Judge Kills Bloomberg Soda Ban

[IDBillzFan]

http://online.wsj.co...cleTabs=article

 

A state judge on Monday stopped Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration frombanning the sale of large sugary drinksat New York City restaurants and other venues, a major defeat for a mayor who has made public-health initiatives a cornerstone of his tenure.

 

The city is "enjoined and permanently restrained from implementing or enforcing the new regulations," New York Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling decided Monday. The regulations are "fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences," the judge wrote. "The simple reading of the rule leads to the earlier acknowledged uneven enforcement even within a particular city block, much less the city as a whole….the loopholes in this rule effectively defeat the state purpose of the rule."

 

Under the first-of-its-kind prohibition approved by the city Board of Health last year, establishments from restaurants to mobile food carts would have been prohibited from selling sugary drinks larger than 16 oz. After a three-month grace period, the city would have started fining violators $200 per sale.

 

The city rules, set to take effect on March 12, didn't include convenience stores, such as 7-Elevens, and supermarkets, both of which are regulated by the state government.

 

In his ruling, Judge Tingling found the Board of Health's mission is to protect New Yorkers by providing regulations that prevent and protect against diseases. Those powers, he argued, don't include the authority to "limit or ban a legal item under the guise of 'controlling chronic disease.' "

 

That's gotta smart.

[....lybob]

I wouldn't ban a particular size of soft drink but what I might do is make places have a set charge per ounce

[Jauronimo]

I wouldn't ban a particular size of soft drink but what I might do is make places have a set charge per ounce

Price cap on soda. Tell us more about these free markets you believe in.

[....lybob]

Price cap on soda. Tell us more about these free markets you believe in.

no price cap but if 36 ounces is a $1.50 then 12 ounces is 50 cents

[IDBillzFan]

no price cap but if 36 ounces is a $1.50 then 12 ounces is 50 cents

 

In what way does that promote portion control?

[Magox]

This is one area where, from my perspective that I do believe additional taxation makes sense. It's not meant as a punitive or additional revenue measure but more of a "curbing of habit" sort of policy prescription. I believe it to be very fiscally sound. One of the main drivers of US debt comes from the health sector. Not only do we have an inefficient medical delivery system, but we have a country of fat asses, which of course requires more health care spending, both on a personal household to federal/state level. Sugar helps cause diabetes and obesity, which of course leads to a number of other ailments. The more expensive you make sugar, the less we will consume of it, which of course will eventually lead to less medical spending.

 

Additional taxation has caused tobacco usage to go down, so it's only natural that you could apply the same principle to another product.

 

A giant federal tobacco tax hike has spurred a historic drop in smoking, especially among teens, poor people and those dependent on government health insurance, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

 

http://usatoday30.us...king/57737774/1

Edited March 11, 2013 by Magox

[Nanker]

http://online.wsj.co...cleTabs=article

 

[/size][/font][/color]

 

That's gotta smart.

"The city is "enjoined and permanently restrained from implementing or enforcing the new regulations," New York Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling decided Monday."

 

I gots me a tingling right up my leg on that ruling.

Screw the fascists.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

[Nanker]

I wouldn't ban a particular size of soft drink but what I might do is make places have a set charge per ounce

How 'bout a nickel or dime bag set price?

[....lybob]

In what way does that promote portion control?

I might be exaggerating a little bit but you've never gone into a place where the small pop 12 ounces is $1.50, the medium 24 ounces is like $1.80 and the large 48 ounces is $2.00

[B-Man]

I wouldn't ban a particular size of soft drink but what I might do is make places have a set charge per ounce

 

and the fact that you would have no legal right to set a per ounce price ..................that wouldn't matter would it ?

 

 

.

[Nanker]

This is one area where, from my perspective that I do believe additional taxation makes sense. It's not meant as a punitive or additional revenue measure but more of a "curbing of habit" sort of policy prescription. I believe it to be very fiscally sound. One of the main drivers of US debt comes from the health sector. Not only do we have an inefficient medical delivery system, but we have a country of fat asses, which of course requires more health care spending, both on a personal household to federal/state level. Sugar helps cause diabetes and obesity, which of course leads to a number of other ailments. The more expensive you make sugar, the less we will consume of it, which of course will eventually lead to less medical spending.

 

Additional taxation has caused tobacco usage to go down, so it's only natural that you could apply the same principle to another product.

 

 

 

http://usatoday30.us...king/57737774/1

Then, the last person to purchase cigarettes in this world should have to pay sixteenseventybillionmillion dollars for that last ciggy-fag so they reimburse the healthcare bastions of the state-run bureaucracy?

Not sure I'm all in on that line of thought.

 

If people want to live large, well... let 'em live. Maybe we just don't pickup their scooter or hover'round when their capillaries slam shut and their toes fall off. Decisions have consequences - just like elections.

[....lybob]

and the fact that you would have no legal right to set a per ounce price ..................that wouldn't matter would it ?

 

 

.

I guess if the law passed then it would be legal - and I'm not setting a particular price per ounce just eliminating the bulk discount.

[Magox]

 

 

If people want to live large, well... let 'em live. Maybe we just don't pickup their scooter or hover'round when their capillaries slam shut and their toes fall off. Decisions have consequences - just like elections.

 

I hear ya, it would be one thing if it only did affect themselves, but it doesn't. Medicare, Medicaid and insurance premiums, are all things that many of us have to pay for, and much of that cost is predicated on the health of others.

[B-Large]

This is one area where, from my perspective that I do believe additional taxation makes sense. It's not meant as a punitive or additional revenue measure but more of a "curbing of habit" sort of policy prescription. I believe it to be very fiscally sound. One of the main drivers of US debt comes from the health sector. Not only do we have an inefficient medical delivery system, but we have a country of fat asses, which of course requires more health care spending, both on a personal household to federal/state level. Sugar helps cause diabetes and obesity, which of course leads to a number of other ailments. The more expensive you make sugar, the less we will consume of it, which of course will eventually lead to less medical spending.

 

Additional taxation has caused tobacco usage to go down, so it's only natural that you could apply the same principle to another product.

 

 

 

http://usatoday30.us...king/57737774/1

 

I wonder if that statement is really factually valid. Most heathcare dollars are spent as people get older, so if you live a long time, you will have longer duration of chronic ailments and readmissions into a hospital... a Fatty will theoretially die earlier from heart attack or stroke, so you would think people dieing earlier in their lifespan, even though they have had chronic physcial ailment in their younger years might be less expensive overall..

 

So being an initiative guy, I googled it:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html?_r=0

 

There is no evidence that obesity programs will translate to dollar savings. Irony, really. Blooomberg's effort to help people become healthier in turn likely makes Healthcare Services more out of reach for those people at the same time... that's irony, right? My wife usually tells me what is and is not irony, she a writer and twice as smart.

 

 

The Solution? Cigarettes, 1 Gallon Sodas and a Bucket of Fried Chicken wiht a layer of Bacon for everybody..... LOL

[....lybob]

I wonder if that statement is really factually valid. Most heathcare dollars are spent as people get older, so if you live a long time, you will have longer duration of chronic ailments and readmissions into a hospital... a Fatty will theoretially die earlier from heart attack or stroke, so you would think people dieing earlier in their lifespan, even though they have had chronic physcial ailment in their younger years might be less expensive overall..

 

So being an initiative guy, I googled it:

 

http://www.nytimes.c...48884.html?_r=0

 

There is no evidence that obesity programs will translate to dollar savings. Irony, really. Blooomberg's effort to help people become healthier in turn likely makes Healthcare Services more out of reach for those people at the same time... that's irony, right? My wife usually tells me what is and is not irony, she a writer and twice as smart.

 

 

The Solution? Cigarettes, 1 Gallon Sodas and a Bucket of Fried Chicken wiht a layer of Bacon for everybody..... LOL

I don't know how it works for fat people but heavy cigarette smoking was a big savings for social security

[Magox]

I wonder if that statement is really factually valid. Most heathcare dollars are spent as people get older, so if you live a long time, you will have longer duration of chronic ailments and readmissions into a hospital... a Fatty will theoretially die earlier from heart attack or stroke, so you would think people dieing earlier in their lifespan, even though they have had chronic physcial ailment in their younger years might be less expensive overall..

 

So being an initiative guy, I googled it:

 

http://www.nytimes.c...48884.html?_r=0

 

There is no evidence that obesity programs will translate to dollar savings. Irony, really. Blooomberg's effort to help people become healthier in turn likely makes Healthcare Services more out of reach for those people at the same time... that's irony, right? My wife usually tells me what is and is not irony, she a writer and twice as smart.

 

 

The Solution? Cigarettes, 1 Gallon Sodas and a Bucket of Fried Chicken wiht a layer of Bacon for everybody..... LOL

 

That is some funny ****

 

 

 

"It was a small surprise," said Pieter van Baal, an economist at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in the Netherlands, who led the study. "But it also makes sense. If you live longer, then you cost the health system more."

 

In a paper published online Monday in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that the health costs of thin and healthy people in adulthood are more expensive than those of either fat people or smokers.

Van Baal and colleagues created a model to simulate lifetime health costs for three groups of 1,000 people: the "healthy-living" group (thin and nonsmoking), obese people, and smokers. The model relied on "cost of illness" data and disease prevalence in the Netherlands in 2003.

 

The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.

 

I mean in a perverse sense, that is logical. It is just one study, but I could see how it would be the case. I may have to rethink my position. Do I value the individuals life or the good of the fiscal health of the country? Decisions decisions

[dayman]

B-large...no...just no.

[Magox]

I don't know how it works for fat people but heavy cigarette smoking was a big savings for social security

 

According to this study:

 

 

On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years and obese people lived about 80 years. Smokers and obese people tended to have more heart disease than the healthy people.

Cancer incidence, except for lung cancer, was the same in all three groups. Obese people had the most diabetes, and healthy people had the most strokes. Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on.

The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000.

 

However it did note this at the bottom

 

 

The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.

 

And as to my motives:

 

"We are not recommending that governments stop trying to prevent obesity," van Baal said. "But they should do it for the right reasons."

 

I guess according to this guy, my intentions weren't the "right" ones.

[B-Large]

That is some funny ****

 

 

 

 

 

I mean in a perverse sense, that is logical. It is just one study, but I could see how it would be the case. I may have to rethink my position. Do I value the individuals life or the good of the fiscal health of the country? Decisions decisions

 

Mag, I used to think the exact same thing, until on of my Doc's opinioned that its long life that is the real cost driver, not just obesity, sedentary lifestyle or smoking...I thought that can't be truw... I was pretty shocked to see that corroborated.... I will search out some domestic studies, poke around and see if any of the researchers here can shed any knowledge.

 

You might want to sharpen your pencil and get that list of people who are "country over people" ready... lol

 

B-large...no...just no.

 

are you saying no to Cigs, Sodas and KFC, SOB? lol