Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: T.O.M. on March 11, 2013, 04:08:29 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/judge-throws-nyc-ban-large-sugary-drinks-193247946--politics.html
So, the Emperor...I mean Mayor...of New York finds out that his power has limits, and he cannot ban big size sweet drinks because he says so.
Long story short, Judge ruled that the measure is arbitrary and capricious, and that it was improperly enacted (by mandate of the Mayor and Health Department as opposed to by vote of city council).
Given his ego, and his apparent desire to rule the world, starting with NYC, how long until he orders this judge investigatr/removed from office? :lol:
Sorry, it's just fun to see a tyrant lose...
-
Awwwwww....poor Bloomberg...who's a sad panda now?
-
"Arbitrary and capricious": that's Bloomberg all right.
-
I'll be interested to see some of the fallout on this. I saw that some restaurants were refusing to spend the thousands and thousands of dollars to switch their glassware and cups in hopes of this failing, while others had already not only bought new glassware, but I also saw where some popular bowling alley there had so embraced Bloomberg's idea that they were switching to stuff like carrot juice instead of soda.
-
I'll be interested to see some of the fallout on this. I saw that some restaurants were refusing to spend the thousands and thousands of dollars to switch their glassware and cups in hopes of this failing, while others had already not only bought new glassware, but I also saw where some popular bowling alley there had so embraced Bloomberg's idea that they were switching to stuff like carrot juice instead of soda.
The free market should take care of instances like the bowling alley, but I wonder if the businesses who bought a bunch of stuff in anticipation of the rule going into affect can sue the city...
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/11/us-sodaban-lawsuit-idUSBRE92A0YR20130311
(Reuters) - New York City's plan to ban large sugary drinks from restaurants, movie theaters and other establishments was invalidated by a judge on Monday, the day before the new law was to take effect.
State Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling in Manhattan called the regulation "arbitrary and capricious" and declared it invalid after the American Beverage Association and other business groups had sued the city challenging the ban.
This ought to keep out of Poly-tics because all the comments will be just making fun of Mikey.
stay safe.
-
Good way to start the week.
If Magpul manages to beat CO, it'll be one for the books.
-
Reading some of the comments from the judge in the ruling, Bloomberg not only lost, he got the legal equivalent of a bitch-slap
-
We can hope to see some of the new arbitrary and capricious gun laws struck down as well.
-
Why do you guys hate the chubby little children?
Just sayin'.
-
Merged.
-
From my icy cold, somewhat damp, and pudgy dead hands!
-
To keep with the political/legal aspect of the forum, do we think he even realizes that helokks the fool for this? What business is it of .gov if I drink a 20oz Pepsi with my lunch?
AND a thought crossed my mind when I heard him and some other talking heads bemoaning obesity problems...how long until Bloomberg or another of his kind proposes a tax based on weight or BMI? Cut right to the heart of the issue? Drop the weight or pay for it...
-
To keep with the political/legal aspect of the forum, do we think he even realizes that helokks the fool for this? What business is it of .gov if I drink a 20oz Pepsi with my lunch?
AND a thought crossed my mind when I heard him and some other talking heads bemoaning obesity problems...how long until Bloomberg or another of his kind proposes a tax based on weight or BMI? Cut right to the heart of the issue? Drop the weight or pay for it...
I think it is far more likely that health insurers will start to levy a premium surcharge for BMI or smoking, or put higher deductibles or co-pays in place. You can argue that it is already happening, with some plans giving employees reductions in the premium cost if they do not smoke and get their cholesterol and blood pressure checked once per year.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash3%2F487992_10152642256825368_2137052065_n.jpg&hash=463e8739652d99c7c5808a4dcfa76773b4b35ba1)
-
IIRC, the Big Gulp Ban doesn't apply to diet sodas. I'd wondered what prevented someone from filling up a BG cup with regular soda & telling the cashier that it was diet. And who enforces compliance? Would NYPD change their policy to Stop/Frisk/Sip?....
-
I think it is far more likely that health insurers will start to levy a premium surcharge for BMI or smoking, or put higher deductibles or co-pays in place. You can argue that it is already happening, with some plans giving employees reductions in the premium cost if they do not smoke and get their cholesterol and blood pressure checked once per year.
We have that at work right now. The company pays your monthly premium. If you want that to continue then you have to have health screening once a year and be in a predetermined point range (0 to -20) and you are good. If you smoke you get major points against you, this has forced a couple of people to quit smoking. If you are above the range you are given a year with active health coaching to get your points back down below 0, if not then your are paying. If you don't submit to the health screening then you are paying the monthly Cobra amount if you want the company's insurance.
-
We have that at work right now. The company pays your monthly premium. If you want that to continue then you have to have health screening once a year and be in a predetermined point range (0 to -20) and you are good. If you smoke you get major points against you, this has forced a couple of people to quit smoking. If you are above the range you are given a year with active health coaching to get your points back down below 0, if not then your are paying. If you don't submit to the health screening then you are paying the monthly Cobra amount if you want the company's insurance.
I refuse to go to a doctor unless I am severly injured. I haven't been to a doctor for being "sick" for at least 15 years.
Neither do I have insurance. The thing we most worry about Obamacare is being forced to get routine checkups/tests. What are they going to do - send SWAT to take you in for prostrate exam or mammogram ? :facepalm:
-
Prostate?
Probe on a drone.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash3%2F487992_10152642256825368_2137052065_n.jpg&hash=463e8739652d99c7c5808a4dcfa76773b4b35ba1)
and they're not even wrote in with an amendment..........
-
I think it is far more likely that health insurers will start to levy a premium surcharge for BMI or smoking, or put higher deductibles or co-pays in place. You can argue that it is already happening, with some plans giving employees reductions in the premium cost if they do not smoke and get their cholesterol and blood pressure checked once per year.
Wow, I can quote my own post for this announcement from CVS:
http://lifeinc.today.com/_news/2013/03/20/17387406-cvs-to-workers-tell-us-how-much-you-weigh-or-itll-cost-you-600-a-year?lite
Not an incentive, but an actual penalty/premium surcharge.
-
I hope the BMI index excludes us low fat higher than average muscle types.
-
I hope the BMI index excludes us low fat higher than average muscle types.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
The bean counters run the show. Reality counts for nothing.
-
On my plan, it just costs a flat $30/mo extra if you say you are a smoker. Personally, i don't have a problem with insurers charging more based on behavior, but $30/ mo sounds radically high considering the actual health impact of smoking, which is undeniable, but not overwhelmingly bad compared to other behavior factors. It makes me think the company is soaking smoker as a profit center, purely because they feel they can get away with it based on the unpopularity and current image of smoking.
-
I think it is far more likely that health insurers will start to levy a premium surcharge for BMI or smoking, or put higher deductibles or co-pays in place. You can argue that it is already happening, with some plans giving employees reductions in the premium cost if they do not smoke and get their cholesterol and blood pressure checked once per year.
We have that at work right now. The company pays your monthly premium. If you want that to continue then you have to have health screening once a year and be in a predetermined point range (0 to -20) and you are good. If you smoke you get major points against you, this has forced a couple of people to quit smoking. If you are above the range you are given a year with active health coaching to get your points back down below 0, if not then your are paying. If you don't submit to the health screening then you are paying the monthly Cobra amount if you want the company's insurance.
Then I expect similar penalties for alcoholism, homosexual behavior, (currently) illegal drug use and the like. All those who engage in that behavior are significantly more at risk for health complications due to that behavior, just as smokers and fatties are.
-
Then I expect similar penalties for alcoholism, homosexual behavior, (currently) illegal drug use and the like. All those who engage in that behavior are significantly more at risk for health complications due to that behavior, just as smokers and fatties are.
Or heterosexual behavior outside the bounds of marriage. All those who engage in that behavior are significantly more at risk for health complications due to that behavior. Why should I have to pay for someone who gets gonorrhea for some casual bar hookup?