TheAgitator.com
More on Obesity and Medicare
Sunday, July 18th, 2004Andrew Stuttaford makes an excellent point about the Medicare-obesity decision:
…by apportioning some of the costs of the so-called obesity crisis onto the taxpayer, the White House is paving the way for food mullahs to argue for ever more regulation of âjunk foodâ, portion size and so on. The rationale for such intervention? Well, you heard it in the tobacco wars. If we all pay for obesity (just as we all supposedly paid for the costs of cigarette addiction), the government has some sort of right to tell people what to eat.
Yep. The more we socialize health care — and in particular the condition of obesity — the easier it gets for nutrition nannies to make the case for all sorts of restrictions on your food choices.
Get ready for calls for restrictions on portion sizes at restaurants, mandatory minimums on the amount of shelf space or menu space grocery stores, restaurants and vending machines devote to “healthy” foods. Get ready for taxes on those foods the nannies decree aren’t good for you.
In short, the moment government starts using taxpayer dollars on anti-obesity programs is the moment government wriggles its way into your refridgerator.
Personally, I can’t wait for the warning labels on junk food.
What will be next, I wonder? A few of my guesses:
1. Big Tanning. I called this one years ago. Looks like it has already started.
2. Big Caffeine. This upper has been getting a pass for a while now. Get ready for PSAs claiming it’s the new meth/heroin/crack.
3. Big Furniture. The big furniture corporations are selling a sedentary lifestyle.
4. Big Bathroom Sink. Sink manufacturers have not been doing enough to ensure people wash their hands. Expect manditory hand-cleanliness checks adminstered by Federal officials.
5. Big Hair. Anti-Helmet Head vanity deters people from proper head protection. Michael Moore makes a documentary where he takes down Vidal Sassoon for profiting off an anti-head safety environment. Helmets will be required headgear at all times.
6. Big Fire. Match and lighter manufacturers will be held responsible for fire-induced injury and property damage. Fire handling becomes illegal.
7. Big Cutlery. Only licenced individuals who have completed Sharp Object Handling and Safety courses are allowed to handle knives, etc. Eventually, sharp objects are banned.
8. Big Excitement. Elevated heart rates can kill. Roller coasters, movie theaters, sporting arenas, etc are required to monitor the blood pressure of their customers. If someone’s blood pressure exceeds the mandated limit, the excitement providers must simmer down.
9. Big Late Night. Lack of sleep contributes to many health problems. Driving while sleepy is also a public health concern. Tests are developed to determine how much sleep an individual had the night before. These tests are administered with the daily drug tests.
10. Big Bad Attitude. Criticism of public health initiatives is considered terrorist activity. Tribunals are set up to weed out this health menace. “Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Cult Of Personal Responsibility?”
Did I forget any?
I’m sure you did… go ahead and write John Banzhaf and ask him to compare it to his personal list. He’ll probably have some you hadn’t yet thought of. He has some more houses he needs to buy.
Sadly that whole Big caffine thing isn’t that far away from reality, that’s already is being targeted and will most likely be next.
If we all pay for obesity (just as we all supposedly paid for the costs of cigarette addiction), the government has some sort of right to tell people what to eat.
The government has no more right to take your money than it does to tell you what to eat.
Americans who make healthy decisions about nutrition and exercise will soon be subsidizing those who don’t
With regard to healthcare, Americans already subsidize a boatload of consequences of poor decisions on the part of others. Medicare money already pays for consequences of obesity. However, by far, the biggest poor decision you subsidize is on the part of those who refuse to provide for their own medical care without relying on government.
Radley expressed concern that Medicare is already in trouble, but why shouldn’t it be in trouble? Why should it be covering any condition, at all?
Once the government becomes responsible for what goes into my body the government will be responsible what what comes out also.
I will expect a personal government appointed butt wiper at designated government restrooms.
cubicle wrote:
Once the government becomes responsible for what goes into my body
Government assumed that responsibility a long time before there were any Medicare questions to consider.
“Get ready for calls for restrictions on portion sizes at restaurants, mandatory minimums on the amount of shelf space or menu space grocery stores, restaurants and vending machines devote to “healthy” foods. Get ready for taxes on those foods the nannies decree aren’t good for you.
In short, the moment government starts using taxpayer dollars on anti-obesity programs is the moment government wriggles its way into your refridgerator.”
Government is already in your refridgerator as you know very well. And every single one of those things you warn about is coming regrdless of whether anti-obesity programs get funded.
Things just keep getting spookier. I love this blog, but I’m almost becoming afraid to come here. Every time I open this page there’s a story about some kind of advance by the uber-prohibitionist crowd. Is there no good news on this front?
Things just keep getting worse. How is it that the people of this country are so willing to let the government tell us how to live.
We are human beings, we are differentiated from the rest of the animal world because we have free will. We are the only animals who can voluntarily harm themselves. Once we do not have the ability to do this then we are no longer human.
Our free will is what helps humans advance. It’s simple Darwinism. Those human beings who choose to do things that harm themselves get weeded out over time and those who choose values and ethics that are beneficial to themselves survive. We need to let more idiots kill themselves, it’s better for the rest of us.
How about a war on war? What could possibly be worse for people than war? it’s high time government clamped down on the big war industry, and the bomb, bullet and missile manufacturers who are quite literally making a killing..
Wow, that Andrew Stuttaford SHO is PUH-CEPTIVE! No offense, but, NO SHIT, mang!
Your faithful Agitator commenters came to this conclusion a couple months back when we were talking about seatbelt laws and other legal constraints that are designed to “protect people from themselves”. And it wasn’t that huge of a “discovery” in the first place. This Stuttaford character seems to have an uncanny ability to grasp that which is obvious. Kudos, I suppose, for that.
But honestly, it goes back to what someone said during that debate. If the government can legislate seatbelt and helmet usage, and now, diet & exercise, then…well…why don’t they also force you to put a non-slip pad in your bathtub? Because, if you do slip in the shower and smack your head on the tub, and have to get medical treatment, then, via medicaid, everyone pays for it. So, then, shouldn’t everyone have a say in whether or not you have a non-slip pad in your tub? If the police can force you to wear a seatbelt, then shouldn’t they also force you to have that?
You have to take these arguments to their logical conclusions to see how absurd they really are. And Stuttaford is way, way behind.
Government is already in your refridgerator as you know very well. And every single one of those things you warn about is coming regrdless of whether anti-obesity programs get funded.
Yeah, if it weren’t for the government “looking out for me”, then I would be able to get non-pasteurized cheese and GM foods.
That’s the problem. Everyone is up in arms when these draconian laws are proposed or imagined. But as The State slowly but surely imposes one little law after another, people don’t say much at all, because, after all, it’s just one little law. Why spend time fighting a law outlawing the importation of unpasteurized cheese? It’s not THAT big of a deal, right? Until they pile up and all of a sudden, it’s just as bad. You know, the tired old “frog in the boiling water” mantra.
Yeah Evan we all be ahead of the curve, problem is we are the road built by Jefferson, Hamilton, and friends and that road has been abandoned for a long time.
Don’t forget the bathtub anti-slip mat inspectors…Make sure you slip in the tub to get apiece of the class action suit before the law is passed. Damnit I slipped and Kohler HAS to pay.
There was a piece on NPR the other night about class-action lawsuits. One caller was actually an ex-employee of the lawfirm that bankrupted Dow-Corning. He said he quit shortly after that case, because it made him sick. His lawfirm, and the jury, killed Dow Corning. It robbed them of 3.2 billion dollars. And this guy admitted that there wasn’t really any damning evidence of wrongdoing, and that the jury award didn’t really help the plaintiffs. And it made him sick, that they could do this, so he quit, and went into internation trade law.
The next caller was an old woman who said she received a notice in the mail about some class-action suit involving her credit card company. She filled it out and sent it in. Months later, she received a check for $0.19 in the mail, as a result of the suit.
Is this right? Is this what we want? I can’t say I support tort reform, but something is definitely wrong.
But, while class action suits against big-this and big-that are bad enough, they are in a whole different league from these bullshit laws that protect us from ourselves, in the name of public health. Two VERY different arguments. It’s one thing to slip in the tub and sue Kohler. It’s quite another to slip in the tup, then have your fellow taxpayers foot the hospital bill, then have politicians pass a bill the requires non-slip mats in the tub, complete with bathtub anti-silp-mat-inspectors. Both bad, but I think the latter is worse.
OK, before I get back to work, one last thing. I was thumbing through the project notebook for an animal shelter that we designed. I was looking at the bids, and there were a few that had this sheet attached to the back that claimed that, in the event of “verified terrorism” happening to the building, the US Government will reimburse the owner for 90% of the costs not covered by his insurance, not to exceed 100 Billion dollars.
So, if terrorists strike, the US government will give up to 100 billion of OUR tax dollars to the property owner! Just something I found a bit disquieting.
I think most of the commentators on here are missing the point of this problem. The issue I have with this is that I don’t think tax dollars should be spent on the health problems of someone who thinks a super size value meal is a balanced diet. If you want to consume 4k calories a day, fine. Just don’t expect taxpayers to pay for your healthcare costs.
Michael,
of all the blogs’ comment sections out there, this is definitely one of the ones that actually does, on the collective, grasp that very point you make. Which specific post(s), above, would indicate that “most commenters have missed the point”? I re-read them, and it seems that that’s the precise point people are making. Or do you just enjoy starting off a post with “you people are missing the point”?
Follow-up question: you say that you’re not willing to pay for someone else’s medical problems if they arise from them eating big macs. Okay. Would you be more willing to pay for someone else’s medical problems if they were nobody’s fault? Let’s say someone got cancer, not from smoking, not from drinking, it just happened. Would you then support the forcible government theft of our wealth in order to pay for his/her medical treatment?
Maybe before we go down the road of socializing our diets and healthcare … might we suggest that the nation try socializing the practice of personal injury law first?
Let’s see if the food fascists/health care collectivists are consistent in their valuation of government involvement in our everyday lives.
Before it gets any worse, I recommend everyone buying a gun, now.
Michael wrote:
The issue I have with this is that I don’t think tax dollars should be spent on the health problems of someone who thinks a super size value meal is a balanced diet
I don’t think tax dollars should be spent on people *who refuse* to pay for their own healthcare.
I don’t think tax dollars should be spent on those who refuse to pay for their own defense, police and courts. Or anything else they want.
Try to think as an early settler, after independence was won from the British and from the tyranny of their taxation. At what point and whom was it that suggested it was a good idea to start collecting taxes from the newly formed American citizenry? Is this recorded in history? I just don’t understand why the people didn’t revolt immediately. How did we come to this? Do people not understand or even stop to think that 1/3 of their income and more goes to the govt every year? Ugh. It’s disgusting. We’re all a bunch of mindless drones. It’s all about mob rule now isn’t it? And I have way more questions than answers. How is that helpful?
“At what point and whom was it that suggested it was a good idea to start collecting taxes from the newly formed American citizenry?”
Nobody had to suggest it, it was the plan all along.
“I just don’t understand why the people didn’t revolt immediately.”
Not immediately, but the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay’s Rebellion happened soon after.
At what point and whom was it that suggested it was a good idea to start collecting taxes from the newly formed American citizenry? Is this recorded in history?
On the night of December 16, 1773, a band of men disguised as Mohawk Indians and led by Samuel Adams boarded three British ships lying at anchor and dumped their tea cargo into Boston harbor. They took this step because they feared that if the tea were landed, colonists would actually comply with the tax and purchase the tea. Adams and his band of radicals doubted their countrymen’s commitment to principle (sound familiar?).
At the suggestion of the Virginia House of Burgesses, colonial representatives met in Philadelphia on September 5, 1774, “to consult upon the present unhappy state of the Colonies.” Delegates to this meeting, known as the First Continental Congress, were chosen by provincial congresses or popular conventions. Every colony except Georgia sent at least one delegate, and the total number of 55 was large enough for diversity of opinion, but small enough for genuine debate and effective action. The division of opinion in the colonies posed a genuine dilemma for the delegates. They would have to give an appearance of firm unanimity to induce the British government to make concessions and, at the same time, they would have to avoid any show of radicalism or spirit of independence that would alarm more moderate Americans. A cautious keynote speech ended with adoption of a set of resolutions, among them, the right of the colonists to “life, liberty and property,” and the right of provincial legislatures to set “all cases of taxation and internal polity.”
The most important action taken by the Congress, however, was the formation of a “Continental Association,” which provided for the renewal of the trade boycott and for a system of committees to inspect customs entries, publish the names of merchants who violated the agreements, confiscate their imports, and encourage frugality, economy and industry.
I just don’t understand why the people didn’t revolt immediately. How did we come to this?
Actually, they did revolt.
Between the years 1800 and 1860, arguments between the North and South grew more intense. One of the main quarrels was about taxes paid on goods brought into this country from foreign countries. This tax was called a tariff. Southerners felt these tariffs were unfair and aimed toward them because they imported a wider variety of goods than most Northern people. Taxes were also placed on many Southern goods that were shipped to foreign countries, an expense that was not always applied to Northern goods of equal value. An awkward economic structure allowed states and private transportation companies to do this, which also affected Southern banks that found themselves paying higher interest rates on loans made with banks in the North. The situation grew worse after several “panics”, including one in 1857 that affected more Northern banks than Southern. Southern financiers found themselves burdened with high payments just to save Northern banks that had suffered financial losses through poor investment.
In the years before the Civil War the political power in the Federal government, centered in Washington, D.C., was changing. Northern and mid-western states were becoming more and more powerful as the populations increased. Southern states lost political power because the population did not increase as rapidly. As one portion of the nation grew larger than another, people began to talk of the nation as sections. This was called sectionalism. Just as the original thirteen colonies fought for their independence almost 100 years earlier, the Southern states felt a growing need for freedom from the central Federal authority in Washington. Southerners believed that state laws carried more weight than Federal laws, and they should abide by the state regulations first. This issue was called State’s Rights and became a very warm topic in congress.
In any case, the North won, the South lost, and here we are today.
Do people not understand or even stop to think that 1/3 of their income and more goes to the govt every year? Ugh. It’s disgusting. We’re all a bunch of mindless drones. It’s all about mob rule now isn’t it? And I have way more questions than answers. How is that helpful?
To these I have no final answers, but often times the best explanation is the simplest one: Cause that’s the way it’s always been done, why change now?
It’s not a good reason, in my estimation, but it’s certainly the most likely.
John
narphonax.com/blog
(P.S. This info was cribbed from several sources)
John H, much gratitude. I need to read more.
So basically, libertarians want/stand for what we’ve never really had in this country. True property rights have not been lost, rather they’ve never been attained. I love the idea of states rights. It’s a fantastic concept, but will it ever happen? Probably not. Look at how many people died in the Civil War trying to retain their rights. Are we willing to sacrifice that much if it came to it? Probably not. Why sacrifice when you’re already comfortable, even if it means losing a “few” rights.
So basically, libertarians want/stand for what we’ve never really had in this country.
Most political groups seem to have a view of the past that doesn’t jive with history, however. For instance, today if most people could associate one of the major parties with a greater number of racist members, which do you think they would choose? Republican, that’s right. Meanwhile, it was Lincoln’s (a Republican) original election in 1860 that spurred the South into Civil War. Why? Because he wanted to keep the country united and the new western territories free from slavery, and was seen to be a supporter of the abolitionists (a mostly Northern group that believed owning slaves was wrong for any reason). The South, though, was primarily made up of Democrats, holding onto their ideal of slavery.
Political ideas and ideals change and morph with necessity. Just cause something wasn’t there doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be. Conversely, just because something’s been around for a long time doesn’t mean it should still exist(look at the countless ages of slavery throughout the history, not to mention the past in the South).
To be frank, I’ve yet to find a historical precedent for successful implementation of some of the concepts that have floated around these comments. From anarcho-capitalism to libertarianism to socialism, history has not been kind to any of them. Democracies have remained the most stable governments consistently over the time-line, and yet they are now beginning to shudder under the weight of past failures.
What’s the answer?
Well, I’ve always thought that the best thing a person can do is to practice what they preach, do what they believe, and try to find their own happiness in this spinney wheel of water and dirt.
John
narphonax.com/blog
I was in England a few weeks ago, and happened to tune into a BBC show. The topic seemed to be “Salt in your Diet”. The “moderator” was so one-sided that she made Ralph Nader look like Milton Friedman. After a segment on salt in kids’ diets, and a demonstration of various articles in a typical diet (I don’t know too many 4yo kids who start the day off with a sausage and egg breakfast, but there’s no accounting for what passes as cuisine in England), the show moved to a segment in which she interviewed an MP (equivalent of Secretary of HEW, IIRC), a representative of a food marketing group, and a pointy-headed “researcher”.
She consistently went on the offensive against the MP for not **forcing** (her emphasis) food companies to reduce salt. When she failed to get anything but doubletalk out of the politico (big surprise?), she would pull out evidence with which to confront the marketing rep. One “randomly selected” fast food entree they chose was smoked salmon. That hardly seems representative of an avergage diet - heck, I like salmon, but even I can’t stand something that tastes like fishy salt! The marketing rep consistently pointed out that there was no point in trying to sell food that remained on grocer’s shelves, but this appeared to go over her head. When she was tired of lambasting him, she would turn to the ivory tower guy for support, who of course noted that an X% reduction in salt would save Y thousand lives per year, without noting anything about the interaction of diet, exercise, and genetics. My guess is that Lance Armstrong ingests many more times the amount of salt that I do under the careful supervision of a personal trainer, could kick my ass in nearly anything, and yet still won’t outlive me.
At no point in time did it occur to the reporter or the propeller-head that people might actually compensate for the lack of salt on their inedible food by picking up a salt shaker. She was about as impartial on the subject as O’Reilly is on the topic of drug legalization.
That, folks, is your future. If “the government” pays for your health care, it becomes the government’s duty to interdict your diet.
Of course we would have to give an appearance of firm unanimity to induce the British government to make concessions and, at the same time, they would have to avoid any show of radicalism or spirit of independence that would alarm more moderate Americans.
It is good that the government impose taxes on unhealthy food, the hidden cost by unhealthy food should be factored in