For every action, an equal and opposite overreaction

[Charles Kozierok]

Meet Mississippi's so-called "anti-Bloomberg bill". Drafted as a reaction to Bloomberg's nanny-statism, it bars municipalities from enacting any limits on portion sizes.

But it doesn't stop there. It also bans laws requiring posting of calorie counts on menus. What is the justification for that? If you think adults should make their own decisions about what they consume, as I do, isn't information to make smart decisions kind of important?

Apparently it even restricts towns' ability to zone where restaurants may be built. And it's prompting its own reaction, in the form of local governments pissed off at what they see as the state usurping its authority.

What prompted the legislation? Bloomberg's move was used as an "opportunity" by business interests to lobby for this law -- restaurant associations, chicken producers' boards and so forth. A nice illustration of what I have always believed is the dual threat to America posed by both big government *and* big business.

And all of this, embarrassingly, in the fasttest state in a fat country.

Shameful.

 

[K1052]

While I don't think portion limitation is a legal or effective way to combat obesity I would say that calorie counts/nutritional info is pretty useful. It's already required for packaged food.

Mississippi ranks at the bottom or near the bottom of most meaningful metrics so this kind of self-destructive spiteful stupidity is to be expected.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Bloomberg is a nanny-state idiot, but this bill's sponsors manage to top him.

And yes, "nanny state" is appropriate for someone telling me I can't get a 2-liter bottle of soda with a pizza, to drink over the next week. Or a coffee from Starbucks that's "too large."

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Oh, you could always get a two-liter bottle of soda at the grocery store.

Just not a 32 ounce cup of soda at 7-11.

Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

I've heard people defend the soda ban on the basis that "nobody needs" more than 16 ounces, and you can "just buy two" if you really want, and it has "no impact" on anyone who doesn't want to pig out on soda. Those people have apparently never priced soda at a movie theater. If I were a theater owner, I'd be thrilled with that ban.

ETA: I love that a milkshake made with at least 50% milk or cream was exempt, no matter what its size or how much sugar it contained. Ever compare the calories in a 32-ounce soda to those in a 32-ounce milkshake? Oy.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh, you could always get a two-liter bottle of soda at the grocery store.

Just not a 32 ounce cup of soda at 7-11.

Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

I've heard people defend the soda ban on the basis that "nobody needs" more than 16 ounces, and you can "just buy two" if you really want, and it has "no impact" on anyone who doesn't want to pig out on soda. Those people have apparently never priced soda at a movie theater. If I were a theater owner, I'd be thrilled with that ban.

ETA: I love that a milkshake made with at least 50% milk or cream was exempt, no matter what its size or how much sugar it contained. Ever compare the calories in a 32-ounce soda to those in a 32-ounce milkshake? Oy.

The "you didn't ban everything unhealthy" argument is a bad one. In order to regulate one unhealthy thing you do not need to regulate all unhealthy things. Incrementalism is an extremely valuable tool. As for the no 7-11 thing it actually makes perfect sense. The city lacks the resources to inspect every corner bodega for soda violations, but can fold this into larger restaurant inspections.

I find it highly likely that this policy will reduce per capita soda intake. How much is unknown. If you don't think it is worth it that's fine, but the arguments that it is irrational are not good ones.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of the soda ban, but let me throw this idea out there: Health care costs are the single biggest driver (indeed, really the only long-term one) of debt growth in this country. Meanwhile, obese patients have 50% higher medical costs than healthy-weight patients, currently accounting for almost 20% of all health care spending.

So, if you're fat, you're hurting my wallet. The options here are threefold: 1) Pull the government out of healthcare altogether. 2) Figure we're all going to be obese in 50 years, so why fight it? 3) Do something to change the way the country addresses food and exercise.

1) I think would be a disaster, but that's a much bigger argument to have and outside the scope of this thread. 2) is defeatist, expensive, and depressing. So that leaves 3). I don't think a soda ban will really help things, as it doesn't really change the underlying problem, which is a lack of motivation to stay in shape.

If you really want to fight obesity, you have to create a negative consequence to being fat, which for the most part doesn't exist. If the cost of your diabetes is shared by everyone, then the only downside to it is the minor inconvenience of having insulin injections and blood tests. If however, there were an "obesity tax", commensurate with the costs to the system of being bigger, then people would do a lot more to control their eating and exercising. Japan essentially has this system, and it has worked well for them. Another option would be to allow insurance companies to use your body fat % as a factor in determining the cost of your health care.

While they both strike me as somewhat authoritarian (and thus I'm still a little uncomfortable with the idea), they're no more so than the soda ban, and would be far more effective at substantially changing behavior.

 

[fskimospy]

I think the most concise way to argue this is that if you want the government to pay for your health you must accept some control by the government over your health or your pocketbook.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I think the most concise way to argue this is that if you want the government to pay for your health you must accept some control by the government over your health or your pocketbook.

Which, of course, is the exact sort of slippery slope effect that people opposed to government-run healthcare always raise as an objection, only to have it derided as unreasonable.

And since pretty much everything we do has a potential impact on health, this means the government is given control over pretty much everything.

More later.

 

[Mursilis]

I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of the soda ban, but let me throw this idea out there: Health care costs are the single biggest driver (indeed, really the only long-term one) of debt growth in this country. Meanwhile, obese patients have 50% higher medical costs than healthy-weight patients, currently accounting for almost 20% of all health care spending.

So, if you're fat, you're hurting my wallet. The options here are threefold: 1) Pull the government out of healthcare altogether. 2) Figure we're all going to be obese in 50 years, so why fight it? 3) Do something to change the way the country addresses food and exercise.

1) I think would be a disaster, but that's a much bigger argument to have and outside the scope of this thread. 2) is defeatist, expensive, and depressing. So that leaves 3). I don't think a soda ban will really help things, as it doesn't really change the underlying problem, which is a lack of motivation to stay in shape.

If you really want to fight obesity, you have to create a negative consequence to being fat, which for the most part doesn't exist. If the cost of your diabetes is shared by everyone, then the only downside to it is the minor inconvenience of having insulin injections and blood tests. If however, there were an "obesity tax", commensurate with the costs to the system of being bigger, then people would do a lot more to control their eating and exercising. Japan essentially has this system, and it has worked well for them. Another option would be to allow insurance companies to use your body fat % as a factor in determining the cost of your health care.

While they both strike me as somewhat authoritarian (and thus I'm still a little uncomfortable with the idea), they're no more so than the soda ban, and would be far more effective at substantially changing behavior.

The bolded part is why I like option 1). As long as people are choosing to cost me more money by making unhealthy life choices, I want to end the system which gives them that ability. I support a person's right to be a land whale, but I shouldn't have to pay for it. Of course, we'll never get the gov't out of healthcare, so the tax idea is the second best approach. I wouldn't mind soda and similar "bad" foods being taxed at extremely high rates, like we do with cigarettes. A 32oz soda costing $5 would be a strong deterrent.

 

[Mursilis]

I think the most concise way to argue this is that if you want the government to pay for your health you must accept some control by the government over your health or your pocketbook.

And if I don't want the gov't to pay for my health care, what's my option?

 

[fskimospy]

And if I don't want the gov't to pay for my health care, what's my option?

Elect people who will end it. That's the whole point of democracy.

 

[fskimospy]

Which, of course, is the exact sort of slippery slope effect that people opposed to government-run healthcare always raise as an objection, only to have it derided as unreasonable.

And since pretty much everything we do has a potential impact on health, this means the government is given control over pretty much everything.

More later.

Repeating the slippery slope fallacy doesn't make it any less ridiculous, you know.

Having the government pay a single dollar for your health does not make them able to run your whole life. There are reasonable and proportional regulations that should certainly be implemented however.

As before mentioned, if you just want the government to pay for your health care and ask nothing back that isn't freedom, it is freeloading. If you don't want the government to have any ability to regulate your health choices, remove it from health care. I think that is a terrible idea, but at least it is intellectually coherent.

 

[Pantoot]

Meet Mississippi's so-called "anti-Bloomberg bill". It also bans laws requiring posting of calorie counts on menus. What is the justification for that? If you think adults should make their own decisions about what they consume, as I do, isn't information to make smart decisions kind of important?

In my mind the justification for this is the word "requiring".

I agree, it is important to know the calorie counts, but requiring it on a menu doesn't make sense. If you want to know you should ask, and they should provide the information. If it is important to you to know and they cannot provide the info, then you vote with your wallet and eat elsewhere. Requiring it on a menu puts a burden on the restaurant that some believe to be unreasonable.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Repeating the slippery slope fallacy doesn't make it any less ridiculous, you know.

Having the government pay a single dollar for your health does not make them able to run your whole life. There are reasonable and proportional regulations that should certainly be implemented however.

As before mentioned, if you just want the government to pay for your health care and ask nothing back that isn't freedom, it is freeloading. If you don't want the government to have any ability to regulate your health choices, remove it from health care. I think that is a terrible idea, but at least it is intellectually coherent.

That argument can be extended to virtually anything. You've given the best argument against it as I neither want nor need being led by fools.

 

[fskimospy]

That argument can be extended to virtually anything. You've given the best argument against it as I neither want nor need being led by fools.

Well as soon as you can convince enough of your countrymen to agree with you, your wish will come true!

Good luck with that.

The argument is ideology neutral. If you accept government largesse, you accept government conditions. Government happens to be vastly superior to private health care and so it is worth those concessions to me. If you are okay with inferior health care your mileage may vary.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

In my mind the justification for this is the word "requiring".

I agree, it is important to know the calorie counts, but requiring it on a menu doesn't make sense. If you want to know you should ask, and they should provide the information. If it is important to you to know and they cannot provide the info, then you vote with your wallet and eat elsewhere. Requiring it on a menu puts a burden on the restaurant that some believe to be unreasonable.

It's important to get this info in front of the faces of people who don't care enough to ask but will still be influenced by having the information presented anyway. People make poor dieting decisions out of ignorance and convenience as much as outright gluttony. Probably more so.

 

[Mursilis]

It's important to get this info in front of the faces of people who don't care enough to ask but will still be influenced by having the information presented anyway. People make poor dieting decisions out of ignorance and convenience as much as outright gluttony. Probably more so.

I could've sworn I read that for most people, knowing the calories of an item doesn't deter them from ordering far more calories than they should, according to studies. Or am I remembering that wrong?

 

[Screech]

^ I imagine you are right, because honestly, it doesn't take a genius to know what is generally healthy and what is generally unhealthy. Sandwich and an apple for lunch? probably ok. 36oz regular soda and 2 double cheeseburgers? probably not so healthy. Don't need the calorie count shown to come to that conclusion......

That aside, banning calorie counts is lolretarded.

 

[fskimospy]

I could've sworn I read that for most people, knowing the calories of an item doesn't deter them from ordering far more calories than they should, according to studies. Or am I remembering that wrong?

Research is mixed. Some have found no effect, some have found a significant lowering, some have found it actually went up.

Anecdotally I know it affects my choices, but I wasn't fat to begin with so I'm not the target audience.

 

[crashtestdummy]

The bolded part is why I like option 1). As long as people are choosing to cost me more money by making unhealthy life choices, I want to end the system which gives them that ability. I support a person's right to be a land whale, but I shouldn't have to pay for it. Of course, we'll never get the gov't out of healthcare, so the tax idea is the second best approach. I wouldn't mind soda and similar "bad" foods being taxed at extremely high rates, like we do with cigarettes. A 32oz soda costing $5 would be a strong deterrent.

The reason I don't like taxing unhealthy food is that those foods have a different effect on different people. Some people can eat fast food and are still skinny, while others get heavy even when they eat low-fat and low-sugar foods. By taxing the end product (body fat content) rather than a process (and assuming the same process for everyone), you're going to get better results and fewer unintended consequences.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Repeating the slippery slope fallacy doesn't make it any less ridiculous, you know.

There is no "slippery slope fallacy". It may not always be the case, but examples of it abound throughout history, and we're sliding down this particular slope right now -- and gaining speed.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

^ I imagine you are right, because honestly, it doesn't take a genius to know what is generally healthy and what is generally unhealthy. Sandwich and an apple for lunch? probably ok. 36oz regular soda and 2 double cheeseburgers? probably not so healthy. Don't need the calorie count shown to come to that conclusion......

That aside, banning calorie counts is lolretarded.

The calorie count of a lot of restaurant food is wildly different than what one might assume, even with more healthy appearing options.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well as soon as you can convince enough of your countrymen to agree with you, your wish will come true!

Good luck with that.

The argument is ideology neutral. If you accept government largesse, you accept government conditions. Government happens to be vastly superior to private health care and so it is worth those concessions to me. If you are okay with inferior health care your mileage may vary.

Actually you have no basis for the comparison as there isn't government health care in this nation save for VA hospitals. . That is your opinion on what might be.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The "you didn't ban everything unhealthy" argument is a bad one. In order to regulate one unhealthy thing you do not need to regulate all unhealthy things.

True, but at the same time, laws have to be reasonably consistent, fair, and rational. This one is not -- it's entirely arbitrary, targeting a single substance and ignoring others that are at least as responsible, if not moreso, for obesity.

So, if you're fat, you're hurting my wallet.

And this, as I said before, is the problem with socialized medicine. We pass a law making it so that everyone has to pay collectively for everyone's healthcare, and then, lickety-split, we end up where we are here: since everyone's paying for everyone's healthcare, everyone's health is everyone's business.

And there really are no limits to this, because nearly everything affects health in one way or another.

If we can ban sodas over 16 ounces as being bad for you, we can ban sodas over 8 ounces as well. (Why 16 ounces? They pulled that number out of their asses.)

If the government can ban sodas, they can ban donuts, and french fries, and any of a thousand other things.

If banning foodstuffs to "improve health" is acceptable, then so are other coercions. Why not force everyone to exercise? Make people eat more fiber? And so on.

This is not a "slippery slope argument". This is an equivalence argument. There is no logical difference between a soda ban and any of those other things, all of which can be justified using the same "I'm paying for your healthcare" sort of reasoning.

1) I think would be a disaster, but that's a much bigger argument to have and outside the scope of this thread. 2) is defeatist, expensive, and depressing. So that leaves 3). I don't think a soda ban will really help things, as it doesn't really change the underlying problem, which is a lack of motivation to stay in shape.

If you really want to fight obesity, you have to create a negative consequence to being fat, which for the most part doesn't exist.

That's because of the fourth option that you didn't list: treat health insurance like insurance.

If you smoke, or you weigh 500 pounds, or you have diabetes, or you engage frequently in dangerous activities, you pay more for life insurance. But not for health insurance.

Which means it isn't really insurance at all. It's just a collective welfare program.

If however, there were an "obesity tax", commensurate with the costs to the system of being bigger, then people would do a lot more to control their eating and exercising. Japan essentially has this system, and it has worked well for them. Another option would be to allow insurance companies to use your body fat % as a factor in determining the cost of your health care.

Okay, now we're on the same page. I have no problem with that, to be honest. Because it makes sense, and it leaves people free to make their own decisions and live with the consequences.

And it would, as you suggest, also be more effective than arbitrary and moronic bans like this one.

Anecdotally I know it affects my choices, but I wasn't fat to begin with so I'm not the target audience.

Anedcotally, I know it influences my choices strongly. I am not fat, but I've fought with the same 20 or 30 pounds for 20 or 30 years. I know better how to estimate the calorie counts of foods than probably 99% of people -- because I've calorie-counted for years -- and even I was absolutely shocked at some of the numbers I saw.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There is no "slippery slope fallacy". It may not always be the case, but examples of it abound throughout history, and we're sliding down this particular slope right now -- and gaining speed.

The Constitutional basis for health care control was established by the approval of a punishment tax and the circuitous logic which makes anyone who uses a medical service at all an unwilling participant by virtue that they've ever had treatment. This is the payoff, a further inconsequential surrender to those who will decide for you. No one should be surprised.