AA's "Fat Flier" Got Whole Row
Ashley Dupre On Tiger Woods' Babes: "At Least I Kept My Mouth Shut"
Same-Sex Marriage Blame Game Aims at Paterson, Addabbo
Wife Tries To Abort And Poison Husband's Lovechild
Rihanna's Random Airport Search
A new study by several professors at NYU and Yale has taken a close look at the purchasing habits of fast-food consumers in poor NYC neighborhoods with high rates of obesity. Researchers were curious to find out if the law requiring chain restaurants to prominently display their calorie information was influencing customers' choices, and what they found was probably not what the Health Department had hoped for when implementing the rules in 2008.
According to the report, about half the customers noticed the calorie counts, which were prominently posted on menu boards. A quarter of those customers said the information had influenced their order, and 9 out of 10 of those insisted they'd made healthier choices. But then the researchers looked at the receipts and found a different story, finding that consumers had actually ordered slightly more calories than the typical customer had before the law went into effect.
NYU's Brian Elbel, the lead author of the report, has concluded that "labels are not enough." But he doesn't say what would be enough. Is he hinting at an all-out ban on everything unhealthy, at least where the poor people live? As Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, tells the Times, "Nutrition is not the top concern of low-income people, who are probably the least amenable to calorie labeling."
Indeed, Times reporter Anemona Hartocollis spent some time at a McDonald's in Harlem, finding some sad, "anecdotal support for the findings." One customer, in Harlem for a job interview, ordered two cheeseburgers, about 600 calories total, for $2, explaining, "It’s just cheap, so I buy it. I’m looking for the cheapest meal I can." Gift shop employee Tameika Coates says, "I don’t really care too much. I know I shouldn’t, ’cause I’m too big already." And April Matos, a 24-year-old "family specialist," took an existential approach: "Life is short. I started eating everything now I'm pregnant."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I love when products advertise 0 trans fat. People are generally dumb enough to think that it is then automatically fat free and healthy.
Ignorance and poverty are no excuse for poor decision making.
Where is the personal responsibility?
I have an idea, lets throw money at the problem to make it go away!
And your proposed solution is...?
Because NYU professors know what is best for everyone else.
... so does Bloomberg.
Moral hazard problem with UHC...
Someone please enlighten me on how this will be addressed and how it is fair to pay for someone like a Ms. Coates when they get Type II diabetes and heart disease.
how it is fair to pay for someone like a Ms. Coates when they get Type II diabetes and heart disease.
With any luck she'll be dead before she collects any Social Security or Medicare.
It's not fair. Not fair at all. Except one of the main problems with people today is they don't understand that they are already paying for people like this! Right now! If you're poor, you can get into Medicaid, which is already paid for with our tax dollars. And if she has a heart attack and is taken to the emergency room tomorrow, do you think it's at no cost to the taxpayers right now? No, we're paying that bill.
No matter your views on UHC, it all comes down to personal responsibility. Some people have it, some people don't, and the people who do will pay for the people who don't. Whether it's govt insurance, or Blue Cross, the guy who stays fit and doesn't smoke will carry the fatass who puffs away with an empty McDonalds bag at his feet.
But then again, is there anyone who is really willing and ready to fix that actual underlying cause? Is there someone out there who wants to pitch a health plan that says if you smoke, you will be denied any claims having to do with lung problems? Or if you have a body fat % of a certain level, they won't pay out for your trip to the emergency room when you have a heart attack? THAT, in my opinion, is the health insurance that rewards personal responsibility, but you'll be branded as a death panel creating Nazi if you actually propose it.
With insurance, though, I can shop around for the lowest premium. If there's a government option, I have to pay twice. Once for the obese in my pool and another for the public pool.
Yes, you're right that we already pay for them. But I'm completely against Medicaid and want to phase out Medicare.
I keep trying to tell people you're already paying for public health care with your tax dollars but they don't quite seem to grasp this concept. It doesn't help that all the politicians keep pretending it's true.
PS, I would totally make insurance rates related to people's overall health. Like, if you are a massively obese smoker (there used to be this woman in my office building - she was always standing outside eating Dunkin Donuts and chainsmoking), you will be paying a hell of a lot for insurance. Your copays will be higher on issues related to your self-induced health problems. Of course, that makes me wonder if that would make health insurance companies want to keep people fat so they could keep charging them more. Hmm...
Of course, that doesn't deal with the other big issue - the elderly. How long do you keep paying to keep Grandpa alive when he would have died naturally quite some time ago? Especially when you are dealing with something like nationalized health, where keeping one person alive may rob another sick person of funding?
Good point on the elderly. In theory, the way it should work is you have people of all ages in an insurance pool, from newborns to 90 year olds. Throughout the life of a person, on an net annual basis, they would be paying in more while they're younger, around even though middle age, and taking more out while older. The trick is to make it all balance out in the course of 70-something years.
But theory is just that. You also have to deal with the fact that the way medical tech is advancing, we are creating cures and treatments that allow you to live longer, but don't make you healthy enough to keep working and contributing. The fact is, compared to 40 years ago, or even 20, we are spending a greater and greater percentage of our lives after we pass the point of being able, or willing, to work. Something has to give.
First, we have to realize that every generation, if it wants to live longer lives than the previous generation, has to work longer than the previous generation. It has to pay into the health insurance pool for a longer period of time if it wants to take out for a longer period. Second, if you don't want to do the first, then realize that rationing is the only other option. I mean, if you're 80 or 90, you've been taking out for quite a while. Can we really afford to give this group of people treatment X?
We can discuss morals all we want, but we're working with a finite amount of resources. Math doesn't give a shit about morals. How do you deal with the fact that if we ration, and there are 2 people the same age with the same disease, that the rich one can buy an extension of life and the poor one cannot. You could say that it's wrong, and that we as a society should contribute more to the pool to keep both alive. Or, you could say that the rich one got to be rich by contributing more to society, maybe he was a doctor or invented something, and therefore has somehow earned the right to extend his life. (Although maybe he was a complete fuck up who happened to be born into money, or made his money though crime or investment banking.)
When considering rationing, you have to answer the question of whether health care is a right or privilege. Maybe its both, a right turning into a privilege at a certain point. If you couldn't already tell, I personally believe it's a right until you choose to infringe on the rights of others. By that I mean that I believe that those who do choose to abuse their bodies raise the total cost for society and they should be punished by being denied health care, much like those who commit crimes lose their right to freedom by being put in prison. However, I don't think the elderly should be denied care based on being elderly. First, because I plan on living longer, and am willing to work longer than my parents, fulfilling one of the realizations I discussed above. Second, because if you DO exercise responsibility, you're going to live longer. Therefore, restricting care to the elderly actually provides an incentive to NOT take care of yourself and live long, which is anathema to my entire fucking point!
Holy shit, sorry about the length of the post, I got carried away there.
"Is the Fast Food Calorie Info Law Making Some Consume More?"
Making them consume more? Easy answer: no, it certainly isn't.
I always thought this was a great idea, not because it would suddenly make everyone slim, but it would give the consumer more information to make a choice on what they want to buy.
If they they choose fatty foods, that's up to them. But either way, I think having the calorie information is great.
Calories are just one piece of information, though. That's what I don't get here: What's worse...500 calories of brown rice and chicken, or 450 calories of chicken nuggets?
As far as being a ginormous fatass goes, 450 calories of chicken nuggets is better for you. As far as nutrition goes, obvs the brown rice is better for you. I discovered long ago that I can eat *whatever* the hell I want without getting fat. I just can't eat very much of it.
What? There's fewer vitamins and minerals and more fats that are bad for your heart.
Trying to lose weight is one thing; being healthy is another.
it would be easier if they just had a calories per dollar count up there, so you can really see where your money is going.
Well, there goes my theory on why the doughnut bacon burger won't come to New York City.
But since fast food is a depression commodity, I assume sales have just gone up with the unemployment rate. There's no way of knowing if they've gone up less than they would if caloric info wasn't posted. They should try this study again when (errr - if) the economy stabilizes for a bit and see how that changes things.
This scheme might work if they still taught math in public schools instead of self-esteem.
Who cares?
This is America, these are free people. As long as the food is not a hazard on its own, don't worry about it.
Once again: Personal Responsibility.
Agreed.
Problem is when you say the words "personal responsibility" to most people they just give you a blank stare as if you were giving a lecture on the finer points of quantum physics.
If by "free" you mean these people are "free" to make shitty life decisions that my taxes subsidize, then I agree
Between this article and the one about prepaid credit cards, there's at least one Times editor with a sense of biting satire about the poor.
nanny state fail. thanks for coming out!
Wall-E FTW!