"Steve" <stevencanyon at (no spam) yahooooooo.com> wrote in message
news:8icre5loucv5e77hprqi3n27kqdsskd6o4 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 09:50:37 -0600, "5258 Dead, 391 since 1/20/09"
dead at (no spam) dead.com> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 07:05:46 -0800, Geo wrote:

Sid, I know you want the govt to control every aspect of your
life, but
your diet is controlled by you. You and no one else. They don't
tell
you how much you can eat, how much fat you can ingest or how many
calories you take in and/or burn off. That's up to you. Althoug,
I'm
sure you wouldn't mind the govt regulating that too.

So does this mean that you have no objection to making manufacturers
put
nutrition labels on all processed foods that is accurate, easy to
understand, and allows people to make informed decisions?

Nothing would make a difference to fat pigs like Jamieson... His
informed decision" is to pig out on Ho Ho's and Twinkies...

Would this include restaurant menus?

Any fool knows what foods are unhealthy and what isn't. you moron.
The
reason you're a fat pig is because you eat too much....

--

Contrary to what liberals are whining, nobody
owes you anything.
.
.
.
Any fool knows what foods are unhealthy?
.
.
Untrue.
.
.
The only way you can rationalize your diet is by having the
INFORMATION provided by government required labels.

Food manufacturers and processors are not interested in your
health...they are only interested in their SALES and their PROFITS.

Where you are correct is that the fat fools need to READ the labels,
providing they can read and comprehend the meaning
of the label's content.

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 12:13:31 -0500, "Sid9" <sid9 at (no spam) belsouth.net> wrote:


"Steve" <stevencanyon at (no spam) yahooooooo.com> wrote in message
news:8icre5loucv5e77hprqi3n27kqdsskd6o4 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 09:50:37 -0600, "5258 Dead, 391 since 1/20/09"
dead at (no spam) dead.com> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 07:05:46 -0800, Geo wrote:

Sid, I know you want the govt to control every aspect of your
life, but
your diet is controlled by you. You and no one else. They
don't
tell
you how much you can eat, how much fat you can ingest or how
many
calories you take in and/or burn off. That's up to you.
Althoug,
I'm
sure you wouldn't mind the govt regulating that too.

So does this mean that you have no objection to making
manufacturers
put
nutrition labels on all processed foods that is accurate, easy to
understand, and allows people to make informed decisions?

Nothing would make a difference to fat pigs like Jamieson... His
informed decision" is to pig out on Ho Ho's and Twinkies...

Would this include restaurant menus?

Any fool knows what foods are unhealthy and what isn't. you moron.
The
reason you're a fat pig is because you eat too much....

--

Contrary to what liberals are whining, nobody
owes you anything.
.
.
.
Any fool knows what foods are unhealthy?
.
.
Untrue.
.
.
The only way you can rationalize your diet is by having the
INFORMATION provided by government required labels.

I guess that's true for morons..

Food manufacturers and processors are not interested in your
health...they are only interested in their SALES and their PROFITS.

Eating manufactured and/or processed food is stupid in itself...

Where you are correct is that the fat fools need to READ the labels,
providing they can read and comprehend the meaning
of the label's content.

You don't have to read the label to know that potato chips and
twinkies are not good for you.
..

"Steve" <stevencanyon at (no spam) yahooooooo.com> wrote in message
news:5dire5lb8g2ej5mv6g3s3sja9pu58el90d at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 12:13:31 -0500, "Sid9" <sid9 at (no spam) belsouth.net> wrote:


"Steve" <stevencanyon at (no spam) yahooooooo.com> wrote in message
news:8icre5loucv5e77hprqi3n27kqdsskd6o4 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 09:50:37 -0600, "5258 Dead, 391 since 1/20/09"
dead at (no spam) dead.com> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 07:05:46 -0800, Geo wrote:

Sid, I know you want the govt to control every aspect of your
life, but
your diet is controlled by you. You and no one else. They
don't
tell
you how much you can eat, how much fat you can ingest or how
many
calories you take in and/or burn off. That's up to you.
Althoug,
I'm
sure you wouldn't mind the govt regulating that too.

So does this mean that you have no objection to making
manufacturers
put
nutrition labels on all processed foods that is accurate, easy to
understand, and allows people to make informed decisions?

Nothing would make a difference to fat pigs like Jamieson... His
informed decision" is to pig out on Ho Ho's and Twinkies...

Would this include restaurant menus?

Any fool knows what foods are unhealthy and what isn't. you moron.
The
reason you're a fat pig is because you eat too much....

--

Contrary to what liberals are whining, nobody
owes you anything.
.
.
.
Any fool knows what foods are unhealthy?
.
.
Untrue.
.
.
The only way you can rationalize your diet is by having the
INFORMATION provided by government required labels.

I guess that's true for morons..

Food manufacturers and processors are not interested in your
health...they are only interested in their SALES and their PROFITS.

Eating manufactured and/or processed food is stupid in itself...

Where you are correct is that the fat fools need to READ the labels,
providing they can read and comprehend the meaning
of the label's content.

You don't have to read the label to know that potato chips and
twinkies are not good for you.
.
.
You chose two obvious foods...there are plenty that are not
obvious.....nonetheless....putting a government required label on food
is not the same as the government controlling what you eat.

The label provides information....information you would otherwise not
have.

Without compelling manufacturers to list the ingredients in food you
have no way of knowing what's in that food whether you are a fool or
whether you are a Democrat.

I notice that you are not yet on my "Don't wasted my time list"
Congratulations on joining today!

You don't have to read the label to know that potato chips and
twinkies are not good for you.

In article <5dire5lb8g2ej5mv6g3s3sja9pu58el90d at (no spam) 4ax.com>,
Steve <stevencanyon at (no spam) yahooooooo.com> wrote:

You don't have to read the label to know that potato chips and
twinkies are not good for you.

What about cottage cheese?

What about biscuits?


Cottage cheese is healthy for most people, but it's high sodium and
unhealthy
for people with high blood pressure. Biscuits, like many foods, can
have traces
of peanut oil. This is no danger to most people, but it can be
deadly to people
allergic to peanuts. Did you know this? If you have damaged kidneys,
do you know
the protein content of all foods you might eat?

..

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 07:05:46 -0800, Geo wrote:

Sid, I know you want the govt to control every aspect of your life, but
your diet is controlled by you. You and no one else. They don't tell
you how much you can eat, how much fat you can ingest or how many
calories you take in and/or burn off. That's up to you. Althoug, I'm
sure you wouldn't mind the govt regulating that too.

So does this mean that you have no objection to making manufacturers put
nutrition labels on all processed foods that is accurate, easy to
understand, and allows people to make informed decisions?

Would this include restaurant menus?

On Oct 31, 10:18 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 27, 11:42 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 24, 7:41 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 20, 11:32 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 18, 1:57 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 13, 11:54 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:04 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 7, 1:19 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 3, 11:15 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 30, 1:23 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 26, 11:50 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 23, 1:06 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 19, 11:31 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 16, 1:52 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 15, 10:23 am, Domingo the Avenger <baying46... at (no spam) mypacks.net
wrote:
http://healthyamericans.org/reports/obesity2009/release.php?stateid=SC

New Report Finds South Carolina Has 5th Highest Percent of Obese
Adults

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/153706.php

http://www.scdhec.gov/administration/news/2009/nr20090604-02.htm

Obesity/overweight Rates Have Doubled In South Carolina Since 1990 -
June Proclaimed Obesity Awareness Month

Article Date: 14 Jun 2009 - 0:00 PDT

South Carolinians are encouraged to join in obesity prevention efforts
where they live, work, and play, and to make healthier decisions in
their day-to-day lives during Obesity Awareness Month, the state
Department of Health and Environmental Control announced today.

"In South Carolina, where Gov. Mark Sanford has officially proclaimed
June as Obesity Awareness Month, obesity rates have more than doubled
since 1990," said Erika Kirby, director of DHEC's Division of Obesity
Prevention and Control. "Sixty-five percent of South Carolina adults
are obese or overweight, and more than 31 percent of high school
students in the state are overweight or obese."

Kirby said in some South Carolina communities, rates of overweight and
obesity are now more than 40 percent among children and adolescents.

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/jan/12/s_c_literacy_improves6...

South Carolina now falls slightly behind the national average of 14.5
percent of adults lacking basic literacy skills.

Well, darn it there's only one sensible answer then. Let the fed govt
figure out a solution. They fix everything.

Well darn if local government can't do it...

LOL!!! Yep, it's the govts role to keep people
skinny...bwahahahahahah!!!!

LOL!!! Yep it's the govts role to provide clean and water to
people...bwahahahahahah!!!!

LOL!!! Yep it's the govts role to provide law enforcement...bwahahahahahah!!!!

LOL!!! Yep it's the govts role to provide food safety laws ...bwahahahahahah!!!!

Rich, seriously, you really think it's the govts role to solve
people's obesity problem?

geo, seriously, you think it's the govts role to solve health issues?

geo, seriously, you think it's the govts role to solve product safety?

geo, seriously, you think it's the govts role to solve clean air and water?

http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20090727/NEWS01/907279989
Obesity-related diseases account for nearly 10% of all U.S. medical
spending or an estimated $147 billion a year, researchers said Monday.
...

http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2005/04/11/focus15.html
...
"About 65 percent of adults in the U.S. are overweight to some degree, and
roughly 9 percent of national health-care expenditures -- about $123 billion
a year -- is due to obesity," Obourn said. "And the indirect cost to
business is significantly higher."
...

I asked you first.

And I answered you.

No, you didn't. You dodged, as you always do.

The point went over your head as it always does. You deny one service, you have to
deny
them *all*.

No they don't. They can offer services that actually fall under the
legitimate role of govt. I'm not surprised that you would think
obesity control is a legitimate role of govt.

Same as the Department of Health and Human Services' function. Duh

You cafeteria rightards are the most hypocritical cherry pickers around.

geo, seriously, you think it's the govts role to ________ fill it in...and you'll
see you're answering your own question.

Ha, when I fill in the blank with "stop obesity" I have answered my
own question. The answer is a big, fat (no pun intended, ok well
maybe a little) no.

So saving billions for business and actually promoting health for people is bad????

Cherry picker.

Saving billions? Back that BS up.

Duh, it's right up above?????

Where? It's not in the links you posted. If it is, post the language
that says billions are being saved. Post it right here ===

http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20090727/NEWS01/907279989
Obesity-related diseases account for nearly 10% of all U.S. medical
spending or an estimated $147 billion a year, researchers said Monday.
...

http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2005/04/11/focus15.html
...
"About 65 percent of adults in the U.S. are overweight to some degree, and
roughly 9 percent of national health-care expenditures -- about $123 billion
a year -- is due to obesity," Obourn said. "And the indirect cost to
business is significantly higher."
...

That's what it's costing us, that's what could saved. Even you should be able to
follow along...

Yes, that is what it's costing. What you blindly believe is that the
govt spending billions on such nonsense would even work...which it
won't. No govt program is going to stop Bertha the burger eater from
ordering a 15,000 calorie meal from McDonalds. But, hey, I'm sure the
govt means well.

The government can establish dietary and health regs covering this. You do
realize that, don't you? If you can only buy a lean burger then Bertha will
lose weight.

Bull. Bertha will continue to find foods that widen the load. They
only way the govt can effectively deal with this is outlaw all fatty
foods or regulate the fat/calorie content of every food product on the
market.

That's what I said:

The government can establish dietary and health regs covering this

And Bertha will have to work harder to find that.

Good, now that we've cleared up that you want the govt to manage your
diet we can move on to whatever it is next that you want the govt to
manage for you at the expense of you being personally responsible.

Government already manages your diet - by having safety standards. Say
thank you to the government for each safe meal you have.

No they don't. They manage safety standards. They don't manage
diet...thank God.

Standards for fat content etc IS managing diet.

No it is not. It's managing fat content. That's all.

Which is part of the diet. DUH DUH DUH Are you really this desperate?

Rich, managing diet is individually managing what you take in. That
is a personal choice. The govt is only dictating what goes in to a
product. That's all. They are not managing your diet. The rest is
up to you. I'm not surprised that you can't make this distinction.

Geo, managing fat content affects everyone buying that product. That is managin
the diet of many individuals. That's all. I'm surprised you don't understand this.

Sid, I know you want the govt to control every aspect of your life,
but your diet is controlled by you. You and no one else. They don't
tell you how much you can eat, how much fat you can ingest or how many
calories you take in and/or burn off. That's up to you. Althoug, I'm
sure you wouldn't mind the govt regulating that too.

And the insurance plans of those companies can severely penalize
"fatty" habits. A one-two punch approach. But then there's you, content to
do absolutely nothing and let business lose billions and let people become
obese.

Penalize? How so?

Raise rates? Drop coverage? Duh?

Okay that's what I figured you would say. Thanks for displaying to
the entire forum your duplicity on govt run healthcare.

That's all you can come up with? You're saying insurance companies never drop
coverage or raise rates? Or deny treatment or coverage?????> > > > > > > > This
explains your problem - you just blindly post.

That's all I need to display your duplicity front and center for the
forum.

It's all you need to make a fool of yourself.> > > > > > > > > As opposed to you posting one thing and claiming another.

Which I haven't done, but thanks for making my point for me almost
better than I could ever do myself.

It's managing fat content

LOL> > > > > > > Which I haven't done. So, you blindly posted yet again.

Which you have.

Saving billions? Back that BS up

"5258 Dead, 391 since 1/20/09" wrote:

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 07:05:46 -0800, Geo wrote:

Sid, I know you want the govt to control every aspect of your life,
but your diet is controlled by you. You and no one else. They don't
tell you how much you can eat, how much fat you can ingest or how
many calories you take in and/or burn off. That's up to you.
Althoug, I'm sure you wouldn't mind the govt regulating that too.

So does this mean that you have no objection to making manufacturers
put nutrition labels on all processed foods that is accurate, easy to
understand, and allows people to make informed decisions?

Would this include restaurant menus?

THAT'S GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF DIET!

lol

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:29:26 -0700, RichTravsky wrote:

"5258 Dead, 391 since 1/20/09" wrote:

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 07:05:46 -0800, Geo wrote:

Sid, I know you want the govt to control every aspect of your life,
but your diet is controlled by you. You and no one else. They don't
tell you how much you can eat, how much fat you can ingest or how
many calories you take in and/or burn off. That's up to you.
Althoug, I'm sure you wouldn't mind the govt regulating that too.

So does this mean that you have no objection to making manufacturers
put nutrition labels on all processed foods that is accurate, easy to
understand, and allows people to make informed decisions?

Would this include restaurant menus?

THAT'S GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF DIET!

lol

I've heard the government is conspiring to try to keep e. coli out of my
hamburger, too.

Geo wrote:
On Oct 31, 10:18 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 27, 11:42 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 24, 7:41 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 20, 11:32 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 18, 1:57 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 13, 11:54 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:04 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 7, 1:19 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 3, 11:15 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE.... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 30, 1:23 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 26, 11:50 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 23, 1:06 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 19, 11:31 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 16, 1:52 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 15, 10:23 am, Domingo the Avenger <baying46... at (no spam) mypacks.net
wrote:
http://healthyamericans.org/reports/obesity2009/release.php?stateid=SC

New Report Finds South Carolina Has 5th Highest Percent of Obese
Adults

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/153706.php

http://www.scdhec.gov/administration/news/2009/nr20090604-02.htm

Obesity/overweight Rates Have Doubled In South Carolina Since 1990 -
June Proclaimed Obesity Awareness Month

Article Date: 14 Jun 2009 - 0:00 PDT

South Carolinians are encouraged to join in obesity prevention efforts
where they live, work, and play, and to make healthier decisions in
their day-to-day lives during Obesity Awareness Month, the state
Department of Health and Environmental Control announced today.

"In South Carolina, where Gov. Mark Sanford has officially proclaimed
June as Obesity Awareness Month, obesity rates have more than doubled
since 1990," said Erika Kirby, director of DHEC's Division of Obesity
Prevention and Control. "Sixty-five percent of South Carolina adults
are obese or overweight, and more than 31 percent of high school
students in the state are overweight or obese."

Kirby said in some South Carolina communities, rates of overweight and
obesity are now more than 40 percent among children and adolescents.

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/jan/12/s_c_literacy_improves6...

South Carolina now falls slightly behind the national average of 14.5
percent of adults lacking basic literacy skills.

Well, darn it there's only one sensible answer then.  Let the fed govt
figure out a solution.  They fix everything.

Well darn if local government can't do it...

LOL!!!  Yep, it's the govts role to keep people
skinny...bwahahahahahah!!!!

LOL!!! Yep it's the govts role to provide clean and water to
people...bwahahahahahah!!!!

LOL!!! Yep it's the govts role to provide law enforcement...bwahahahahahah!!!!

LOL!!! Yep it's the govts role to provide food safety laws ...bwahahahahahah!!!!

Rich, seriously, you really think it's the govts role to solve
people's obesity problem?

geo, seriously, you think it's the govts role to solve health issues?

geo, seriously, you think it's the govts role to solve product safety?

geo, seriously, you think it's the govts role to solve clean air and water?

 http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20090727/NEWS01/907279989
 Obesity-related diseases account for nearly 10% of all U.S. medical
 spending or an estimated $147 billion a year, researchers said Monday.
 ...

 http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2005/04/11/focus15.html
 ...
 "About 65 percent of adults in the U.S. are overweight to some degree, and
 roughly 9 percent of national health-care expenditures -- about $123 billion
 a year -- is due to obesity," Obourn said. "And the indirect cost to
 business is significantly higher."
 ...

I asked you first.

And I answered you.

No, you didn't.  You dodged, as you always do.

The point went over your head as it always does. You deny one service, you have to
deny
them *all*.

No they don't.  They can offer services that actually fall under the
legitimate role of govt.  I'm not surprised that you would think
obesity control is a legitimate role of govt.

Same as the Department of Health and Human Services' function. Duh

You cafeteria rightards are the most hypocritical cherry pickers around.

geo, seriously, you think it's the govts role to ________   fill it in...and you'll
see you're answering your own question.

Ha, when I fill in the blank with "stop obesity" I have answered my
own question.  The answer is a big, fat (no pun intended, ok well
maybe a little) no.

So saving billions for business and actually promoting health for people is bad????

Cherry picker.

Saving billions?  Back that BS up.

Duh, it's right up above?????

Where?  It's not in the links you posted.  If it is, post the language
that says billions are being saved.  Post it right here ===

 http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20090727/NEWS01/907279989
 Obesity-related diseases account for nearly 10% of all U.S. medical
 spending or an estimated $147 billion a year, researchers said Monday.
 ...

 http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2005/04/11/focus15.html
 ...
 "About 65 percent of adults in the U.S. are overweight to some degree, and
 roughly 9 percent of national health-care expenditures -- about $123 billion
 a year -- is due to obesity," Obourn said. "And the indirect cost to
 business is significantly higher."
 ...

That's what it's costing us, that's what could saved. Even you should be able to
follow along...

Yes, that is what it's costing.  What you blindly believe is that the
govt spending billions on such nonsense would even work...which it
won't.  No govt program is going to stop Bertha the burger eater from
ordering a 15,000 calorie meal from McDonalds.  But, hey, I'm sure the
govt means well.

The government can establish dietary and health regs covering this. You do
realize that, don't you? If you can only buy a lean burger then Bertha will
lose weight.

Bull.  Bertha will continue to find foods that widen the load.  They
only way the govt can effectively deal with this is outlaw all fatty
foods or regulate the fat/calorie content of every food product on the
market.

That's what I said:

 The government can establish dietary and health regs covering this

And Bertha will have to work harder to find that.

Good, now that we've cleared up that you want the govt to manage your
diet we can move on to whatever it is next that you want the govt to
manage for you at the expense of you being personally responsible.

Government already manages your diet - by having safety standards. Say
thank you to the government for each safe meal you have.

No they don't.  They manage safety standards.  They don't manage
diet...thank God.

Standards for fat content etc IS managing diet.

No it is not.  It's managing fat content.  That's all.

Which is part of the diet. DUH DUH DUH Are you really this desperate?

Rich, managing diet is individually managing what you take in.  That
is a personal choice.  The govt is only dictating what goes in to a
product.  That's all.  They are not managing your diet.  The rest is
up to you.  I'm not surprised that you can't make this distinction.

Geo, managing fat content affects everyone buying that product. That is managin
the diet of many individuals. That's all. I'm surprised you don't understand this.

Sid, I know you want the govt to control every aspect of your life,
but your diet is controlled by you.  You and no one else.  They don't
tell you how much you can eat, how much fat you can ingest or how many
calories you take in and/or burn off.  That's up to you.  Althoug, I'm
sure you wouldn't mind the govt regulating that too.

Sid?

Geo, I know you don't realize this, but warning labels, nutrition info, banning
various chemicals, regulations concerning how food is prepared, food safety,
regulations concerning things like herbicides and pesticides, limiting content
of various substances (like fat) etc, ALL MANAGE DIET.

And the insurance plans of those companies can severely penalize
"fatty" habits. A one-two punch approach. But then there's you, content to
do absolutely nothing and let business lose billions and let people become
obese.

Penalize?  How so?

Raise rates? Drop coverage? Duh?

Okay that's what I figured you would say.  Thanks for displaying to
the entire forum your duplicity on govt run healthcare.

That's all you can come up with? You're saying insurance companies never drop
coverage or raise rates? Or deny treatment or coverage?????> > > > > > > > This
 explains your problem - you just blindly post.

That's all I need to display your duplicity front and center for the
forum.

It's all you need to make a fool of yourself.> > > > > > > > > As opposed to you posting one thing and claiming another.

Which I haven't done, but thanks for making my point for me almost
better than I could ever do myself.

 It's managing fat content

LOL> > > > > > > Which I haven't done.  So, you blindly posted yet again.

Which you have.

 Saving billions?  Back that BS up

On Nov 3, 11:35 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 31, 10:18 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 27, 11:42 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 24, 7:41 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 20, 11:32 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 18, 1:57 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 13, 11:54 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:04 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 7, 1:19 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 3, 11:15 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 30, 1:23 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 26, 11:50 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 23, 1:06 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 19, 11:31 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 16, 1:52 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 15, 10:23 am, Domingo the Avenger <baying46... at (no spam) mypacks.net
wrote:
http://healthyamericans.org/reports/obesity2009/release.php?stateid=SC

New Report Finds South Carolina Has 5th Highest Percent of Obese
Adults

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/153706.php

http://www.scdhec.gov/administration/news/2009/nr20090604-02.htm

Obesity/overweight Rates Have Doubled In South Carolina Since 1990 -
June Proclaimed Obesity Awareness Month

Article Date: 14 Jun 2009 - 0:00 PDT

South Carolinians are encouraged to join in obesity prevention efforts
where they live, work, and play, and to make healthier decisions in
their day-to-day lives during Obesity Awareness Month, the state
Department of Health and Environmental Control announced today.

"In South Carolina, where Gov. Mark Sanford has officially proclaimed
June as Obesity Awareness Month, obesity rates have more than doubled
since 1990," said Erika Kirby, director of DHEC's Division of Obesity
Prevention and Control. "Sixty-five percent of South Carolina adults
are obese or overweight, and more than 31 percent of high school
students in the state are overweight or obese."

Kirby said in some South Carolina communities, rates of overweight and
obesity are now more than 40 percent among children and adolescents.

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/jan/12/s_c_literacy_improves6...

South Carolina now falls slightly behind the national average of 14.5
percent of adults lacking basic literacy skills.

Well, darn it there's only one sensible answer then. Let the fed govt
figure out a solution. They fix everything.

Well darn if local government can't do it...

LOL!!! Yep, it's the govts role to keep people
skinny...bwahahahahahah!!!!

LOL!!! Yep it's the govts role to provide clean and water to
people...bwahahahahahah!!!!

LOL!!! Yep it's the govts role to provide law enforcement...bwahahahahahah!!!!

LOL!!! Yep it's the govts role to provide food safety laws ...bwahahahahahah!!!!

Rich, seriously, you really think it's the govts role to solve
people's obesity problem?

geo, seriously, you think it's the govts role to solve health issues?

geo, seriously, you think it's the govts role to solve product safety?

geo, seriously, you think it's the govts role to solve clean air and water?

http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20090727/NEWS01/907279989
Obesity-related diseases account for nearly 10% of all U.S. medical
spending or an estimated $147 billion a year, researchers said Monday.
...

http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2005/04/11/focus15.html
...
"About 65 percent of adults in the U.S. are overweight to some degree, and
roughly 9 percent of national health-care expenditures -- about $123 billion
a year -- is due to obesity," Obourn said. "And the indirect cost to
business is significantly higher."
...

I asked you first.

And I answered you.

No, you didn't. You dodged, as you always do.

The point went over your head as it always does. You deny one service, you have to
deny
them *all*.

No they don't. They can offer services that actually fall under the
legitimate role of govt. I'm not surprised that you would think
obesity control is a legitimate role of govt.

Same as the Department of Health and Human Services' function. Duh

You cafeteria rightards are the most hypocritical cherry pickers around.

geo, seriously, you think it's the govts role to ________ fill it in...and you'll
see you're answering your own question.

Ha, when I fill in the blank with "stop obesity" I have answered my
own question. The answer is a big, fat (no pun intended, ok well
maybe a little) no.

So saving billions for business and actually promoting health for people is bad????

Cherry picker.

Saving billions? Back that BS up.

Duh, it's right up above?????

Where? It's not in the links you posted. If it is, post the language
that says billions are being saved. Post it right here ===

http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20090727/NEWS01/907279989
Obesity-related diseases account for nearly 10% of all U.S. medical
spending or an estimated $147 billion a year, researchers said Monday.
...

http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2005/04/11/focus15.html
...
"About 65 percent of adults in the U.S. are overweight to some degree, and
roughly 9 percent of national health-care expenditures -- about $123 billion
a year -- is due to obesity," Obourn said. "And the indirect cost to
business is significantly higher."
...

That's what it's costing us, that's what could saved. Even you should be able to
follow along...

Yes, that is what it's costing. What you blindly believe is that the
govt spending billions on such nonsense would even work...which it
won't. No govt program is going to stop Bertha the burger eater from
ordering a 15,000 calorie meal from McDonalds. But, hey, I'm sure the
govt means well.

The government can establish dietary and health regs covering this. You do
realize that, don't you? If you can only buy a lean burger then Bertha will
lose weight.

Bull. Bertha will continue to find foods that widen the load. They
only way the govt can effectively deal with this is outlaw all fatty
foods or regulate the fat/calorie content of every food product on the
market.

That's what I said:

The government can establish dietary and health regs covering this

And Bertha will have to work harder to find that.

Good, now that we've cleared up that you want the govt to manage your
diet we can move on to whatever it is next that you want the govt to
manage for you at the expense of you being personally responsible.

Government already manages your diet - by having safety standards. Say
thank you to the government for each safe meal you have.

No they don't. They manage safety standards. They don't manage
diet...thank God.

Standards for fat content etc IS managing diet.

No it is not. It's managing fat content. That's all.

Which is part of the diet. DUH DUH DUH Are you really this desperate?

Rich, managing diet is individually managing what you take in. That
is a personal choice. The govt is only dictating what goes in to a
product. That's all. They are not managing your diet. The rest is
up to you. I'm not surprised that you can't make this distinction.

Geo, managing fat content affects everyone buying that product. That is managin
the diet of many individuals. That's all. I'm surprised you don't understand this.

Sid, I know you want the govt to control every aspect of your life,
but your diet is controlled by you. You and no one else. They don't
tell you how much you can eat, how much fat you can ingest or how many
calories you take in and/or burn off. That's up to you. Althoug, I'm
sure you wouldn't mind the govt regulating that too.

Sid?

Geo, I know you don't realize this, but warning labels, nutrition info, banning
various chemicals, regulations concerning how food is prepared, food safety,
regulations concerning things like herbicides and pesticides, limiting content
of various substances (like fat) etc, ALL MANAGE DIET.

Nope. Everything you list covers standards for food. You control
your won diet - which is a regimen of eating and drinking so as to
manage one's weight. You do that. The govt does not, even though you
want to the govt to manage that for you. Sorry sid-o, you're going to
have man up and manage your own diet.

And the insurance plans of those companies can severely penalize
"fatty" habits. A one-two punch approach. But then there's you, content to
do absolutely nothing and let business lose billions and let people become
obese.

Penalize? How so?

Raise rates? Drop coverage? Duh?

Okay that's what I figured you would say. Thanks for displaying to
the entire forum your duplicity on govt run healthcare.

That's all you can come up with? You're saying insurance companies never drop
coverage or raise rates? Or deny treatment or coverage?????> > > > > > > > This
explains your problem - you just blindly post.

That's all I need to display your duplicity front and center for the
forum.

It's all you need to make a fool of yourself.> > > > > > > > > As opposed to you posting one thing and claiming another.

Which I haven't done, but thanks for making my point for me almost
better than I could ever do myself.

It's managing fat content

LOL> > > > > > > Which I haven't done. So, you blindly posted yet again.

Which you have.

Saving billions? Back that BS up

Geo wrote:
On Nov 3, 11:35 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 31, 10:18 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 27, 11:42 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 24, 7:41 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 20, 11:32 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail..com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 18, 1:57 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 13, 11:54 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:04 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 7, 1:19 am, RichTravsky <traRvE.... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 3, 11:15 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 30, 1:23 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 26, 11:50 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 23, 1:06 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 19, 11:31 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 16, 1:52 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 15, 10:23 am, Domingo the Avenger <baying46... at (no spam) mypacks.net
wrote:
http://healthyamericans.org/reports/obesity2009/release.php?stateid=SC

New Report Finds South Carolina Has 5th Highest Percent of Obese
Adults

http://www..medicalnewstoday.com/articles/153706.php

http://www..scdhec.gov/administration/news/2009/nr20090604-02.htm

Obesity/overweight Rates Have Doubled In South Carolina Since 1990 -
June Proclaimed Obesity Awareness Month

Article Date: 14 Jun 2009 - 0:00 PDT

South Carolinians are encouraged to join in obesity prevention efforts
where they live, work, and play, and to make healthier decisions in
their day-to-day lives during Obesity Awareness Month, the state
Department of Health and Environmental Control announced today.

"In South Carolina, where Gov. Mark Sanford has officially proclaimed
June as Obesity Awareness Month, obesity rates have more than doubled
since 1990," said Erika Kirby, director of DHEC's Division of Obesity
Prevention and Control. "Sixty-five percent of South Carolina adults
are obese or overweight, and more than 31 percent of high school
students in the state are overweight or obese."

Kirby said in some South Carolina communities, rates of overweight and
obesity are now more than 40 percent among children and adolescents.

http://www..postandcourier.com/news/2009/jan/12/s_c_literacy_improves6...

South Carolina now falls slightly behind the national average of 14.5
percent of adults lacking basic literacy skills.

Well, darn it there's only one sensible answer then.  Let the fed govt
figure out a solution.  They fix everything.

Well darn if local government can't do it...

LOL!!!  Yep, it's the govts role to keep people
skinny...bwahahahahahah!!!!

LOL!!! Yep it's the govts role to provide clean and water to
people...bwahahahahahah!!!!

LOL!!! Yep it's the govts role to provide law enforcement...bwahahahahahah!!!!

LOL!!! Yep it's the govts role to provide food safety laws ...bwahahahahahah!!!!

Rich, seriously, you really think it's the govts role to solve
people's obesity problem?

geo, seriously, you think it's the govts role to solve health issues?

geo, seriously, you think it's the govts role to solve product safety?

geo, seriously, you think it's the govts role to solve clean air and water?

 http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20090727/NEWS01/907279989
 Obesity-related diseases account for nearly 10% of all U.S. medical
 spending or an estimated $147 billion a year, researchers said Monday.
 ...

 http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2005/04/11/focus15.html
 ...
 "About 65 percent of adults in the U.S. are overweight to some degree, and
 roughly 9 percent of national health-care expenditures -- about $123 billion
 a year -- is due to obesity," Obourn said. "And the indirect cost to
 business is significantly higher."
 ...

I asked you first.

And I answered you.

No, you didn't.  You dodged, as you always do.

The point went over your head as it always does. You deny one service, you have to
deny
them *all*.

No they don't.  They can offer services that actually fall under the
legitimate role of govt.  I'm not surprised that you would think
obesity control is a legitimate role of govt.

Same as the Department of Health and Human Services' function. Duh

You cafeteria rightards are the most hypocritical cherry pickers around.

geo, seriously, you think it's the govts role to ________   fill it in...and you'll
see you're answering your own question.

Ha, when I fill in the blank with "stop obesity" I have answered my
own question.  The answer is a big, fat (no pun intended, ok well
maybe a little) no.

So saving billions for business and actually promoting health for people is bad????

Cherry picker.

Saving billions?  Back that BS up..

Duh, it's right up above?????

Where?  It's not in the links you posted.  If it is, post the language
that says billions are being saved.  Post it right here ===

 http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20090727/NEWS01/907279989
 Obesity-related diseases account for nearly 10% of all U.S. medical
 spending or an estimated $147 billion a year, researchers said Monday.
 ...

 http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2005/04/11/focus15.html
 ...
 "About 65 percent of adults in the U.S.. are overweight to some degree, and
 roughly 9 percent of national health-care expenditures -- about $123 billion
 a year -- is due to obesity," Obourn said. "And the indirect cost to
 business is significantly higher."
 ...

That's what it's costing us, that's what could saved. Even you should be able to
follow along...

Yes, that is what it's costing.  What you blindly believe is that the
govt spending billions on such nonsense would even work...which it
won't.  No govt program is going to stop Bertha the burger eater from
ordering a 15,000 calorie meal from McDonalds.  But, hey, I'm sure the
govt means well.

The government can establish dietary and health regs covering this. You do
realize that, don't you? If you can only buy a lean burger then Bertha will
lose weight.

Bull.  Bertha will continue to find foods that widen the load.  They
only way the govt can effectively deal with this is outlaw all fatty
foods or regulate the fat/calorie content of every food product on the
market.

That's what I said:

 The government can establish dietary and health regs covering this

And Bertha will have to work harder to find that.

Good, now that we've cleared up that you want the govt to manage your
diet we can move on to whatever it is next that you want the govt to
manage for you at the expense of you being personally responsible.

Government already manages your diet - by having safety standards. Say
thank you to the government for each safe meal you have.

No they don't.  They manage safety standards.  They don't manage
diet...thank God.

Standards for fat content etc IS managing diet.

No it is not.  It's managing fat content.  That's all.

Which is part of the diet. DUH DUH DUH Are you really this desperate?

Rich, managing diet is individually managing what you take in.  That
is a personal choice.  The govt is only dictating what goes in to a
product.  That's all.  They are not managing your diet.  The rest is
up to you.  I'm not surprised that you can't make this distinction.

Geo, managing fat content affects everyone buying that product. That is managin
the diet of many individuals. That's all. I'm surprised you don't understand this.

Sid, I know you want the govt to control every aspect of your life,
but your diet is controlled by you.  You and no one else.  They don't
tell you how much you can eat, how much fat you can ingest or how many
calories you take in and/or burn off.  That's up to you.  Althoug, I'm
sure you wouldn't mind the govt regulating that too.

Sid?

Geo, I know you don't realize this, but warning labels, nutrition info, banning
various chemicals, regulations concerning how food is prepared, food safety,
regulations concerning things like herbicides and pesticides, limiting content
of various substances (like fat) etc, ALL MANAGE DIET.

Nope.  Everything you list covers standards for food.  You control
your won diet - which is a regimen of eating and drinking so as to
manage one's weight.  You do that.  The govt does not, even though you
want to the govt to manage that for you.  Sorry sid-o, you're going to
have man up and manage your own diet.

Standards *manage* diet. DUH

"fatty" habits. A one-two punch approach. But then there's you, content to
do absolutely nothing and let business lose billions and let people become
obese.

Penalize?  How so?

Raise rates? Drop coverage? Duh?

Okay that's what I figured you would say.  Thanks for displaying to
the entire forum your duplicity on govt run healthcare.

That's all you can come up with? You're saying insurance companies never drop
coverage or raise rates? Or deny treatment or coverage?????> > > > > > > > This
 explains your problem - you just blindly post.

That's all I need to display your duplicity front and center for the
forum.

It's all you need to make a fool of yourself.> > > > > > > > > As opposed to you posting one thing and claiming another.

Which I haven't done, but thanks for making my point for me almost
better than I could ever do myself.

 It's managing fat content

LOL> > > > > > > Which I haven't done.  So, you blindly posted yet again.

Which you have.

 Saving billions?  Back that BS up

On Nov 8, 1:33 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Nov 3, 11:35 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 31, 10:18 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 27, 11:42 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 24, 7:41 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 20, 11:32 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 18, 1:57 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 13, 11:54 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:04 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 7, 1:19 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 3, 11:15 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 30, 1:23 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 26, 11:50 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 23, 1:06 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 19, 11:31 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 16, 1:52 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 15, 10:23 am, Domingo the Avenger <baying46... at (no spam) mypacks.net
wrote:
http://healthyamericans.org/reports/obesity2009/release.php?stateid=SC

New Report Finds South Carolina Has 5th Highest Percent of Obese
Adults

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/153706.php

http://www.scdhec.gov/administration/news/2009/nr20090604-02.htm

Obesity/overweight Rates Have Doubled In South Carolina Since 1990 -
June Proclaimed Obesity Awareness Month

Article Date: 14 Jun 2009 - 0:00 PDT

South Carolinians are encouraged to join in obesity prevention efforts
where they live, work, and play, and to make healthier decisions in
their day-to-day lives during Obesity Awareness Month, the state
Department of Health and Environmental Control announced today.

"In South Carolina, where Gov. Mark Sanford has officially proclaimed
June as Obesity Awareness Month, obesity rates have more than doubled
since 1990," said Erika Kirby, director of DHEC's Division of Obesity
Prevention and Control. "Sixty-five percent of South Carolina adults
are obese or overweight, and more than 31 percent of high school
students in the state are overweight or obese."

Kirby said in some South Carolina communities, rates of overweight and
obesity are now more than 40 percent among children and adolescents.

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/jan/12/s_c_literacy_improves6...

South Carolina now falls slightly behind the national average of 14.5
percent of adults lacking basic literacy skills.

Well, darn it there's only one sensible answer then. Let the fed govt
figure out a solution. They fix everything.

Well darn if local government can't do it...

LOL!!! Yep, it's the govts role to keep people
skinny...bwahahahahahah!!!!

LOL!!! Yep it's the govts role to provide clean and water to
people...bwahahahahahah!!!!

LOL!!! Yep it's the govts role to provide law enforcement...bwahahahahahah!!!!

LOL!!! Yep it's the govts role to provide food safety laws ...bwahahahahahah!!!!

Rich, seriously, you really think it's the govts role to solve
people's obesity problem?

geo, seriously, you think it's the govts role to solve health issues?

geo, seriously, you think it's the govts role to solve product safety?

geo, seriously, you think it's the govts role to solve clean air and water?

http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20090727/NEWS01/907279989
Obesity-related diseases account for nearly 10% of all U.S. medical
spending or an estimated $147 billion a year, researchers said Monday.
...

http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2005/04/11/focus15.html
...
"About 65 percent of adults in the U.S. are overweight to some degree, and
roughly 9 percent of national health-care expenditures -- about $123 billion
a year -- is due to obesity," Obourn said. "And the indirect cost to
business is significantly higher."
...

I asked you first.

And I answered you.

No, you didn't. You dodged, as you always do.

The point went over your head as it always does. You deny one service, you have to
deny
them *all*.

No they don't. They can offer services that actually fall under the
legitimate role of govt. I'm not surprised that you would think
obesity control is a legitimate role of govt.

Same as the Department of Health and Human Services' function. Duh

You cafeteria rightards are the most hypocritical cherry pickers around.

geo, seriously, you think it's the govts role to ________ fill it in...and you'll
see you're answering your own question.

Ha, when I fill in the blank with "stop obesity" I have answered my
own question. The answer is a big, fat (no pun intended, ok well
maybe a little) no.

So saving billions for business and actually promoting health for people is bad????

Cherry picker.

Saving billions? Back that BS up.

Duh, it's right up above?????

Where? It's not in the links you posted. If it is, post the language
that says billions are being saved. Post it right here ===

http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20090727/NEWS01/907279989
Obesity-related diseases account for nearly 10% of all U.S. medical
spending or an estimated $147 billion a year, researchers said Monday.
...

http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2005/04/11/focus15.html
...
"About 65 percent of adults in the U.S. are overweight to some degree, and
roughly 9 percent of national health-care expenditures -- about $123 billion
a year -- is due to obesity," Obourn said. "And the indirect cost to
business is significantly higher."
...

That's what it's costing us, that's what could saved. Even you should be able to
follow along...

Yes, that is what it's costing. What you blindly believe is that the
govt spending billions on such nonsense would even work...which it
won't. No govt program is going to stop Bertha the burger eater from
ordering a 15,000 calorie meal from McDonalds. But, hey, I'm sure the
govt means well.

The government can establish dietary and health regs covering this. You do
realize that, don't you? If you can only buy a lean burger then Bertha will
lose weight.

Bull. Bertha will continue to find foods that widen the load. They
only way the govt can effectively deal with this is outlaw all fatty
foods or regulate the fat/calorie content of every food product on the
market.

That's what I said:

The government can establish dietary and health regs covering this

And Bertha will have to work harder to find that.

Good, now that we've cleared up that you want the govt to manage your
diet we can move on to whatever it is next that you want the govt to
manage for you at the expense of you being personally responsible.

Government already manages your diet - by having safety standards. Say
thank you to the government for each safe meal you have.

No they don't. They manage safety standards. They don't manage
diet...thank God.

Standards for fat content etc IS managing diet.

No it is not. It's managing fat content. That's all.

Which is part of the diet. DUH DUH DUH Are you really this desperate?

Rich, managing diet is individually managing what you take in. That
is a personal choice. The govt is only dictating what goes in to a
product. That's all. They are not managing your diet. The rest is
up to you. I'm not surprised that you can't make this distinction.

Geo, managing fat content affects everyone buying that product. That is managin
the diet of many individuals. That's all. I'm surprised you don't understand this.

Sid, I know you want the govt to control every aspect of your life,
but your diet is controlled by you. You and no one else. They don't
tell you how much you can eat, how much fat you can ingest or how many
calories you take in and/or burn off. That's up to you. Althoug, I'm
sure you wouldn't mind the govt regulating that too.

Sid?

Geo, I know you don't realize this, but warning labels, nutrition info, banning
various chemicals, regulations concerning how food is prepared, food safety,
regulations concerning things like herbicides and pesticides, limiting content
of various substances (like fat) etc, ALL MANAGE DIET.

Nope. Everything you list covers standards for food. You control
your won diet - which is a regimen of eating and drinking so as to
manage one's weight. You do that. The govt does not, even though you
want to the govt to manage that for you. Sorry sid-o, you're going to
have man up and manage your own diet.

Standards *manage* diet. DUH

Nope. You manage your diet based on food standards.

.> > > > > > > > > > > >And the insurance plans of those companies can
severely penalize
"fatty" habits. A one-two punch approach. But then there's you, content to
do absolutely nothing and let business lose billions and let people become
obese.

Penalize? How so?

Raise rates? Drop coverage? Duh?

Okay that's what I figured you would say. Thanks for displaying to
the entire forum your duplicity on govt run healthcare.

That's all you can come up with? You're saying insurance companies never drop
coverage or raise rates? Or deny treatment or coverage?????> > > > > > > > This
explains your problem - you just blindly post.

That's all I need to display your duplicity front and center for the
forum.

It's all you need to make a fool of yourself.> > > > > > > > > As opposed to you posting one thing and claiming another.

Which I haven't done, but thanks for making my point for me almost
better than I could ever do myself.

It's managing fat content

LOL> > > > > > > Which I haven't done. So, you blindly posted yet again.

Which you have.

Saving billions? Back that BS up

Geo wrote:
On Nov 8, 1:33 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Nov 3, 11:35 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 31, 10:18 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 27, 11:42 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 24, 7:41 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 20, 11:32 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 18, 1:57 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 13, 11:54 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:04 am, RichTravsky <traRvE.... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 7, 1:19 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 3, 11:15 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 30, 1:23 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 26, 11:50 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 23, 1:06 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 19, 11:31 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 16, 1:52 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 15, 10:23 am, Domingo the Avenger <baying46... at (no spam) mypacks.net
wrote:
http://healthyamericans.org/reports/obesity2009/release.php?stateid=SC

New Report Finds South Carolina Has 5th Highest Percent of Obese
Adults

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/153706.php

http://www.scdhec.gov/administration/news/2009/nr20090604-02.htm

Obesity/overweight Rates Have Doubled In South Carolina Since 1990 -
June Proclaimed Obesity Awareness Month

Article Date: 14 Jun 2009 - 0:00 PDT

South Carolinians are encouraged to join in obesity prevention efforts
where they live, work, and play, and to make healthier decisions in
their day-to-day lives during Obesity Awareness Month, the state
Department of Health and Environmental Control announced today.

"In South Carolina, where Gov. Mark Sanford has officially proclaimed
June as Obesity Awareness Month, obesity rates have more than doubled
since 1990," said Erika Kirby, director of DHEC's Division of Obesity
Prevention and Control. "Sixty-five percent of South Carolina adults
are obese or overweight, and more than 31 percent of high school
students in the state are overweight or obese."

Kirby said in some South Carolina communities, rates of overweight and
obesity are now more than 40 percent among children and adolescents.

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/jan/12/s_c_literacy_improves6...

South Carolina now falls slightly behind the national average of 14.5
percent of adults lacking basic literacy skills.

Well, darn it there's only one sensible answer then.  Let the fed govt
figure out a solution.  They fix everything.

Well darn if local government can't do it...

LOL!!!  Yep, it's the govts role to keep people
skinny...bwahahahahahah!!!!

LOL!!! Yep it's the govts role to provide clean and water to
people...bwahahahahahah!!!!

LOL!!! Yep it's the govts role to provide law enforcement...bwahahahahahah!!!!

LOL!!! Yep it's the govts role to provide food safety laws ...bwahahahahahah!!!!

Rich, seriously, you really think it's the govts role to solve
people's obesity problem?

geo, seriously, you think it's the govts role to solve health issues?

geo, seriously, you think it's the govts role to solve product safety?

geo, seriously, you think it's the govts role to solve clean air and water?

 http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20090727/NEWS01/907279989
 Obesity-related diseases account for nearly 10% of all U.S. medical
 spending or an estimated $147 billion a year, researchers said Monday.
 ...

 http://atlanta..bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2005/04/11/focus15.html
 ...
 "About 65 percent of adults in the U.S. are overweight to some degree, and
 roughly 9 percent of national health-care expenditures -- about $123 billion
 a year -- is due to obesity," Obourn said. "And the indirect cost to
 business is significantly higher."
 ...

I asked you first.

And I answered you.

No, you didn't.  You dodged, as you always do.

The point went over your head as it always does. You deny one service, you have to
deny
them *all*.

No they don't.  They can offer services that actually fall under the
legitimate role of govt.  I'm not surprised that you would think
obesity control is a legitimate role of govt.

Same as the Department of Health and Human Services' function. Duh

You cafeteria rightards are the most hypocritical cherry pickers around.

geo, seriously, you think it's the govts role to ________   fill it in...and you'll
see you're answering your own question.

Ha, when I fill in the blank with "stop obesity" I have answered my
own question.  The answer is a big, fat (no pun intended, ok well
maybe a little) no.

So saving billions for business and actually promoting health for people is bad????

Cherry picker.

Saving billions?  Back that BS up.

Duh, it's right up above?????

Where?  It's not in the links you posted.  If it is, post the language
that says billions are being saved.  Post it right here ===

 http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20090727/NEWS01/907279989
 Obesity-related diseases account for nearly 10% of all U.S. medical
 spending or an estimated $147 billion a year, researchers said Monday.
 ...

 http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2005/04/11/focus15.html
 ...
 "About 65 percent of adults in the U.S. are overweight to some degree, and
 roughly 9 percent of national health-care expenditures -- about $123 billion
 a year -- is due to obesity," Obourn said. "And the indirect cost to
 business is significantly higher."
 ...

That's what it's costing us, that's what could saved. Even you should be able to
follow along...

Yes, that is what it's costing.  What you blindly believe is that the
govt spending billions on such nonsense would even work...which it
won't.  No govt program is going to stop Bertha the burger eater from
ordering a 15,000 calorie meal from McDonalds.  But, hey, I'm sure the
govt means well.

The government can establish dietary and health regs covering this. You do
realize that, don't you? If you can only buy a lean burger then Bertha will
lose weight.

Bull.  Bertha will continue to find foods that widen the load.  They
only way the govt can effectively deal with this is outlaw all fatty
foods or regulate the fat/calorie content of every food product on the
market.

That's what I said:

 The government can establish dietary and health regs covering this

And Bertha will have to work harder to find that.

Good, now that we've cleared up that you want the govt to manage your
diet we can move on to whatever it is next that you want the govt to
manage for you at the expense of you being personally responsible.

Government already manages your diet - by having safety standards. Say
thank you to the government for each safe meal you have.

No they don't.  They manage safety standards.  They don't manage
diet...thank God.

Standards for fat content etc IS managing diet.

No it is not.  It's managing fat content.  That's all.

Which is part of the diet. DUH DUH DUH Are you really this desperate?

Rich, managing diet is individually managing what you take in.  That
is a personal choice.  The govt is only dictating what goes in to a
product.  That's all.  They are not managing your diet.  The rest is
up to you.  I'm not surprised that you can't make this distinction.

Geo, managing fat content affects everyone buying that product. That is managin
the diet of many individuals. That's all. I'm surprised you don't understand this.

Sid, I know you want the govt to control every aspect of your life,
but your diet is controlled by you.  You and no one else.  They don't
tell you how much you can eat, how much fat you can ingest or how many
calories you take in and/or burn off.  That's up to you.  Althoug, I'm
sure you wouldn't mind the govt regulating that too.

Sid?

Geo, I know you don't realize this, but warning labels, nutrition info, banning
various chemicals, regulations concerning how food is prepared, food safety,
regulations concerning things like herbicides and pesticides, limiting content
of various substances (like fat) etc, ALL MANAGE DIET.

Nope.  Everything you list covers standards for food.  You control
your won diet - which is a regimen of eating and drinking so as to
manage one's weight.  You do that.  The govt does not, even though you
want to the govt to manage that for you.  Sorry sid-o, you're going to
have man up and manage your own diet.

Standards *manage* diet. DUH

Nope.  You manage your diet based on food standards.

Nope. Producers have to adhere to the standards.

.> > > > > > > > > > > >And the insurance plans of those companies can
severely penalize
"fatty" habits. A one-two punch approach. But then there's you, content to
do absolutely nothing and let business lose billions and let people become
obese.

Penalize?  How so?

Raise rates? Drop coverage? Duh?

Okay that's what I figured you would say.  Thanks for displaying to
the entire forum your duplicity on govt run healthcare.

That's all you can come up with? You're saying insurance companies never drop
coverage or raise rates? Or deny treatment or coverage?????> > > > > > > > This
 explains your problem - you just blindly post.

That's all I need to display your duplicity front and center for the
forum.

It's all you need to make a fool of yourself.> > > > > > > > > As opposed to you posting one thing and claiming another.

Which I haven't done, but thanks for making my point for me almost
better than I could ever do myself.

 It's managing fat content

LOL> > > > > > > Which I haven't done.  So, you blindly posted yet again.

Which you have.

 Saving billions?  Back that BS up

Geo wrote:
On Nov 10, 11:02 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Nov 8, 1:33 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Nov 3, 11:35 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 31, 10:18 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 27, 11:42 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail..com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 24, 7:41 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 20, 11:32 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 18, 1:57 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 13, 11:54 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:04 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 7, 1:19 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Oct 3, 11:15 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 30, 1:23 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 26, 11:50 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 23, 1:06 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 19, 11:31 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 16, 1:52 am, RichTravsky <traRvE... at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Geo wrote:
On Sep 15, 10:23 am, Domingo the Avenger <baying46... at (no spam) mypacks.net
wrote:
http://healthyamericans.org/reports/obesity2009/release.php?stateid=SC

New Report Finds South Carolina Has 5th Highest Percent of Obese
Adults

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/153706.php

http://www.scdhec.gov/administration/news/2009/nr20090604-02.htm

Obesity/overweight Rates Have Doubled In South Carolina Since 1990 -
June Proclaimed Obesity Awareness Month

Article Date: 14 Jun 2009 - 0:00 PDT

South Carolinians are encouraged to join in obesity prevention efforts
where they live, work, and play, and to make healthier decisions in
their day-to-day lives during Obesity Awareness Month, the state
Department of Health and Environmental Control announced today.

"In South Carolina, where Gov. Mark Sanford has officially proclaimed
June as Obesity Awareness Month, obesity rates have more than doubled
since 1990," said Erika Kirby, director of DHEC's Division of Obesity
Prevention and Control. "Sixty-five percent of South Carolina adults
are obese or overweight, and more than 31 percent of high school
students in the state are overweight or obese."

Kirby said in some South Carolina communities, rates of overweight and
obesity are now more than 40 percent among children and adolescents.

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/jan/12/s_c_literacy_improves6...

South Carolina now falls slightly behind the national average of 14.5
percent of adults lacking basic literacy skills.

Well, darn it there's only one sensible answer then.  Let the fed govt
figure out a solution.  They fix everything.

Well darn if local government can't do it...

LOL!!!  Yep, it's the govts role to keep people
skinny....bwahahahahahah!!!!

LOL!!! Yep it's the govts role to provide clean and water to
people...bwahahahahahah!!!!

LOL!!! Yep it's the govts role to provide law enforcement...bwahahahahahah!!!!

LOL!!! Yep it's the govts role to provide food safety laws ...bwahahahahahah!!!!

Rich, seriously, you really think it's the govts role to solve
people's obesity problem?

geo, seriously, you think it's the govts role to solve health issues?

geo, seriously, you think it's the govts role to solve product safety?

geo, seriously, you think it's the govts role to solve clean air and water?

 http://www..businessinsurance.com/article/20090727/NEWS01/907279989
 Obesity-related diseases account for nearly 10% of all U.S. medical
 spending or an estimated $147 billion a year, researchers said Monday.
 ...

 http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2005/04/11/focus15.html
 ...
 "About 65 percent of adults in the U.S. are overweight to some degree, and
 roughly 9 percent of national health-care expenditures -- about $123 billion
 a year -- is due to obesity," Obourn said. "And the indirect cost to
 business is significantly higher."
 ...

I asked you first.

And I answered you.

No, you didn't.  You dodged, as you always do.

The point went over your head as it always does. You deny one service, you have to
deny
them *all*.

No they don't.  They can offer services that actually fall under the
legitimate role of govt..  I'm not surprised that you would think
obesity control is a legitimate role of govt.

Same as the Department of Health and Human Services' function. Duh

You cafeteria rightards are the most hypocritical cherry pickers around.

geo, seriously, you think it's the govts role to ________   fill it in...and you'll
see you're answering your own question.

Ha, when I fill in the blank with "stop obesity" I have answered my
own question.  The answer is a big, fat (no pun intended, ok well
maybe a little) no.

So saving billions for business and actually promoting health for people is bad????

Cherry picker.

Saving billions?  Back that BS up.

Duh, it's right up above?????

Where?  It's not in the links you posted.  If it is, post the language
that says billions are being saved.  Post it right here ===

 http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20090727/NEWS01/907279989
 Obesity-related diseases account for nearly 10% of all U.S. medical
 spending or an estimated $147 billion a year, researchers said Monday.
 ...

 http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2005/04/11/focus15.html
 ...
 "About 65 percent of adults in the U.S. are overweight to some degree, and
 roughly 9 percent of national health-care expenditures -- about $123 billion
 a year -- is due to obesity," Obourn said. "And the indirect cost to
 business is significantly higher."
 ...

That's what it's costing us, that's what could saved. Even you should be able to
follow along...

Yes, that is what it's costing.  What you blindly believe is that the
govt spending billions on such nonsense would even work...which it
won't.  No govt program is going to stop Bertha the burger eater from
ordering a 15,000 calorie meal from McDonalds.  But, hey, I'm sure the
govt means well.

The government can establish dietary and health regs covering this. You do
realize that, don't you? If you can only buy a lean burger then Bertha will
lose weight.

Bull.  Bertha will continue to find foods that widen the load.  They
only way the govt can effectively deal with this is outlaw all fatty
foods or regulate the fat/calorie content of every food product on the
market.

That's what I said:

 The government can establish dietary and health regs covering this

And Bertha will have to work harder to find that.

Good, now that we've cleared up that you want the govt to manage your
diet we can move on to whatever it is next that you want the govt to
manage for you at the expense of you being personally responsible.

Government already manages your diet - by having safety standards. Say
thank you to the government for each safe meal you have.

No they don't.  They manage safety standards.  They don't manage
diet...thank God.

Standards for fat content etc IS managing diet.

No it is not.  It's managing fat content.  That's all.

Which is part of the diet. DUH DUH DUH Are you really this desperate?

Rich, managing diet is individually managing what you take in.  That
is a personal choice.  The govt is only dictating what goes in to a
product.  That's all.  They are not managing your diet.  The rest is
up to you.  I'm not surprised that you can't make this distinction.

Geo, managing fat content affects everyone buying that product. That is managin
the diet of many individuals. That's all. I'm surprised you don't understand this.

Sid, I know you want the govt to control every aspect of your life,
but your diet is controlled by you.  You and no one else.  They don't
tell you how much you can eat, how much fat you can ingest or how many
calories you take in and/or burn off.  That's up to you.  Althoug, I'm
sure you wouldn't mind the govt regulating that too.

Sid?

Geo, I know you don't realize this, but warning labels, nutrition info, banning
various chemicals, regulations concerning how food is prepared, food safety,
regulations concerning things like herbicides and pesticides, limiting content
of various substances (like fat) etc, ALL MANAGE DIET.

Nope.  Everything you list covers standards for food.  You control
your won diet - which is a regimen of eating and drinking so as to
manage one's weight.  You do that.  The govt does not, even though you
want to the govt to manage that for you.  Sorry sid-o, you're going to
have man up and manage your own diet.

Standards *manage* diet. DUH

Nope.  You manage your diet based on food standards.

Nope. Producers have to adhere to the standards.

And YOU manage your own diet based on that.

And so do you. Thanks for playing!

.> > > > > > > > > > > >And the insurance plans of those companies can
severely penalize
"fatty" habits. A one-two punch approach. But then there's you, content to
do absolutely nothing and let business lose billions and let people become
obese.

Penalize?  How so?

Raise rates? Drop coverage? Duh?

Okay that's what I figured you would say.  Thanks for displaying to
the entire forum your duplicity on govt run healthcare.

That's all you can come up with? You're saying insurance companies never drop
coverage or raise rates? Or deny treatment or coverage?????> > > > > > > > This
 explains your problem - you just blindly post.

That's all I need to display your duplicity front and center for the
forum.

It's all you need to make a fool of yourself.> > > > > > > > > As opposed to you posting one thing and claiming another.

Which I haven't done, but thanks for making my point for me almost
better than I could ever do myself.

 It's managing fat content

LOL> > > > > > > Which I haven't done.  So, you blindly posted yet again.

Which you have.

 Saving billions?  Back that BS up