HHS uses Recovery Act money to fund New York City’s anti-obesity campaign

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/23/hhs-uses-recovery-act-money-to-fund-new-york-citys-anti-obesity-campaign/

HHS uses Recovery Act money to fund New York City’s anti-obesity campaign
By Amanda Carey - The Daily Caller 1:22 AM 02/23/2011

ADVERTISEMENT If you live in New York City, or have even traveled there recently, chances are you’ve been inundated by anti-obesity ads that are plastered on the city’s buses, subway cars and buildings. But while the New York City government is encouraging its more than 8 million residents to stop being so unhealthy, taxpayers throughout the country are paying for it.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), headed by Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, has used $650 million in funds from the Recovery Act to pay for an anti-obesity program called Communities Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW). The program is carried out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a federal agency under HHS.

So far, the initiative has doled out grants to 31 states and cities, including the District of Columbia. New York City got one of the largest grants– $31.1 million. Of that, $15.5 million was allotted for anti-obesity efforts, or what the Recovery.gov website calls “interventions,” and $15.6 million for anti-smoking campaigns.

And the Big Apple hasn’t let that money go to waste. At the end of January, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene announced the launch of a new television commercial and subway posters alerting New Yorkers to just how unhealthy sugary drinks can be.

The 30-second commercial, that ran through February 22, illustrated how drinks like sweet tea and soda can be measured in sugar packets. The spot claims that a daily routine of “just a few sweetened drinks” is equivalent to 93 packets of sugar.

At the beginning, the commercial appears to be harmless enough, but it ends by showing a graphic image of the effects of obesity-induced diabetes before warning viewers that too many frozen mochas can also cause heart disease and some cancers.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/23/hhs-uses-recovery-act-money-to-fund-new-york-citys-anti-obesity-campaign/#ixzz1EoH6kDJH

**Cannerus_The_Unbearable**

Propaganda for the propaganda god! I'm not saying they don't have a point, because there are a serious number of caffeine addicts, but I'd be curious to see a comprehensive study on the effects of billboards, commercials, etc.

P.S. Legalize it!

**Avatar 720**

I question the effectiveness of these ad campaigns. The stuff you see on cigarette packets about killing you and graphic images about what it does doesn't seem to be putting anyone off, nor do TV ads about it or alcohol abuse; if it can't do anything with fags and booze, what is it going to do with obesity?

**Frazzled**

My issue: these are dollars supposedly earmarked to improve the economy, not Frau Obama's pet project.

**Fafnir**

Well, to be fair, medical costs in the US are high as it is. Perhaps lowering the obesity rate would aleviate some of these costs in the long term?

Or course, as to whether the ads are effective is another matter entirely.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:My issue: these are dollars supposedly earmarked to improve the economy, not Frau Obama's pet project.

If I remember right there were specific allotments in the recovery bill for community activism and public health programs. If that's the case then, regardless of how the bill might have been sold, there isn't anything illicit here.

**CT GAMER**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:My issue: these are dollars supposedly earmarked to improve the economy, not Frau Obama's pet project.

If I remember right there were specific allotments in the recovery bill for community activism and public health programs. If that's the case then, regardless of how the bill might have been sold, there isn't anything illicit here.

Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant...

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:My issue: these are dollars supposedly earmarked to improve the economy, not Frau Obama's pet project.

Fat people drag the economy down through high healthcare costs and low productive output?

**Gibbsey**

Shame on you Obama! sneaking unrelated programs into bills, no one els..... oh wait... they do? Huh... never mind then... um.. carry on Obama

**Cannerus_The_Unbearable**

Clearly our only solution is cannibalism. Increase existing resources while lowering our resource consumption. Min-maxing at it's best.

**Kilkrazy**

As I understand it, this is an old political tradition called pork barrel.

**Frazzled**

CT GAMER wrote:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:My issue: these are dollars supposedly earmarked to improve the economy, not Frau Obama's pet project.

If I remember right there were specific allotments in the recovery bill for community activism and public health programs. If that's the case then, regardless of how the bill might have been sold, there isn't anything illicit here.

Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant...

That presupposes:
1. This was one of the approved line items for that.
2. It ignores the obvious argument, a recovery act should be for...well recovery.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:My issue: these are dollars supposedly earmarked to improve the economy, not Frau Obama's pet project.

Fat people drag the economy down through high healthcare costs and low productive output?

incorrect. Skinny people eat less and need less medical services. See its anti recovery, job killing bill!

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
1. This was one of the approved line items for that.

There weren't that many line items in the bill. Most of the pbulic health and community funding was of the slush form.

Frazzled wrote:
2. It ignores the obvious argument, a recovery act should be for...well recovery.

Meh, this is how legislation works in a democracy.