Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   Mississippi, the fattest state in the union, reacts to NYC mayor Bloomberg's "big soda ban" by passing a law to make it illegal for any city in THEIR state to ever force restaurants to limit portion sizes or post calorie counts   (nydailynews.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, Michael Bloomberg, calorie counts, Mississippi, nyc mayor, Dietary Reference Intake, Big Gulp, Stonewall, speed limits  
•       •       •

3779 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2013 at 12:33 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



295 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-03-13 01:00:07 PM  
Obamacare is going to require that all restaurants with more than 20 locations post calorie counts anyway, so whatever, just another red state screaming like a maniac.
 
2013-03-13 01:00:30 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Theaetetus: pacified: Bloomberg is right, too.  There is no reason to sell large sodas.  I don't care if it is your farking right.  Is it my "right" to have to pay for your fat ass diabetus?!?!?!  No, Mr. Brimley, it is not.  So STFU, get a small coke, and worry about an actual problem.

And what if I want 64 ounces of  diet coke? Or 64 ounces of seltzer? Or 64 ounces of black iced coffee? Some of us have manly thirst requirements.

"manly thirst requirements"? Hahaha. I guess that's the reason for the Big Gulps- like for long distance truckers... But what I don't understand is why in the last ten years, a small went from 12 oz to 16, a med went from 16 to 20, and a large went from 20 to like 40. So big that they had to alter the bottom four inches of the cup to fit into a cupholder, because the rest is so wide, it won't fit. It's utterly ridiculous. When I worked in food service in 2003, those were the sizes. Sometime in the last few years they've gone up. THERE IS NO REASON FOR THAT.


One word: ice.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a 16oz cup filled to the brim with ice holds about 1/4 of that as actual drink.  Same goes for the 64oz cups ... fill it with 50oz of ice, and well, you get the customer to pay more for a preceived value.

Also, drinks are profit centers.  A $1.89 soda costs about 25 cents worth of product, 20 of which being the cup, lid, and straw.  The soda itself is the cheapest shiat known to man.
 
2013-03-13 01:01:09 PM  
Eating healthy is un-American.
 
2013-03-13 01:01:58 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Theaetetus: pacified: Bloomberg is right, too.  There is no reason to sell large sodas.  I don't care if it is your farking right.  Is it my "right" to have to pay for your fat ass diabetus?!?!?!  No, Mr. Brimley, it is not.  So STFU, get a small coke, and worry about an actual problem.

And what if I want 64 ounces of  diet coke? Or 64 ounces of seltzer? Or 64 ounces of black iced coffee? Some of us have manly thirst requirements.

"manly thirst requirements"? Hahaha. I guess that's the reason for the Big Gulps- like for long distance truckers...


I'm an iced coffee fiend.

But what I don't understand is why in the last ten years, a small went from 12 oz to 16, a med went from 16 to 20, and a large went from 20 to like 40. So big that they had to alter the bottom four inches of the cup to fit into a cupholder, because the rest is so wide, it won't fit. It's utterly ridiculous. When I worked in food service in 2003, those were the sizes. Sometime in the last few years they've gone up. THERE IS NO REASON FOR THAT.

Because America. No, really. We've been trained by the corporations to go for value over quality, which invariably means quantity over reasonable sizes. Specifically, they can increase the size of a drink from 12 to 16 ounces for a mere penny or two, but charge the consumer 20-30 cents more, and we think we're getting a better "value". It's all about profit margins. Same thing with portions sizes at restaurants... You've got a $10 entree with an $8 cost, but most of that cost is labor. You can double the size of it for an additional $2 in food costs, the labor is just about identical, and now you can justify charging $15 or $20.
 
2013-03-13 01:02:16 PM  

occamswrist: When I see calories on a menu I start thinking like an engineer again - reduce my $/calorie. I usually have to talk myself out of thinking like that. Calories on the menu are a distraction.


You're right. Public policy should be tailored to avoid making aspies feel uncomfortable.
 
2013-03-13 01:02:27 PM  

pacified: Bloomberg is right, too.  There is no reason to sell large sodas.  I don't care if it is your farking right.  Is it my "right" to have to pay for your fat ass diabetus?!?!?!  No, Mr. Brimley, it is not.  So STFU, get a small coke, and worry about an actual problem.


Here's the funny thing about living in an ostensibly free society, you don't get to decide whether or not there's a reason to sell large drinks.  Oh, I'm sure the world would be a better place if you ran things, but unfortunately for all of us, we don't have you as our benevolent dictator and have to make do with our flawed representative democracy.
 
US1
2013-03-13 01:02:58 PM  

Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?


IT is because its expensive for small resturaunts to implement a calorie count.  If you dont know that what your eating is unhealthy already then...download palfit on your phone or something
 
2013-03-13 01:03:12 PM  

Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?


I'm not arguing in favor of the bill, but from a libertarian point of view, it's at least consistent. You can't tell me how big my portions can be, and you can't force me to post calorie counts.
 
2013-03-13 01:03:17 PM  

kumanoki: pacified: ahh, the american south!  Never has a larger group of fat, stupid morons ever been collected.  Lincoln was wrong.  Should have let the racist inbred pig-farkers start keep their fatty fat country.

the whole of the south still lives in a slavery mentality, like the house slave: praising their oppressors.

Whoa, whoa, whoa there, son!
[susanhenschen.files.wordpress.com image 320x353]



He's not wrong, and the south is now infecting the rest of the country.
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/southern_values_revived/
 
2013-03-13 01:03:35 PM  
Why is this in any way asinine?
 
2013-03-13 01:03:36 PM  
So would the fattest Republican state in the nation qualify as big government or not?
 
2013-03-13 01:03:39 PM  
seadoo2006:
One word: ice.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a 16oz cup filled to the brim with ice holds about 1/4 of that as actual drink.  Same goes for the 64oz cups ... fill it with 50oz of ice, and well, you get the customer to pay more for a preceived value.

Also, drinks are profit centers.  A $1.89 soda costs about 25 cents worth of product, 20 of which being the cup, lid, and straw.  The soda itself is the cheapest shiat known to man.


Not just the ice. Even if you include 64 oz of soda in that cup, it's still going to be only an additional few pennies of syrup and water. It's all profit margins and economies of scale.
 
2013-03-13 01:04:23 PM  

Theaetetus: Ring of Fire: theknuckler_33: Passing laws that they think will really 'stick it to them libs'... the primary goal of conservatives.

Yep that's what this is really all about. I actually don't agree with trying to limit portion sizes if some one wants to drink three gallons of come be my guest. I also think if someone wants to get high as a kite that we shouldn't stop them either. Somehow I think the sponsor of the bill might not agree with me on that.
As for the calorie count issue. Why not put it out there let the free market decide? Oh you want to piss off libs that would like to make informed decisions about what they eat.

Information is one of the requirements of the free market.


Oh yeah I know I probably could have worded it better.  I meant to put the calorie count out.  If people want a informed choices they can't do that without having all the information.  If people are at least able to find out how many calories are in that triple cheeseburger and they still want to eat it fine, but if they have no way of knowing thats not really a free market.
 
2013-03-13 01:04:32 PM  

impaler: occamswrist: Just looking at the food on your plate can give you a reasonable idea how many calories there are

Most people don't have laser spectrometers for eyes. In fact, nobody does.


Why'd you skip over the word "reasonable"? Oh I know, to argue..
 
2013-03-13 01:05:11 PM  

US1: Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?

IT is because its expensive for small resturaunts to implement a calorie count.


They're explicitly exempt in the bill, so that's about as relevant as saying "it's expensive for small restaurants to buy aircraft carriers, so that's why informing consumers is bad."
 
2013-03-13 01:05:53 PM  
Vermont trying to pass a law about ingredients listing and calorie info.

Guess who is now all mad, and might get exemptions? Farmers markets!! Because darn it, if it is hippie, it should be exempt!
 
2013-03-13 01:06:03 PM  

SN1987a goes boom: The bill was authored by state Sen. Tony Smith, a Republican who owns the Stonewall's BBQ chain, who said government shouldn't tell people what they cannot eat.

Nope, no conflict of interest here.


A bill to the opposite effect would be a conflict of interests.  This is Zen BBQ harmony.
 
2013-03-13 01:06:27 PM  

Theaetetus: kiwimoogle84: Theaetetus: pacified: Bloomberg is right, too.  There is no reason to sell large sodas.  I don't care if it is your farking right.  Is it my "right" to have to pay for your fat ass diabetus?!?!?!  No, Mr. Brimley, it is not.  So STFU, get a small coke, and worry about an actual problem.

And what if I want 64 ounces of  diet coke? Or 64 ounces of seltzer? Or 64 ounces of black iced coffee? Some of us have manly thirst requirements.

"manly thirst requirements"? Hahaha. I guess that's the reason for the Big Gulps- like for long distance truckers...

I'm an iced coffee fiend.

But what I don't understand is why in the last ten years, a small went from 12 oz to 16, a med went from 16 to 20, and a large went from 20 to like 40. So big that they had to alter the bottom four inches of the cup to fit into a cupholder, because the rest is so wide, it won't fit. It's utterly ridiculous. When I worked in food service in 2003, those were the sizes. Sometime in the last few years they've gone up. THERE IS NO REASON FOR THAT.

Because America. No, really. We've been trained by the corporations to go for value over quality, which invariably means quantity over reasonable sizes. Specifically, they can increase the size of a drink from 12 to 16 ounces for a mere penny or two, but charge the consumer 20-30 cents more, and we think we're getting a better "value". It's all about profit margins. Same thing with portions sizes at restaurants... You've got a $10 entree with an $8 cost, but most of that cost is labor. You can double the size of it for an additional $2 in food costs, the labor is just about identical, and now you can justify charging $15 or $20.


And that's why you should only eat at all-you-can-eat buffets.

QED
 
2013-03-13 01:07:27 PM  

mod3072: Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?

I'm not arguing in favor of the bill, but from a libertarian point of view, it's at least consistent. You can't tell me how big my portions can be, and you can't force me to post calorie counts.


Libertarian, not anarchistic. Libertarians still believe in regulating the market by preventing fraud, for example. No one is making the argument that "it's not the government's place to keep me from lying to customers." Encouraging an informed marketplace is certainly a libertarian ideal.
 
2013-03-13 01:07:30 PM  

US1: IT is because its expensive for small resturaunts to implement a calorie count.


No it's not. Besides, small restaurants don't have to.
 
2013-03-13 01:07:37 PM  

seadoo2006: kiwimoogle84: Theaetetus: pacified: Bloomberg is right, too.  There is no reason to sell large sodas.  I don't care if it is your farking right.  Is it my "right" to have to pay for your fat ass diabetus?!?!?!  No, Mr. Brimley, it is not.  So STFU, get a small coke, and worry about an actual problem.

And what if I want 64 ounces of  diet coke? Or 64 ounces of seltzer? Or 64 ounces of black iced coffee? Some of us have manly thirst requirements.

"manly thirst requirements"? Hahaha. I guess that's the reason for the Big Gulps- like for long distance truckers... But what I don't understand is why in the last ten years, a small went from 12 oz to 16, a med went from 16 to 20, and a large went from 20 to like 40. So big that they had to alter the bottom four inches of the cup to fit into a cupholder, because the rest is so wide, it won't fit. It's utterly ridiculous. When I worked in food service in 2003, those were the sizes. Sometime in the last few years they've gone up. THERE IS NO REASON FOR THAT.

One word: ice.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a 16oz cup filled to the brim with ice holds about 1/4 of that as actual drink.  Same goes for the 64oz cups ... fill it with 50oz of ice, and well, you get the customer to pay more for a preceived value.

Also, drinks are profit centers.  A $1.89 soda costs about 25 cents worth of product, 20 of which being the cup, lid, and straw.  The soda itself is the cheapest shiat known to man.


I don't know ANYONE, outside of bartenders, who fill up their cups entirely with ice. And yes, profit centers, but we shouldn't have SIZE inflation. That's just stupid.

Theaetetus: seadoo2006:
One word: ice.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a 16oz cup filled to the brim with ice holds about 1/4 of that as actual drink.  Same goes for the 64oz cups ... fill it with 50oz of ice, and well, you get the customer to pay more for a preceived value.

Also, drinks are profit centers.  A $1.89 soda costs about 25 cents worth of product, 20 of which being the cup, lid, and straw.  The soda itself is the cheapest shiat known to man.

Not just the ice. Even if you include 64 oz of soda in that cup, it's still going to be only an additional few pennies of syrup and water. It's all profit margins and economies of scale.


You're right. You're actually both right. It's just really stupid and fuels obesity. If I order a small soda, it's because I only want a little bit. Yet you hand me this monstrous thing because "it comes with the meal." Dear lord, I wanted a little bit to wash down my food, not a swimming pool.
 
2013-03-13 01:07:43 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: I'd love to see some congressperson troll Mississippi by tying Medicaid funding to a mandate on the display of calorie counts.


You'd love to see every poor person in MS lose Medicaid?
 
2013-03-13 01:08:30 PM  

pedrop357: Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?

No, you can post the calorie counts if your customers demand.  The local government may not force you to do so.


So basically, you don't have to post calorie counts if it tells customers how bad your food is for them.  Which would completely defeat the point of posting calorie counts.
 
2013-03-13 01:09:38 PM  
Southern states dislike being labeled as stupid but also exert so much effort to make themselves appear stupid. I don't get it.
 
2013-03-13 01:09:40 PM  

occamswrist: impaler: occamswrist: Just looking at the food on your plate can give you a reasonable idea how many calories there are

Most people don't have laser spectrometers for eyes. In fact, nobody does.

Why'd you skip over the word "reasonable"? Oh I know, to argue..


No, because sometimes you can't get a reasonable idea. It's that simple.
 
2013-03-13 01:09:47 PM  

Cagey B: occamswrist: When I see calories on a menu I start thinking like an engineer again - reduce my $/calorie. I usually have to talk myself out of thinking like that. Calories on the menu are a distraction.

You're right. Public policy should be tailored to avoid making aspies feel uncomfortable.


I'm not the one trying to force my beliefs onto others.

The people trying to ban large sodas and mandate menus carry calories (because then fat people will think twice!) who are the ones forcing policies onto others.
 
2013-03-13 01:10:17 PM  

Dissociater: And that's why you should only eat at all-you-can-eat buffets.

QED

Demolition Man

was wrong.  The only restaurant in the coming future dystopia won't be Taco Bell.  It'll be the Golden Corral.
 
2013-03-13 01:10:18 PM  

Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?


Completely agree.  Portion size is up to the person doing the purchasing and nobody else.

Calorie count is simply giving the purchaser more information.
 
2013-03-13 01:10:36 PM  

Theaetetus: pacified: Bloomberg is right, too.  There is no reason to sell large sodas.  I don't care if it is your farking right.  Is it my "right" to have to pay for your fat ass diabetus?!?!?!  No, Mr. Brimley, it is not.  So STFU, get a small coke, and worry about an actual problem.

And what if I want 64 ounces of  diet coke? Or 64 ounces of seltzer? Or 64 ounces of black iced coffee? Some of us have manly thirst requirements.


I'd prefer levying a large tax on those beverages, not a ban.  I pay a lot for my cigarettes, time for the fatties to pony up as well.
 
2013-03-13 01:11:15 PM  
It's always the States that manifestly don't know what they're doing who tell the feds, "Don't you dare tell us what to do!"
 
2013-03-13 01:12:06 PM  

occamswrist: impaler: occamswrist: Just looking at the food on your plate can give you a reasonable idea how many calories there are

Most people don't have laser spectrometers for eyes. In fact, nobody does.

Why'd you skip over the word "reasonable"? Oh I know, to argue..


That only works if the food you get in a restaurant or at a drive-through is comparable to the food you make at home, and doesn't have, say, tons of sugar in the hamburger bun.
 
2013-03-13 01:12:13 PM  

Glancing Blow: PreMortem: I loathe the fact my taxes are used to buy hoverounds and pay out disability payments for the willingly obese. They should have to enroll in a diet/fitness programs or lose benefits. Mississippi takes in more federal Medicaid dollars per those spent than any other state as well.

Could you explain the relationship between obesity and Medicaid?


Not as good as This
 
2013-03-13 01:13:05 PM  
Ugh, fat people.  If only they qualified as big game I could have such a trophy room.
 
2013-03-13 01:13:50 PM  

occamswrist: I'm not the one trying to force my beliefs onto others.

The people trying to ban large sodas and mandate menus carry calories (because then fat people will think twice!) who are the ones forcing policies onto others.


As it so happens, "an informed marketplace" is indeed a belief of mine, and I'll force the shiat out of it onto you as far as I'm able. Fortunately there are enough people in government whose only ideology isn't "hurr stick it to libs" that basic information like what's in your food is widely available and has been so for years.

Also, it's not just fat people who keep track of caloric intake. In fact, I'd dare say that a non-fat person is probably more likely to want that information.
 
2013-03-13 01:14:05 PM  

Gergesa: Ugh, fat people.  If only they qualified as big game I could have such a trophy room.


Yes, but I'm not sure why you'd want to hang your used condoms on your walls.
 
2013-03-13 01:15:14 PM  

US1: Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?

IT is because its expensive for small resturaunts to implement a calorie count.  If you dont know that what your eating is unhealthy already then...download palfit on your phone or something


So, it's too expensive for a small restaurant to download a free app and then have their staff take a few minutes a day over the span of a week or so adding calorie counts to the menus?  The calorie count laws don't apply to small restaurants anyway, but saying "it's too expensive to implement" is dumb when the information is available for free and the labor is damn close to free.


Thunderpipes: Vermont trying to pass a law about ingredients listing and calorie info.

Guess who is now all mad, and might get exemptions? Farmers markets!! Because darn it, if it is hippie, it should be exempt!


Holy shiat I was in for a surprise the first time I went to a Farmer's Market here in VT.  I'm used to the ones in AZ and CA...you know, where the farmer's sell direct to the customer at prices lower than the grocery store?  I get to a Farmer's Market here, and shiat's two and three times what it costs in the grocery store, even the hippe-ass co-op.
 
2013-03-13 01:15:24 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Glancing Blow: PreMortem: I loathe the fact my taxes are used to buy hoverounds and pay out disability payments for the willingly obese. They should have to enroll in a diet/fitness programs or lose benefits. Mississippi takes in more federal Medicaid dollars per those spent than any other state as well.

Could you explain the relationship between obesity and Medicaid?

Have you never seen the old episode of The Simpsons where Homer's goal is to gain weight to get over 300 lbs so he can collect disability? If you can't work because you're too fat to get in the door/have heart problems/have knee problems/have a "thyroid problem"/whatever, then you're collecting disability and get medicaid/medical as your insurance since you're under the income line. You're welcome.



I'm not sure who the people you describe are collecting disability from since the ones you list would not be grounds for Social Security Disability income (lookup sedentary work as defined by the Department of Labor), nor do they appear to be related to any kind of workman's compensation.

You do not automatically qualify for medicaid because you're receiving disability payments, although in many states people with disabilities qualify automatically if they get Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits.  Medicaid is income-based, not disability based.   Medicaid is available to anyone who can show a medical need, but lacks the income to obtain the care, although the services vary widely from state to state.
 
2013-03-13 01:17:35 PM  

pacified: the whole of the south still lives in a slavery mentality


I think at this point we can call it mental slavery.
 
2013-03-13 01:17:41 PM  

Theaetetus: Gergesa: Ugh, fat people.  If only they qualified as big game I could have such a trophy room.

Yes, but I'm not sure why you'd want to hang your used condoms on your walls.


Needs work.  Try again.
 
2013-03-13 01:19:38 PM  
You want your god given right to be Fatty Fat McFatston? Stay classy, Mississippi.

i651.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-13 01:20:33 PM  

Gergesa: Theaetetus: Gergesa: Ugh, fat people.  If only they qualified as big game I could have such a trophy room.

Yes, but I'm not sure why you'd want to hang your used condoms on your walls.

Needs work.  Try again.


It's because you have sex with fat people.
 
2013-03-13 01:20:49 PM  
Nice chinstrap on that fat fark libertarian.
 
2013-03-13 01:20:52 PM  

PapaChester: A Republican businessman/politician with conflict of interest who sponsors a law that helps his business?

img829.imageshack.us

Yup...

Florida's Lt Gov resigns over charges she was feathering her own nest.
 
2013-03-13 01:21:00 PM  

Theaetetus: occamswrist: impaler: occamswrist: Just looking at the food on your plate can give you a reasonable idea how many calories there are

Most people don't have laser spectrometers for eyes. In fact, nobody does.

Why'd you skip over the word "reasonable"? Oh I know, to argue..

That only works if the food you get in a restaurant or at a drive-through is comparable to the food you make at home, and doesn't have, say, tons of sugar in the hamburger bun.


Point taken.

I remember being in a burger king as a kid and looking at their calorie chart. Hamburgers ranged from 500-900 calories or so depending on what's on it.

Can I move the goal post and say "looking at and taking one bite of your food and you can get a reasonable idea on calories."

If they gave you too many calories on your tray, don't eat all the food. Big deal...

How many people who count calories eat shiat fast food often enough that this matters? My guess is few.
 
2013-03-13 01:22:12 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Uranus Is Huge!: I'd love to see some congressperson troll Mississippi by tying Medicaid funding to a mandate on the display of calorie counts.

You'd love to see every poor person in MS lose Medicaid?


Yes. That was exactly my point. I hope to see the poor of Mississippi die in the streets after my imaginary bill passes through the Republican-controlled US House of Representatives, gets rubber-stamped by the Senate, and is signed into law by HRH Barack Pol Pol Obamao.

Thank you for your concise summary of my proposal.
 
2013-03-13 01:23:22 PM  

Glancing Blow: kiwimoogle84: Glancing Blow: PreMortem: I loathe the fact my taxes are used to buy hoverounds and pay out disability payments for the willingly obese. They should have to enroll in a diet/fitness programs or lose benefits. Mississippi takes in more federal Medicaid dollars per those spent than any other state as well.

Could you explain the relationship between obesity and Medicaid?

Have you never seen the old episode of The Simpsons where Homer's goal is to gain weight to get over 300 lbs so he can collect disability? If you can't work because you're too fat to get in the door/have heart problems/have knee problems/have a "thyroid problem"/whatever, then you're collecting disability and get medicaid/medical as your insurance since you're under the income line. You're welcome.


I'm not sure who the people you describe are collecting disability from since the ones you list would not be grounds for Social Security Disability income (lookup sedentary work as defined by the Department of Labor), nor do they appear to be related to any kind of workman's compensation.

You do not automatically qualify for medicaid because you're receiving disability payments, although in many states people with disabilities qualify automatically if they get Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits.  Medicaid is income-based, not disability based.   Medicaid is available to anyone who can show a medical need, but lacks the income to obtain the care, although the services vary widely from state to state.


You know what? You do in fact know more about this than I do, and prepared your counterpoint in a concise manner that did not insult or alienate me.

You sure you're in the right forum? :P

Thanks for the info, actually. I've never worked the side of determining eligibility for government services, I just get the claims. I get a lot of obesity related claims and I have always been under the IMPRESSION that if you were legally qualified as disabled due to your weight, and collected disability pay, you'd automatically be in an income bracket to recieve state medical benefits. Now I'll have to do my research to see what the guidelines actually are, since it could be useful to my field. Thanks!
 
2013-03-13 01:23:31 PM  

Theaetetus: Gergesa: Ugh, fat people.  If only they qualified as big game I could have such a trophy room.

Yes, but I'm not sure why you'd want to hang your used condoms on your walls.


Winning.
 
2013-03-13 01:25:23 PM  

Magorn: Theaetetus: Banning limiting portion size, I can understand. From a libertarian perspective, it's "hey, if you want to eat yourself stupid, it's not the government's place to stop you."
But banning requiring calorie counts? What's the theory there? "Freedom requires ignorance"?

I think the answer may lie in the fact that the sponsor also owns the state's largest chain of BBQ joints actually.

Still, this sort of knee-jerk reaction makes me think Bloomberg should next pass a law making the constant breathing of air mandatory for all citizens.  The collective IQ of the country would go up by 15 points overnight.


IQ doesn't work like that.
 
2013-03-13 01:25:49 PM  

occamswrist: Theaetetus: occamswrist: impaler: occamswrist: Just looking at the food on your plate can give you a reasonable idea how many calories there are

Most people don't have laser spectrometers for eyes. In fact, nobody does.

Why'd you skip over the word "reasonable"? Oh I know, to argue..

That only works if the food you get in a restaurant or at a drive-through is comparable to the food you make at home, and doesn't have, say, tons of sugar in the hamburger bun.

Point taken.

I remember being in a burger king as a kid and looking at their calorie chart. Hamburgers ranged from 500-900 calories or so depending on what's on it.

Can I move the goal post and say "looking at and taking one bite of your food and you can get a reasonable idea on calories."

If they gave you too many calories on your tray, don't eat all the food. Big deal...

How many people who count calories eat shiat fast food often enough that this matters? My guess is few.


And that was my previous point regarding lawsuits- Someone tried to sue Oreos once for making them fat, or pass a law that said you had to be 18 to buy them, or something like that (I'll look it up later.) Someone could actually get away with denying knowledge of how many calories a triple pastrami heart attack burger had in it, and sue over obesity due to it, since the calories aren't listed. And that fat fark will win.
 
2013-03-13 01:26:21 PM  

occamswrist: impaler: occamswrist: Just looking at the food on your plate can give you a reasonable idea how many calories there are

Most people don't have laser spectrometers for eyes. In fact, nobody does.

Why'd you skip over the word "reasonable"? Oh I know, to argue..


Quick, glance at these and give us a reasonable idea of how many calories they are in each:
2.bp.blogspot.com
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
Displayed 50 of 295 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report