The state of New Jersey has recently announced that it will be creating a state agency to deal with the growing problem of obesity among that state's citizens. This follows on the heels of many other local and state governments taking action against trans fat and other health measures designed to slim down the collective waistlines of the state.
The creation of such an agency is a dangerous political trend. We'll call the political thought behind such actions part of the "Coalition to Protect People from Themselves." People get obese purely through actions (or inaction) of their own. As a society, we eat more and move less than any other nation in the world (though obesity is a growing problem world-wide).
The smoking ban movement, largely successful, has brought into the public consciousness a perception that health decisions are supposed to be part of public policy. In that realm, they could at least pretend to hide behind the effects of second-hand smoke, though anyone who watched close enough knew it was really about sticking to smokers, not about second-hand smoke.
Moves against trans fat, such as what has happened in New York City, and attempts to ban foie gras in Chicago have no such communal health risks. If one person plumps up on trans fat, it means jack to everyone around them. The only one arguably at risk would be the person who ended up underneath these trans fat consumers. These laws are directed purely at citizens who the government believes are not making the best choices and need to be instructed on proper living habits with the force of law.
This near-daily encroachment by the elites in telling us plebes how to live is as meddlesome as it is dangerous. The idea that somehow bureaucratic busy-bodies are better equipped to judge and prescribe our dietary intake is absurd. The key to healthy living is to get the people involved motivated to do it. You can't control peoples' food intake unless you toss them into prison; personal responsibility is key.
More information, sure. Some ads on TV, fine. Trying to do it for people by creating yet more useless state agencies on an already strained budget isn't going to motivate people. Bureaucracies breed dependency, not responsibility. That being said, here's some food for thought.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RJ
What's that quote? "A government that provides its citizens with all the necessities of life can just as easily take them all away" or something like that.
It's interesting that some on the left want to legalize heroin, but want to criminalize Big Macs. They want smokers banned from public areas, but want terrorists in Gitmo freed.
Gawd help us all...
2 - STM
Yep, don't you love those "liberals" of the nancy-boy/whiney-girl persuasion who cough and splutter histrionically 10 metres UPWIND of a smoker, but have forgotten the clouds of dust kicked up over New York by those two falling sckyscrapers with 3000 people trapped inside.
Your're right, RJ, even though I don't agree with 99.8 per cent of your politics. God 'elp us, indeed. If you guys lose the plot, we're all well and truly fu.ked.
3 - JustOneMan
EDITORS
I DID MY TIME...LET ME BACK IN...
JOM
4 - Fred Merts
EDITORS
I DID MY TIME...LET ME BACK IN...
JOM
5 - Christopher Rose
JOM/Fred: It's like this - you can debate ideas as much as you like. Nobody wants to censor ideas or prevent debate. On the other hand, attacking people you disagree with is simply tedious.
If you seriously believe that you can understand and follow, as Eric Olsen put it, that we expect a level of civility and respect in the way you voice your disagreement, there is no problem.
How about it?
6 - Nancy
Christopher - you BANNED JOM???!!! GOOD JOB-!!! Probably the best decision you ever made. He won't change; he's a 12-year-old potty-mounthed moron in the body of a 46-year-old man who should know better. Leave him out in the cold where he belongs, & good riddance.
What did he say/do that finally tore the envelope?
7 - zingzing
but nancy... jom makes a better argument for liberalism than any liberal could ever make! i mean, his silly nonsense to valid point ratio is like 50:1, but... as long as he behaves himself (to a degree, or else he wouldn't be jom, now would he?), banning someone is never the best option.
8 - Stinkey
This will be banned which is just. However before our intrusted editors see it you will see it first. So hear it goes. Im watching my stop watch. In the begining their were decusting fat people. Just went to Google to find out things about decusting fat people. What do I get from Google. Did you mean decorating. What the fuck. If I should look up tea cups Im sure they would say did you mean tea bags. No you dumbfucks I was looking for decusting fat tea bags decorated with with fat people. Get me the hell out of hear.
9 - Dr Dreadful
LOL. Kudos to Stinkey aka SR for this outstanding contribution to the genre of stream-of-consciousness literature.
10 - Clavos
Looked mor like stream-of-unconsciousness to me...
11 - Elvira Black
But seriously, John...
You've hit the nail on the head here. I had the same thought as I was reading, and of course you confirmed it. More ridiculousness, more wasted taxpayer dollars, more bureaucracy, more ineptitude, more bullshit. Sigh...and so it goes...
12 - Elvira Black
Oh, and Stan #2:
"Nancy boys and whiney girls"--love it!
13 - Stinkey
Stinkey is sr. Are you kidding me. I thought sr was El Zorro or Spider man. Damn, you learn something new each day.
14 - Dr Dreadful
SR was actually the brand of toothpaste I used as a kid. My mother would tell me "Brush your teeth, or your breath will be Stinkey."
15 - Dr Dreadful
If Stinkey and sr are not the same person, how come you never see both of them together on the same thread?
Hmmm...
16 - STM
Your Macleans are showing
17 - Zedd
John,
This is another example waisted emotions, juvenile rants about topics that are unconsidered because of an inability to process large issues. Come on this is teenage indignation. A voicing of disdain out of "supposed to" more than "should". Did you really think about this?
There is a major disconnect in your article. You never stated what the agency is supposed to accomplish and what you object to in their goals.
Are you against a government that is informed about its populous?
Are you against a government that informs its people?
Are you against a government that provides health services so that its populous can pursue happiness?
What is your beef?
You want the government to protect us from China so that we are still the number one power in 30yrs but you don't care if we implode from within; dying from all sorts of diseases that come from ignorance, self inflicted or not? If our getting fat, lazy and diseased is destructive and impedes our ability to compete in the future should our government not look at that as a security issue?
Should we not stop health epidemics? HIV/AIDS mostly occurs because of personal negligence. So do most STDs. Should the government not have taken steps to inform the public about such matters?
Obesity contributes to, hypertension, diabetes, heart attacks, many of the top killers in this nation. It is occurring at epidemic levels. Smoking contributes to cancer and all sorts of lung diseases. You suggest that the entities that organize us and unite us as a people not concern themselves with these challenges BUT spend billions fighting people all over the world who are suspected of wanting to kill us?
Its childish thinking in my opinion. At some point adhering to an ideology becomes crippling if it is done at the expense of reason.
Remember, some guy made up your ideology, it wasn't written by God as a way for humans to exist. Its just some guy(s) who are just like you who come up with those notions. They made it all up John. Choose practicality not ideology.
18 - Arch Conservative
"In a universal health care system, the government and society at large have a vested interest in how you live your life - what you eat, how much you workout, your drinking and smoking habits, and so on. You're spending their money, after all."
Not only the government, but other citizens will have a vested interest in your health as they will be forced to subsidize it. That means if I'm walking by Mcdonalds and I see some fat fuck on his sixth cheeseburger I would be perfectly in the right to run into Mcdonalds, slap the cheeseburger out of his pudgy hands and say " what's wrong with you you fat fuck, don't you know that I'd like to take a vacation this year but I can't because I'm paying more in taxes for this bogus health care system that pays for lardasses like you to get all kinds of health care that stems from your inability or unwillingness to make healthy responsible lifestyle choices" and then kick him in the groin so he won't soon forget our little conversation.
I think we can all agree that a civilized society should have safety measures for those who become very sick or injured through no fault of their own. However a completely socialized system of health care, as with all socialist ideas, makes the responsible subsidize the lazym apathetic and stupid. I aint havin any of that!
19 - STM
Arch, I understand your ideas on all this but my experience is that if it is a universal free (or near-free) health care system that conscripts private industry into the picture as well, the balance is great. You end up with a safety net for people who can't afford private fund care, and those who take private care on top of their medicare contribution get a tax rebate. High earners who choose not to top up with a private fund pay a Medicare levy.
You are not really wholly subsidising others, because you get all the benefits as well. Example: I had some kidney operations a couple of years back. I ended up $156 out of pocket in total after Medicare paid my bills, which I then claimed back through my private health fund. I ended up owing nil/nada for a long series of operations, tests, the works. My wife was hospitalised a few years ago for a couple of extended periods and we paid nothing up front.
It works well, probably because there's plenty of private input and a lot of work between govt and private sector researchers funded in concert by both.
What doesn't work is Soviet-style stuff, or even worse - Britain's National Health system ...
Universal free care can work and can be of good quality if it's done in concert with the private sector.
20 - John Bambenek
STM-
That kinda sounds like Medicaid which we've had for some time now... how's that working out?
Not very well considering the 40ish mil supposed uninsured people in the US.
So Medicaid was supposed to provide this safety net for the poor, and it's failed, so we're going to give the same people a WHOLE lot more money and subject the entire population under their bureaucracy and hope for a better result?
How's that work?
21 - SteveS
The reason why Medicaid is a failure, as you consider it John is because the line for qualification is too low.
Just raise the bar to cover the 40 million uninsured people. I know, because I am one of them. I am self-employed and work from home. If I wanted insurance, Blue Shield will give it to me at 500 bucks a month (I'm a healthy, non-smoking male). I can't afford that, yet I make too much for Medicaid, so I have nothing.
Just raise Medicaid's level at which they accept people, that's all it takes to cover the 40 million.
(although I am in favor of universal health care because that is the only method that doesn't pit profits against health. When it is left up to the marketplace/insurance companies to do healthcare, profits override health).
Back to the topic of obesity in this country, we need to quit subsidizing corn. Cut out high fructose corn syrup that is in every product from energy drinks to snacks to cereals. And you will greatly cut down on the number of overweight people in this country.
22 - Arch Conservative
"Back to the topic of obesity in this country, we need to quit subsidizing corn. Cut out high fructose corn syrup that is in every product from energy drinks to snacks to cereals. And you will greatly cut down on the number of overweight people in this country."
Corn syrup isn't a magic bullet Steve. We all need to do more to get more exercise and consume less.......... period. You ever seen one of those qizzes where they compare the average serving size and nutriotional value of today's meals to the meals we ate 30 years ago? Through food marketing we truly have become a supersized nation on it's way to destroying our health as we sit on our computers, play our video games and otherwise find pursuits that allow us to remain fat lazy slobs rather than break a sweat each and every day.
23 - SteveS
Correct, I don't mean to imply that we just take the one step. I think it is one of the main culprits though.
I have cut all high fructose corn syrup products out of this household and not only is my stomach getting flatter, but I have more energy for longer periods of the day too, instead of little bursts of energy.
You ever seen one of those qizzes where they compare the average serving size and nutriotional value of today's meals to the meals we ate 30 years ago?
There's no doubt that todays' food is unhealthy, fast food, snacks, soda and all that, but I haven't seen anything comparing meals to meals of the past.
The meals of the past that I am familiar with, being from the midwest, includes cooking in lard or bacon grease, using real butter, putting heaps of gravy on things, and what man of the household didn't always have a second helping of his wife's cooking?
I don't think we ate much healthier in the past (I could be wrong), but I think we just ate different bad foods. Foods that clogged arteries rather than putting on fatty tissue for example.
24 - SteveS
Also in the past, I think people did more physical work and in todays environment, more people do work sitting at the computer or in a cubicle. So that bacon grease or gravy was burnt up in the past, and foods aren't today.
25 - Arch Conservative
I have cut all high fructose corn syrup products out of this household and not only is my stomach getting flatter, but I have more energy for longer periods of the day too, instead of little bursts of energy."
How have you managed to do that? Isn't high fructose corn syrup in almost everything? What do you eat?