Posted on 07/07/2013 6:10:03 AM PDT by Kaslin
Last year, I showed an image of evolutionary stages that was so accurate that it would earn approval even from many strict creationists.
Here’s a new image of evolutionary stages that sets the stage for today’s discussion. Simply stated, Americans are becoming bigger. In some cases, a lot bigger.
Is this trend toward greater obesity a bad thing? As a reader asks, is it something that requires a government response?
The answer is yes…and no.
Libertarians believe people should be free to make their own decisions so long as they’re not infringing on the rights of others. And that includes the right to eat too much and exercise too little.
But the “yes” part of the answer is that we can think obesity is unfortunate and we can encourage our friends and family members to live healthier lifestyles. And if we’re willing to be pests and to run the risk of being told to mind our own business, we can even encourage strangers to shape up.
The “no” part of the answer refers to whether the government somehow should get involved. I shared a great video from Reason TV several years ago that explained why paternalistic anti-obesity programs don’t work. And just this week, one of my colleagues at the Cato Institute, Michael Tanner, addressed this issue. Here’s some of what he wrote for National Review.
Recently the American Medical Association declared that it will consider obesity a disease. …the AMA’s move is a symptom of a disease that is seriously troubling our society: the abdication of personal responsibility and an invitation to government meddling. …the AMA’s move is actually a way for its members to receive more federal dollars, by getting obesity treatments covered under government health plans. A bipartisan group of congressmen has already seized on the AMA declaration as they push for Medicare coverage of diet drugs. Observers also expect an effort to expand Medicare reimbursement for bariatric surgery, a.k.a. stomach stapling. And there will almost certainly be pressure to mandate coverage for these things by private insurance carriers, under both state laws and the Affordable Care Act. …After the AMA decision, John Morton, treasurer of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, was almost giddy, calling the AMA decision a “tipping point” and adding that “now coverage policy must catch up to that consensus.” Since a typical bariatric surgery costs as much as $40,000, that could be interpreted as a warning for all of us to get out our wallets. In the end, we will be paying more, through either taxes or higher premiums.
And don’t forget that the price of treatments such as surgery almost surely will climb as there’s more “third-party payer,” so our taxes and premiums will climb by a lot more than what it cost to provide these services today.
But that’s only part of the story. Since government is picking up the tab, that gives politicians a green light (at least in their minds) to pass laws and rules designed to control and influence our behavior.
…expanded Medicare and insurance coverage socialize the cost of treating obesity, thereby inviting all manner of government mischief. After all, if being fat is not our fault, the blame must lie with food companies, advertising, or other things that need to be regulated. And if you and I have to pay for the food and exercise choices of others, we should have a say in those choices. Already, Harold Goldstein, executive director of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, has cited the AMA declaration to boost his group’s efforts to ban junk food and tax soft drinks. …The nanny state can now claim medical backing.
Mayor Bloomberg doubtlessly thinks this is a wonderful idea. Maybe he can ban snack food as well as 17 oz. sodas.
Heck, why not have a cop in every house to make sure we consume 5 servings of fruits and vegetables every day? Actually, I shouldn’t say that too loud. Given the Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision, there’s apparently no limit to the federal government’s power to control our behavior through the tax code, so I’d hate to give politicians any more crazy ideas.
If you think I’m engaging in a bit of hyperbole, just remember that New York City already has gone after bake sales for peddling sweets.
So what’s the big picture? Mike nails it, explaining that the medicalization of obesity is symptomatic of the effort to undermine individual responsibility.
Much of public policy these days seems designed to eliminate personal responsibility. Take efforts to reduce poverty, for example. How much of poverty is due to poor lifestyle choices? We don’t want to blame the poor, nor should we forget that there are those, especially children, trapped in poverty by circumstances beyond their control. But we also know the keys to getting out of or staying out of poverty: (1) finish school; (2) do not get pregnant outside marriage; and (3) get a job, any job, and stick with it. Unfortunately, much of the welfare state we have constructed is perversely designed in ways that end up encouraging destructive behaviors.
In other words, the welfare state hurts the poor, as Thomas Sowell explained the other day. Though I suppose fairness requires me to admit that there are those who benefit from all the various income-redistribution programs. A vast army of bureaucrats get very comfortable salaries to administer these program, and these poverty pimps, as Walter Williams describes them, enjoy much higher levels of compensation than they could earn in the economy’s productive sector.
But I’m guilty, once again, of digressing. Let’s get to the rest of Mike’s final point.
Big government reduces all of us to the status of children. We have no responsibility for anything in our lives; therefore, government must take care of us. All we have to do, like children, is give up the freedom to make our own choices — good or bad.
Amen. A “good choice” isn’t good if it’s the result of coercion. Paternalists sometime have admirable goals, but they err when they want to turn big government into big daddy and big mommy.
P.S. Several readers have noticed that I’m now writing one post a day instead of two and have asked whether this is a permanent change. The answer is yes. With all the other things I’m trying to juggle – researching and writing, dealing with Capitol Hill, talking to the press, giving speeches, etc – this seems like the best way to allocate my time. Particularly now that my posts tend to be a lot longer and more substantive than when I began blogging.
P.P.S. Since we’re on the topic of obesity, it goes without saying that our real problem is bloated government, not bloated people. Which is why I always enjoy cartoons that portray DC as the true home of gluttony. For good examples, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
If, for example, an airline wants to charge double for a morbidly obese person or to refuse to fly that fat person because he/she spills over into the next seat, it should be free to do so. If, for example, a business wants to refuse to hire or decides to fire a fat employee soley because of that person's obesity it shoudl be able to do so absolutely free of any government "anti discrimination" punishment.
If a person knows he or she is going to be excluded from things because he or she is fat, that person has much more motivation to LOSE WEIGHT.
I could not agree more-that stupid food pyramid never made any sense to me, or any of my family-just like every other “study” government pays for with OUR money, it was agenda-driven and totally wrong-now we are all asked to pay still more for yet another useless program.
As a slender person, used to hard, physical work, maybe I’m an unsympathetic bitch for commenting on the plight of the obese, but I AM observant, and the individual alone is responsible for their obesity.
I don’t buy that obesity is a “disease”, any more than I think addiction is-both are choices. Adults make choices, and responsible adults accept the consequences of those choices, period. If there is a problem, it is that person’s responsibility alone to seek therapy, nutritional advice, go on a diet, etc. No government should be involved in anyone’s personal behavior choices-none of them.
I may think your personal choices are stupid and even offensive, but I will still defend your right to make them-to the death if I must-and I expect you to do the same-that is what being a free person and an American means.
When you live on a farm/ranch and produce most of your own food, you learn to eat the things nature intended for humans to eat-natural food-and obesity is an aberration. I continue to eat that same way-but that is my choice and I won’t force it on anyone...
That “plate” is just as unnatural as the pyramid was-there is not enough protein there for a self-respecting raccoon-the way humans ate early on-some call it a Neolithic diet-had more meat for protein to keep the muscles and brain healthy. It makes much more sense...
Like you can lead the horse to water but not make him drink, you can encourage the fat to change their ways but not force them to do it. Positive reinforcement for those sincerely trying is a big help, even when progress is slow.
Turns out people who are mildly overwehight are healthier... should we force liberal children who are thin to eat more at school? And offer higher calorie food to kids too thin?
Amen! What a great post!
Thank you very much!
The obesity of the federal government should be the charge of the federal government, itself. But it won’t be, because they think that there is always more ‘pork’ to consume.
The fascination with, as doctors put it, morbid obesity, is a subject, idea, or a revulsion, that should be left in the care of John Q./Jane Q. Public, alone.
Those in government who want to do something about obesity could shut their big fat mouths. That’d be a good start. Maybe have weigh-ins for fat welfare and food stamp recipients...
Laughing out loud until it hurts!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.