Why don’t Americans give a f*** about what they eat?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you think cigarette taxes and regulations were about secondary smoke only, you are wildly uninformed.

Sorry, I was responding only to your comment on indoor smoking ban. I do think that the current level of taxes on cigarettes is excessive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please. Every tax has a value behind it. And this is one you can avoid, should you choose to do so.

Last time I checked, no one forced me to buy cookies or soda. That's entirely on me.

So we are in agreement that you are trying to impose your values on me.

No, because you choose what food to buy. Your own values at work!

Nope, you've influence my choices by manipulating prices through your luxury tax.

You mean the prices currently manipulated by big ag subsidies? Or does that value not concern you as much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That’s not true that farmer’s markets, Asian supermarkets provide enough healthy choices. This is not enough.

Go to any regular supermarket. 50%-75% of the food there is processed junk infused with sugar, salt and other chemicals. Most restaurants in US serve food infused with salt, sugar, additives. Kids lunches at schools and college cafeterias food are junk.

A small bottle of Sprite has 64g of sugar. How many kids know this, you think?

They need to tax sugar and refined flour. Cookies should be very expensive. Sodas should be a luxury.

We had great success with cigarettes. We can do this.

The Asian, Latin, and regular markets absolutely provide enough choices. You just have to know what to look for and know some basic cooking skills. Even going to restaurants—you can choose to go to healthier restaurants and order the healthier items. I never buy soda or cookies for my home so my kids rarely consume them. It’s a treat they get at a party once in awhile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please. Every tax has a value behind it. And this is one you can avoid, should you choose to do so.

Last time I checked, no one forced me to buy cookies or soda. That's entirely on me.

So we are in agreement that you are trying to impose your values on me.

No, because you choose what food to buy. Your own values at work!

Nope, you've influence my choices by manipulating prices through your luxury tax.

You mean the prices currently manipulated by big ag subsidies? Or does that value not concern you as much?

Not a fan of ag subsidies either. Let the market work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Candy and cookies” pretty much never appear at my kids’ schools. Halloween and valentines are candy free parties. And that’s pretty much standard.

That is a really great policy, but it is not the case in most schools. It wasn't until my child was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes that I was aware of how many treats were given out for birthdays and parties, and some teacher's lessons. I was really surprised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think cigarette taxes and regulations were about secondary smoke only, you are wildly uninformed.

Sorry, I was responding only to your comment on indoor smoking ban. I do think that the current level of taxes on cigarettes is excessive.

That wasn't my comment. However, if you feel like we should move to a world where cigarettes are much more freely available and the public should subsidize both the healthcare costs of increased tobacco consumption and the tobacco companies, you're a far outlier and probably shouldn't be considered rational.

[Anonymous]

So the pro- junk food people are also pro-tobacco. Makes sense, I guess, but I choose against the death lobby myself. But OP, you have your answer here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think cigarette taxes and regulations were about secondary smoke only, you are wildly uninformed.

Sorry, I was responding only to your comment on indoor smoking ban. I do think that the current level of taxes on cigarettes is excessive.

That wasn't my comment. However, if you feel like we should move to a world where cigarettes are much more freely available and the public should subsidize both the healthcare costs of increased tobacco consumption and the tobacco companies, you're a far outlier and probably shouldn't be considered rational.

I never said anything of the sort. I said second hand smoke was the reason for indoor smoking bans and I said that it is my opinion that taxes on cigarettes are excessive. If you want to address the medical costs of smoking do it through the insurance system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here.

I’m in Florida now, at a beach resort. There are two restaurant in the hotel. Kids eat free. Here is the kids menu:
- cheese pizza with fries
- cheeseburger with fries
- mac and cheese with fries
- grilled cheese with fries
- fried chicken with fries

Salads cost $12-$14 and then you have to purchase a separate entree if you want some protein.

So order from the adult menu for your kids, and spring for a nice, healthy salad for your pre-diabetic self. Since you can afford to be vacationing at all these places, presumably you can afford a $12 salad.

So the healthy options are only for wealthy?

To order a healthy meal will be $12 for a salad + about $20-30 for an entree with protein.
The unhealthy junk is free.

You don’t get to complain about having to budget for restaurant meals when you are on a multi-state vacation trip staying at “high end” hotels and beach resorts.

So don’t stay places with free food. I’ve done it in other countries and guess what, it was also crap.

[Anonymous]

It seems as if you health nuts want to penalize overweight people for their choices. If that is the intent let's get right to the point and tax people on their BMI. On January 1st everyone reports to their local IRS office for a weigh in. Tax rate for the year is determined by BMI. Bingo, just what you wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think cigarette taxes and regulations were about secondary smoke only, you are wildly uninformed.

Sorry, I was responding only to your comment on indoor smoking ban. I do think that the current level of taxes on cigarettes is excessive.

That wasn't my comment. However, if you feel like we should move to a world where cigarettes are much more freely available and the public should subsidize both the healthcare costs of increased tobacco consumption and the tobacco companies, you're a far outlier and probably shouldn't be considered rational.

I never said anything of the sort. I said second hand smoke was the reason for indoor smoking bans and I said that it is my opinion that taxes on cigarettes are excessive. If you want to address the medical costs of smoking do it through the insurance system.

Okay, now I know you are delusional. Have you ever met an insurance company?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems as if you health nuts want to penalize overweight people for their choices. If that is the intent let's get right to the point and tax people on their BMI. On January 1st everyone reports to their local IRS office for a weigh in. Tax rate for the year is determined by BMI. Bingo, just what you wanted.

No, I want to penalize junk food companies for providing a toxic product, like we have successfully done for the tobacco companies and alcohol companies. I don't want to subsidize agribusiness, which is what leads directly to obesity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think cigarette taxes and regulations were about secondary smoke only, you are wildly uninformed.

Sorry, I was responding only to your comment on indoor smoking ban. I do think that the current level of taxes on cigarettes is excessive.

That wasn't my comment. However, if you feel like we should move to a world where cigarettes are much more freely available and the public should subsidize both the healthcare costs of increased tobacco consumption and the tobacco companies, you're a far outlier and probably shouldn't be considered rational.

I never said anything of the sort. I said second hand smoke was the reason for indoor smoking bans and I said that it is my opinion that taxes on cigarettes are excessive. If you want to address the medical costs of smoking do it through the insurance system.

Okay, now I know you are delusional. Have you ever met an insurance company?

No, but I've met people who work for an insurance company.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems as if you health nuts want to penalize overweight people for their choices. If that is the intent let's get right to the point and tax people on their BMI. On January 1st everyone reports to their local IRS office for a weigh in. Tax rate for the year is determined by BMI. Bingo, just what you wanted.

No, I want to penalize junk food companies for providing a toxic product, like we have successfully done for the tobacco companies and alcohol companies. I don't want to subsidize agribusiness, which is what leads directly to obesity.

Your definitions of junk food and toxic products are going to be different than my definitions so my BMI proposal is much cleaner and gets right to the heart of the matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think cigarette taxes and regulations were about secondary smoke only, you are wildly uninformed.

Sorry, I was responding only to your comment on indoor smoking ban. I do think that the current level of taxes on cigarettes is excessive.

That wasn't my comment. However, if you feel like we should move to a world where cigarettes are much more freely available and the public should subsidize both the healthcare costs of increased tobacco consumption and the tobacco companies, you're a far outlier and probably shouldn't be considered rational.

I never said anything of the sort. I said second hand smoke was the reason for indoor smoking bans and I said that it is my opinion that taxes on cigarettes are excessive. If you want to address the medical costs of smoking do it through the insurance system.

Okay, now I know you are delusional. Have you ever met an insurance company?

No, but I've met people who work for an insurance company.

Okay ... that is not the same. I think you seem substantially unaware of how the insurance industry works.