Scroll down for a discussion on It's about time! within the Non-Insurance Related Discussion.
This has been long overdue. We as insurance agents should strongly support efforts like this. This country is becoming disgustingly overpopulated with fat, obese people.
...
This has been long overdue. We as insurance agents should strongly support efforts like this. This country is becoming disgustingly overpopulated with fat, obese people.
To: Public Health and Human
Services; Judiciary B
MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE REGULAR SESSION 2008
By: Representatives Mayhall, Read, Shows
HOUSE BILL NO. 282
AN ACT TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS FROM SERVING
FOOD TO ANY PERSON WHO IS OBESE, BASED ON CRITERIA PRESCRIBED BY
THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO
PREPARE WRITTEN MATERIALS THAT DESCRIBE AND EXPLAIN THE CRITERIA
FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS OBESE AND TO PROVIDE THOSE
MATERIALS TO THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO MONITOR THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI:
SECTION 1. (1) The provisions of this section shall apply
To any food establishment that is required to obtain a permit from
The State Department of Health under Section 41-3-15(4)(f), that
Operates primarily in an enclosed facility and that has five (5)
Or more seats for customers.
(2) Any food establishment to which this section applies
Shall not be allowed to serve food to any person who is obese,
Based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health
After consultation with the Mississippi Council on Obesity
Prevention and Management established under Section 41-101-1 or
Its successor. The State Department of Health shall prepare
Written materials that describe and explain the criteria for
Determining whether a person is obese, and shall provide those
Materials to all food establishments to which this section
Applies. A food establishment shall be entitled to rely on the
Criteria for obesity in those written materials when determining
Whether or not it is allowed to serve food to any person.
(3) The State Department of Health shall monitor the food
Establishments to which this section applies for compliance with
The provisions of this section, and may revoke the permit of any
Food establishment that repeatedly violates the provisions of this
Section. 31
SECTION 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from
And after July 1, 2008.
------------------------------------ Professional Medicare Supplement Sales Training, Coaching and Support.
"The Perfect Contact Management Program (CMP) for the Insurance Professional" www.YourInsuranceOffice.com
877.633.0808
They are as serious as the heart attack that is coming for those who can't control their eating habits. They, the obese ones, are a major part of what is keeping health care costs so high in this country.
I think we should contact or state legislators and encourage them to follow suit. I have.
They are as serious as the heart attack that is coming for those who can't control their eating habits. They, the obese ones, are a major part of what is keeping health care costs so high in this country.
I think we should contact or state legislators and encourage them to follow suit. I have.
Wow, fat police now. Maybe you and your cohorts can start making kids report eating abuses by their parents and siblings to the State while you're at it?
Wow, fat police now. Maybe you and your cohorts can start making kids report eating abuses by their parents and siblings to the State while you're at it?
You damn right. Make it chocolate and throw some oreo's in there as well.
This bills disgusts me. Just another way to get MORE government involvement in our lives. We shouldn't just stop at outlawing restaurants from serving obese people, let's call in the National Guard to protect these establishments.
We "should" have the RIGHT to do stupid things because nature has this little thing called natural selection. Fortunately, or unfortunately depending upon how you look at it, we're now able to combat this prank.
That problem isn't that people are fat. The problem is people are not held accountable for their actions because they've been spoiled and it's all about me me me. Your premium will be cheaper, you'll spend (potentially) less time in the hospital and live longer if you treat your body right.
Wait a minute...Forget that. I'll just eat as much as I want, smoke whatever I want to smoke and inhale the good life and then I'll just take my ass down to the emergency room and after I find the sign in sheet that is written in 8 different languages... I'll wait to receive care because I know more about the law because I've been conditioned (brought up) to know how to work the system.
My cell phone costs me $200 a month, so I cannot afford health insurance for my kid or myself, but I can buy $200 worth of double cheeseburgers every month because their only cost me $1.00 each.
A better alternative would be to offer an incentive to people who take care of their bodies and penalize those who don't, but give them the FREEDOM to choose which option they take and hold them accountable for their actions. Get rid of all mandates and allow the free market to penetrate the medical world. Require ALL parents to go through mandatory training about parenting, drug abuse, finance and health if she is pregnant or he impregnated a woman.
I proposed that idea when I wrote a thesis about mental health reform in MD. Every paper up until that one was an A, but you can guess the grade I received.
"But JR that isn't fair because people should have the freedom to raise their kids anyway they want and some people might not be able to afford it!"
"Not a problem. Re-read page 6 and you will see that I found a way to fully accommodate people from all economic levels without having to raise taxes. It's called sacrifice and sweat equity.
"But this isn't right. You cannot expect people to obtain a license to procreate."
"Hmmm, I see. Do me a favor and go ask a husband or wife who is unable to have a baby naturally if he or she would be interested in obtaining a license and the required classes in exchange for technology that will enable conception. " Oh, that's right, they have something very similar called adoption that is more regulated than gambling.
Let the debate begin
------------------------------------
"Tell me and I will forget. Show me and I will remember. Involve me and I will understand." Confucius
Well, if you visit a casino and stay long enough you will inhale tons of second-hand smoke (which is a killer, BTW). When Resorts International opened the first casino in Atlantic City I went there and almost choked to death on the smoke. NJ passed a smoking ban law but had to provide an exception to the casinos to restrict the areas that could be designated as smoke free. Apparently, if they had not made this compromise the bill would have had no chance of getting passed.
MD just went smoke free in all restaurants and bars a few weeks ago. Smokers are of course pissed by my right to sit down and enjoy a meal I'm paying good money for without the stench of cigarettes outweighs anyone's right to light up next to me.
All the analogies smokers use are stupid like "drinking is also bad for your health so let's ban that too." Well, if you're drinking next to me I don't taste what you're drinking.
The other one is "why don't we ban foods that are bad for you." But if you're eating a triple cheeseburger I don't gain weight.
MD just went smoke free in all restaurants and bars a few weeks ago. Smokers are of course pissed by my right to sit down and enjoy a meal I'm paying good money for without the stench of cigarettes outweighs anyone's right to light up next to me.
The only real issue here is private property. The idea that the Resturant owner gives away his right of private property because you feel uncomfortable is not what I consider valid. If you don't want to be around smoke that is okay but, that does not give you nor the government the right to abuse the next guy.
People want to peddle away the "Rights" of all for their comfort? Sad, but obviously true. Basically what John is saying, he has a right to enjoy a meal in public or in this case in someone else's property and has a right to demand it be done in a certain manner. We live in sad times.
I'll look through the Bill of Rights when I get a chance but I'm pretty sure it doesn't say you have to right to blow smoke in my face while I'm eating.
And second-hand smoke isn't harmful anyway, just a huge anti-tobacco conspiracy. In fact, smoking isn't harmful - even doctors will tell you that.
Yes, you are correct there is no exact wording suggesting that anyone has a right to blow smoke in your face. Yet there is a little known Right, the right to be secured in ones own property against tyranny of any government. A resturant is a private business and usually it is performed on private property, which means they have the right to control it as long as they are not breaking any law. Now untill smoking is against the law I don't see the right that you or any government has to intrude on the right of the property owner?
If you walk into a resturant that allows smoking and you don't like it, then you vote with your feet and leave. Yet, if you then go to the government and claim your right to eat there is hampered and the right of the owner should be hampered as a cure, you are all of a sudden more important in your eyes then anyone else. Or you are a narcissistic spoiled brat that should be brought behind the woodshed and taught better.
It's about time!
Linear Mode
