Limited Ban on McToys in Santa Clara, CA

[+Castle Mischief]

"an intrusion into your life"

 

Precisely. As long as it is not an intrusion into your life it doesn't matter. If there was an "an intrusion into your life" I am willing to bet a Happy Meal ® that you would be yelling like no one's business.

 

I am not against kids eating healthy but coercing business is not the way to do that.

 

Happy. Meal. Toys.

 

Into whose life is this a real intrusion? Yours? Hello mole hill, we shall name thee "mountain".

 

 

By the way, I see you are still using electricity and polluting the environment.

 

Oh you got me there. The gigawatts that this massive mainframe consumes is generated by redwoods and endangered owls. Your hyperbole drive is stuck at warp 9.

 

If it makes you feel better I held my breath for like a 1000th of a second to balance my CO2 production.

 

Edited April 28, 2010 by Castle Mischief

[+Castle Mischief]

Into whose life is this a real intrusion?

 

Into the business life of McDonalds. What gives someone the right to dictate how someone else will do business? No one is making anyone else buy food at McDonalds. It is a choice.

 

People dictate how business is run every day. Nobody is keeping anybody from buying food at McDonalds.

 

I will say it again- a HANDFUL of stores and Happy Meal Toys.

[+Castle Mischief]

I don't have the endurance for this. sbell111, can you take over?

Edited April 28, 2010 by Castle Mischief

[hoosier guy]

People are complicated and you're trying over simplify things.

 

No you are trying to justify things.

 

I pedal without a helmet where it is legal to do so

 

Legal or not your head injury and large medical bill that follows will drive up insurance rates. Isn't that what we were concerned with? "continue to let people live like they want and drive up the cost of health insurance" I believe you said. So don't you, in the interest of low premiums, think helmet should be mandatory?

 

As I told you A) I am not in favor of anyone tell a business or someone making a free choice to buy their food that they can't, & I am bothered by the hypocrisy of people jumping on band wagons as long as the issue does not affect them.

 

Wow is getting warmer outside.

[hoosier guy]

I don't have the endurance for this. sbell111, can you take over?

 

Not accustomed to being disagreed with are we?

[+journey4truth]

McToys should be in every cache.

 

+1

 

I grew up with these toys and seeing them in caches always takes me back to better times.

[+journey4truth]

Into whose life is this a real intrusion?

 

Into the business life of McDonalds. What gives someone the right to dictate how someone else will do business? No one is making anyone else buy food at McDonalds. It is a choice.

 

People dictate how business is run every day. Nobody is keeping anybody from buying food at McDonalds.

 

I will say it again- a HANDFUL of stores and Happy Meal Toys.

 

Today, it's Happy Meals. Tomorrow it will be extra chockie fudge brownies. Who knows what tasty goodness will be banned after that?

 

I fear for our children's future. O_O

[+Prime Suspect]

Into whose life is this a real intrusion?

 

Into the business life of McDonalds. What gives someone the right to dictate how someone else will do business? No one is making anyone else buy food at McDonalds. It is a choice.

Absolutely! How dare the gub'ment force McDonalds to only serve inspected meat! Or to be subjected to inspections to see if their equipment is clean, and the food is cooked at the right temperature!

 

[hoosier guy]

Into whose life is this a real intrusion?

 

Into the business life of McDonalds. What gives someone the right to dictate how someone else will do business? No one is making anyone else buy food at McDonalds. It is a choice.

Absolutely! How dare the gub'ment force McDonalds to only serve inspected meat! Or to be subjected to inspections to see if their equipment is clean, and the food is cooked at the right temperature!

 

[/quot

 

Explain oh wise one how a toy in a sack causes disease?

[+journey4truth]

This strikes me as another one of those things where the symptoms are being treated rather than the disease. If the idea is to encourage better health, why not go to the source and address the food supply itself? In my view two major things that contribute to health problems are refined carbs and sugar, and it's not so much these ingredients that cause the problems but the manner in which they're artificially processed. Simply prohibiting the process of turning corn syrup for example into high fructose corn syrup (in which the sugar levels are absurdly magnified) could have a dramatic effect all by itself. The price of food will increase as a result and the taste of it may change somewhat, but what's a few bucks more if it contributes to increasing the natural quality of our food supply?

 

But see, that makes too much sense. No, let's ban toys in happy meals. Yeah that will really fix things!

 

Stupid morons.

[+Vater_Araignee]

I agree with the reward thing..Maybe McDs could only give the toy with a "healthy meal" not a "happy meal".Might be a good idea.

Parents who let their children have pull in what or where to eat are simply being weak. I use my obesity as a lesson to my daughters as to what unhealthy eating can do to them.And I use my obesity to remind myself that what my kids eat is my responsibility and that they are not smart enough yet to make that decision for themselves. I know I am being a hypocrite, but if it keeps them healthy, I can live with that. My kids have no pull.

 

I don't mean this sarcastically- where do you take your kids to eat when you only have about 30 minutes and you're on the road in a unfamilar area? I'm seriously looking for ideas here.

I go to a grocery store and buy sandwich supplies heavy on the veggies and a good rye.

 

"but of course the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

 

I know that you are sincere in your beliefs and I respect that. So please see this as not an attack but a question

 

Do you also support mandatory bicycle and motorcycle helmet laws?

Do you object to medical marijuana since buzzed driving kills?

Do you support the ban of alcohol because drunk driving drives up insurance costs and takes innocent lives?

 

The whole Toy question is really not as important to me as Mischief would have us think. I am just bothered by the duplicity of thought that judges action by "does this bother me?"

Support helmet laws? Nope.

Object to medical marijuana? Nope.

Support the ban of alcohol? Nope.

Support actions that reduce human sheep syndrome? Yup.

 

Into whose life is this a real intrusion?

 

Into the business life of McDonalds. What gives someone the right to dictate how someone else will do business? No one is making anyone else buy food at McDonalds. It is a choice.

Absolutely! How dare the gub'ment force McDonalds to only serve inspected meat! Or to be subjected to inspections to see if their equipment is clean, and the food is cooked at the right temperature!

 

 

Explain oh wise one how a toy in a sack causes disease?

It is called the reward system, same way addiction works.

Make yourself sick for something you view as rewarding.

Teach them young to eat fast food and they will do it on their own.

It has been proven that each generation eats more crap than the last.

Dad says "I have been eating all my life and I'm fine so my kids can eat it." then he drops dead at 45 of a massive coronary, problem is all his kids have been eating fast food for over 18 years.

You may be different from the masses, but that doesn't make them suffer less from human sheep syndrome.

I don't agree with the government telling us what we can and can not put into our bodies, but I do agree that toys, which just so happen to not be food, should not be allowed to sell the meal.

 

The last time I was at a McDonalds, a hamburger happy meal cost $2.10 and just a toy cost $2.00.

If I was running McDonalds and wanted to continue the programming then I would simply drop the price of the meal by a dollar, advertise the NEW LOW PRICE! YEA! and ask every customer if they would like to buy a toy for a dollar.

Ba da da da daaa I vomit it.

And I have the nerve to call myself a libertarian.

 

~~~edit~~~

trying to fix quotes

Edited April 29, 2010 by Vater_Araignee

[Clan Riffster]

Where do you take your kids to eat when you only have about 30 minutes and you're on the road in a unfamiliar area?

McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's, Arby's, Chik-Fila, Del Taco, Taco Bell, Long John Silvers, Firehouse Subs, Subway, Sobiks, Hardees, 7-11 (good hotdogs), Publix (good deli sandwiches), Zaxby's, Assorted Chinese restaurants, Ma & Pops diners, etc, etc. Just depends on where I am.

[hoosier guy]

"I don't agree with the government telling us what we can and can not put into our bodies, but I do agree that toys, which just so happen to not be food, should not be allowed to sell the meal"

 

While I doubt that the effectiveness of McDonald’s operant conditioning program (as parents we have the ability, right and duty to say no sometimes), I do respect your belief and understand this is a successful marketing ploy. Still find it hard to swallow, no pun intended, the idea that people will accept any regulation is good as long as it does not affect them. Well since it appears none of us will change the other’s opinion I wish everyone well and hope you have better caching weather today than I do. Happy Caching!

[+sbell111]

As I told you A) I am not in favor of anyone tell a business or someone making a free choice to buy their food that they can't,

The law in question does not affect what food McDonalds sells or whether anyone can waddle in there and buy it.

& I am bothered by the hypocrisy of people jumping on band wagons as long as the issue does not affect them.

Ummm, many of us who are not troubled by this law and see it's utility have posted that they eat at McDonalds and do not dislike happy meal toys.

Into whose life is this a real intrusion?

 

Into the business life of McDonalds. What gives someone the right to dictate how someone else will do business? No one is making anyone else buy food at McDonalds. It is a choice.

Absolutely! How dare the gub'ment force McDonalds to only serve inspected meat! Or to be subjected to inspections to see if their equipment is clean, and the food is cooked at the right temperature!

 

Explain oh wise one how a toy in a sack causes disease?

I tried to answer this question in post 32. The toy is a reward for eating crap. By connecting the eating of crap to getting a toy, you are training people to eat crap. It's Pavlov 101.

[hoosier guy]

As I told you A) I am not in favor of anyone tell a business or someone making a free choice to buy their food that they can't,

The law in question does not affect what food McDonalds sells or whether anyone can waddle in there and buy it.

& I am bothered by the hypocrisy of people jumping on band wagons as long as the issue does not affect them.

Ummm, many of us who are not troubled by this law and see it's utility have posted that they eat at McDonalds and do not dislike happy meal toys.

Into whose life is this a real intrusion?

 

Into the business life of McDonalds. What gives someone the right to dictate how someone else will do business? No one is making anyone else buy food at McDonalds. It is a choice.

Absolutely! How dare the gub'ment force McDonalds to only serve inspected meat! Or to be subjected to inspections to see if their equipment is clean, and the food is cooked at the right temperature!

 

Explain oh wise one how a toy in a sack causes disease?

I tried to answer this question in post 32. The toy is a reward for eating crap. By connecting the eating of crap to getting a toy, you are training people to eat crap. It's Pavlov 101.

 

Last time then I have to leave this topic, as adults we have the right, duty, obligation, responsibility, ability, inclination, proclivity, penchant, aptitude to say “no”. There is no one being forced to buy Happy Meals. That is unless they are a totally ineffective parent.

[+BulldogBlitz]

 

Legal or not your head injury and large medical bill that follows will drive up insurance rates. Isn't that what we were concerned with? "continue to let people live like they want and drive up the cost of health insurance" I believe you said. So don't you, in the interest of low premiums, think helmet should be mandatory?

 

 

i'd rather my insurance company refuse to cover those things. i'd rather swim in the pool of like-minded folks. if you want to ride a bike (motor or pedal) without a helmet... naked...through the artic circle... that is your choice. not mine, and certainly not mine to pay for any hospital bills that come from your lifestyle.

 

...and before it is suggested, i'm not saying that the insurance company dictates to me how i should live.... only that they offer a product which fits how i choose to live. there are those of us in the world who won't die because the parachute didn't open.... or smoked too many cigs.... or lived on the san andreas fault.

[+Castle Mischief]

Last time then I have to leave this topic, as adults we have the right, duty, obligation, responsibility, ability, inclination, proclivity, penchant, aptitude to say “no”. There is no one being forced to buy Happy Meals. That is unless they are a totally ineffective parent.

 

Not used to being disagreed with? No one is being prohibited from buying Happy Meals either. You either understand the concept of a reward system for unhealthy behavior or you don't. Remember Camel bucks and Marlboro miles? People are still free to smoke and parents are still free to buy their kids burgers with microscopic meat patties.

 

EDIT: Based on the evidence, there are either a ton of ineffective parents (your words) out there or there are other forces at work trying to shovel unhealthy food into the mouths of the population. I take it that you're happy with the status quo of an overweight sedentary American lifestyle? Any thoughts on how we as a country might change this or are you content to let the numbers continue to rise?

 

 

EDIT: spelling

Edited April 29, 2010 by Castle Mischief

[+Castle Mischief]

Legal or not your head injury and large medical bill that follows will drive up insurance rates. Isn't that what we were concerned with? "continue to let people live like they want and drive up the cost of health insurance" I believe you said. So don't you, in the interest of low premiums, think helmet should be mandatory?

 

What head injury? I've ridden my bike since I was 9 and never had a head injury. If I ride my bike more I'll likely continue to burn off a few pounds. The risk outweighs the benefits. I'm an adult and I can make these choices. What are the benefits for establishing a reward system for eating over-salted, high calorie, high fat, high carb, foods in very young children?

 

I'm not completely sold on the idea that this will work. I am sold on the idea of trying it out to see if it might work and I think a few kids will survive without their cheap plastic toys for a while in the interest of investigating the theory.

 

Good grief, it's not like congress passed a law to ban XBoxes.

[+BulldogBlitz]

Not used to being disagreed with? No one is being prohibited from buying Happy Meals either. You either understand the concept of a reward system for unhealty behavior or you don't. Remember Camel bucks and Marlboro miles?

 

i recall that brief time that mcdonalds put beanie babies in their happy meals too. i'd say the sales of happy meals intended for little kids shifted to women over 35. i'd rather not have a choice regulated to me.

 

along that vein, i have been known to buy something like that, just for the reward, and throw the food out. i know my mom bought three boxes of cheerios for me 35+ years ago... when that third box went uneaten, she figured out what i was doing and refused to continue buying them.

 

oh... and i collected camel bucks too. never once have i smoked a cig (didn't buy any either).

[+DragonsWest]

I was chewing this over (not a Happy Meal) and understand that the toy is effectively a bribe, but there's a tradition which pre-dates the fast food franchises and is undoubtably a less healthy food which had been using toys to draw kids to throw purple-faced tantrums unless mom buys it - cereals.

 

When are they going to get to these, too?

 

Of course, if you find some of the more ancient cereal box toys in good condition in a cache, you have struck gold. (Remember- Trade even or better for worse!)

[+Team Cotati]

In a country with near epidemic incidences of diabetes, high blood pressure, childhood obesity and lord knows how many other diet influenced maladies, please no, we do not need any gubmint intervention into our personal freedoms that might possibly have positive impact.

 

Let's not fergit the continuing increase in the incidence of ciggy smoking in this country as compared to most other areas of the world.

 

We ought to continue behaving the exact same way going forward as we have behaved in the past and expect positive change.......personal freedoms fully protected.

[+BulldogBlitz]

In a country with near epidemic incidences of diabetes, high blood pressure, childhood obesity and lord knows how many other diet influenced maladies, please no, we do not need any gubmint intervention into our personal freedoms that might possibly have positive impact.

 

Let's not fergit the continuing increase in the incidence of ciggy smoking in this country as compared to most other areas of the world.

 

We ought to continue behaving the exact same way going forward as we have behaved in the past and expect positive change.......personal freedoms fully protected.

 

...with that bit o' sarcasm, suppose it was a good thing the gub'mint didn't do an outright ban on interaction with gays in the 80s, as the aids epidemic took full hold in a lifestyle which did little to slow the spread.

[+Castle Mischief]

In a country with near epidemic incidences of diabetes, high blood pressure, childhood obesity and lord knows how many other diet influenced maladies, please no, we do not need any gubmint intervention into our personal freedoms that might possibly have positive impact.

 

Let's not fergit the continuing increase in the incidence of ciggy smoking in this country as compared to most other areas of the world.

 

We ought to continue behaving the exact same way going forward as we have behaved in the past and expect positive change.......personal freedoms fully protected.

 

...with that bit o' sarcasm, suppose it was a good thing the gub'mint didn't do an outright ban on interaction with gays in the 80s, as the aids epidemic took full hold in a lifestyle which did little to slow the spread.

 

Um, straight sex played a pretty crucial role in spreading the virus too. But thanks for that very revealing look into your mindset.

 

And here we go again. This is a ban on kid's meal toys in one county, not an OUTRIGHT BAN across the country.

 

Happy. Meal. Toys.

 

Some of you have a real issue with scale and perspective.

[+BulldogBlitz]

Um, straight sex played a pretty crucial role in spreading the virus too. But thanks for that very revealing look into your mindset.

 

And here we go again. This is a ban on kid's meal toys in one county, not an OUTRIGHT BAN across the country.

 

Happy. Meal. Toys.

 

Some of you have a real issue with scale and perspective.

 

correct you are!

[hoosier guy]

"I take it that you're happy with the status quo of an overweight sedentary American lifestyle? Any thoughts on how we as a country might change this or are you content to let the numbers continue to rise?"

 

You are incorrect, I support real efforts to help children live happy lifestyles like parent modeling, participation in sports, and education, not feel good, superfluous & ineffective rules.

 

Based on the evidence, there are either a tone (ton?)of ineffective parents (your words) out there

 

If they can not control their children's desire for fatty food then yes they are pretty ineffective as parents

 

What head injury?...The risk outweighs the benefits. I'm an adult and I can make these choices.

 

From CDC: For example, from 1984 through 1988, if a presumed helmet-use rate of 10% had been increased to 100% (i.e., universal helmet use), an average of 500 fatal and 151,400 nonfatal bicycle related head injuries could have been prevented each year

 

A case-control study in Seattle in 1989 indicated that the use of bicycle

helmets reduced the risk for bicycle-related head injury by 74%–85%

 

So if we are so concerned about rising insurance rates why don't people do their part to prevent them by wearing a helmets and promoting others doing the same? Because telling others what to do is good. Telling me what to do is bad.

 

Again Good day, have fun.

[hoosier guy]

We ought to continue behaving the exact same way going forward as we have behaved in the past and expect positive change.......personal freedoms fully protected.

 

I disagree, lets make positve change through real efforts not silly symbolic ones.

 

Some of you have a real issue with scale and perspective.

 

Prospective being we get to tell others what to do but not you?

 

Please let's drop the ignorant and racist "gubmint' language. You wouldn't dare mock blacks, Hispanics or other groups with pseudo dialects. Give rural whites to whom such ire is directed the same respect.

[+sbell111]

As I told you A) I am not in favor of anyone tell a business or someone making a free choice to buy their food that they can't,

The law in question does not affect what food McDonalds sells or whether anyone can waddle in there and buy it.

& I am bothered by the hypocrisy of people jumping on band wagons as long as the issue does not affect them.

Ummm, many of us who are not troubled by this law and see it's utility have posted that they eat at McDonalds and do not dislike happy meal toys.

Into whose life is this a real intrusion?

 

Into the business life of McDonalds. What gives someone the right to dictate how someone else will do business? No one is making anyone else buy food at McDonalds. It is a choice.

Absolutely! How dare the gub'ment force McDonalds to only serve inspected meat! Or to be subjected to inspections to see if their equipment is clean, and the food is cooked at the right temperature!

 

Explain oh wise one how a toy in a sack causes disease?

I tried to answer this question in post 32. The toy is a reward for eating crap. By connecting the eating of crap to getting a toy, you are training people to eat crap. It's Pavlov 101.

Last time then I have to leave this topic, as adults we have the right, duty, obligation, responsibility, ability, inclination, proclivity, penchant, aptitude to say “no”. There is no one being forced to buy Happy Meals. That is unless they are a totally ineffective parent.

No one is attempting to remove your right to buy, or not to buy, anything. Regarding the referenced law, you remain able to buy your kid whatever food you or he desires. Yu also remain free to buy your progeny toys. The fact that you cannot purchase the two packaged in teh same box does not impinge on your rights, parental or otherwise.

[+sbell111]

"I take it that you're happy with the status quo of an overweight sedentary American lifestyle? Any thoughts on how we as a country might change this or are you content to let the numbers continue to rise?"

 

You are incorrect, I support real efforts to help children live happy lifestyles like parent modeling, participation in sports, and education, not feel good, superfluous & ineffective rules.

 

Based on the evidence, there are either a tone (ton?)of ineffective parents (your words) out there

 

If they can not control their children's desire for fatty food then yes they are pretty ineffective as parents

 

What head injury?...The risk outweighs the benefits. I'm an adult and I can make these choices.

 

From CDC: For example, from 1984 through 1988, if a presumed helmet-use rate of 10% had been increased to 100% (i.e., universal helmet use), an average of 500 fatal and 151,400 nonfatal bicycle related head injuries could have been prevented each year

 

A case-control study in Seattle in 1989 indicated that the use of bicycle

helmets reduced the risk for bicycle-related head injury by 74%–85%

 

So if we are so concerned about rising insurance rates why don't people do their part to prevent them by wearing a helmets and promoting others doing the same? Because telling others what to do is good. Telling me what to do is bad.

 

Again Good day, have fun.

If there wasn't a seat belt law, I may or may not wear my seatbelt. Luckily, there is as my seatbelt played a part in saving my life a few years ago.

 

No law requires me to wear a helmet while riding my bike. I own three bikes, but not a single helmet. If there were a law, I'd likely buy a helmet.

 

As stated earlier, I like McDonalds. I like there cheeseburgers and fries and have bought happy meals on many occasions. However, I would lend my support to enacting a local law similar to the referenced one. I simply fail to see the downside to such a law.

[+Castle Mischief]

Prospective being we get to tell others what to do but not you?

 

Please let's drop the ignorant and racist "gubmint' language. You wouldn't dare mock blacks, Hispanics or other groups with pseudo dialects. Give rural whites to whom such ire is directed the same respect.

 

Point #1: Learn to use the quote tags.

Point #2: Nobody is stopping you from buying a Happy Meal or toys for your kids. Nobody is TELLING you to stop buying either a Happy Meal or a toy for your kid.

Point #3: Stick to one ridiculous topic at a time and stop trying to derail from the subject of kid's meal toys. I am, by all accounts a "rural white" person. I'll use the word "gubmint" as a real-life reflection of the people that complain about the "gubmint" trying to take over their Happy Meals. We're from the rural South, we talk funny. It's not racist. It's how my neighbors talk. Given enough beers, it might even be how I talk.

 

"Lack of perspective" being this: the law in question bans the sale of kid's meal toys inside a kid's meal in a single county. Any claims otherwise or comparisons that you've made to distort and enlarge that fact into something that it's not are a lack of perspective and scale.

[4wheelin_fool]

If parents want to reward their kids with a toy for eating unhealthy, greasy, food saturated with fat, that is their perogative. Instead of trying to put a stop to it, they should just tax it. The tax should go directly towards treating diseases caused by eating gobs of saturated fat. Heart disease, cancer, diabetes, metabolic syndrome... all are caused by eating massive amounts of saturated fat. $1 per gram would be a good start. It's like a slow poison similar to cigarettes. The problem with taxes such as this (like the ones on cigarettes) is that the money usually goes towards something completely unrelated. People pay $75 or more for a carton for cigarettes in NJ (which is fine by me) but the money isnt used for treating cardiac problems, coronary disease, pulmonary disease, or emphysema. It goes into some pork barrel project...

Edited April 29, 2010 by 4wheelin_fool

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Producers have always been concerned about kids health. Surely they wouldn't offer toys and attractive promotions to get kids to eat junk food, would they?

 

 

Just sayin'

 

I expect any lawyer with the desire and wherewithal could get that ban overturned due to its unfair focus on certain food containers with toys but not all of them... unless they ban Cracker Jacks and baseball cards and other food containers with toy inducements in them.

 

Now there's an idea for McDonalds... Cracker Jacks as Happy Meals Toys! The perfect desert to go with a Happy Meal and you get a toy to boot! I'd buy it!

Edited April 29, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[4wheelin_fool]

[+BulldogBlitz]

 

future geocachers.

[+journey4truth]

I expect any lawyer with the desire and wherewithal could get that ban overturned due to its unfair focus on certain food containers with toys but not all of them... unless they ban Cracker Jacks and baseball cards and other food containers with toy inducements in them.

 

Good Lord, let's not give them any more ideas. The day they take out toys in Cracker Jacks will be the day I hang myself.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

<image snipped for brevity>

future geocachers.

That's the Michael Moore school of argument. Find an extreme example which deviates from the norm and use it to misrepresent the whole.

 

Yes, there are people who overindulge in any given behavior. They do not represent the average.

Edited April 29, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+DragonsWest]

 

future geocachers.

 

Future sumo wrestlers.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

<image snipped for brevity>

 

future geocachers.

 

Future sumo wrestlers.

More in keeping with where this thread has gone; future diabetics and heart patients whom we will all share the cost of treating.

[+BulldogBlitz]

<image snipped for brevity>

 

future geocachers.

 

Future sumo wrestlers.

More in keeping with where this thread has gone; future diabetics and heart patients whom we will all share the cost of treating.

 

only if there is government (i'm sorry...gubmint) healthcare. at this moment, i don't think anyone other than me and my insurance (or just me when i was uninsured) has paid for my ailments.

[+tozainamboku]

 

future geocachers.

Let's hope so. Perhaps if they knew they could only get happy meal toys in geocaches while getting some exercise in the process.

[+DragonsWest]

<image snipped for brevity>

 

future geocachers.

 

Future sumo wrestlers.

More in keeping with where this thread has gone; future diabetics and heart patients whom we will all share the cost of treating.

 

If we're going to tread in the politics direction, which really is half of this thread, anyway - Those who approved the ban are among the lowest level of elected representatives in the USA, not the big bad feds.

 

If the people of Santa Clara County disagree then they will have their chance to voice opinions and replace their representatives. Odds are, this is pretty low level controversy and as it applies to only unincorporated areas within the county the impact feels more like they are testing the water or making a statement without sticking their necks very far out.

 

I have yet to be on the receiving end of a log, critical of the presence of McToys in my cache and what an enabler I am for not hustling out there and removing the offending swag.

 

Perhaps the thing to do to ease our karama is to buy many copies of Super-size Me and put them in caches, though I have yet to meet cachers who look like those two kids. Keep in mind (and this is what I'm all about with my geocaching) geocaching generally requires some exercise and exertion to make finds - it can be a great motivator to attain a good level of fitness and maintain it.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

...only if there is government (i'm sorry...gubmint) healthcare. at this moment, i don't think anyone other than me and my insurance (or just me when i was uninsured) has paid for my ailments.

You could not be more incorrect. You do not understand how insurance works.

 

Everyone who buys into a health insurance policy pays a part of every claim made by anyone against that policy.

 

The healthier the overall policy participants, the fewer the claims thus the lower the cost for everyone. And the reverse.

 

And it's not just the health of the overall policy holders which determines how much your particular policy costs, it's things like frivolous lawsuits (which is why we need tort reform) and many other costs to the insurer (private jets, lavish conferences). Every policy holder pays part of every judgment and over-indulgent cost paid by the insurance company.

 

Surely you didn't think the insurance company paid for these things? No, we policy holders do. That's why there is no incentive for insurers to keep costs down. Whatever costs arise, policy holders will pay for them in the form of higher premiums.

 

The premiums that you personally pay for health insurance over your lifetime will likely not cover the costs of a single major surgery should you have to undergo one... premiums from the overall pool pay the rest.

 

Thus the kids depicted above. It appears likely that they will incur above-average medical costs over their lifetime. It is doubtful that they will ever be able to pay enough in premiums to cover their expenses, so you and I will pay higher premiums to cover their medical expenses.

 

Given that this is how insurance really works, do you still disagree that we all have a vested interest in making this a healthier nation and reducing health care costs?

 

BTW - Every President I can think of has tried to enact some form of exercise and fitness program to improve Americans fitness and thus reduce health care costs. Most of those programs have been defeated.

 

Demand your freedom and pay your premium, they go hand in hand!

[+BulldogBlitz]

...only if there is government (i'm sorry...gubmint) healthcare. at this moment, i don't think anyone other than me and my insurance (or just me when i was uninsured) has paid for my ailments.

You could not be more incorrect. You do not understand how insurance works.

 

Everyone who buys into a health insurance policy pays a part of every claim made by anyone against that policy.

 

The healthier the overall policy participants, the fewer the claims thus the lower the cost for everyone. And the reverse.

 

And it's not just the health of the overall policy holders which determines how much your particular policy costs, it's things like frivolous lawsuits (which is why we need tort reform) and many other costs to the insurer (private jets, lavish conferences). Every policy holder pays part of every judgment and over-indulgent cost paid by the insurance company.

 

Surely you didn't think the insurance company paid for these things? No, we policy holders do. That's why there is no incentive for insurers to keep costs down. Whatever costs arise, policy holders will pay for them in the form of higher premiums.

 

The premiums that you personally pay for health insurance over your lifetime will likely not cover the costs of a single major surgery should you have to undergo one... premiums from the overall pool pay the rest.

 

Thus the kids depicted above. It appears likely that they will incur above-average medical costs over their lifetime. It is doubtful that they will ever be able to pay enough in premiums to cover their expenses, so you and I will pay higher premiums to cover their medical expenses.

 

Given that this is how insurance really works, do you still disagree that we all have a vested interest in making this a healthier nation and reducing health care costs?

 

BTW - Every President I can think of has tried to enact some form of exercise and fitness program to improve Americans fitness and thus reduce health care costs. Most of those programs have been defeated.

 

Demand your freedom and pay your premium, they go hand in hand!

so basically.... you are on blue cross blue shield... and your premium goes to pay MY healthcare - on aetna (or whatever non-BCBS)?

[hoosier guy]

Point #3: Stick to one ridiculous topic at a time and stop trying to derail from the subject of kid's meal toys. I am, by all accounts a "rural white" person. I'll use the word "gubmint" as a real-life reflection of the people that complain about the "gubmint" trying to take over their Happy Meals. We're from the rural South, we talk funny. It's not racist. It's how my neighbors talk. Given enough beers, it might even be how I talk.

 

I am rural white generations back, not a suburbanite or a hobby farmer from Atlanta. This representation of us is offensive. No one on this forum would mock any other ethnicity

 

Clear that we will never agree so I agree to disagree. If fact in the principle of kids needing to be healthy we do agree. Your points have shown over and over that the sheep (the word I use to describe those who accept without thinking) favor form over function and not real action. There is no breaking through that so why try any further.

[+BulldogBlitz]

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

...so basically.... you are on blue cross blue shield... and your premium goes to pay MY healthcare - on aetna (or whatever non-BCBS)?

Yes!

 

Every insurer buys into 'insurance insurance' known as 'reinsurance'. Part of the claims (loss) incurred under your Aetna insurance are paid by my premiums to Blue Cross or whoever I buy my health insurance from.

 

That's why a company can take a major hit - for example the sharp increase in health care claims after Katrina, and not deplete their fund. They charge it off to the reinsurance company and every health care policy holder in the country pays for it.

 

Then the reinsurer buys their own insurance in the form of catastrophe bonds, so ultimately Wall Street investors pay for our higher insurance costs.

 

The institutional investors who sell the catastrophe bonds, oh, say Goldman Sachs, insure their loss from these bonds by selling part of the risk to, fer instance, Chinese investors and together they become "too big to fail" so taxpayers have to support them when they do, which neatly ties your personal insurance policy to the global economy!

 

Anytime you want to know how something really works, follow the money...

 

BTW - that makes insurance a great deal for everyone, but even more so for those with high costs. If you pay $500 per month every year ($6k/yr) for 55 yrs (most people's working years) you will have paid $330,000. in premiums. It really doesn't take a lot for you to exceed $330,000 in lifetime health care costs these days.

Edited April 29, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+chachi44089]

If they ban Mctoys here, I dont think I would hear any kids saying.. "What? No toy in my happy meal? awww maaan...guess I will just have a salad...daaaang"..Parents should be making that decision,not the kids,the toy,the gov. or McDonalds. If parents dont care what their kids eat, or why their kids eat something, the removal of the toy is not going to help very much. They will still get a "toyless" happy meal, and their parents will provide the "reward" to the whinning kid some other way. Nothing gained, Mctoys lost..

[+GeoGeeBee]

<image snipped for brevity>

future geocachers.

That's the Michael Moore school of argument. Find an extreme example which deviates from the norm and use it to misrepresent the whole.

 

Yes, there are people who overindulge in any given behavior. They do not represent the average.

 

Not only that, but they are irrelevant to this topic since they are clearly NOT eating Happy Meals! Those are large fries and medium drinks, not the tiny fries and drinks that come with a Happy Meal.

[4wheelin_fool]

<image snipped for brevity>

future geocachers.

That's the Michael Moore school of argument. Find an extreme example which deviates from the norm and use it to misrepresent the whole.

 

Yes, there are people who overindulge in any given behavior. They do not represent the average.

 

The average American IS overweight.

 

I didn't write anything under the picture though, I don't know why you made it appear that I did..

 

They should just tax the fat and use it directly for healthcare.

[Clan Riffster]

My issue here is not against McToys, but rather, against individual freedoms and business rights. It's a very easy thing to dismiss this idiotic law with "Oh, it's just one county", but should that really matter? If a law is unjust, should we shrug because it doesn't affect us? Perhaps I'm paranoid, but I can't help getting this image of other barking moonbats in positions of authority, salivating over this law, praying that it survives so they can enact similar legislation. (For some reason, the legislator in these mental images all look like Mrs Doubtfire. ) I'd love to believe that this thing will die a kwick death the first time it is challenged, but I have to keep telling myself it's in Kalifornia, and they do some pretty strange things over there.

 

I have not read the bill as worded, so I wonder, did they also ban children's toys in meals of other fast food joints?

[jholly]

My issue here is not against McToys, but rather, against individual freedoms and business rights. It's a very easy thing to dismiss this idiotic law with "Oh, it's just one county", but should that really matter? If a law is unjust, should we shrug because it doesn't affect us? Perhaps I'm paranoid, but I can't help getting this image of other barking moonbats in positions of authority, salivating over this law, praying that it survives so they can enact similar legislation. (For some reason, the legislator in these mental images all look like Mrs Doubtfire. ) I'd love to believe that this thing will die a kwick death the first time it is challenged, but I have to keep telling myself it's in Kalifornia, and they do some pretty strange things over there.

 

I have not read the bill as worded, so I wonder, did they also ban children's toys in meals of other fast food joints?

 

I'm sure we have not heard the last (at least not in this thread ) I'm sure some lawyer is working on his Lambogini payment lawsuit as we type. I'm sure it will go at least to the CA supreme court. Hopefully they can bypass the 9th district.

Edited April 29, 2010 by jholly