?? I'm saying Libertarians don't have a coherent answer when you pose that question to them (though secretly it's let them die obv)

We pay for your healthcare so we own your ass. Right goof?

If we have to pay for it your irresponsible consumption of cancerbetes juice is not a choice that only affects the individual, so it's not an inherent right.

Of course i'd be happy to move to a system that would allow for the maximum amount of individual gluttony and still be tenable, but we can't have nice things in this country can we.

Agreed.

so yes

regulate the amount of ultra high sugar content foods sold in the marketplace =/= "own your ass"

so no

Why doesn't the same argument apply to smoking? To drinking? To not eating your 5 a day? If you go mountain biking and break your leg I have to pay for it to be fixed. Why should you be allowed to be so reckless with my money?

it does

it does

cost-benefit of enforcement, regulation approach. Though I'm all for this in schools etc.

1) costs of this are not close to the same as obesity
2) mountain biking is a relatively safe activity compared to exorbitant caloric consumption
3) this is already built into the cost of health insurance in the first place
4) cost/risk of sedentary lifestyle is higher
5) you're talking about an individual activity v. the right to sell a product to many individuals, so it's not an accurate analogy for a few reasons

PEOPLE LIKE THE WAY THEY TASTE

"Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die? "

Audience : "Yeah! "

Secretly?

Dying early due to your own conduct isn't so bad. We all die eventually.

Let them die? What a ridiculous way to phrase it. Let them make their own choices, and then face the consequences of those choices, both positive and negative.

I'm sure you think "jackbooted fascists" is a completely fair way to describe police officers, and "thieving slavers" is a fair way to describe politicians right?

Doing a great job playing the role of Helen Lovejoy though.

You dont have to pay for it. That is your choice. That is not the fault of the fat person, or the smoker. It is YOUR fault, the fault of the voters, the politicians, those who support EMTALA, Medicare, etc. It is YOUR fault that now every single thing I do can somehow be construed as "affects society, therefore its not a right." Did you seriously never see this "unintended" (lol) consequence coming?

You dont get to punish someone for a system they did not put into place.

If you dont like that the homeless guy spends the $5 you gave him on booze, your choice is not to ban booze, or arrest him, its to stop giving him money, or STFU.

I enjoyed Walter Russell Mead's take some the health measures New York's mayor has pushed over the years, limiting salt, drinking smaller soda amounts here of late, etc. along with the process of science discovery.

"NY Times Unsettles Some Science"

http://blogs.the-american-interest.c...-some-science/

snippet:

I think the "let them die" formulation is perfectly fair. It's a real situation that would really happen in Libertopia all the time. Even assuming, arguendo, that people who end up needing medical care but can't pay for it are in that situation as a consequence of their own choices, the hospital has to decide whether to let them freeload lifesaving medical care or deny them the same.

In a world with absolutely no government funding for healthcare, Joe DUI crashes his car, has no health insurance, no money, and no job. He needs $50,000 in surgery now, or he dies. This sort of situation that happens quite often. He's obviously in that situation because of some bad choices (having no insurance and drinking and driving being the most obvious). Joe is a complete ****ing idiot. But if we decide to let him "face the consequence of [his] choices," we will have chosen to "let him die."

This is to say nothing of the fact that plenty of people who end up in this situation are not even there because of "the consequences of [their] choices." Change the scenario above to it being 17 year old Jill Sober who gets T-boned by Joe DUI and whose family has no insurance, or Mike Preexistingcondition, or what have you. I don't want to let them die, either, which is what will happen if the government doesn't step in to make the medical system give them the care they all need.

It's laughable that libertarians pretend to think this is a realistic approach. That's great, they made poor choices, now when they show up to the hospital begging for care we turn them away and what let them die in the street? you don't get to wind the clock back at that point you are choosing to let them die regardless of what they did in the past.

What happens when all these irresponsible people being refused care decide to start riots everywhere? Start stealing things? Need pain medication to keep from screaming? I can't wait for this utopia....

Not too mention the problem of linking causation in the aggregate of "poor choices" and health consequences to individual cases.

Or what this means for children.

Or the mentally ill. Goddamn homeless schizophrenics and their "poor choices."

Or people that are so uneducated because their school is now owned by Coca Cola that all they do is drink soda all day with no idea of the likely consequences. Oh I forgot, the market will get smarter on it's own because invisible hands and stuff. Or is it deterrence? That always works too amirite?

It's a fact that we have to pay for at least some level of healthcare for everyone, anyone who says otherwise is too deluded to take seriously. Which is why libertarians always refuse to answer this logistical question directly.

Have you ever made a post that isn't completely terrible?

I disagree based on empiricism.

With high calorie starbucks drinks I'd wager there is a significant difference in consumption context and health in favor of starbucks by a large margin. In that those that get the calorie bombs at starbucks are probably likely to use them as a snack or small meal replacement on their own. The venti cappachino has 6 grams of protein and 3 grams of milk fat, so it's going to be quite filling. On the other hand I think there is very few people who go to McDonalds and just order the large coke and don't also order the large fries and big mac to help wash it down - a meal of nearly 1400 calories.

Also, people who write laws enjoy Starbucks much more than Coke. And you don't win elections by pissing off soccer moms trying to get their coffee fix.

I think the whole frappaccino debate is moot, doesn't the ban bloomberg proposed include coffee drinks?

Probably Starbucks doesn't fall into any of these categories.

I think it exempts milk based drinks

Oh, my bad, I thought this ban was to directly fight obesity. Looks like it's just a public awareness campaign.

lol bloomberg