The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[CaneBrain 95]

It is my belief that most fat people don't want to be fat. You can see this in the way that dieting is such a huge fad amongst the populace. So if we find a way to disincentivize people from unhealthy food and incentivize them with healthy food then we are killing two birds with one stone. As cane said we are not outlawing junk food or anything we are merely trying to make it so it is easier and better to get healthy food. I personally don't care if someone wants to eat cake every meal and be a fat ass, just don't expect me to pony up the dough (hehe get it cause cake is made from dough ... nvm) for your triple bypass surgery or pay for your diabetes medicine. I believe strongly in personal choice but with that HAS to be personal responsibility or else it makes no sense. So if a state added a "fat tax" you would be okay with this ... just as long as the federal government has nothing to do with it.

As an aside, the idea that states are much more responsible with tax money than the Fed Gov is hilarious.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

According to the USDA: "Among the 69 forms of fruits and 85 forms of vegetables included in the analysis, more than half were estimated to cost 25 cents or less per serving in 1999, and 86 percent of all vegetables and 78 percent of all fruit cost less than 50 cents a serving. That's 127 different ways to eat a serving of fruits and vegetables for less than the price of a 3-ounce candy bar. In fact, consumers can meet the [Food Guide Pyramid] recommendations of three servings of fruits and four servings of vegetables daily for as little as 64 cents. Consumers trying to meet the 5-a-day challenge could do so for even less."In 2005, Washington Post food columnist Sally Squires asked: "What about eating according to the new U.S. Dietary Guidelines? Can you do it without taking a big bite out of your wallet?" Her answer: "A little more than $5 for a full day's worth of modestly priced nutritious food (including oatmeal, milk, fresh fruit; beans and rice; whole grain and white bread, a hearty salad and a cup of peas). That's about the cost of one average fast-food meal." When asked whether eating a sound diet costs less, Center for Science in the Public Interest Executive Director Michael Jacobson acknowledged: "Unprocessed, basic foods are frequently dirt cheap. Potatoes sometimes go for as little as a nickel or dime a pound in many places, and they're one of the very most nutritious foods. Beans and rice are very inexpensive."

[Balloon guy 158]

So french fries are cheap in places?

[CaneBrain 95]

According to the USDA: "Among the 69 forms of fruits and 85 forms of vegetables included in the analysis, more than half were estimated to cost 25 cents or less per serving in 1999, and 86 percent of all vegetables and 78 percent of all fruit cost less than 50 cents a serving. That's 127 different ways to eat a serving of fruits and vegetables for less than the price of a 3-ounce candy bar. In fact, consumers can meet the [Food Guide Pyramid] recommendations of three servings of fruits and four servings of vegetables daily for as little as 64 cents. Consumers trying to meet the 5-a-day challenge could do so for even less."In 2005, Washington Post food columnist Sally Squires asked: "What about eating according to the new U.S. Dietary Guidelines? Can you do it without taking a big bite out of your wallet?" Her answer: "A little more than $5 for a full day's worth of modestly priced nutritious food (including oatmeal, milk, fresh fruit; beans and rice; whole grain and white bread, a hearty salad and a cup of peas). That's about the cost of one average fast-food meal." When asked whether eating a sound diet costs less, Center for Science in the Public Interest Executive Director Michael Jacobson acknowledged: "Unprocessed, basic foods are frequently dirt cheap. Potatoes sometimes go for as little as a nickel or dime a pound in many places, and they're one of the very most nutritious foods. Beans and rice are very inexpensive."

I wish with all my heart that rice was "heathly". White rice is terrible for you.I doubt that adding a few cents onto junk food will change anyone's dietary habits but at least the junk food tax will help subsidize all those heart disease operations.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

I wish with all my heart that rice was "heathly". White rice is terrible for you.

I didn't see anything in there about white rice specifically. But way to pick out one half fact out of all that.

I doubt that adding a few cents onto junk food will change anyone's dietary habits.

Oh.

think of it as a targeted sales tax to try and get America healthy.

Every person it nudges to wheat bread or diet soda (or water) is a success.

We are discussing small incentives to encourage good health.

Unless you have a better idea to get people to lose weight?

Taxing something unhealthy is incentivizing.

Right now, taxes disincentivize cigarettes and booze. Extend that to junk food.

[CaneBrain 95]

I didn't see anything in there about white rice specifically. But way to pick out one half fact out of all that.Oh.

I picked white rice because as you know from the sick thread, that is my favorite food.And I think it would be awesome if a junk food tax convinced people to eat healthier but realistically I just think people would ignore it. I mean you picked out all those quotes but people still buy booze and cigs right? I think a few people might be persuaded but by and large Americans dont like to be told what to do.

[dapokerbum 0]

I picked white rice because as you know from the sick thread, that is my favorite food.And I think it would be awesome if a junk food tax convinced people to eat healthier but realistically I just think people would ignore it. I mean you picked out all those quotes but people still buy booze and cigs right? I think a few people might be persuaded but by and large Americans dont like to be told what to do.

But they do like incentives ... which is what we would be giving them.

[Jeepster80125 0]

It's not "me" making decisions; it is the collective wisdom of our nation's doctors. You want to control health care costs? We need to get healthier. That's the best way. Nobody said this has to extend past health issues. It never really has. Right now, taxes disincentivize cigarettes and booze. Extend that to junk food. That's it.Umemployment insurance is something you pay into when you work; it is not a hand-out.

Just....no.It's not the ****ing doctors making decisions cane. It's bureaucrats and politicians. 'Getting Healthier' is a talking point. Adding a sin tax doesn't solve our healthcare problems. It only creates a small revenue stream.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

And I think it would be awesome if a junk food tax convinced people to eat healthier but realistically I just think people would ignore it. I mean you picked out all those quotes but people still buy booze and cigs right? I think a few people might be persuaded but by and large Americans dont like to be told what to do.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

[CaneBrain 95]

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

why? you can hope it will do one thing while acknowledging you might end up doing another almost as worthwhile thing. I hope it will encourage healthier eating; I acknowledge it may just create a new revenue stream to combat the costs of poor eating.

[CaneBrain 95]

'Getting Healthier' is a talking point.

I just could not disagree more with this statement. It's a realistic way to improve our lives in general and cut down on health care costs.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

why? you can hope it will do one thing while acknowledging you might end up doing another almost as worthwhile thing. I hope it will encourage healthier eating; I acknowledge it may just create a new revenue stream to combat the costs of poor eating.

I'm coming dangerously close to overdosing on crazy pills.But whatever, more taxes for the poor; no skin off my back.

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

This is really great. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...3071709510.html

[CaneBrain 95]

I'm coming dangerously close to overdosing on crazy pills.But whatever, more taxes for the poor; no skin off my back.

whatever it is then.

[CaneBrain 95]

This is really great. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...3071709510.html

We were looking at moving to California because my wife, as an education employee, would make significantly more in California than anywhere else.......this article explains the discrepancy.

[dapokerbum 0]

I'm coming dangerously close to overdosing on crazy pills.But whatever, more taxes for the poor; no skin off my back.

Actually if the poor would maintain a healthy lifestyle then they would get tax incentives ...I really believe that people would make healthier choices if given an incentive. Is that a bad thing? I want a healthy nation, this isn't a talking point, it is what I would like to see. If someone genuinely wants to be a fat ass then cool, that is their choice, but I think most people want to be healthy, because as I said before there are so many fad diets that come out every week and people are all over them ... like white on rice. So why not make healthy food incentivized? I try to eat healthy whenever I can, but I wouldn't mind paying an extra quarter when I want to wolf down a carne asada burrito. Just like it would be great to get a break for when I go buy salad ingredients.

[Roll the Bones 74]

I am all for it but healthy people do live longer which could be a problem for social security and Med/Medicaid. I suppose we could always raise the retirement age again to say, 85 or something. Maybe we could just lower the taxes on unhealthy foods to make sure a large percentage die young or something.I am just kidding. There is only a brazillian sources and books on healthy eating and still relatively few do it. It's really tough to get something fast food healthy but things are improving ever so slightly. Subway is really capitalizing on the market in a big way, even offering healthy breakfast now. The government needs to revise (throw out) the codebook for school diets and focus on kids meals and education. That's the best way to change the culture of obesity.

[Roll the Bones 74]

Actually if the poor would maintain a healthy lifestyle then they would get tax incentives ...I really believe that people would make healthier choices if given an incentive. Is that a bad thing? I want a healthy nation, this isn't a talking point, it is what I would like to see. If someone genuinely wants to be a fat ass then cool, that is their choice, but I think most people want to be healthy, because as I said before there are so many fad diets that come out every week and people are all over them ... like white on rice. So why not make healthy food incentivized? I try to eat healthy whenever I can, but I wouldn't mind paying an extra quarter when I want to wolf down a carne asada burrito. Just like it would be great to get a break for when I go buy salad ingredients.

Healthy food is probably cheaper, especially if you leav out huge portions of meat. It does take some know how to learn to cook different things and use spices though. Old habits are tough to break. Chris McDougal of Born to Run (book) fame has a saying. If you want to get healthy, eat like the poor people. Beans and Pinole are cheap!

[Jeepster80125 0]

I just could not disagree more with this statement. It's a realistic way to improve our lives in general and cut down on health care costs.

Let's talk healthcare then. I just don't think you've thought about this. The time and effort required instituting something like this could be better spent in a million other areas. Cost of end-of-life care, tort reform, access, anything but this. I'll agree that this might make society healthier in general. However, since there isn't a clear line, there shouldn't be any line/restriction, because we shouldn't have to pay for our society's poor health.For example, our state's high risk pool for uninsured people is funded by premiums paid for by people who have insurance. Kind of like unemployment. It's just another example of having a good idea (healthcare reform) with horrible implementation (obamacare).I hope it's clear I'm not attacking you personally.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Actually if the poor would maintain a healthy lifestyle then they would get tax incentives ...

I was responding to Cane who said he didn't think it would change anything.Which I actually agree with.

I really believe that people would make healthier choices if given an incentive. Is that a bad thing?

Only in the sense that it wouldn't actually work.

I think most people want to be healthy, because as I said before there are so many fad diets that come out every week and people are all over them ... like white on rice. So why not make healthy food incentivized? I try to eat healthy whenever I can, but I wouldn't mind paying an extra quarter when I want to wolf down a carne asada burrito.

They're all over them because everyone is looking for a shortcut. Making "bad" food a few cents more and "good" food a few cents less offers no shortcut to losing weight (which is really what people want, not to be more healthy) and isn't enough of a carrot/stick to changing any habits.

Just like it would be great to get a break for when I go buy salad ingredients.

Were you the one who was talking about personal responsibility or was it someone else?

[Balloon guy 158]

Know what else is bad for you?Alcohol.We should tax the crap out of that stuff.Until it is so expensive nobody will want it then they can all be healthy.

[strategy 4]

This is the problem. If someone wants to believe a ****ing porn star, not get their kid vaccines, and the kid gets sick, that's on them, not me.

people with weakened immune systems, and that includes pretty much every demographic, are at a higher risk because of these fucking anti-vaccine retards. it shouldn't be a personal/religious choice when the science is this clear-cut; it should be a requirement for participation in society.

As an aside, the idea that states are much more responsible with tax money than the Fed Gov is hilarious.

to me, the difference is the ease with which the voters could fix the problems, should they arise. broken policy at the federal level is much harder to fix. for a state like CA, yeah, you're pretty screwed either way.

[Balloon guy 158]

people with weakened immune systems, and that includes pretty much every demographic, are at a higher risk because of these fucking anti-vaccine retards. it shouldn't be a personal/religious choice when the science is this clear-cut. it should be a requirement to participate in society.

So you are for giving the government the power to override a person's beliefs whenever the government thinks it has enough proof to justify it?

to me, the difference is the ease with which the voters could fix the problems, should they arise. broken policy at the federal level is much harder to fix. for a state like CA, yeah, you're pretty screwed either way.

yea...just to give you a little food for thought:In the last few decades, voters have picked:CarterBush I & IIClintonObamaPelosiReidBarney FrankMarion Barry after prisonLegalize medical maryjuandaOutlaw illegal immagrantand Arnold SchwarteneggerStill want to let the government have some power trusting the voters to keep them in check?

[dapokerbum 0]

I was responding to Cane who said he didn't think it would change anything.Which I actually agree with.Only in the sense that it wouldn't actually work.They're all over them because everyone is looking for a shortcut. Making "bad" food a few cents more and "good" food a few cents less offers no shortcut to losing weight (which is really what people want, not to be more healthy) and isn't enough of a carrot/stick to changing any habits.Were you the one who was talking about personal responsibility or was it someone else?

Yes, I was the one talking about personal responsibility.It seems to me that sometimes the only way to dangle any kind of carrot is with money. People respond to money moreso than anything else. However, if we did a study and it was shown that these small incentives would not work then I am out on the idea. I do agree with Jeep that there are better more important steps that we need to take in regards to the health of the nation rather than focus on a "sin tax".

[strategy 4]

So you are for giving the government the power to override a person's beliefs whenever the government thinks it has enough proof to justify it?

I believe it is entirely consistent with the libertarian philosophy, because as I said above, it DOES increase infection rates amongst those who cannot get vaccinated/hold immunity.you really cannot claim it's an individual choice... that view is simply not consistent with the way viruses propagate.