Health Care Reform - Universal/Public Option

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I'll take the numerous scientific studies that determined eating healthy costs more over your anecdotal "evidence".

I haven't seen a study yet that says that you can't do better, health-wise, and cost-wise, at a McDonald's than you can a supermarket. Because that's absolutely not true.

Now, there's studies that say for the money it takes to get 2,000 healthy calories at the grocery store, you can get 10,000 calories at McDonald's, but that doesn't make McDonalds a better option in any universe. It doesn't make McDonalds a better value. It just makes you more fat. The person who went with the "worse deal" of 2,000 healthy calories, at the same price, is going to be a lot healthier.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by molson

Again, that's all about calorie density. Fast Food/Junk food give you more calorie for you dollar, that's 100% obvious. But you don't need to eat 6,000 calories a day.

Seriously, is the math that hard? If you get more calories per dollar it doesn't matter. You need X calories per day (I would say around 2,000). You either eat something that is, say, $1 per 1,000 calories or something that is $15 per 1,000 calories (made up numbers). The $15 one is always going to be more expensive. 2,000 calories of junk food is cheaper than 2,000 calories of healthy food. I don't understand why you keep coming back to the more calories thing -- dollar per calorie is a static number. You will always pay more for the same number of calories as junk food. You need a certain number of calories per day -- you don't need fewer calories of healthy food than you would of junk food.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by molson

I haven't seen a study yet that says that you can't do better, health-wise, and cost-wise, at a McDonald's than you can a supermarket. Because that's absolutely not true.

Now, there's studies that say for the money it takes to get 2,000 healthy calories at the grocery store, you can get 10,000 calories at McDonald's, but that doesn't make McDonalds a better option in any universe. It doesn't make McDonalds a better value. It just makes you more fat. The person who went with the "worse deal" of 2,000 healthy calories, at the same price, is going to be a lot healthier.

I'm getting a little ranty and rude here, but what the hell are you taking about?!

Everything you said backs up what we are saying. You can get 2,000 calories of McDonald's for a lot less than 2,000 calories of healthy food.

[molson]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I'm getting a little ranty and rude here, but what the hell are you taking about?!

Everything you said backs up what we are saying. You can get 2,000 calories of McDonald's for a lot less than 2,000 calories of healthy food.

This might be relevant in an analysis where people only eat one meal a day, and it's at McDonald's. People who think, I need 2,000 calories, and I can do that with fast food in one meal for pretty cheap. But that's not how people typically live.

Once you get past a certain point of calorie consumption, that extra "density" doesn't benefit you AT ALL (it actually makes things worse).

What's better - 2,000 calories of healthy food at $5 or 10,000 calories of healthy food at $5? Yes, the latter is a great calorie "deal" (which is what the studies rely on), but the last 7 or 8 thousand of those calories is completely unnecessary, and will make you fat. And will make you require more calories a day.

If you're at a true starvation level, a quarter of a big mac is better than a handful of carrots. But if you have enough money to afford an entire Big Mac, or god help us, a value meal, the "calorie saving theory" breaks down completely. At some point, very quickly, you're reaching a point where you don't need any more calories just to survive. At that point, "calorie density" is meaningless.

Let's say we both only have $100 for the next month to eat. You can only eat at McDonald's, and I can only eat the at the grocery store. You'll run out of money before the end of the month (but you still might win in the "calorie count", which these studies find so important for some reason). I'll have less calories than you, but I'll still have taken in plenty of calories not to be going hungry. And I'll be way healthier. It won't be a very emotionally satisfying diet, but I'd also end up better off than you at the $150, and $250 levels (in every factor except calorie count, which is the only factor you're considering). If we both have ONLY $3, and I don't know if I'll ever see money again....Maybe I go with you to McDonald's. There are definitely some people in that position in the U.S., but we're not dealing with any widespread starvation here.

Actually though, that's not even true, that $3 could get me 9 boxes of mac and cheese, or if I'm homeless, a couple of loafs of bread. That stuff may end up having less calories than your one Big Mac - but I'll be able to eat my food for longer, it will keep me alive longer.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by molson

This might be relevant in an analysis where people only eat one meal a day, and it's at McDonald's. People who think, I need 2,000 calories, and I can do that with fast food in one meal for pretty cheap. But that's not how people typically live.

Once you get past a certain point of calorie consumption, that extra "density" doesn't benefit you AT ALL (it actually makes things worse).

What's better - 2,000 calories of healthy food at $5 or 10,000 calories of healthy food at $5? Yes, the latter is a great calorie "deal" (which is what the studies rely on), but the last 7 or 8 thousand of those calories is completely unnecessary, and will make you fat. And will make you require more calories a day.

If you're at a true starvation level, a quarter of a big mac is better than a handful of carrots. But if you have enough money to afford an entire Big Mac, or god help us, a value meal, the "calorie saving theory" breaks down completely. At some point, very quickly, you're reaching a point where you don't need any more calories just to survive.

I am completely lost as to what you are arguing here. There are a few of us here that are saying part of the problem is that unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food. In addition one line of discussion is that subsidies exacerbate this situation.

I thought you got into this arguing that it was indeed cheaper to eat healthy. But now I have no idea what the hell your stance is. You seem to be arguing above that not only is eating McDonald's cheaper but that you can get 5x the calories for the same price which is even worse for you. You seem to be agreeing with us by arguing with us? I'm very confused.

[flere-imsaho]

Another thing to consider is that a lot of poor people don't have reliable refrigerators or freezers (or stand-alone freezers, which is what you'd need if you were going to buy a lot of meat in bulk as some are suggesting). To say nothing of decent cookware & cooking utensils or reasonable working stoves/stovetops.

Plus, a lot of poor people lack reliable transportation and often live in areas without decent supermarkets. So were they to want to get good & cheap produce, they'd need to either trek via public transport or a crappy vehicle (spending money on gas) to get these.

You start adding up all the obstacles, and then look at the caloric advantage fast food has per dollar, and the decision ends up being so simple as to be common sense.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

What's better - 2,000 calories of healthy food at $5 or 10,000 calories of healthy food at $5?

Irrelevant: that's not the decision being made.

It's 2,000 calories of healthy food at $5 of 2,000 calories of unhealthy food at $0.50.


Let's say you're a single mother with two teenage boys on the South Side of Chicago. On one hand you could drive 5 miles to the nearest grocery store (better than a liquor story with some groceries, which is nearby, but still pretty lousy in the produce department), or spend an hour or more on public transport, and then spend money on the raw materials for dinner for these boys, the leftovers (of the raw materials or the finished product) of which may or may not keep in your fridge (if you have one).

Or you can give them $10 to grab dinner for everyone at KFC across the street.


Simply put, the situation will not improve until, as Michael Polian has been arguing, we both:

a) find a way to get decent, low-priced meat & produce for sale in poor neighborhoods

b) stop subsidizing the overproduction of the raw materials (e.g. soy) that go to making Big Macs and Twinkies so cheap

[molson]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I am completely lost as to what you are arguing here. There are a few of us here that are saying part of the problem is that unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food. In addition one line of discussion is that subsidies exacerbate this situation.

I thought you got into this arguing that it was indeed cheaper to eat healthy. But now I have no idea what the hell your stance is. You seem to be arguing above that not only is eating McDonald's cheaper but that you can get 5x the calories for the same price which is even worse for you. You seem to be agreeing with us by arguing with us? I'm very confused.

Getting more calories for the dollar is MEANINGLESS.

If we have the same amount of money, and you get 10,000 calories today, and I only get 2,000, you don't win. You lose. You don't need 10,000 calories.

Now if you only get 500 calories, and I only get 100 for the same cost, you probably win. But ONLY at that level, at a true starvation level, does calorie/cost ratio matter at ALL

[flere-imsaho]

The average American doesn't care about the healthiness of a meal. They care about if it:

a) looks like a real meal

b) fills them up

c) tastes good

d) doesn't cost too much

Not only does fast food fulfill all these measures, it's also typically cheaper per meal than cooking healthy from scratch with decent ingredients, especially when you consider the other requirements you must have (time, cooking materials, storage, money for energy) the latter also requires.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's 2,000 calories of healthy food at $5 of 2,000 calories of unhealthy food at $0.50.

That's not even the decision you're making in your hypothetical. You've reduced the denominators to fit your argument.

What are you going to get at KFC for 50 cents? You're spending at least $5 over there, probably $15. Pretty quickly, you're going to get into calories you don't need and you're going to be wasting money at the KFC. I doubt many Americans eat only 2,000 calories a day, and all of those calories that are exclusively fast food. That's very difficult to do.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The average American doesn't care about the healthiness of a meal. They care about if it:

a) looks like a real meal

b) fills them up

c) tastes good

d) doesn't cost too much

That's absolutely true, and I'd add the most important thing "it's much easier".

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I am completely lost as to what you are arguing here. There are a few of us here that are saying part of the problem is that unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food.

Please re-state your argument, molson.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

I doubt many Americans eat only 2,000 calories a day, and all of those calories that are exclusively fast food. That's very difficult to do.

Now that point I'd argue, the difficult to do part at least ... and based on having KFC a couple of times in the past week I was curious to see if my inclination to argue was correct.

So using what I had for dinner last night & the online KFC nutrition guide, let's do some quick math

$1.98 for 2 Orig. Recipe Chicken Snackers = 600 calories (300 each)
$1.49 for 1 side Potato Wedges = 260 calories
$1.99 for 1 popcorn ckn snack box (incl. some potato wedges) = est 530 cal*
Total = $5.46 for 1390 calories

But that doesn't count the Pepsi from home I drank with the meal, figure that's about 400 calories (for a cpl of 8 oz glasses) that would have added about $1.59 to the cost if I had bought it at KFC.

That would bring us to $7.05 for 1790 calories. So it was under what I would have guessed on calories but not by a whole lot.

*they don't list the snack box as a package value so I took half the potato wedges calories + an individual popcorn chicken, seems about right on portion

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by molson

Getting more calories for the dollar is MEANINGLESS.

If we have the same amount of money, and you get 10,000 calories today, and I only get 2,000, you don't win. You lose. You don't need 10,000 calories.

Now if you only get 500 calories, and I only get 100 for the same cost, you probably win. But ONLY at that level, at a true starvation level, does calorie/cost ratio matter at ALL

Umm.. right? I'm still lost. You (I think it was you) made a comparison of a $1 salad vs. a (I don't know how much it costs) $2 big mac. You therefore postulated that it is cheaper to eat healthy. But a $1 salad is going to give you 100 calories (if you're lucky) and the big mac is going to give you 500 calories. So it was a poor comparison. If you eat an actual healthy lunch it is going to take you above the $2-3 for a big mac.

[wade moore]

Put me in the "I'm lost about what molson is arguing" camp.

Let's say 2,000 calories is healthy.

Is it cheaper or more expensive for a family of 4 to get their 2,000 calorie per day, per family member at McDonald's or in healthy food?

Keep in mind
A) Poor families are not going 3 times a day. Likely the kids are getting subsidized breakfast and lunch at school and the parents probably sandwiches and cereal or coffee for breakfast and sandwiches for lunch.
B) Despite your "10,000" calorie assertions - I just looked. It looks like a meal at McDonalds is going to be in the 750-1250 calorie range generally.

[Greyroofoo]

I could be wrong but I think molson is arguing that calories are in such abundance that worrying about calories/dollar is pointless.

[SportsDino]

Gah, you guys are arguing calories, and I am arguing the bill sucks. I'm going to claim victory (A for Effort) and duck out.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

I could be wrong but I think molson is arguing that calories are in such abundance that worrying about calories/dollar is pointless.

I think that may be what he's saying, but he's wrong.

For a healthy, 2,000ish calorie diet it is going to be noticeably more expensive to make the food yourself - that's our whole point.

The argument "you can eat cheap" doesn't hold water when you try to make it both nutritional and fulfilling calories. You can't eat a salad every day and fulfill your expected calorie amounts. Eating a salad for dinner every day is not any healthier than eating McDonald's every day.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Eating a salad for dinner every day is not any healthier than eating McDonald's every day.

That really depends on what your definition of "salad" is and what's in the salad. I once had a very, very narrow definition of what a salad was and what was in salads, but since I've been married that has changed considerably and renders the above statement 100% incorrect.

[flere-imsaho]

For reference, here is how this all started:

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

This is what pisses me off more than anything in this bill. I will lose my $60 a month discount on my heath insurance so that I can pay for some fat ass to read the calories on the menu at some fast food place and decide, "well today I am just going to go with a #4, another cheeseburger and a diet coke." A little exercise goes a long way.

Personally I like the idea of taxing tanning. I've mentioned many times that I have no issue with taxes on alcohol, cigarettes...or other things of that nature. Then we had our good old state government try to pass an extra tax on gym memberships. Thankfully that got shot down.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

#1 - Fresh foods, fruits and veggies cost more than junk food - something in the neighborhood of 30% more. So if you try to penalize people for not being healthy, you're going to penalize people for being too poor to buy decent food. The social advantages/disadvantages when it comes to wealth (or lack thereof), health care and nutrition are pretty stark. So unless you want additional tax dollars to help subsidize dietary needs among the less well-off, this is a non-starter.

#2 - I can't believe anyone is arguing against the posting of nutritional/caloric values on food (the OP didn't mention this, but Dr. Sak did). Making the right choice isn't always easy. You're on the run and you go to Burger King. So you try to eat somewhat healthy...that grilled chicken sandwich isn't bad for you, is it? Well, sorry to shock you, but that innocuous looking sandwich has more calories than the double cheeseburger. Or perhaps you skip the sandwiches altogether and you go for that grilled chicken salad. Oops. You fucked up. It has as many calories as that double cheeseburger. Skip the fries? It didn't matter. That side salad has almost as many calories as the french fries and you'd be better off with the dutch apple pie. It's not easy. So if you want people to be a bit more healthy, then give them the information that helps them make a better choice. The potential cost/benefit of providing information to consumers could have great long-term benefits. I know that I'll be more likely to make a healthier choice when I know what the healthier choice really is!

Personally, I'm not a big fan of this bill. It certainly doesn't go far enough and it doesn't drive down costs like it should. But it was probably the best they could do with a bunch of crybaby Republicans unwilling to entertain any ideas whatsoever.

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

What he said (about healthy foods). My understanding is that a lot of this is due to where subsidies are sent (for corn to feed cows, etc). If it were cheaper to eat a healthy, greatly red-meat reduced diet, there would at least be a portion of the country that would lean toward healthy foods.

Having said that, my knowledge is dangerous because it is second hand from people that read hippy "your meat heavy lifestyle is killing the earth and you" books. But, still, if you compare how much a healthy diet costs compared to a typical American diet, you can see one aspect of how we got where we are.

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Key thing to note here: All calories are NOT created equal.

Originally Posted by molson

Buying vegetables is cheaper than getting fast food. I think laziness is as a big a part as cost, probably bigger.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

For reference, here is how this all started:

No it isn't!

[molson]

Originally Posted by wade moore

For a healthy, 2,000ish calorie diet it is going to be noticeably more expensive to make the food yourself - that's our whole point.

Wrong. If you eat every meal at McDonald's, and you prepare every meal yourself, you're saving a TON of money doing the latter. Yes, you'll have more calories with an all-McDonald's diet, but you don't need all those calories to live!

I don't know why this is such a controversial point that staying in to eat is cheaper than going out, even to McDonald's. When I didn't have money, the pizza/fast food trips were a treat. You can't afford to eat like that all the time if you don't have money It's $5-$6 a meal. Even at 2 meals a day, that's $300/ month. That's more I spend a month on food. Yes, the McDonald's diet will give you more calories, but you don't need all those calories to live!

If you can afford McDonald's, you can afford more than a salad for dinner. Under any conceivable food budget, you're better off skipping McDonald's.

We don't have a widespread starvation issue in this country. There's an obesity epidemic among the poor. It's not hard to consume WAY more than 2,000/calories a day, even if you're poor (and fast food helps you do that in a big way). But that's not even really the point. On a monthly budget, going out to eat is a drain. Even to McDonald's.

You're phrasing the question as "how cheap can I get to 2,000 calories", and I just don't see that as the relevant, practical, real-life decision that's going on. If you start with the money side of the equation, whatever you can afford per month for food - $50, $100, $150 - McDonald's is a bad idea. You couldn't afford it. You'd blow all your money before the end of the month.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

No it isn't!

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by molson

Wrong. If you eat every meal at McDonald's, and you prepare every meal yourself, you're saving a TON of money doing the latter. Yes, you'll have more calories with an all-McDonald's diet, but you don't need all those calories to live!

I don't know why this is such a controversial point that staying in to eat is cheaper than going out, even to McDonald's. When I didn't have money, the pizza/fast food trips were a treat. You can't afford to eat like that all the time if you don't have money It's $5-$6 a meal. Even at 2 meals a day, that's $300/ month. That's more I spend a month on food. Yes, the McDonald's diet will give you more calories, but you don't need all those calories to live!

If you can afford McDonald's, you can afford more than a salad for dinner. Under any conceivable food budget, you're better off skipping McDonald's.

Have you read any of the links that have been posted? It is more expensive, per calorie, to eat healthy. It is a fact. I don't know why you keep arguing against it. As we keep saying, we are comparing an EQUAL number of calories. I don't know why you keep coming back to "The McDonald's diet will give you more calories." It's like you're not reading a word that has been typed. If you eat an EQUAL number of calories of unhealthy food compared to an EQUAL number of adequate calories for healthy food, the healthy food is more expensive. Read any number of the studies that have been posted. Eating at home for less money does not mean you are receiving adequate nutrition. Sure you can eat at home for cheaper than McDonald's, but that does not mean it is healthy.

[molson]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Have you read any of the links that have been posted? It is more expensive, per calorie, to eat healthy. It is a fact. I don't know why you keep arguing against it.

I'm not arguing against it. I've stated this at least three times.

I just think that the "per calorie" analysis is a meaningless, stupid way to measure real-life food budget/diet issues. I've tried to explain why, but all you can come back with is "It is more expensive, per calorie, to eat healthy" NO SHIT. I give up unless someone can actually respond to the points I'm making. I'm probably not making them well, but I'm not, not, not, not saying that your per calorie analysis is wrong. It just doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with real life.

Real life scenarios. Give us both $100. I will do better staying away from McDonald's. I will run out of money faster if I go to McDonald's. Their food does have a greater calorie/cost ratio but who cares?? Why does that matter??? Why is that desirable??? I can survive fine, even with less calories, spending the $100 somewhere else. (And I won't be eating just salad, I'll have way more than 2,000 calories/day). Fast food is my enemy if I am poor.

On a very small budget in the U.S., you can avoid starvation. If you can avoid starvation, and you can get enough calories to live, then calorie/cost ratios are 100% absolutely meaningless. If you're ACTUALLY starving, then ya, you might want to look at loading up on calories as cheaply as possible.

[molson]

And I love the mythical assumption that poor people are eating exactly 2,000 calories a day, and are looking to do it as cheaply as possible. And (I guess), it's for those people that we need to cater fast food taxes. If they were thinking that, I understand the ratio point, but they're not. That's not the relevant question. The relevant question is whether poor people would suffer if there was no fast food in this country, or if fast food was taxed.

[molson]

And if you excuse me, because I make a decent living, and I have the afternoon off, I'm going to blow some money on a fast food extra value meal instead of eating the cheaper and healthier frozen chicken and edamame in my house. I will get a great deal on calories, though the chicken and edamame would have been plenty for dinner. But I'll feel good about the better calories/cost ratio I'm getting at the fast food place.

[larrymcg421]

I think we're losing track with the fast food vs. staying in. I think the bigger point is that no matter whether you eat out or stay in, healthy food is more expensive than unhealthy food.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I think we're losing track with the fast food vs. staying in. I think the bigger point is that no matter whether you eat out or stay in, healthy food is more expensive than unhealthy food.

I think we're losing track that a shit bill just got passed and fat people are still fat.

[EagleFan]

This bill is a perfect example of what is wrong with government. All pandering, too much crap thrown in that has no place being in a "health care" bill (WTF does tuition loans have to do with health care?) and all it will end up doing is push us closer to becoming the USSA.

We have too many laws to begin with and too many people who feel that government has to hold their hand through life.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not arguing against it. I've stated this at least three times.

I just think that the "per calorie" analysis is a meaningless, stupid way to measure real-life food budget/diet issues. I've tried to explain why, but all you can come back with is "It is more expensive, per calorie, to eat healthy" NO SHIT. I give up unless someone can actually respond to the points I'm making. I'm probably not making them well, but I'm not, not, not, not saying that your per calorie analysis is wrong. It just doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with real life.

Real life scenarios. Give us both $100. I will do better staying away from McDonald's. I will run out of money faster if I go to McDonald's. Their food does have a greater calorie/cost ratio but who cares?? Why does that matter??? Why is that desirable??? I can survive fine, even with less calories, spending the $100 somewhere else. (And I won't be eating just salad, I'll have way more than 2,000 calories/day). Fast food is my enemy if I am poor.

On a very small budget in the U.S., you can avoid starvation. If you can avoid starvation, and you can get enough calories to live, then calorie/cost ratios are 100% absolutely meaningless. If you're ACTUALLY starving, then ya, you might want to look at loading up on calories as cheaply as possible.

OK, things are a little clearer now. You are arguing with yourself. You're making some giant leap loosely related to what others have said. Our entire argument is that to eat a balanced, healthy diet is more expensive than eating junk food. Can you eat more cheaply than McDonald's? Sure. But it is not a healthy diet and therefore is not productive to the conversation. What we are saying is that if eating healthy were cheaper and people were more educated about eating healthy that they would be more likely to choose it over McDonald's. I don't know really know what you're arguing with that anyone has said. They seem to be phantom posts. All we have said this whole time is that it's more expensive to eat healthily. And that is the truth. We're nots aying you can't eat meals every day for less than it costs to eat at McDonald's. But, really, those are generally not significantly healthier meals.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

b) stop subsidizing the overproduction of the raw materials (e.g. soy) that go to making Big Macs and Twinkies so cheap

And this illustrates my point too. If the poor rely on fast food to live (that's how this argument started, whether taxing fast food would be unfair to the poor), then why does it make any sense to make Big Macs and Twinkies MORE expensive? If we have so many people that need this junk food just to survive - how can we make it more expensive?

Or in the alternative, are you conceding that people in U.S., even poor people, can survive without fast food/junk? That's all I'm saying. Since people can generally survive without fast food, the higher bang for your buck calorie/cost ratio doesn't provide any additional benefit (except that it's easier).

There's always this tension when discussing poor people in a political context - some say they're just lazy, others say they're in their position through no fault of their own. Obviously, they're both right. There's millions of people in both categories. So rather than "punishing" them all, or "rewarding" them all, I think the best government policies are to separate those two groups wherever policy. A junk/fast food tax does that, or is one small example of that. (Cigarette taxes and alcohol taxes are an even better example) Some will still go for the fast food because it tastes good and is easy. Others may recognize an opportunity to save money and be healthier. As collective groups, the second group is going to be generally more successful (in a small way, combined with other government policies that help to distinguish between the poor with great potential and the poor that are doing little to help themselves.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

Or in the alternative, are you conceding that people in U.S., even poor people, can survive without fast food/junk?

Lots of things constitute "survival". If that's what we're shooting for then why not just mandate soy paste on half a rice cake (with a side of Soylent Green on Tuesday & alternate Thursday) for everybody?

At some point you begin to draw a line between "surviving" and "living".

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by wade moore

So what you're saying is, you're going to dodge the direct question by again using vague statements with lack of detail. Got it.

If I have time later I'll try to lay out what I think is a relatively healthy, budget-friendly family menu.

I'm pretty confident that to get any sort of variety and nutrition, it will be more expensive than McDonald's. We'll have to see.

I don't deny that McDonalds is purchased because it's cheap. I'm just saying that there is also an element of time and convenience you have to factor in.

[larrymcg421]

Even a fast food restaurant like KFC is a good example. White meat is more expensive than dark meat.

Fine by me, because I think white meat tastes like cardboard.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I'll take the numerous scientific studies that determined eating healthy costs more over your anecdotal "evidence".

Those studies show it's cheaper to eat unhealthy which is true. You can definitely get more value calorie wise for your buck by eating junk. I'm not arguing that.

I'm arguing that notion that if you're poor, you have to eat unhealthy. There are still a lot of ways to eat healthy on a budget. Sure it's not as tasty as eating unhealthy and it does require some work, but it can be done. As someone who was really, really poor at one point in life, I was never forced to eat McDonalds every day. I did so because it was cheap and easy. I could have went home and cooked a chicken breast with some brown rice and veggies for the same price.

I'm just pointing out that there are a lot of factors that come in to play with obesity. There are a lot of poor people who manage to maintain a relatively healthy diet.

[wade moore]

Let's try this again molson.

Please give me a week's menu on this supposed $200/month diet.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Lots of things constitute "survival". If that's what we're shooting for then why not just mandate soy paste on half a rice cake (with a side of Soylent Green on Tuesday & alternate Thursday) for everybody?

At some point you begin to draw a line between "surviving" and "living".

Eat to live, not live to eat.

[molson]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Let's try this again molson.

Please give me a week's menu on this supposed $200/month diet.

I'll do that after I go shopping tomorrow, or Sunday. $200 is remarkably easy, you don't even need to be creative. And you don't have to skimp much, and there's plenty there for fruits and vegetables. $100 gets a little more interesting.

My usual food budget is around $300-$350/month, and that includes going out, and includes a lot of junk I don't need. If I stick with the supermarket, $200 is easily do-able.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Let's try this again molson.

Please give me a week's menu on this supposed $200/month diet.

Eggs, toast, oatmeal for breakfast.
PB&J, Grilled Cheese, occasional turkey sandwich for lunch.
Pasta, chicken breasts, veggies, brown rice for dinner.

Can ever grab some cheap fruit that's on sale for snacks. You can do that on $200, although it's boring.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Eggs, toast, oatmeal for breakfast.
PB&J, Grilled Cheese, occasional turkey sandwich for lunch.
Pasta, chicken breasts, veggies, brown rice for dinner.

Can ever grab some cheap fruit that's on sale for snacks. You can do that on $200, although it's boring.

How many calories is that? Is that really "healthy? I'd argue no, it's a relatively unhealthy way to eat.

What's the actual cost?

[molson]

And when you're poor, you know the stuff that's really filling. Rice, Oatmeal, and Mac and Cheese are staples. Tuna fish is a great, cheap source of protein. Canned veggies are very cheap. Frozen vegetables are often very cheap (edamame is a tremendous value). Fresh fruits and veggies are a little more expensive, but really don't break the bank if you shop smartly.

For $200, you need to stay under $7/day. You can help your average out with a base of $1 or less meals (mac and cheese, tuna, pbj, oatmeal, milk, water). That gives you some breathing room on your other meals to splurge a little on meat and veggies and fruit.

[molson]

Originally Posted by wade moore

How many calories is that? Is that really "healthy? I'd argue no, it's a relatively unhealthy way to eat.

What's the actual cost?

Healthier than McDonald's

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by molson

Healthier than McDonald's

Somewhat, yes. But when you throw in the convenience factor, it's just not a fair competition.

The point here, as we've said, is not to come up with some skimped down, not bare bones meal defeats the argument.

The statement was that HEALTHY food is cheaper than McDonald's.

Not whether you can eat cheap and be "healthier" than McDonald's by eating a bunch of empty calories that are less greasy than McDonald's.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by wade moore

How many calories is that? Is that really "healthy? I'd argue no, it's a relatively unhealthy way to eat.

What's the actual cost?

What's unhealthy about it? If you stick to whole wheat bread and pasta, that's a really healthy diet.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What's unhealthy about it? If you stick to whole wheat bread and pasta, that's a really healthy diet.

Very little nutrition to it - a lot of empty calories.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Very little nutrition to it - a lot of empty calories.

Like what? That's an extremely healthy diet. I don't see any empty calories at all in it outside of maybe the jelly.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Like what? That's an extremely healthy diet. I don't see any empty calories at all in it outside of maybe the jelly.

Pasta? Grilled Cheese?

:shurg:

Maybe I'm exaggerating for emphasis some, but I certainly wouldn't call that exceptionally healthy. Maybe "unhealthy" isn't the right term, but it's not exceptionally healthy. And again, the complete lack of variety is just not a practical expectation.

[molson]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Somewhat, yes. But when you throw in the convenience factor, it's just not a fair competition.

The point here, as we've said, is not to come up with some skimped down, not bare bones meal defeats the argument.

The statement was that HEALTHY food is cheaper than McDonald's.

Not whether you can eat cheap and be "healthier" than McDonald's by eating a bunch of empty calories that are less greasy than McDonald's.

Well, if you're not allowed to eat pasta and cheese, that does make things more difficult. It's like you're upping the requirement for healthiness as we go here.

How much do you think it takes for a "healthy diet"?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by molson

Well, if you're not allowed to eat pasta and cheese, that does make things more difficult. It's like you're upping the requirement for healthiness as we go here.

I didn't say you couldn't eat them. They just can't be the staple of your diet as it is in RM's "menu".