In England, they are considering adding a tax to unhealthy food in order to reduce the burdens that fat folks place on the National Health Care system.
Think about that for a minute folks. If you make the government the provider for health care, you give the government the right to tell you how to live.
Here's an example. The Federal government sponsored a network of highways throughout the US. They were built with the assistance of depression era works projects, but maintenance was left up to the states. The Federal government allocates money to each state that is earmarked for maintenance of the Interstate highway system.
So far,so good.
Then the Federal government decided that being old enough to vote, enter into legal contracts, and to fight and die for your country didn't mean you were old enough to drink,so they proposed a drinking age of 21. While the Constitution clearly prevent the Fed from creating a national drinking age, they blackmailed the states into going along with the increased drinking age by threatening to cut off the Federal money for maintaining the Interstates.
If the Federal government controls your access to medical care, that means they also control your life.
The only thing worse than letting big business control medical care is to let government control it.
Posted by Rich at July 12, 2007 4:10 PM | TrackBackGovernment isn't telling people what to do. It is however, incenting their behavior, much in the same way that government incents people to join the military by paying for college or government incents people to stop smoking by taxing it.
Many health insurers are dabbling in incenting behavior by raising premiums for unhealthy behavior and lower premiums and prizes for doing things like eating better, quiting smoking, etc.
Posted by: Manish on July 13, 2007 3:43 PMAmen...to every word Rich!
Posted by: Mushy on July 13, 2007 5:57 PMIncentive is a positive reinforcement,and I'm fine with that. Removing or restricting access to services based on behavior isn't considered positive reinforcement in most circles. Generally it's considered punishment.
So, I ask a simple question, do you want the government to have the power to punish non criminal behaviors? Or put another way, do you want the government to have the ability to decide what is best for you and the power to enforce that decision? If so, you are not a citizen, you are a subject.
Posted by: rich on July 14, 2007 5:14 PMIncentive is a positive reinforcement,and I'm fine with that. Removing or restricting access to services based on behavior isn't considered positive reinforcement in most circles. Generally it's considered punishment.
Your playing semantics. They are incentivizing eating healthy. This can be done as a carrot or a stick, and its really in how you look at it..healthy food is now relatively cheaper than junk food. They aren't removing or restricting access to junk food.
Posted by: Manish on July 18, 2007 8:24 PMSo manish, your answer to my question is that you have no problem with the government deciding what is best for you, then compelling you to follow their decision.
Sorry, but that doesn't fit any definition of freedom I'm familiar with.
Posted by: rich on July 19, 2007 2:10 AM