Nanny can save us
On an NPR podcast I was listening to today, they were talking about new legislation being proposed (I think it’s in NY, but I don’t remember for sure) that would give government to the blood sugar test results of diabetics. The idea is that all that info would go in a database, and when someone’s results show they are getting dangerously close to experiencing the serious complications diabetes can cause, they would get some sort of automatic notification. (e.g. “Take your medicine or your leg is going to get cut off.”) People against the legislation claim that in combination with smoking bans and bans on trans fat, it would bring us one step closer to a nanny state.
Is the idea of a nanny state really that ridiculous or wrong? When violence and disorder reach an extreme in a particular area, there is talk of making it into a military state and imposing marshal law – at least temporarily. They say that desperate times call for desperate measures. Isn’t this a desperate time for health in the U.S.?
All kinds of surveys and studies show that we are one of the fattest countries in the world. Obesity has grown from being a rare oddity to a nationwide norm. I’m sure that if you look at the statistics from any health insurance company, you will find that a disturbing amount of money spent goes towards preventable health problems. Through this country’s high healthcare costs, we are all footing the bill for smokers, folks who aren’t eating well, and people who don’t get enough exercise.
If we had a nanny state, maybe when I went to the supermarket, I wouldn’t be forced to choose between the exorbitant prices for healthier food and the lower prices of unhealthy options. Maybe my insurance would be forced to help fund things like a gym membership that would help keep me out of the doctor’s office and save them money in the long run.
Smokers are already complaining about losing the right to pollute the air that I have to breathe – but they should learn the difference between a right and a privilege and they should spend some time thinking about what happens when one person’s freedom impedes on another person’s freedom. Does the same hold true when it comes to other health related vices? We cannot escape the fact that we live in a world with other people. Your health affects my life and my health affects yours. That means if we both stay healthy, it’s better for everyone.
3 comments:
can't get down with the nanny state. i don't like that people are slowly killing themselves and that i'm paying to prolong their inevitable descent, but doesn't the government have enough information on us, and enough responsibility for things we should be taking responsibility for? perhaps we can set up initiatives that encourage people to do better - like financial consequences for people who are irresponsible with their health. but even then, i think it should be private, not publicly run or funded.
Wouldn't those initiatives qualify as part of the nanny state mentality?
There's nothing stopping companies from doing things like this on their own, but it's not happening. The opposite is happening. When left to their own devices, private companies have shown over and over again that they would rather get us addicted to profitable nicotine and feed cheap but unhealthy food.
i think the government would best be spending its time looking at stuff like this than nannying individuals.
Post a Comment