NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217886,00.html

Lots of debate lately about banning junk food from schools. So, what do you think?

It's absurd -- children should have the freedom to choose what they eat, especially if doing so is beneficial to the economy.

No. They are not harming anyone else by ingesing the food. They choose to do it. I see no problems.

i'm not sure there should be an official ban but schools should certainly be strongly encouraged to serve properly nutricious foods in the canteen. maybe have a condition that if a kid takes a burger or a pizza slice or whatever they must take also at least 2 portions of fruit and veg aswell. what should be banned tho is corporately sponsored vending machines, you know, those ones that only offer coke or pepsi or their related products with no option of orange juice or water, or cadberry's vending machines that only offer chocolate so that all you can get if you want a quick snack is basically shit.

depends on what you mean by banning.

schools shouldnt be selling crap to children.

if a child wants to bring candy for lunch, thats his business. if he can get it past his parents, its fine.

If they want to eat that crap, they should bring it as their lunch. Schools should not sell such unutricious foods.

On one hand, my rather large middle section approves of the wide range of choices offered at schools, it allows a child to eat something that he or she likes so that they are less likely to skip meals due to not being able to stomach what was offered.

On the other hand, having dropped about 20 lbs since I came to Japan by eating the actual ballanced, non-junk, school lunch, there's a lot to be said about healthy food.

Maybe a comprimise? Lunches should be healthy, but with a snack counter option that limits how many products a student can buy?

It's absurd -- children should have the freedom to choose what they eat, especially if doing so is beneficial to the economy.

But schools should not promote an unhealthy diet by selling crap food, especially with the weight problem this country has. If the kid's parents want to give him candy for lunch, then so be it.

Hey, why can't kids get fat off junk food if they want? If parents don't like the machines, pack their kid a lunch. When I was in high school I certainly wouldn't want to buy anything that is "good for you". I wanted soda, chips, chocolate bars etc. Otherwise, what was the point?

OH MY GOD!

Persephone Skye/ Think of the Children!!!!!!!

:eek: :eek: :eek:

OH MY GOD!

Persephone Skye/ Think of the Children!!!!!!!

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Of course you'd say that...

being Pancake and all.

Of course you'd say that...

being Pancake and all.

Er...

This country becomes more and more like the TotC dystopia each passing day... :eek: :(

Er...

This country becomes more and more like the TotC dystopia each passing day... :eek: :(

as long as me/my child can eat what they desire, i'm fine with you being upset.

That and some other things I'd like. *cough* COCA! *cough*

Fools. He wants schools banned from SELLING junk food. He doesn't care about what the students bring.

Fools. He wants schools banned from SELLING junk food. He doesn't care about what the students bring.

So? What about the kids with free meals? Ever think of their desires?

And since when is the school supposed to dictate the kids' (don't have any...) diets???

By banning all but healthy foods, the school district, a government/public institution mind you, is being exclusive to those who desire to in fact be healthy. In esscence, they are saying that "we will only serve people who enjoy healthy foods." Now, last I checked, a public institution had to cater to everyone's likings in such instances where they can, that is to say, they cannot favor any one group/demographic in any area of service. Like public schools cannot be segregated, a public school should not, and cannot, supply food for just "health nuts". It must provide for the rest of us.

Besides, if high schools students are able to choose their courses, colleges, etc... at this level, I'm pretty sure, and I'm going out on a limb here, that they can decide what they eat.:rolleyes:

So? What about the kids with free meals? Ever think of their desires?

And since when is the school supposed to dictate the kids' (don't have any...) diets???

Since the paretns stopped doing it.

So? What about the kids with free meals? Ever think of their desires?

And since when is the school supposed to dictate the kids' (don't have any...) diets???
Actually the school lunch program was founded upon the idea that the givernment had a responcibility to provide adaquate nutrition for poor students who often times would not receive it otherwise.

However the idea of junk food in schools has gotten really out of hand.

So? What about the kids with free meals? Ever think of their desires?

And since when is the school supposed to dictate the kids' (don't have any...) diets???

When people started clogging our nation's judicial arteries with fatty lawsuits.

Yes, but not by the federales.

When people started clogging our nation's judicial arteries with fatty lawsuits.

Good analogy.

:eek: The idea that we [I]Those Who Set a Better Standard[/I, should support unhealthy habits for our children is absurd!! Our Nations are becoming FAT in all the wrong ways!! Wouldn't we rather see ourselves living longer, healthier, more meaningful lives?!! For Christ sake people...put down the Ding Dong and plant a tree instead! You just might burn a few calories while you're at it! :headbang:

:eek: The idea that we [I]Those Who Set a Better Standard[/I, should support unhealthy habits for our children is absurd!! Our Nations are becoming FAT in all the wrong ways!! Wouldn't we rather see ourselves living longer, healthier, more meaningful lives?!! For Christ sake people...put down the Ding Dong and plant a tree instead! You just might burn a few calories while you're at it! :headbang:

Why is it that I, or anyone, should care about what Joe Brown down the street does or eats? There is no good reason for it! It is his life to live as he pleases. Neither I, nor you, nor the government should have a say in what someone else eats.

Why is it that I, or anyone, should care about what Joe Brown down the street does or eats? There is no good reason for it! It is his life to live as he pleases. Neither I, nor you, nor the government should have a say in what someone else eats.

*Claps*

And give me my coca!

Why is it that I, or anyone, should care about what Joe Brown down the street does or eats? There is no good reason for it! It is his life to live as he pleases. Neither I, nor you, nor the government should have a say in what someone else eats.
Since his health care may come out of your taxes due to health related issues because of his obesity?

Okay, here you go, enjoy.

(wtf is coca?)

*Claps*

And give me my coca!

Coca? As in coca-cola?

If it's the other coca then that stuff's illegal, mister. :cool: Can't give you any.

Okay, here you go, enjoy.

(wtf is coca?)

Coca is a weak form of cocaine, one that is not very addictive (much less than cigarettes... they used to put it in Coca-Cola (Where did you think they got the name anyway?)

Since his health care may come out of your taxes due to health related issues because of his obesity?

Don't even get me started on health care.

It is my belief that health care monetary aid should only be given to either A) the extremely poor who can't afford a necessary treatment, or B) in the event of an accident. Otherwise, health benifits, etc...should be privatised. The government doesn't need to be deeply involved in this matter.

Coca is a weak form of cocaine, one that is not very addictive (much less than cigarettes... they used to put it in Coca-Cola (Where did you think they got the name anyway?)

If that's the coca you mean... you can't have any.

Coca is a weak form of cocaine, one that is not very addictive (much less than cigarettes... they used to put it in Coca-Cola (Where did you think they got the name anyway?)

Okay, then no. You may not have Coca, that's illegal.

Besides, if high schools students are able to choose their courses, colleges, etc... at this level, I'm pretty sure, and I'm going out on a limb here, that they can decide what they eat.:rolleyes:
The issue being the captaive audience, the "healthy" selection is rather poor in most schools and healthy does not mean nuts and grains only, but actual ballenced diets (and I'm sorry, as much as I adore pizza, it ain't a ballenced diet).

Besides, the kids can eat whatever the hell they feel like outside of the school or bring it in with them.

A point being ignored here so far is the amount of money generated by the sales of junk food. Schools and school districts make a lot of money by allowing Pizza Hut to set up shop and place Pepsi machines in the halls.

If that's the coca you mean... you can't have any.

:( I want it.

Don't even get me started on health care.

It is my belief that health care monetary aid should only be given to either A) the extremely poor who can't afford a necessary treatment, or B) in the event of an accident. Otherwise, health benifits, etc...should be privatised. The government doesn't need to be deeply involved in this matter.
And what do you think is going to happen? Extream obesity leads to its own, serious, problems. Heart attacks and diabeties leap instantly to mind.

:( I want it.

You sir, are a coke-head. I may have to send you to a special place for people like you. :p

You sir, are a coke-head. I may have to send you to a special place for people like you. :p

Argentina? :D

Don't even get me started on health care.

It is my belief that health care monetary aid should only be given to either A) the extremely poor who can't afford a necessary treatment, or B) in the event of an accident. Otherwise, health benifits, etc...should be privatised. The government doesn't need to be deeply involved in this matter.

That is all well and good, but if Fatty McFatass has no health insurance, then the hospital still has to treat him, and the hospital's insurance covers it. Do you know how the hospital's insurance makes up that loss? By raising your insurance rates, since they're one of the same three or four companies.

That is all well and good, but if Fatty McFatass has no health insurance, then the hospital still has to treat him, and the hospital's insurance covers it. Do you know how the hospital's insurance makes up that loss? By raising your insurance rates, since they're one of the same three or four companies.

To solve it (I hope you are ready for this...),































Nationalise Insurance. :eek:

Argentina? :D
Atlanta. :p

Atlanta. :p

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Argentina? :D

Err.... no.

*takes out orange jumpsuit*

;)

To solve it (I hope you are ready for this...),

Nationalise Insurance. :eek:

I'm interested to know how one single insurance provider would somehow prevent the insurance company passing along liability to other customers.

I'm interested to know how one single insurance provider would somehow prevent the insurance company passing along liability to other customers.

Uh... since it is government, it would not be greedy.

The issue being the captaive audience, the "healthy" selection is rather poor in most schools and healthy does not mean nuts and grains only, but actual ballenced diets (and I'm sorry, as much as I adore pizza, it ain't a ballenced diet).

Besides, the kids can eat whatever the hell they feel like outside of the school or bring it in with them.

A point being ignored here so far is the amount of money generated by the sales of junk food. Schools and school districts make a lot of money by allowing Pizza Hut to set up shop and place Pepsi machines in the halls.

Right, but it is still a government and public institution, so it must therefore satisfy all.

And you are correct, profits will plumit across the board from this. That's why this isn't making any sense. :confused:

And what do you think is going to happen? Extream obesity leads to its own, serious, problems. Heart attacks and diabeties leap instantly to mind.

That isn't my problem. They should've had some personal responsiblity and practiced moderation. I can't help it or be held responsible for someone else's actions.

That is all well and good, but if Fatty McFatass has no health insurance, then the hospital still has to treat him, and the hospital's insurance covers it. Do you know how the hospital's insurance makes up that loss? By raising your insurance rates, since they're one of the same three or four companies.

Who says that they're insurance has to cover it? Make Fatty McFatass (nice one, by the way) pay for it himself. Unless, as stated before, he is indeed too poor. However, there is no other reason this shouldn't be like a failure to pay taxes, where they take your property and sell it to pay off debts. If that started happening, I garauntee that people will practice moderation without anyone else telling them to.

Who says that they're insurance has to cover it? Make Fatty McFatass (nice one, by the way) pay for it himself. Unless, as stated before, he is indeed too poor. However, there is no other reason this shouldn't be like a failure to pay taxes, where they take your property and sell it to pay off debts. If that started happening, I garauntee that people will practice moderation without anyone else telling them to.

Now THERE is a good thought (I'm serious, BTW).

Now Fatty will choose his CPU over his Whopper.

Who says that they're insurance has to cover it? Make Fatty McFatass (nice one, by the way) pay for it himself. Unless, as stated before, he is indeed too poor. However, there is no other reason this shouldn't be like a failure to pay taxes, where they take your property and sell it to pay off debts. If that started happening, I garauntee that people will practice moderation without anyone else telling them to.

The hospital cannot refuse service because someone cannot pay. If someone comes in injured and dying for any reason, the hospital is required to treat them the best they can. Ability to pay cannot be a factor in a hospital treating a patient. Obviously, the hospital has an insurance policy in place with one of the larger insurance providers to cover the hospital financially in this scenario. This passes along the cost of the medical care provided to our uninsured hypothetical fellow to the insurance provider. Now, since Mr. McFatass is not one of their customers, they have no way to charge him for the services (which they wouldn't do even if he was a customer, as this is what insurance plans are for). And you can be damn sure that the insurance provider is not going to assume the loss for themselves. Not a chance. So what do they do? They pass the liability along to all their customers evenly as a rate increase. It may only be a few dollars a year to each customer, but multiply that by the hundreds, maybe thousands, of times this sort of situation arises and that's part of the reason why the cost of health care is going up so dramatically.

Right, but it is still a government and public institution, so it must therefore satisfy all.
Since when? The government is supposed to serve all, not satisfy.

And you are correct, profits will plumit across the board from this. That's why this isn't making any sense. :confused:
Because schools are not buisness, they are designed to educate as that is of importance to society as a whole, not to make money.

If we follow that line of thought, it's actually in the nation's best interest to help control the weight of the students.

Because schools are not buisness, they are designed to educate ...

Right. Educate, not live the kids' lives.

People who care this much need to think a little more about other things.

The hospital cannot refuse service because someone cannot pay. If someone comes in injured and dying for any reason, the hospital is required to treat them the best they can. Ability to pay cannot be a factor in a hospital treating a patient. Obviously, the hospital has an insurance policy in place with one of the larger insurance providers to cover the hospital financially in this scenario. This passes along the cost of the medical care provided to our uninsured hypothetical fellow to the insurance provider. Now, since Mr. McFatass is not one of their customers, they have no way to charge him for the services (which they wouldn't do even if he was a customer, as this is what insurance plans are for). And you can be damn sure that the insurance provider is not going to assume the loss for themselves. Not a chance. So what do they do? They pass the liability along to all their customers evenly as a rate increase. It may only be a few dollars a year to each customer, but multiply that by the hundreds, maybe thousands, of times this sort of situation arises and that's part of the reason why the cost of health care is going up so dramatically.


Still doesn't account for why they can't treat Mr. McFatass, and then demand out-and-out full payment. Failure of which leads to siezure of property valued at the due amount. Make other insurance companies completely private. This way, they can choose to exclude "problem" patients if need be, to prevent having to raise rates for others.

Still doesn't account for why they can't treat Mr. McFatass, and then demand out-and-out full payment. Failure of which leads to siezure of property valued at the due amount. Make other insurance companies completely private. This way, they can choose to exclude "problem" patients if need be, to prevent having to raise rates for others.

Sounds alright too...

Since when? The government is supposed to serve all, not satisfy.


Because schools are not buisness, they are designed to educate as that is of importance to society as a whole, not to make money.

If we follow that line of thought, it's actually in the nation's best interest to help control the weight of the students.

I use serve and satisfy interchangably here. They have to serve people who are not interested in exactly eating healthy.

And you're right, they're not a business. But this is how they make a lot of their money for sports, extracirriculars, etc...

Schools shouldn’t really sell it, but students should be allowed to bring it if they want. Clubs should be able to sell candy and such in fundraisers.
Because schools are not buisness, they are designed to educate as that is of importance to society as a whole, not to make money.
You’re right. Unfortunately, as I’m sure you are well aware, too many school districts are strapped for cash and resort to selling junk food so that they can afford all the textbooks that they need.

Still doesn't account for why they can't treat Mr. McFatass, and then demand out-and-out full payment. Failure of which leads to siezure of property valued at the due amount. Make other insurance companies completely private. This way, they can choose to exclude "problem" patients if need be, to prevent having to raise rates for others.

Because a hospital doesn't have that legal right. Because a destitute person probably doesn't have the property value to cover a several hundred thousand dollar hospital bill. Because the insurance company not covering this guy is part of the problem.

I'm not calling for what hospitals have the legal right to do right now. I'm calling for a restructuring of the whole system. I'm fairly sure that it can be redone this way.

And I'm not talking about denying someone procedures. If the govt. must step in to pay a deficit, then so be it, but only as a last resort. There is no way this couldn't work similar to taxes.

Because a hospital doesn't have that legal right. Because a destitute person probably doesn't have the property value to cover a several hundred thousand dollar hospital bill. Because the insurance company not covering this guy is part of the problem.

Bring back debtors prision. Make them work off their debt.

Bring back debtors prision. Make them work off their debt.

Labor prisons are for criminals... and I guess a debtor can go there.

So we're recommending sending people to prison for being poor and getting sick? I can see that this discussion has come to a close.

So we're recommending sending people to prison for being poor and getting sick? I can see that this discussion has come to a close.

Talk about the others, i never said anything about this.

So we're recommending sending people to prison for being poor and getting sick? I can see that this discussion has come to a close.

I was saying out of their own will, not by being forced... sorry if I did not clarify.

So we're recommending sending people to prison for being poor and getting sick? I can see that this discussion has come to a close.

I didn't say send them to prision for being poor, I said send them to a place they can work off their debts.

I didn't say send them to prision for being poor, I said send them to a place they can work off their debts.

That too.

cheetos and mountain dew got me through high school dammit. they are idols in my eyes. they should build shrines honoring them

cheetos and Pepsi got me through high school dammit. they are idols in my eyes. they should build shrines honoring them

Fixed.

*nods*

depends on what you mean by banning.

schools shouldnt be selling crap to children.

if a child wants to bring candy for lunch, thats his business. if he can get it past his parents, its fine.

Amen. But the school (either in its cafeteria or vending machines) should not offer crap to eat.

I read a while ago (I didn't save the link, sorry) somewhere that after the schools stoped selling junk food the profits from the school cafeteria went down because students just went across the street to buy junkfood. So it doesn't sound like it really does much, however schools should sell good lunches (healthy) I go to the cafeteria at my school and the only vegatarian things there are fries and muffins. They sell a few sandwhiches but they all have processed cheese. Then they have like, hamburgers I want to get healthy food at school but there isn't any which usually means I just don't eat and that is a problem.