More comment from MNB users about the “Cheeseburger Bill” that will prevent the suing of fast food companies on obesity grounds.
One MNB user, responding to our comment that it’s a good thing the tobacco companies didn’t get similar protections, wrote:
I'm not a fan of the tobacco industry but I don't think that anyone that continued smoking after the surgeon generals warning was printed on every pack has any basis to sue and say "they didn't know smoking was dangerous".
I'm a single 40 year old guy that does not cook very much so I eat at fast food restaurants quite a bit. I'm also a competitive triathlete who works out almost every day (I'm about to go for a 8 mile run in the hills on my lunch hour) so I can still run a 6 minute mile and weigh the same as I did when I graduated from college.
My Mom and Dad eat nothing but the healthy meals that my Mom cooks with fresh vegetables every day. My 66 year old Mom that walks, swims or does aerobics 5 days a week also weighs the same as she did when she graduated from college, but my 68 year old Dad, who eats the same healthy foods as my Mom, has put on over 100 pounds in the last 30 years since he never works out.
I hope that the cheeseburger bill passes the Senate to prevent lazy people who try and blame their weight gain on fast food from ever going to court.
MNB user Mark Woodrow wrote:
I found it interesting that only one reader comment got to the root of the problem which is tort reform. The “cheeseburger bill” is just a symptom of a larger issue that could be solved by making the party that brings a lawsuit pay the legal costs if they don’t win. My understanding is this is the system in Great Britain and they don’t have the level of dubious lawsuits we see here in the U.S.
And another MNB user wrote:
The answer is quite easy – Canadians and English do it now – if you sue and don’t prevail you pay the opponents legal costs. NO frivolous lawsuits!
One MNB user, responding to our comment that it’s a good thing the tobacco companies didn’t get similar protections, wrote:
I'm not a fan of the tobacco industry but I don't think that anyone that continued smoking after the surgeon generals warning was printed on every pack has any basis to sue and say "they didn't know smoking was dangerous".
I'm a single 40 year old guy that does not cook very much so I eat at fast food restaurants quite a bit. I'm also a competitive triathlete who works out almost every day (I'm about to go for a 8 mile run in the hills on my lunch hour) so I can still run a 6 minute mile and weigh the same as I did when I graduated from college.
My Mom and Dad eat nothing but the healthy meals that my Mom cooks with fresh vegetables every day. My 66 year old Mom that walks, swims or does aerobics 5 days a week also weighs the same as she did when she graduated from college, but my 68 year old Dad, who eats the same healthy foods as my Mom, has put on over 100 pounds in the last 30 years since he never works out.
I hope that the cheeseburger bill passes the Senate to prevent lazy people who try and blame their weight gain on fast food from ever going to court.
MNB user Mark Woodrow wrote:
I found it interesting that only one reader comment got to the root of the problem which is tort reform. The “cheeseburger bill” is just a symptom of a larger issue that could be solved by making the party that brings a lawsuit pay the legal costs if they don’t win. My understanding is this is the system in Great Britain and they don’t have the level of dubious lawsuits we see here in the U.S.
And another MNB user wrote:
The answer is quite easy – Canadians and English do it now – if you sue and don’t prevail you pay the opponents legal costs. NO frivolous lawsuits!
- KC's View:
