Eric Schlosser Debate With UK McDonald's Executive

mykevermin

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
In three parts (about 22 minutes):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dclZxxaB6XE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIWmvCaGta4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkCg0RDnQSU

Interesting stuff; more or less a civil debate, and I'm not certain that there is a clear "winner" of the debate. I suppose that's the sign of good discourse; no matter how much I want to agree with Schlosser, if consumers aren't moving from French Fries and Big Macs to apple slices and bottled water, then that's not something McDonald's can change (though, from the interview, they have reduced some of the badness of their more popular items).

In addition, has anyone noticed that McD's now has nutrition labels on all their food items now? That, IMO, will have a much larger impact on consumers eating habits than offering carrot sticks.
 
Eric Schlosser is a bit of a hypocritical sensationalist IMO. He reminds me of a tabloid writer, perhaps even worse as he's one willing to sell away his soul, of sorts, for his own personal fortune. The man that once stood against the evil marketing machine, has become a marketing machine of his own accord. On the flip side though, I also don't agree with many things McDonald's does in practice.

As for the debate, both made good points but it went around in circles. I think the exec was more willing to address things more directly that Schlosser said, but was sometimes cut short. Ultimately though, he kept coming around to the "look at what we've done now" point a little much. Schlosser seemed to be more comfortable dodging with spun around accusations and/or using old information to attack. To me, one seemed up to date wit good points but didn't have a leg to stand on when talking about the past, and one had those legs for the past wiht other good points, but little real regard for the present.

Sometimes I personally think McDonald's is sort of the scapegoat for many things wrong with large corporations in general, and then when they do more to correct it than some other organizations do, they are leaned on even more by those holding onto past grievences that want them wiped out in reality.

I think like myke sort of pointed out, in the end, it all comes down to the consumers and what they are willing to. If McDonald's changed to selling nothing but health food at hgiher costs, my guess is they'd end up closing alot of locations down and losing millions and millions, because most of the so-called 20% would just go to another unhealthy fast food dive and that chain would expand to become the "new McDonalds".
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']I think like myke sort of pointed out, in the end, it all comes down to the consumers and what they are willing to. If McDonald's changed to selling nothing but health food at hgiher costs, my guess is they'd end up closing alot of locations down and losing millions and millions, because most of the so-called 20% would just go to another unhealthy fast food dive and that chain would expand to become the "new McDonalds".[/quote]

McDonalds should have to pay for the health-related costs that it's food incurs, much in the same way that asbestos and cig companies were forced to pay. McDs is not a true captial success story, because it is simply a group of opportunists who take profit and foist their costs on others, namely health insurance companies and the government.

I'm the kind of person who thinks we should legalize everything and then tax the hell out of the stuff that's going to overburden our health care system (or better yet - get the guy who orders 5 big macs or a vial of heroin to sign a waiver that he'll pay the hospital costs for his heart attack on his own dime) Markets can be harnassed to solve many of societies problems, but the McDs executive team is nothing but a group of free riders who are gaming the system.
 
[quote name='camoor']McDonalds should have to pay for the health-related costs that it's food incurs, much in the same way that asbestos and cig companies were forced to pay. McDs is not a true captial success story, because it is simply a group of opportunists who take profit and foist their costs on others, namely health insurance companies and the government.

I'm the kind of person who thinks we should legalize everything and then tax the hell out of the stuff that's going to overburden our health care system (or better yet - get the guy who orders 5 big macs or a vial of heroin to sign a waiver that he'll pay the hospital costs for his heart attack on his own dime) Markets can be harnassed to solve many of societies problems, but the McDs executive team is nothing but a group of free riders who are gaming the system.[/QUOTE]

Save your "I hate fat people" and health care drain comments for someone who hasn't heard your opinion a thousand times. What I said was not a debate on the healthcare system and its costs or causes of said costs.

Your spin techniques are nice, because your point seemed flashy at first til I realized you did nothing to address my actual statement, which was that the people who are eating this unhealthy fast food now, will continue to do so, even if McDonald's was not around, or paid for healthcare, or what have you. They'll simply go to some other fast food place for a rediculously unhealthy and cheap burger.
 
[quote name='camoor']McDonalds should have to pay for the health-related costs that it's food incurs, much in the same way that asbestos and cig companies were forced to pay. [/QUOTE]

No they shouldn't. The nutritional content of McDonald's food is easily available and the consumer has a choice whether or not to eat there. McDonald's is not lying to consumers about their food nor are they forcing it on people who don't want it.

[quote name='camoor']McDs is not a true captial success story, because it is simply a group of opportunists who take profit and foist their costs on others, namely health insurance companies and the government.[/QUOTE]

It's called supply and demand. Consumers want fatty food, McDonald's supplies it. Consumers DON'T want fatty food, McDonald's won't supply it.

[quote name='camoor']I'm the kind of person who thinks we should legalize everything and then tax the hell out of the stuff that's going to overburden our health care system (or better yet - get the guy who orders 5 big macs or a vial of heroin to sign a waiver that he'll pay the hospital costs for his heart attack on his own dime) Markets can be harnassed to solve many of societies problems, but the McDs executive team is nothing but a group of free riders who are gaming the system.[/QUOTE]

No, they're not. Consumers are at fault for not making better choices.
 
[quote name='evanft']No they shouldn't. The nutritional content of McDonald's food is easily available and the consumer has a choice whether or not to eat there.



It's called supply and demand. Consumer want fatty food, McDonald's supplies it. Consumers DON'T want fatty food, McDonald's won't supply it.



No, they're not. Consumers are at fault for not making better choices.[/quote]

Tell you what - you pay the part of my health premiums that cover the fatties gorging down the triple whoopers with quadruple bacon, and I'll keep quiet about McD's.

Until then I'll keep pointing out how I'm forced to pay for the poor health choices of others. Make no mistake - I'm all for stupid, fat, lazy people killing themselves, I just don't want to be made to pay for their health costs.
 
[quote name='camoor']Tell you what - you pay the part of my health premiums that cover the fatties gorging down the triple whoopers with quadruple bacon, and I'll keep quiet about McD's.

Until then I'll keep pointing out how I'm forced to pay for the poor health choices of others. Make no mistake - I'm all for stupid, fat, lazy people killing themselves, I just don't want to be made to pay for their health costs.[/QUOTE]

It's not McDonald's fault that those people are fat and unhealthy, it's the individual's fault. Blame them and force them to pay higher premiums.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Save your "I hate fat people" and health care drain comments for someone who hasn't heard your opinion a thousand times. What I said was not a debate on the healthcare system and its costs or causes of said costs.

Your spin techniques are nice, because your point seemed flashy at first til I realized you did nothing to address my actual statement, which was that the people who are eating this unhealthy fast food now, will continue to do so, even if McDonald's was not around, or paid for healthcare, or what have you. They'll simply go to some other fast food place for a rediculously unhealthy and cheap burger.[/quote]

You'd have half an arguement if I was advocating a McD's only tax, instead of an across-the-board "fast food place" tax.

You see Duo, it's not an easy, cut-and-dry, instant gratification world. Impulsive decisions (IE stacker cheesburger extra mayo hold the pickle) have long-term consequences (IE quadruple bypass for KFC diner #652 paid for by government/health insurance money coming from my paycheck). I don't mind if individuals are forced to pay for their own bad choices (just making them pay extra would be an acceptable compromise), I just think that giving other people a free ride never works out in the end.
 
[quote name='evanft']It's not McDonald's fault that those people are fat and unhealthy, it's the individual's fault. Blame them and force them to pay higher premiums.[/quote]

That would work if there weren't a glut of morbidly obese poor people living off of heavily government subsidised health care (or poor people use hospital emergency rooms for routine health care issues, and then skip out on the bill). Seriously - you think that a majority of the people who make popeyes a regular part of their diet will also hold down a steady job that provides health insurance?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']In three parts (about 22 minutes):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dclZxxaB6XE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIWmvCaGta4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkCg0RDnQSU

Interesting stuff; more or less a civil debate, and I'm not certain that there is a clear "winner" of the debate. I suppose that's the sign of good discourse; no matter how much I want to agree with Schlosser, if consumers aren't moving from French Fries and Big Macs to apple slices and bottled water, then that's not something McDonald's can change (though, from the interview, they have reduced some of the badness of their more popular items).

In addition, has anyone noticed that McD's now has nutrition labels on all their food items now? That, IMO, will have a much larger impact on consumers eating habits than offering carrot sticks.[/quote]
I really doubt anybody buys a burger then reads how bad it is for their health. It doesnt take a genuis to figure that McD = bad food.
 
[quote name='camoor']That would work if there weren't a glut of morbidly obese poor people living off of heavily government subsidised health care (or poor people use hospital emergency rooms for routine health care issues, and then skip out on the bill). Seriously - you think that a majority of the people who make popeyes a regular part of their diet will also hold down a steady job that provides health insurance?[/QUOTE]

So you think McDonald's and other should be held responsible for their customers irresponsibility? Well, that makes perfect sense. Really, it does.
 
[quote name='xeverex18']I really doubt anybody buys a burger then reads how bad it is for their health. It doesnt take a genuis to figure that McD = bad food.[/QUOTE]

No, but if I told you that your Big Mac Value meal has enough fat for 1.5 days (3 or more days of strictly saturated fats) of your FDA-recommended diet, or 50% of your daily allowance of calories (at 1000+)? What about when you supplement that meal with a dollar-menu McChicken or Cheeseburger?

It's *that* bad for you - do people know it's bad? Certainly. Do they know how bad? I'm willing to bet not, and if you can show me that people are precisely aware of McD's nutrition information, I'm all ears.
 
[quote name='evanft']So you think McDonald's and other should be held responsible for their customers irresponsibility? Well, that makes perfect sense. Really, it does.[/quote]

If you've got a better plan I'm all ears.

I don't think it's fair that I am paying for McD's executive team bonuses. Show me a solution that takes me out of the loop of paying for health care for fat people that are eating themselves into poor health at the table of the closest Wendys, and I'll jump at it.

It's idiots like you that make me want to go libertarian - only thing is that I just don't think it's fair to let health insurance companies jack the rates on the sick people that didn't bring their disease on themselves. However any person who chooses to engage in activities like alcoholism, cigs, hardcore drugs, and gorging themselves should pay extra into the system, and if the government has decided to make the poor section of this group it's wards (through heavily discounted health care), then the government should find the money to pay for the programs that support these people by implementing an increased level of taxation on the drug dealers, booze vendors, and fast food executives that opportunistically prey on their weakness.
 
[quote name='camoor']I don't think it's fair that I am paying for McD's executive team bonuses. Show me a solution that takes me out of the loop of paying for health care for fat people that are eating themselves into poor health at the table of the closest Wendys, and I'll jump at it.[/quote]

I don't see how you're paying for executives' salaries at a restaraunt that you don't eat at. You can cite indirect effects of poor eating habits costing you money in health care costs, insurance premiums, sure. Executive pay is stretching things a bit too far, however.

It's idiots like you that make me want to go libertarian
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight - you want to be a libertarian because you want to curb free enterprise more than evanft? Somehow, I don't that will go over well at the libertatian punch bowl.
 
[quote name='camoor']If you've got a better plan I'm all ears.[/QUOTE]

Make unhealthy people pay more for health insurance.

[quote name='camoor']I don't think it's fair that I am paying for McD's executive team bonuses. Show me a solution that takes me out of the loop of paying for health care for fat people that are eating themselves into poor health at the table of the closest Wendys, and I'll jump at it.[/QUOTE]

As myke said, you're not eating there, so you're not paying their salaries.

[quote name='camoor']It's idiots like you that make me want to go libertarian[/QUOTE]

As myke has pointed out, you would have to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of libertarianism in order to justify a fast food tax.

[quote name='camoor']only thing is that I just don't think it's fair to let health insurance companies jack the rates on the sick people that didn't bring their disease on themselves. However any person who chooses to engage in activities like alcoholism, cigs, hardcore drugs, and gorging themselves should pay extra into the system, and if the government has decided to make the poor section of this group it's wards (through heavily discounted health care), then the government should find the money to pay for the programs that support these people by implementing an increased level of taxation on the drug dealers, booze vendors, and fast food executives that opportunistically prey on their weakness.[/QUOTE]

So business should pay for the health care that their poor customers need due to these customers bad choices? That's very libertarian! And by libertarian, I mean completely asinine.
 
Well - the libertarian comment was just showing my level of frustration with the old "law of uninteded consequences". I just hate it when, in my opinion, the people game the system setup by the government and things become worse - I mean the government means to help poor people by giving them medicare, food stamps, etc - and yet there are many poor people who go out and buy redskins jersies, lottery tickets, liquor and fast food. If we could have a government that was stronger on white collar crime, corporate corruption, and unfair business practices regarding the treatment of the lowest classes, then maybe having the government bow out of charity altogether would be a good wakeup call for this segment of the poor - no individual would settle for a charity that supported these people - and aid would be distributed properly to those truly in need or it would be exposed and dry up fast.

Anyway making poor people pay higher amounts for health insurance won't work because - shocker - they are poor. They will not buy it and just use emergency rooms for routine health concerns that (guess what) you and I pay for through tax dollars and ever increasing health insurance/hospital costs.

I say executive pay, but it could also come out of the pockets of franchisee managers. Again - due to the law of unintended consequences - I know that this money would just be slashed from the paycheck of the guy flippin burgers and mopping floors.
 
[quote name='camoor']Well - the libertarian comment was just showing my level of frustration with the old "law of uninteded consequences".[/QUOTE]

Well that makes sense.

[quote name='camoor']I just hate it when, in my opinion, the people game the system setup by the government and things become worse - I mean the government means to help poor people by giving them medicare, food stamps, etc - and yet there are many poor people who go out and buy redskins jersies, lottery tickets, liquor and fast food.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, and? Do you have any actual numbers to back up your assertion, or are you just pulling this out of your ass?

With any government program, there is going to be abuse, naturally. That's just the nature of these things. But I find it pretty hard to believe that a significant number of the people on governemnt aid are using government money to buy the things you mentioned. Of course, fixing these problems would be relatively easy, as you can simply restrict where the money is to be spent (Bridge card, anyone?).

[quote name='camoor']If we could have a government that was stronger on white collar crime, corporate corruption, and unfair business practices regarding the treatment of the lowest classes, then maybe having the government bow out of charity altogether would be a good wakeup call for this segment of the poor - no individual would settle for a charity that supported these people - and aid would be distributed properly to those truly in need or it would be exposed and dry up fast. [/QUOTE]

So cleaning up white collar crime would reduce the need for government welfare? Yeah, that makes sense. Or maybe it will cause corporations to spend more money to ensure yes corruption, which will mean less employees, which will mean more people in need of government welfare. Unintened consequences, eh?

[quote name='camoor']Anyway making poor people pay higher amounts for health insurance won't work because - shocker - they are poor. They will not buy it and just use emergency rooms for routine health concerns that (guess what) you and I pay for through tax dollars and ever increasing health insurance/hospital costs. [/QUOTE]

I was referring to those who had insurance who were unhealthly. There could also be a small co-pay for people on government-subsidized health care that both raises money and discourages unecessary use (I believe it was the RAND study that showed this).

[quote name='camoor']I say executive pay, but it could also come out of the pockets of franchisee managers.[/QUOTE]

No, that's still a horribly retarded idea. Fast food isn't the only thing making people fat. There's also lack of portion control, lack of exercise, unhealthy foods purchased at non-fast food places, and laziness. Should we tax everything if more than a certain amount of fat, sugar, etc? How about taxing food above a certain volume at restaraunts, or maybe forcing people to exercise? Wait a minute, cars discourage walking and bike-riding! TAX THEM!

[quote name='camoor']Again - due to the law of unintended consequences - I know that this money would just be slashed from the paycheck of the guy flippin burgers and mopping floors.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, which would mean more people on government welfare, which probably wouldn't be covered by the tax, as the tax was created in order cover the fat people who put a burden on our health care system.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']No, but if I told you that your Big Mac Value meal has enough fat for 1.5 days (3 or more days of strictly saturated fats) of your FDA-recommended diet, or 50% of your daily allowance of calories (at 1000+)? What about when you supplement that meal with a dollar-menu McChicken or Cheeseburger?

It's *that* bad for you - do people know it's bad? Certainly. Do they know how bad? I'm willing to bet not, and if you can show me that people are precisely aware of McD's nutrition information, I'm all ears.[/quote]

So What? We want bad things. I am not going to start eating salad. everything i eat is bad for my health, but i cant help it. As long as i am not fat, i am in better shape than more than 1/2 of America.
 
[quote name='evanft']Well that makes sense.



Yeah, and? Do you have any actual numbers to back up your assertion, or are you just pulling this out of your ass?

With any government program, there is going to be abuse, naturally. That's just the nature of these things. But I find it pretty hard to believe that a significant number of the people on governemnt aid are using government money to buy the things you mentioned. Of course, fixing these problems would be relatively easy, as you can simply restrict where the money is to be spent (Bridge card, anyone?).

[/QUOTE]
Actually, yeah. I have observed and documented it firsthand. The most commonly abused welfare program is foodstamps. People sell the balance on their EBT accounts for a certain percentage in cash, which they use to buy beer and other stuff.

This is actually EXTREMELY common, I don't have exact numbers but many estimates are in the range of 20-25%.

It kind of pisses me off, but there is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop it. In the end, the numbers add up on paper, so the politicians won't work on welfare reform.

Of course, that is just Virginia, I can't speak for any other state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top