Leader

Faster please. I'm cold.

__________________

Sombra

Well, some people are paranoid about terrorists......

Leader

Well that's random

Praxus

Free will is axiomatic, if we don't have it, you can't know anything you claim to know. Saying we have no free will is just as nonsensical as claiming we live in a universe were existence equals non-existence. In other words it is arbitrary, in the face of perceptual & conceptual evidence telling us that free will does exist and that existence means existence.

Of course we do not have unbounded free will, we do not have the power to blow up the Earth on a whim. We do not have the power to change natural law. But within these confines, we do have free will. But let's not go off onto a tangent here with free will.

I'm not a libertarian. If everyone always acted in their own self-interest there would be no need for a Government. I support the existence of a Government, therefore I don't believe all people will always act in their best interest.

Let's examine what you just said here...
"In the spirit of freedom, I think the best way to do this is generally by creating taxes and tax incentives rather then outright banning certain behaviors."

In the spirit of freedom we are going to loot people's private property to discourage certain behaviors, instead of outright banning them.

Wow. Just wow.

Bulgaroctonus

I can attest to the benefits of riding a bicycle. During the Spring, Summer, and Fall, I ride 11 miles to my work (round trip of 22 miles). I make this journey 5 or 6 days a week. The benefits for my health are tremendous, and the ride along the Delaware River is beautiful.

Besides physical health, I have saved at least $1000 over the years of not driving to work. I have also not polluted at all.

Biking is not a practical solution for everybody. Often it is not practical because there are no good trail systems in place, or the place of work is too far from home. I'm sure you can all think of other obstructions to biking.

However, I urge all people that can bike to work or school (or any other reasonably close periodic event) to do so. It is exhilirating and it saves money.

In England, there is a series of trails called the Greenway. These trails connect the major cities and towns, allowing for a large volume of non-automobile traffic between the cities of England. The United States would be well advised to duplicate this system, for the purposes of attracting tourists and allowing bike or foot travel between important places.

Bulgaroctonus

Obesity is detrimental to our society. According to the CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention), obesity in adults has increased by 60% within the past twenty years and obesity in children has tripled in the past thirty years. A staggering 33% of American adults are obese and obesity-related deaths have climbed to more than 300,000 a year, second only to tobacco-related deaths.

Now, imagine if those deaths and hospitalizations had been averted (which is possible). That means that the American health care system would not be caught holding the bag on all these obese people. Medical costs would probably be lower, and insurance costs would also drop.

Many obese people are essentially parasitic. They lack the 'will-power' (philosophical question of free will aside) to take control of the bodies. Thus, they consume the limited amount of healthcare services and resources. Imagine if every obesity-related hospitalization was spent on a more dire need, such as someone with a disease or traumatic injury.

The less obese people, the better.

Bulgaroctonus

I'm also in favor of showing little tolerance towards obese people. I find it disgusting on many levels. However, our current system of healthcare, and especially our system of health insurance, is tied to the overall health of the nation. So, obese people are a detriment that warrant attention. To my knowledge, obesity and smoking are responsible for driving up many insurance premiums.

See above post.

Shek

Premiums are risk adjusted, so if you are fat, smoke, or conduct some other risky behavior, you pay more.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Bulgaroctonus

Of course I will side with Barrowaj in asserting the power of biology and physics over free will. It was only a matter of time before I found this philosophical post! Hahahaha......

Anyway, we have my Philosophy thread for that discussion.

Indeed. What a long tangent it could be!

Now, here we have basis for a long discussion. Even if people acted in their rational self-interest, there is still a need for Government.

If everone acted in their rational self-interest, we might have serious combatting outcomes. That is, one person's goals might be in direct contradiction of another person's goals. This is what happens today. One of the critical roles of Government is as a moderator. Government allows a more or less peaceful resolution of self-interest clashes within its populace.

That is one of the methods that the U.S. Government uses today. It is not looting someone's property. It is certainly 'nicer' than government regulations, laws, and penalities.

Bulgaroctonus

February 6, 2005

Private Matters and 'Public Health'
by Radley Balko

Radley Balko is a policy analyst with the Cato Institute.

Obesity Policy Report has become a leading insider newsletter for lawmakers, regulators, food industry executives, and nutrition advocates. The following is a Q&A the publication recently ran with frequent TCS contributor and Cato Institute policy analyst Radley Balko.

OPR: You're completing a white paper for Cato on obesity that will be published later this year. What's your thesis?

Radley Balko: It's an overview of the obesity debate, with an emphasis on personal responsibility and consumer choice. It will first make the case that obesity is fundamentally a private issue, not a legitimate "public health" issue within the purview of government. Second, it will examine whether the obesity problem is really as dire as it's made out to be by activists and the media. Third, it will look at many anti-obesity initiatives and examine their flaws and features. Finally, it will make the case that the free market has done a more than adequate job addressing these problems, and I'll make recommendations for how the government can help fight obesity by restricting its influence in the food marketplace.

OPR: From a libertarian standpoint, what's at stake in the war over obesity, and the way in which government and special interest groups are trying to solve the problem?

Balko: Quite a bit, I think. The danger here comes with the one-two punch of an increasingly socialized healthcare system and an ever-expanding nanny state. More and more, we as individuals are being held financially responsible for the health and well-being of everyone else - your high cholesterol shows up on my tax bill or in my insurance premiums. When that happens, it becomes much easier for government to justify further intrusion into our choices as diners and consumers, on the premise that "we're saving taxpayers money." That's pretty scary. We need to reverse both trends. We need to make healthcare more private and market-oriented. But we also need to let people make their own decisions about what they eat, and make clear that they and they alone will bear the consequences of those decisions.

OPR: You specialize in analyzing the "nanny culture." With obesity, who are the biggest offenders, in your view -- the biggest nannies? Government is often accused of being a nanny, but in the case of obesity, many special interest groups criticize it for not doing nearly enough.

Balko: I find that troubling -- that there are those who think government hasn't done enough. Many of the same groups pushing for more government action on obesity are also active on the anti-alcohol (Center for Science in the Public Interest comes to mind) and anti-tobacco (the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation comes to mind) fronts. There, we've seen them push some pretty severe restrictions on consumer choice, civil liberties, and due process. Given that they're using many of the same arguments in the obesity debate that they've used in the tobacco and alcohol debates, it's frightening to think what types of policies they might push down the road.

Where government has intervened in matters as private and intimate as what we put into our bodies, we've seen some pretty drastic and unintended consequences. The forbidden fruit effect has led to a scourge of underage binge drinking. Jurisdictions with high cigarette taxes have spawned black markets that fund crime syndicates and international terrorism organizations. And we've all seen the devastating effects wrought by the failed war on drugs.

OPR: In your opinion, what's the worst thing the government could do to "fight" obesity?

Balko: The worst thing it can do is treat obesity as a "public health" problem or, for that matter, "fight" obesity at all. Government is too prone to the influence of special interest groups and congressmen out to promote the industries and agriculture of their home districts for us to trust it to dictate or influence something as important as our diet and our health. Look at the disaster that is the Food Pyramid. Look at the CDC's infamous, bogus, "400,000 annual deaths attributable to obesity" statistic. Look at the ridiculous BMI system, where some of the world's greatest athletes are lumped in with "obesity" figures.

We shouldn't be restricting liberty even if science proves the most alarmist claims about obesity correct. But the science is all over the place. There's lots of research coming out right now suggesting that all of this influence on weight may be killing people. It makes overweight people turn to dieting -- which almost always fails -- instead of focusing on becoming more active, which doesn't do much for weight, but is far more beneficial for overall health than dieting.

The best way to ensure bad public policy is to pass reactionary laws at the height of a media frenzy. The president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation said at a conference last June that "we need to act ahead of the science." I think that's the single worst thing we can do. We should wait for the science to become conclusive, so we can be sure what we are doing isn't unnecessary or, worse, counterproductive.

OPR: What's the best thing government could do?

Balko: Get out of the way. The free market consists of hundreds of millions of people engaging in voluntary, mutually beneficial transactions every day. It's the best way to allocate resources. It's arrogant to think that a handful of government bureaucrats or nutrition activists know more about what foods should be available to us than the collected wisdom of millions of self-interested people. If food some consider "bad" is available on the market, it's because there are people out there who enjoy it. It's offensive and condescending to say the average Joe is too dumb to know that a Hardee's Monster Thickburger slathered in cheese, bacon and mayonnaise, or a decadent, chocolaty dessert probably isn't all that good for him. He knows it's not the best thing for him. He chooses to accept the risk because he enjoys the indulgence. A free society doesn't use laws, taxes, or restrictions to deny him that indulgence.

For some reason, our society has put a premium on longevity. Anything that shaves minutes off of our lives is by definition considered something that ought to be taxed or restricted. But there are plenty of people out there who have probably heard that a cigarette or a slice of cake might take a few minutes off the ends of their lives, and they're willing to sacrifice those few minutes because, believe it or not, they want a cigarette or a slice of cake. Why is that decision any business of the government's?

OPR: You've written about the push to introduce variable health insurance premiums - people who exercise and maintain a healthy weight would pay less than those who don't. What kind of impact do you think such a system would have on obesity rates?

Balko: I hope it will put market forces to the task of finding the diet-lifestyle combination that's most conducive to good health, but that's not really the point. Insurance is about guarding against risk. Health insurers should be free to evaluate risk in the same manner auto and life insurers do.

But to answer your question, what I'd like to see -- and what I think might happen -- is that insurers would begin initiating various carrot-and-stick approaches to group health plans. People who lead healthy, active lifestyles would no longer be forced to subsidize people who don't. We'd see lots of experiments with incentives. People would still be free to make their own decisions about diet and lifestyle, of course. But they'd make them knowing that they'll have to bear the consequences of those decisions. This time, your high cholesterol would no longer affect my health insurance premiums. Obesity would become less a public issue and more of a private one. As it should be.

OPR: Some argue that "personal responsibility" is just another way of the food industry saying, "Leave us alone so we can make lots of money." From a libertarian viewpoint, does the industry have a responsibility to its customers to provide them with healthier food?

Balko: No. The only responsibility any industry or corporation has is to be honest and forthright about what it's putting on the market. If a company is making false claims about what it's selling, it should certainly be held accountable, and we have laws against fraud and false advertising for that.

But it's silly to expect the food industry to market products the public doesn't want. I'm baffled by the criticism of the fast food industry in particular, which has never really claimed to be in the health food business. Should Baskin-Robbins be held liable for not putting fresh fruits and vegetables on its menu, too? If not, why should McDonalds?

If consumers truly want healthier options, they'll indicate that preference by buying healthy. Until only recently, they hadn't been doing that. Now that they are, we've seen an explosion of grocery and restaurant options for carb-, calorie- and fat-counters. That's the market in action. When corporations make money, they don't do so at the expense of consumers, they do so with the blessing of consumers. It takes two parties to make a sale. To the extent that there may be a problem here, it isn't with corporations, it's with consumer preference. If the nutrition activists want to launch privately-funded public relations campaigns aimed at changing consumer habits, I say bully to them.

But don't blame corporations for giving the public what it wants. That's what a market economy is all about.

This article originally appeared on TechCentralStation.com on February 6, 2005.

Bulgaroctonus

I recognize your point about insurance rates being adjusted for risks. I'm currently doing research to find out exactly how obesity influences the economy and insurance premiums. This is what I have so far. More is coming...

This is from the Kansas Legislator
Briefing Book 2005 (http://skyways.lib.ks.us/ksleg/KLRD/...K-1Obesity.pdf)
How does an individual’s weight affect other people?

Obesity has consequences for not only the individual, but also for others in society such as employers, taxpayers and other users of the health care system. Costs can be direct medical expenditures (preventive, diagnostic and treatment services related to obesity) or they can be indirect (value of income lost from decreased productivity, restricted activity, absenteeism and bed days
(morbidity costs) and the value of future income lost by premature death (mortality costs)).

The following are some facts and figures about economic consequences of obesity:

1) Health care facilities see increased costs in caring for obese patients due to the need for special equipment (e.g., beds, wheelchairs, operating tables) and increased risk of injuries to workers
who take care of larger patients.

2) Obesity has been shown to increase disability rates as people age, ultimately raising the costs of health care and long-term care for these individuals.

3) Increased costs are passed on to others who use the health care system or who pay health insurance premiums that may be inflated by increased health care expenditures. In general, people who are healthy subsidize the costs of those who are less healthy and thus consume
more health care.

4) Employers and business also bear some of the costs through higher health insurance premiums due to increased health insurance costs, paid sick leave and lost productivity. A 1998 study found that obese employees take more sick leave and are twice as likely to have high-level absenteeism than non-obese employees.
National direct and indirect costs amount to more than $117 billion annually, about half of which is publicly funded through Medicaid and Medicare.
Recent estimates put the cost of obesity related direct medical expenditures in Kansas at $657 million per year or 5.5 percent of all medical expenditures. Of this amount, at least $143 million is estimated to be paid for by the Medicaid program (funded 40 percent by the state and 60 percent by the federal government).

Annual health care expenditures of non-elderly obese people have been shown to be approximately 36 percent higher than people of normal weight.
Sources: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Obesity Research journal

dalem

There are also "economic costs" to being ugly, or to being stupid, or to being nearsighted. Gonna penalize those too?

The guy at the end of the path your articles are traveling is named Pol Pot, and he'll gladly build another pile of human skulls for you to sit on and survey your carefully engineered society.

-dale

Bulgaroctonus

The topic is global warming, and somehow it is now obesity. I will not turn this into a discussion of eugenics. I do have opinions on the above issues, especially stupidity. However, I won't comment on them. I sense that your post is not an earnest objection as much as it is an effort to entrap me. You probably seek to delegitimize my argument by pointing out the 'inhumanity' of controlling human behavior. This attempt will not be successful.


My comments are scientific and topical to the debate. You seem to think that I am espousing some grand reordering of society. No, I am pointing out the actual economic costs of obesity. My opinions are shared by many economists, physicians, and concerned citizens.

Your comment about Pol Pot is completely unwarranted. The very silly thing is that you point out other traits like stupidity, nearsightedness, and ugliness. All of those traits are innate. However, a good degree of obesity is avoidable. Unlike the irrelevant traits you mention, obesity is the product of laziness, weak will, and gluttony. It is disgusting and should not be applauded.

Praxus

Yeah your right, there may be innocent property disputes where neither side is at fault. So, yes a Government needs to exist.

So threatening someone with jail time if you don't pay them isn't looting? Oh your right, it's extortion.

Bulgaroctonus

I was writing about tax incentives. I thought that you asserted that that tax incentives were a form of looting. I do not think that. I was not writing about jail time. In fact, I wrote that tax incentives are softer than things like jail time. We have a simple misunderstanding.

I would agree that in some cases, incarceration can be a form of extortion. However, that is not what is happening with regards to the obesity issue. I don't understand the relevance of your concerns.