An excellent indictment of public health paternalism

[nicnik]

Jessica99's thread led to this Carl Phillips blog post...

An excellent indictment of public health paternalism

...which links to, and recommends reading, this discussion of Public Health paternalism:

A Commentary on Dean Galea’s Note | SPH | Boston University

Much, if not most, of our “nudges” are created to manipulate the behavior of the less well off. Of course, on its face, the portion control rules apply to everyone. As Anatole France noted in 1877, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

For an act to be paternalistic, it does not need to ban or outlaw an activity. There are other effective methods of coercion. Public health is fond of “sin taxes,” which include taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, and, in Berkeley, California, sweetened drinks. Mill himself notes that taxes are paternalistic when they are implemented to control behavior. Raising the prices puts them out of reach of poorer people. Regulating the poor has a long history in the US. Increasing taxes works as well as a ban or a prohibition for many people. We must ask: Should it be governmental policy that the well-to-do have more liberty than the poor?

There is also the finger-wagging that so many find distasteful. A perfect example is the recent action of the CDC to tell pre-pregnant women that they should not drink any alcohol.

<snip>

Why the CDC takes this stand is explained by a phrase its spokeswoman used at the press conference and on its website on pregnancy (now including pre-pregnancy) and alcohol. It asks at the top of the page, “Why take the risk?” It is not clear if this is meant to be a rhetorical question or that the CDC employs no one who can actually answer it. It appears that the CDC really does not understand why pre-pregnant women would want to take the “risk,” no matter how small that risk my be. The CDC’s inability to contextualize is likely a result of thinking of life as a collection of health outcomes. Pleasure plays no role in the CDC’s worldview, though it is an important value to individuals.

It is important to distinguish between regulating people and regulating things.

I suggest reading the whole thing. It's really good, though gun enthusiasts might not like a part of it. (Also, see what Phillips wrote in the comments section.)

 

[EBates]

Read both articles, the only word that comes to mind is OUTSTANDING.
Our Govment has finally come to market with latest line of 'products'
Propaganda, Coercion, and Oppression

 

[pennysmalls]

From the second link...

Another example of this strategy is the justification given for mandatory motorcycle helmet laws. These laws are enacted to protect motorcycle riders from their “foolish” choice not to wear a helmet—an example of pure paternalism. But when challenged in court, states deny the paternalistic goal. They instead argue that the reason for such laws is that unhelmeted motorcyclists who have an accident cost more money to treat than helmeted riders, and that the cost is paid by the population in general; the helmet laws were thus enacted to protect the state’s treasury. The use of such prevarications is unseemly and should be rejected by an ethical profession.

Sound familiar? This is the part of the anti tobacco campaign that has bothered me the most. It makes no sense. Are the majority of motorcycle riders low income and on medicare or medicade? No. Do most people, motorcycle owners included, who are not low income pay for their own medical insurance? Yes. Do most people who pay for their own insurance receive so much medical care each and every year that they end up breaking even? No. The fact is that most people end up paying for insurance coverage that never gets used or used very little. So how is a motorcycle accident that happens after years and years of insurance payments, or getting cancer after 40-50 years of smoking and paying for insurance for 40-50 years, a cost to the population in general? It's not, it's a lie. It's paternalism.

 

[DC2]

From the second link...

They instead argue that the reason for such laws is that unhelmeted motorcyclists who have an accident cost more money to treat than helmeted riders, and that the cost is paid by the population in general;

This is the most slippery slope of all.
The question "what's next" has no answer, because there is no end.

If insurance companies want to run this crap up the flagpole and see who salutes, fine.

But when laws are passed to control human behavior on this basis...
It takes one more huge chunk out of what used to be America.

You'd have to be blind not to see it...
Or actually be one of the people voting for those who are doing it.