
Putting Sugary Soda Out of Reach - prostoalex
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/08/well/eat/putting-sugary-soda-out-of-reach.html?emc=edit_ca_20161104&nl=california-today&nlid=4617603&te=1&_r=0
======
jakebasile
I'd prefer to make my own choices on what I eat and drink. I'm a big boy and I
can make my own informed decisions, and the sanctimonious tone of this
practice is insufferable. "We know better than you ignorant masses, so we're
going to save you from yourself".

I also like that they lead with an image of Coke Zero, which has no sugar nor
calories, and happens to be my drink of choice. But I made that choice myself,
without my employer or government telling me I had to.

~~~
jmedwards
Do you accept it as a compromise for a state subsidised healthcare system?

"I want free/subsidised healthcare" and "I want to gradually erode my health
without realising it OR incredibly cheaply OR because in helpless to not do
so" are normally incompatible.

~~~
rogerbinns
The "state subsidised" system also subsidises these:

* People having children (more health visits and possible complications)

* Those who drive (more accidents versus public transport)

* Those living further south (more sunshine -> more skin cancer)

* People with hobbies like rock climbing (more likely to get injured)

* People who consume alcohol (more likely to get health issues)

* People with pre-existing conditions

I'm sure there are many many more examples where individuals do things that
put them at greater risk of some health concerns versus other groups.

------
helthanatos
So what this proves is that diet soda is not nearly as good as "sugar" soda
and that Universities like experimenting on their staff and students... I
don't much care for soda, but if my throat needed it I'd like to be able to
buy it. Diet soda only yields benefit for people with diabetes/pre... Other
than those people, it's worse thanks to all the extra additives. I really
don't enjoy people telling other people that they're not being healthy (:so
we'll force you to be:)

------
ourmandave
_“Obesity rates have gone up steadily for years at the same time soda
consumption has gone down for years,” said William Dermody, a spokesman for
the American Beverage Association._

Big Soda isn't playing fair when it implies Big Bacon is the Bad Guy.

------
ythl
Is it better we have full agency and can potentially abuse things (sugar/fat,
guns, drugs) or have limited agency that protects us from ourselves in the
interest of public welfare?

~~~
jeffdavis
I prefer freedom, but freedom comes with responsibility for your choices. That
means no subsidized or free health care when you make poor choices.

Conversely, that is why socialism inherently limits freedom. As soon as I am
responsible for your "needs" (health, food, childcare), I will start demanding
that you make choices I feel are good ones (good diet, productive career so
you can provide for yourself, good family planning choices, etc.).

~~~
jmedwards
Define a poor choice.

Would that be a job that circumstantially for all intents and purposes
requires you to sit down for 8+ hours a day. Is that a poor choice? Would that
take away my healthcare subsidy?

Is playing American Football, or kickboxing a similarly poor choice?

Would - and here's where I get facetious in a hope of highlighting the issue
with the way you raise your choices/free healthcare point - knowingly
continuing the pregnancy of a child with Downs Syndrome be regarded as a poor
choice?

Finally, who decides?

~~~
jeffdavis
This is exactly my point. When Sally has to pay the consequences for Joe's
choices, she will have her own ideas about what Joe should do, and try to
force him to do so using her vote.

This turns ordinary differences of opinion or culture into political fights.

If Sally doesn't have to pay for Joe's poor choices, Joe can figure out for
himself what he feels is best, and that's called freedom.

