SUPER SIZE ME, is Mcyd's Sueable???

[ROJO145]

Why the fuck would ya want government even further involved?Laws against fast food?Be responsible for what you and yer family eat,dont look for anyone elses help.
Besides,isnt this an illuminati tool?there plan was to get everyone hooked on fries and become fat so they can take over the world!!They got the money to do it!!!
BK gots onion rings and I like them,

 

[Stoner4Life]

Watching the Super Size Me documentary.
Now should corporations be able to poison the public. I mean if somebody is making a profit off me should they knowingly be able to put me harms way??
Or to put it another way should I take a risk when using or consuming a product. Or should a company be able to have me take a risk while they are profiting off me.
Who is responsible, should our governments allow these companies to exist like fast food restaurants, if they are bad for our health.
What say you??

their lawyer will ask you one question and one only:
Did the Hamburglar come drag you off the street and force feed you the menu?


if you eat fast food on a regular basis you're asking for trouble.

 

[ithinkiam]

their lawyer will ask you one question and one only:
Did the Hamburglar come drag you off the street and force feed you the menu?


if you eat fast food on a regular basis you're asking for trouble.

I have to agree with this. But hey, never give up!; never surrender!; amirite?

 

[SmokeyPufmaster]

You want the Gov't to save you from yourself? Don't we have enough of that? Aren't we losing freedom of choice issues every single day? This would be serious overeach if they attempted something like this. Just give the Gov't 50 more years before we lose any more rights. Let us get use to the ones we already lost.

 

[qwerty]

As said before, man up.

 

[B. Friendly]

somethings not right here. lol

 

[B. Friendly]

lucky my generation skipped this junk. lol

 

[funkervogt]

A study by RTI International found that people who are 30 pounds or more overweight cost $147 Billion in medical bills that are weight related in 2008 in America. Since 1994, the number of obese in America has gone up from 23% to 34% of adults.

Unhealthy eating does harm not only to the addict but also to all Americans. Should we sue McDonalds? Maybe not, but perhaps we should reverse the laws on labeling "lite" foods (used to be called "imitation" by law, no longer) and put warning labels on garbage foods like we do cigarettes.

A few years back, obesity eating eclipsed smoking as the number one killer in America. For those who say "live and let live" I say fine, it's their own choice, but make fatty pay so we don't have to.

 

[NiteTiger]

How much of that $148B is paid for by the taxpayer?

Also, how do you propose to 'make fatty pay'?

 

[B. Friendly]

we could add a tax to fast foods, like the way cigarrettes have a whole lot of taxes in the price of a pack.

 

[ithinkiam]

I think taxing high fat/high sugar foods is a great idea. But many would disagree with me. And I understand why, but still...

 

[NiteTiger]

Singling out one particular branch of an industry would be a tough sell. After all, why would you stop at fast food? Sit down restaurants serve food that is just as unhealthy.

As evidenced by my hobby, I have an issue with people mandating what I can and cannot put into my body, or being judged by it. I also have a problem being punished for something I don't do, like eat fast food to excess.

You're talking about punishing an entire industry for the actions of a small part of their customer base.

Should we put a heavy tax on knives because some people use them and get cut? Heavier tax on cars because some people have deadly crashes in them? Or tax water heavily, since some people drown in it?

People are responsible for their own actions, and punishing innocent people is wrong.

 

[GeneticHeirloom]

Another big Killer is sodium. Cut your salt intake in half and you'll decrease your chance of a heart attack / stroke by huge strides. Salt and fatty foods are killers of your body just like smokes. And just like smokes, later in life they will be a burden on our tax payers. Do you want your kids paying for a triple bypass because bob the slob couldn't get help for his eating disorder and made it out to be over 300 lbs.

Less taxes please ,more personal responsibilities... but you know that wont happen.

 

[B. Friendly]

no dought it would be difficult but these companies are reaping insane profits shovelling us foods that are addictive, extremely unhealthy and costing society way to many dollar$.
It is an industry that has ballooned out of control under the regualation radar.

 

[NiteTiger]

Do you want your kids paying for a triple bypass because bob the slob couldn't get help for his eating disorder and made it out to be over 300 lbs.

Less taxes please ,more personal responsibilities... but you know that wont happen.

Better than them paying a lifetime of extra taxes for something they diidn't do. In fact, I'll bet paying for the treatment of the eating disorder will cost less over time than paying the taxes.

Treat the addiction, don't punish the product.

 

[B. Friendly]

taxing is a guaranteed solution to the debt being incurred
treatment programs like with gamblers, addicts, criminals... hardly work unless the people want or seek the help and even then has major relapses.

 

[NiteTiger]

no dought it would be difficult but these companies are reaping insane profits shovelling us foods that are addictive, extremely unhealthy and costing society way to many dollar$.
It is an industry that has ballooned out of control under the regualation radar.

First of all, no one is required to eat at fast food restaurants, so they're not 'shoveling us food', they're merely meeting demand.

Second, how much is fast food actually costing taxpayers? Do you have any figures on the amount of government healthcare dollars spent on diseases caused by fast food?

Which brings us to the next point. How do you make that determination? This heart disease was caused by fast food, this heart disease wasn't? It's not feasible. You can't blame America's obesity issues on the doorstep of fast food.

Let's look at it from a different perspective.

What if your idea did go into effect, what then? Well, as the McDouble now costs $5, your plan seems to have worked as the Fast Food industry tanks. Taking plenty of jobs from a population with few enough options as it is, I might add.

Plus, you're not getting an increase in revenue, as the taxes aren't being paid by people not eating there. Plus, you've now lost a commensurate amount of tax revenue the fast food industry was generating. So, your net effect on tax revenues is to the negative.

But, if you're saving lives, it's worth it right?

Unfortunately, you haven't saved any lives. All that has happened is that those who used to overeat fast food are now overeating slow food An addict is an addict, and an eating disorder isn't going to change just because a certain type of food is no longer available.

In fact, you may even make things worse, because now instead of eating 2 McDoubles, they're eating two quarter pounders with double cheese at home, or laying waste to the Shoney's breakfast bar. And don't forget the fries, a lot more can be easily made at home, instead of the set portion from Mickey D's. Oh and hey, since I had to make my own milkshake, I have a whole lot more milkshake than I used to get!

Not to mention, the burden of these taxes are hitting folks with less disposable income. It is cheaper to eat at Mickey D's than to make a healthy meal. Now that you've removed that, you've just had an economic impact beyond just the tax and employment blows, since people are paying more than they did before just to EAT.

So what has been gained? People are not going to be eating any healthier. You can't legislate appetites, our favorite plant being Exhibit #1. There has been a net loss in tax revenues, magnifying even more the costs that will still have to be paid. Oh, and there are the lost jobs, which translates into an even farther reaching tax backlash.

And we haven't even gotten to the ramifications to our agricultural sector. Do you have any idea how much beef, potatoes, and grain products the fast food industry purchases per year?!

If you go to the next level, taxing all fatty, sweet, and 'bad for you' foods, it gets exponentially worse.

This is the same logic Prohibition has always followed, and it is no more valid in this case than in any of the other failures.

To paraphrase a quote I read:

The worst kind of person you can have trying to help you is the one doing it 'for your own good', because they've already convinced themselves that you're an idiot that needs someone else to think for them, and no amount of logic will change that belief.

I love a good social debate!

 

[iSmokeTrees]

This whole idea that unhealthy eating habits and obese people are costing anyone money is a flat out lie.

A Dutch study two years ago found that it costs MORE MONEY to keep a healthy person alive than it does someone who is obese or smokes. Keeping a healthy person alive another 10+ years and caring for them with assisted living costs more than people dying earlier from being unhealthy.

In a paper published online Monday in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.

article

 

[B. Friendly]

smokers, alcohol, gas industry all pay for their damage. Because it is a business it is completely fair. Smokers still smoke as much when the taxes go up, what it does is makes it cost prohibitive to get into for smokers. And it is done over time. Taxes slowly are added to these products so it is not felt at once.

 

[B. Friendly]

All you dumb shits need to shut the fuck up.

This whole idea that unhealthy eating habits and obese people are costing anyone money is a flat out lie.

A Dutch study two years ago found that it costs MORE MONEY to keep a healthy person alive than it does someone who is obese or smokes. Keeping a healthy person alive another 10+ years and caring for them with assisted living costs more than people dying earlier from being unhealthy.

article

I am sure it is a debatable not definitive study. thanks