RVNight.. I Got a Question

[MHSL82]

I'm not trying to be funny, I'm just saying that now I understand why the King Size candy bar ban struck a nerve in you.

I just want to post a couple of links and a quote for you, I see you really have no idea what you're talking about. I notice that your going off of what you heard, obviously from some people that are very clueless themselves.

Steven Hill: What Obama Can Learn from European Healthcare

France and Italy, which have universal health care coverage for all their residents, even recent immigrants, were ranked first and second in the WHO listing. Most other European nations, who also have universal coverage for all, also were ranked near the top.

Is Europe's Health Care Better? - BusinessWeek

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org

Japanese Pay Less for More Health Care : NPR

I'm trying not to cross any boundaries with what I say, but fuck it. I feel real sorry for any younger people you're passing this bad information around to. It's really not fair to them. I truly hope you encourage the people around you to research information for themselves vs repeating what someone thought they heard.

Red - Conservative Leaning Thoughts
Blue - Liberal Leaning Thoughts

I have both in me and I think most of us do. It might prove to be confusing, but these issues are both.

The NPR link to the Japanese healthcare didn't show anything about how much is being spent through increased taxes - as the government can only cover those too poor by using tax money. I'm not saying it isn't worth it, but I'd like to see more about that. They also refer to companies covering healthcare but don't comment on the money spent there into the cost of healthcare and whether that is a cost that should be charged to the employer. I suppose that was offered before their healthcare act as incentives to work at their companies, but it's still a cost that someone has to pay. I wonder if wages are low to account for it or if the companies are losing money to cover it. I guess you couldn't run a business if all your employees were sick or had to leave to companies that do offer insurance. That's a private not government issue. One thing I must say, if you are in an emergency, health care workers are obligated to care for you regardless of insurance, it'd just boil down to the money and afterwards they wouldn't be able to collect. It would therefore cost the system one way or another. So it isn't like being against universal healthcare is saying people should die in the streets if not insured, but it would make it much harder for the uninsured for both emergencies and non-emergencies. Obviously, it isn't as simple as that, but it'd be a straw argument to argue that it's death panels or that it's turning away the ambulance when shown not to be insured.

The article did say that the hospitals were financially in bad shape due to low cost, the only way to fix that would be to take more from taxes or to charge higher premiums, which is what the article is gloating about and what the naysayers are worried about. I don't hardly worry about healthcare becoming too cheap, but if doctors aren't paid enough to be worthwhile, some doctors won't go to school for 13-15 years to become doctors, not because they don't care, but can't afford to. Anyone who does it just for the money should have an asterisk next to their title. But this is not just greedy doctors, but anyone who can't make a living won't be able to put in that long of time being a student. Perhaps the schools and financial lendors can help with high tuition if the end result is not enough. The doctors here are being paid enough now, but in the future, this article shows that they may not be. There will always be doctors and they will most likely remain in the top percentile but I don't like the idea of making it harder to make the decision to do good.

Whenever you tie the government into things, there will be inefficiency, bureaucratic levels not medically trained or individually attuned to certain patients, and there will be cost-cutting measures that aren't always better for the patient. I'm not saying there will be death panels, but my dad, who is far from a republican, has told me about HMOs influencing bad medical decisions to emphasize lower cost to the institution that doesn't necessarily lower healthcare costs (pocketting the money). It ends up being riskier for the patient, more painful in certain cases, etc. I think it can be done and if approached in the right way, there can be safer, cost-effective methods that do not compromise health for efficiency. But I think you must be very careful to do it the right way. Too much emphasis on one matter or the other will always screw over the system.

 

[bigninerfan56]

wow, Bro, I just got to say I believe you to be mislead as well. Drinking age 18??? are you kidding me??? I think it is bad enough at 21 with the way people raise their kids these days it should be more like 25. Most people under that age are very immature and should not be trusted. Parents need to do what they did when I was a kid and get the paddle and give their kids a nice quick swat.

Most of the world has a drinking age of 18 or younger.

 

[bigninerfan56]

I agree that parents need to be like (real) parents used to be. However, a thing King Size candy bars is taking the availability away from kids when they enter the store. Kids (ages 8-12)with limited money aren't more likely to buy two candy bars as they are to pay a few more cents for a King Size. Taking that choice away is what kids need.

Did you guys know that in Europe (where there are no obesity problems) at fast food restaurants the biggest sodas ANYONE can order are equivilent to our smalls?

http://portionteller.com/pdf/jphpJune07.pdf

It takes a village to raise a child, in this case it takes a country to raise several. Kids don't make good choices always, the parents can't always be there to choose for them. I agree 100% with taking away some of the bad choices. She's doing a great job to fight an epidemic.

The government has no right to take this right away from the child, the parents do. The problem with the 2nd bolded is that you're putting a band aid on the bigger issue. The issue is for parents to actually parent so that the child will make good choices for themselves even though they aren't there.

 

[imac_21]

Actually drinking should be 18. Gambling is 18. Driving is 16. But a lot if these should/are up to the states themselves. Most states don't allow gambling. This is how the government was suppossed to be. The states would make the choice of ages and gambling rights, and if you didn't like it, you could move to another state, or gote people in to change it. A lot easier to get things done at the state and local levels than federal.

That doesn't answer my question. Should the government be setting those ages? If you feel your child is ready to drive at the age of 13, why should the government be able to tell you differently?

If you're 20, why should the government be able to tell you it's illegal for you to drink?

My understanding is that the drinking age is federal, as is the driving age.

But whether it's state or federal, why is it the government's business what age your kids start driving at?

 

[MHSL82]

That doesn't answer my question. Should the government be setting those ages? If you feel your child is ready to drive at the age of 13, why should the government be able to tell you differently?

If you're 20, why should the government be able to tell you it's illegal for you to drink?

My understanding is that the drinking age is federal, as is the driving age.

But whether it's state or federal, why is it the government's business what age your kids start driving at?

Drinking age is state law but in order to get federal money for highways and stuff, they must not allow people under the age of 21 drink legally.

 

[deep9er]

I dont have an opinion on the candy bars.

My problem with america is this: parents have forgotten how to be parents. If parents would learn to say no to kids and quit treating them like babies (well on up into their teens), then it wouldnt matter how many damn king size candy bars there are. I watch as my friends around me start families and I see how instead of correcting their kids they count to three..which never works. And forget actually prepping healthy meals..no way, why do that when you can order out for pizza nonstop? Kids know they can get away with anything and they also know that if they kick and scream enough they'll get what they want..whether it be a king size candy bar or anything else for that matter. So my opinion is to demand more from parents..I have some very extreme ideas on how to FORCE parents to be parents but most would have an issue with it Im sure.

Anyway, got our first snow here in Va today and Im going to play in it now that its midnight Peace out folks.

ok, this is more in line with the way i'm thinking. the candy bar is only symbolic and fine for a first step, but the real problem extends far beyond candy bars.

the only way to fix this on a larger scale is for parents to take action on all bad foods. they need to do it early and for as long as they can.

is it just me or are parents more lenient nowadays, cause verbal doesn't work by itself. but then again, parents also get accused of abuse?

 

[bigninerfan56]

That doesn't answer my question. Should the government be setting those ages? If you feel your child is ready to drive at the age of 13, why should the government be able to tell you differently?

If you're 20, why should the government be able to tell you it's illegal for you to drink?

My understanding is that the drinking age is federal, as is the driving age.

But whether it's state or federal, why is it the government's business what age your kids start driving at?

I think you left your common sense at home. Comparing a candy bar to drinking, driving, and gambling?

 

[MHSL82]

The government has no right to take this right away from the child, the parents do. The problem with the 2nd bolded is that you're putting a band aid on the bigger issue. The issue is for parents to actually parent so that the child will make good choices for themselves even though they aren't there.

I don't support the government taking rights away, but what is a right is debateable. If you label it a "right", then of course, the government's ability to intervene should be limited or none. I don't want the government to interfere with certain things that I don't even consider rights. So I can be with you on this one.

There's a dilemma here. I don't trust parents to do it correctly and I think it is getting worse. I don't want the government taking over parenting either. So the people in charge are faced with the choice that obesity'll get worse or the government's interference will get worse. My point? You say it's the parent's responsibility but when you know the parent's won't be responsible, it isn't that simple as you watch things get worse. Specifically, I agree that individual rights to raise their children the way they see proper outweighs the problems with obesity, when it comes to candy bars, but don't agree with the general statement that since it's the parent's responsibility the government should stay out of parenting altogether.

My argument may sound convuluted, but with all truth, it was a ridiculous example of government intrusion. I agree that the potential of a federal regulation would be an intrusion and it shouldn't be made, but I wouldn't be up in arms about it either. Candy bars? Private CEO's PR decision to alter their production? That's not a 'governmental' thing for me to complain about. That's more of a social, liberalism that sometimes gets annoying as both liberals and coservatives tend to get into people's private decisions.

 

[EKmane]

The government has no right to take this right away from the child, the parents do. The problem with the 2nd bolded is that you're putting a band aid on the bigger issue. The issue is for parents to actually parent so that the child will make good choices for themselves even though they aren't there.

You can't focus on the parents, many of them are already messed up. There is saying that goes something like "it's easier to teach a child than it is to convert an adult". I probably worded it wrong, the point is there for you though.

They do have a right to alter these company's sales tactics, in the same way they went after cigerette companies marketing towards the younger, as well as going after fast food companies that put toys in happy meals. That's part of leadership, these people are leading our government. They are going to war against an epidemic.

 

[MHSL82]

You can't focus on the parents, many of them are already messed up. There is saying that goes something like "it's easier to teach a child than it is to convert an adult". I probably worded it wrong, the point is there for you though.

They do have a right to alter these company's sales tactics, in the same way they went after cigerette companies marketing towards the younger, as well as going after fast food companies that put toys in happy meals. That's part of leadership, these people are leading our government. They are going to war against an epidemic.

What you just stated is evidence for why rvnight and bigniner are against this. I am not as strong as they are on this issue so I don't include myself in this category. (I will buy two regular sized candy bars or buy the happy meal without the toys and call it a day.) People will call them crazy or paranoid but here is evidence that it does go further than just the current issue. It's done once and then the fact that it was done serves as precedence and justification for being done some more.

Government action is fully capable of being, pardon the looseness of my language, an epidemic of itself. It snowballs. It'll become engrained in our thoughts that government is the solution or that it must do something everytime there's a problem, that it's ok to tell other people what to do (with sticks, not carrots). I think the government has no right to go after (legislatively) private marketing choices like toys in happy meals. Michelle Obama has every right to push for it though and put pressure privately (as a citizen of high profile) on companies.

I think it's a problem that can be combatted by the media and getting people involved. I would not support legislation banning McDonalds and Burger King from including toys in their happy meals. I would not support a higher tax on those meals or a requirement to include healthier foods. I would support education to parents and for public support for making the toys available for a certain price so that parents can give in to their children without giving them unhealthy foods. I would support public efforts to convince McDonalds to make more healthy choices available. They've already independantly (no gov't action) used better (but still bad) oils for their fries.

People focus on conservatives' obsession on homosexuality and religion to state that conservatives are interfering with private actions. I think that telling individuals what they can do is wrong. Liberals do it too either by legislation, guilt-tripping, or other methods for environment, health, etc. There's an argument that the liberal goals are better than the conservative goals of gun-freedom, etc., but the methods are all coercive to an extent.

 

[bigninerfan56]

You can't focus on the parents, many of them are already messed up. There is saying that goes something like "it's easier to teach a child than it is to convert an adult". I probably worded it wrong, the point is there for you though.

They do have a right to alter these company's sales tactics, in the same way they went after cigerette companies marketing towards the younger, as well as going after fast food companies that put toys in happy meals. That's part of leadership, these people are leading our government. They are going to war against an epidemic.

That's not what we are discussing as far as I understand it, as I understood it they were prohibiting the sale of a king size candy. If this is true, they are not just attacking a sale tactic (toys in happy meals), they are limiting a private company and the consumer a product.

 

[MHSL82]

That's not what we are discussing as far as I understand it, as I understood it they were prohibiting the sale of a king size candy. If this is true, they are not just attacking a sale tactic (toys in happy meals), they are limiting a private company and the consumer a product.

Hold on, you're ok with them attacking a sales tactic? Or was that a distinction without a difference?

They haven't prohibitted selling a king sized candy bar, they pressured the CEO into making a PR move to discontinue it. When I say "they" I mean Michelle Obama as a high profile citizen, not the government. Michelle has influence over her husband, but her husband didn't do anything here (rvnight made the point of spousal influence before).

They didn't make McDonalds stop selling toys in their happy meals, they pressured them into including more fruits and fewer fries in their meals. They may have threatened legislative action, but didn't actually attempt it (not sure they'd win; they perhaps could with their interstate commerce powers).

 

[EKmane]

That's not what we are discussing as far as I understand it, as I understood it they were prohibiting the sale of a king size candy. If this is true, they are not just attacking a sale tactic (toys in happy meals), they are limiting a private company and the consumer a product.

Except it is marketing though. You put a regular size for $1, then you have a king size for $1.20. The point in that scenario isn't to sale the regular size, you increase that price to a little less than the king size, to encourage people to the "better deal". Believe it or not, that is marketing, everything is done with a plan.

Now, we're talking about a $ .20 difference, not much to either one of us, right? We'll buy what we want. Who is this "better deal" marketed to?

Think about a group of 9,10 and 11 year olds walking into a store on their way to school. The boy's mothers gave them each $2 for lunch, they see the new candy bar the commercials make look so good and fun to eat. Then they see that the regular size is $1.25 and the king size is $1.59, which one do you think they buy? To go deeper than that, do you think they still buy if only the regular was available, knowing they might not be able to eat lunch after buying that little candy bar?

See how a king size candy bar can effect things? It happens every day.

 

[EKmane]

Hold on, you're ok with them attacking a sales tactic? Or was that a distinction without a difference?
They haven't prohibitted selling a king sized candy bar, they pressured the CEO into making a PR move to discontinue it. When I say "they" I mean Michelle Obama as a high profile citizen, not the government. Michelle has influence over her husband, but her husband didn't do anything here (rvnight made the point of spousal influence before).

They didn't make McDonalds stop selling toys in their happy meals, they pressured them into including more fruits and fewer fries in their meals. They may have threatened legislative action, but didn't actually attempt it (not sure they'd win; they perhaps could with their interstate commerce powers).

I made your question marks to one of the people who's comments you tried to defend because I want you to focus on that. There seems to be lots of confusion overall in this thread. I think people should do a little research before they start crying foul, or just crying because their friends and family members are (about a President). That is where this whole thread started. I was pointing out how ridiculous it was to try and nit pick a man and his family for little to no reason at all.

We are debating about king sized candy bars. This has to be a classic thread.

http://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/node/1583

They didn't follow through with the happy meal toy law, though a posted a link to where it was attacked.

 

[MHSL82]

I made your question marks to one of the people who's comments you tried to defend because I want you to focus on that. There seems to be lots of confusion overall in this thread. I think people should do a little research before they start crying foul, or just crying because their friends and family members are (about a President). That is where this whole thread started. I was pointing out how ridiculous it was to try and nit pick a man and his family for little to no reason at all.

We are debating about king sized candy bars. This has to be a classic thread.

LA Times- Toys with McDonald's Happy Meals will cost a dime in San Francisco | Corporate Accountability International

They didn't follow through with the happy meal toy law, though a posted a link to where it was attacked.

Yes, there is a bit of confusion in this thread. I don't know whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with me with this reply. Or making an independant comment that neither agrees or disagrees with mine.

 

[bigninerfan56]

Except it is marketing though. You put a regular size for $1, then you have a king size for $1.20. The point in that scenario isn't to sale the regular size, you increase that price to a little less than the king size, to encourage people to the "better deal". Believe it or not, that is marketing, everything is done with a plan.

Now, we're talking about a $ .20 difference, not much to either one of us, right? We'll buy what we want. Who is this "better deal" marketed to?

Think about a group of 9,10 and 11 year olds walking into a store on their way to school. The boy's mothers gave them each $2 for lunch, they see the new candy bar the commercials make look so good and fun to eat. Then they see that the regular size is $1.25 and the king size is $1.59, which one do you think they buy? To go deeper than that, do you think they still buy if only the regular was available, knowing they might not be able to eat lunch after buying that little candy bar?
See how a king size candy bar can effect things? It happens every day.

This is such a loaded scenerio. What concern is any of this the government's? I do not see one item in this entire scenerio the government should be involved in.

 

[EKmane]

This is such a loaded scenerio. What concern is any of this the government's? I do not see one item in this entire scenerio the government should be involved in.

You should leave it at that.

 

[EKmane]

Yes, there is a bit of confusion in this thread. I don't know whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with me with this reply. Or making an independant comment that neither agrees or disagrees with mine.

Everything I've said in this thread is independent.

I do see where you, as well as a couple of others that have replied in this thread are coming from. I am 100% disappointed in the way a couple of others brains work. It's so sad.

 

[bigninerfan56]

You should leave it at that.

So you can't tell me one point in YOUR scenerio that the government should control? Thanks for conceding the arguement.

 

[iHATEdodgers]

What is wrong with the government taking away light bulbs? Because that is t there fucking job. That simple man. If you like the government getting involved in shit like that move to china or Venezuela. Government is not here to make your decisions. You have to be a big boy and do it yourself.

They are not "taking away light bulbs". You can still buy any light bulb you want - it's the manufacturers who are now required to produce more efficient light bulbs. You don't even understand the subject you are attempting to discuss.

The following is from: Frequently Asked Questions - New Light Bulb Standards for a More Efficient California

Beginning January 1, 2011 light bulb manufacturers will be required to meet new efficiency standards in California to save consumers money and energy. The standard, passed by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush, becomes effective nationwide January 1, 2012. California has enacted the federal standards one year earlier to avoid the sale of 10.5 million inefficient 100-watt bulbs in 2011 which would cost consumers $35.6 million in unnecessarily higher electricity bills (Source: PG&E Case Study). By reducing energy consumption the standard will reduce air pollution from the burning of fossil fuels in power plants while producing the same quality of light as traditional incandescent bulbs.

Government has always passed regulations such as this. Examples include banning leaded gasoline, requiring certain safety standards in construction etc. It is frankly ignorant to say waht you said above. This isn't big brother telling you that you can only wear red underwear, calm down and educate yourself.