Proposal for Ban of Salt Suddenly Makes Sense, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

Topic started on 12-3-2010 @ 04:04 PM by 2manyquestions

A day or two ago I read a thread here on ATS dealing with the proposed ban on salt in NY restaurants. (You can find the thread at the following link: Salt Ban Thread )

Yesterday in the evening I was talking to someone about it, when suddenly it dawned on me. Admittedly I could be completely wrong, but to me somehow it seems plausible. Here's what I'm thinking:

The Obama administration is trying to pass the Healthcare bill. Once in effect, everyone would need to buy health insurance either from the government, or from a private insurer (as I understand it). There have been many discussions on how healthcare would change once the government was providing it.

A few months back some doctors didn't like what the administration was proposing, and that was in regard to breast cancer exams. Government healthcare was not going to cover breast exams for women under 50, whereas today doctors recommend that women of 40 years of age start coming in on a regular basis to receive breast exams in order to find the cancer as soon as it appears. Here's an article discussing it: Washington Post - Breast Exams

It is my belief that government healthcare will try to do everything in their power to keep healthcare costs down as low as possible when treating those who are covered by it. Sometimes they may cut costs in places where they shouldn't be cut, but that's another discussion. Here's my thought on the proposed salt ban;

Since excessive amounts of salt may prove to be harmful to people, is it possible that the government will start to try to ban many foods/activities which would send people to the emergency room and cost them money? First it's excessive salt. Next it could be who knows what. We already have trans-fat regulation, maybe in the next step restaurants won't be able to cook fatty foods that may cause obesity, heart-attacks, strokes, and a number of other issues. Is it possible that the government will start regulating our lives more and more in order to save money on health issues of the government-insured?

Naturally it's good to be healthy and to live an active life, but is it the place of the government to force people to live healthy lives? Is it right to regulate anything this way in order to keep the population healthier? I personally believe it should be up to the individual. We're not children (the adults, that is), and we can make our own decisions. One day I feel like eating a greasy hamburger, and the next day I feel like eating fruits and vegetables. Should we be punished with bans on our favorite foods or activities for the weakness of those who can't control themselves and end up becoming morbidly obese?

This is complete speculation based on an imaginary future (and maybe I have an overactive imagination), but if I'm right about the idea behind this proposed salt ban, will they eventually overstep their boundaries and begin to ban/regulate activities such as extreme sports where injuries are sometimes common, and could send the injured to the hospital?
Just a thought.

[edit on 12-3-2010 by 2manyquestions]

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 04:06 PM by Aggie Man

Not to mention...they have salt shakers on the tables, so people can season to their liking...but removes the potential for "hidden" salt levels in the prepared food.

However, if they are going to ban salt, then there are a myriad of other ingredients that should be banned as well...but that's another topic.

EDIT: to add that I would have no problem with athletes having to chip into a "insurance" fund in the event that they are injured...but I wouldn't want their injuries covered by any public funding since the danger would be known, yet they voluntarily expose themselves to the risk anyway.

[edit on 12-3-2010 by Aggie Man]

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 04:11 PM by 2manyquestions

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Not to mention...they have salt shakers on the tables, so people can season to their liking...but removes the potential for "hidden" salt levels in the prepared food.

However, if they are going to ban salt, then there are a myriad of other ingredients that should be banned as well...but that's another topic.

Well, we can't ban salt altogether. It's healthy/necessary in certain doses. As for banning other ingredients, I wonder which one is next. I'd have to say certain types/amounts of fat, since that seems to be one of the most commonly blamed food substances.

[edit on 12-3-2010 by 2manyquestions]

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 04:15 PM by grantbeed

I thought the government were trying to de-populate the world, not extend life?

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 04:19 PM by 2manyquestions

Originally posted by grantbeed
I thought the government were trying to de-populate the world, not extend life?

I guess that depends on what conspiracy you believe in.

In this case, if universal healthcare should pass it's going to cost them lots and lots of money. One thing the government enjoys doing is receiving a profit from whatever they go for. The less sick government-insured people out there, the more tax money left for their pockets. That's just my theory.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 04:22 PM by getreadyalready

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Not to mention...they have salt shakers on the tables, so people can season to their liking...but removes the potential for "hidden" salt levels in the prepared food.

However, if they are going to ban salt, then there are a myriad of other ingredients that should be banned as well...but that's another topic.

EDIT: to add that I would have no problem with athletes having to chip into a "insurance" fund in the event that they are injured...but I wouldn't want their injuries covered by any public funding since the danger would be known, yet they voluntarily expose themselves to the risk anyway.

[edit on 12-3-2010 by Aggie Man]

Aggie, you know I like you, but that is a scary path you have taken.

"Athletes" voluntarily expose themselves to risk? Does that include Highschool and PeeWee sports? No Health Insurance for the majority of kids?

If we are on the topic of voluntary risks, should it apply to motorcycle riders, or constuction workers like roofers? Should we tax skateboards and bicycles and helmets to help offset the cost of the injuries they cause? What if I am not normally a risk taker, but I decide to bungee jump or water ski and I get hurt. . . . can they deny my coverage?

I know you probably had good intentions, but this illuminates why a Government Run program is so scary, and how well-meaning intentions can have unintended consequences. We cannot count on "common sense" to rule these gray areas. As a matter of fact, we can probably count on somebody exploiting these gray areas for a profit or a political gain.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 04:22 PM by grantbeed

reply to post by 2manyquestions

I agree,

it's like a catch 22 situation for the government, either they spend loads of money on the new healthcare system, or they encourage people to be healthier, live longer, then be faced with a huge population of old people!

Sounds like they may be trying to fix one problem, and possibly create another in the process. (for a future president /government)

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 04:26 PM by ancient_wisdom

there are so many people in the US dying of cancer and heartattacks, overweight, mental problems, that a true universal health care will bankrupt the nation, which is why Obamacare is more along the lines of forcing people to buy insurance. Your theory about the salt ban makes sense, but if it were true, they might as well start with something that is really bad such as High fructose corn syrup or aspertame and not salt which has some health benefits.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 04:30 PM by 2manyquestions

Originally posted by ancient_wisdom
Your theory about the salt ban makes sense, but if it were true, they might as well start with something that is really bad such as High fructose corn syrup or aspertame and not salt which has some health benefits.

Good point. Going in with a conspiracy-based thought, what if salt was the easiest path at this time? Since so many food products in the U.S. contain corn, and so many farmers/companies make loads of money off corn syrup, maybe the corn syrup people are more difficult to regulate due to their deep wallets. Maybe they have bought off politicians for the time-being?

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 04:34 PM by Aggie Man

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Not to mention...they have salt shakers on the tables, so people can season to their liking...but removes the potential for "hidden" salt levels in the prepared food.

However, if they are going to ban salt, then there are a myriad of other ingredients that should be banned as well...but that's another topic.

EDIT: to add that I would have no problem with athletes having to chip into a "insurance" fund in the event that they are injured...but I wouldn't want their injuries covered by any public funding since the danger would be known, yet they voluntarily expose themselves to the risk anyway.

[edit on 12-3-2010 by Aggie Man]

Aggie, you know I like you, but that is a scary path you have taken.

"Athletes" voluntarily expose themselves to risk? Does that include Highschool and PeeWee sports? No Health Insurance for the majority of kids?

If we are on the topic of voluntary risks, should it apply to motorcycle riders, or constuction workers like roofers? Should we tax skateboards and bicycles and helmets to help offset the cost of the injuries they cause? What if I am not normally a risk taker, but I decide to bungee jump or water ski and I get hurt. . . . can they deny my coverage?

I know you probably had good intentions, but this illuminates why a Government Run program is so scary, and how well-meaning intentions can have unintended consequences. We cannot count on "common sense" to rule these gray areas. As a matter of fact, we can probably count on somebody exploiting these gray areas for a profit or a political gain.

On the job is different...workers comp. comes to mind. Peewee and high school is precisely what I am referring to. Any leisure sport that runs a known risk should fall into that category. Remember, no one MAKES them do it. As with anything in life, there has to be limitations.

EDIT: I'm not implying that the athlete kids shouldn't be insured. Merely that their parents pay an additional premium to cover for any sports related injuries...I believe that most city leagues and school districts already offer additional coverage.

[edit on 12-3-2010 by Aggie Man]

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 04:45 PM by getreadyalready

reply to post by Aggie Man

Do you have children? Do you realize the benefit that organized athletics provide to kids? Do you realize that the majority of leadership skills, and sharing, and compromise, and sportsmanship and good nutrition and healthy habits all come from youth athletics?

If we burden those parents and children that are actually out participating in the world instead of just watching it on TV, then we damage an important part of society.

Also, what is the cost/benefit analysis of removing this healthy habit? The actual cost of Healthcare for obesity related problems probably far outweighs the occasional cast, x-ray, or stitches.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 04:53 PM by Aggie Man

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Aggie Man

Do you have children? Do you realize the benefit that organized athletics provide to kids? Do you realize that the majority of leadership skills, and sharing, and compromise, and sportsmanship and good nutrition and healthy habits all come from youth athletics?

If we burden those parents and children that are actually out participating in the world instead of just watching it on TV, then we damage an important part of society.

Also, what is the cost/benefit analysis of removing this healthy habit? The actual cost of Healthcare for obesity related problems probably far outweighs the occasional cast, x-ray, or stitches.

Yes, I understand all of that and I agree that those are important things. However, football in particular IS a brutal sport. If someone wants their child to partake in a brutal sport and subject the child to that risk...well, that should be on their dime. There are many other sports that are much less prone to cause injury that achieve all of your pluses stated above.

I know you are not saying that without football we can not have leadership skills, sharing, compromise, sportsmanship, good nutrition and healthy habits. Sure injuries happen in other sports. But they are much fewer and usually much less severe.

BTW, I love football....college and pro football.

Oh, you are correct, I do not have kids.....but I once was one.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 04:54 PM by 2manyquestions

reply to post by Aggie Man

As much sense as it seems to makes at first, I'm going to have to disagree with you on charging athletes more for insurance. Since regular sports offer great health-benefits to the everyday life of an individual, athletes shouldn't be penalized for doing something that is beneficial to us all. What injuries are more costly? A broken leg, or a heart-attack? If anything, maybe participating in regular sports should be rewarded. If we were to penalize anyone, maybe it should be people who take the least care of their bodies. Again, no food should be regulated or outlawed. Instead, maybe people with bad habits should have to pay more for health insurance. Still undecided on it all, but today (for the moment) that's what I believe.

EDIT: Also want to add that there may be a certain danger lurking in allowing someone to put us in different categories of health levels. That would have to be worked out so as not to allow abuse by either government or individual. What is healthy to some may be considered unhealthy to others. It would have to be pretty clear that someone is endangering their health in a controlled or out-of-control sort of way.

[edit on 12-3-2010 by 2manyquestions]

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:02 PM by DrumsRfun

Banning salt is ridiculous.
If they really cared they would ban cigarettes,since that makes too much money they will turn a blind eye of course.
This is about control,propaganda and a false idea they care about your health.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:04 PM by brilab45

Medication is largely resposible for keeping my blood pressure in check. Restaurants go way overboard in adding salt content. My blood pressure will spike easily after eating out. So...I mostly cook at home.

I guess you could say I support the notion to allow customers to salt thier own food. Then go a step further and ban salt or severely limit salt in grocery store goods as well. Have you checked the sodium content on a can of vegetable soup? Over 600 mgs. of sodium!! Reduced sodium content soups are not that much better. Wonder why we have an epidemic on our hands?!

Look here Progresso Soup Company, I love your product, just let me control my spiraling walk towards a stroke.

These bills are actually in our "flavor". We get control of the content of our food.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:10 PM by getreadyalready

reply to post by Aggie Man

LOL! I once was one too! I think you may just have a misperception of the amount and type of injuries in football. I played for about 10 years and I had one sprained ankle in all that time. I have a buddy that just graduated from FSU with about 12 years in football and never a single injury. My brother played about 4 or 5 years without a single injury.

There is a specific "Sports Medicine" industry for this sort of thing, and it is probably way overused. So, I can definitely agree that Health Insurance should not be paying for rehabilitation and massage and training, but Emergency Room and Family Practitioner visits related to a football injury are few and far between and relatively cheap when they do happen.

Back on topic: Banning salt is ridiculous, but giving accurate accounts of what is in our food is extremely important. There are thousands of things that food manufacturers are not required to disclose, and I think that is a crime! Salt is probably the least harmful thing in a french fry or a burger or a can of corn.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:13 PM by 2manyquestions

Originally posted by DrumsRfun
Banning salt is ridiculous.
If they really cared they would ban cigarettes,since that makes too much money they will turn a blind eye of course.
This is about control,propaganda and a false idea they care about your health.

Good point about the cigarettes, but since Obama likes to light up every now and then, I don't think it will happen anytime soon.

If they wanted more positive propaganda, I'm not sure they would have picked salt to start with. As much as I sometimes fear the salt content in a restaurant lunch or dinner plate, I have the choice to keep away from those restaurants that use the most salt in their meals. PF Changs is one of the saltiest places where one can eat. As long as restaurants are honest about the amount of salt their food contains, they should be allowed to use it. We can look at the menu, check out the salt content of the meal, and choose either to pick something else or dine elsewhere. Pretty simple.

I think a mandatory nutrition menu for every restaurant would have sufficed. Ban on salt? Ridiculous.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:20 PM by TiredofControlFreaks

whoah up you all!

There are a vast majority of people who support the idea that smokers should pay for health care the same way everyone else, then pay it again through the Master Settlement Agreement and then pay it again through excessive tobacco taxation.

As a matter of fact, the health care system that Obama is proposing would charge smokers yet again for the same health care. That same charge will not apply to drug users, alcoholics etc etc just smokers.

I think that others should also have to pay their fair share. Afterall, if its good for the gander than it should also be good for the goose.

Possible candidate include obviously: anyone who uses a prescription drug with known side effects, those born with genetic illnesses, those more than 20 lbs overweight, drinkers, illegal drug users, motorcycle drivers and their passengers, mountain climbers, parachutists, motorcross participants, those who play sports (including children), gay people (a gay man has an average life span of only 58 years, because of stress etc.), those who eat salt other than what naturally exists in fresh food, those who willingly eat unpasturized milk and cheeses, those who eat meat....

Well look at that - if everyone had to pair their "fair" share like smokers do - there would be enough money to cover everyone's health care!

Do unto others as you would want done to you! In short - the next time someone suggests that smokers should be paying more for health care - substitute the word (whatever description best describes YOU) for the word smoker and see if you think it is still a good idea!

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:22 PM by ChrisCrikey

reply to post by getreadyalready

Hmmmmm....seems like the actuary tables that insurance companies use to assess a person's health risks are very specific. I wonder if that get that specific with children and their activities?

It doesn't matter how noble the activity is, or if it develops positive human attributes - if it's dangerous the insurance companies will rate you accordingly. They will also stick it too you if your doctor feels the need to test you for something even if it comes up okay. The insurance industry if effing criminal malignant cancer on our culture!
edited for grammar

[edit on 12-3-2010 by ChrisCrikey]

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:26 PM by SourGrapes

Going by OP's hypothesis, I'll add to it since it got me thinking.

What if by 'banning' something, like salt, they're actually setting the ground work for denying health treatment that is caused by the 'banned' food/drink/etc.?

Take auto insurance, for instance. If you wreck your car while drunk, the insurance company can deny coverage over the accident, because you were doing something illegal when the accident occurred.

This reminds me of Warranties, or better yet: cell-phone repair coverage. For a small fee, your phone is covered for repair, or replacement. As long as it's normal wear and tear. If it's misused, it voids the policy.

So, would salt be covered under normal 'wear and tear'? Or, would it be considered excessive, or abuse, if it were banned?

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^