Soda and Fruit Juices Should be Banned

[Colleen27]

Can't make a cosmo without cranberry juice, though.

That's okay. Alcohol is even worse for you than juice so I'm sure that'll be on the chopping block too.

Jolt “all the sugar and twice the Caffine”

They actually put that on the bottle
It’s how I woke up to goto high school

Ah, the good old days, before energy drinks. Jolt tasted vile, like knock-off RC Cola, but it was my morning go-to in high school too.

 

[Robbie Cottam]

I think Pepsi taste vile, I enjoyed RC and Jolt when they were a thing

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

This is one of those times where the screen name is on point

 

[Robbie Cottam]

Aren’t back handed complements great,
Kinda like saying bless his heart before you totally trash someone

 

[BlueStarryHat]

So, yeah. Prohibition. In 1920, The sale of alcohol and the consumption of alcohol was banned in the United States. That worked out well. We should pressure our lawmakers to enact more laws like that, right? Because people will totally be on board with it.

 

[mrodgers]

So, where does that slippery slope end?

What has been touted as being bad for us in the past.

Ban eggs. Ban red meat. Ban carbohydrates. Ban sugar. Ban high fructose corn syrup. Ban salt. Ban chicken, pork, and seafood along with the beef. Ban bacon. Ban potatoes.

For everything that we eat, at some point it was told it was bad for us. We'd all be eating the chemical burgers if we ban everything said to be bad and the chemical foods are worse than any of it.

 

[Robbie Cottam]

So, yeah. Prohibition. In 1920, The sale of alcohol and the consumption of alcohol was banned in the United States. That worked out well. We should pressure our lawmakers to enact more laws like that, right? Because people will totally be on board with it.

It work out well for Al Capone, Papa Joe Kennedy, and well founded an entire sport…

But yes, banning a product only increases demand. If you want to control a product you tax the poop out of it ….

Then for those addicted it cost a lot.

 

[Travel60]

I always promote education as a key.....educate about nutrition, educate about exercise. But, ideas on both (nutrition especially) keep changing. Sometimes sugar is the bad one, sometimes it is fats, sometimes it is carbs that are bad.

After education, I tend to think everyone has the right to be as stupid as they want. But the fact that the unhealthy behaviors raise all our insurance rates and jam up doctors and hospitals with mostly preventable diseases (cancer, diabetes, heart) makes me angry. So, we could allow insurance companies to charge different rates to smokers, to the obese, to alcoholics, to the sedentary. And, allow triage and other medical decisions based on behavior. That would go over well.

I think I'm back to education.....

 

[xipotec]

A more interesting question is, should insurance companies be expected to pay for treatments needed as a direct result of horrible diets ?

 

[xipotec]

What has been touted as being bad for us in the past.

Ban eggs. Ban red meat. Ban carbohydrates. Ban sugar. Ban high fructose corn syrup. Ban salt. Ban chicken, pork, and seafood along with the beef. Ban bacon. Ban potatoes.

For everything that we eat, at some point it was told it was bad for us. We'd all be eating the chemical burgers if we ban everything said to be bad and the chemical foods are worse than any of it.

I do not recall a ban on anything you listed. I do recall people trying to educate the public on possible foods that may lead to health problems if consumed irresponsibly.

 

[Colleen27]

A more interesting question is, should insurance companies be expected to pay for treatments needed as a direct result of horrible diets ?

Yes, because that's a scary slippery slope given insurance companies' past history in finding the flimsies possible reasons to exclude issues from coverage. Pretty much every common chronic condition can be attributed to some combination of behavior and genetics, so if insurers are allowed to exclude coverage for health issues that have a behavioral/lifestyle element to them, you should be fully prepared for not just diabetes and heart disease but also most cancers, STDs, and even accidental injury to be subjected to the same behavioral tests. Sorry, your skin cancer treatment isn't covered because it is attributable to spending too much unprotected time in the sun. Surgery to set your broken leg isn't covered because skiing is a high risk activity. Where would it end?

The entire idea of insurance is to pool risk, and allowing exclusions based on individual factors contradicts that idea. Insurers would love to only cover the healthy and cautious, but on a societal level, that would be a disaster.

 

[xipotec]

Yes, because that's a scary slippery slope given insurance companies' past history in finding the flimsies possible reasons to exclude issues from coverage. Pretty much every common chronic condition can be attributed to some combination of behavior and genetics, so if insurers are allowed to exclude coverage for health issues that have a behavioral/lifestyle element to them, you should be fully prepared for not just diabetes and heart disease but also most cancers, STDs, and even accidental injury to be subjected to the same behavioral tests. Sorry, your skin cancer treatment isn't covered because it is attributable to spending too much unprotected time in the sun. Surgery to set your broken leg isn't covered because skiing is a high risk activity. Where would it end?

The entire idea of insurance is to pool risk, and allowing exclusions based on individual factors contradicts that idea. Insurers would love to only cover the healthy and cautious, but on a societal level, that would be a disaster.

I would agree on initial diagnosis, what about those that refuse preventative treatments for chronic illness?

Right now, insurnace companies are trying to do this very thing. High cholesterol? Not taking your cholesterol medication as prescribed? Higher rates.
Diabetes? A1C not going anywhere after years ? Medications not being picked up and taken?

Is that still just the way it should be?

 

[Robbie Cottam]

A more interesting question is, should insurance companies be expected to pay for treatments needed as a direct result of horrible diets ?

Insurance company’s have to pay for:
Drinkers
Smokers
Drug users
Runners
Hikers
Drivers
Walker. That have been hit by drinkers, smokers and drug users that hit them with a car

 

[Robbie Cottam]

Can insurance companies sue anti vaxers,
When their children get sick from not being vaccinated ???

 

[mrodgers]

I do not recall a ban on anything you listed. I do recall people trying to educate the public on possible foods that may lead to health problems if consumed irresponsibly.

That's my point. We don't even need to educate the public. I think you have to be highly unintelligent to think eating and drinking massive amounts of sugar is bad for you.

My point, if we ban sugar because it's bad for you, all of those things I listed has been stated at one time or another by someone as being bad for you, so they should all be banned also.

 

[xipotec]

That's my point. We don't even need to educate the public. I think you have to be highly unintelligent to think eating and drinking massive amounts of sugar is bad for you.

My point, if we ban sugar because it's bad for you, all of those things I listed has been stated at one time or another by someone as being bad for you, so they should all be banned also.

I was just playing devils advocate.

But since you asked, and I am in the “biz” , I can tell you , without question, there are many people whom do not know this, and even more whom do not believe it.

Its hard to understand the lack of medical knowledge and lack of common sense regarding diet until you see it everyday.

 

[Planogirl]

If I pick up my prescription, how does anyone know if I take it? Also, how does anyone know how much sugar or carbs I consume? People vary in their reactions and insurance companies having more authority based on statistics is not a good thing. Yes I know that they use them now but enough is enough already.

 

[diser_fam]

That Sugar Film (2014) is a pretty good documentary on the effects of sugar. Basically a healthy guy that spends a couple of months eating healthy foods with added sugar. No junk food, just things that are sold as "healthy". Interesting to see how his body reacts. Pretty sure before this experiment, he was either low sugar or zero sugar intake.

Don't think any bans are needed, just more education.

 

[Colleen27]

I would agree on initial diagnosis, what about those that refuse preventative treatments for chronic illness?

Right now, insurnace companies are trying to do this very thing. High cholesterol? Not taking your cholesterol medication as prescribed? Higher rates.
Diabetes? A1C not going anywhere after years ? Medications not being picked up and taken?

Is that still just the way it should be?

Yes, because medical science isn't settled science and there is no "one right way" that is effective and well-tolerated every patient. The idea of denying coverage based on how cooperative a patient is with treatment reduces patients to a set of numbers, erases quality of life issues, and takes individual preference/comfort entirely out of the equation. If insurers can deny coverage based on medication refusal, we create a situation where one has to accept whatever side effects come with whatever the doctor has prescribed (and the insurer has approved). So your blood pressure might be normal, but you experience such dizziness/vertigo that you can't function, or you cholesterol might come down while you experience near-constant muscle pain/weakness, or your mental health might be more stable at the expense of large weight gain or sexual dysfunction. People shouldn't be forced to accept those kinds of trade-offs for the sake of insurers' profit motives.

 

[Christine]

I was just playing devils advocate.

But since you asked, and I am in the “biz” , I can tell you , without question, there are many people whom do not know this, and even more whom do not believe it.

Its hard to understand the lack of medical knowledge and lack of common sense regarding diet until you see it everyday.ot

Not to mention that many people will look at a gallon of apple juice (and not even the kind that's "just" apple juice) and think it's a healthy choice to give their kids all day because it's fruit after all.