detlef

The NY soda law

Recommended Posts

 

Further, there are a number of hospitals (like Grady in ATL) who have free dialysis

 

 

They ended that a couple years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see where the right to be overweigh would be protected by the New York State Constitution.

 

Yep, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence.

Edited by Big John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They ended that a couple years ago.

 

 

You are correct. However, and I forget the name of the center, has taken the place of Grady.

 

ETA: It is called Fresinius and is partially funded by Grady.

Edited by SEC=UGA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to have the right first in order for the government to infringe upon that right.

 

I don't see where the right to be overweigh would be protected by the New York State Constitution.

 

I believe that having a choice of what you can eat falls under "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", as it does not in itself infringe upon the rights of others. It's only because of the system that's been put in place with insurance and not denying treatment that it does affect anyone else, but not because it's not guaranteed by the constitution.

 

But regardless, that is not correct that a right has to be included in the constitution to have it as a right. As per the constitution, any powers not relegated to the federal government or state is given to the people. Just because the constitution is increasingly interpreted to include unconstitutional powers like this, as far as I know there is nowhere in it that relegates the government to control what a person puts in their body, particularly what amount of a legal product they can consume.

 

Now if they were prohibiting the sale of corn syrup or something like that, even then they should probably still need an amendment, just like it was with prohibition. Again, just because they want to ignore that requirement, I think alcohol prohibition should show you how they're supposed to do it if they want to legislate morality or health, by passing a constitutional amendment to include it. Really, how is prohibiting soda sales any different than the requirements were to prohibit alcohol? In fact, by your logic, I can argue that drinking can be far more detrimental, and nowhere in the constitution was that right relegated or taken away prior to amendments, so your argument is flawed.

Edited by delusions of grandeur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that having a choice of what you can eat falls under "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", as it does not in itself infringe upon the rights of others. It's only because of the system that's been put in place with insurance and not denying treatment that it does affect anyone else, but not because it's not guaranteed by the constitution.

 

But regardless, that is not correct that a right has to be included in the constitution to have it as a right. As per the constitution, any powers not relegated to the federal government or state is given to the people. Just because the constitution is increasingly interpreted to include unconstitutional powers like this, as far as I know there is nowhere in it that relegates the government to control what a person puts in their body, particularly what amount of a legal product they can consume.

 

Now if they were prohibiting the sale of corn syrup or something like that, even then they should probably still need an amendment, just like it was with prohibition. Again, just because they want to ignore that requirement, I think alcohol prohibition should show you how they're supposed to do it if they want to legislate morality or health, by passing a constitutional amendment to include it. Really, how is prohibiting soda sales any different than the requirements were to prohibit alcohol? In fact, by your logic, I can argue that drinking can be far more detrimental, and nowhere in the constitution was that right relegated or taken away prior to amendments, so your argument is flawed.

 

 

I don't think you have a right to drink booze, either. You are simply allowed to do so under your state laws in certain circumstances but not all - I can't do jagerbombs at my daughter's second grade talent show, the state of Virginia can throw me in jail two days after getting back from Desert Storm because I'm 19 and have a case of beer, you can't drink beer while driving down the road. Just because the state does not sanction an activity, that does not make it a constitutionally protected right.

 

This is realy simple, show me where you have a right to be fat. I don't think you have one. Don't explain your position to me, show me where that right is condified anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is realy simple, show me where you have a right to be fat. I don't think you have one. Don't explain your position to me, show me where that right is condified anywhere.

 

Well, I think I was overlooking the states' rights, which may make it constitutional under state law, that I'm not as sure.

 

However, are you serious? How about you show me where you don't have a right to be fat? There's literally infinite things that aren't expressed, but implied rights, for the obvious reason that you can't possibly include all of the millions of different freedoms, but your weight is still a basic freedom nonetheless, just is your right to be an a-hole, your right to smell bad, your right to do anything you want as long at doesn't infringe on other's rights and isn't prohibited by the constitution. Healthcare isn't a right either, so per the constitution, there is absolutely nothing prohibiting things like this jhust because it's not expressed. That's what freedom is all about, and again, if the constitution doesn't prohibit it, that per the constitution, makes it a right relegated to the people.

 

I suppose that the powers of the state is what allows for things like this, but that doesn't mean they're not overstepping their bounds.

 

Seriously, "you don't have a right to be fat because the constitution doesn't say you do" has to be one of the more misinformed things I've ever heard.

 

(ETA: Actually, just read up on the 9th amendment, which was written for this exact reason, to ensure that any rights not covered in the constitution were not assumed to not be rights or rights of the state/feds.)

Edited by delusions of grandeur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Medicare, Medicaid, state sponsored HC programs for the indigent, etc...

 

I think a lot of us fail to realize how many programs that exist that essentially pay for indigent HC in this country

 

And these are paid for how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And these are paid for how?

 

 

Through tax dollars.

 

Your implication seemed to be that under our present system this dude would be unable to have access to medical care and that he would die due to this.

Edited by SEC=UGA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think I was overlooking the states' rights, which may make it constitutional under state law, that I'm not as sure.

 

However, are you serious? How about you show me where you don't have a right to be fat? There's literally infinite things that aren't expressed, but implied rights, for the obvious reason that you can't possibly include all of the millions of different freedoms, but your weight is still a basic freedom nonetheless, just is your right to be an a-hole, your right to smell bad, your right to do anything you want as long at doesn't infringe on other's rights and isn't prohibited by the constitution. Healthcare isn't a right either, so per the constitution, there is absolutely nothing prohibiting things like this jhust because it's not expressed. That's what freedom is all about, and again, if the constitution doesn't prohibit it, that per the constitution, makes it a right relegated to the people.

 

I suppose that the powers of the state is what allows for things like this, but that doesn't mean they're not overstepping their bounds.

 

Seriously, "you don't have a right to be fat because the constitution doesn't say you do" has to be one of the more misinformed things I've ever heard.

 

(ETA: Actually, just read up on the 9th amendment, which was written for this exact reason, to ensure that any rights not covered in the constitution were not assumed to not be rights or rights of the state/feds.)

 

 

The 9th Amendment refernces rights codified by the United States Constitution. I don't see where it says anything about what an individual state's constitution says about anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 9th Amendment refernces rights codified by the United States Constitution. I don't see where it says anything about what an individual state's constitution says about anything.

 

Okay, yes, I clarified in that post that state law might actually make it constitutional, but that amendment absolutely disputes your preposterous notion that something has to expressly be written in the constitution as a right to be one... The 9th amendment was written to definitively state that absent (upon further reading) it being prohibited by state government, it is reserved to the individual.

 

So rather, it's the exact opposite. If it's not a right to be fat, then it has to be written as such in your state's constitution. So again, I don't have any need to find where it's codified to have the right to be fat. The constitution says that you have to find it in your state's constitution that it's prohibited or not a right. I'll be waiting for you to find that amendment in the New York constitution...

 

But anways, I'm not going to continue on with another silly convenient argument with you. It changes nothing about the NY government overstepping their bounds here, regardless of whether it's technically constitutional or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Through tax dollars.

 

Your implication seemed to be that under our present system this dude would be unable to have access to medical care and that he would die due to this.

 

No it wasn't. I was speaking in theoretical terms with someone. In fact, my main point is, because we've decided to pay for these people if they get sick, I do think we have some right guiding their behavior away from things that make them sick. Sort of like a parent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it wasn't. I was speaking in theoretical terms with someone. In fact, my main point is, because we've decided to pay for these people if they get sick, I do think we have some right guiding their behavior away from things that make them sick. Sort of like a parent.

 

Or require an annual physical, and if you don't meet some basic health criteria, you either have to adhere to a preventative care/maintenance/fitness regimen, or you forfeit any coverage if you get sick. Treatment of disease probably costs what, 10 or 20 times preventative care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it wasn't. I was speaking in theoretical terms with someone. In fact, my main point is, because we've decided to pay for these people if they get sick, I do think we have some right guiding their behavior away from things that make them sick. Sort of like a parent.

 

 

I believe this is a city ordinance. How much of the NY City budget do you think goes towards paying for the uninsured?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, yes, I clarified in that post that state law might actually make it constitutional, but that amendment absolutely disputes your preposterous notion that something has to expressly be written in the constitution as a right to be one... The 9th amendment was written to definitively state that absent (upon further reading) it being prohibited by state government, it is reserved to the individual.

 

So rather, it's the exact opposite. If it's not a right to be fat, then it has to be written as such in your state's constitution. So again, I don't have any need to find where it's codified to have the right to be fat. The constitution says that you have to find it in your state's constitution that it's prohibited or not a right. I'll be waiting for you to find that amendment in the New York constitution...

 

But anways, I'm not going to continue on with another silly convenient argument with you. It changes nothing about the NY government overstepping their bounds here, regardless of whether it's technically constitutional or not.

 

 

Good, you are losing. The 9th AMendment does not say that. It says rights not enumerated in the federal constitution are left to the people (aka the states). The 9th Amendment doesn't say a thing about rights granted or not granted by state constitutions. You can legally be fat because no law prohibits it, that does not mean you have a right to be fat.

 

You don't have any idea what you are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it wasn't. I was speaking in theoretical terms with someone. In fact, my main point is, because we've decided to pay for these people if they get sick, I do think we have some right guiding their behavior away from things that make them sick. Sort of like a parent.

 

 

I apologize for taking your... "he got laid off and has no insurance"..."Are we gonna let him die" comment out of context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good, you are losing. The 9th AMendment does not say that. It says rights not enumerated in the federal constitution are left to the people (aka the states). The 9th Amendment doesn't say a thing about rights granted or not granted by state constitutions. You can legally be fat because no law prohibits it, that does not mean you have a right to be fat.

 

You don't have any idea what you are talking about.

 

Again, I don't dispute that the state can make laws not expressed in the constitution. But we're basically arguing semantics over "no law prohibits it" and "rights". To me, they mean the same thing, that if the constitution doesn't prohibit it, then it's a right, but not a right in the sense that it cannot be overridden or forfeited by the people to state government. Any "right" can if your state so chooses. Just ask North Carolina.

 

However, that doesn't change the fact, that absent the state prohibiting it, then yes, that is an implied right that nowhere needs to be expressed to allow it, as guaranteed by the 9th amendment. It needs to be expressed to not allow it by the state, not the other way around.... So stop with the "losing" crap, when I'm basically now agreeing with your latest argument in the thread.

 

But nonetheless, it's pretty preposterous to suggest that one's right to injest what they choose and weigh what they wish to weigh is somehow not a right.... Now if you want to forego that right in the name of health, the taxpayer, whoever, then that's your state's prerogative, but I strongly disagree that it's not a right. Freedom means accepting things you don't like, and that includes fat people.

Edited by delusions of grandeur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SEC, I hope for your sake your last post was not tongue in cheek, because taking my statement out of context was precisely what you did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize for taking your... "he got laid off and has no insurance"..."Are we gonna let him die" comment out of context.

 

 

:kicksrock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe this is a city ordinance. How much of the NY City budget do you think goes towards paying for the uninsured?

 

For starters, I'm not trying to defend this particular law, per se, but rather brought it up because thinking about the law caused me to wonder about the bigger picture issue.

 

The interesting thing about these sorts of laws, at least ones that would be actually effective at stopping or slowing the behavior is that they seem overbearing and facistic to many. However, if insurance companies placed similar restrictions, everyone would be cool. Because then it's the market doing it. We don't mind facism, provided it's done by the market. But here's the rub, we and the state actually are the insurers in this case, the state is the one holding the bag if some dude falls through the financial cracks and has diabetes and heart disease from drinking too much soda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who says that people accept fascism when it comes to business? In a free market you have alternatives. This isn't to say that it's a perfect system, especially when most are apathetic about demanding changes to it, or that cartels and collusion in the free market aren't prevalent (though it still does allow prosecution of those if found out of course), etc... But if you mess with people too much, a competitor will be waiting to swoop in and do it better, unlike the government that has no competition (nor accountability apparently).

 

But I guess I'm not seeing where that's relevant here, because the free market obviously isn't making fascist regulations against itself, and now more than ever there are plenty of alternative options.... Again coming back to education, the more people know about how bad these things are for you, the more you see things like even fast food restaurants under pressure to at least offer healthier options, with far more businesses actually catering to it, because there's a growing demand for healthier foods.

 

If the market demands it, then that's what will force these companies to have to offer it. However, these one-sized-fit-all solutions do nothing to solve the problem, and only create more problems by providing precedent for them to try more pointless one-sized-fits-all solutions that can't possibly work.

 

I know we already agreed on this before, but education and changing public perceptions are what are going to solve many of our issues, not trying to regulate our way out of it.... I can already imagine the glorious smell of a good black market pizza after they come for my grease....

 

(ETA: Nevermind Det, I see what you were saying now about insurance companies with Deathpig's reply below, but that's a matter of consequences for you actions as a health risk, not legislating you doing so)

Edited by delusions of grandeur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm, so do they carry you away in handcuffs if you buy two 16 ounce containers of soda?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soon government loudspeakers will awaken us in time to go to the central square, where, under a large banner of Dear Leader we will do a half hour of rigorous State lead exercise before eating our mandated raw vegetables. All the while lectures on "right living" will fill the air. We will then get into our approved, enviromentally sensitive cothing and take mass transit to our jobs. At our jobs we will earn credits which can be excahnged for approved goods. There will be a limit on credit accumulation. Unused credits will be redistributed to the needy, or to the friends and family of governmental officials who will always, always be working for our betterment. They know what is good for us just like a concerned parent. Their love for us is a burden, but one they willingly carry. Damn us for burdening them so. They are heros really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For starters, I'm not trying to defend this particular law, per se, but rather brought it up because thinking about the law caused me to wonder about the bigger picture issue.

 

The interesting thing about these sorts of laws, at least ones that would be actually effective at stopping or slowing the behavior is that they seem overbearing and facistic to many. However, if insurance companies placed similar restrictions, everyone would be cool. Because then it's the market doing it. We don't mind facism, provided it's done by the market. But here's the rub, we and the state actually are the insurers in this case, the state is the one holding the bag if some dude falls through the financial cracks and has diabetes and heart disease from drinking too much soda.

 

 

Fascist insurance companies can raise your rates for ingesting large quantities of soda. Fascist insurance companies can maybe even drop your policy for ingesting large quantities of soda. Fascist insurance companies can't outright deny ingesting large quantities of soda to millions of people.

 

That's the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascist insurance companies can raise your rates for ingesting large quantities of soda. Fascist insurance companies can maybe even drop your policy for ingesting large quantities of soda. Fascist insurance companies can't outright deny ingesting large quantities of soda to millions of people.

 

 

That works outgreat unless you are one of the 52,000,000 uninsured Americans.

 

I find the right to not insure my kid and the right to be unhealthy strange things to be battling Hitler over. I'm not taking up arms when they come to get your cotton candy.

 

ETA: I have no doubt this law won't work if the goal is to make the people healthier. But I am pretty sure New York has a sales tax so you would just have to buy more sodas. It's no different than taxing the heck out of tobacco or booze so I think the law is probably reasonable in that regard. It won't make anyone healthier.

Edited by Clubfoothead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.