Summary:
In Radley Balko’s
opening paragraph, he addresses a three-day television event that would be
broadcasted in June (2004) on ABC news. The aim of this premiere is to get
Americans thinking about their own weight while simultaneously pushing
government into a position of control involving the weight and health of its
citizens. Government control over what people snack on (especially what
children are eating), new requirements for nutritional labels on foods in the
marketplace, and an increase in outdoor recreational opportunities are all on
the agenda. From the tone of his paper you can tell that Balko finds this
government intervention to be ridiculous. Though he later mentions that
government should have some role in controlling this obesity crisis (i.e.
providing financial incentives for people to maintain a healthy lifestyle), he
does not feel that the government is taking the proper steps in resolving the
situation.
Fighting obesity should
start with personal responsibility and this responsibility is something that
should be fostered in the minds of our countries citizens; this is Balko’s
primary focus for his argument. He says that government should not have a say
in what is placed on market shelves, the finger should not be pointed at the
suppliers for giving its consumers what they are asking for, and as human
beings, we should know better than to eat ourselves into an unhealthy state. He
thinks that we should be held personally responsible for what we eat, after
all, with personal liberties come responsibilities. .
Balko blames the
government for two reasons. First, as mentioned above, he says that the government
has failed to create responsible citizens and, as a result, is sidestepping
this problem through increased government intervention (making it more
difficult for its citizens to act irresponsibly instead of making its citizens
more responsible). Second, he blames the government for the state of our
healthcare system, and, in turn, blames the healthcare system for further civil
irresponsibility since there is no financial incentive for people to want to
take proper care of themselves. In fact, he argues that rather than
provide incentives, the government is creating a standardized health care cost.
As a result, people who choose to be obese and take poor care of themselves
(and are in poor health as a result) are paying out the same amount of money
for health care as people who are working really hard to keep in shape and stay
healthy. In other words, responsible people are paying for irresponsible people
and no financial rewards are being granted to them. So why should a responsible
person continue to be responsible? Their medical expenses would cost the same
regardless.
The stance Balko takes
is specific to obesity; he is only focusing on people who are overweight and
unhealthy due to unhealthy eating and exercising habits. He wants insurance
companies to be allowed to weed people out based on their lifestyles and to raise
health care rates for people with unhealthy lifestyles, while lowering the
rates for healthy lifestyles. To him, uniform health care rates are not the
answer. Balko also suggests that Congress should allow more people access to
health and medical savings accounts. With this system, people who are not using
up their health care benefits but continue to pay into the health care system
would be awarded the leftover money. The money would be placed into a
retirement account, and would be thus returned to the person who earned it.
Balko thinks that this system would give people a reason to stay healthy and
also a sense of individual responsibility. He says that people are more likely
to make the right choices when the consequence is upheld by the person who
makes the choice.
To support his point,
Balko presents examples of political figures and the initiatives they have
taken in fighting obesity. For example, he mentions the $200 million dollars
that President Bush set aside to fight obesity (Balko 396). He goes on to
mention Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown and Senator Joe Lieberman who have motioned
for high calorie food taxes, and he also mentioned Congresses interests in
requiring menu-labeling in restaurant and Hillary Clinton’s written article to
gain more government control over health care. His beginning paragraph, as
summarized in the first paragraph above, gives a few examples of how government
expenditures to fight obesity have been invested (healthier restaurants,
outdoor recreation, news programing, etc.).
Radley Balko is a
libertarian, a senior editor, an investigative writer, a columnist, and a
blogger. He writes for Reason magazine and Fox News. He has previously
had publications in the Washington Post and Playboy. Based upon
his previous works, Radley Balko is a pretty well established rhetorical
writer. This article was published by the Cato Institute on Cato.org in
Washington D.C. on May 23rd 2004. The Cato Institute is a libertarian
organization that stresses limited government intervention and control over
human liberties and the market place. Based upon his previous work and
his acceptance by the Cato Institute as a writer, he appears to be pretty
credible. This article is written in a simple, easily accessed way which is clearly
targeting the general public; the American voting community. Some preference
seems to be given to healthy, in shape Americans who are likely also upset over
standardized health care. Having been published in Washington D.C., however,
this article is also targeting government officials and influential political
figures who may take his words into consideration.
David Zinczenko takes an
opposing stance to that of Radley Balko. Zinczenko says that obesity is a
public issue and he supports this statement with facts regarding a 20% increase
in Type 2 diabetes from 1994 to 2002. He says that with this increase costs to
treat diabetes has gone up by about 97% since 1969 (Zinczenko 392).
Balko’s article is more focused on the “money and politics” side of
things, and it seems to ignore many of the trials that Americans face on a
daily basis. He makes no reference to American health care statistics.
Balko seems to mock government requirements for nutritional labels and
government intervention in what can be sold at restaurants or store shelves.
These are some of the very things that Zinczenko says would actually help
people make better choices. Zinczenko is more sympathetic and understanding of
“human nature” because he knows what it is like to be reliant on fast food for
your every meal, he understands the reality of poverty. Zinczenko brings up a
very good point regarding the issue of food deserts in cities and how much more
accessible and affordable unhealthy foods are compared to healthy ones. He
additionally argues that most fast food restaurants do not make nutritional
charts readily available for consumers, they instead target children, and
unlike drugs and alcohol, unhealthy food can be consumed by anyone of any age
and there are not warning labels. This approach makes it easy for young
children to fall victim to an unhealthy lifestyle before they are even of age
to be legally responsible for themselves. When there are nutritional labels,
Zinczenko also reminds the reader that these labels can be misleading and
complicated as if they are designed to trick the consumer.
Response:
There are a lot of
things to be considered in regard to obesity and health care and when it comes
to foods and ethics behind how farm animals are raised for fast food restaurants,
there are even more things that could be considered (that is another story).
The foundation of America is pretty solidly based upon fast food restaurants
today. Having worked at a couple of these restaurants, I know what it is like
to have to look very hard to find a nutritional pamphlet. From this perspective,
I can see how people are upset about what they do not know about the foods they
are consuming. I personally have had my struggles with unhealthy foods, and I
find it frustrating that it is near impossible to find foods at the store or at
a restaurant that have only healthy ingredients added. I have even heard it
told that many of the added preservatives and dyes in United States foods are
actually banned in other countries because of their potential health
ramifications.
I believe that Balko is
correct to some extent; obesity is a personal battle, just like drug and
alcohol reliance. The health consequences of obesity should be a person’s own
responsibility, not the responsibility of the general public. There are plenty
of other public health issues that those funds could be used for. Obesity is a
choice in most, but not all cases and for those cases, it is
preventable. The consequences of eating unhealthy foods should rest on the
shoulders of the person doing the eating. I love Balko’s idea of investing the
leftover health care money from each person into a retirement account for that
individual person. Why take away money from a person who has earned it? The
money could be used as an incentive for that same person to be healthy and take
care of themselves. The money does not have to be awarded straight back to
them, but it could be locked up in the form of a retirement account which would
help them out later in life and reduce their government reliance in old age.
Many people do not have retirement accounts, and this could really help solve
that issue.
Zinczenko has a few key
points as well. He says we need to find healthy solutions to food deserts, that
we need healthier restaurants (especially fast food), and we need to ban some
of the preservatives and dyes that we use in our foods. Many European countries
supply foods that have been modified in very few ways, and I think we should
try and be a little more like them. Not only would this help to lower obesity
and obesity related health care costs, but it would make us a healthier nation
as a whole. The only way a change like this could be made is through government
intervention and higher food standards and requirements.
A great documentary about how much food is wasted in America can be found here. The documentary is called Dive and it is about a guy who lives almost entirely off of dumpster diving.
To see more about where food in America comes from here is a sneak peak to the documentary Food Inc:
Also, most of the food produced in America stems from corn, it is the staple of what we eat as Americans, but it provides little nutritional value over all. Most animals can't even digest it properly. Corn contributes greatly to our overweight society. The documentary King Corn is an excellent one to watch to learn more about how food is produced in America. Below is the movie trailer.
No comments:
Post a Comment