- Apr 14, 2001
- 55,826
- 13,875
- 146
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
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: