A few days back TDA reader Norm sent me an article about UK insurers raising life insurance rates on people who exceed the recommended alcohol limit. Now in the ping pong match that is my cognitive process I moved quickly from this story to New York’s proposed obesity tax, then to California’s alcohol tax (still much smaller than originally proposed), but the volley stopped at our President-elect’s proposed universal health care (UHC).
The ball came off the table at UHC because at this point I (and you) become responsible for the foreseeable consequences of other people’s voluntary health risks. Avoid the fat tax, don’t drink soda. Keep away from the alcohol tax, eschew beer. With UHC however, there will be no avoiding paying for the wino’s new liver and the smoker’s lung regardless of how healthy we live our own lives. But never fear, surely the government will come to our aid to reduce taxes by implementing a public awareness blitz, a new temperance movement.
Sounds like a TDA dream right? Not.
Click “Read more” to continue…
Movements like this are hard to stop, take the organization and enforcement ability of the government and combine it with today’s pervasive healthcare technology… and prohibition may be closer than you think.
Only this prohibition might go much further than just alcohol because it’s a wired world these days; UHC could go so far beyond Hillarycare it’s scary. In the old days a pledge card like the one above was the feeble reach of accountability, now current wireless and sensing technology enable real time monitoring of key physical parameters and body chemistry variables. Thinking along these lines it doesn’t take a prognosticator to see how government run healthcare would become not only pervasive, but perverted.
Cigarettes, marijuana, and all illicit drugs would be the first to be monitored and taxed- it’s called lifestyle incentive management. Next would be junk food and “unhealthy proportions”. All of these I’ve mentioned so far the government already has or is attempting to either ban or tax so we are not talking about much of a stretch. How about forcing people to exercise? If you neglected reaching your target heart rate three times a week then the penalty of being bumped up a tax bracket might actually have the same effect.
I’ll be the first to speak on behalf of a new temperance movement, but I’m keeping a tinfoil hat handy just in case UHC and pervasive healthcare technology spark a neo-prohibition.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
This is wrong from the start to the end. If it’s all about health care cost and resources, what about people who have a strong genetic predisposition to having children with disorders that result in severe physical and mental incapacitation, that require expensive medical care for life? Should those folks be penalized? What about people who engage in extreme high risk sports who have a lot of injuries that put a drain on health care and physical rehab? These are what can be called “voluntary health risks”. Providing readily accessible treatment for addictions and support for recovery might actually reduce health care costs in the long run, and help people to understand they don’t need to hide in shame. Also, private providers are just as likely, maybe even more likely, as the government to impose limitations in these areas. There are private insurers who charge more for smokers now, who try to bully you into being “helped” by sham programs that allege to give you “guidance” on health issues, which are mainly to invade your privacy and document your personal habits. Corporate run medical insurance is already perverted. Just my opinion.
just pointing out the fact that these things are already occuring. It is truly alarming when one thinks of what kind of invasive monitoring (health and lifestyle) are available with today’s wireless and sensing technology and how it could be used in an Orwellian healthcare system.
I know my first thoughts of UHC at least relative to treatment and recovery were positive, but when I started thinking about the details the issue became very cloudy. It is why I used the temperance movement as part of the story. On a grass roots level they espoused more along the lines of moderation and sensible behavior, but when the movement became political at the turn of the century it became increasingly rigid and ultimately led to prohibition.
The backlash was severe. Could the same thing happen with UHC?