From today’s WT – welcome to the intersection of the health Nazi nanny state and nationalized health care.
Think of this as a test case of my actions have consequences mantra.
We have been nationalizing health care since Medicare in 1965. I am not arguing whether this is good or bad [if this blog provider had a response provision we could so argue but as it doesn’t let us pollute Laststraw if anyone cares – personally I think we talked this baby to death there enough times and I highly doubt anyone will change anyone’s mind]. So let us take this as a given. Today is Thursday. The guy who cuts the lawn is late, freezing me at home to pay him. Health care has been mostly nationalized via Medicare, Medicaid, regulated insurers, HMO’s to the point where most prices are fixed and actual consumer out of pocket is treated as a personal indignity. These are facts. We will regard them as a given.
Now health care has already passed defense to become the #2 government expenditure after social security. If we actually pass the ‘drug benefit’ it may pass social security. The health care sector is some 14% of GDP. Defense is 4%. So much for the military industrial complex running the world…LOL
However, the raw material health care works on is people. That means the government is paying to fix things we do to our bodies. Things like STD’s. Like fitness levels and nutrition. Letting the health Nazis regulate and litigate tobacco in the interests of health and health care costs let a very big camel gets its nose under the tent.
I am not arguing for smoking. I am not arguing against smoking. I don’t smoke. Was a 2 pack a year man when I was younger. Would try it semi-annually, get nothing out of it and give away the rest of the partially opened packs. Probably the only vice or form of indulgent or self-destructive behavior I missed. However both wives smoked as did most of the girlfriends. Many friends did. Many friends didn’t. Virtually everyone I knew in Europe did and the places we would hang out reeked of the stuff. I agree that it is in the main a filthy habbit – smell, taste on breath…However once you let the state regulate tobacco because of later health care costs what about:
1. Sex – STD’s are a real danger. So do you want the government in your bedroom or the back seat of your car?
2. Nutrition – should we tax junk food? Tax obese people? Have a national fitness test with extra taxes if you fail? Do our police have nothing better to do?
3. Who would you trust with this sort of power? The left Puritans in the NGO’s and issue activist groups?
4. If we can tax junk food because of health costs what about taxes on gay bars for the cost of AIDS and other STD’s?
5. Do we really want to put these things to a vote? The majority may be more anti-gay than anti-fat in part because they can see themselves getting fat but expect to stay straight.
6. If you think the WOSD is a destructive farce, visualize the war on some foods…sugar packaged as Sweet and Low…LOL. Green coating to hide chocolate from prying eyes. Sneaking M+M’s over the border from Mexico via the same routes as cocaine. Far more people binge on sugar and chocolate than drugs even including alchohol.
7. Yet none of this flows from illogical premises. Once you accept the logic of the tobacco wars AND the socialization [shared expense across society] of medical costs, where do YOU draw the line? And does your line have anything to do with which behavior you wouldn’t do anyway?
Scott
Chipping away at liberty
By Walter Williams
Oreo cookies should be banned from sale to children in California. That's according to Stephen Joseph, who filed a lawsuit against Nabisco last month in California's Marin County Superior Court. Oreo cookies contain trans fat, an ingredient that makes the cookies crisp and their filling creamy. Joseph says trans fat is so dangerous our children should be protected from it.
Last year, Los Angeles Unified School District voted unanimously to ban the sale of soft drinks at all of the district's 677 schools. They said the new rule, scheduled to go into effect January 2004, will improve the health of its 736,000 students, of whom a recent survey of 900 of them found 40 percent to be obese.
New York lawyer Samuel Hirsch and George Washington University's Professor John F. Banzhaf brought lawsuits against fast-food restaurants Burger King, McDonald's, Wendy's and Kentucky Fried Chicken. Mr. Hirsch and Mr. Banzhaf contend that these fast-food restaurants are responsible for obesity; they ignore the fact that two-thirds of all meals are served at home.
The Washington-based Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) also demands government control of what we eat. It calls for excise taxes on fatty foods, additional taxes on cars and television sets, and a doubling of the excise tax on beer. By making cars and televisions more expensive, it thinks it will force people to walk more and stop being couch potatoes.
CSPI's Michael Jacobson said, "We could envision taxes on butter, potato chips, whole milk, cheeses [and] meat." CSPI wants the tax revenues earmarked for government-sponsored exercise programs.
These tyrannical schemes also have government support. According to a Consumer Freedom article, former USDA spokesman John Webster said: "Right now, this anti-obesity campaign is in its infancy. ... [W]e want to turn people around and give them assistance in eating nutritious foods."
The anti-obesity campaign might seem preposterous and amusing were it not for the successes of the anti-tobacco campaign premised on the idea that individuals are not responsible for their choices. It's a logical follow-up: Food producers, not people themselves, are responsible for overindulgence. Since we have socialized medicine, obesity adds to the nation's health-care costs through its contribution to obesity-related health problems such as diabetes, cancer and cardiovascular disease. According to the food Nazis, that means government has a stake in controlling what we eat.
Americans salute the results of the anti-tobacco campaign that brought successful multibillion-dollar suits against tobacco companies and levied steep tobacco taxes. In some jurisdictions, such as New York City, taxes have led to the tripling of cigarette prices, not to mention the creation of black markets. I'm wondering whether my fellow Americans would like the food Nazi campaign to produce the same outcome. In other words, how would we like taxes that create $10 hamburgers, $5 cans of beer and $12 for a pound of Oreo cookies?
Maybe as an alternative to taxes, there might be a call for laws similar to what's called the Dram Shop Act in some states, which prohibits the sale of alcohol to intoxicated persons. Applied to food, that law might ban the sale of hamburgers and fries to a fat person, or a mandate that scales be placed in front of cash registers where a customer is weighed prior to a sale.
Instead of hamburgers and fries, an overweight customer is offered a tasty salad. Instead of suing Nabisco to stop children from eating Oreos, we might have a law requiring proof of age prior to purchase. We could use endangering minors law to exact stiff penalties against parents who gave Oreos to their children.
The anti-obesity movement is simply another step down the road to serfdom and, what's worse, Americans are voluntarily assisting the nation's tyrants.
Walter Williams is a nationally syndicated columnist.
posted by scott 9:03 AM