I have mixed feelings on this subject. I think it is a complete overreach for any government to ban behaviors like this. I like to think I believe in maximized personal liberty, and this just doesn't pass the smell test.
However, people who are unable or unwilling to obtain health insurance demand the government facilitate that service should be ready for a government that will place limits on their behavior to control their own costs. You can't on the one hand demand personal liberties that result in the consequence of obesity and poorer health and more expensive health care while at the same time demand the government pay for that consequence. That's why I am a proponent of a junk food tax to help cover the increased costs of obesity on the Medicare/Medicaid systems. Still have personal liberty with some degree of accountability and responsibility to chip in for your own behavior.
What about the people who aren't on medicare/medicaid? Is it fair to hit them with the same junk food tax as those who are getting their health care paid for by the taxpayer?
In my eyes it is. Almost everyone in this country (unless we have reform) will end up on Medicare. That is when obesity really begins to take its expensive toll in terms of type II diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, etc. So if you want to choose to drink soda up the yin yang for your entire life, you'll have contributed quite a bit to help take care of you when you have to take metformin and get your feet cut off because of diabetes.
How about an "opt out" provision? Religious organizations have the option to not participate in social security. They can "opt out" for themselves and their employees in which case social security tax is not withheld from pay, but when the time comes they get no social security benefits. In this high-tech age it would not be hard to administer things so that if I have opted out of medicare, I don't get the obesity surtax on my junk food.
I agree with the general premise, though, that if you accept government benefits you logically should accept government regulation that comes with it. And if you accept Medicare, there is no logical reason why the government should not be able to terminate your life if the government views the risk of added expense to the system of continued life outweighing your potential contribution to society by hanging around. "Death panels" (healthcare rationing boards) are the necessary and logical extension of government-provided healthcare.
Good article.
ReplyDeleteI have mixed feelings on this subject. I think it is a complete overreach for any government to ban behaviors like this. I like to think I believe in maximized personal liberty, and this just doesn't pass the smell test.
However, people who are unable or unwilling to obtain health insurance demand the government facilitate that service should be ready for a government that will place limits on their behavior to control their own costs. You can't on the one hand demand personal liberties that result in the consequence of obesity and poorer health and more expensive health care while at the same time demand the government pay for that consequence. That's why I am a proponent of a junk food tax to help cover the increased costs of obesity on the Medicare/Medicaid systems. Still have personal liberty with some degree of accountability and responsibility to chip in for your own behavior.
What about the people who aren't on medicare/medicaid? Is it fair to hit them with the same junk food tax as those who are getting their health care paid for by the taxpayer?
DeleteIn my eyes it is. Almost everyone in this country (unless we have reform) will end up on Medicare. That is when obesity really begins to take its expensive toll in terms of type II diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, etc. So if you want to choose to drink soda up the yin yang for your entire life, you'll have contributed quite a bit to help take care of you when you have to take metformin and get your feet cut off because of diabetes.
ReplyDeleteHow about an "opt out" provision? Religious organizations have the option to not participate in social security. They can "opt out" for themselves and their employees in which case social security tax is not withheld from pay, but when the time comes they get no social security benefits. In this high-tech age it would not be hard to administer things so that if I have opted out of medicare, I don't get the obesity surtax on my junk food.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the general premise, though, that if you accept government benefits you logically should accept government regulation that comes with it. And if you accept Medicare, there is no logical reason why the government should not be able to terminate your life if the government views the risk of added expense to the system of continued life outweighing your potential contribution to society by hanging around. "Death panels" (healthcare rationing boards) are the necessary and logical extension of government-provided healthcare.
ReplyDelete