Hot Air » Blog Archive » What you get with a nanny state: A large, powerful nanny

Hot Air » Blog Archive » What you get with a nanny state: A large, powerful nanny

Do you still think that diet and exercise choices are no one else’s business? Not when other people pay your medical bills. If I have to pay for my neighbor’s doctor bills, I’m going to demand that he stops smoking, stops eating pizza five nights a week, and starts getting some exercise. If necessary, I’ll find a way to make him stop.

America: Land of the Free Medicine and the Home of the Brave Nanny.  And before you think ‘nobody would do that’ go to a homeowners’ association meeting,  wonder at the level of concern about grass length and fence height, then consider how these same people will like your Krispy Kremes.


Comments

  1. Precisely what my argument is when people minimize my criticism of other laws along these lines. Helmets for, not just motorcycling, but horse riding, skiing, bicycling, and anything else where you might hit your head. Why not require helmets in cars, since head injury is a major cause of death, there?

    While these laws may be a good idea, and the cost of somebody not behaving as we think they should, is borne by the rest of us, we are just using the way medical care is funded to force our fears on others. Not at all a moral approach.

    The cost of telling everyone what risks they may take is much greater than all the lives it might save. This kind of obsession about risk kills people.

  2. “This kind of obsession about risk kills people.”
    Spot on.
    Now tell that to the Joint Commission.
    We need to have basic protections, but we’ve slid way to far down the slippery slope.

  3. Dr. White Coat,

    I have tried commenting on the JCAHO site. They seem to be overwhelmed with contrary opinion from those, who seem to be in a position to profit from JCAHO’s proposed regulations. It’s as if they have been smoking what they are selling. First rule of drug dealing – don’t use your own product. I seem to remember hearing that in some counter culture movies. :-)

  4. Hey! What’s WRONG with all of those Krispy Kremes, anyway? (:

  5. If the government is paying for health care, should they not also have a right to control how much it will cost?

    Insurance companies deny policies of all kinds, not just health, based on conditions of risk. The world is run on risk managment. Hell, even investing is all about risk tolerance. The greater the risk, the greater the reward and potentially, the greater the expense.

    If the government is going to pay for your risk, why should they not also have a right to limit their exposure to it as well.

  6. If the government is paying for health care, that does give them the ability to make all health care decisions for us. What to eat, when to eat, what kind of mandatory exercise, when to perform this mandatory exercise, . . . .

    There really is no end to the ability of the government to control our lives, if you look at it that way. should we allow obesity? No, we’ll make a law forcing people to exercise. If they do not, maybe forced labor or RFID tracked food supplies. No reason not to ban all sales of unacceptable foods.

    If the use of any other form of payment for health care is prohibited, then we are all at the mercy of the whims of those, who are appointed to positions where the claim to know better than we do about what is best for us. This is not likely to be applied fairly, but only in a way that is politically correct. If your unhealthy behaviors are not perceived as a big problem, you will be allowed to continue to destroy your health. but if your behaviors are seen as a problem, why would the government be restricted from taking any Constitutional action it feels is useful – not necessary, but useful? And considering the way the Supreme Court handles rights that are contrary to what the Supreme Court defines as public use. The Kelo v. City of New London case suggests that making America pretty and profitable is more important than the Bill of Rights. That was a property rights case, but it is an ominous portent of what they might do with the intent of protecting public money for health care.