Universal healthcare and the waistline police: We risk a nanny state contrary to American ideals.

Christian Science Monitor ^ | January 7, 2008 | Paul Hsieh

[billorites]

Imagine a country where the government regularly checks the waistlines of citizens over age 40. Anyone deemed too fat would be required to undergo diet counseling. Those who fail to lose sufficient weight could face further "reeducation" and their communities subject to stiff fines.

Is this some nightmarish dystopia?

No, this is contemporary Japan.

The Japanese government argues that it must regulate citizens' lifestyles because it is paying their health costs. This highlights one of the greatly underappreciated dangers of "universal healthcare." Any government that attempts to guarantee healthcare must also control its costs. The inevitable next step will be to seek to control citizens' health and their behavior. Hence, Americans should beware that if we adopt universal healthcare, we also risk creating a "nanny state on steroids" antithetical to core American principles.

Other countries with universal healthcare are already restricting individual freedoms in the name of controlling health costs. For example, the British government has banned some television ads for eggs on the grounds that they were promoting an unhealthy lifestyle. This is a blatant infringement of egg sellers' rights to advertise their products.

In 2007, New Zealand banned Richie Trezise, a Welsh submarine cable specialist, from entering the country on the grounds that his obesity would "impose significant costs ... on New Zealand's health or special education services." Richie later lost weight and was allowed to immigrate, but his wife had trouble slimming and was kept home. Germany has mounted an aggressive anti-obesity campaign in workplaces and schools to promote dieting and exercise. Citizens who fail to cooperate are branded as "antisocial" for costing the government billions of euros in medical expenses.

Of course healthy diet and exercise are good. But these are issues of personal – not government – responsibility. So long as they don't harm others

[Question Liberal Authority]

I meant “junk” in the sense that the food police will label it as “junk”. Most of the time, it’s just PETA types trying to shove veganism down our throats, or Socialist “environmentalists” trying to destroy capitalism.

Look at the British law banning EGG advertisements on television. Eggs are extremely healthy. They are very versatile. They are eaten by animals in the wild. Yet they’re under attack. Why? Because the poultry industry would not exist without eggs.

Similarly, there is a full scale assault on the dairy industry. Supposedly, it’s not natural for a human to drink the milk of a cow, because milk is food designed for a cow. Yet the same people will eat soybeans, which is food designed for an embryonic soybean plant. Biologically, you’re a lot more similar to a cow than to a soybean plant. But if the dairy industry goes, so does the beef industry.