TheAgitator.com
Fraternizing with the Banzhaf
Friday, May 28th, 2004Tort king John Banzhaf says it’ll be just a few years before we see lawsuits against high-fructrose corn syrup manufacturers for their contribution to obesity.
Don’t count on it. You’ll probably see suits against the companies that use the stuff — most notably soft drink manufacturers — but they only use the stuff because it’s the cheapest sweetener available.
HFCS is cheap because (a) it’s main ingredient (corn) is highly subsidized, and, (b) tariffs keep the price of domestic sugar too high to use in soft drinks and some candy.
Banzhaf and other obesity nannies’ biggest ally in Congress right now is Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin. He’s behind the menu-labeling bill, the fat tax, and he vigorously opposed the “cheeseburger bill” (needless to say, not on federalism grounds).
Does anyone think Tom Harkin or any of the Midwestern lawmakers that continue to pass outrageous farm subsidies bills are going to allow corn farmers to take a hit from trial lawyers?
I just don’t see it.
Incidentally, I spoke with Banzhaf today on another matter and discovered that — surprise! — he’s actually with the good guys on a nanny issue. Sort of.
Banzhaf favors freeing up health insurance companies to tie premiums to obesity. That is, if you’re a hundred pounds overweight, you would have to pay higher premiums than someone who stays fit. Just as auto insurers charge higher premiums to higher risk drivers. Currently, federal regulations bar health insurers from adjusting premiums for any risk factor other than smoking. So if you stay fit, you’re basically subsidizing the folks who take their own health less seriously.
According to Banzhaf, HHS Sec. Thompson is considering loosening those restrictions.
That would be a huge step toward forcing Americans to take responsibility for their own health and well-being. And it would do more to fight obesity than any of the panoply of nanny-statist programs others are throwing up against the wall.
Unfortunately, while Banzhaf favors allowing insurers to factor obesity into premium pricing, he stops short of giving insurance companies complete freedom to set premiums as they see fit.
But hey, it’s a start.
The health risks of obesity are wildly exaggerated. See Sandy Swarc’s series at Tech Centtral Station. Charles Hall
The obesity/health risk myth is a classic case of confusing correlation with causation. There are sick and healthy people at all weight levels and no scientific basis to conclude that a healthy fat person will be any healthier after weight loss.
We have no scientific basis to conclude that there is an “ideal weight” that can be applied across the population, any more than there is an ideal eye color or ideal favorite band. Nanny statism with some real basis is bad enough, faith-based nanny statism is the worst.
Forgive me, Radley, but there’s no compromising with Banzhaf and his ilk, nor is there any genuine “common ground.” You don’t compromise with evil.
Incidentally, I spoke with Banzhaf today on another matter
Banzhaf: Hello?
Balko: Is your refrigerator running?
Banzhak: Yes it is.
Balko: Well you better catch it! HA! Zinged by CATO! Take that, nanny!
look, part of the problem here is this word “obese”. What’s wrong with “FAT”?
America is a nation of fatties, that’s a fact.Fat,fat, fat. Not “obese”. Fat because of greed. You may think there is nothing wrong with that, butif you are in favour of peoples right to be greedy and fat, just say it. Calling it “obesity” just helps people avoid taking responsibility for their gluttony. it’s all… “ooh, Mcdonalds made me obese” or “the government didn’t tell me what to eat” or “i have a medical condition”…. Bollocks. You are Fat because you’re greedy and you eat too much.
Allowing insurance companies to only insure the healthy, which is where this bad idea will lead, is the road to “socialized medicine”. Instead of the convoluted/BS of the alleged 40million currently uninisured, the lifestyle premium plan would surely rise to a real number of 100million or more REAL uninsured, then, of course, only the government can “fix” the problem. The expansion of the nanny government will increase exponentiallly. meek
Anecdotal evidence here, but I guarantee I’m not the only one. I’m 6’2″, 245. By government standards I’m obese, maybe even dangerously so. I haven’t had a sick day because of my own sickness in 5 yrs (I have young children who have kept me home…). On the other hand, my best friend is about 5-11, MAYBE 180 soaking wet- very thin very in shape, runs 3 times a week, works out and is very cautious about what he eats. I guarantee you he has spent 10X the amount of money I have in the last 10 years on healthcare. Dude ALWAYS has something wrong with him. So much to the point that I’ve commented that he HAD to have been made out of spare parts floating around his mothers womb.
He’s the one that should get a higher premium, not me. Isn’t that more like the way auto insurance works anyway? Except for new drivers we’re all on even ground until the speeding tickets, wrecks, DUI’s etc. kick in. Then the ones who use it the most pay the most based on FACTS, not opinion.
Actually, Meek, I’d bet that allowing insurance companies to adjust their premiums based on health risks will allow more people to be insured, not fewer. Insurance companies are currently prevented from charging higher premiums to people who will cost them more, but they’re not prevented from refusing insurance altogether.
The result: I can’t get insured on an individual plan, because I saw a shrink two years ago and I once had a (benign) tumor removed from my breast. I’m willing and able to pay a higher premium, but that option’s not available, because the insurance company’s not allowed to do that. So I just don’t get insured at all, and I hope like hell I don’t get really sick or in a car accident or something before the five year period you have to report your medical history for runs out.
It is difficult to tell Radley and Banzhaf apart — both promote discrimination and fat-hatred. They look to blame obese people for their weight which is primarily genetically determined. People can’t control their weight (except for a small range) any more than you can control your height. Perhaps you might want to look at the obesity gene map which last cited more than 430 genes, markers, and chromosomal regions associated or linked with human obesity. Health risks are not relevant to one’s body weight but lifestyle factors. Thin people may look healthy but over half aren’t exercising regularly and they are the biggest consumers of junk food. They comprise the largest group of smokers, too. Unless it goes both way and fat people don’t have to pay the way for unhealthy thin people, either.
There are people who smoke 3 packs of cigarettes a day and are in good health, but the evidence is overwhelming that smoking greatly increases your chance of being unhealthy and dying. The same is true with obesity. I’m opposed to the nanny state, but anyone who refuses to accept the numerous scientific studies showing a strong causal link between excess weight and poor health and mortality is just ignorant. Swarc’s series at Tech Central Station was poorly written, researched and argued and has been debunked by Michael Fumento. http://www.fumento.com
You can’t control your weight? Oh, please! Show me a 300 pound woman who eats less than 1800 calories a day.
http://testosterone.pills4order.com scramblingsnobbystole
http://video-poker.neasoc.org begfacilitatestrewn
http://illinois.acfair.org/rockwell/ desertsucculentwailing
http://schoolloan.m-moore.org/74289450/ angrymentholreflected
viagra online ViaT8898111-01-01-22
http://www.ringtones-dir.com/get/ ringtones site free. Free nokia ringtones here, Download ringtones FREE, Best free samsung ringtones. From website .
http://www.ringtones-dir.com/get/ ringtones site free. ringtones site free, ringtones site, Free nokia ringtones here. From website .