~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
I was reading an interesting article in Newsweek the other day. It discussed the possibility that it isn't cancer or heart disease, or smoking or even overeating that is the leading cause of death in America - it's our inability to make smart choices that leads us down the path of engaging in self-destructive behaviors. In other words, it isn't obesity that kills us, it's the decision we make to eat poorly and in excess that kills us. Agreed!
According to Duke University's Ralph Keeney, "Each year more than a million people needlessly die because of their own personal decisions." Ummmm ... yeah! We call that survival of the fittest and it's what keeps us evolving into "better" people! Fewer stupid deposits in the gene pool is never a bad thing, is it?
The real question this article explores is, do we just need a stronger governmental hand prodding us to make better choices? Keeney thinks more governmental guidance might be the answer. I think Keeney has his head up his ass.
I've got to say, none of the governmental “nudges” mentioned in this article make me feel warm and fuzzy. Ideas include putting fruit at eye level (by governmental mandate) and encouraging people to go for regular preventive screenings and checkups by establishing a medical deposit system: the only way to get your, say $100 deposit back, is by showing up for your annual check-up. I've said it before, I'll say it again – this is a slippery slope.
Any time the government says, “You're welfare is our concern” I want to run away screaming. What starts as “We will tell you what to eat because you aren't making the right choices” can quickly change into “We will tell you what level of education you deserve, we will tell you what medical care you can and cannot have, and we will tell you what job you must do … because you aren't making the right choices” effectively taking our choices away, or, at the very least, reducing them significantly.
Yes, we need laws and consequences for illegal activities (as defined by our society through the political process). What we don't need is our government dipping their hand in every facet of our life. We learn by making mistakes. If there's always a net to catch us, we might forget to pay attention to where our feet are on the tightrope. And that in no way makes anyone a better person.
Where are you on the slope?
I was reading an interesting article in Newsweek the other day. It discussed the possibility that it isn't cancer or heart disease, or smoking or even overeating that is the leading cause of death in America - it's our inability to make smart choices that leads us down the path of engaging in self-destructive behaviors. In other words, it isn't obesity that kills us, it's the decision we make to eat poorly and in excess that kills us. Agreed!According to Duke University's Ralph Keeney, "Each year more than a million people needlessly die because of their own personal decisions." Ummmm ... yeah! We call that survival of the fittest and it's what keeps us evolving into "better" people! Fewer stupid deposits in the gene pool is never a bad thing, is it?
The real question this article explores is, do we just need a stronger governmental hand prodding us to make better choices? Keeney thinks more governmental guidance might be the answer. I think Keeney has his head up his ass.
I've got to say, none of the governmental “nudges” mentioned in this article make me feel warm and fuzzy. Ideas include putting fruit at eye level (by governmental mandate) and encouraging people to go for regular preventive screenings and checkups by establishing a medical deposit system: the only way to get your, say $100 deposit back, is by showing up for your annual check-up. I've said it before, I'll say it again – this is a slippery slope.
Any time the government says, “You're welfare is our concern” I want to run away screaming. What starts as “We will tell you what to eat because you aren't making the right choices” can quickly change into “We will tell you what level of education you deserve, we will tell you what medical care you can and cannot have, and we will tell you what job you must do … because you aren't making the right choices” effectively taking our choices away, or, at the very least, reducing them significantly.
Yes, we need laws and consequences for illegal activities (as defined by our society through the political process). What we don't need is our government dipping their hand in every facet of our life. We learn by making mistakes. If there's always a net to catch us, we might forget to pay attention to where our feet are on the tightrope. And that in no way makes anyone a better person.
Where are you on the slope?
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
37 comments:
Dana, you know where I am at on that slippery slope. Way at the top. Our government, whether local, state or federal will help/save us by making us the most unfree people ever. The government should help us by building roads, maintaining small armies and not letting people starve to death. Add a few oversight organizations and that should be about it for government intrusion. Governments that use our money for wholesale charity are bad. If you are looking for a helping hand and ignore the one at the end of your wrist and look to the government to help you. You are taking a big risk with your freedoms. If anyone thinks "uncle sugar" is the grandfather who spoils you. I have news for you. Uncle sugar will spoil you to death, really. Sadly, we are already addicted to government doing everything for us. Soylent Green here we come.
Oh Dana, you and I are SO are on the same page.
Whatever happened to personal responsibility and accountability?
Arghh....
I would believe a derelict on a street corner before I would believe anything the government has to say.
It sticks it's nose into every aspect of the people's lives. It is no wonder that Americans are the laughing stock of the world. They confuse the American people with the American government.
I agree wholeheartedly..when ever I hear of a tragedy, there is usually some decision that was made that put a person in danger.....I think of my stupid son this last week...his decision to be an idiot and lift cough syrup from walmart could have ruined his life.....
And I also agree that the government should limit their involvement...are we children that need to be told to eat right and wear seat belts????
Thanks gov't, but I'll screw up my own life.
It baffles me that some people are willing to give up so much control for so little return.
Personally I feel that the slippery slope started long ago with seatbelt and helmet laws. I resent any attempt by the government to protect me or my (make believe) children from my own choices.
Of course, there need to be decency and moral standard laws that protect children from adult things such as alcohol and such. But I hate when the government tries to come into my home and micro-manage my buisness.
Aren't there more pressing matter that they could be wasting our money on?
You asked...I'll tell you exactly where...backed up against the drop-off facing the slope. Once in a while, I'll misstep and slip off. ;)
America was founded on personal choices. Laws were inacted to protect each other from your bad personal choices affecting others in society. When the government mandates what is good for you personally, Democracy is compromised. I hate that.
One of the three great lies is "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." Governments idea of helping seems to be simply throw enough money at a problem and it will go away. They tack too many spending items onto good bills so we see a lot more waste. We need less government. The founding fathers would not approve of the way things are now.
Right there with ya' kiddo! If you could see me right now, you'd see me doing that thing where I point at your eyes, then my eyes, then back at yours in that "eye to eye " thing that I do. Which you wouldn't know since we've never met...but I digress. Here in Califoria (Kaahhleefornia) we're headed down that slope quicker than most, except maybe NY towards the complete nanny state. Taxes headed up, "green" legislation putting restrictions that will completely choke off whats left of the construction industry if the housing market ever comes back, endless regulations/laws "for my own good", where the hell did my tasty transfats go?...yeah I'm feeling that slippery slope underneath. I simply can't wait to see what happens next. You've read me Dana and you know where I stand.
FMD
You know, I thought it was the job of the Food and Drug administration to let us know if something is bad for us. Like if some food is filled with poison. Beyond that if you can't figure it out get a personal nanny.
Maybe the government figures we need stupid people so we consistently have people to audition for American Idol and The Bachelor/ette.
*shuddercringe*
The very idea of MORE government involvement makes ME want to run away running and screaming.....
I'm with Hubman, what ever happened to personal accountability and responsibility?!
I think we all pretty much know what is good and bad. And that's pretty much all that can be done about that.
Ever had much luck convincing a friend or acquaintance that their behavior is self-destructive and they need to stop? Has it ever really worked? Or do they always have to hit rock bottom or do something that hurts people really bad before they finally admit to that problem?
Well, if a friend or loved one can convince people of these things, then the government sure can't.
I would disagree with Karen only in one respect. I don't care if someone gets on a motorcycle and bangs his head of the pavement and gets knocked stupid for the rest of his life. But, if he bangs his head off the pavement and then ends up in a county hospital on a respirator at $10,000 a day which is being covered by the taxpayers, then I have a problem with that.
I am hanging on to that slope and fighting to not let the government be involved in my daily choices.
Are they all intelligent choices? Nah...but they are MY choices, so let me make them as long as they do not impact anyone else.
HAPPY NEW YEAR DANA!
I agree, Dana: we don't need is our government dipping their hand in every facet of our life.
As for our self-destructive actions, Freud called it the “Death Wish.” It’s related somehow to pleasure, but that connection is, to me, hard to make.
Too much regulation already and to many advances in medical science. If people don't die, there will be no more room to live. One note on putting fruit at eye level, how about making it affordable. Have you taken notice to the cost of produce, geeze o pete wow! It is cheaper to eat poorly.
The government can't mandate common sense and will power. If someone doesn't care about their own health or their family's, dangling a carrot in front of their face isn't going to change that.
Doomed, I agree! We've raised a country that no longer even sees that we are half way DOWN the slope!
Hubman, personal responsibility and accountability have been deregulated ... or is that regulated?
Richard, I like that! The world has indeed confused the American government with the American people. Unfortunately, it is the American people who have elected the American government!
Breve, well, when the government starts subsidizing health care, shouldn't they have a say? We seem to be blurring the line a bit.
RLL, what baffles me is that people don't seem to see what they are giving up until it's far too late.
Karen, Illinois is notorious for this type of law making. Take the Foi Graw debacle for example.
NV, no slipping allowed. Once the momentum gets going it's difficult to stop the forward "progress"
Buff, I believe government is mandating what is good for government, not for the people.
Howard, thanks for stopping by! Yes, we are very good at throwing money at problems, and very bad at actually solving the problems.
Have you ever come across The Darwin Awards? :)
Move gov-ment??
The thought hurts...
more acceptance of your responsibilities
Well, you know how I feel about nanny government in general. The more control of our personal lives we hand over to the government, the less we keep for ourselves.
I'm pretty much with you, Dana. While I like the idea of the government gently encouraging good choices or helping fund people who do, I do NOT think they should be mandated. One of the biggest reasons is that it takes blame away from the individual and puts it on the government, which creates both bad attitudes and lawsuits. A lot more suing McDonalds for making you fat and the like. Suing the gun company because it obviously didn't have enough warning labels and safety features to prevent you from shooting yourself in the foot. Imagine if the government became an easy target for every mistake! The government didn't provide me with enough incentives and mandates to get a colonoscopy, and now I'm dying of cancer. I'm suing!
I am in general agreement with all the other commenters in that the government shouldn't legislate health matters (or much of everything else that involves choice). I do, however, believe that the government can play a positive role in the health of its citizens. Full disclosure: my master's degree is in public health. :)
The government has the ability to make a very real impact by encouraging healthful behaviors. Not necessarily to legislate but like what Jenni was saying about encouraging good choices or giving funding (perhaps a better use of our tax money than other things...). I am a big advocate of making sure people have correct and accurate information and then they can make the decisions from there.
So to summarize, I agree that the government should not make sweeping laws about health but I do think that if the structure of our government isn't changing anytime soon it should at least be using its power and tax dollars to attempt to be helpful. Whether we take advantage of that help or not is up to us.
FMD, you folks in Kaahhleefornia grab the snowboards so that you can get down the slope even faster!
Knight, get a personal nanny, or make bad choices and die!
ASM, Ha! Of course! All of those potential contestants for "reality" TV must be saved!
There are many things wrong with society today. I don't think government involvement will resolve anything. Look at how well we are solving the current financial disaster. They give a bunch of banks billions of dollars and know one know what is was spent on. Now every one has their hands out hoping they can get some. I'll do without the government help, my chances for survival are far greater.
Vixen, I keep moving farther and farther from big cities in hopes that I can escape into my own little, safe world.
Jay, have I told you lately that I *heart* you? You bring up that fuzzy place. I don't want to pay for scrambled brains dude any more than you do, and statistically, the guy who makes the decision to not wear a helmet is the same one without health insurance. It's not quite so black and white.
Bond, call me spoiled, but I've grown accustomed to making my own decisions - good and bad!
Nick, not such a stretch for me, but don't tell anyone!
Lu, eating healthy is more expensive unless you are willing to eat what is fresh, local and in season.
Biscuit, I think the government believes they can mandate common sense and willpower.
Ro, indeed I have! I'd like to see someone attempt to legislate anyone on that short list!
MadMan, what? I can't blame someone else? But ... but ... *wink*
Boo, I fear will coasting at the bottom of that slope before we figure that out.
Jenni, my concern with government encouragement is knowing who is actually doing the encouragement and what their motives are.
NY Diva, oh sure! The Public Health professional has to chime in *wink* As I said in my response to Jenni, my concern is motive. For example, is it not true that the reason high fructose corn syrup (and evil thing) is used in excess in food manufacturing because the government subsidizes corn production making it a very inexpensive ingredient? That's "encouragement" that I don't need.
Scott, accountability needs to happen at all levels - personal and governmental!
I was calm a minute ago...the Keeney type of mentality makes me totally bug fuck!!!
WHOSE eye level do we put the fruit at? my mother's (who is 4'11") or my father's (who is 6'3") ?
Government mandated medical tests means governmental files of all results.
But we are allowing massive government control with the current bailout and "stimulus" packages. If the government hands out the money...they (we? taxpayers?) will have a say in how it is spent. It is a two edged sword...and it will cut the United States (us) both ways.
If we allow the government to mandate our choices (food, safely, investing, healthcare, et cetera) ....it won't be very long before someone else is elected...or put into power...who we don't agree with...but then it will be too late.
This is gonna sound elitist...and I am sorry...but it usually the faction who will NOT survive natural evolution that wants to make everything the same for everyone. Those who have no chance of being the "fittest". Governmental control is their only hope.
The thing is, choices to smoke or eat poorly don't improve the gene pool because the diseases they cause rarely kill people before they have children.
They do, however, burden society with people who live in states of increasing disability for decades before they do die. Unless the proposal on the table is to bar such people from availing themselves of the hospital, society will continue to bear the cost, since disabled people work less and earn less than the healthy, which means that they incur greater medical costs and are less likely to pay them on their own. As a result, we have an unavoidable political interest in how many packs a day our neighbor to the west smokes, and they in how many times a week our car graces the drive-thru at the local McDonald's.
That said, like Dana, I don't think that government can solve the problem of self-destructive self-indulgence. What it can address, if we choose to, is how much others' self-destructive choices affect the people who are making better choices.
I don't know... Thanks to government, baseball is pure again and completely steroid free. Millions of our tax dollars spent very, very wisely.
Dana, that is true, the people do elect these people, but they do as they want, not what the people want.
What would happen if no one showed up to vote on election day? I wonder if the politicians would get the. message.
Dana- Oh definitely. As long as public health is under the control of the government (i.e. gets the majority of their money that way) then it will also be under the heavy influence of lobbyists. See also: why the food pyramid changes in weird ways.
And Helen makes some very good points! That's why I am less against legislation or actions that keeps people from harming others with their poor choices.
Post a Comment