|
March 21, 2010
"Your unhealthy choices cost all of us!"
In what I think was a remarkably idiotic display, Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm proclaimed that yesterday (Saturday, March 21, 2010) all Michiganders should refrain from eating meat! From Friday's Free Press: Gov. Jennifer Granholm said Thursday that she won't rescind her proclamation urging Michiganders to forgo meat-eating on Saturday, even as new demands arrived in her office from state cattlemen.She'll admit nothing of the kind. In fact, her proclamation claims that eating meat is unhealthy: 'Michigan Meatout Day' proclamationEtc. I don't know how many times I have kvetched that what people eat is no one else's business. Even less is it the government's business. But I was reminded of Governor Granholm's silly proclamation when I read a brilliant essay by Zombie that Glenn Reynolds linked earlier. Zombie's biggest single objection to universal healthcare is that it forces us all to be nanny-state fascists, and he specifically mentions diet: Who among us hasn't looked on in horror at the grotesque dietary intake of the average American? Donuts, white bread, lard, Coca-Cola, pork rinds, preservatives, sugar, grease and artificial coloring. Little toddlers drinking sweet sodas instead of milk. Teenagers eating junk food instead of brain-building food. Nary a fresh vegetable in sight. Health nuts like me spend our lives trying to treat our bodies like temples, and provide good examples for everyone else; but it's hard to compete with intense cultural pressure to eat the worst imaginable foods. As above, under normal circumstances I would sigh in mystification and let other people go their merry way, killing themselves with bad food. Yet once I start to ponder the overwhelming society-wide medical costs of keeping millions of unhealthy people alive for decades and decades, my anger grows. I want to ban advertisements for unhealthy foods on TV. I want to outlaw donuts. I want to tax McDonald's to cover the full environmental cost of their products. I want to do all sorts of quasi-fascistic things that normally I would never advocate.Damn, that is so right. And it explains why the nanny state busybodies like Jennifer Granholm almost without exception favor universal health care. They figure that once we're all paying for each other's mistakes, we will be forced to "care" more, and become ever more supportive of government intrusions we would otherwise never support. I'm reminded of Sean Kinsell's irritation over the "flexitarians" at Trader Joe's, and my own related irritation over seeing people buy junk food with food stamps. It's not what they eat; it's that I'm paying for it! And of course now they want me to pay not only for the junk food, but for the additional consequences of eating it. The result is communitarianism, and a nation of busybodies and government informants. Sorry, but I refuse to allow socialized medicine to turn me into a little fascist. Regardless of what the government might make me pay for; I will still refuse to support restrictions on what people do with their bodies, what they put into them, how they screw or how often, etc. I cannot support the argument that "it costs all of us because we now have socialism," because that is just using socialism (which is one wrong) to accelerate the destruction of freedom (which is another wrong). It is not an individual's stupid or unhealthy behavior that costs us; it is the unjust laws that compel us to pay. It's socialism that costs all of us, dammit! As far as I'm concerned, those who buy into the busybody notion that unhealthy behavior "costs all of us" because of these socialistic laws are doing little more than trying to make socialism work. (Which has long been the Republican approach to entrenched socialist programs.) They may mean well, but they can't make socialism work. Instead, by trying to make it work, they prolong it. Prolonging socialism only makes it worse. Socialism is worse than meat, worse than unsafe sex, worse than drinking or smoking, and worse than being fat. Socialism is the unhealthiest choice of all, and it's the number one killer in human history. Clearly an unhealthy choice that costs all of us. posted by Eric on 03.21.10 at 07:38 PM
Comments
Well said indeed. I've linked to your post; I hope you don't mind. Mad Minerva · March 21, 2010 11:06 PM Mind? I'm flattered! You have a lovely blog too. Thanks! Eric Scheie · March 22, 2010 12:23 AM That's one of the best posts you've ever written, in my opinion. Well said. I was just discussing this issue yesterday with some family members who apparently support this monstrosity of a bill but would prefer to deny coverage to alcoholics who get liver disease, say, or smokers who get lung cancer. I asked if they would also support denying coverage to lifelong joggers or other athletes who need knee surgery (often multiple knee surgeries). As many as a third of obese people never experience "obesity-related" chronic conditions such as diabetes; should we deny them coverage just because they're obese, even though they are otherwise as healthy as any other person? How about people who do not have DNR orders? They could have chosen to just die and not make us pay for their relentless hanging-on to life, the selfish b*tards, so why should I have to pay for them? I mean, if we're going down the fascist road, why not go whole hog? Incidentally, two of the people arguing against covering alcoholics are, um, on Medicaid and just bought a new flat-screen TV and got cable and have two cell phones and were griping about how they can't *afford* health insurance. Right. I suggested they try opening a savings account to use to pay for health care. Blank stares. In arguing with people like this, because I find that appeals to liberty and common decency don't work because they are usually too far gone along the socialist/fascist line, I do point out that it is unlikely that over a lifetime fat alcoholic smokers cost "society" any more than anyone else, and possibly they cost less, simply because most of the time elderly people use more health care and cost more to treat than younger people, even sick ones, and so, in general, the younger people die, the less they tend to cost (again, over a lifetime). It makes sense, and there is research backing this up, that someone who died at 55 would end up costing less than someone who hung around another 30 years or so. Oddly, no one supports punishing healthy people who live long lives, though. Can't imagine why. Julie · March 22, 2010 01:58 AM Does present a dilemma. Fat or Fiat? Governments which discourage bad habits tend to first frown and urge. But soon they are issuing orders. Tenet #1 of government "You will obey." It is usually easier to rule by lies than by force. So governments try huge propaganda efforts instead. Propaganda sounds like this "Save the planet. Eating one Big Mac kills an orphan in Bolivia. We all just want a better world." Such propaganda produces great confusion. The people know better. But if some in the government start to believe their own propaganda then mischief follows.
KTWO · March 22, 2010 02:30 AM I hope that you can see that your refusal to become a fascist is a direct rebuttal to Zombie's post -- one that I was thoroughly disgusted by. Perhaps that is because I have been online long before it became the internet and Zombie's post was merely a repost not of his/her own thinking but of those who came 20+ years before. Of course insurance (health, auto, homeowners... I've heard the argument in all instances) would be cheaper if only perfect humans (like Zombie, et al) were allowed to purchase it. But those imperfect beings must be required to purchase it to protect the perfect, right? Donna B. · March 22, 2010 02:59 AM The argument socialized medicine requires us to tyrannize the citizens based on the cost of the unhealthiness of their habits is bunk. It only makes sense if those of healthy habits never die or never undergo an expensive final illness. Brett · March 22, 2010 07:49 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
March 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2010
February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
The frightening future has arrived. And it's a rube awakening!
Polywell - No BS - No Excuses Obamanocchio Closing insurance loopholes is a matter of life and death! The Culture War still sucks! (But where's the "traditional" Culture War I'm supposed to be against?) Laugh While You Can The Socialist Party Steal This Flag What To Do? No, we are not doomed!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I guess I can add Food Socialism to Cultural Socialism and Economic Socialism.
It appears that they are cloning socialisms faster than we can kill them.
It is now a race between the replicationists and the liquifactionists. Calling Dr. Benway.