Skip to content

Meanwhile in New York: Mayor Bloomberg’s Soda Ban

June 3, 2012
Reports said Mayor Bloomberg did not like his nanny clothes in this New York Times ad.

Reports said Mayor Bloomberg did not like his nanny clothes in this New York Times ad.

I posted the following informal commentary on Facebook:

Some people in the USA begin understand Bloomberg’s political basis for banning sugary drinks bigger than 16 oz. Well, if the government spends taxpayers’ money for your healthcare and other medical bills, then, it means it ‘OWNS YOU’. That it has the right to see to it that you don’t overdrink, overeat, or overrelax on your couch. Next time, they will try to ban things that could make you fat or obese like chairs, big bowls, venti paper cups at Starbucks, couches, or even cars. 

New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg defended his draconian soda ban, saying: “We’re not taking away anybody’s right to do things, we’re simply forcing you to understand that you have to make the conscious decision to go from one cup to another cup.”

LMAO!!! How clever!

That means the government is there to take care of you, and that it knows what’s best for you. Yeah, right!

In response to Bloomberg’s socialist proposal, Coca-Cola Refreshments has issued a statement relating to New York City’s anti-obesity initiative targeting soft drinks:

“The people of New York City are much smarter than the New York City Health Department believes. We are transparent with our consumers. They can see exactly how many calories are in every beverage we serve. We have prominently placed calorie counts on the front of our bottles and cans and in New York City, restaurants already post the calorie content of all their offerings and portion sizes — including soft drinks.

New Yorkers expect and deserve better than this. They can make their own choices about the beverages they purchase. We hope New Yorkers loudly voice their disapproval about this arbitrary mandate.”

Watch New York’s ever caring nanny below via MSNBC:

The Wall Street Journal explains the rationale behind Bloomberg’s proposed soda ban:

Half of the city’s residents allegedly are obese or overweight—a stat seemingly belied by the ladies who lunch and the impression on the subway that New York remains one of the few places in America where people have not ballooned to supersize. But by the state’s own estimate, it spends $8 billion annually treating obesity-related ailments under Medicaid, which is how 40% of city residents now get their health care.

Here is the ultimate justification for the Bloomberg soft-drink ban, not to mention his smoking ban, his transfat ban, and his unsuccessful efforts to enact a soda tax and prohibit buying high-calorie drinks with food stamps: The taxpayer is picking up the bill.

Call it the growing chattelization of the beneficiary class under government health-care programs. Bloombergism is a secular trend. Los Angeles has sought to ban new fast-food shops in neighborhoods disproportionately populated by Medicaid recipients, Utah to increase Medicaid copays for smokers, Arizona to impose a special tax on Medicaid recipients who smoke or are overweight. New York itself, with private money, some of it from Mr. Bloomberg’s own pocket, has also tried the carrot approach, dangling direct payments to encourage beneficiary families to adopt healthier habits.

So, like I said above, if the government pays for your medical bills and you blissfully like that idea, then that means the government also has the right to tell you how to manage your diet and what to do with your body. It’s as simple as that.

To all freeloading socialists here in the Philippines who advocate government-funded reproductive services, government-funded healthcare, government-funded education, government-funded housing and food, etc., be very careful what you wish for, MORONS.

About these ads
4 Comments leave one →
  1. nomes permalink
    June 5, 2012 3:38

    you’re an idiot.

    • June 5, 2012 3:38

      The real ‘idiot’ is anyone who supports Nannyism or Bloombergism.

  2. GabbyD permalink
    June 13, 2012 3:38

    ” if the government pays for your medical bills and you blissfully like that idea, then that means the government also has the right to tell you how to manage your diet and what to do with your body. ”

    it doesnt matter if the money goes through the government or through private insurance. as long as you are insured, SOMEONE will pay higher medical costs.

    the “solution” would be for people not to be insured, i.e. it should be ok to for private firms to reject selling insurance to people who they believe is prone to have high risk for disease.

    is this ok with you? what of these people who dont have insurance?

    • June 13, 2012 3:38

      “the “solution” would be for people not to be insured, i.e. it should be ok to for private firms to reject selling insurance to people who they believe is prone to have high risk for disease.”

      Read the post again. The state government pays for the people’s health care. As already stated: “it spends $8 billion annually treating obesity-related ailments under Medicaid, which is how 40% of city residents now get their health care.” There’s no problem with insurance as long as it is private insurance and as long as the government stops running or meddling with the insurance sector.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 242 other followers

%d bloggers like this: