They are really, really unhealthy. Obesity is a major health problem that costs a lot to employers, local governments, hospitals and our national health care network in terms of lost days at work, expensive long-term health care (especially for certain forms of diabetes) and decrease our life expectancy and quality of life.

Republicans dislike the ACA because they think it will require them to pay for "other people's" healthcare. Those who exercise, do not drink soft drinks, do not smoke and do not drink pay for other people's bad habits in their insurance costs. Seems like the best way to lower health care costs is to encourage healthy lifestyles.

I don't know whether the law will survive the courts. I can see arguments both ways. Depends on the evidence that is presented. The Supreme Court did not, just based on their emotions, seem favorable to these kinds of provisions, but then, if evidence really supports the law, if the city can show it has significant or compelling reasons to enforce these provisions, who knows what might happen?

So, I think the courts could rule either way. Emotionally, New York's ordinance seems intrusive and extreme, but there may be economic or financial grounds that support it. When people can't afford their own healthcare, it is often the city or county that has to come to the rescue. So, we shall see what the evidence shows on this.