Just have the bourbon WITHOUT the Coke.

Anyone that drinks that shit deserve what they get.

The headline would be more accurate if "sugar" was replaced by "corn syrup". Giving yourself diabetes with soda made with cane sugar is cost prohibitive.

Refined sugar or corn syrup is as dangerous
as tobacco.

Stand outside of a grocery store for 15 minutes and watch how much soda pop comes out. It's fucking amazing. Case after case of that shit gets purchased by people already fat as hell.

33% of adults in this country have diabetes or the precursor to the disease. Child obesity has tripled since 1980. Instead of people creating a "boogeyman" to blame why health costs have risen so dramatically, they should be blaming themselves.

Watch "Food, Inc"

Sugary Drinks Lead to Early Grave... which is why, one supposes, we find them in almost every school in the country....that, and the "incentives" paid by drink makers to school districts.

Sugar is an antigen, it produces free radicals and lowers vitamin E.

Should be illegal...

Tax it! Tax it more! That's all this kind of scientific prostitution is used for. Only 6,000 deaths? How many died from falling down stairs in the same time period? I'd best not suggest the comparison because the loons will want to tax stairs, too.

That's all this kind of scientific prostitution is used for.
#10 | Posted by Diablo

Well, it's usually used for education. But I'm pretty sure that's a foreign concept to you.

No need to tax it. Just stop subsidizing it. That should be right up you're alley, Diablo.

No tax! No regulation! I don't care if the fat fucks die. As long as my insurance doesn't go up, who cares?

As long as my insurance doesn't go up, who cares?

I doubt insurance policies are going to start excluding coverage for illnesses related to "fatasses who drink too much soda".

Great! Do I therefore get a discount for drinking Diet Coke?

It took a genius to come up with this one.

Maybe if they started to put real sugar in the drinks there would be less problems, instead of putting these substitutes that prohibit your body from feeling full.

That is funny Kan, because diet coke can actually be worse than regular coke.

"Well, it's usually used for education..."

The Government has mandated or created hundreds of new laws based on science, requiring all food and drink have labels showing calories, nutrients, etc., in efforts to educate people. Sadly people still don't get it.

I doubt insurance policies are going to start excluding coverage for illnesses related to "fatasses who drink too much soda".

Dumbfuck,
They want to give insurance to everyone with preexisting conditions. Diabetes is fucking rampant. I don't want to pay more to cover self loathing idiots that refuse to take care of themselves.

I think the biggest issue is that it is the government that is keeping them from putting the less problem causing natural sugar in the drink.

The government is part of the problem, and now they are going to tax a product and potentially put many companies out of business because people are stupid?

That is like passing universal health care because the insurance rates are going up because people don't know how to take care of themselves...

oh... never mind.

Dumbfuck,
They want to give insurance to everyone with preexisting conditions. Diabetes is fucking rampant. I don't want to pay more to cover self loathing idiots that refuse to take care of themselves.

I don't either, but you already do. there is too much attention being paid to "preexisting conditions". it isn't the problem most make it out to be....mostly because they don't even understand what the fuck it means.

and you can scream all you want....you and I will continue paying for them even if we change nothing.

dumbfuck.

"The Government has mandated or created hundreds of new laws based on science, requiring all food and drink have labels showing calories, nutrients, etc., in efforts to educate people. Sadly people still don't get it."

If the government continues to subsidize corn and soy, it won't matter how much they try to educate people, cheap trumps smart.

Eb,

These pantspissing morons only know what Glen Beck tells them. They are too fucking stupid to realize that EVERYONE pays for the uninsured that show up at the emergency room in a diabetic coma or gangreen or some othe Diabetes related emergency. It would be far cheaper to treat them before the emergency, but the greedy fucking teabaggers and Republicans are too stupid to realize it.

Where are my god damned DEATH PANELS? Lots of Rtards in need of their attention.

Drink Hansen's soda if soda you must drink. Pure cane sugar, no corny crappola. And it tastes good, too.

They are too fucking stupid to realize that EVERYONE pays for the uninsured that show up at the emergency room in a diabetic coma or gangreen or some othe Diabetes related emergency. It would be far cheaper to treat them before the emergency, but the greedy fucking teabaggers and Republicans are too stupid to realize it.
#23 | Posted by axe at 2010-03-08 11:47 AM

You got to love clowns like this calling anyone stupid. Only a fucking tool doesn't know that preventing an emergency is far cheaper than paying for one. Hence the name Axe?

It's typical idiotic lib science to demonize "soda" spiked with corn sweeteners when virtually every processed food we eat is also spiked.

It would be far cheaper to treat them before the emergency, but the greedy fucking teabaggers and Republicans are too stupid to realize it.

My issue is with the changing of behavior and starting to truly "value" one's health.

Most people I know who drink too much soda and are overweight already have health insurance.

I don't see anything with regard to "treatment before emergency" going on with these people......just more drinking of soda when their ass can't fit in their chair already.

The healthier people are, the less their insurance will cost, because they less risk they will have in the event of emergencies.

Unfortunately you pay for the risk of the emergency and not just the emergency itself. Insurers do not want to take a risk on people who are just about to explode and still trying to down another soda before they get into the office.

When you show you can take care of yourself, then you should be able to get insurance, and cheaper insurance.

If you don't take care of yourself, don't complain.

And then there are the luck ones like me. I am in perfect helath I get flying colors on my anual physical but I have MS. My insurance risk is crazy I can't get it on my own period. So I drag up the rates of my entire company even though my insurance company has not had to pay out 1 dime due to my MS for 3 years now. I am in a clinical trial that pays for all my related MS expenses for at least the next 2 years but the insurance company still raised our premiums this year citing the high risk factor and health condition of our employees.

So what incentive are they giving me to keep trying to save them money through great helath and transfering the cost burden to Novartis (BTW buy stock in them they have THE BEST NEW MS DRUG coming out later this year or early next year and it will revolutionize MS treatment)

#29 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2010-03-08 01:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is part of the issue. Because insurance is used so much for everyone, the rates go up and up in regard to any particular risk. The risk analysis has increased so much due people who have not taken sufficient care of themselves in their personal lives.

So many people are not at this point where they have put themselves at higher risks, the real purpose for insurance for those emergencies has been defeated.

We need to take a better look at what insurance is for, emergencies. Therefore, insurance should primarily be targetted at those who have things that they will have emergencies, outside of their control.

Those who are going to have emergencies because of something that they personally did in their lives, they should pay higher risk premiums than those who have a risk associated with something outside of their control.

If it is part of something you did, you are going to have to prove that you are doing something in order to receive coverage. An ignored situation that leads to a condition is different than an unknown and uncontrollable situation leading to a condition.

My father has MS, he went on Beta Seron when it first came out in the trial stage. It has been in remission for a long time, with no effects, he was barely able to walk previous.

Seems like the libs/progressives/wtfuckevers would be encouraging people to die early...makes health care afforable for those of us left.

Watch "Food, Inc"

A far better example is King Corn.

Express,

I tried Betaseron and Avonex and neither worked for me. Thats why I started the clinical trial. If I am on placebo the placebo effect is better than Avonex if I'm on real drug then it works awesome. Even better it's a once a day pill not a shot!

Anyway MS has nothing to do with anything you did wrong in life, nor is there much you can do to keep it at bay other than expensive drugs. (thats why insurance is so high for me) However like I said being in a clinical trial has cut my medical expenses dramaticly. Plus with my HDHP I don't cost the insurance company anything. Yet I still pay.

I have been in the grocery checkout line and seen people buying drinks with HFCS and using food stamps. That is damnable. Or maybe it is elegant: a perfectly round cycle.

A very good book to read about it is : Sugar Blues.

#19 KARATE "I don't to pay more to cover self loathing idiots"
Would you deny coverage to all republicans?

How many times do we need to beat a dead horse on this topic? Too much food, ie carbohydrates, make you fat.

Bread, potatoes, beans, spaghetti, bagels...you name it, most foods have carbohydrates. Eat too much, you will get fat. So why not tax all foods? Why single out anything. Give pies, donughts, bread, and pasta a pass?

Yet again society trying to 'blame' someone/thing else for their own lack of will power.

The soda made me do(drink) it?

Sugary Beverages lead to health risks up to and including early death?

We needed a study to tell us that?

LOL.

I don't believe sugar is the cause of diabetes. That is a genetic issue, however it is definitely an aggravation for those with the disease. I was diagnosed with type two diabetes several years ago. I was about 20 lbs overweight, but I never did like sugary drinks of any kind. Now I avoid all sugar and refined starches. My diabetes is under control without drugs. I have a cousin who is in great shape, if anything he is underweight, and he has type 2 diabetes much more severe then myself. He loves his pasta, sweets and bread. I have four sisters who are all 50 or 60 pounds over weight and none of them has diabetes. They are fat from eating so much sugar and starches.

My point it that sugar is a death threat for people predisposed to get diabetes. It is pushed at us by every manufacturer of processed food in the world. People who think this is another "liberal plot" to tax us just don't realize that sugar is already a corporate plot to tax us on a much more expensive scale then 2 cents an ounce. These typical right wing finger pointers apparently have no idea that just about every thing they eat that is not natural food is already loaded with sugar and salt just to kill off any living enzymes so it keeps longer in a package and tastes like something instead of the dead food it has been turned into.

The propaganda from the corporations is just one more attempt to dumb down the population and keep pushing the same old crap that they know is killing us all for the sake of profit.

One thing is for certain, there is a heck of a lot more fat republicans then there is fat liberals from what I can see. It's a reflection of their educational level.

But the beverage industry vehemently disagreed with this claim.

"Heart disease and diabetes are complex problems with no single cause and no simple solutions. Consuming sugar-sweetened beverages is not a risk factor" for either condition, the American Beverage Association (ABA) wrote in a press release on the analysis.
Related
Do You Live in the Fattest or Slimmest City?
Is the American Diet Too Sweet for the Heart?
White House Launches 'Let's Move' Campaign to Fight Childhood Obesity

The ABA is a trade organization that represents the interests of beverage companies such as Pepsico and Coca-Cola.

"Sugars are sugars, calories are calories," said Maureen Storey, nutritionist and senior vice president of science policy at the ABA, so there should be no difference in obesity or disease risk for someone drinking high-fructose-corn-syrup-
sweetened soda or 100 percent juice.

"Your body is not smart enough to figure out whether the sugar was add by a manufacturer or by nature," she added. "As far as I know, there is no scientific data to prove that high fructose corn syrup is any worse for you than any other kind of sugar."

What an intellectually dishonest report. The only mention of HFCS in the whole discussion about sugary drinks and soda is a ABA complete denial of everything (sugar-cause, HFCS potential cause). It conveniently lumps soda, sugary drinks together without any discussion of HFCS.

When properly adding HFCS to the discussion, there is a whole new dynamic to the disease component.

One thing is for certain, there is a heck of a lot more fat republicans then there is fat liberals from what I can see.

So whenever you see a fat person, you run up and ask their political affiliation, pull a tally book out of your pocket, and put a check in the "R" column?

What a fucking loser. Get a life, clown. And learn how to conjugate the infinitive "to be".