New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | March 17, 2006

Ron Bailey traces the creeping expansion of "public health" into your private life.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← Bong Hits 4 Jesus | Main | Is Paris (France, Not Hilton) Burning… →

See all 51 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

Captain Holly|3.17.06 @ 11:18AM|#

I would have RFTA, but the link is busted.

Still, knowing Ron I would heartily agree with whatever he said. Public Health has transmogrified from preventing epidemics and promoting sanitation to making sure no one ever does anything that could be considered "unhealthy".

Captain Holly|3.17.06 @ 11:18AM|#

Uh, that should read RTFA....

|3.17.06 @ 11:23AM|#

Whoops; fixed.

|3.17.06 @ 11:28AM|#

Make no mistake about it: Diabetes is on the rise in the United States, increasing from 6 million diagnosed with the disease in 1980 to 15 million in 2004.

Gee, people must have really increased their sugar intake a whole lot after 1980. There is no other possible explanation that I can see.

|3.17.06 @ 11:31AM|#

The "unhealthy" stuff will never be banned outright. It will simply be taxed at such a high rate that participants in "unhealthy" lifestyles will be forced to subsidize propagandistic and wasteful government ad campaigns which impugn their right to live their lives as free citizens responsible for their own choices.

|3.17.06 @ 11:33AM|#

Dave, were you properly potty trained as a child?

Seriously, give it a rest.

|3.17.06 @ 11:34AM|#

You'll pry my ice cream from my cold, amputated nubs.

|3.17.06 @ 11:35AM|#

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/13946794.htm

I wonder if there are any alternatives besides taxation or prohibition?

|3.17.06 @ 11:37AM|#

"If your "bad" LDL cholesterol is too high, you could be reminded to take your statin drugs, cut back on the steaks or get to the gym more often."

An emphasis on preventitive care by public health officials. THE HORROR! THE HORROR!

|3.17.06 @ 11:39AM|#

Back to the topic at hand, I find it utterly unsurprising that the .gov and other entities that supposedly know better would go to great lengths to keep everyone safe from every possible harm.

For example, the AMA and American Academy of Pediatrics have been pushing for the further regulation of firearms ownership under the guise of treating gunshot wounds as a communicable disease, or somesuch nonesense.

|3.17.06 @ 11:41AM|#

No one has mentioned corn syrup yet?

|3.17.06 @ 11:46AM|#

Clearly the blurring of the line between private health and public health is intentional. The more areas that agents of the government can insert the state into, the more control the government has. I really want one of our quasi-libertarian or outright liberal friends to chime in and explain how it is an act of benevolence for the state to rob individuals of self determination for that most precious of liberal causes, their bodies. Certainly if the fact that I cannot see my toes because of my protruding belly is insufficient incentive to address my lifestyle, a reminder from the government will have me on the treadmill the next morning.

So what could be wrong with merely monitoring and reminding people to take better care of themselves? Other than the gross invasion of privacy, here's another answer: It costs money. Money I am not interested in spending. I won't see too many fat fucks at the trail tomorrow when I do my 8 miles, and I am not interested in paying for their habits. Oh, and I am not interested in paying a sin tax on French fries, or giving up Twinkies just to force these people to step in line with a state that apparently has as a goal that people sacrifice utility for additional years of lifespan.

Here's a thought. Get the government out of the business of subsidizing bad choices and people will either stop making them, or determine that they derive sufficient utility from making them and carry the cost themselves.

|3.17.06 @ 11:49AM|#

Since old people are disproportionately unhealthy, shouldn't we just tax people for being old?

R C Dean|3.17.06 @ 11:50AM|#

I wonder if there are any alternatives besides taxation or prohibition?

Umm, leaving people the fuck alone?

An emphasis on preventitive care by public health officials.

Public health officials should keep their mitts, noses, and nannying out of my private life. Including the "preventive" things that I may or may not do in my private life.

You'd think they'd have plenty to do with bird flu, clean water, getting the fucking rats out the restaurant district - you know, public health stuff.

|3.17.06 @ 12:03PM|#

Relax.
We know what's best for you.
Now bend over.

|3.17.06 @ 12:11PM|#

"No one has mentioned corn syrup yet?"

You said the secret word!!!!!!

AAAAUUGGUGGHGHUGAUAGUGUAGUGGHGUUGHHHHJGUGGUAAA!

|3.17.06 @ 12:20PM|#

#6:

I think Modern Day Walter Reed implied that corn syrup was to blame in his comment.

|3.17.06 @ 12:24PM|#

I fail to see the value added to the healthcare system from private insurance, period. Can anyone show me?

JMJ

|3.17.06 @ 12:31PM|#

It would seem to me that if the government has the authority to dictate how we maintain our bodies, then it obviously follows the government has the right to tell a woman whether or not she can have an abortion...right?

|3.17.06 @ 12:32PM|#

Probably a stupid question, but what is the corn syrup thing about?

|3.17.06 @ 12:35PM|#

"You can imagine it getting to the point where you have a public health worker showing up at your door and asking, 'Did you remember to exercise, eat right and take your medication today?"

I can also imagine a world in which humans live in pods of electro-conducting tubes to provide energy for our robot overlords. Does mean it has a good chance of happening. It is the paranoid flights of fancy that keep libertarians on the fringe of political discussions.

Just saying.

|3.17.06 @ 12:42PM|#

paranoid flights of fancy

Are you kidding? I quote from the Washington Post article:

In a program that will be tested first in the South Bronx, city officials will alert doctors about patients whose blood sugar levels are not being well controlled and will offer advice.

It's a tiny step to go from city officials "alerting doctors" to "knocking on your door".

|3.17.06 @ 12:57PM|#

Gee, people must have really increased their sugar intake a whole lot after 1980. There is no other possible explanation that I can see.

Infection.

Diabetes is not infectious, ...

That remains to be seen.

http://www.junkscience.com/sep01.htm
"'Infectious diabetes' theory slammed" - "A scientist who says that infection cannot be ruled out as a cause of diabetes has been attacked by a leading charity. ...Professor Garth Cooper says research raises the question of whether an infectious agent can cause diabetes in the same way that "rogue prions" may cause vCJD." (BBC Online)
"Common virus linked with childhood diabetes" - "GLASGOW, Sep 12 - Babies infected with a common virus are at increased risk of developing type 1 diabetes, according to new research presented here Tuesday. A team of researchers from the Universities of Turku, Tampere and Oulu in Finland who tracked newborns through their early years of life found infections with enterovirus were much more common among those who went on to develop diabetes than in healthy individuals. ...

See also "The (or A) New Germ Theory" (Atlantic article which morphed into a book) by Paul Ewald.
Summary: if you don't know what causes a disease, it'll probably turn out to be a currently unidentified infectious agent.

|3.17.06 @ 12:58PM|#

"It's a tiny step to go from city officials "alerting doctors" to "knocking on your door"

Who needs to step? Never heard of wireless technology?

|3.17.06 @ 12:58PM|#

Rhywun,

Fair enough, but the paranoid part comes when you believe that the health official will come armed with enforcement powers to make you follow the suggestions.

|3.17.06 @ 12:58PM|#

Umm, leaving people the fuck alone?

Can we get a "Hell, yeah?!"

|3.17.06 @ 2:00PM|#

Fair enough, but the paranoid part comes when you believe that the health official will come armed with enforcement powers to make you follow the suggestions.

You mean like getting a ticket for something like smoking?

|3.17.06 @ 2:07PM|#

Infection.

I'll start checking for vectors.

|3.17.06 @ 2:10PM|#

Never heard of wireless technology?

But the personal touch is much more... effective.

R C Dean|3.17.06 @ 3:16PM|#

Probably a stupid question, but what is the corn syrup thing about?

There was a rather, erm, energetic exchange not too long ago wherein one poster (DaveW, at that time) posited (and I paraphrase) that corn syrup was the root of all evil, and that the litigation process was the proper scientific forum for establishing this.

Hilarity ensued, and an inside joke was born.

the paranoid part comes when you believe that the health official will come armed with enforcement powers to make you follow the suggestions.

Clearly this is a line that will never be crossed. If they can't put law enforcement powers behind things like wearing seatbelts and motorcycle helmets, we'll never see them for other issues that impact no one's health but your own.

|3.17.06 @ 3:37PM|#

More accurate paraphrase: Hypothesis that corn syrup was the root of the big diabetes increase, and that the FDA was the preferred scientific forum for establishing this, but that recourse to litigation might be neccessary if it turns out that agribusiness was actively discouraging the FDA from considering that important public health question.

Kind of farfetched because I can't imagine that some shill would discourage government investigation of the diabetes explosion.

|3.17.06 @ 4:34PM|#

Dave, once again, I'd like to you to point me to where I can apply for a job as a corporate shill.

Just give me one phone number/email/point of contact to whom I can send my resum�.

Thanks.

|3.17.06 @ 4:35PM|#

The obvious way to make people's bodyweight "communicable" is by, yes, saving the children. If a fat person flaunts his/her obesity in public without repurcussions, it's quite possible a child will get the mis-guided notion that being fat is "OK". Thus the child starts shoving chocolate bars in its mouth, gains weight, gets diabetes.

It's a disease. We should quarantine the overweight and put them in, say, some sort of health "camp" where they can be, oh, say, re-educated about proper nutrition and exercise.

And they're only released after they can say "I Love Salads" and really, really mean it.

|3.17.06 @ 4:38PM|#

Jeez, Dave, is someone forcing you (or anyone else) to eat "dangerous" amounts of corn syrup?

Dude, go get a chemistry degree. Corn syrup is no more dangerous than any other form of sugar commonly consumed.

(Eating too much of ANY kind of sugar is not good for you. Then again, drinking too much water too quickly can kill.)

Just 4 MG|3.17.06 @ 5:14PM|#

Linkee

|3.17.06 @ 5:48PM|#

Dave W.-

You may recall that in the corn syrup threads many of us repeatedly called for an end to sugar tariffs and corn subsidies, since those are the factors that drive businesses to prefer corn syrup over can sugar. You seemed rather unimpressed by that solution.

For the record, I'm not convinced that corn syrup consumption causes a higher incidence of diabetes than cane sugar consumption (if the total amount of calories from either sweetener is held constant in the comparison), but I am convinced that there are many other reasons to pursue sane agricultural policy. If you are right, well, a lower incidence of diabetes would be the sugary icing on the cake.

What makes you think that a corn syrup lawsuit would be more successful or worthwhile than cutting sugar tariffs or farm subsidies?

|3.17.06 @ 6:07PM|#

RCDean
"we'll never see them for other issues that impact no one's health but your own."

Oh yeah, I forgot how many libertarians live in a world where their actions don't impact others.

It is a separate issue, but see, in the current age, despite what you would prefer, there are costs born by society when you end up sitting in a wheelchair pooing your pants after your car/motorcycle accident/ head injury. Now while it is true that the same argument can be made for diabetes, it is less convincing since the societal costs are much lower. You are more likely to die young and save medicare costs, than end up in a state of helplessness needing state support.

My main reaction to the article comes from the repeated use of the term "You can imagine." The leap to the worst case scenario seems an easy one for many H-n-Runners. Not a point you would want to admit, I am sure, but clearly evident on these boards.

But then again, just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you...;~)

|3.17.06 @ 8:00PM|#

The problem with corn syrup is that it is a byproduct of the subsidizing of corn production. Thanks to subsidies we raise more corn that we can use, so we have to do something with it. Why not turn it into syrup and add it to everything?

The result of massive corn syrup addition to foods is that we end up thinking that's what food is supposed to takes like, and we end up with more calories that we need, that they did not taste that great, but that we swallow to get the nutrients that come with it.

Don't get me started on cream or fat. I found out that fat has a way of "toning down" taste, and that you need to consume more quantity to get your tastebuds satisfied. (Apart from that, I think taht it is ridiculous to have coffee with a sugar substitute and then add cream to it....)

James Anderson Merritt|3.17.06 @ 8:56PM|#

Here is something I have never understood: if everyone agrees that allowing a patient to refuse treatment (i.e., requiring informed consent) is the medically ethical thing to do, then why do so many "public health" officials and the medical people who support them push for fluoridated water? Clearly, the fluoride is intended as a medical treatment, yet the preferred way of getting fluoride to the people is through the water supply, which makes it very hard for someone to refuse that treatment.

Here in my own Santa Cruz County, California, a town that voted fluoride down (Watsonville) is being forced to accept it because a state law mandating the treatment trumps the local plebescite, according to our courts.

However you come down on the effectiveness or advisedness of fluoride, the about-face on the issue of informed consent and the patient's right of refusal has to raise an eyebrow. Perhaps nobody in the "public health" sector actually believes that the patient should have the right to refuse treatment, but they know they can't get away with a wholesale turnabout at this time. It would seem pretty easy to marginalize fluoridation opponents, and thus chip away at patient rights from that direction.

|3.17.06 @ 9:42PM|#

Regarding "right of refusal," the newest situation in our neck of the woods (Midwest, which, granted, isn't cutting edge), is that "municipalities" can opt in or out of an experimental artificial blood component administered by paramedics. So, you could be in a car accident, unconscious, and be given an experimental medical treatment without your consent. Supposedly, this is "ok" because there has been news reports about this, and there is some mechanism by which you can "opt out" -- IF you caught the news report and are aware of the situation, IF you have the means to communicate your wishes to opt out (web registration? phone call? paper form?), and IF there is a fail-proof system for the paramedics to determine that you have chosen to opt out prior to administering the treatment.

Needless to say, I've notified all my next of kin to investigate if I receive this experimental treatment and to sue every one involved if there is ANY negative outcome from such a situation.

Individual liberty is fast becoming a farce in this country.

Kevin Carson|3.18.06 @ 1:16AM|#

Seems to me that mandatory health insurance coverage is pretty well blurring the line between public and private health. Does that ring a bell?

|3.18.06 @ 6:08AM|#

But what if government could take action to introduce more competition into a private healthcare market. That might lower the consumer costs. I guess it depends on whether one believes the problem is scarcity of medical doctors or whether the problem is the way the doctors have been consolidated such that their prices are far above their costs.

|3.18.06 @ 7:06AM|#

Those doctors need some serious TQM'ing!

|3.18.06 @ 9:55AM|#

Adriana, you have been kicking much ass on this forum. Good to have you here.

James Anderson Merritt|3.18.06 @ 1:35PM|#

Maybe part of the solution is to make (or buy) your own damned town.

Bridgeville CA is up for sale again on eBay, after the first sale fell through and someone else picked it up for far less than the original eBay selling price.

Learn more about the auction here: http://cgi3.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=bridgeville-by-kompolt

For those western libertarians who weren't ready to follow the Free Staters east to New Hampshire or even Wyoming or Montana, perhaps they could all chip in and purchase Bridgeville as a libertarian municipality in Humboldt County. Minimum bid is 1.75M, which works about to about 21000 an acre, including improvements that the current owner has made over the past couple of years.

I can imagine Bridgeville as a potential research park / conference center, as well as a living community, demonstrating the efficacy of libertarian approaches to government and civil society.

|3.18.06 @ 2:37PM|#

If Bridgeville is or will be serviced by overnight shipping and has broadband available, I'm in. I've been considering relocating to Humboldt County anyway. It's an amazingly beautiful place. Who else is up for turning Bridgeville into libertopia light? Maybe a group of us can form a corporation and obtain financing for this endeavor.

I'm not kidding.

|3.19.06 @ 12:05AM|#

"You can imagine it getting to the point where you have a public health worker showing up at your door and asking, 'Did you remember to exercise, eat right and take your medication today?"

It is the paranoid flights of fancy that keep libertarians on the fringe of political discussions.

"Are you kidding?"

Fair enough, but the paranoid part comes when you believe that the health official will come armed with enforcement powers to make you follow the suggestions.

I thought the "mainstream" knew about this, but when you're lifting and moving heavy things - like goalposts - make sure to lift with your legs, not your back.

|3.19.06 @ 9:06AM|#

Bird flew...

...into corn syrup.

David Nieporent|3.20.06 @ 3:12AM|#

Fair enough, but the paranoid part comes when you believe that the health official will come armed with enforcement powers to make you follow the suggestions.

In a literal sense, this is true. It is unlikely that this will be the next step. What is likely is that the government will collude with politically-connected trial lawyers to sue "Big Sugar," creating a massive government bureaucracy to decide what the evil food companies can advertise, where, and to whom. And then what that fails, they'll start restricting what the evil food companies can sell, where and to whom.

Only after that fails will they start going door to door and telling people what we can eat and how much we must exercise.