? Is a beanie baby a toy? Why? Prove it? What if happy meal came with pedometers? What if there was a sticker of Hello Kitty on the Pedometer, would it be a toy then? What if they wanted to give away American flags in happy meals, would that be against the law?

Why should we not have the choice to decide weather we think it is worth getting a happy meal as it is? You can ask to remove the toy yourself. You can pull the toy out of the box yourself.

This is just another example of people that think they are smarter than everyone else, thinking they are doing good by eliminating choice.

Fair enough. Then I'm all for everyone not falling within the BMI to uninsurable. Stupidity and poor decisions are definitely a pre-existing condition.

Damn if i want to pay for that.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough. Then I'm all for everyone not falling within the BMI to uninsurable. Stupidity and poor decisions are definitely a pre-existing condition.

Damn if i want to pay for that.

~Bang

Slippery slope...Do you drink? Do you smoke? Do you do drugs? Do you drive over the speed limit? Do you engage in any high risk behavior? Do you play sports? Do you eat sweets? Do you go to bars? Night Clubs? Strip clubs? Do you live in a low income neighborhood with high violence? If you answer yes to any of these then you should be uninsurable. :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine, then when your kid develops a heart murmur, make sure you pay for it yourself so my insurance rates don't go up.

I'll be damned if I want to pay for your stupid choices.

Sound familar?

All I hear is ****ing about wanting the cake and also eating it,, after it's been topped with bacon and cheese sauce.

Besides, who ever taught you that you always get what you want?

~Bang

Well considering my son is in excellent shape, a four sport athelete and an honors student, I don't mind him enjoying McDonalds in moderation. If he has any medical problems, MY health insurance covers it, I don't depend on other people to take care of my own.

I don't get what I want, I get what I have earned. So kindly keep your lofty opinions of what I should and shouldn't do to yourself. If you want to feed your kids apples and carrots all day, cool, do you. But if I want to let my kid enjoy McDonalds then I have every right to do so as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slippery slope...Do you drink? Do you smoke? Do you do drugs? Do you drive over the speed limit? Do you engage in any high risk behavior? Do you play sports? Do you eat sweets? Do you go to bars? Night Clubs? Strip clubs? Do you live in a low income neighborhood with high violence? If you answer yes to any of these then you should be uninsurable. :doh:

I don't get the change of heart here.

In reading thru, the ones ****ing the most about this are the ones who always complain that they don't want their money going out to pay for other people's poor decisions in the form of taxes, etc..

And yet the obesity levels of this country and the health problems it causes does exactly that in the form of higher premiums, higher drug costs, and higher medical bills.

Exactly that. Not even any middleman. Costs go up due to more people being sick, everyone's premiums go up across the board. Everyone.

Some people are uninsurable because they smoke. Some people pay much higher rates because they drink. People who snort cocaine don't get insurance. It's not that slippery, and it's been that way for years. When it became known the problems cigarettes caused, health insurance companies acted. they either stopped insuring smokers, or charged them higher for it. In fact, the slope has been pretty well defined by the insurance industry for a long time. And even though Billy Beergut pays higher premiums, when his liver fails and he needs emergency surgery and costs the insurance company more, they pass that cost directly to you and every other policy holder. The drinker doesn't have to pay for it alone.

Same goes for Johnny Chainsmoker and his oxygen tanks. You pay for it. I pay for it. Everyone here pays for it. And smoking themselves into emphysema is definitely a choice, in fact a choice that smokers defend vigorously (between hacking spells).

But obese people put just as much if not more strain on the system with the overwhelming number of health issues it causes. And people aren't getting the message. Kids are fatter than ever, parents are as inclined as ever to shove greasy trash in their kids' mouth and call it dinner.

And you definitely pay for it. Directly. No doubt about it.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slippery slope...Do you drink? Do you smoke? Do you do drugs? Do you drive over the speed limit? Do you engage in any high risk behavior? Do you play sports? Do you eat sweets? Do you go to bars? Night Clubs? Strip clubs? Do you live in a low income neighborhood with high violence? If you answer yes to any of these then you should be uninsurable. :doh:

This is why universal health care is crap. Not only is it not as efficient, and have a whole mess of problems on it's own, but it gives people a legitimate right to have a say in things that they should have no say in. Health Care will be the justification will take away more freedoms than any war has ever done.

When you have a system where you pull your own weight, people don't care what you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slippery slope...Do you drink? Do you smoke? Do you do drugs? Do you drive over the speed limit? Do you engage in any high risk behavior? Do you play sports? Do you eat sweets? Do you go to bars? Night Clubs? Strip clubs? Do you live in a low income neighborhood with high violence? If you answer yes to any of these then you should be uninsurable. :doh:

we don't allow kids to do most of that stuff either

alcohol+tobacco pretty much pay for themselves through sin taxes

you are making a pretty good argument for regulating fast food to children and adding a sin tax to it as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a public health professional with a pretty good understanding of the nation's obesity issue, particularly as it relates to children...and as someone who as spoken out about stricter standards needing to be placed on soda, "blackout in a can," and junk food...I think this law is preposterous. Banning Happy meals in no way addresses the core issues that must be addressed in order to fight the childhood obesity epidemic in this country. The whole thing is just stupid. Just like the idiots who passed this law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you are making a pretty good argument for regulating fast food to children and adding a sin tax to it as well

Cali can go ahead...they obviously need the money anyway.

Care to guess why they don't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...