Washington’s response to the menace of school bake sales illustrates progressivism’s ratchet: The federal government subsidizes school lunches, so it must control the lunches’ contents, which validates regulation of what it calls “competitive foods,” such as vending machine snacks. Hence the need to close the bake sale loophole, through which sugary cupcakes might sneak: Foods sold at fundraising bake sales must, with some exceptions, conform to federal standards.
So if school lunch programs are a platform for so much micro-regulation, how much regulation do you think the government takeover of healthcare will justify? If government is paying most of the health care bills, then any activity that might affect your health is then logically subject to government regulation, if for no other reason than to protect against additional costs. Motorcycle helmet laws have been justified for years on this logic that helmetless riders impose additional costs on government health programs. Well, if that works for motorcycling, why shouldn't government be heavily regulating skiing? Or for that matter, why should it allow people to drive cars at all? Perhaps we should have to get government approval before every car trip to make sure it is not "frivolous" and creating future health care costs through accident risk.
Or how about that most costly-to-health-care activity of all: sex. Sex spreads expensive diseases. It can lead to expensive procedures like abortion. And of course it can lead to costly pregnancies and, worst of all, new lives that have to be maintained for another 80 years by the government health care system. If funding school lunch programs leads logically to banning cupcake sales at schools, why won't Obamacare lead logically to micro-regulation of our every activity?