• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Welcome to the Nanny State

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
54,130
7,637
126
See update below OP!

Now that healthcare is coming closer to being taxpayer supported, we will find more and more of this happening.

When will people realize that socialism is anathema to individual freedom, expecially whe the US taxpayer is involved?

Already we have a thread on how the obese with be treated under the new healthcare laws...

Welcome to the Nanny State
By Sandra Fabry

- FOXNews.com

One of our government’s more recent and lesser known social engineering tools is a grant program under the trillion dollar spending and debt package passed by Congress and the president under the guise of “economic stimulus” in 2009.

While nationally, all eyes are on the government takeover of the health care industry, a proposal to ban the use of salt in restaurant cooking has New York’s chefs and restaurateurs up in arms.

Banning a food staple like salt, one of the oldest and most ubiquitous seasonings, may sound like an absurd idea, it is not an isolated idea pushed by a health-obsessed state legislator. Lawmakers and health activists have long been looking for ways to influence consumer choices and to curb our intake of foods, drinks and other substances they deem harmful -- be it through regulatory regimes or through the tax code. For the longest time, the target these health activists loved to hate the most (and, quite frankly the low-hanging fruit) was tobacco, but more recently they have also pushed other “life-style tax hikes” or regulations and have zoomed in on trans-fats, sodium, snack foods and soda.

They have found an ally in the White House in President Obama, who is going much further than joining his wife in advocating healthy food choices from the White House garden. The president’s idea of taxing soda and sugar-sweetened beverages as part of the health care overhaul quickly fizzled, however this hasn’t stopped the advancement of the nanny staters’ agenda.

One of government’s more recent and lesser known social engineering tools is a grant program under the trillion dollar spending and debt package passed by Congress and the president under the guise of “economic stimulus” in 2009.

So far, two rounds of related grants have been announced - a first round of $120 million went to states and territories in early February, and a second round of $372 million has just been awarded to 44 local communities last week. So what are you getting out of it?

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) administer a program called “Communities Putting Prevention To Work" (CPPW). The program gives out “stimulus” grants to states and local communities which have outlined how they plan to engage in a handful of “evidence-based” prevention strategies dubbed MAPPS, short for “Media, Access, Point of purchase/promotion, Price, and Social support and services.” In all honesty, however, “MAPPS” might as well mean “Make the American People Pay for our Schemes.”

While descriptions for some of the latest projects funded under the program sound almost laughable -- what exactly do you think they mean when they talk about “increasing point-of-decision health prompts at stairwells and elevators in public venues”? -- it becomes abundantly clear that this is a concerted effort to advance government control over our consumption decisions when reviewing the CDC’s guideline document for grantees.

Strategies listed range from outright product bans, over zoning, to media and advertising restrictions for “unhealthy” foods and drinks and tobacco products. And when Delaware receives more than $1 million to “educate leaders and decision-makers about the benefits of increasing the price on other tobacco products,” Oregon receives $3 million to “support a policy proposal to increase tobacco price,” your “stimulus” dollars are likely going towards hiring lobbyists to promote tax increases (which by the way would seem to violate one of CDC’s own lobbying restrictions).

The code words for pushing for tax increases in the grantee guidelines are “evidence-based pricing strategies to discourage tobacco use” and “changing relative prices of healthy vs. unhealthy items.” Of course that only becomes clear after reviewing the references used in CDC’s supporting documentation, but then again, why would they want to advertise that they’re planning to spend our money to raise our taxes to expand control over our personal lives?

What is the “stimulus” package really stimulating? We know it’s not job creation, because after all, weren’t we promised that the unemployment rate would not go above 8 percent if the bill passed?

I’ll leave the answer up to you. In the meantime, let me welcome you to the Nanny States of America.

Sandra Fabry is executive director of the Center for Fiscal Accountability, an affiliate of Americans for Tax Reform.

--------------------------------------------------------

Update:

My GAWD that was FAST!!!

It has already begun, folks...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/23/health.reform.consumer.impact/index.html?iref=allsearch

Health care reform also touches tanning beds, restaurant menus
By Madison Park, CNN

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
*Health care law requires restaurants with 20 or more locations to post calories
*Also included is a 10 percent tax for use of tanning beds
*Flexible spending accounts will have limits and no longer allow over-the-counter purchases

(CNN) -- The health care bill signed into law Tuesday by President Obama is the nation's most sweeping social legislation in four decades. But it also includes some smaller changes that will directly affect consumers.

These include taxes on indoor tanning services, requirements for restaurants to post calorie information and changes to flexible spending accounts.

Restaurants

There are 540 calories in a Big Mac and 670 calories in a Whopper. Nutritional information will be unavoidable when customers step up to the counter to order.

The health care law requires chain restaurants that have more than 20 locations to display calorie information next to the food item on the standard menu.

The Food and Drug Administration has the task of establishing more specific regulations and determining when these changes go into effect.

The health care law requires "succinct statement concerning suggested daily caloric intake" that are "posted prominently on the menu and designed to enable the public to understand, in the context of a total daily diet, the significance of the caloric information that is provided on the menu."

Dr. Kelly Brownell, a Yale University psychology professor at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, conducted research that found that consumers choose lower-calorie food when their menus contained caloric information and a statement that said "an average person consumes 2,000 calories a day."

"A lot of people don't know what it means to have 600 calories," he said. "They have no context and the legislation requires that anchor statement."

Nutrition facts would also be required to be posted on vending machine products and drive-thru menus. Temporary specials appearing on the menu for less than 60 days, condiments and test market foods are exempt.

"Consumers have the right to this info whether or not it makes a difference on the diet," Brownell said. "But I believe the data will ultimately show that it does."

CNNMoney: Student loans also included in health bill

The National Restaurant Association called the passage of the provision "a win for consumers and restaurateurs." The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit health advocacy group, praised its passage, calling it a "one of dozens of things we will need to do to reduce rates of obesity and diet-related disease in this country."

In recent years, New York City and California have passed laws requiring nutritional information on menus.

Earlier this month, Panera Bread announced it voluntarily will post calorie information in all its locations by the end of 2010.

Tanning tax

Tanning enthusiasts will have to shell out more to achieve the golden shade. The health care law imposes a 10 percent tax on the service.

John Overstreet, the executive director of The Indoor Tanning Association, decried the new tax calling it, "a crummy, crummy way to make tax policy."

Lawmakers had considered taxing elective cosmetic procedures, but changed the language to tax indoor tanning services instead.

"We've been hit by the recession already," Overstreet said. "A 10 percent tax will be a body blow to the industry."

But UV-emitting tanning devices have been classified as "carcinogenic to humans" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organization.

Flexible spending account

The flexible spending account allows consumers to use pretax dollars for health care expenses.

Under the current rule, employers set the limit on how much their employees can set aside for FSAs. But by 2013, the law limits the accounts to $2,500.

This cap is not expected to constrain most people, because the average amount in FSAs is $1,400, said Bob Natt, the CEO of PayFlex, a company that manages employee benefit programs.

FSAs can be used to pay for doctor's bills, prescription medicine and over-the-counter items such as pain relievers, antihistamines, acne drugs and wart removers. But under the new law, these over-the-counter drugs would no longer be eligible FSA expenses after this year.

This is not expected to be a big issue for consumers as only a small percentage of FSA amounts are used to purchase over-the-counter medication, Natt said. About 70 to 80 percent of FSA payments are spent on deductibles, co-payments and prescription drugs, he said.

Since FSAs are pretax dollars, the government could be trying to raise revenue by discouraging more money from going into these accounts.

"You decide to put less dollars [into the FSA] because you can't have certain benefits like buying over-the-counters, then the federal government gets more money," Natt said
 
Last edited:

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I get leg cramps BAD if I don't eat prodigious amounts of salt. Fuck em.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
, a proposal to ban the use of salt in restaurant cooking has New York’s chefs and restaurateurs up in arms.
And there are "proposals" to build landing strips for UFOs or change the value of pi to 3.

This nuttyblog fails to offer a shred of evidence that banning salt is supported by the White House, CDC or by grants from the stimulus program.

Now Obama is going to take all of your guns and fishing poles, but you'll get to keep your salt.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Honestly, now that the control healthcare I can guarantee you all kinds of federal laws are going to be made in the name of "reducing our healthcare cost/burden". This logic has already been used over and over. It's no longer a slippery slope, we already slipped are are falling fast.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Honestly, now that the control healthcare I can guarantee you all kinds of federal laws are going to be made in the name of "reducing our healthcare cost/burden". This logic has already been used over and over. It's no longer a slippery slope, we already slipped are are falling fast.
Probably, but are you mouth-foaming enough to seriously think the feds are going to ban salt? I doubt even the birthers buy into that one.

Edit: It's the constant crying of "wolf" like in the OP that makes valid criticisms of the administration get lost in the crazy.
 
Last edited:

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
54,130
7,637
126
Probably, but are you mouth-foaming enough to seriously think the feds are going to ban salt? I doubt even the birthers buy into that one.
Ban salt? No. The proposal was never on a salt ban, but on an "added salt" ban in resturants.

Place limits, taxes on foods considered unhealthy? Quite probably. It's already happened (soda taxes). Bans on other foods? It's already happened. (Trans fats).

If you don't think federal healthcare will come with reduced freedom, you haven't paid much attention to how every victimless crime law is passed based on the "cost to society" argument.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,063
495
126
Of course, when the state is taking care of you, they will tell you what to do. Wait until they start clamping down on sexual activities. STDs account for about 160 billion in healthcare costs yearly. Senseamp has to be fapping at the possibilities of the govt cracking down on the people.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
What they need to do is mandate excerise. My dad is 72, smoked till 40, eats bacon and eggs everyday for breakfast at jimmysegg with lots of salt and fats before going golfing then on his 7 miles run. Worst problem he had was a broken tooth grinding while bench pressing last year and blew out patella tendon playing volleyball at about 65.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,554
2
76
in before someone tries to discredit this article by attacking the source instead of any of the actual points in the article.
 

GuitarDaddy

Lifer
Nov 9, 2004
11,465
1
0
What they need to do is mandate excerise. My dad is 72, smoked till 40, eats bacon and eggs everyday for breakfast at jimmysegg with lots of salt and fats before going golfing then on his 7 miles run. Worst problem he had was a broken tooth grinding while bench pressing last year and blew out patella tendon playing volleyball at about 65.
:thumbsup: That is the key, never stop being active

My old man turns 85 this year, has smoked his whole life but is still very active and plays golf 3-4 times a week when weather permits, works on his 1 acre lawn constantly and just refuses to rest, EVER. At a recent checkup his doc told him no reason he can't make 90 and beyond, his older brother will be 91 this year
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
in before someone tries to discredit this article by attacking the source instead of any of the actual points in the article.
What points in this opinion piece? It argues that the feds will ban adding (extra) salt because some loony state rep wants to, and because they approve of education on proper diet and getting school kids to stop drinking soda.

It's the same kind of leap that led to the "Obama's taking ALL yer fishin' poles!!" because the feds might crack down on unsustainable commercial fishing.

Fear!!! Wolf!!!!

Will the feds poke their noses into our lives? No doubt. Will they try to add sin taxes to things like high fructose corn syrup? Possibly. Are they planning to ban added salt in restaurants? Sure, right after they send jackbooted thugs to your house for your own stash of salt.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
:thumbsup: That is the key, never stop being active

My old man turns 85 this year, has smoked his whole life but is still very active and plays golf 3-4 times a week when weather permits, works on his 1 acre lawn constantly and just refuses to rest, EVER. At a recent checkup his doc told him no reason he can't make 90 and beyond, his older brother will be 91 this year
Mine stopped HW golden gloves boxing at 70..has no yard to speak of though but nothing wears you out like martial arts do. My point is it's not what the body takes in sodas, fats, and salts but what it puts out from my observation.

Dems want to try the easy fixes which arnt really fixes at all but mask over our #1 issue, inactivity.
 

SunSamurai

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2005
3,914
0
0
My point is it's not what the body takes in sodas, fats, and salts but what it puts out from my observation.
Pardon the pun, but that's a bunch of crap. It obviously has to do with both equally and genes ontop of it. Doesn't matter how healthy someone is, if they eat like crap they can always get healthier by eating healthier.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
54,130
7,637
126
Pardon the pun, but that's a bunch of crap. It obviously has to do with both equally and genes ontop of it. Doesn't matter how healthy someone is, if they eat like crap they can always get healthier by eating healthier.
What is healthy for one, may not be healthy for another.

There is NO one size fits all diet and some foods considered universally "bad" are NOT bad for everyone unless eaten in excess.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
A foxnews fear and paranoid rant.. shocking! The GOP is a one trick pony. Fear.

We are losing freedoms.. freedom to be denied care, freedom to be canceled of coverage, freedom from pre-existing conditions, etc.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
54,130
7,637
126
A foxnews fear and paranoid rant.. shocking! The GOP is a one trick pony. Fear.

We are losing freedoms.. freedom to be denied care, freedom to be canceled of coverage, freedom from pre-existing conditions, etc.
And yet, the first questions after the bill is passed is what to do about obese people and other "unhealthy" things and activities and their "cost to soceity."

We already have taxes on food and drinks deemed "unhealthy" because of the "cost to society." We already have social engeneering going on by force of law.

And yet, you can't even see the slope we're slipping down...

BTW... it's not just Republicans who oppose this. But I guess if it makes you feel better to lump all who oppose it into one group... go ahead. But I'm no Republican.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
Place limits, taxes on foods considered unhealthy? Quite probably. It's already happened (soda taxes). Bans on other foods? It's already happened. (Trans fats).
It's not even the freedom issue that bugs me. What bugs me is that it's regressive taxation. People struggling to get by spend a much higher percentage of their money on food, so this is really a tax hike on the people who can't afford it.
edit: remember that "bad" food is cheaper. Healthy food is unbelievably expensive.


"cost to society" argument.
Cocaine crazed negroes ;)
 
Last edited:

Turin39789

Lifer
Nov 21, 2000
12,219
5
81
“increasing point-of-decision health prompts at stairwells and elevators in public venues”?

So they are putting up signs that say "Why not take the stairs" where poeple will see them and this is new and evil?
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Pardon the pun, but that's a bunch of crap. It obviously has to do with both equally and genes ontop of it. Doesn't matter how healthy someone is, if they eat like crap they can always get healthier by eating healthier.
Oh bullshit. I don;t give a fuck what you eat, you get HR @ 160 for 60 min a day you'll be all good.

You're talking to someone 320 at one time still eat what I want and somehow managed to drop 80 lbs.

Let me give a clue. Moving lard around track. First walking fast like the fat house wife's with water bottles I see every day wondering WTF they aint losing - then two months later walk/run intervals - then finally able to run for all 60 min. Wasn't easy, actually murder moving that mass, but worth it.

Edit: sorry for my tone but I have 3 million excuses logged, I'm an expert @ excuses, could list them all, been there done that while belly blossomed, and none of them wash compared to pain and effort.
 
Last edited:

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
2
0
I'm also with most other supporters of the slippery slope argument. Same reason I'm against almost any gun control. It's not that individual measures wouldn't be good on their own IMO (ie: Gun licensing, in the sense that you have to have a certain amount of training before being allowed to own a certain class of firearm, although IMO exactly what firearm you own should never be recorded) but that these measures will lead to further measures that preach to the lowest common denominator. Once we hit that level, the government; or at least the majority; has all the power, which defies the purpose of the US Constitution.

If we socialize too much, we cease to be the US. But most people couldn't care less about our national identity for the moment, and those rational people that do are almost never heard about. Saying "I'm an American" or displaying the flag has almost become synonymous with "Cowboy" or "Redneck". Or at the very least "old fashioned". Only soldiers and immigrants who just said the pledge of allegiance gain universal acceptance in that regard. It's a sad state of affairs, and it'll take a hell of a jolt to bring us out if it goes on for much longer.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY