Does Obamacare mean the end of Fast Food Nation?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Does Obamacare mean the end of Fast Food Nation?

     

    McDonald's has suffered the first sales drop in 9 years. Although it is far to early to read anything into it one has to wonder about the timing.

    McDonalds and other fast food chain restaurants are now required under the ACA to list the calorie count of their standard menu items. Although some chains already voluntarily provided this information the ACA requires that all chain restaurants post this information.

    Could it be..that armed with accurate information about the foods they consume on the run, that consumers are starting to make better choices?

    I have always felt that education is the way to go in these situations. Banning products, like Bloomberg's soda ban is simply the wrong way to go. Educate people and let them make informed choices about what they put in their bodies. When people see that egg mcmuffins pack a whopping 300 calories ( as opposed to a Dunkin wakeup wrap at 150) or that a soda packs 300 calories..or the burgers and chicken sandwiches anywhere from 300-600 calories..they no doubt think twice about the value of "fast food".

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Does Obamacare mean the end of Fast Food Nation?

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    McDonald's has suffered the first sales drop in 9 years. Although it is far to early to read anything into it one has to wonder about the timing.

    McDonalds and other fast food chain restaurants are now required under the ACA to list the calorie count of their standard menu items. Although some chains already voluntarily provided this information the ACA requires that all chain restaurants post this information.

    Could it be..that armed with accurate information about the foods they consume on the run, that consumers are starting to make better choices?

    I have always felt that education is the way to go in these situations. Banning products, like Bloomberg's soda ban is simply the wrong way to go. Educate people and let them make informed choices about what they put in their bodies. When people see that egg mcmuffins pack a whopping 300 calories ( as opposed to a Dunkin wakeup wrap at 150) or that a soda packs 300 calories..or the burgers and chicken sandwiches anywhere from 300-600 calories..they no doubt think twice about the value of "fast food".

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yah, let's legislate what people can eat.
    Maybe we can outlaw them.

    Here's the thing:  it isn't a function of government to tell people that they can only buy 16 ounce drinks, only eat one big mac a day.

    Can you liberals get that through your head?

    Why, WHY is the left so willing to tell other people what they can and cannot do?

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Does Obamacare mean the end of Fast Food Nation?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    McDonald's has suffered the first sales drop in 9 years. Although it is far to early to read anything into it one has to wonder about the timing.

    McDonalds and other fast food chain restaurants are now required under the ACA to list the calorie count of their standard menu items. Although some chains already voluntarily provided this information the ACA requires that all chain restaurants post this information.

    Could it be..that armed with accurate information about the foods they consume on the run, that consumers are starting to make better choices?

    I have always felt that education is the way to go in these situations. Banning products, like Bloomberg's soda ban is simply the wrong way to go. Educate people and let them make informed choices about what they put in their bodies. When people see that egg mcmuffins pack a whopping 300 calories ( as opposed to a Dunkin wakeup wrap at 150) or that a soda packs 300 calories..or the burgers and chicken sandwiches anywhere from 300-600 calories..they no doubt think twice about the value of "fast food".

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yah, let's legislate what people can eat.
    Maybe we can outlaw them.

    Here's the thing:  it isn't a function of government to tell people that they can only buy 16 ounce drinks, only eat one big mac a day.

    Can you liberals get that through your head?

    Why, WHY is the left so willing to tell other people what they can and cannot do?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Skeeter..you seriously have reading comprehension issues. Go back and re-read my post. Nowhere does it say that government is legislating. No one is telling people they cannot eat at McDonalds...it is simply about giving the information necessary for people to make informed choices. Are you saying you are against informed choice?

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Does Obamacare mean the end of Fast Food Nation?

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    McDonald's has suffered the first sales drop in 9 years. Although it is far to early to read anything into it one has to wonder about the timing.

    McDonalds and other fast food chain restaurants are now required under the ACA to list the calorie count of their standard menu items. Although some chains already voluntarily provided this information the ACA requires that all chain restaurants post this information.

    Could it be..that armed with accurate information about the foods they consume on the run, that consumers are starting to make better choices?

    I have always felt that education is the way to go in these situations. Banning products, like Bloomberg's soda ban is simply the wrong way to go. Educate people and let them make informed choices about what they put in their bodies. When people see that egg mcmuffins pack a whopping 300 calories ( as opposed to a Dunkin wakeup wrap at 150) or that a soda packs 300 calories..or the burgers and chicken sandwiches anywhere from 300-600 calories..they no doubt think twice about the value of "fast food".

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yah, let's legislate what people can eat.
    Maybe we can outlaw them.

    Here's the thing:  it isn't a function of government to tell people that they can only buy 16 ounce drinks, only eat one big mac a day.

    Can you liberals get that through your head?

    Why, WHY is the left so willing to tell other people what they can and cannot do?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Skeeter..you seriously have reading comprehension issues. Go back and re-read my post. Nowhere does it say that government is legislating. No one is telling people they cannot eat at McDonalds...it is simply about giving the information necessary for people to make informed choices. Are you saying you are against informed choice?

    [/QUOTE]

    The comprehension problem is yours.


    Obamacare isn't legislation?  You yourself say that Obamacare mandates this information be made available.  NEWSFLASH:  THAT'S LEGISLATION.  Stupid legislation at that.

    Your "education is the answer" approach is ridiculous.  This is ALWAYS what liberals say.  And when that doesn't work, legislate.

    What is the facination with food, and limiting people's intake, on the left?  Food inspectors are roaming schools, examining the lunches students brings, and, if they don't meet their standards, prevent the student from easting it.  Now, Obamacare forcing nutritional information be displayed.  Trust me, it won't stop there.  This is the friendly facism of the left: control everything, even lunch.

    Like you say about government staying out of the bedroom, get it out of my lunch.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Does Obamacare mean the end of Fast Food Nation?

    [/QUOTE]


    The comprehension problem is yours.


    Obamacare isn't legislation?  You yourself say that Obamacare mandates this information be made available.  NEWSFLASH:  THAT'S LEGISLATION.  Stupid legislation at that.

    Your "education is the answer" approach is ridiculous.  This is ALWAYS what liberals say.  And when that doesn't work, legislate.

    What is the facination with food, and limiting people's intake, on the left?  Food inspectors are roaming schools, examining the lunches students brings, and, if they don't meet their standards, prevent the student from easting it.  Now, Obamacare forcing nutritional information be displayed.  Trust me, it won't stop there.  This is the friendly facism of the left: control everything, even lunch.

    Like you say about government staying out of the bedroom, get it out of my lunch.

    [/QUOTE]

    Naturally you are against education, it provides facts and you prefer ignorance.  Your slippery slope arguments are just plain stupid.  Posting fast food information to consumers leads to fascism...  Wow.

    And isn't it interesting that you want something as private as one's bedroom to be invaded by the government, but something as public as commerce and food production to be protected.  McDonald's abilty to hide nutritional facts is more important to you than an individual's right to not be arrested for their private health and sexual choices.  Wow again.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Does Obamacare mean the end of Fast Food Nation?

    Actually skeeter, the Feds do have a say in what food can and cannot be sold.  For example, it's against the law to serve food that was prepared in a way that can lead to food poisoning. 

    And yes, the Government does have a huge impact on the vast number of fast food outlets.  Here in Massachusetts, we don't see how fast food has taken over because our tax laws are different from the rest of the country.

    In most states, cities and towns generate most of their tax revenue thru sales tax.  The more stores, the more tax revenue.  This leads to a promotion of retail outlets, including fast food.  Go to a place like Oklahoma and fast food is everywhere.

    In Mass, cities and towns don't have as much of an incentive to promote retail.  They get much of their revenue from property taxes so they are encouraged to do things that increase property values.  And yes, cities and towns do get revenue from the State which generates tax revenue thru fast food, but there is a seperation between the people determining where fast food outlets are established and the people benefitting from fast food.

    This means that in most states, the government is encouraging people to eat fast food.  The local government benefits from people eating fast food and has a huge incentive to promote fast food consumption.

    By the way, people in Massachusetts are generally less obese than in states where cities and towns promote fast food.

    You seem to be only focus on efforts by the government to promote healthy lifestyles and yet are blind to efforts by the government that promote poor lifestyles.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Does Obamacare mean the end of Fast Food Nation?

    How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Does Obamacare mean the end of Fast Food Nation?

    Sales are down for McDs because of food and labor costs, global growth has slowed, their competitors are filching customers, and some markets are saturated.  Their breakfast revenue (1/3 of total) is being challenged by Dunkins, for one.

    Also, witness the rise of tier II fast food places like Qdoba, Chipotle, Panera, etc.

    Obama care has nothing to do with it.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Does Obamacare mean the end of Fast Food Nation?

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]


    The comprehension problem is yours.


    Obamacare isn't legislation?  You yourself say that Obamacare mandates this information be made available.  NEWSFLASH:  THAT'S LEGISLATION.  Stupid legislation at that.

    Your "education is the answer" approach is ridiculous.  This is ALWAYS what liberals say.  And when that doesn't work, legislate.

    What is the facination with food, and limiting people's intake, on the left?  Food inspectors are roaming schools, examining the lunches students brings, and, if they don't meet their standards, prevent the student from easting it.  Now, Obamacare forcing nutritional information be displayed.  Trust me, it won't stop there.  This is the friendly facism of the left: control everything, even lunch.

    Like you say about government staying out of the bedroom, get it out of my lunch.

    [/QUOTE]

    Naturally you are against education, it provides facts and you prefer ignorance.  Your slippery slope arguments are just plain stupid.  Posting fast food information to consumers leads to fascism...  Wow.

    And isn't it interesting that you want something as private as one's bedroom to be invaded by the government, but something as public as commerce and food production to be protected.  McDonald's abilty to hide nutritional facts is more important to you than an individual's right to not be arrested for their private health and sexual choices.  Wow again.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm against forced education, as applied here.  As soon as you force it, it is no longer education but compliance.

    As far as your last comment, I see you are making things up again.  My point is that liberals want freedom in the bedroom, complaince at McDonalds.  that hypocritical.  Besides, McDonalds has had this stuff available for years.  Obam didn't do anything but claim credit for a free marketer realizing that letting people know whats in something is good for business.

    As far as mscrickets original claim, that Obamacare is causing McDonalds profit to slide with this little disclosure thing (around whihc you wrap this concept called education), then the slide would have happened in 2005, when they first listed nutritional information.

    The decline is because people are unemployed, broke, and getting more so. McDonalds now has to be reserved for the big night out.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Does Obamacare mean the end of Fast Food Nation?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Sales are down for McDs because of food and labor costs, global growth has slowed, their competitors are filching customers, and some markets are saturated.  Their breakfast revenue (1/3 of total) is being challenged by Dunkins, for one.

    Also, witness the rise of tier II fast food places like Qdoba, Chipotle, Panera, etc.

    Obama care has nothing to do with it.

    [/QUOTE]

    Now, now.  Obama is to blame for everything.  That is a central theme to the conservative playbook.  That is why the right thinks the left sees Obama as the Messiah: it is actually because they view him as Satan.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Does Obamacare mean the end of Fast Food Nation?

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Actually skeeter, the Feds do have a say in what food can and cannot be sold.  For example, it's against the law to serve food that was prepared in a way that can lead to food poisoning. 

    And yes, the Government does have a huge impact on the vast number of fast food outlets.  Here in Massachusetts, we don't see how fast food has taken over because our tax laws are different from the rest of the country.

    In most states, cities and towns generate most of their tax revenue thru sales tax.  The more stores, the more tax revenue.  This leads to a promotion of retail outlets, including fast food.  Go to a place like Oklahoma and fast food is everywhere.

    In Mass, cities and towns don't have as much of an incentive to promote retail.  They get much of their revenue from property taxes so they are encouraged to do things that increase property values.  And yes, cities and towns do get revenue from the State which generates tax revenue thru fast food, but there is a seperation between the people determining where fast food outlets are established and the people benefitting from fast food.

    This means that in most states, the government is encouraging people to eat fast food.  The local government benefits from people eating fast food and has a huge incentive to promote fast food consumption.

    By the way, people in Massachusetts are generally less obese than in states where cities and towns promote fast food.

    You seem to be only focus on efforts by the government to promote healthy lifestyles and yet are blind to efforts by the government that promote poor lifestyles.

    [/QUOTE]


    "Actually skeeter, the Feds do have a say in what food can and cannot be sold."

    Did I say they didn't, you maroon?

    The question is, where does their oversight stop, and infringment begin?  Right now, that point is 17 ounces in NYC.  Soon to come to Massachusetts.

    Of course, you probably expect the governemnt to wipe your #$$%%^ every time you squat.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Does Obamacare mean the end of Fast Food Nation?

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Skeeter is more of an "Ignorance is bliss" kinda guy.

    The less you know the better off you are.

    [/QUOTE]

    Ignorance? didn't you corner the market on that?

    I guess you just aren't happy if you are unable to boss some one around.  A bit of a napoleon complex?  Are you short?

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Does Obamacare mean the end of Fast Food Nation?

    In response to msobstinate99's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Sales are down everywhere, has nothing to do with 0bamacare and everything to do with 0bama.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    The former point is correct; the latter point is absurd.

     

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Does Obamacare mean the end of Fast Food Nation?

    There are a number of people who would eat poison mushrooms if there was a place selling them and if they tasted good and were cheap.

    I can't tell you why ( this is starting to sound like an Eagles song) McDonald's sales are down, maybe they don't even know. But, I doubt it's because people are getting smarter or more educated ( although it would be nice, if true). I work with the public , and I can tell you people are getting dumber. The main cause is that they are all gadget happy. They live with an iphone or a smartphone clutched in their hand and they are becoming oblivious to everything that is going on outside of cyberspace.

    You can't tell me a generation that made Jersey Shore a hit T.V. show is smarter than previous generations.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from FaolanofEssex. Show FaolanofEssex's posts

    Re: Does Obamacare mean the end of Fast Food Nation?

    Typical wingnut mantra. Education is bad. How does Skeeter20 arrive at the conclusion that educating consumers is forced education?

    Another typical wingnut conclusion:

    Regulating people = Good

    Regulating corporations = Bad

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share