>>>>>>>I blame the parents.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's not about blame. It's about freedom. Who is the government to try to control what we eat? As the government gets more intrusive, our freedom shrinks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That would be fine and dandy if medical costs for treating obesity and all of its related medical issues was limited to the Quad-Burger-with-cheese-fries buyers themselves. If you have an overweight or obese kid and you take them to McDs, BK, etc..., i will certainly blame them for celebrating their freedom.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point from Message #1519357.
>>>>>When government controls the levers of health care spending, then they are unlimited in their ability to tell us how to live our lives, after all, whatever we put in or do with our bodies may cost them money.
>>>>
>>>>For one, i humbly submit that you are not being honest with yourself. If you saw parents taking their overweight kids into one of these restaurants, i have a feeling that you would not praise them for their freedom-flexing purchasing power. Instead, i suspect that you would question their dining choice.
>>>
>>>I give them no thought whatsoever. It's none of my business.
>>
>>I find that hard to believe. You already noted earlier that you do blame the parents, not the corporation.
>
>The parents are responsible for what and how much their children eat, not the business providing the food.

Agree. But you used the word "blame" in your sarcastic comment that "the parents were not to blame, that corporations were". Again, it sounds like you were/did blame the parents.

>I do not care what someone else chooses to feed their children. It's not my business, just as what I feed my children is not anyone elses.

In an indirect manner, your medical costs/insurance are impacted by others... especially with a significant rise in obesity.


>
>>>>Secondly, the "taking consumers choices away!" charge noted in your original post -- because McD's is adding apple slices to happy meals -- sounds rather shrill.
>>>
>>>The article pointed to a specific choice that is currently available which is being removed.
>>>effectively taking away consumers' current choice between either having apples with caramel dip or fries as a Happy Meal side.
>>>
>>>>Perhaps the parents can supersize their own fry order to cover the difference.
>>>
>>>There is no perhaps, this is exacly what will happen. In addition, examples like this are why McDonalds is one of the most successful corporations in history. They adapt, overcome and make even more profit. ;)
>>
>>It does not sound so freedom-crimping to me.
>
>Really?!? only about 11 percent of customers were ordering apples with their Happy Meals, even though 88 percent were aware they had the option Do you seriously believe that McDonalds would keep this option for if it weren't for the threat of regulation?

No, it does not sound so freedom-crimping to me. I am not surprised by the low percentage.

>
>>>>Third, is there currently a govt food police that is prohibiting people from buying junk, or is this a preemptive outrage?
>>>
>>>Yes. See transfats.
>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436/
>>
>>NY state. I thought "states rights" was the panacea to all federal evils.
>
>That the feds have dramatically oversteped the boundries of the Constitution does not mean that they are exclusive in their abuse.
>
>You asked the suicide question is there currently a govt food police that is prohibiting people from buying junk
>I answered in the affirmative and offered proof. The precedent is now set and the limits and bans will only increase from here.

Again, i do not find this to be a freedom-crimping example.

>
>>>>Lastly, i would have thought that Ayn Randian peeps would not appreciate having their own medical care costs go up as a result of poor and costly habits of others.
>>>
>>>Freedom means allowing people to make their choices regardless of your opinion. This is why believers in liberty want the public sector out of health care.
>>
>>That sounds like a dodge.
>
>I cannot speak for Randian peeps as I have not read her works. I own a couple, but they've never risen to a must-read level on my pile. ;)

The dodge is not that you have or have not read AR's books.

>
>>And earlier when i stated "bombastic hyperbole", the better word would have been "petty".
>
>Please explain.
>
>Note: I'll have to continue this another day. Too much to do. ;)