Politico reports on how the Obama administration and the Democrat-controlled US Congress “are moving across several fronts to give government a central role in making America healthier — raising expectations among public health experts of a new era of activism unlike any before. Any health care reform plan that Obama signs is almost certain to call for nutrition counseling, obesity screenings and wellness programs at workplaces and community centers. He wants more time in the school day for physical fitness, more nutritious school lunches and more bike paths, walking paths and grocery stores in underserved areas. The president is filling top posts at Health and Human Services with officials who, in their previous jobs, outlawed trans fats, banned public smoking or required restaurants to provide a calorie count with that slice of banana cream pie.”
This is only one side, however, as there is considerable resistance to this view of a government role – some would say interference – in how much people eat and exercise. “Clean living in balance is an appealing notion,” Politico writes, “but finger-wagging moralism may not play so well in some precincts of Middle America, where voters may decide government commentary on the size of their beer gut or that plate of nachos isn’t such a good idea.” Skeptics say this is yet another example of America becoming a “nanny state,” and they want no part of it.
In the end, Politico notes, the debate will center on the financial side of good health. Does better health put less stress on the economy in terms of the costs of caring for people who do not take care of themselves? Proponents of greater government intervention will argue yes, while opponents will say that there is not much proof to back up that position.
This is only one side, however, as there is considerable resistance to this view of a government role – some would say interference – in how much people eat and exercise. “Clean living in balance is an appealing notion,” Politico writes, “but finger-wagging moralism may not play so well in some precincts of Middle America, where voters may decide government commentary on the size of their beer gut or that plate of nachos isn’t such a good idea.” Skeptics say this is yet another example of America becoming a “nanny state,” and they want no part of it.
In the end, Politico notes, the debate will center on the financial side of good health. Does better health put less stress on the economy in terms of the costs of caring for people who do not take care of themselves? Proponents of greater government intervention will argue yes, while opponents will say that there is not much proof to back up that position.
- KC's View:
-
I’m not big on “finger wagging moralism” – not from anyone, but especially not from politicians. I am big on transparency…because I think it allows people to make better and more informed decisions.
“More time in the school day for physical fitness, more nutritious school lunches and more bike paths, walking paths and grocery stores in underserved areas” – it all sounds great. But I have to admit to wondering if these ought to be government priorities at this particular point in our history, and if we even have the money to pay for such things. I am not, however, one of those people who thinks that by doing such things we will end up on an inexorable path to socialism. (After all, Obama likes Five Guys cheeseburgers…and that’s a pretty good character reference right there.)
I guess we’re going to find out.
