Follow-up: Newt Gingrich issues apology to Rush Limbaugh for insinuating that there is anything wrong with being a fatass.

Wait...Newt Gingrich said this?

Irony 1, America 0

Well, he's right.

Right, cause both of those guys are obviously hitting the gym regularly.

/farking hypocrite douchebags

Nabb1: Well, he's right.

No doubt, but that's like Madonna going all church-mother a couple of years ago and chastising pop singers for skanking it up to boost record sales.

I mean...if you are the exact definition of what you are denouncing, it really weakens the point.

It's true enough, but this is the same sort of point that was being derided by Newt and his fellows for some time now.

Which makes it so that the lady doth protest too much...

Physician, heal thyself.

/To the gym, fattie.

submitter: Newt Gingrich points out that a plan to lower health care costs should include getting people off of their asses and into a gym

Newt Gingrich should heed his own advice.

Okay, look, Newt needs to lead the way. I admit that. So, let's give him 26 minutes...

Yes, because all those non-tubby people who live on Red Bull, Camels, and Jim Beam are the picture of health.

Does anybody have any sort of mechanism to actually get people to exercise?

You could make gym memberships tax deductible, but it would be easy to get the membership and not go. And it doesn't take a gym membership to run.

Shoot, maintaining unrealistic body expectations through the media is probably the best way to get people to lose some weight.

Aren't conservatives the ones who always say this is a bad idea? Government shouldn't dictate peoples' lives and all that mumbo jumbo?

So, a fat-ass who has no problem using taxpayer healthcare is denouncing the idea of fat-asses using taxpayer healthcare.

Fark you, fatass.

hillbillypharmacist: Does anybody have any sort of mechanism to actually get people to exercise?

Snipers.

hillbillypharmacist: Does anybody have any sort of mechanism to actually get people to exercise?

You could make gym memberships tax deductible, but it would be easy to get the membership and not go. And it doesn't take a gym membership to run.

Shoot, maintaining unrealistic body expectations through the media is probably the best way to get people to lose some weight.

Hate to say I agree with you. Eating disorders excepted, shame is a pretty powerful tool.

And I work out 6 days a week, but in a home gym--so there's no paper trail for tax deductions or "proof" to an employer.

7of7: Aren't conservatives the ones who always say this is a bad idea? Government shouldn't dictate peoples' lives and all that mumbo jumbo?

Yes, and this is their way of derailing any serious conversation about how completely fu*ked our health care system is.

It's the same thing as when the adults try and have a conversation about the minimum wage and the Republicans yell out "Why not just raise it to $100 an hour, huh? How about that?!"

Or any number of things they use this particular little dirty trick on.

DslainteC: Yes, because all those non-tubby people who live on Red Bull, Camels, and Jim Beam are the picture of health.

Going to the gym regularly will have you rethinking that diet of Camels and Jim Beam. And I ought to know.

7of7: Aren't conservatives the ones who always say this is a bad idea? Government shouldn't dictate peoples' lives and all that mumbo jumbo?

I don't see how this is much different from John Edwards' suggestion that anyone on government health care be required to get annual check-ups or risk losing the benefit. I don't think it's asking that much of people to actually take care of themselves a bit if they want the public to pay for their health care.

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: hillbillypharmacist: Does anybody have any sort of mechanism to actually get people to exercise?

Snipers.

Guess what, Mr. Morrison? You will now be within 5 pounds of your ideal weight for the rest of your life.

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Snipers.

Ha! Brilliant!

Nabb1: I don't see how this is much different from John Edwards' suggestion that anyone on government health care be required to get annual check-ups or risk losing the benefit. I don't think it's asking that much of people to actually take care of themselves a bit if they want the public to pay for their health care.

It is, however, derailing the conversation when Gingrich implies that nothing can be done in regards to the current system, until everyone changes their behaviour.

Is it a helpful addition? Absolutely. But when a sea cow like Gingrich suggests that government should just sit on its hands until people start developing healthy habits, the point just becomes laughable instead of helpful.

It would probably help to stop subsidies for corn and soy beans. The rising cost of calories (including high fructose corn syrup, dairy products and red meat) would encourage people to eat better diets and to stay thinner.

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: hillbillypharmacist: Does anybody have any sort of mechanism to actually get people to exercise?

Snipers.

or three legged pit-bulls

/gotta give the fatties at least a chance

Nabb1: I don't see how this is much different from John Edwards' suggestion that anyone on government health care be required to get annual check-ups or risk losing the benefit. I don't think it's asking that much of people to actually take care of themselves a bit if they want the public to pay for their health care.

Of course I agree wholeheartedly but I don't believe for an instant he's stating this as anything other than a reason to not have a government run single payer system. As Calmamity said this seems like a way to dissuade people from wanting healthcare reform.

Calmamity: Guess what, Mr. Morrison? You will now be within 5 pounds of your ideal weight for the rest of your life.

Let's hope he's not part of the unregenerate two percent.

Healthy eating is all well and good, but expensive.

7of7: Of course I agree wholeheartedly but I don't believe for an instant he's stating this as anything other than a reason to not have a government run single payer system. As Calmamity said this seems like a way to dissuade people from wanting healthcare reform.

There are a myriad of reasons to not have a government run single payer system. But, I don't think it's dissuading health care reform. I didn't see a suggestion in that article that was objectionable, did you? More exercise programs for children in schools? Bonus food stamps for purchasing healthy food? What is wrong with that?

AuntofDogface: Healthy eating is all well and good, but expensive.

Not really if you know how to cook, it's much cheaper to eat in than dine out (even fast food) on a consistent basis.

KaponoFor3: Not really if you know how to cook, it's much cheaper to eat in than dine out (even fast food) on a consistent basis.

Untrue. Try checking the labels on the food you buy and cook with.

I now shop for food and condiments that are low in sodium, low in fat, and aren't sweetened with HFCS. Also, no junk food. Because of that, I spend about 25% more at the checkout counter than I used to.

GWShenlong05: I now shop for food and condiments that are low in sodium, low in fat, and aren't sweetened with HFCS. Also, no junk food. Because of that, I spend about 25% more at the checkout counter than I used to.

Where are you buying your vegetables? All you need is meat, vegetables and some starch and bread. If you don't buy manufactured/processed foods you will spend less AND eat healthier.

GWShenlong05: I now shop for food and condiments that are low in sodium, low in fat, and aren't sweetened with HFCS. Also, no junk food. Because of that, I spend about 25% more at the checkout counter than I used to.

Healthy eating involves getting good, fresh ingredients, no doubt, and sometimes those can be more expensive, but portion control plays a large part, and it's much cheaper to make a lot of food and eat leftovers than to eat out every night even if we assume you do spend 25% more at the checkout stand every time.

cameroncrazy1984: GWShenlong05: I now shop for food and condiments that are low in sodium, low in fat, and aren't sweetened with HFCS. Also, no junk food. Because of that, I spend about 25% more at the checkout counter than I used to.

Where are you buying your vegetables? All you need is meat, vegetables and some starch and bread. If you don't buy manufactured/processed foods you will spend less AND eat healthier.

Exactly. Fresh vegetables from the produce section can get pricey, but frozen vegetables are cheap and as a bonus, they usually aren't coated in preservatives and pesticides. And there is an abundance of bargain label canned vegetables.

It's not the ultimate solution, but it IS a good start. I don't care who suggested it.

cameroncrazy1984: Where are you buying your vegetables? All you need is meat, vegetables and some starch and bread. If you don't buy manufactured/processed foods you will spend less AND eat healthier.

That's exactly the problem.

I don't eat beef; I eat lean ground beef. I've also substituted:

Yams for potatoes
Brown rice for white rice
Whole wheat (w/germ) bread for white bread
Fruit for salty/junk snacks
Chicken breasts for thighs and drumsticks
Spinach for lettuce

Some of the food you think is "healthy" could be better described as "Not as bad as junk food". But they're often not the best option.

Also, Nabb1, canned vegetables and fruit are usually awash in extra salt/sugar.

KaponoFor3: rtion control plays a large part, and it's much cheaper to make a lot of food and eat leftovers than to eat out every night even if we assume you do spend 25% more at the checkout stand every time

I'm not arguing the "eating out vs. cooking" point at all. I'm just saying that if "healthy eating" really is the goal, then it can get pricey.

GWShenlong05: Untrue. Try checking the labels on the food you buy and cook with.

Definitely true, try buying food that doesn't have labels on it, like fruit, vegetables, chicken, salmon, etc.

GWShenlong05: if "healthy eating" really is the goal, then it can get pricey.

I dunno man, frozen vegetables hardly break the bank. And chicken isn't really known for being expensive either.

he is both right and fat. of course, the idea is not new, but having a fat person say it is. good job staying relevant newt!

EatHam: Definitely true, try buying food that doesn't have labels on it, like fruit, vegetables, chicken, salmon, etc.

Still untrue. Aside from maybe steaks on a barbecue, most cooked food is going to require seasoning, and vegetable salads will require some kind of dressing. Whatever health benefits you've gotten from the healthier foods are often reduced/negated by the condiments. Finding the low sodium/fat stuff often comes with a premium.

GWShenlong05: Aside from maybe steaks on a barbecue, most cooked food is going to require seasoning, and vegetable salads will require some kind of dressing. Whatever health benefits you've gotten from the healthier foods are often reduced/negated by the condiments.

Wait, have I been breaking the law all this time that I haven't seasoned my chicken, steak and fish?

GWShenlong05: Still untrue. Aside from maybe steaks on a barbecue, most cooked food is going to require seasoning, and vegetable salads will require some kind of dressing. Whatever health benefits you've gotten from the healthier foods are often reduced/negated by the condiments. Finding the low sodium/fat stuff often comes with a premium.

Still true. Listen. You don't *have* to add a shiat load of salt to your food. You don't *have* to use Ultra Creamy Bacon Ranch dressing, you can use olive oil and balsamic vinegar, it's delicious. You can season meat with cracked red pepper, no sodium, very flavorful. There are tons of things you can do if need to add seasoning. You don't have to butter your bread, you can use olive oil, it tastes better anyway.

Newt Gingrich points out that a plan to lower health care costs should include getting people off of their asses and into a gym tax cuts for the rich

EatHam: I dunno man, frozen vegetables hardly break the bank. And chicken isn't really known for being expensive either.

Agreed on the frozen vegetables, but chicken breasts - at least up here - aren't cheap. A package of 5 or 6 skinless can cost $18 if I'm unlucky enough to be shopping when there isn't a sale on. Not a huge problem for me, but try being a low-income parent feeding 3 kids.

All I'm saying is that, yes, it probably costs the same if not less to eat healthier than you would, if you were eating out or eating junk food daily. But if you're actually trying to cut out sugar, fat, sodium, and unnecessary starch, while getting more vitamins and minerals from food, then it is going to cost more.

GWShenlong05: EatHam: Definitely true, try buying food that doesn't have labels on it, like fruit, vegetables, chicken, salmon, etc.

Still untrue. Aside from maybe steaks on a barbecue, most cooked food is going to require seasoning, and vegetable salads will require some kind of dressing. Whatever health benefits you've gotten from the healthier foods are often reduced/negated by the condiments. Finding the low sodium/fat stuff often comes with a premium.

A small amount of extra virgin olive oil and a squeeze of lemon juice makes a fine salad dressing on many greens. Lemon, pepper, garlic, any variety of salt-free seasoning mixes are low-salt alternatives, and really, a moderate amount of salt in the diet is not a necessarily a bad thing unless your doctor has told you to restrict your sodium intake.

Oh screw it. Let's turn this into the TF Recipe thread instead.

cameroncrazy1984: Wait, have I been breaking the law all this time that I haven't seasoned my chicken, steak and fish?

Yes. Gordon Ramsay will be by shortly to kick your ass.

cameroncrazy1984: GWShenlong05: Aside from maybe steaks on a barbecue, most cooked food is going to require seasoning, and vegetable salads will require some kind of dressing. Whatever health benefits you've gotten from the healthier foods are often reduced/negated by the condiments.

Wait, have I been breaking the law all this time that I haven't seasoned my chicken, steak and fish?

Yes. Yes you have.










It's a crime against FLAVOR!

I don't see many poor people at the gym. They're busy working 3 jobs.

GWShenlong05: A package of 5 or 6 skinless can cost $18 if I'm unlucky enough to be shopping when there isn't a sale on. Not a huge problem for me, but try being a low-income parent feeding 3 kids.

Well, you could buy it with the skin on and de-skin it yourself... We don't even buy the disassembled version, we get the whole thing, disassemble it, and make soup from the remaining carcass.

And if you are trying to buy processed food and still be healthy, then yes, that's gonna be expensive. If, however, you make your own food, it costs the same. There are no "low sodium" whole chickens, they are all low sodium.

Dammit, hubie. Stop trying to seduce me!

hubiestubert: It's a crime against FLAVOUR!

BobtheFascist: Dammit, hubie. Stop trying to seduce me!

I can't help having pretty work...