By Arthur E. Foulkes
TERRE HAUTE — This week I heard a news story on National Public Radio about an effort to get Congress to impose a penny-an-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, such as Coca Cola, Pepsi and Dr. Pepper. The rationale, as stated by a California public health advocate, is that the beverage companies should pay their “fair share” for America’s costly obesity “epidemic.” (“Soda Tax could Shake Up Industry,” Oct. 14 air date).
We are used to the idea of government taxing things people find unhealthy or offensive, such as tobacco products and alcohol. In the old days, these were called “sin taxes,” giving the impression that the purpose of the tax was to discourage “bad” behavior.
Today, the justification is government cost. After all, government — that is, taxpayers — pay for the health care of a lot of people, many of whom are overweight and live fairly unhealthy lifestyles. If government is going to pay the bill, government should also call the tune, the argument goes.
There are problems with our health care system in America. Licensing laws limit the supply of medical service providers while third-party payers, such as Medicare, drive up demand. The best way to improve the system would be to remove government interventions and allow market forces to work.
However, especially in the current political climate, reducing government’s role in health care is unlikely. In fact, we are almost certainly set to receive a big new dose of government involvement in the system.
There are many people who equate government with “society” and argue that since “society” is paying the bill — or much of the bill — for health care, we all have a responsibility to do what “society” thinks is best. Probably the best example of this sort of thinking I’ve seen is in a 2006 college-level American Government text book. The book’s authors spell out the case for limiting individual freedom in the interest of “society” this way:
“The decision to wear a motorcycle helmet or a seat belt … might seem like one that should be left up to individuals. But society also has an interest in regulating these behaviors because the failure to wear helmets or seat belts is costly to society in more ways than one. The death or serious injury of its citizens deprives society of productive members who might have lived to make important contributions. Through public education and other social programs, society makes a considerable investment in its citizens, which is lost if those citizens die prematurely.”
If the public school system and the possibility of an individual making “important contributions” justifies dictating personal behavior, how much more justification will a huge public health system provide? As government assumes growing responsibility for our health, the case for government oversight in personal decisions also will grow. Today the target is soda pop. Tomorrow it will be sweetened cereal, hamburgers, ice cream and Halloween candy.
The “nanny state” is a term people with my belief system use for government that attempts to regulate personal behavior “for our own good.” I believe the growth of the nanny state is a disaster because it slowly eliminates personal freedom and individual responsibility. The use of the term “epidemic” to describe over eating in the above-mentioned NPR story is a good example of personal behavior being depersonalized.
More market freedom, more personal responsibility and less government would greatly improve health care in America. Unfortunately, we are headed in exactly the opposite direction. Sadly, the more responsibility we hand to the government, the greater the case will be for allowing government officials to dictate larger and larger portions of our lives.
Arthur Foulkes is a Terre Haute native and longtime resident. The Tribune-Star reporter writes a column on business and economics. He can be reached at (812) 231-4232 or arthur.foulkes@tribstar.com.
