Right, I guess I am comparing it to what I have heard about certain European cities (and what I've seen elsewhere such as Mexico City) where the slums are on the outskirts, rather than the inner city. Basically isolation.
its expensive to eat healthy...go to the grocery store...find hout how much 1200 calories of fresh fruits and vegetables and fresh lean meat costs
then compare that to how much 1200 calories from a fast food restaurant is...
fast food is the same as predatory lending, it is a slap in the face of poor people...
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced the results of a study that found that just $.64 could buy the government-recommended daily three servings of fruits and four servings of vegetables[/b]
are you seriously making an argument out of this b*llshit?
1) this doesnt say whether $.64 will actually feed someone? would if i told you that a penny a day will give you the govt recommended amount of vitamin A, B, C and D....if you took a multivatimin. Please tell me what healthy foods a mother can pack her child for lunch every day? Or cook for breakfast in a few minutes while she is getting them ready for school and herself for work?
2) when is the last time you saw a major supermarket in a poor urban area?? in philadelphia there are none, aside from an international supermarket. if there was a whole foods, its certainly not affordable to someone in poverty. i picked up (and then put down) a small container of blueberries & strawberries that i could have finished in one sitting the other night...and it was $14.95.
3) you are also assuming that every poor household has a parent that is going to go out of his/her way to find cheap healthy food and then prepare it. please. many of these kids are on there own at an early age (even if their parents are around). its a lot easier to go get some fast food garbage, then it is for a 10 year old to find the nearest supermarket and go home and cook lima beans.
In general I am less concerned with "one dude" who is too lazy to cook for himself, than with a mother of many who is tasked with teaching her children how to eat healthy.
I don't know the UK, but I wonder - as NYC moves more towards having "suburban slums" not unlike what I understand "estates" to be - are there very many grocery options on the outskirts?
I merely speak from experience, but there are entire swaths of neighborhood with literally nothing but corner liquor stores and fried chicken joints. The nearest grocery is a fair train or bus ride away and is just not feasible for someone who is working two jobs or long shifts.
"Shopping for the week" is rarely a reality if you are subsisting on food stamps.
But we can also just call it what it is:
Blacks and Latinos, in poor neighborhoods, are disproportionately obese and unhealthy.
So, what is it then? Are these folks being underserved, or are they just stupid and lazy?
Generally I've never had a problem purchasing fresh food. I've never lived in a completely run down area, but I've lived in poor working class areas, for most of my life. Most urban areas will have at least one supermarket within a short bus, car, or bike ride from your house. And thanks to the many Asians (mainly Pakistanis) who run, really good small local groceries, in many of the working class areas throughout our country, I've never gone hungry. The prices vary, but these kind of shops, or you standard, white run, local grocers, are no more expensive than a supermarket.
It helps, that takeout food is expensive over here. But we have the same problem with shop bought convince food.
But we can also just call it what it is:
Blacks and Latinos, in poor neighborhoods, are disproportionately obese and unhealthy.
So, what is it then? Are these folks being underserved, or are they just stupid and lazy?
I can't really comment, as I know nothing about the situation. I'm sure its the same reasons poor people are unhealthy throughout the western world though. But unfortunately being poorly educated and disenfranchised, or 'stupid and lazy' is part of it.
was i complaining about my personal situation? learn to read muthafuckah before you start calling someone pathetic.
Brian, I wasn't calling you pathetic, I'm sorry if you thought that. Just the excuse of being poor, as to not eating healthily. Yes, it makes it harder, as it does, all the other things you listed. But people of our grandparents generation generally, worked longer hours, earned less, but eat more healthily.
was i complaining about my personal situation? learn to read muthafuckah before you start calling someone pathetic.
Brian, I wasn't calling you pathetic, I'm sorry if you thought that. Just the excuse of being poor, as to not eating healthily. Yes, it makes it harder, as it does, all the other things you listed. But people of our grandparents generation generally, worked longer hours, earned less, but eat more healthily.
please stop. eating healthy IS more expensive and harder to do in this country. its not even an issue. rockadelic's $.64 tidpit about the usda's recommended nutrients is irrelevant. if i drink a v8 i can accomplish the same thing but i wouldnt call that a meal.
also, even if it was just about being harder to do, how does that translate for kids without parents, or kids with 1 parent, or kids with irresponsible parents?
Right, I guess I am comparing it to what I have heard about certain European cities (and what I've seen elsewhere such as Mexico City) where the slums are on the outskirts, rather than the inner city. Basically isolation.
In general in the UK I see it as there are two types of working class areas. But this is a simplification. Ones where there has been a poor, working class community living there for generations. Generally they'll be amenities there for them. And will probably be only a short walk from a middle class area.
Then you have have the larger estates built in the last 40 years, where they've tried to force a community into existence. If these communities fail, then you'll start to get the ghettoisation problems, and isolation from resources, amenities etc, can be a real problem.
Jonny, Let's assume you're right and poor people just don't have access to healthy food.
Any human who walks into McDonalds and can't comprehend that the picture of the McSalad is healthier than the picture of the McSludgeburger has bigger problems than what to order for lunch.
But, but but...what about those children with no parents, and those irresponsible parents.... Well obviously we need Food Police to make SURE people eat healthy.
BTW...there are LOTS of irresponsible parents who are NOT poor who don't feed their kids right.
On the way into work this morning a call-in show was discussing Sicko and Universal Health Care.
One caller who was FOR Universal Health Care made this comment....
"People who smoke cigarettes should not qualify for this type of Health Care because if they are not interested in taking care of themselves, why should the Government do it"
was i complaining about my personal situation? learn to read muthafuckah before you start calling someone pathetic.
Brian, I wasn't calling you pathetic, I'm sorry if you thought that. Just the excuse of being poor, as to not eating healthily. Yes, it makes it harder, as it does, all the other things you listed. But people of our grandparents generation generally, worked longer hours, earned less, but eat more healthily.
please stop. eating healthy IS more expensive and harder to do in this country. its not even an issue. rockadelic's $.64 tidpit about the usda's recommended nutrients is irrelevant. if i drink a v8 i can accomplish the same thing but i wouldnt call that a meal.
also, even if it was just about being harder to do, how does that translate for kids without parents, or kids with 1 parent, or kids with irresponsible parents?
Please post a link to a study that PROVES eating healthy is more expensive than eating Fast Food.
On the way into work this morning a call-in show was discussing Sicko and Universal Health Care.
One caller who was FOR Universal Health Care made this comment....
"People who smoke cigarettes should not qualify for this type of Health Care because if they are not interested in taking care of themselves, why should the Government do it"
What do y'all think about that??
Well I don't know how it works in other countries but the incredibly high amount of tax on cigarettes in the UK certainly helps support the funding for the NHS...........
On the way into work this morning a call-in show was discussing Sicko and Universal Health Care.
One caller who was FOR Universal Health Care made this comment....
"People who smoke cigarettes should not qualify for this type of Health Care because if they are not interested in taking care of themselves, why should the Government do it"
What do y'all think about that??
It would still be cheaper to have public health care taking care of smokers than a bunch of smaller insurance companies taking care of smokers.
"Smoking" is just a hot topic intended to polarize opinions and make people return to the status quo.
You're right Rich - people should ignore advertising, locale, convenience, cultural heritage, and peer influence, travel halfway across town if not to another town entirely (if they don't have a car, and there is not suitable public transportation, they should walk) to buy fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and lean meats.
The exercise they'll get from carrying all those groceries has gotta shave off 20-30 pounds over the course of a couple months. And they'll be eating so healthy!
my girl and I did a little research/comparative shopping with one chain of grocery stores(5 stores)...Kroger...and their Memphis stores. The cheapest prices were found at the Kroger out in the east suburb of Cardova, most white folks living in quarter million dollar and up homes and I am willing to bet, all have cars and therefore can drive all over god's creation to anystore they choose(I assume they have the cheapest food because of this, their customers can access the competition easily). As you come west into poorer enighborhoods the prices went up, and the most expensive Kroger in town is in Krosstown, a very poor area were a majority of the customers are all pedestrian. Since they have no choice for patronizing the competition, the store sticks it to them with highest costs. They have stuck audience. Its bullshit. But Im sure, if given an official explanation, the high cost would be due to higher insurance premiums and the employment of $10 an hour armed guards, blah blah blah...but whatever
and as far as .64 cents buying all the fruits and vegtables you need...I call bullshit, fuck , one apple costs more than half of that. I guess that .64 would get it if you were buying wholesale by the half-ton.
On the way into work this morning a call-in show was discussing Sicko and Universal Health Care.
One caller who was FOR Universal Health Care made this comment....
"People who smoke cigarettes should not qualify for this type of Health Care because if they are not interested in taking care of themselves, why should the Government do it"
What do y'all think about that??
In Sicko, a UK doctor says that he gets bonuses from asking about smoking and initiating successful cessation. I think that's a very good policy.
Plus we already pay a lot of our collective wealth to treat smoking related illness. Remember the state's tobacco settlements?
On the way into work this morning a call-in show was discussing Sicko and Universal Health Care.
One caller who was FOR Universal Health Care made this comment....
"People who smoke cigarettes should not qualify for this type of Health Care because if they are not interested in taking care of themselves, why should the Government do it"
What do y'all think about that??
It would still be cheaper to have public health care taking care of smokers than a bunch of smaller insurance companies taking care of smokers.
"Smoking" is just a hot topic intended to polarize opinions and make people return to the status quo.
my girl and I did a little research/comparative shopping with one chain of grocery stores(5 stores)...Kroger...and their Memphis stores. The cheapest prices were found at the Kroger out in the east suburb of Cardova, most white folks living in quarter million dollar and up homes and I am willing to bet, all have cars and therefore can drive all over god's creation to anystore they choose(I assume they have the cheapest food because of this, their customers can access the competition easily). As you come west into poorer enighborhoods the prices went up, and the most expensive Kroger in town is in Krosstown, a very poor area were a majority of the customers are all pedestrian. Since they have no choice for patronizing the competition, the store sticks it to them with highest costs. They have stuck audience. Its bullshit. But Im sure, if given an official explanation, the high cost would be due to higher insurance premiums and the employment of $10 an hour armed guards, blah blah blah...but whatever
Actually the prices are cheaper because rich people, on average, buy more groceries per trip, so the stores can lower prices and sell quantity, still making a large profit.
my girl and I did a little research/comparative shopping with one chain of grocery stores(5 stores)...Kroger...and their Memphis stores. The cheapest prices were found at the Kroger out in the east suburb of Cardova, most white folks living in quarter million dollar and up homes and I am willing to bet, all have cars and therefore can drive all over god's creation to anystore they choose(I assume they have the cheapest food because of this, their customers can access the competition easily). As you come west into poorer enighborhoods the prices went up, and the most expensive Kroger in town is in Krosstown, a very poor area were a majority of the customers are all pedestrian. Since they have no choice for patronizing the competition, the store sticks it to them with highest costs. They have stuck audience. Its bullshit. But Im sure, if given an official explanation, the high cost would be due to higher insurance premiums and the employment of $10 an hour armed guards, blah blah blah...but whatever
Actually the prices are cheaper because rich people, on average, buy more groceries per trip, so the stores can lower prices and sell quantity, still making a large profit.
No. Its called supply and demand. People with money consume more and therefore there are more buying optins which means more competition. If your poor and live in a major city, chances are that you don't have easy access to major supermarkets. Corner stores have high prices because they can get away with it.
my girl and I did a little research/comparative shopping with one chain of grocery stores(5 stores)...Kroger...and their Memphis stores. The cheapest prices were found at the Kroger out in the east suburb of Cardova, most white folks living in quarter million dollar and up homes and I am willing to bet, all have cars and therefore can drive all over god's creation to anystore they choose(I assume they have the cheapest food because of this, their customers can access the competition easily). As you come west into poorer enighborhoods the prices went up, and the most expensive Kroger in town is in Krosstown, a very poor area were a majority of the customers are all pedestrian. Since they have no choice for patronizing the competition, the store sticks it to them with highest costs. They have stuck audience. Its bullshit. But Im sure, if given an official explanation, the high cost would be due to higher insurance premiums and the employment of $10 an hour armed guards, blah blah blah...but whatever
Actually the prices are cheaper because rich people, on average, buy more groceries per trip, so the stores can lower prices and sell quantity, still making a large profit.
so please tell me how this explains there is no prejudice against the poor in regards to food sales. This may be true, but I firmly believe there is some captive audience, lets squeeze a few more dollars out othese people thinking going on.
I still wanna see how fucking .64 cents buys enough fruit and vegtables for a day. PLease show me how you can walk into a store with $1 and buy enough for one day. Fresh and nutrious, not some can of fucking generic canned vegtables...oh yeah, the poor dont deserve the luxury of say a fresh banana or apple. .64 cents my ass....
Hook Up, Since you did the research, tell us, what does it cost to make a HEALTHY meal to feed a family of four if you buy the food in the most expensive, inner-city supermarket?? I'm talking protein, vegetables, fruits, legumes, you name it.
The cheapest "meal" at McDonalds is $3.99 so that would be 16.00 bucks for a family of four.
And since you are the one that claimed that Fast Food preyed on poor people how do you explain the fact that most of them offer "healthy" choices that are cheaper than their "unhealthy" choices, yet they overwhelmingly outsell the unhealthy stuff??
my girl and I did a little research/comparative shopping with one chain of grocery stores(5 stores)...Kroger...and their Memphis stores. The cheapest prices were found at the Kroger out in the east suburb of Cardova, most white folks living in quarter million dollar and up homes and I am willing to bet, all have cars and therefore can drive all over god's creation to anystore they choose(I assume they have the cheapest food because of this, their customers can access the competition easily). As you come west into poorer enighborhoods the prices went up, and the most expensive Kroger in town is in Krosstown, a very poor area were a majority of the customers are all pedestrian. Since they have no choice for patronizing the competition, the store sticks it to them with highest costs. They have stuck audience. Its bullshit. But Im sure, if given an official explanation, the high cost would be due to higher insurance premiums and the employment of $10 an hour armed guards, blah blah blah...but whatever
Actually the prices are cheaper because rich people, on average, buy more groceries per trip, so the stores can lower prices and sell quantity, still making a large profit.
No. Its called supply and demand. People with money consume more and therefore there are more buying optins which means more competition. If your poor and live in a major city, chances are that you don't have easy access to major supermarkets. Corner stores have high prices because they can get away with it.
You're right. The manager of my local grocery store clearly knows less about supermarket pricing than you do.
Common sense would suggest that corner stores have to mark up prices because they don't sell in bulk like supermarkets, but I'm glad to know that you clarified my misconception. Thank you!
You're right. The manager of my local grocery store clearly knows less about supermarket pricing than you do.
Common sense would suggest that corner stores have to mark up prices because they don't sell in bulk like supermarkets, but I'm glad to know that you clarified my misconception. Thank you!
so you are citing the manager of your local grocery store as a reference...what is his opinion on sicko?
corner stores (or any store) will mark prices up as high as they can go. obviously, walmart will make more money on a roll of toilet paper than joe's bodega, but that isnt the point. the demand for basic needs is just as high for consumers in poor urban neighborhoods as it is anywhere else. however, because there is a lack of competition (from big supermarkets and superstores like walmart), corner stores can jack up prices and the issue for consumers turns on convenience and expense v. transportation costs/inconvenience and cheaper prices.
I don't think you're understanding my point of view. Walmart doesn't make as much money on a roll of TP as Joe's Pagoda since their markup is so low, but when they sell a million more than Joe's Pagoda, they make more money. This is the argument I'm trying to present to you: More people stroll through a supermarket, so they can markup less and over the long haul make more money; whereas corner stores must have higher prices to make money on the fewer items they sell. It has far less to do with lack of competition.
what does this tangent have to do with the movie "Sicko"?
the McDonalds is all people in poor areas can eat argument is kind of weird to me. It seems like the idea of convenient junk food is supposed to be accepted as certain peoples only option for nutrition. Not that anyone here would be able to answer a hypothetical question like this, but for all those parents trying to feed their family what happened to the idea of sending your kid to the store to pick up some groceries, hell I did it and it's not like I was being a trailblazer in food delivery with my actions.
I think what Rock is stressing over and over is that the ability to get food that isn't from McDonalds is available. In most major cities, it may not be as equally convenient amongst the residents but its option of getting healthy food is there nonetheless.
back on the Sicko track, did anyone check the Sanjay Gupta vs. Michael Moore youtubes I put up on the prior page? Any thought on them?
back on the Sicko track, did anyone check the Sanjay Gupta vs. Michael Moore youtubes I put up on the prior page? Any thought on them?
Yes, thank you. I watched those and it seemed like Larry King wasn't giving Michael Moore the same amount of time to comment, but when he did, that moment was totally fumbled which was hard to watch.
back on the Sicko track, did anyone check the Sanjay Gupta vs. Michael Moore youtubes I put up on the prior page? Any thought on them?
I watched the first one and found it to be nothing more than two folks arguing over nitpicky numbers and semantics.....Gupta came off as sincere and Moore came across like a snide wise-ass......do the other two videos go anywhere different??
back on the Sicko track, did anyone check the Sanjay Gupta vs. Michael Moore youtubes I put up on the prior page? Any thought on them?
I watched the first one and found it to be nothing more than two folks arguing over nitpicky numbers and semantics.....Gupta came off as sincere and Moore came across like a snide wise-ass......do the other two videos go anywhere different??
I still intend on seeing the flick.
dude, what video were you watching? Gupta got his ass handed to him despite the fact that Moore got cut off after every sentence. Plus, you gotta know the history (it only spans over two days) to grasp the total sonning that Moore gave to the entire CNN network this week.
Wolf Blitzer interviewed Moore on CNN earlier this week, but right before the interview, CNN aired this piece by Sanjay Gupta (cnn's resident medical expert/metrosexual) where Gupta painted Sicko as being full of half-truths. This pissed Moore off because, a few weeks earlier, CNN aired something similar and used outdated and bogus sources. In response to that, Moore's camp sent CNN all of the current sources for the facts in the movie and highlighted the ones CNN had got wrong. Despite having this knowledge (the emails are on Moore's website), Gupta relied on the same lies. Anyway, Moore erupted and gave Blitzer a verbal beatdown that is worth catching on youtube.
As far as Gupta on Larry King, he looks like a complete douche. Not only is he whining about inconsequential numbers that don't make Moore's points any less strong, but Gupta's only source is some rightwing hack who Gupta claims works for a university but, as the press has revealed, used to be a professor but now works for a republican think tank.
So I saw the movie last night, instead of giving it a full critique I'm just going to list a couple of the things I liked and disliked about it
Liked[/b] - showed how the governments of other countries are much more involved with the well-being of their citizens lives
- Exposed the medical insurance company for the money hungry sick profit driven fucks they are
- The 1996 CSPAN footage of the doctor confessing her medical sin, it was a very genuine and revealing moment to see a medical professional feel guilt for following orders over what she knew was right
- Also really felt for the woman who would take medical histories of people knowing that in the end they would get denied health insurance once again showed how big business pretends to offe a service when in truth they are more about bilking people out of money for essential needs
- Michael Moore giving $12,000 to a man who made a website just to slam him (although I think as an act of kindness it would of been nicer not to try to make it a part of the film)
- The Nixon tapes of his talk with Edgar Kaiser, both those pricks were evil fucks and its strangely wonderful to hear Nixon talk and show how evil they both were
Disliked[/b] - The Cuban fireman visit. Really had nothing to do with health care and really just seemed sappy
- Showing MLK Drew hospital as a good place, This may only be well known in Los Angeles, but King Drew Medical center is a horrible hospital, anyone remember that story of the lady who died in the waiting room while people called 911 for her? yeah thats the place she died at. There have been numerous medical horror tales from there, and honestly I would have rather been treated at a Kaiser too.
- The man in the inter-racial marriage who died of cancer, I felt for him but I also heard his wife try to bring racism into the mix and that point I thought it was just too much. Hate the medical insurance companies for their money hungry unsympathetic ways, but don't add more to it than you have to.
- Length of the film, shit was around the 2 hour mark and dealt with too many personal stories. I felt like Moore was making less of an impact with each additional personal tale of woe he included, there is such thing as overkill
- Wish they spoke about preventative care, things like education about health, exercise, food and such; the kind of things that may just prevent someone from having 3 heart attacks and needing to beg a health insurance company for aid
Comments
are you seriously making an argument out of this b*llshit?
1) this doesnt say whether $.64 will actually feed someone? would if i told you that a penny a day will give you the govt recommended amount of vitamin A, B, C and D....if you took a multivatimin. Please tell me what healthy foods a mother can pack her child for lunch every day? Or cook for breakfast in a few minutes while she is getting them ready for school and herself for work?
2) when is the last time you saw a major supermarket in a poor urban area?? in philadelphia there are none, aside from an international supermarket. if there was a whole foods, its certainly not affordable to someone in poverty. i picked up (and then put down) a small container of blueberries & strawberries that i could have finished in one sitting the other night...and it was $14.95.
3) you are also assuming that every poor household has a parent that is going to go out of his/her way to find cheap healthy food and then prepare it. please. many of these kids are on there own at an early age (even if their parents are around). its a lot easier to go get some fast food garbage, then it is for a 10 year old to find the nearest supermarket and go home and cook lima beans.
Generally I've never had a problem purchasing fresh food. I've never lived in a completely run down area, but I've lived in poor working class areas, for most of my life. Most urban areas will have at least one supermarket within a short bus, car, or bike ride from your house.
And thanks to the many Asians (mainly Pakistanis) who run, really good small local groceries, in many of the working class areas throughout our country, I've never gone hungry. The prices vary, but these kind of shops, or you standard, white run, local grocers, are no more expensive than a supermarket.
It helps, that takeout food is expensive over here. But we have the same problem with shop bought convince food.
I can't really comment, as I know nothing about the situation. I'm sure its the same reasons poor people are unhealthy throughout the western world though.
But unfortunately being poorly educated and disenfranchised, or 'stupid and lazy' is part of it.
Brian, I wasn't calling you pathetic, I'm sorry if you thought that. Just the excuse of being poor, as to not eating healthily. Yes, it makes it harder, as it does, all the other things you listed. But people of our grandparents generation generally, worked longer hours, earned less, but eat more healthily.
please stop. eating healthy IS more expensive and harder to do in this country. its not even an issue. rockadelic's $.64 tidpit about the usda's recommended nutrients is irrelevant. if i drink a v8 i can accomplish the same thing but i wouldnt call that a meal.
also, even if it was just about being harder to do, how does that translate for kids without parents, or kids with 1 parent, or kids with irresponsible parents?
In general in the UK I see it as there are two types of working class areas. But this is a simplification. Ones where there has been a poor, working class community living there for generations. Generally they'll be amenities there for them. And will probably be only a short walk from a middle class area.
Then you have have the larger estates built in the last 40 years, where they've tried to force a community into existence. If these communities fail, then you'll start to get the ghettoisation problems, and isolation from resources, amenities etc, can be a real problem.
Let's assume you're right and poor people just don't have access to healthy food.
Any human who walks into McDonalds and can't comprehend that the picture of the McSalad is healthier than the picture of the McSludgeburger has bigger problems than what to order for lunch.
But, but but...what about those children with no parents, and those irresponsible parents.... Well obviously we need Food Police to make SURE people eat healthy.
BTW...there are LOTS of irresponsible parents who are NOT poor who don't feed their kids right.
One caller who was FOR Universal Health Care made this comment....
"People who smoke cigarettes should not qualify for this type of Health Care because if they are not interested in taking care of themselves, why should the Government do it"
What do y'all think about that??
Please post a link to a study that PROVES eating healthy is more expensive than eating Fast Food.
have you ever shopped at a Whole Foods???
'organic' is like twice as expensive...
Well I don't know how it works in other countries but the incredibly high amount of tax on cigarettes in the UK certainly helps support the funding for the NHS...........
Are you suggesting that in order to eat healthy you have to eat overpriced Yuppie Whole Foods fare??
BTW.....salad at McDonalds is cheaper than any of their "Hamburger Meals"
It would still be cheaper to have public health care taking care of smokers than a bunch of smaller insurance companies taking care of smokers.
"Smoking" is just a hot topic intended to polarize opinions and make people return to the status quo.
Canadian (non-smoker) here.
my girl and I did a little research/comparative shopping with one chain of grocery stores(5 stores)...Kroger...and their Memphis stores. The cheapest prices were found at the Kroger out in the east suburb of Cardova, most white folks living in quarter million dollar and up homes and I am willing to bet, all have cars and therefore can drive all over god's creation to anystore they choose(I assume they have the cheapest food because of this, their customers can access the competition easily). As you come west into poorer enighborhoods the prices went up, and the most expensive Kroger in town is in Krosstown, a very poor area were a majority of the customers are all pedestrian. Since they have no choice for patronizing the competition, the store sticks it to them with highest costs. They have stuck audience. Its bullshit. But Im sure, if given an official explanation, the high cost would be due to higher insurance premiums and the employment of $10 an hour armed guards, blah blah blah...but whatever
and as far as .64 cents buying all the fruits and vegtables you need...I call bullshit, fuck , one apple costs more than half of that. I guess that .64 would get it if you were buying wholesale by the half-ton.
nobody is gonna agree on what 'healthy' is for one thing.
'yuppies' are gonna swear that if produce was grown with pesticides then it isn't 'healthy'...
In Sicko, a UK doctor says that he gets bonuses from asking about smoking and initiating successful cessation. I think that's a very good policy.
Plus we already pay a lot of our collective wealth to treat smoking related illness. Remember the state's tobacco settlements?
Actually the prices are cheaper because rich people, on average, buy more groceries per trip, so the stores can lower prices and sell quantity, still making a large profit.
No. Its called supply and demand. People with money consume more and therefore there are more buying optins which means more competition. If your poor and live in a major city, chances are that you don't have easy access to major supermarkets. Corner stores have high prices because they can get away with it.
so please tell me how this explains there is no prejudice against the poor in regards to food sales. This may be true, but I firmly believe there is some captive audience, lets squeeze a few more dollars out othese people thinking going on.
I still wanna see how fucking .64 cents buys enough fruit and vegtables for a day. PLease show me how you can walk into a store with $1 and buy enough for one day. Fresh and nutrious, not some can of fucking generic canned vegtables...oh yeah, the poor dont deserve the luxury of say a fresh banana or apple. .64 cents my ass....
Since you did the research, tell us, what does it cost to make a HEALTHY meal to feed a family of four if you buy the food in the most expensive, inner-city supermarket?? I'm talking protein, vegetables, fruits, legumes, you name it.
The cheapest "meal" at McDonalds is $3.99 so that would be 16.00 bucks for a family of four.
And since you are the one that claimed that Fast Food preyed on poor people how do you explain the fact that most of them offer "healthy" choices that are cheaper than their "unhealthy" choices, yet they overwhelmingly outsell the unhealthy stuff??
You're right. The manager of my local grocery store clearly knows less about supermarket pricing than you do.
Common sense would suggest that corner stores have to mark up prices because they don't sell in bulk like supermarkets, but I'm glad to know that you clarified my misconception. Thank you!
so you are citing the manager of your local grocery store as a reference...what is his opinion on sicko?
corner stores (or any store) will mark prices up as high as they can go. obviously, walmart will make more money on a roll of toilet paper than joe's bodega, but that isnt the point. the demand for basic needs is just as high for consumers in poor urban neighborhoods as it is anywhere else. however, because there is a lack of competition (from big supermarkets and superstores like walmart), corner stores can jack up prices and the issue for consumers turns on convenience and expense v. transportation costs/inconvenience and cheaper prices.
I don't think you're understanding my point of view. Walmart doesn't make as much money on a roll of TP as Joe's Pagoda since their markup is so low, but when they sell a million more than Joe's Pagoda, they make more money. This is the argument I'm trying to present to you: More people stroll through a supermarket, so they can markup less and over the long haul make more money; whereas corner stores must have higher prices to make money on the fewer items they sell. It has far less to do with lack of competition.
the McDonalds is all people in poor areas can eat argument is kind of weird to me. It seems like the idea of convenient junk food is supposed to be accepted as certain peoples only option for nutrition. Not that anyone here would be able to answer a hypothetical question like this, but for all those parents trying to feed their family what happened to the idea of sending your kid to the store to pick up some groceries, hell I did it and it's not like I was being a trailblazer in food delivery with my actions.
I think what Rock is stressing over and over is that the ability to get food that isn't from McDonalds is available. In most major cities, it may not be as equally convenient amongst the residents but its option of getting healthy food is there nonetheless.
back on the Sicko track, did anyone check the Sanjay Gupta vs. Michael Moore youtubes I put up on the prior page? Any thought on them?
Yes, thank you. I watched those and it seemed like Larry King wasn't giving Michael Moore the same amount of time to comment, but when he did, that moment was totally fumbled which was hard to watch.
I watched the first one and found it to be nothing more than two folks arguing over nitpicky numbers and semantics.....Gupta came off as sincere and Moore came across like a snide wise-ass......do the other two videos go anywhere different??
I still intend on seeing the flick.
dude, what video were you watching? Gupta got his ass handed to him despite the fact that Moore got cut off after every sentence. Plus, you gotta know the history (it only spans over two days) to grasp the total sonning that Moore gave to the entire CNN network this week.
Wolf Blitzer interviewed Moore on CNN earlier this week, but right before the interview, CNN aired this piece by Sanjay Gupta (cnn's resident medical expert/metrosexual) where Gupta painted Sicko as being full of half-truths. This pissed Moore off because, a few weeks earlier, CNN aired something similar and used outdated and bogus sources. In response to that, Moore's camp sent CNN all of the current sources for the facts in the movie and highlighted the ones CNN had got wrong. Despite having this knowledge (the emails are on Moore's website), Gupta relied on the same lies. Anyway, Moore erupted and gave Blitzer a verbal beatdown that is worth catching on youtube.
As far as Gupta on Larry King, he looks like a complete douche. Not only is he whining about inconsequential numbers that don't make Moore's points any less strong, but Gupta's only source is some rightwing hack who Gupta claims works for a university but, as the press has revealed, used to be a professor but now works for a republican think tank.
Liked[/b]
- showed how the governments of other countries are much more involved with the well-being of their citizens lives
- Exposed the medical insurance company for the money hungry sick profit driven fucks they are
- The 1996 CSPAN footage of the doctor confessing her medical sin, it was a very genuine and revealing moment to see a medical professional feel guilt for following orders over what she knew was right
- Also really felt for the woman who would take medical histories of people knowing that in the end they would get denied health insurance once again showed how big business pretends to offe a service when in truth they are more about bilking people out of money for essential needs
- Michael Moore giving $12,000 to a man who made a website just to slam him (although I think as an act of kindness it would of been nicer not to try to make it a part of the film)
- The Nixon tapes of his talk with Edgar Kaiser, both those pricks were evil fucks and its strangely wonderful to hear Nixon talk and show how evil they both were
Disliked[/b]
- The Cuban fireman visit. Really had nothing to do with health care and really just seemed sappy
- Showing MLK Drew hospital as a good place, This may only be well known in Los Angeles, but King Drew Medical center is a horrible hospital, anyone remember that story of the lady who died in the waiting room while people called 911 for her? yeah thats the place she died at. There have been numerous medical horror tales from there, and honestly I would have rather been treated at a Kaiser too.
- The man in the inter-racial marriage who died of cancer, I felt for him but I also heard his wife try to bring racism into the mix and that point I thought it was just too much. Hate the medical insurance companies for their money hungry unsympathetic ways, but don't add more to it than you have to.
- Length of the film, shit was around the 2 hour mark and dealt with too many personal stories. I felt like Moore was making less of an impact with each additional personal tale of woe he included, there is such thing as overkill
- Wish they spoke about preventative care, things like education about health, exercise, food and such; the kind of things that may just prevent someone from having 3 heart attacks and needing to beg a health insurance company for aid