• 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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,345
14,566
136
It's remarkable how Righties represent "Socialism" as "Tyranny". It's apparently an affectation acquired from too much Rush on the radio and other similar sources of agitprop.

Our Scandinavian cousins practice Socialism that's *not* Tyranny, as do our Western European allies to various degrees. Apparently, Righties seem to think that we're inferior, incapable of doing the same here in the US.

We do, however, seem to practice socialism for the rich. We have far and away the lowest taxes on huge incomes in the first world. We provide safe haven for their money in the form of US govt securities, so they don't have to risk it in the marketplace. We provide a huge military to protect their offshore investments and other govt agencies to aid penetration into foreign markets. We provide a safe environment for them and their children- they don't have to live in walled compounds, travel in armored limos, live in fear of their children being kidnapped and held for ransom. There's even more to it, I'm sure.

Yet they sponsor organizations whose message is contempt of government and democracy in general, particularly any govt efforts to provide the rest of the population with good and honest govt...

Nanny State? It's already here, it's just that only the very few at the very top are its beneficiaries...
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
54,093
7,485
126
Yeah those Big Macs have all the vitamins and minerals a health body needs..NOT. You're an idiot.
A bigmac is two food groups. Meat and grains.

Now, limit your food groups and eat any of them to excess you'll be in trouble.

But a big mac is NOTHING but two food groups. Period. It's neither good nor bad. It's just food.

First we demonized fats. Then we demonized carbs. Then HFCS. All the while, people kept getting fatter. Fad diet have come and gone, and people are fatter. Isolation diets have come and gone, and people are fatter.

What people have failed to realize all along it's a matter of moderation NOT isolation.

What people lack is moderation and self control. Period. Our environments used to FORCE moderation on us. Now we have complete access to whatever foods we what whenever we want them and have very little need for physical activity.

No food is "bad." Only excess is bad.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
54,093
7,485
126
It's remarkable how Righties represent "Socialism" as "Tyranny". It's apparently an affectation acquired from too much Rush on the radio and other similar sources of agitprop.

Our Scandinavian cousins practice Socialism that's *not* Tyranny, as do our Western European allies to various degrees. Apparently, Righties seem to think that we're inferior, incapable of doing the same here in the US.

We do, however, seem to practice socialism for the rich. We have far and away the lowest taxes on huge incomes in the first world. We provide safe haven for their money in the form of US govt securities, so they don't have to risk it in the marketplace. We provide a huge military to protect their offshore investments and other govt agencies to aid penetration into foreign markets. We provide a safe environment for them and their children- they don't have to live in walled compounds, travel in armored limos, live in fear of their children being kidnapped and held for ransom. There's even more to it, I'm sure.

Yet they sponsor organizations whose message is contempt of government and democracy in general, particularly any govt efforts to provide the rest of the population with good and honest govt...

Nanny State? It's already here, it's just that only the very few at the very top are its beneficiaries...
It's so easy to preach class envy to the lazy minded while taking away their freedoms and rights, isn't it?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,345
14,566
136
It's so easy to preach class envy to the lazy minded while taking away their freedoms and rights, isn't it?
As if you have the vaguest idea what that means. You merely repeat what you've been fed in a mindless, presumptive and accusatory manner. No real thought involved- label and dismiss, a la the true leader of the Rightwing, Rushbo himself...
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,429
20
81
See update below OP!

Now that healthcare is coming closer to being taxpayer supported, we will find more and more of this happening.
To hear you tell it, the people in the evil socialist states of Europe are all suffering horribly. I hear they're even marching in the streets, protesting about how awful their health care systems are and demanding that their governments change to the American free market health care system.

When will people realize that socialism is anathema to individual freedom, expecially whe the US taxpayer is involved?
When will people realize that it is possible to have a government that incorporates elements of both socialism and capitalism as appropriate and that some things are better off being socialized and some better off being left to the free market? This isn't an either-or proposition. The U.S. has had a mixed economy for decades.

Do you realize that under real, laissez-faire capitalism, you wouldn't have much real freedom either? You would have de jure freedom on paper, but not much de facto freedom. Do you really want your employer telling you what religion to have? Do you really want to live in a United States with a population of 1 billion impoverished people (brought in to help the rich get even richer)?

What makes you think that real capitalist health care would be better than what we have now? Why do you think that health insurance companies wouldn't add various clauses to long and complex insurance contracts that allow them to weasel out of their having to cover you when you get sick?

Health insurance companies already have death panels today that rescind people's coverage on the day of their cancer surgeries. Why do you think similar things wouldn't happen under real laissez-faire? Because John Galt went on the radio and said so?
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
54,093
7,485
126
As if you have the vaguest idea what that means. You merely repeat what you've been fed in a mindless, presumptive and accusatory manner. No real thought involved- label and dismiss, a la the true leader of the Rightwing, Rushbo himself...
How nice of you to project your own shortcomings onto me.

1. I'm not Republican.

2. I never listen to Limbaugh.

3. I disagree with the rightwing on as many issues as I do with the leftwing.

So try again. Pigeonholing me is a HUGE failure and shows us that the ONLY wingnut here is you.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,429
20
81
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.
Has this happened in Europe and other nations that have socialized medicine yet, or is this all just unfounded fear-mongering?

Funny thing is, the best way to reduce the percentage of GDP spent on health care is to adopt real socialized medicine. The facts and figures demonstrate that it is overwhelmingly more efficient and superior to what we have now.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,429
20
81
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.
What good is it to "be the U.S." if "being the U.S." no longer serves the rational self interest of the American people? What if "being the U.S." means having one of the world's most inefficient and expensive health care systems? What if "being the U.S." means retaining outdated and self-sacrificial economic policies (such as allowing mass immigration, foreign outsourcing, and foreign work visas such as the H-1B and L-1)?

If you go back in time 155 years ago, "being the U.S." meant having legalized slavery in the South. Do you really want to defend that?

At one time "being the U.S." also meant racial segregation and lack of women's suffrage. Do you really want to defend that?

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.
Maybe people will feel differently about it if the nation evolves to become a first-rate, first world country. It's hard to feel pride in being an American right now.

What should we feel proud about? We have an outdated, inefficient health care system IN SPITE of the mountains of evidence that real socialized medicine is superior and more efficient to our current system. We have awful wealth inequalities with a small percentage of the populace owning most of the wealth. Ladders of upward economic mobility have disappeared, and we are currently on pace to become an overpopulated, impoverished third world country because of our refusal to acknowledge and deal with the reality of an economic force few free market dogmatists understand called Global Labor Arbitrage.

Our society is collapsing and it is filled with brainwashed, free market dogmatist morons who have no clue as to why. So what is there to be proud about?
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,429
20
81
What we have with the latest health-care reform is an increase in socialization granted by the complete and blatant political trampling of the right. Naturally a individualistic centrist like myself is more than a little concerned.
Why are you so afraid of real socialized medicine? Have you ever looked at the facts? Let's do a side-by-side comparison:

United States:

•17% of GDP and growing spent on health care
•Tens of millions uninsured or under-insured
•Insured people living in terror of losing their jobs and health insurance
•Hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies each year, many of whom had insurance
•Businesses burdened by insurance concerns and costs.
•Wealthy insurance executives (and a thriving yacht industry)

Nations with Real Socialized Medicine:

•Much smaller percentage of GDP spend on health care
•100% coverage
•Zero medical bankruptcies
•Often more doctors per capita
•A more content populace
•Businesses not burdened by insurance concerns
•Fewer wealthy insurance executives (oh noes! Whatever will happen to the yacht industry?)

Further reading/viewing:

Here is an article in Forbes that cites an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development report that claims that the other nations spend a smaller percentage of their GDP on health care and even often have more doctors per capita:

Health Care: Costs And Reform - Forbes.com


Here is an excellent video about how health care works in other nations:

FRONTLINE: sick around the world | PBS

 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,345
14,566
136
How nice of you to project your own shortcomings onto me.
Heh. How utterly lame, as if this isn't projection, assumption and innuendo rolled into one-

It's so easy to preach class envy to the lazy minded while taking away their freedoms and rights, isn't it?
What freedoms do you speak of that are being lost? What Rights?

It's easy to rave on in non-specific terms, pander to fear and emotion. Get specific, if you can...
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
A bigmac is two food groups. Meat and grains.

Now, limit your food groups and eat any of them to excess you'll be in trouble.

But a big mac is NOTHING but two food groups. Period. It's neither good nor bad. It's just food.

First we demonized fats. Then we demonized carbs. Then HFCS. All the while, people kept getting fatter. Fad diet have come and gone, and people are fatter. Isolation diets have come and gone, and people are fatter.

What people have failed to realize all along it's a matter of moderation NOT isolation.

What people lack is moderation and self control. Period. Our environments used to FORCE moderation on us. Now we have complete access to whatever foods we what whenever we want them and have very little need for physical activity.

No food is "bad." Only excess is bad.
Yep and eating Big Macs everyday is excessive like eating sugary cereal every day is excessive. Eating them occasionally in proper serving sizes is fine just like eating Ice Cream or cake occasionally is fine but you don't make it a staple of your diet. Of course those that don't exercise and live sedentary lifestyles should rarely eat that stuff
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Yep and eating Big Macs everyday is excessive like eating sugary cereal every day is excessive. Eating them occasionally in proper serving sizes is fine just like eating Ice Cream or cake occasionally is fine but you don't make it a staple of your diet. Of course those that don't exercise and live sedentary lifestyles should rarely eat that stuff
OK, so how does putting calorie and other info change any of that? Putting that info on doesn't change the common sense you just posted. So exactly how will forcing this on businesses help again?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
OK, so how does putting calorie and other info change any of that? Putting that info on doesn't change the common sense you just posted. So exactly how will forcing this on businesses help again?
Informing customers of the the nutritional value of what they eat. They can still make the choice.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
What "consumer" doesn't know that a big mac is terrible for them? :rolleyes:
Like Amused stated a Big Mac isn't terrible for them if consumed in moderation, but lets take a look at another food item that's popular in restaurants..Salads. A lot of people think a salad is a low calories food item but it depends on what kind of salad you get. If it's a Dinner Caesar Salad it's loaded with calories, as much as some regular entrees where as a Dinner Garden Salad with low calorie dressing isn't.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Like Amused stated a Big Mac isn't terrible for them but lets take a look at another food item that's popular in restaurants..Salads. A lot of people think a salad is a low calories food item but it depends on what kind of salad you get. If it's a Dinner Caesar Salad it's loaded with calories, as much as some regular entrees where as a Diner Garden Salad with low calorie dressing isn't.
And so it's the job of the eatery to put some numbers on their menu by force of gov't because some people don't know better, but if people aren't smart enough to know better - how are a bunch of numbers going to help?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,345
14,566
136
More of the usual disingenuousness from CSG. You'd probably be surprised to find out just what's in much of what you eat, CSG... common sense not necessarily applying at all. Foods innocuously marketed as "light" "healthy" and "low calorie" aren't necessarily any of those things...
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
And so it's the job of the eatery to put some numbers on their menu by force of gov't because some people don't know better, but if people aren't smart enough to know better - how are a bunch of numbers going to help?
WAT???:\:\:\ Yogi Berra steal your account?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
More of the usual disingenuousness from CSG. You'd probably be surprised to find out just what's in much of what you eat, CSG... common sense not necessarily applying at all. Foods innocuously marketed as "light" "healthy" and "low calorie" aren't necessarily any of those things...
lol, listen up clueless one - I do know what's in much of what I eat. You see, I'm an automation Engineer who does work in the food and grain industry. Let's just say I've seen plenty - more than you'd ever want to know.

However as to the nutrient values and such - don't be stupid. I don't fall for the marketing BS. I don't exactly eat healthy but I'm not a lard ass eating cheetos all day either. I know that it's not exactly what you eat, but the portion size and frequency of what you eat. Numbers on a menu aren't going to do a thing except force eateries to maintain more BS because the gov't said so.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Numbers on a menu aren't going to do a thing except force eateries to maintain more BS because the gov't said so.
On the contrary, nutritional values will help someone make a wise or informed choice. The Casear Salad scenario for instance. Somebody watching their calorie intake who sees the numbers for that might choose another salad or a side of it instead of a Dinner portion. Hell even I who work out like a fiend and watch what I eat might make a different choice if the numbers are their for me to see instead of just having to guess.

It's also more than just calories. A lot of people need to keep an eye on their sodium or sugar intake. Having that information available to them is extremely important and helpful.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,528
3,634
126
lol, listen up clueless one - I do know what's in much of what I eat. You see, I'm an automation Engineer who does work in the food and grain industry. Let's just say I've seen plenty - more than you'd ever want to know.

However as to the nutrient values and such - don't be stupid. I don't fall for the marketing BS. I don't exactly eat healthy but I'm not a lard ass eating cheetos all day either. I know that it's not exactly what you eat, but the portion size and frequency of what you eat. Numbers on a menu aren't going to do a thing except force eateries to maintain more BS because the gov't said so.
:rolleyes:
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
On the contrary, nutritional values will help someone make a wise or informed choice. The Casear Salad scenario for instance. Somebody watching their calorie intake who sees the numbers for that might choose another salad or a side of it instead of a Dinner portion. Hell even I who work out like a fiend and watch what I eat might make a different choice if the numbers are their for me to see instead of just having to guess.

It's also more than just calories. A lot of people need to keep an eye on their sodium or sugar intake. Having that information available to them is extremely important and helpful.
Only to those who are hyper vigilant about such things which is a very small portion of Americans. Those types usually don't order things that they don't know approximate values of. So again, how exactly is this information going to help? Sure it's information but if people don't know what it means to them how exactly is it valuable enough for the gov't to FORCE every eatery to make up some numbers?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Only to those who are hyper vigilant about such things which is a very small portion of Americans. Those types usually don't order things that they don't know approximate values of. So again, how exactly is this information going to help? Sure it's information but if people don't know what it means to them how exactly is it valuable enough for the gov't to FORCE every eatery to make up some numbers?
Make up some numbers?

Anyway you can use the same logic regarding cars and the est fuel mileage,horsepower, etc. The difference is the info about food can be useful to ones health.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
1
81
Hmm I'm wondering how "Official" the calorie count needs to be. I can make a simple calorie meter using water, a lighter, a bathroom scale, and a thermometer. Will that suffice?
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
Hmm I'm wondering how "Official" the calorie count needs to be. I can make a simple calorie meter using water, a lighter, a bathroom scale, and a thermometer. Will that suffice?
I always wondered about this too. How are they measuring calories? The procedure makes a huge difference.

Example: Wood releases lots of energy when it's burned but it has absolutely no nutritional value because humans cannot digest wood.
Starch and cellulose are almost the same thing except the molecules are chained together in a different shape. The starch can be digested to release a lot of energy. Cellulose cannot be digested and has no nutritional value. Both release a lot of energy when burned in a calorimeter.


While we're waving penises around and fondling the person to our left, I should put it out there that I eat nothing but garbage food yet I'm losing weight. My body mass index is 21 ;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY