http://www.latimes.com/business/mon...n-breakfast-sandwich-20130603,0,7746769.story
Guess where our health costs are headed
Guess where our health costs are headed
Dunkin Donuts to debut bacon donuts
- Thread starter ack
- Start date
That may be one of the only "meals" where the saturated fat content exceed 100%. My arteries got partially clogged looking at the picture!
And they will sell bazillions of them
And they will sell bazillions of them
You beat me to the punch.
Wonder whether it comes with a 50% off coupon for a stent?
The unfortunate consequence of all this is that the stock will go higher, which means we should invest now... sounds incestuous at best. And have you seen Krispy Kreme's stock lately? I never thought I would make money by investing in ... dung...
You beat me to the punch.
Wonder whether it comes with a 50% off coupon for a stent?
And a defibrillator.
Agreed.
I love bacon, eggs and yes, the occasional donut as well, but this combination doesn't do it for me.
I'm not huge fast food guy, but the other day I was in a McDonald's with a co-worker as he wanted their breakfast, so I ordered a McGriddle Sandwich ( I think that's what they're called). Anyway, I didn't realize that this was the same kind of thing. Instead of a donut it was pancakes. Bloody horrible!
So Mark please tell us what was scientifically WRONG about what Bloomberg wants to do? Instead of trashing him, you should as a health care professional be embracing him. He doing what doctors, not to mention not those of the profession refuse to not only talk the talk but walk the walk, are afraid to do. It's about time for not only does it impact people's health but everyone's pocket book. Why should I, someone who tries to follow a health lifestyle, pay for some idiot who weighs four hundred pounds and adds thousands of dollars in costs every year to our national health care costs. It's about time!
Bloomberg is a liberal, busy body pig. There, I saiid it...
He should try minding his own business for starters.
Bloomberg is a liberal, busy body pig. There, I saiid it...
Well for starters you've not addressed the question. Show me scientific studies that shows (or refutes) what Bloomberg is doing is wrong for health care. After all, we have charged the government, otherwise we wouldn't have a health commissioner nor Surgeon General, with addressing health care issues. And there is no health care issue bigger today than the problem of obesity. 60%, by some recently published studies, of Americans are obese. That's huge and if that was cancer, we'd have a war on obesity. And the most recent generation of Americans is the first one in decades where life expectancy has decreased.
In this day of talking about prevention--for we don't have a health but crisis care situation--what Bloomberg is doing is what should have been done all along. And what the medical profession hasn't done. The medical profession is happy with putting money in the hands of big pharma and dispensing pills instead of treating the issue. The current rate of health care costs is unsustainable and prevention is a large part of the solution.
If we could tax obesity, we would just like cigarettes.
Now THAT'S an idea I could support.
Excessive weight (in adults) demonstrates a lack of discipline (in most cases). That's a huge problem to address!!
I think obesity is a bit more complicated than that. Nature seems to have created a genetic bell curve of sorts for fat accumulators, possibly as a population survival mechanism in hard times. Indian populations that in modern times are prone to obesity and diabetes came from stock that was not obese from historical reports, because their ancestors lived lives of constant physical work and periods of privation.
Certainly, there are fat people who eat tremendous amounts, their satiety mechanisms are broken, but I have known skinny people that eat tremendous amounts and never gain an ounce. I knew a skinny guy in college who would eat entire roasts, pies and cakes and was always eating and never gained weight.
Apparently, there are stores of brown fat in areas of the body and around the spine that can act as metabolic ATP regulators by adjusting the body's heat and caloric consumption. Some people have lots of it and some people have less. Also, most people have a "set point" that is about 15 pounds plus or minus, meaning that they can lose about 30 pounds or so if they are above their "set point" to begin with, but beyond that, loss of weight is tantamount to living an unpleasant life of "willpower" driven dieting. That's why most diets don't work, and weight loss is eventually followed by gain back into the general area of the "set point" for a particular individual.
I run across skinny people in California all the time who really hand it to themselves that they are paragons of nutritional virtue and willpower rectitude, when they are probably just beneficiaries of genetic distribution in a over abundant society.
In a world of hard physical labor and scarce food resources, they would probably be the first to go.
Certainly, there are fat people who eat tremendous amounts, their satiety mechanisms are broken, but I have known skinny people that eat tremendous amounts and never gain an ounce. I knew a skinny guy in college who would eat entire roasts, pies and cakes and was always eating and never gained weight.
Apparently, there are stores of brown fat in areas of the body and around the spine that can act as metabolic ATP regulators by adjusting the body's heat and caloric consumption. Some people have lots of it and some people have less. Also, most people have a "set point" that is about 15 pounds plus or minus, meaning that they can lose about 30 pounds or so if they are above their "set point" to begin with, but beyond that, loss of weight is tantamount to living an unpleasant life of "willpower" driven dieting. That's why most diets don't work, and weight loss is eventually followed by gain back into the general area of the "set point" for a particular individual.
I run across skinny people in California all the time who really hand it to themselves that they are paragons of nutritional virtue and willpower rectitude, when they are probably just beneficiaries of genetic distribution in a over abundant society.
In a world of hard physical labor and scarce food resources, they would probably be the first to go.
Then we should ban all fat, using the Bloomberg logic. People need to take responsibility for themselves. Unfortunately, the one's who live off the government are the most unhealthy. They get all the free healthcare they want while Joe unemployed middle class guy get's no healthcare or get's to spend half of his monthly income on an individual plan. Obamacare is going to raise individual plan premiums by over 100% in many states. I thought it was supposed to save money ?..nope. Voters can be suckers.
Suggested reading:
Rousseau: The Extreme Democrat
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) was born in Geneva, Switzerland, where all adult male citizens could vote for a representative government. Rousseau traveled in France and Italy, educating himself.
In 1751, he won an essay contest. His fresh view that man was naturally good and was corrupted by society made him a celebrity in the French salons where artists, scientists, and writers gathered to discuss the latest ideas.
A few years later he published another essay in which he described savages in a state of nature as free, equal, peaceful, and happy. When people began to claim ownership of property, Rousseau argued, inequality, murder, and war resulted.
According to Rousseau, the powerful rich stole the land belonging to everyone and fooled the common people into accepting them as rulers. Rousseau concluded that the social contract was not a willing agreement, as Hobbes, Locke, and Montesquieu had believed, but a fraud against the people committed by the rich.
In 1762, Rousseau published his most important work on political theory, The Social Contract. His opening line is still striking today: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” Rousseau agreed with Locke that the individual should never be forced to give up his or her natural rights to a king.
The problem in the state of nature, Rousseau said, was to find a way to protect everyone’s life, liberty, and property while each person remained free. Rousseau’s solution was for people to enter into a social contract. They would give up all their rights, not to a king, but to “the whole community,” all the people. He called all the people the “sovereign,” a term used by Hobbes to mainly refer to a king. The people then exercised their “general will” to make laws for the “public good.”
Rousseau argued that the general will of the people could not be decided by elected representatives. He believed in a direct democracy in which everyone voted to express the general will and to make the laws of the land. Rousseau had in mind a democracy on a small scale, a city-state like his native Geneva.
In Rousseau’s democracy, anyone who disobeyed the general will of the people “will be forced to be free.” He believed that citizens must obey the laws or be forced to do so as long as they remained a resident of the state. This is a “civil state,” Rousseau says, where security, justice, liberty, and property are protected and enjoyed by all.
All political power, according to Rousseau, must reside with the people, exercising their general will. There can be no separation of powers, as Montesquieu proposed. The people, meeting together, will deliberate individually on laws and then by majority vote find the general will. Rousseau’s general will was later embodied in the words “We the people . . .” at the beginning of the U.S. Constitution.
Rousseau was rather vague on the mechanics of how his democracy would work. There would be a government of sorts, entrusted with administering the general will. But it would be composed of “mere officials” who got their orders from the people.
Rousseau believed that religion divided and weakened the state. “It is impossible to live in peace with people you think are damned,” he said. He favored a “civil religion” that accepted God, but concentrated on the sacredness of the social contract.
Rousseau realized that democracy as he envisioned it would be hard to maintain. He warned, “As soon as any man says of the affairs of the State, ‘What does it matter to me?’ the State may be given up for lost.”
Rousseau: The Extreme Democrat
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) was born in Geneva, Switzerland, where all adult male citizens could vote for a representative government. Rousseau traveled in France and Italy, educating himself.
In 1751, he won an essay contest. His fresh view that man was naturally good and was corrupted by society made him a celebrity in the French salons where artists, scientists, and writers gathered to discuss the latest ideas.
A few years later he published another essay in which he described savages in a state of nature as free, equal, peaceful, and happy. When people began to claim ownership of property, Rousseau argued, inequality, murder, and war resulted.
According to Rousseau, the powerful rich stole the land belonging to everyone and fooled the common people into accepting them as rulers. Rousseau concluded that the social contract was not a willing agreement, as Hobbes, Locke, and Montesquieu had believed, but a fraud against the people committed by the rich.
In 1762, Rousseau published his most important work on political theory, The Social Contract. His opening line is still striking today: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” Rousseau agreed with Locke that the individual should never be forced to give up his or her natural rights to a king.
The problem in the state of nature, Rousseau said, was to find a way to protect everyone’s life, liberty, and property while each person remained free. Rousseau’s solution was for people to enter into a social contract. They would give up all their rights, not to a king, but to “the whole community,” all the people. He called all the people the “sovereign,” a term used by Hobbes to mainly refer to a king. The people then exercised their “general will” to make laws for the “public good.”
Rousseau argued that the general will of the people could not be decided by elected representatives. He believed in a direct democracy in which everyone voted to express the general will and to make the laws of the land. Rousseau had in mind a democracy on a small scale, a city-state like his native Geneva.
In Rousseau’s democracy, anyone who disobeyed the general will of the people “will be forced to be free.” He believed that citizens must obey the laws or be forced to do so as long as they remained a resident of the state. This is a “civil state,” Rousseau says, where security, justice, liberty, and property are protected and enjoyed by all.
All political power, according to Rousseau, must reside with the people, exercising their general will. There can be no separation of powers, as Montesquieu proposed. The people, meeting together, will deliberate individually on laws and then by majority vote find the general will. Rousseau’s general will was later embodied in the words “We the people . . .” at the beginning of the U.S. Constitution.
Rousseau was rather vague on the mechanics of how his democracy would work. There would be a government of sorts, entrusted with administering the general will. But it would be composed of “mere officials” who got their orders from the people.
Rousseau believed that religion divided and weakened the state. “It is impossible to live in peace with people you think are damned,” he said. He favored a “civil religion” that accepted God, but concentrated on the sacredness of the social contract.
Rousseau realized that democracy as he envisioned it would be hard to maintain. He warned, “As soon as any man says of the affairs of the State, ‘What does it matter to me?’ the State may be given up for lost.”
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |