Without delay, Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York City, clearly specified the decision was a “Temporary setback” and vowed to appeal; of overstepping and trying to impose a ban. The proposed ban drew national intention, giving the notion, “Any sugary drink larger than 16 ounces will be confisticated”. Is it really a smart approach to reduce the consumptions of soda? To put it as simply as possible, the soda ban policy should not accomplish its goal of reducing the food unit of consumption, for it is unconstitutional,
If parents were to choose to let their kids drink more than 16 ounces of soda, then so be it. However, taking away the freedom to drink 18 ounces or more of Coca-Cola is not for Bloomberg to decide. The ban takes away the personal …show more content…
But, everything in life is harmful if used too many times. With increasing risks of health problems, things should be executed and reconsidered. Instead of taking things away from us, Bloomberg should invest money to promote the awareness of diabetes and the unhealthiness of things. When investing in the healthcare sector, there are positive trends that can provide benefits to everyone. Back in 2014, President Obama and the Democrats believed that Medicare would make a big impact on all seniors. After investing and regulating Medicare, nearly 50 million Americans including those with disabilities relied on Medicare each year. In addition, the new health care law makes Medicare stronger by adding new benefits, fighting fraud, and rehabilitation services. Not only that, but over the past 10 years, “the law saved the average Medicare beneficiary $4,200” (Eop, 1). So why should’nt Mayor Bloomberg do the same? There are plenty of different reasons why he should.
While evaluating the laws’ impact, Bloomberg asked researchers to look into fitness measurements and body mass index (BMI) data of all 5-9th graders through California’s Fitnessgram test. “Overall, the proportion of kids who were overweight or obese rose slightly over... from 43.5% in 2001 to 45.8% in 2010... But the obesity rate was virtually halted after a few years” (Eryn Brown, 8-9). So if the rate of obesity
If parents were to choose to let their kids drink more than 16 ounces of soda, then so be it. However, taking away the freedom to drink 18 ounces or more of Coca-Cola is not for Bloomberg to decide. The ban takes away the personal …show more content…
But, everything in life is harmful if used too many times. With increasing risks of health problems, things should be executed and reconsidered. Instead of taking things away from us, Bloomberg should invest money to promote the awareness of diabetes and the unhealthiness of things. When investing in the healthcare sector, there are positive trends that can provide benefits to everyone. Back in 2014, President Obama and the Democrats believed that Medicare would make a big impact on all seniors. After investing and regulating Medicare, nearly 50 million Americans including those with disabilities relied on Medicare each year. In addition, the new health care law makes Medicare stronger by adding new benefits, fighting fraud, and rehabilitation services. Not only that, but over the past 10 years, “the law saved the average Medicare beneficiary $4,200” (Eop, 1). So why should’nt Mayor Bloomberg do the same? There are plenty of different reasons why he should.
While evaluating the laws’ impact, Bloomberg asked researchers to look into fitness measurements and body mass index (BMI) data of all 5-9th graders through California’s Fitnessgram test. “Overall, the proportion of kids who were overweight or obese rose slightly over... from 43.5% in 2001 to 45.8% in 2010... But the obesity rate was virtually halted after a few years” (Eryn Brown, 8-9). So if the rate of obesity