http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703431604575522413101063070.html
THAT'S what happens when you let congress tinker around with the controls! Had they pased the bill as it was first written this crap would NOT be happening!
No, we do not need to regulate the insurance industry. :rolleyes: With premiums set to increase a record 13%!
And don't give me that tripe about it being driven by the bill alone. It's an excuse being floated to justify their continued pillaging of the US Citizen!
Quote from: Palehorse on September 30, 2010, 10:18:11 AM
THAT'S what happens when you let congress tinker around with the controls! Had they pased the bill as it was first written this crap would NOT be happening!
No, we do not need to regulate the insurance industry. :rolleyes: With premiums set to increase a record 13%!
And don't give me that tripe about it being driven by the bill alone. It's an excuse being floated to justify their continued pillaging of the US Citizen!
What is the first thing a corporation do when it's bottom line "might" be affected? It goes after the people "hourly" people who does the actual work and meets and deals with the customers. The people who actually are the company. Not the bloated top feeders who suck off all of the cream and lets only the colored fat free milk go down to its workers. I wonder what the top feeders health insurance looks like.
Can you be 100% certain it wasn't there when the bill was first written? Remember, even Pelosi said get it passed and then find out what's in it?
Quote from: Palehorse on September 30, 2010, 10:18:11 AM
THAT'S what happens when you let congress tinker around with the controls! Had they pased the bill as it was first written this crap would NOT be happening!
No, we do not need to regulate the insurance industry. :rolleyes: With premiums set to increase a record 13%!
And don't give me that tripe about it being driven by the bill alone. It's an excuse being floated to justify their continued pillaging of the US Citizen!
Quote from: me on September 30, 2010, 01:20:27 PM
Can you be 100% certain it wasn't there when the bill was first written? Remember, even Pelosi said get it passed and then find out what's in it?
Clearly you did not read it did you! :rolleyes:
None of the people who voted on it did so why should I? Did you read all 12 or 1500 pages?
Quote from: Palehorse on September 30, 2010, 01:22:27 PM
Clearly you did not read it did you! :rolleyes:
I read all of the initial submission and most of the revised one that got passed. Like night and day!
You could still do it you know. . . But I won't hold my breath on that one!
You would be wise not to hold your breath for that because I will admit I don't have what it takes to sit that long and read something off of the 'puter and I certainly don't have enough ink or paper to print the whole thing off. I will have to say I admire you for having the patience to sit and read all that legal mumbo jumbo and understand it and then read all the revisions in the final bill that passed.
Quote from: Palehorse on September 30, 2010, 05:45:46 PM
I read all of the initial submission and most of the revised one that got passed. Like night and day!
You could still do it you know. . . But I won't hold my breath on that one!
I wonder what would happen if the Corporations were made to give all the employees the same health insurance the cream suckers :suck: at the top got. You could hear the moans and groans :groan: to hell and back. The millionare bastards.
Probably the same thing that would happen if congress had either given us the same health care they're going to be entitled to or if they had taken the same health care they've voted to make available to us. :razz:
Quote from: The Troll on October 01, 2010, 06:17:44 AM
I wonder what would happen if the Corporations were made to give all the employees the same health insurance the cream suckers :suck: at the top got. You could hear the moans and groans :groan: to hell and back. The millionare bastards.
Quote from: me on October 01, 2010, 08:31:15 AM
Probably the same thing that would happen if congress had either given us the same health care they're going to be entitled to or if they had taken the same health care they've voted to make available to us. :razz:
Well, there is one thing for sure. You Republicans don't want the American people to have, even a single payer health plan. If you can't afford health insurance, don't get sick and if you do get sick, die and make it quick. Right?
how do you argue with that?
Yet another reason not to eat, or work, at McDonalds!
Quote from: Palehorse on October 01, 2010, 04:49:25 PM
Yet another reason not to eat, or work, at McDonalds!
As if coronary artery disease isn't enough. ;D
Most fast food places don't have insurance for their employees of any kind let alone insurance for part time employees. Now they could raise the price of their sammiches and other goodies to cover the extra cost involved.
Quote from: me on October 01, 2010, 07:04:05 PM
Most fast food places don't have insurance for their employees of any kind let alone insurance for part time employees. Now they could raise the price of their sammiches and other goodies to cover the extra cost involved.
I don't care if they do. I am not eating there again, EVER!
Quote from: me on October 01, 2010, 07:04:05 PM
Most fast food places don't have insurance for their employees of any kind let alone insurance for part time employees. Now they could raise the price of their sammiches and other goodies to cover the extra cost involved.
And you accuse me of being mean and cold hearted.
If there is any truth to the story which I did hear on the news later that McDonald's denied that they were thinking about doing this, I imagine a lot of other places might follow suit. I think Taco Bell only offers insurance for full time employees which might not be as much of a problem as the one McDonald's could possibly run into by offering insurance for part timers as far as the extra paper work and expense.
The truth of the matter is that the new regulations require real value for the dollars spent, and the plan McD's is offering up doesn't deliver. . . as I understand it.
It isn't a whole lot but somewhat better than none at all for what they are paying for it. I guess they are getting a special deal because of the type of policy it is and I don't remember what it's called unfortunately.
Quote from: Palehorse on October 01, 2010, 07:51:55 PM
The truth of the matter is that the new regulations require real value for the dollars spent, and the plan McD's is offering up doesn't deliver. . . as I understand it.
Quote from: me on October 01, 2010, 07:55:55 PM
It isn't a whole lot but somewhat better than none at all for what they are paying for it. I guess they are getting a special deal because of the type of policy it is and I don't remember what it's called unfortunately.
It's one of those junk ass policies for which you pay through the nose and receive very little in return. An ex has it and if I were on speaking terms with her I'm sure I'd have the "joy" of hearing her scream about it. . . :rolleyes:
I admit I wasn't listening real close when they were talking about it but I know they said it paid for Dr. visits. I had a phone call about the time they started talking about it so was only able to pick up bits and pieces. Maybe what you are saying is why the person reporting on it didn't sound too favorable towards it. I didn't hear what the deductible was or the cost of the policy.
Quote from: Palehorse on October 01, 2010, 08:02:56 PM
It's one of those junk ass policies for which you pay through the nose and receive very little in return. An ex has it and if I were on speaking terms with her I'm sure I'd have the "joy" of hearing her scream about it. . . :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on October 01, 2010, 08:27:19 PM
I admit I wasn't listening real close when they were talking about it but I know they said it paid for Dr. visits. I had a phone call about the time they started talking about it so was only able to pick up bits and pieces. Maybe what you are saying is why the person reporting on it didn't sound too favorable towards it. I didn't hear what the deductible was or the cost of the policy.
I did but didn't think it important enough to care about really paying attention to it. Matter of fact, I no longer care about anything political or theological! The corporations are going to do whatever it is that they want moving forward, so what I want, need, or desire no longer matters. I don't have enough money to pay for our congressional leadership's vices, sex and drug junkets, or orgy sessions, nor fund their pet projects or campaigns.
Soon we will have the POTUS taking the OPEC oath of office, and the CSPAN televised sessions sponsored by BP! And lets not forget the Anthem 4th of July Fireworks over the Capital!
It's kind of sad really. No matter who is in we are at their mercy and all the talking in the world won't change that. I would not be president for all the money in the world because no matter what you do there will always be those who will not agree with it and will vilify you and there is just no way to please everyone which is what most of them try to do while congress is only thinking of what's best for them and their causes. They could care less who is president as long as they don't lose their comfy little seat come election time. I know I probably said that a little screwy but I hope you know what I meant.
Quote from: Palehorse on October 01, 2010, 08:38:03 PM
I did but didn't think it important enough to care about really paying attention to it. Matter of fact, I no longer care about anything political or theological! The corporations are going to do whatever it is that they want moving forward, so what I want, need, or desire no longer matters. I don't have enough money to pay for our congressional leadership's vices, sex and drug junkets, or orgy sessions, nor fund their pet projects or campaigns.
Soon we will have the POTUS taking the OPEC oath of office, and the CSPAN televised sessions sponsored by BP! And lets not forget the Anthem 4th of July Fireworks over the Capital!
McDonalds is to fat food what Walmart is to department/grocery stores....support your local and family owned businesses.
Locals own most of the franchises. Some people from Muncie owns the McDonald's here in town, or at least the last I knew they did.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on October 01, 2010, 10:04:18 PM
McDonalds is to fat food what Walmart is to department/grocery stores....support your local and family owned businesses.
Although I'm sure that's true, they pay franchise fees to the corporation. What about a mom and pop hamburger place? a non-franchise?
Mom and pop place or franchise they are still local people who put money into a business and, depending on how they run it, either can be good or bad as far as service, quality of food, and how the employees are treated. A person can patronize both and not do any harm to the mom and pop non franchise business.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on October 02, 2010, 07:24:05 AM
Although I'm sure that's true, they pay franchise fees to the corporation. What about a mom and pop hamburger place? a non-franchise?
Quote from: Palehorse on October 01, 2010, 07:51:55 PM
The truth of the matter is that the new regulations require real value for the dollars spent, and the plan McD's is offering up doesn't deliver. . . as I understand it.
I haven't seen Micky Dee's policy, but it could be a limited benefit plan. We offered one until this fall. It was very cheap -- less than $10/week -- and even cheaper with the employer paying half. It covered doctor visits, outpatient treatment, and discounted prescriptions. And it let you go to any doctor. The hospitalization on it sucked -- it capped at $10G per person per year (two aspirin and a bandaid if you accept generics) -- but the hospital costs are what send most premiums thru the roof. It wasn't the only plan we offered, but it was a good policy for our fairly young single people with no chronic health problems, who needed to bank or save more of their paychecks. Unfortunately, it is no longer available. It is non-compliant with the new healthcare laws. This may be the same problem McD's has run into. Their old limited benefit plan doesn't satisfy the law, and compliant plans are too expensive. It's cheaper for them to pay the open-market fee to their employees.
That's what they called it and exactly how it was explained and why they could offer it to part time employees, because of the low cost of it and the administrative costs were not sky high. Thanks Lolly I'm glad you explained that so well.
Quote from: LOsborne on October 02, 2010, 09:01:47 AM
I haven't seen Micky Dee's policy, but it could be a limited benefit plan. We offered one until this fall. It was very cheap -- less than $10/week -- and even cheaper with the employer paying half. It covered doctor visits, outpatient treatment, and discounted prescriptions. And it let you go to any doctor. The hospitalization on it sucked -- it capped at $10G per person per year (two aspirin and a bandaid if you accept generics) -- but the hospital costs are what send most premiums thru the roof. It wasn't the only plan we offered, but it was a good policy for our fairly young single people with no chronic health problems, who needed to bank or save more of their paychecks. Unfortunately, it is no longer available. It is non-compliant with the new healthcare laws. This may be the same problem McD's has run into. Their old limited benefit plan doesn't satisfy the law, and compliant plans are too expensive. It's cheaper for them to pay the open-market fee to their employees.
They called it a mini plan in the article.
Quote
* McDonald's May Drop Health Plan: The chain has told regulators it may ditch its plan unless a new health-care requirement is waived, Janet Adamy reports.
Editorial writer Joe Rago on McDonald's threat to drop its health plan.
The move is one of the clearest indications that new rules may disrupt workers' health plans as the law ripples through the real world.
Trade groups representing restaurants and retailers say low-wage employers might halt their coverage if the government doesn't loosen a requirement for "mini-med" plans, which offer limited benefits to some 1.4 million Americans.
The requirement concerns the percentage of premiums that must be spent on benefits.
While many restaurants don't offer health coverage, McDonald's provides mini-med plans for workers at 10,500 U.S. locations, most of them franchised. A single worker can pay $14 a week for a plan that caps annual benefits at $2,000, or about $32 a week to get coverage up to $10,000 a year.
Last week, a senior McDonald's official informed the Department of Health and Human Services that the restaurant chain's insurer won't meet a 2011 requirement to spend at least 80% to 85% of its premium revenue on medical care.
McDonald's and trade groups say the percentage, called a medical loss ratio, is unrealistic for mini-med plans because of high administrative costs owing to frequent worker turnover, combined with relatively low spending on claims.
Democrats who drafted the health law wanted the requirement to prevent insurers from spending too much on executive salaries, marketing and other costs that they said don't directly help patients.
Of course you can, but w/one you support the corporation and w/the other more of your local economy. If given a choice, why wouldn't someone choose the non-franchise? Just like anything else, not all are great, but most towns have at least a couple which are. Just about anything would be better quality food and better service than the heart-attack death traps.
I'll say that I do chose a franchise fast food place from time to time out of convenience, but I'd rather not. I have a coworker who plans her lunch around whatever elcheapo special any of the fast food places have. She'll have a box or a sack of $1 items and the pride she feels about being so thrifty is evident. Sure, she gets a lot of food for a low price, by her own admisssion it's "way too much", but she says that to impress anyone listening w/her frugal choice. She's not considering the damage that she's doing to her body. She has health issues and doesn't understand why. That's not even considering how the additives, steroids, antibotics, chemicals and whatever the hell else is added to that food to make it consistant is doing to her overall sense of well being. I'd rather eat a small 1/4 pound hand-formed beef patty from a local source (one local place uses all local products) and pay $5 than get a box full of who knows what that supports the machine which targets people like my coworker. Quantity isn't always the best saving .
Quote from: me on October 02, 2010, 09:16:14 AM
That's what they called it and exactly how it was explained and why they could offer it to part time employees, because of the low cost of it and the administrative costs were not sky high. Thanks Lolly I'm glad you explained that so well.
One more thing ... the non-compliance of our plan was not caused by too little of the premium being paid out for medical expenses, but by the fact the benefit was "limited." That is, there was a life-time maximum cap on the payout. The law mandates no caps.
That pretty much covers all insurance plans which means eventually everyone will end up on government health care simply because of the cost. Not entirely a bad thing but the simple truth.
Quote from: LOsborne on October 02, 2010, 11:03:08 AM
One more thing ... the non-compliance of our plan was not caused by too little of the premium being paid out for medical expenses, but by the fact the benefit was "limited." That is, there was a life-time maximum cap on the payout. The law mandates no caps.
There is no government healthcare! Sheesh! :rolleyes:
Eaten in moderation there is nothing wrong with fast food. Food you cook at home can have the same results if eaten in large quantities so that is a lame excuse and not even logical. Quit blaming fast foods for peoples own inability to control the quantities of it they consume. They could fix the exact same things at home and it would produce the same results. They could also consume the exact same thing at a mom and pop place and get the same results.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on October 02, 2010, 10:45:41 AM
Of course you can, but w/one you support the corporation and w/the other more of your local economy. If given a choice, why wouldn't someone choose the non-franchise? Just like anything else, not all are great, but most towns have at least a couple which are. Just about anything would be better quality food and better service than the heart-attack death traps.
I'll say that I do chose a franchise fast food place from time to time out of convenience, but I'd rather not. I have a coworker who plans her lunch around whatever elcheapo special any of the fast food places have. She'll have a box or a sack of $1 items and the pride she feels about being so thrifty is evident. Sure, she gets a lot of food for a low price, by her own admisssion it's "way too much", but she says that to impress anyone listening w/her frugal choice. She's not considering the damage that she's doing to her body. She has health issues and doesn't understand why. That's not even considering how the additives, steroids, antibotics, chemicals and whatever the hell else is added to that food to make it consistant is doing to her overall sense of well being. I'd rather eat a small 1/4 pound hand-formed beef patty from a local source (one local place uses all local products) and pay $5 than get a box full of who knows what that supports the machine which targets people like my coworker. Quantity isn't always the best saving .
Not yet anyway. :wink:
Quote from: Palehorse on October 02, 2010, 12:22:01 PM
There is no government healthcare! Sheesh! :rolleyes:
It boils down to government regulation of an industry, like the FDA, USDA, etc., etc, etc.
But if they can't make it under the regulations and go out of business what's left?
Quote from: Palehorse on October 02, 2010, 12:31:16 PM
It boils down to government regulation of an industry, like the FDA, USDA, etc., etc, etc.
Quote from: me on October 02, 2010, 12:33:22 PM
But if they can't make it under the regulations and go out of business what's left?
Conundrum. I've sworn off discussing politics and religion with anyone. . .
Yep, it's like a which came first chicken egg thing IMO.
Quote from: Palehorse on October 02, 2010, 12:45:15 PM
Conundrum. I've sworn off discussing politics and religion with anyone. . .
Not entirely true, me. While portion size does play a big part, it's foolish to assume that one food is just as healthy as the other. Do you know where the food from your local fast food places or even grocery stores comes from? Do you know how it was raised/grown? That's not even addressing the obvious differences between preparation and fat content.
If you want to believe that you can trust these places to care about what they serve you over profit, fo ahead, you're just the consumer they're targeting.
So what are you saying here? Mom and pop places purchase healthier products and prepare them differently than McD's? BS French fries are french fries and hamburger is hamburger. Neither place is going to serve ground round and, in fact, you'll probably get soy burgers at both places because of the cost the only difference being McD's will probably have less soy in theirs because of the price and they by in volume and can get a better deal. Yes, McD's a lot of times drips grease but so do mine at home because I simply can't afford the better grade of hamburger. When I was working I ate fast foods almost every day I weighed 125lbs and my cholesterol was normal but I didn't eat the super sized meals at any one of the places and ate in moderation so that argument is not even a valid one. What it all boils down to in the end is it's the choice of the person not the restaurants fault. Whether it's DQ, Arby's, BK, A&W, Taco Bell, a mom and pop place, or whatever the consumer is the one who decides what and how much they eat and it is up to them to control themselves.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on October 02, 2010, 01:26:17 PM
Not entirely true, me. While portion size does play a big part, it's foolish to assume that one food is just as healthy as the other. Do you know where the food from your local fast food places or even grocery stores comes from? Do you know how it was raised/grown? That's not even addressing the obvious differences between preparation and fat content.
If you want to believe that you can trust these places to care about what they serve you over profit, fo ahead, you're just the consumer they're targeting.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on October 02, 2010, 01:26:17 PM
Not entirely true, me. While portion size does play a big part, it's foolish to assume that one food is just as healthy as the other.
True. For example, one can buy healthy sirloin beef and fresh produce. Which will provide one meal, or perhaps two. For the same money (or equivalent food stamps) one can buy two dozen corn dogs, some frozen french fries and half a dozen pudding snacks. The second option will feed many more people. Portion size isn't always the deciding factor. And neither is caloric content. More people in this country are obese, in part, because fattening food is cheap.
But you can turn that sirloin into something equally as unhealthy as the corn dogs and french fries simply by the way you prepare it and the same goes for the fresh produce. Those same people, if they have a mind to, can buy in bulk and get many meals out of say, fresh pork loin or chicken thighs. But there again it depends on preparation and choice. Frozen french fries are usually prepared in the oven which is not unhealthy or fattening.
Quote from: LOsborne on October 02, 2010, 01:53:37 PM
True. For example, one can buy healthy sirloin beef and fresh produce. Which will provide one meal, or perhaps two. For the same money (or equivalent food stamps) one can buy two dozen corn dogs, some frozen french fries and half a dozen pudding snacks. The second option will feed many more people. Portion size isn't always the deciding factor. And neither is caloric content. More people in this country are obese, in part, because fattening food is cheap.
Research is the key here. Without it you won't know.
Oh btw Lolly, wasn't meaning to dispute what you said here I was just pointing out it's still ultimately the person who makes the decision on healthy eating and has little to do with the where it's bought or what it is. Just because it's offered or quicker to fix doesn't mean you have to buy it or eat tons of it.
That's simply not true. :no:
No, it isn't true at all! My wife lost 50+ pounds over the last year by counting her calories and reducing portion sizes. While we aren't eating out as much as we used to either, we still do though. And when we do she checks the calorie charts before ordering to ensure she is consuming only what she is allowing herself to. . And those places that only offer high fat menu's and no "smart choices" no longer see us at all.
Quote* The food itself is mass produced in a factory and then frozen. Restaurants store this frozen food in large, walk-in freezers. Cooks reheat it rather than making it from scratch.
* The factory adds artificial and natural flavors to the food to make sure it all tastes the same. These flavors are manufactured separate factories.
* The equipment in the kitchen cooks all of the food for the same amount of time. For example, in some chains, a conveyor belt carries hamburger patties through a broiler. The broiler cooks the patties on both sides simultaneously, and the conveyor belt makes sure they're cooked for precisely the right amount of time.
* The employees in different restaurants follow the same instructions for cooking, dressing and packaging the food.
http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/fast-food1.htm
QuoteIt is believed by scientists through some valuable experiments that it is not the calories that are damaging the people's health. The Food and Drug administration in US has stated that there are certain chemicals present in fast foods which cause diseases and weight gain. Those chemical additives are aspartame and monosodium glutamate.
Plant and animal products only can nourish our body but not man-made chemicals like aspartame. The unused chemical allows the body to put on weight and become prone to diseases. But one cannot deny that fast foods have lot of fats, cholesterol and sodium that can cause serious problems like high blood pressure, heart disease, and obesity.
Fast foods have poor dietary fiber levels which lead to the destabilization of blood sugar levels, a weakening of immune system and poor functioning of the colon. According to a report the adult should take in maximum of 6 gm of salt per day and children a maximum of 3 gm per day. But fast foods will provide almost 4 times to that of what is necessary for our body. So fast foods can only deplete the body of minerals and vitamins.
http://www.knowswhy.com/why-fast-food-is-unhealthy/
QuoteTrans fat, or trans fatty acids (TFA), are fats found in foods such as vegetable shortening, some margarines, and many processed foods made with or fried in partially hydrogenated oils.
Trans fat, like saturated fat and dietary cholesterol, raises the LDL (or "bad") cholesterol that increases your risk for heart disease, according to the FDA.
Quote"The cooking oil used for French fries in McDonald's outlets in the United States and Peru contained 23 percent and 24 percent trans fatty acids, respectively, whereas the oils used for French fries in many European countries contained only about 10 percent trans fatty acids, with some countries as low as 5 percent (Spain) and 1 percent (Denmark)," the researchers write.
Fast Food Fattiest in U.S., Study Finds (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191551,00.html)
Your theory that french fries are universal just went up in smoke.
Quote(NaturalNews) Americans spend about 90 percent of their total food budget on processed foods - and we wonder why we have a health care crisis. Besides being enzyme deplete, processed foods are often crammed with chemicals, including colors, flavors and preservatives. Apparently, many people don`t think twice about filling themselves and their children with chemicals, so let`s look at the effects of just a couple of them.
So who in their right might thinks that foods enhanced with colors, flavors, and preservatives wouldn't pose health risks? Further, who wouldn't be concerned about growth hormones and pesticide saturation?
QuoteAspartame
Aspartame is common in diet sodas; it`s also found in chewing gum, sweets, and diet foods. It`s even sold in packets as chemical sweeteners and placed on most restaurant tables. Actually, aspartame is found in about 6,000 foods on grocery store shelves.
The fact that aspartame was once listed by the Pentagon as a biochemical warfare agent should be all the information you need to avoid it. But if you need more, have a look at these rats fed aspartame daily. http://myaspartameexperiment.com/in...
QuoteBPA
BPA has been in the headlines lately; it`s often used in making baby and water bottles. The chemical then leaches into the liquids inside. BPA is also used in the lining of tin cans, and it`s being found in canned foods. Even if you are eating otherwise healthy green beans or peas - if it`s canned, it`s likely contaminated with BPA.
Consumer Reports took a look and found BPA in several popular canned foods:
Green Beans: 35.9 to 191 ppb
Vegetable Soup: 67 to 134 ppb
Chicken Noodle Soup: 54.5 to 102 ppb
BPA is dangerous even in small amounts; it`s been linked to reproductive abnormalities, diabetes, neurological problems, heart disease, and cancer.[/quote
http://www.naturalnews.com/027969_processed_foods_chemicals.html
It's not just about eating small portions, me. It's about knowing where your food is coming from and what's in it. It's about doing the research to ensure that you know what you're getting. Having soy in your hamburger (which is BS) would be the least of your worries.
The mom and pop places that I go to get their food from certified organic sources. The one that I mentioned previously gets all of the products it uses to prepare food locally and those places are listed on the menu. As luck would have it, many of those places sell meat and vegetables at the local farmer's markets. We meet the farmers and we can ask questions. It's fresh produce and meat w/out coloring, additives, steroids or preservatives. I would rather spend a little extra to know what I'm eating.
That being said, I do shop in grocery stores, but I read labels and ingredients. When I'm left without options, for whatever reason and we have to eat fast food, then like Mrs. Horse, we go for the low fat options. If we have a taste for a burger and fast food is our only option, then we pick one which uses a grill rather than a griddle so that the grease drips off rather than sits in it.
Is that enough? probably not, but I feel a whole lot better about eating and feeding my family after I've done the research.
Let me just say, that I'm not a food Nazi :biggrin:
I get carried away when I feel passionate about something. I'm annoyed more w/the food industry than the individuals. While we make the final choice on what we eat, but they aren't very informative about exactly what it is they're feeding us. Just like any corporation, our well-being isn't their bottom line.
My point, even though I got carried away is to please research and purchase based on nutrition rather than price tag.
I knew that fake sugar was a bad thing from the get go and I don't even do diet soda anymore because of it. Even though I don't particularly like McD's any more I sure think they're gettin' a bum rap by being singled out to be the only bad guy in restaurant business. People still need to learn restraint and kids need to get out from in front of those video games and get exercise as well as parents need to learn to say no to the kids and limit their intake of junk food.
Since the invention of television and the cartoons, it became the babysitter for the kids. Stick them in front of the TV and forget them. And then came the computer and computer games, cell phones and texing. Then, oh my God. Face Book and Twitter and wonderful tweets. :knife: :chair: Brain damage.