The Libertarians among us....heck, pretty much everyone I know of any political party....are aghast at the move begun in NYC and now spreading to ban sales of "super-sized" soft drinks or to impose an additional tax on sugar-sweetened drinks. "The government is butting into my life! It's none of their business what I eat or drink!" Add to this government rules mandating motorcyclists and bike riders wear helmets, motorists wear seat belts, kids be in car seats, etc. and they seem to have a valid concern.
Here's where things get tricky. As long as we as a society agree to treat anyone who walks into a hospital emergency room with an ailment or injury, regardless of whether they can pay or not, lifestyle regulation IS the government's business. How can you ask the taxpayers to foot the bill for treatment of obesity, reckless behavior, etc, and not put some requirements on people to do their part in exchange for potentially free (to them individually at least) medical care?
This isn't an Obamacare issue. This is something that has been going on for decades, ever since our national sense of decency and compassion dictated that we not let people suffer. The idea of putting demands on people to eat and drink and act responsibly in exchange for agreeing to foot the medical bills for those who can't/won't pay for it themselves suddenly doesn't sound so intrusive. We just can't go around giving out blank checks. If we do, where is the incentive for those of us who CAN afford it to keep paying our insurance premiums?
Much as my knee-jerk reaction is to condemn even more government intervention in our lives, it does make sense in this case. Problem is, where is it going to stop? Do we want to be compassionate, or do we want to "live free"? Is there a third option? I sometimes feel like we've opened Pandora's Box.
S
You make some good points. I, too, am concerned about government intrusion in our lives, but demanding freedom and then running to the Government when our choices don't work out just seems wrong. Maybe the government shouldn't force pople to wear motorcycle helmets, but victims of crashes shouldn't be able to sue. But that just sends them to the ER and we all pay.
ReplyDeleteI once asked a brain surgeon about motorcycle helmets and how important they were. His answer surprised me. His estimation was that as many people who were saved serious injuries from a helmet, many others were left parapalegics because of the helmets. He claimed neck injurties he saw were generally the result of sudden stops with the inertia of a several pound helmet on the head. He was in favor of "NO HELMETS". I don't know if he was right, but it is interesting that experts often do not agree.
ReplyDeleteThe soda rule will not reduce a single fatty or save a single life.
But i never order 16 oz's and seldom drink soda so I don't care. I am also still 25 lbs overweight without drinking soda.
So do we divide the population into 2 groups? Those who have private insurance can eat/drink/do whatever they want, those who don't have another set of rules? See the problem? Like Steve says, we can't scream about our freedom and then run to the government when things go wrong. We can't have it both ways.
ReplyDeleteS
I recall the advent of the "Big Gulp" at 7-11. Holy Smokes we would get all sugared up and ride our skateboards/surfboards for hours. What the hell would the world be without super sized beverages?
ReplyDeleteJust kidding. I think the government is a bit crazy. Perhaps they need to figure out how to handle their money in the state of New York. Their credit rating is awful.
Cheers,
Bobby
Reading what I wrote forty years ago about this, I said back then, that anyone who wanted to ride their m/c without a helmet should be free to do so ---IF they signed a waiver that they would never let their family become public charges etc etc. fin
ReplyDeleteour health minister wants to insist that restaurants serve only small portions! That's just as stupid as the regulation above.... instead of one portion, people will order two because they're still hungry! DUMB!
ReplyDeleteI have eaten junk food all my life and I have a coke daily (NOT sugar free!). I'm STILL only 110 lbs. and healthy and I never weighed more in my whole life!
This is my take on this: As a society, we've always encouraged behavior that was good for society and discouraged behavior that wasn't - either by having laws, taxes, or a code of conduct. For example: we have jail for people who commit crimes, high taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, and scorn and shame for people who cheat or lie.
ReplyDeleteSo maybe we shouldn't outlaw riding without helmets or seatbelts, but charge higher insurance premiums to those who do. Maybe we shouldn't outlaw supersized drinks or junk food, but increase the taxes on it (Twinkie tax?). And maybe the price of the supersized fries should not be "just 10 cents more" but should be proportionately higher priced.
"Maybe we shouldn't outlaw supersized drinks or junk food, but increase the taxes on it" That's what they are proposing in California.
ReplyDelete"So maybe we shouldn't outlaw riding without helmets or seatbelts, but charge higher insurance premiums to those who do." But what if they are uninsured?
There are lots of good reasons to encourage good behavior and discourage bad. It's just getting people to see that it really isn't interfering in our lives, especially if it's our tax dollars that were being saved. It's a tough position to sell, isn't it?
Good points.
S
SCOTT! Do you want me to starve? Add more taxes and I can't afford to EAT anymore! geeeeez.... ;-)
ReplyDeleteWe are already doing annual health screening for employees where I work. Unhealthy behaviors are going to cost us more for health insurance premiums. It has caused a frenzy of exercise and weight loss and many people have stopped smoking. It was easy to ignore it when someone else was footing the bill.
ReplyDeleteIt is a national emergency. It would be nice if restaurants would join in to help solve it without requiring new laws.