Make mine a DIET coke please.

[ltljohn]

Worst drive through foods

 

This one was the worst.

 

 

 

THE WORST DRIVE-THRU MEAL IN AMERICA

Carl's Jr. Double Six Dollar Burger

with Medium Natural cut Fries and 32 oz Coke

2,618 Calories

144 g fat (51.5 g saturated fat)

2892 mg sodium

 

Of all the gut-growing, heart-stopping, life-threatening burgers in the fast food world, there is none whose damage to your general well-being is as catastrophic as this. Consider these heart-stopping comparisons: This meal has the caloric equivalent of 13 Krispy Kreme Original Glazed Donuts; the saturated fat equivalent of 52 strips of bacon; and the salt equivalent of seven and a half large orders of McDonald's French fries!

[Whip]

Eat This Instead!

Famous Star with Side Salad with Low Fat Balsamic Dressing and 32 oz Iced Tea

685 calories

38 g fat (10.5 g saturated fat)

1520 mg sodium

 

 

 

 

Yeah Right!!!!

 

 

 

I'm getting hungry just thinkin about that burger and fries.......

 

Do we have a Carl's in SA??????

 

I'll get back to ya.

 

 

....someone kick me if they ever see that mag near me.

[upflying]

I am not one who normally supports social engineering through higher taxes. Similar to what is happening with cigarette taxes, maybe fast food should be heavily taxed to pay for future health care costs and dietary education.

[Whip]

I am not one who normally supports social engineering through higher taxes. Similar to what is happening with cigarette taxes, maybe fast food should be heavily taxed to pay for future health care costs and dietary education.

 

 

I think people that eat that stuff should not be allowed emergency medical care, medicare or medicaid.

 

I don't wanna have to pay for the health of stupid folks that don't read "Health Mags" and follow there teachings.

 

 

 

 

....and if your waist is bigger than your inseam you should be denied any government funding until you have properly adjusted your lifestyle...including bankers and bailouts.

 

 

 

 

 

[4wheeldog]

[quote=Whip

....and if your waist is bigger than your inseam you should be denied any government funding until you have properly adjusted your lifestyle...including bankers and bailouts.

 

 

 

 

 

Now I just need to have my legs lengthened about 6"!

[ltljohn]

....and if your waist is bigger than your inseam you should be denied any government funding until you have properly adjusted your lifestyle...including bankers and bailouts.

 

 

Whip,

Even when I had a 28" waist it was bigger than my 27" inseam how could you be so cruel to short people.

[Slyder_Steve]

Umm, gee thanks Whip...haven't had a 29 inch inseam in about 20 years.

 

Guess I need to lay off the double $6 burgers

 

Slyder

[Whip]

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

I am not one who normally supports social engineering through higher taxes. Similar to what is happening with cigarette taxes, maybe fast food should be heavily taxed to pay for future health care costs and dietary education.

 

I thought that someone here recently posted a study about smoking and health care costs. The jist was that smokers actually cost us less because they die sooner. Perhaps this is also true for the fast-food crowd.

[Lawman]

For some reason all this reminded me of the woman who flagged me down not long after the hurricane. She must have weighed at least 300 pounds. She wanted to know who she needed to talk to in order for her to get her summa that freema money...

[Boone60]

What's that, an early pilates machine?

[russell_bynum]

I am not one who normally supports social engineering through higher taxes. Similar to what is happening with cigarette taxes, maybe fast food should be heavily taxed to pay for future health care costs and dietary education.

 

I thought that someone here recently posted a study about smoking and health care costs. The jist was that smokers actually cost us less because they die sooner. Perhaps this is also true for the fast-food crowd.

 

I believe we've seen the same sort of study from the ABATE folks about helmet usage.

 

The simple answer is more regulation and government control over the personal lives and of private citizens. Gov't should mandate two salads a day. I want to see the Dept of Heath and Human Services expanded to include a salad enforcement department to individually monitor every citizen's salad intake. Anyone who doesn't have at least two salads a day gets bumped to the next higher tax bracket...one tax bracket per infraction.

 

 

[tallman]

 

....and if your waist is bigger than your inseam you should be denied any government funding until you have properly adjusted your lifestyle...including bankers and bailouts.

 

 

What do I win?

 

[90%angel]

Yard House Restaurant:

 

Chicken Caesar salad with only 2 TBS dressing:

595 Cals

36 g Fat

 

McDonald's Big Mac:

540 cals

29 g Fat

 

So, tell me again why fast food is the one that should be unfairly taxed?

[Paul_Burkett]

Now this is a hamburger.

 

Hamburger

[smiller]

I wonder how many of those proclaiming 'It's worth it!!!' have actually experienced a heart attack or bypass surgery.

[eddd]

Worst drive through foods

 

This one was the worst.

 

 

 

THE WORST DRIVE-THRU MEAL IN AMERICA

Carl's Jr. Double Six Dollar Burger

with Medium Natural cut Fries and 32 oz Coke

2,618 Calories

144 g fat (51.5 g saturated fat)

2892 mg sodium

 

 

 

I usually order two when I'm there.

[Polo]

Now this is a hamburger.

 

Hamburger

 

Truth in advertising at its best.

 

I'd be willing to bet the "nurses" don't eat there.

[Ken H.]

I know what you (and Larry) are saying Russell - government interference, but it is a interesting quandary... Where do we draw the line between allowing people to do/eat whatever they want, but society having to bear the cost of them doing so?

 

The line’s slowly becoming clearer on smoking, but on 144g of fat burgers, not so much so.

 

Remember, at the very least indirectly through higher cost of medical, insurance, etc.; you too are helping that line of people at Carl Jr's. pay for the cost of their indifference to the effects of what they eat.

 

[SageRider]

society having to bear the cost of them doing so

As long as taxes or mandatory insurance premiums (another tax) are paid, one can use that excuse to prohibit just about anything, including life itself....

Indeed, where will the line be drawn before the citizenry get fed up enough to say no more???

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

The line's slowly becoming clearer on smoking...

 

Not really.

 

Conclusions

If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.

 

You could maybe factor in the lost productivity of people who drop dead at 50 instead of 90, but that kind of underscores my point: the cost consequences of smoking are not at all clear.

 

FWIW, I loves me a big-ass greasy cheeseburger now and then. I try to eat healthy most of the time so that I can indulge occasionally without incurring the wrath of the surgeon general.

 

[russell_bynum]

society having to bear the cost of them doing so

As long as taxes or mandatory insurance premiums (another tax) are paid, one can use that excuse to prohibit just about anything, including life itself....

Indeed, where will the line be drawn before the citizenry get fed up enough to say no more???

 

What he said.

[smiller]

As long as taxes or mandatory insurance premiums (another tax) are paid,

It is incorrect to assume that other people's health behavior affects us only if there is some kind of mandatory insurance or tax. In reality we all pay regardless, since when the uninsured show up at an ER and can't pay that cost is simply shared by everyone who does pay. Not as apparent as a tax but just as real.

 

 

 

[SageRider]

since when the uninsured show up at an ER and can't pay that cost is simply shared by everyone who does pay

Just another hidden tax as either the hospitals choose to perform this service out of the kindness of their hearts (NOT!) or the government requires it (TAX!)...

[russell_bynum]

since when the uninsured show up at an ER and can't pay that cost is simply shared by everyone who does pay

Just another hidden tax as either the hospitals choose to perform this service out of the kindness of their hearts (NOT!) or the government requires it (TAX!)...

 

What he said.

[90%angel]

Even if you support taxing "junk food", how would you ever enforce it? As stated in my previous example, fast food is not the only food that is bad for you...PLENTY of sit down places are worse, and salad, a so called health food, has more fat and calories than the burger? So what, are you going to have tax police at every restaurant that say "OK, tax the salad extra if he orders dressing, but less tax if he gets it on the side, no tax if he gets the lite stuff, tax the hell out of him if he gets a burger, oh wait, but not if it's a turkey burger, but wait, did that burger have mayo on it...?

 

It's utterly unenforcable and/or unfair. Educate people, let them make their own choices, and let them pay their higher health premiums and deal with the inevitable diseases when/if they choose badly. OR, how bout this idea; instead of us always going the punitive "tax" route, how about offer incentives/subsidies to restaurants to offer healthy fare at lower prices? People might not be so loathe to choose the chicken sandwich if it didn't cost twice as much as the burger. But again, I'm not sure how this would ever be implemented fairly.

[smiller]

Just another hidden tax as either the hospitals choose to perform this service out of the kindness of their hearts (NOT!) or the government requires it (TAX!)...

The government doesn't require it, a civilized society does. Are you proposing that someone showing up in the ER without insurance be sent out to die on the curb?

[SageRider]

Looking at it from a different viewpoint, one eats fatburgers all their lives and dies of a heart attack at 45.

Who "costs" society more? The early to the grave burger lover, or the health fanatic thats survives into their 90s, collecting social security checks (among other benefits) all along???

 

 

[SageRider]

Just another hidden tax as either the hospitals choose to perform this service out of the kindness of their hearts (NOT!) or the government requires it (TAX!)...

The government doesn't require it, a civilized society does. Are you proposing that someone showing up in the ER without insurance be sent out to die on the curb?

If one doesn't like the alternative, one shouldn't complain about the cost...

[smiller]

If one doesn't like the alternative, one shouldn't complain about the cost...

I don't understand what you mean...

[SeanC]

I blame the health food industry for their failure to make tofu and sprouts taste as good as one of those burgers.

 

Surely they can do better.

[SageRider]

If one supports the idea that healthcare should be provided to all, regardless of ability to pay, then one shouldn't complain about the cost of doing so.

 

The alternative is providing healthcare only to those that can pay.

 

Trying to weasle out and set restrictions, such as smoking restrictions, dietary restrictions, etc... at the very least is hypocritical.

[smiller]

If one supports the idea that healthcare should be provided to all, regardless of ability to pay, then one shouldn't complain about the cost of doing so.

 

The alternative is providing healthcare only to those that can pay.

 

Trying to weasle out and set restrictions, such as smoking restrictions, dietary restrictions, etc... at the very least is hypocritical.

I wasn't complaining about anything, and I wasn't proposing any dietary restrictions. I agree with Lisa... even if dietary laws were a good idea (and I'm not saying that they are) there's no practical way to enforce them.

 

The only thing I was doing is asking you whether you thought that someone who can't pay should be turned away from an ER. Should they?

[Whip]

I wasn't complaining about anything, and I wasn't proposing any dietary restrictions. I agree with Lisa... even if dietary laws were a good idea (and I'm not saying that they are) there's no practical way to enforce them.

 

...sure there is....tax the hell outs them...

 

[SageRider]

I wasn't complaining about anything, and I wasn't proposing any dietary restrictions.

I didn't mean to imply that you were. My response was a general elaboration on my statement as I thought that was what you were asking.

 

 

[smiller]

I was just asking for a clarification, not yet received...

[SageRider]

Depends on my ability to pay...

[Couchrocket]

 

 

....and if your waist is bigger than your inseam you should be denied any government funding until you have properly adjusted your lifestyle...including bankers and bailouts.

 

 

Those height / weight charts are all messed up. For instance, I'm supposed to be 6' 7" tall, now how can I do that?

[Albert]

I know what you (and Larry) are saying Russell - government interference, but it is a interesting quandary... Where do we draw the line between allowing people to do/eat whatever they want, but society having to bear the cost of them doing so?

 

 

This is a very slippery slope. If you support such notions don't be surprised when they come for your motorcycle claiming the risks you take are not worth society footing the bill for the underinsured. Anyone got a light?

[Dave McReynolds]

The fact is that there are only a certain number of doctors and nurses to go around, and so access to medical care will always get rationed, one way or the other. If you have a good enough insurance plan, you can visit the doctor of your choice whenever and however often you have a headache, and that doctor will lovingly hold your hand and prescribe you an aspirin (or if you have carefully shopped doctors, you can probably find one who will prescribe you Vicodin and maybe something to help relieve your anxieties). If you don't have an insurance plan, you can visit the emergency ward, where a quick triage will be done, and if you are in not actually bleeding to death all over the floor, you will be invited to sit among the coughing and sneezing masses and possibly a doctor might take a look at you 7-8 hours later, sometime after midnight.

 

If you take ability to pay out of the rationing process, then you have to substitute something else. You could, for example, just let people line up outside the doctor's office. Some in the line might recover spontaneously and go home. Some might die. Through one process or another, some would reach the front of the line and get treatment. Or, maybe if you get sick you could phone in for a lottery number, with the random picks programmed to correspond with available doctor time. Or, some group could be appointed to develop guidelines which would determine who would get treated, based on the goal of treating those first who would most likely benefit from the treatment. The guidelines might take into account lifestyle choices that might limit the future benefits from treatment.

 

However, I see the rationing of limited healthcare resources as a separate issue from proactively promoting a healthy lifestyle. Rationing is a necessity because there are more sick people than resources available to treat them. Proactively promoting a healthy lifestyle might not reduce long-term healthcare costs at all, for reasons given by others in earlier posts, but probably would give us a more active, productive, workforce that would be an overall benefit to our economy and quality of living in the future.

[smiller]

The fact is that there are only a certain number of doctors and nurses to go around, and so access to medical care will always get rationed, one way or the other.

I don't think that availability of doctors and nurses is the primary constraining factor, rather just the unreimbursed cost. As the number of uninsured grow at some point the system will break down, regardless of how long people have to wait. But yes, rationing of health care on one basis or another is an inescapable fact.

[Ken H.]

Looking at it from a different viewpoint, one eats fatburgers all their lives and dies of a heart attack at 45.

Who "costs" society more? The early to the grave burger lover, or the health fanatic thats survives into their 90s, collecting social security checks (among other benefits) all along???

You’re assuming those 90-year olds are a net contribution loss to society over their total life span. That the 90-year old took more from the society than they gave, where the 45-year old in your example gave more than he/she took. Neither are valid assumptions. Even in the very narrow, over-simplistic, and IMHO wrong approach of quantify the benefit of a person's life in $$ only.

[Ken H.]

I know what you (and Larry) are saying Russell - government interference, but it is a interesting quandary... Where do we draw the line between allowing people to do/eat whatever they want, but society having to bear the cost of them doing so?

 

 

This is a very slippery slope. If you support such notions don't be surprised when they come for your motorcycle claiming the risks you take are not worth society footing the bill for the underinsured. Anyone got a light?

And I’m not necessarily advocating ‘food police.’ I just think it is an interesting subject to ponder.

 

There are a lot more cost of a person’s poor health choices than just increased healthcare $$ cost too. A basic tenant is that all else being equal an unhealthy person is less able to contribute to society than a healthier one.

 

Even less quantifiable (but no less important) "cost" are things such as pain & suffering, both of the unhealthy person and those around him/her. Such as their family.

 

 

[Ken H.]

The line's slowly becoming clearer on smoking...

Not really.

Conclusions

If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.

Interesting enough read. But rather narrowly focused. Again, as I was saying above, it rather ignores the contributions of people to society as they live longer. Instead of just focusing in on their healthcare cost.

 

[SageRider]

...Neither are valid assumptions...

Maybe yes, maybe no.

... very narrow, over-simplistic...

Agree 100%.

Doesn't stop our government or special interest groups from attempting to make policy......

[Polo]

There are several hamburger joints around my house, as many fried chicken places as well, other bunch of pizza shops, and they will deliver too.

 

At the gas station they have cigarrettes, and cigarrillos, ans smokeless tobbacco. I don't buy them, I don't smoke.

 

Today I had sushi rolls I bought at HEB, yesterday I fixed shrimp marinated in garlic, olive oil, cilantro and tequila. I had three slices of ham wrapped around goat cheese with chips and salsa for dinner.

 

I can chose to eat right or eat wrong, I can chose to smoke or not.

 

Those who eat wrong and screw up their health should pick up their own tab, even if it's in the form of taxes associated with the products they consume that are detrimental to their health.

 

The difficult part is to prove beyond question that those products are indeed as bad if consumed as part of a varied diet.

 

I like a good greasy hamburger every now and then. I believe the problem is given more in the habits than with the food.

 

I'll shut up now.

[RichEdwards]

I think that they should move the handicapped parking spaces far away from the belly-bulguing burger joints. I'm amazed how many obese folks park right next to the grease depository and hobble in on ruined knees (the body was not designed to carry around 100 extra pounds) to Mickey D's for two quarter-pounders, supersized with the vat of coke and the kilo of fries.