It is an interesting contrast in conservative circles today.
A few years ago they ridiculed Michael Bloomberg for proposing that soft drink cups be limited in size for a single serving. As one who thinks the size of small drink cups is the equivalent of a super sized large in many situations, I thought this was perfectly reasonable. However, conservative circles said Mr. Bloomberg was creating a nanny state that deprived citizens of their rights to buy whatever quantity they wanted to buy.
However, now more than one GOP led state is trying to restrict what poor people can buy with food stamps. When one reads a list of things they want to prohibit, such as cruise ships, filet mignon, and other luxury foods, one is left to wonder how many food stamp recipients are actually using their food stamps to buy such goods since usually they run out of food before the month has ended.
And what about some consistency? Do citizens who receive food stamps somehow become 2nd class citizens deprived of their right to buy a super sized soda at the movies (which will be forbidden under some of these food stamp rules). What happened to choice?
I actually have less of a problem with some of these restrictions if they make conservatives feel better as I don't think they really effect the choices food stamp recipients have. But I do have a problem with their criticism of Michael Bloomberg for trying to limit the quantity of sugary drinks in one serving.
Diabetes is a plaque on our health care system and we need to do something. Some consistency on the part of these conservatives would be useful. If limiting the use of food stamps is conservative, so should be limiting the size of soft drinks.
The Nanny State has become a conservative concept if applied consistently. But conservatives are anything but consistent.
Nice try! People should be allowed to buy any legal product they want. The difference is that if you are a ward of the state you give up some of your rights. No cigarettes, no booze, no McDonalds. Anyone on welfare who does not like that can easily solve the problem: either stop taking the public's money or work yourself out of your dependency.
ReplyDeleteBut everyone ends up on either Medicare or Medicaid, that pays for diabetes. So why shouldn't the nanny state try to force some behaviors that limit weight gain, which is directly linked to adult onset diabetes. Or are Conservatives science deniers when considering weight and frequency of diabetes?
ReplyDeleteDo you really think we should allow smoking in public again? I for one am very happy that I can go to a restaurant or other public venue and not suffer from a neighbor smoking. Smokers are not all on welfare and their rights to consume a legal product have been limited. What is the difference between cancer and diabetes?