Nanny State

The New Yorker Admires Bloomberg's 'Incorrigible Nannyism'

|

Defending Michael Bloomberg's scheme to shrink New Yorkers' waistlines by shrinking their soft-drink servings, The New Yorker's Alex Koppelman trots out a dismayingly common argument that was mocked as "politician's logic" on the British sitcom Yes, Prime Minister back in the late 1980s: "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore we must do it." Only Koppelman isn't kidding:

The proposed ban may not be the best way of dealing with the obesity problem, or the role that sugared drinks play in it. It may not work at all—actually, given the rather large loopholes it will contain, it may backfire. But at some point someone had to step in and do something, and for a number of reasons, that someone basically had to be Mike Bloomberg.

Quoting my post explaining why the beverage regulations are bound to fail, Koppelman concedes "it's not at all clear that this latest plan will make much of a dent in the city's obesity rate." But he suggests "the point isn't actually to make people thinner, at least not in the short term." Rather, the goal is to "shift the discussion about what the government can do to protect the health of its citizens." Hence "the ban doesn't have to work that well, or really at all, to be a success."

That's a pretty permissive performance standard, even for government work, and no doubt every politician in America will envy Bloomberg if he can make it stick. But those of us who are wary of a government bent on protecting us from our own choices are not likely to be persuaded by Koppelman's argument that Bloomberg's arbitrary interference with people's drink orders, though unlikely to have any measurable impact on obesity, will set a precedent for more ambitious meddling down the road. Koppelman, for his part, says Bloomberg "deserves the reputation for incorrigible nannyism that he's gotten during his time in office." He agrees that the mayor's drink diktat "is nanny statism taken to its most ludicrous extreme," that "it's a violation of personal liberty and the idea of individual responsibility," and that "it's the act of an arrogant billionaire who, not content merely to remake a city of millions in his own image, is once again looking down at his subjects and deciding he knows best."

But in Koppelman's view, those are all good things, because stupid fatsos need to be saved from their unquenchable thirst for sugar-sweetened beverages. Serving sizes keep getting bigger, he says, and "this trend was never going to stop by itself." Koppelman undermines this claim by noting that 7-Eleven already has downsized its Super Big Gulp (from 44 ounces to 40), and it is hard to believe that by the beginning of the next century diners will routinely suck soda out of gallon jugs, as Koppelman's projections suggest. He nevertheless believes forceful government action is necessary to head off that scenario, because education has failed. Even though the statistics about excessive calorie intake have been "discussed so much that they're hardly worth repeating," he says, "we're all still drinking this stuff."

Well, not all of us. Bloomberg, for instance, confesses only to an occasional diet soda "on a hot day." I myself never drink sugar-sweetened beverages, preferring to save my calories for beer. The difference between Bloomberg and me (aside from $22 billion or so) is that he feels no compunction about forcibly imposing his dietary preferences on other people. Koppelman thinks that's admirable, but he also thinks "incorrigible nannyism" is a compliment.

Advertisement

NEXT: Police Misconduct Map Shows Who's Been Thin-Blue-Brutalized Near You

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Just another relentless indicator of the limitless statism of the media.

  2. The proposed ban may not be the best way of dealing with the obesity problem, or the role that sugared drinks play in it. It may not work at all?actually, given the rather large loopholes it will contain, it may backfire. But at some point someone had to step in and do something, and for a number of reasons, that someone basically had to be Mike Bloomberg.

    Is really just another way of saying

    I think we have to go all out.
    I think this situation absolutely requires…a really futile and stupid gesture…be done on somebody’s part.

    We’re just the guys to do it.

    1. my advice is to drink heavily

      1. Using multiple small cups.

    2. Once again, I should have read the thread before posting. I see the Animal House connection has already been exploited. But I still like my reference better (see further down the thread).

  3. I bet the bibertarians wouldn’t be so smug if he were telling them how to kill their babies, which gender to marry, or whatever else they think is a sacred right.

    1. My kid is constantly whining about my restricting his internet access. Can’t we just ban those sites so I don’t have to say no?

      1. What happened to us? When did it happen? We were such a strong people once.

        1. No “we” weren’t. There is no “we”.

          1. there was after WW2

            1. Thanks for your input, Mary.

              1. ur welcome private ryan

          2. I’m not talking collectivism here, dude. Just our general culture. Most of us were stupid independent once and would slug you for suggesting otherwise. Now we’re just stupid.

            1. Come at me, bro!

              1. You know how the Borg want you to be assimilated into their collective? I want you to be disintegrated into ten thousand tiny Episiarchs.

                1. Don’t worry, dude, I’m headed down that path already.

                  1. I just hate being disintegrated.

                    1. “A Million Little Fibers”

            2. I blame John Wayne’s death. Bring us Zombie John Wayne, that we might be strong again.

              1. Yeah. If it wasn’t for him, we’d’ve totally lost the war.

        2. We are collectively losing our minds. Not all of us. But a critical mass.

        3. There have always been petty tyrants. The difference now is that the world population is so massive, communication is damn near instantaneous, and on the whole people are more intelligent. IMO, this is the natural progression of the human race. The most petty of the tyrants are the ones who think they know better than everyone else, wealth and popularity merely give a portion of those people the access they need to push their agendas on everyone else.

          1. I think Ayn Rand had something to say about this

          2. on the whole people are more intelligent.

            I seriously doubt it, unless you are referring to effects of better nutrition on brain development.

            1. Maybe the overall depth of knowledge hasn’t increased but I’d sure say the breadth has. There is so much more knowledge available that is much easier to access.

              1. Knowledge =/= intelligence.

                Intelligence = the ability to logically and critically analyze existing knowledge or antecedents in order to produce a logically correct conclusion.

                Sadly, as a society we are inundated with ever increasing knowledge (albeit often times for most people of the most useless and banal sort), but we have become far less capable of drawing appropriate conclusions from our expanding base of knowledge.

                /epidemiological rant.

                1. I just saw something about knowledge being the understanding that a tomato is a fruit, and wisdom being the understanding that you don’t put tomatoes in a fruit salad.

              2. Knowledge =/= intelligence.

                1. Dammit, Sudden!

                  1. You could always castigate me for my auto correct making epistemological into epidemiological.

                    Apparently my brain has a skin condition.

                  2. Point taken. But, while I 100% agree with both of you concerning knowledge and intelligence, I still maintain that overall intelligence has increased, if even to some small degree. Then again, I sometimes go against my better judgement and try to be optimistic.

                    1. Admittedly, I think there is some empirical support for your observation in IQ studies. Although, having said that, I think that then deficiency in those tests is that they deal in abstract constructs to gauge intelligence.

                      The fundamental problem is that while humanity on a whole might be gaining some cognitive advantages as we progress, we’re also gaining more emotional empathy which often clouds the cold, rational mind when it comes to making decisions within real life situations. A coldly rational decision may indicate it’s best not to give the booze-scented hobo a buck at the freeway offramp, but the empathetic within us sees his plight and disregards our rational mind and gives him the buck anyways (not me, but more a general example). None of this even accounts for the significant societal pressures that a person is presented with either in peer-groups or media to support a given policy or person for appearances sake even when their rational mind may intuitively know better.

                    2. we’re also gaining more emotional empathy which often clouds the cold, rational mind when it comes to making decisions within real life situations.

                      The way I see it, this is a direct result of having a larger population living more crammed together. Many people make entirely different choices when they believe there is a chance that they may re-encounter someone they have treated “poorly”.

            2. I’d still guess that people are more intelligent now. Nutrition is one factor. But I think that literacy helps a lot too. Being literate makes people smarter.
              The other thing is that we really have no way to know if people in general were smarter or stupider in the past since most people for most of history just did what they had to to survive and have left us nothing by which to judge their intelligence. Now you get to hear everyone’s idiotic thoughts all day if you want to thanks to the internet. Most people have probably always been that stupid. They just didn’t have an outlet for it.

              I think it is also important to acknowledge that being smart doesn’t necessarily mean being right. I wouldn’t say that Stalin or Marx or any number of other people who have been massively wrong in horrible ways are stupid.

              1. Being literate makes people smarter.

                Again, this pertains to one’s ability to acquire greater information/knowledge, but cannot be used to ascertain one’s actual logic/rational bona fides. Admittedly, you can read books on symbolic reasoning in order to enhance your logical skills, but that is hardly a popular course of study.

                And it is also worth recognizing that intelligence (meaning logic/rationale) can be present in someone who does great deeds of evil if they’re unconcerned with the suffering of others and merely using their own intelligence to expand their power (i.e. Stalin, although his rampant paranoia bespeaks a fault not indicative of full intelligence, but hey, Sir Isaac Newton believed in alchemy so I guess even the most brilliant minds have their foibles).

                1. I think that being literate does more than just allow for more information to come in. I think that it actually gives one more mental tools to use in reasoning. As language allows us to reason in ways that we could not without it, the further abstraction of the written word gives us even more potential depth of reasoning. Of course I can’t remember not being literate, so I’m just going with my gut.
                  The more I think about it, the more I think that “intelligence” really shouldn’t be considered one thing. Intelligence is really a bunch of different skills. One can be totally morally deficient, yet have very good mental ability in other areas. OR one can be really good at taking apart machines and understanding how they work, yet unable to put together a coherent paragraph. It’s probably better to talk about various skills and abilities than intelligence as one unified thing.

              2. Well, right are wrong are entirely too subjective to measure. Intelligent people, more often than not, believe what they’re doing is right.

                1. Arrogant people can believe what they’re doing is right, too. No intelligence required.

              3. I think it is also important to acknowledge that being smart doesn’t necessarily mean being right.

                Unfortunately there are far too few people who don’t recognize this. They tend to bow to “experts” rather than trust their own knowledge or intuition.

                Take how a lot of Obama fluffers fawn over how he’s supposedly “the smartes man in the room”. There may be times when that statement has been true (more an indictment of the other people in the room, but I digress), but that doesn’t mean that every idea he has is gold.

                1. Take how a lot of Obama fluffers fawn over how he’s supposedly “the smartes man in the room”

                  Again, though, this sort of reasoning is largely based on the incorrect definition of smart. Few who define Obama as “smart” do so because of the internal consistencies of his logic, but rather on his base of knowledge/facts and, even more than that, his loquacious oratory. The man is a gift speaker (especially when compared to his predecessor) and therefore given this label of “smartest man in the room” when a closer examination of his logic in symbolic terms would reveal glaring deficiencies in the critical thinking area, which is the true barometer for intelligence.

                  That said, there are smart people who can be wrong. Typically, the the reasons they may be wrong is because the rational choice runs against the grain of their moral position (for example, a pro-life statistician/economist who knows that Freakonomics treatise on abortion leading to reductions in crime rates deliberately trying to disprove this thesis in order to justify their moral position).

                  1. That said, there are smart people who can be wrong.

                    Lack of a particular perspective could also cause this. It’s the difference between book learning and real world experience. There’s a difference between knowing the right way to do something and being able to do something the right way.

            3. Research the Flynn effect

              1. I think sometimes people who are intelligent, knowledgable, and understand the art of argument can get really balled up in their own aims and find a way to logically (in their mind, at any rate) defend any position.

                They will do this at the expense of being right if there’s something in it for them.

  4. This woman has no sense. I’m not suggesting that hitting her over the head will knock any sense into her and in fact it could be counterproductive. However, something needs to be done so it might has well be that.

    1. And for many reasons, AlimightyJB is just the man to do it.

  5. Like all other moves by the state, intentions matter way more than results.

    1. Only in public perception.

      The REAL intention of the bill is to expand government powers over the people, and it will likely succeed admirably in this job.

  6. Wasn’t the New Yorker once known for writing good articles or was it because it is so pro-progressive statism that the right people just said they wrote good articles?

    1. The New Yorker is known for its real estate ads for multi-million dollar brownstones and condos in the Hamptons. Its writing, not so much.

      1. And the bemonocled libertarians in their cartoons.

        1. Eustace Tilley is a libertarian? Now I’m really confused.

    2. They still have some decent pieces from time to time, but they all have the progressive slant. They do have some excellent writers if you can ignore the bias, which admittedly is easier said than done.

  7. From the comments over at The New Yorker:

    At first reading, it reeks of nannyism and a mayor with too much time on his hands; but then, when I think about it here in Virginia, I find a different perspective. In Virginia, we still have billboards that remind people to buckle their seat belts, and to not throw cigarette butts out their car windows. Really! In the eight mile drive between my home in south Stafford and the Stafford courthouse on the Jefferson Davis Hwy, there have been times when both of those billboards were up. Now the average New Yorker reader probably doesn’t need those reminders and isn’t putting his health in jeopardy with maximum sugar beverages. But, there is a huge populace out there (even within the mayor’s jurisdiction)that still needs to be held by the hand and given some tough love on subjects of individual importance that also affect the greater good (a healthy population helps us all; a sick one hurts us all). For me, and most New Yorker readers, the ban on big drinks will have no affect on how we consume, ingest, and react. But until we find another way to educate people on nutrition and health, maybe Mayor B and others like him need to step in; sad, but possibly true.

    Got it? This is necessary for all those non-New-Yorker-reading slobs who don’t know any better. Fuck all, I couldn’t make shit like this up if I tried.

    1. And apparently this person sees no difference between a billboard and a law. Retards, all.

    2. affect the greater good
      Fuck you.

      1. Fucking progressives and their inability to properly use the appropriate version of affect/effect. I recognize it is nanny-statism, and given the literary retardation of the general populace unlikely to have any significant results, but we should send all responsible for misappropriatations of the affect/effect usage into death camps so that we can at least begin a conversation on what the state can do to encourage more effective usage of language.

        1. Maybe it’s just a regional affectation.

    3. How did these fucktards ever learn to use the toilet without the benevolent hand of government leading them? This is why we shouldn’t teach sex ed in schools, all the liberals would then die out since without government they wouldn’t know what goes where and would thus be unable to breed.

      1. toilet? you mean i’m not supposed to shit in the street?

        1. You know how to shit?

          1. Summoning Sandi

    4. For me, and most New Yorker readers, the ban on big drinks will have no affect on how we consume, ingest, and react.

      And this is the key. I mean, we as libertarian recognize the power of naked self-interest in the economic sphere, but dear God does it grate me in the political sphere where its manifestation isn’t merely in mutually consensual economic trade.

      This little phrase so irks me. The recognition that the policy is so transparently holier than thou, yet because great unwashed know not what is best for them, and since said policy won’t disrupt my life (thanks to exemptions for even more calorie-laden frappacinos and jamba juices), it’s the only sensible course of action to educate the barbarians amongst us.

      1. Yes, people aren’t making “unhealthy” choices because they like them, it’s because they just haven’t been educated hard enough yet.

        1. It’s the same reason why they don’t like Obamacare.

        2. Reading the comments at the NYT and New Yorker sites, it’s becoming apparent to me that progressives simply don’t believe that people do (or even should) make decisions based on what they enjoy. Even the folks posting negative comments seem not to be cognizant of this– they all sincerely believe that stupidity and ignorance are the only possible reasons that anyone might make an “unhealthy” choice.

    5. In Virginia, we still have billboards that remind people to buckle their seat belts, and to not throw cigarette butts out their car windows.

      But, there is a huge populace out there (even within the mayor’s jurisdiction)that still needs to be held by the hand and given some tough love on subjects of individual importance that also affect the greater good … Mayor B and others like him need to step in

      But there’s no such thing as a slippery slope!

      1. The writer is not seeing it as a slippery slope but as a favorite ski run.

        How do people who think this way get made?

    6. Yep. All you have to do is “educate” people right and they will do whatever you think is best. Mother Fucker.

      And what the fuck is the point of bringing up billboards in VA? Everyone knows about seatbelts now. And I blame car manufacturers who don’t put ashtrays in cars for butts out the window. That was just dumb. Even if you don’t smoke, you can put pens and coins in there.

  8. Video clips from Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister always win the day.

    1. Did you know that they once wanted to do a parody of the NHS by depicting a hospital with 500 bureuacrats but only 1 doctor? It turns out they couldn’t do it because there actually was one hospital in London that had over 100 bureaucrats and only a few actual doctors and nurses.

      1. Actually, they did that episode, and later found out that there were more than one “hospitals”, or large wings of hospitals, without medical staffs.

      2. They did that episode actually. I remember watching it semi-recently.

        The Compassionate Society. Although in the episode it is merely 300 staff and no patients instead of 500 bureaucrats and no patients.

  9. If I had never had a headache before, I might conclude that my head was bad and needed punishment. I might then whack myself with a board in hopes the headache would go away. Not only would the headache persist, but all of my future decisions would be filtered through a head that had been whacked by a board, rendering me less likely to eventually figure out what the actual problem was.

  10. Good fucking God. The fact that there are people who actually think like this and someone was stupid enough to give them a platform to speak from is one of the starkest signs yet that there is no hope. People like this are the reason I can never drink just one beer.

    1. For a magazine called Reason, it sure gives me plenty of reasons to drink.

    2. …the reason I can never drink just one beer.

      And start tippin’ ’em back early.

  11. The New Yorker embraces brainless, vapid, statism? And in other news the sky is blue, water is wet, and the Chicago Cubs suck.

    1. Yeah…and we play them tonight…good to know!

  12. What if a woman wants to pour 32oz of sugary Mt. Dew into her uterus?

    1. That’s called art.

      1. Fuck, I’ve been calling that a vagenema for the longest time.

        1. Why does this not surprise me?

          1. Because Warty has an uncanny ability to name the various unique practices that a hermaphrodite like itself is capable of accomplishing.

            1. I believe Warty coined the far cruder Mountain Dewche.

              1. So you’re saying you’re Warty’s understudy?!?

                1. Klinefelter’s is a much different, though largely indistinguishable, condition.

              2. Now that’s art.

            2. hermaphrodite

              Ich bin ein sch?nes Zweigeschlecht
              zwei Seelen unter meiner Brust
              zwei Geschlechter eine Lust

    2. She’ll have to buy it at a store rather than at a deli or movie theatre..

  13. Yes, (Prime) Minister has been on my wish list for years now.

  14. Is there anything in this law that says patrons have to pay for refills? Just curious. If there is, then I smell restaurant industry cronyism. If not, the law is even stupider than I originally thought.

    1. That is a good point. It is probably both. It is certainly one or the other since stupidity and or cronyism is behind every government action these days.

      1. I don’t know…Bloomberg doesn’t need money or cronies, particularly. I think Mikey is just really a total scumbag nanny.

        1. Some is never enough. But yeah, I think Bloomburg is probably honest. He just really is that stupid.

        2. Some is never enough. But yeah, I think Bloomburg is probably honest. He just really is that stupid.

    2. It used to be follow the money. Now it is follow the stupid.

    3. The soda producers hate this, but I bet the actual points of sale like it.

  15. You advocate passing a law that you acknowledge wont work to create a teachable moment. At what point in life did you become the total fuck up that lead you to this logic, Koppelman?

    1. Not only that, but says anti-drug measures almost never work — and when they do work, work only slightly — but still favors them. I think his idea is that people will eventually conform their behavior to what they perceive as what certain people flailing about aimlessly want them to, just because it’s obvious they want it really, really badly or they wouldn’t make themselves look so stupid trying to get it across.

      1. Out of pity for the nannies, I mean.

  16. It may not work at all?actually, given the rather large loopholes it will contain, it may backfire. But at some point someone had to step in and do something

    Okay, so it’s just out there. It doesn’t matter if your idea is good, bad, or insanely idiotic. If it relates to something that you, as a politician, perceive to be a problem, you must do it.

    Hm, except, we don’t apply this to ideas that increase liberty.

  17. And my God New York is full of stupid people. I thought Maryland was bad. It is fucking Pericles’ Athens compared to New York City.

    1. You’re right tho. MD’s reeeeeally bad. Everyone’s heading straight to VA.

    1. OMD, is this ever gonna be a circus…

  18. I dont really understand why someone would drink HFCS soda. Having said that, may the ghosts of Coca-Cola’s founders haunt Bloomberg until he gives up his inner nanny.

    1. Sugar Coke! Give it to me!

    2. I dont really understand why someone would do X

      …therefore, I shall ban X.

      /nanny

  19. So, where is Dick from Kentucky? These threads are made for him.

    1. He finally grew the balls to try to dissuade a fattie from buying soda (instead of getting the govt to do it for him) and she ran over him with her Rascal.

  20. Allright Jacob, I save my calories for beer as well.

  21. Speaking of Yes Minister, according to wikipedia a guy named Adam Curtis thinks the show is “ideological propaganda for a political movement” and is part of “a larger movement of criticism of government and bureaucracy, centred upon public choice economics” Horror of horrors!

    1. a larger movement of criticism of government and bureaucracy, centred upon public choice economics

      How-fucking-dare you or anyone else even dream of criticizing the holy and noble order that is the Civil Service?

  22. Next on the agenda: All beer must be light.

    They’ve gone too far.

    1. If it comes to this, I will lead the IPA Rebellion.

      1. I refuse to follow a leader as low born as General Scarcity.

    2. Some of my best beers are dark!

  23. And like all public scolds, Bloomburg is a complete hypocrite in private.

    He dumps salt on almost everything, even saltine crackers. He devours burnt bacon and peanut butter sandwiches. He has a weakness for hot dogs, cheeseburgers, and fried chicken, washing them down with a glass of merlot.

    And his snack of choice? Cheez-Its.

    Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has become New York City’s nutritional nag, banning the use of trans fats, forcing chain restaurants to post calorie counts and exhorting diners to consume less salt. Now he is at it again, directing his wrath at sugary drinks in a new series of arresting advertisements that ask subway riders: “Are you pouring on the pounds?”

    But an examination of what enters the mayoral mouth reveals that Mr. Bloomberg is an omnivore with his own glaring indulgences, many of them at odds with his own policies. And he struggles mightily to restrain his appetite. . . .

    Mr. Bloomberg, 67, likes his popcorn so salty that it burns others’ lips. (At Gracie Mansion, the cooks deliver it to him with a salt shaker.) He sprinkles so much salt on his morning bagel “that it’s like a pretzel,” said the manager at Viand, a Greek diner near Mr. Bloomberg’s Upper East Side town house.

    Not even pizza is spared a coat of sodium. When the mayor sat down to eat a slice at Denino’s Pizzeria Tavern on Staten Island recently, this reporter spotted him applying six dashes of salt to it.

    1. A health tip sheet from the mayor’s office tells New Yorkers to “drink smart” by choosing water, even though Mr. Bloomberg has a three- to four-cup-a-day coffee habit.

      http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

    2. Don’t you see John, he’s not a hypocrite he’s just trying to kick his habit. Since he personally doesn’t have the willpower to put down all that salty and sugary poison then he knows everyone else has the same problem. By banning these things he is saving himself as well as his subjects.

    3. Victory Gin for you, wine for the Inner Party.

      Makes perfect sense.

  24. Soda makers should just comply, but charge the 20oz price for the 12oz bottle. When challenged, call it the Bloomsburg Tax.

  25. People dream of making the virtuous powerful, so they can depend on them. Since they cannot do that, people choose to make the powerful virtuous, glorifying in becoming victimized by them.–Thomas Szasz

    1. I fully intend on adding this particular and largely unknown adage to my repertoire for future use. Bolshoi Spasiba

    2. That is a great quote. And it amazes me although no longer surprises me how no one even bothers to wear the hair shirt anymore. Whatever negative you can say about the moral scolds of the past, they generally did live by their own creeds. Carrie Nation was a real life teetotaler. Jonathan Edwards never ran around on his wife. William Jennings Bryant didn’t get rich buying gold. But now no one in power ever practices what they preach be it Al Gore’s small village sized house or Bloomburg’s appalling eating habits. And worse still, they seem to feel no shame or make any effort to try to hide it.

      1. To some degree, that may largely be why they support legislation to enforce such morality.

        Al Gore doesn’t believe people in general can resist through noble action alone the temptations of high energy consumption because he is such a massive consumer of it. Ditto with Doomberg and the salts. And ditto again with Larry Craig and homosexuality (let’s make it transpartisan at least).

        1. I think it is deeper than that. The scolds of the past seemed to in some or most cases actually believe in the value of what they were advocating. These people clearly don’t or they would be acting differently. There is some massive dissonance going on with someone like Craig who can on the one hand be so publicly anti homosexual and then on the other indulging in the most disgusting aspects of gay culture.

  26. Why is someone else’s waistline any of my damn business?

    1. In theory it’s because you have to pay higher insurance premiums because of it.

      1. And you will die younger too.

      2. Then people should be able to vote fatties out of their workplace because they are putting an undue burden on their group plans.

        1. Or get rid of group plans altogether. Those tubby bastards are pushing my premiums up and I’m in pretty good health.

          1. That’s where my opinion lies. Let individuals determine their own needs and tailor their own plans. Or even better, just pick a doctor they like and let them work out their own agreement.

            1. that’s how GEICO works.

      3. that’s not actually true in all states, only the ones with community rating enforced on them . In a free world, your insurer would only charge you a premium based on the risks you PERSONALLY represent.

    2. When will we get to the point when murdering fatties is considered a public service and a gentle mercy to the fatty? Sort of like burning the witch was a public service to protect the community from contamination and salvation for the witch’s immortal soul, to save them from further sin.

    3. We pay for your healthcare!!!

  27. “a dismayingly common argument that was mocked as ‘politician’s logic’ …”

    I like THIS version better, and I think it applies more closely to Bloomie’s situation:

    “The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.”

  28. Daily ration cards – 2,500 calories per day. Punched by restaurants, vendor carts, or places where you buy food for off-premise consumption.
    Hire 5,000 food police. Special watchful attention will be paid to politicians and magazine editors who claim to support this shit.

    1. Show me your papers please?

  29. One of the New Yorker commenters notes that societies can go down the tubes when good people do nothing, as happened in Nazi-controlled Germany, but then reaches the boneheaded conclusion that Bloomberg banning Big Gulps is analogous to what the good people should have done, rather than the more apt analogy — New York citizens rising up and deposing their overreaching ruler while they still can.

  30. its mommy-ism not nanny-ism. nannys get a paycheck for tending to those unable to think straight. mommy pays for the health needs of her children. i would like to see mommy bloomberg take on the food stamp program next, where the kiddies can buy ice cream cake candy pie eclairs tiramissu bain et chocolat … you get the picture …. then mommy has to pay for their diabetes heart trouble back knee hip foot troubles from carrying 100+ extra pounds around. i am not speculating, i live among the grossly overindulgent folk who haven’t a thought about watching their sugar [fat salt calorie] intake, then expect mommy to pick up the mega-thousand-dollar tabs for their health issues. and now, national health? oiy!

    bravo mommy bloomberg

  31. this is how light beer was foisted. Damn them.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.