I get email and comments from time to time that my language deriding government's intervention into every aspect of our lives is overblown and exaggerated. My answer: Oh yeah, well how about this:
Mike Huckabee, the Governor of Arkansas, now
requires annual fat reports. These are sent to the parents of every
single child aged between 5 and 17; a response, he says, to "an
absolutely epidemic issue that we could not ignore" in the 1,139
schools for which he is responsible.
I just cannot craft any reasonable theory of government where this is the state's job. The "obesity" crisis in this country just amazes me. "Experts" every few years broaden the definition of who is overweight or obese, and suddenly (surprise!) there are more people defined as overweight. Even presuming it is the state's job to optimize our body weights, is it really the right approach to tell everyone they are too fat? Having known several people who were anorexic, including at least one young woman who died of its complications, is it really a net benefit to get young people more obsessed with looks and body style? And what about the kids that are genetically programmed to be overweight? Does this mean that years of taunting and bullying by their peers is not enough, that the state's governor wants to pile on now?
It is interesting to note that governor Huckabee apparently started this initiative after his own personal battle with weight loss:
[Huckabee] lost 110lb after being warned that his
weight, more than 280lb after a life of southern fried food, was a
death sentence. A chair even collapsed under him as he was about to
preside over a meeting of state officials in Little Rock.
We all have friends who have lost weight or gotten into homeopathy or became a vegan and simply cannot stop trying to convert their friends now that they see the light. Now we have the spectacle of elected officials doing the same thing, but on a broader scale and with the force of law, rather than just mere irritation, on their side. One can only imagine what report cards kids would be carrying home if Huckabee had instead had a successful experience with penis enlargement. What's next, negative reports for kids with bad acne? For women whose breasts are too small? For kids who are unattractive?
As I have argued many times in the past, a large part of the blame for these initiatives is public funding of health care. Beyond the efficiency and choice arguments, I have tried to point out that publicly funded health care is a Trojan horse for a number of truly intrusive nanny-state government controls of our lives.
It isn't such a stretch to imagine the effect
when people realise "” as residents of Arizona have been told already "”
that about 40 per cent of their healthcare charges are spent treating
the consequences of avoidable obesity.
When health care is paid for by public funds, politicians only need to argue that some behavior affects health, and therefore increases the state's health care costs, to justify regulating the crap out of that behavior. Already, states have essentially nationalized the cigarette industry based on this argument.
By the way, I am willing to make a bet with anyone that no where near 40% of our healthcare charges in Arizona are due to obesity. I am positive some advocate made up this number, or created it using some ridiculously broad assumptions, and it has now been swallowed by the credulous and scientifically-illiterate press.
Update: Wow, the solution to obesity! Government funded shrubbery:
City dwellers living in areas with little greenery and high levels of
graffiti and litter are more likely to be obese than those living in
pleasant areas with lots of greenery, say researchers in a study
published on bmj.com today.
Reason number 6,345 not to ever take "facts" from a "study" reported in the media at face value.
Update #2: More about the health care as a trojan horse for statism (emphasis added)
BangkokThe World Health
Organization (WHO) has always had a rather expansive notion of what it
means to be healthy. If one looks at the official definition it defines
health as a "state of complete physical, mental and social well-being
and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity." According to that
understanding there isn't much that is not in some way connected with
health. And for the health promoters at WHO's recently completed Bangkok conference that means that health is the supremely important value that trumps everything else.
all, the health promoters argue, it is surely obvious that health is a
necessary condition for any sort of life, so it must follow that for
any truly rational person health must outweigh any other value that
might conflict with it. But the "obvious" -- especially the obvious of
the health promoter -- is often likely to be untrue. While it may be
true that being alive is in some not very interesting sense necessary
for having a life, it is not at all true that being "healthy,"
especially as defined by WHO, is a necessary condition for having a
of us make trade-offs between optimal health and other values all of
the time. We travel by car for instance, for reasons of economy or
convenience, even though we might recognize that statistically planes
are safer. We smile at Alan Dershowitz's cardiac calculus where a
patient chooses between ten years of inactive life and the risk of
doctor has made a prognosis/That intercourse fosters thrombosis/But I'd
rather expire/Fulfilling desire/Then abstain, and develop neurosis."