Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘public health’

A small victory for freedom and common sense, though for the wrong reasons:

A court in Breda, Netherlands has overturned the smoking ban the government imposed last summer. The judge ruled that the ban violates Article One of the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The judge argues that the ban disproportionately affects the owners of small establishments with no additional staff.

The correct reason why the smoking ban is doubly absurd is that it targets private, not public places and in particular ones where most customers come specifically for smoking. The fact that passive smoking can lead to cancer is quite irrelevant here because no one is forcing a non-smoker to go to these places. 

A similar law in the US, for instance, would immediately ban most hookah bars. I would think anyone would see the underlying absurdity and inherent dangers immediately but apparently that is not the case.

I am also surprised — as when I read the linked comment above — at most people’s amazing lack of understanding of the basic libertarian principles and their propensity to attribute positions to their opponents that they do not hold. (For the uninitiated, this is usually referred to as a strawman argument)

Read Full Post »

Ashutosh points me to this fine article by Atul Gawande on healthcare reform in the US. While the overall viewpoint of the author is pragmatic liberal, the emphasis is definitely on the pragmatic — indeed, his insistence on the value of building upon existing institutions rather than attempting a drastic overhaul gives the piece a slightly Burkean conservative flavor. In any case, it is an article worth checking out, even if you, like me, don’t agree with much of what he says.

Read Full Post »

I missed this post by Andrew Sullivan from a while back.

One reason I’m a conservative is the British National Health Service. Until you have lived under socialism, it sounds like a great idea. It isn’t misery – although watching my parents go through the system lately has been nerve-wracking – but there is a basic assumption. The government collective decides everything. You, the individual patient, and you, the individual doctor, are the least of their concerns. I prefer freedom and the market to rationalism and the collective. That’s why I live here.

Andrew, of course, is a British citizen, who was born and raised there but has been living in the US for a long time now, so his perspective is certainly worthwhile.

Now I’ll be the first to admit that this is mere anecdotal evidence which does not prove anything. Andrew Sullivan’s healthcare experience has been better in the US; there are obviously British citizens who prefer their system. However as long as we keep the anecdotal nature of this statistic in mind, there is nothing to lose by considering it. Indeed, I get the idea that a lot of dyed-in-the-wool liberals who have lived in the US all their life automatically assume that everyone who has lived in single payer prefers it. Quotes like these may at least help them open their minds to the truth.

For the truth is much deeper than that little quote by a popular blogger. Yes, the US healthcare system sucks in many ways. However any system of government mandated healthcare has fundamental drawbacks. Excessive regulation adversely affects medical research and the quality of healthcare provided. It encourages the passage of nanny-state laws designed to compel people to stay healthy. Even the claimed reduction in costs does not necessarily happen in all cases; see this article on the Massachusetts mandate. Above all there is a moral issue — a government mandate involves coercive takings and elimination of choice.

My personal preference leans towards “freedom and the market”, as Sullivan puts it. If the government has to be involved it should do so in the following ways:

1) Change the nature of regulation to light, smart ones designed to reduce costs (those associated with litigation, inefficient record keeping, bureaucratization, compliance with unnecessary rules), increase transparency/information disclosure and foster competition.

2) Replace Medicare etc. with a system of vouchers that can be spent on any health provider.

3) Retain one catastrophic government run health insurance system with a high deductible that would cover everyone in case of emergencies and other catastrophes and deal with the free-rider problem in those situations; eliminate all other government insurance schemes.

These measures are influenced by Milton Friedman’s views, espoused among other places in this article.

Read Full Post »

The Center for Science in the Public Interest is an interesting organization. Ostensibly, its purpose is to be a “strong advocate for nutrition and health, food safety, alcohol policy, and sound science”. It publishes a health newsletter and has several programs to educate the public on various issues related to science, nutrition and public health.

Scratch deeper, and a frightening picture emerges. The CSPI is one of those entities that believes in science but not in freedom. It believes in equating the nutritious and the safe  with the universally good, and is happy to enforce these value judgements on others by any means at their disposal.

Their latest target is “alcoholic energy drinks”. This is from their website:

The nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest today filed suit against MillerCoors Brewing Company, formerly Miller, over its alcoholic energy drink, Sparks. The product has more alcohol than regular beer and contains unapproved additives, including the stimulants caffeine and guarana. The lawsuit is asking the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to stop MillerCoors from selling the controversial drink, which is also under scrutiny from state attorneys general.

Drinkers of caffeinated alcoholic drinks are more likely to binge drink, ride with an intoxicated driver, become injured, or be taken advantage of sexually than drinkers of non-caffeinated alcoholic drinks, according to a 2007 study conducted at Wake Forest University.

Sparks products contain 6 to 7 percent alcohol by volume, as opposed to regular beer, which typically has 4 or 5 percent alcohol. Also unlike beer, Sparks’ appeal to young people is enhanced by its sweet citrusy taste, redolent of SweeTarts candy, and the bright color of orange soda. (Sparks Light also contains the artificial sweetener sucralose). In October, MillerCoors plans to release Sparks Red, which will have 8 percent alcohol by volume.

They have already stopped Anheuser-Busch from selling a similar product. Shockingly, they do not have an action project to ban the serving of coffee to a customer who has had a glass of wine — yet.

The rest of their website contains arguments in a similar vein. They go on about how the raising of the drinking age has saved lives, how alcohol is a terrible drug that deserves to be severely restricted from just about every place imaginable, how the trans fat ban will save fifty thousand lives a year and so on. They want to employ every coercive technique imaginable to stop such horrors from happening.

It always surprises me when I read this kind of analysis.

In the CSPI worldview, the only negative costs are those that are directly measurable, such as death and disease. Any action that reduces these figures is good. But clearly extending this reasoning to everything leads to absurdities. For instance, ban all cars today and the number of speeding related deaths will become zero. No one advocates such a thing because the costs in terms of inconvenience, quality of life and — may I mention it — freedom will be too high. How is it that when they rile against unhealthy or unsafe foods and drinks, they completely neglect the intrinsic cost of taking away from millions of users something that they enjoy? How is it that they put absolutely no weight in their analysis upon the fact that they are taking away my basic right to live my life the way I deem fit?

It is possible that CSPI is acting in good faith and in their moral code, these intrinsic costs are negligible or at any rate, low enough to merit coercive regulation.

But everyone has a core, inalienable ethical belief and here is mine. There’s only one word that accurately describes actions such as those of CSPI. That word is “evil”. It is irrelevant to my moral code that they may not view things the same way. There is simply no other way I can think of people who believe in imposing their personal choices on others. And unlike bandits or robbers who commit crimes for their gain, the evil that such organizations do never stop.

(Hat Tip: Reason Hit and Run)

Also read:

Jacob Sullum’s old article on CSPI and their pseudoscience.

My post on smoking bans in San Francisco.

Read Full Post »

After successfully combating the menace of smoking, he is now on a mission to eradicate the other great vice — alcohol.

Sometimes I wonder where we Indians would be without Ramadoss. It is abundantly clear now that we are simply incapable of taking good decisions for ourselves. We masturbate, smoke, drink, maintain poor personal hygiene and consistently elect the wrong politicians. Without his fatherly protection and control, we would soon become a bunch of wastrels.

There is only one thing I fear — what if Ramadoss gets tired of his mission and stops taking care of us? What will we do? Who will we turn to?

But, in my heart of hearts, I know he will never stop. His conscience will prevent him from doing so.

Read Full Post »

Read about it here.

Read Full Post »

Good for them.

“If I don’t want to pray, I don’t go to church. If you don’t want to smoke, don’t come in here.”

(Hat Tip: The Agitator)

Also read: San Francisco may tighten smoking ban

Read Full Post »

We bring you, courtesy the great guys at CCF, the following awesome analysis:

Also read: Your health is my business. And please do not point out that what works for Olympic athletes will turn an average person into a hippo.

(Hat Tip: Reason Hit and Run)

Read Full Post »

I exaggerate not a bit when I describe the prevailing politics of L.A. to be roughly as follows: Wal-Mart and big box stores = evil, and need to be stopped at all costs. Also, we need more cheap supermarkets! Mom and pop stores need to be defended from Big Corporations, unless they sell fried chicken or used tires, or get in the way of a big development project.

 – Matt Welch, writing about his experience of dealing with Los Angeles “stakeholders” during his two-year tenure at the L.A. Times.

I highly recommend the whole article.

Read Full Post »

This guy needs to loosen up. Someone get him a stiff drink!

Read Full Post »

There are many good arguments libertarians put forward against the idea of mandating universal health insurance (either through single payer or a Massachusetts style measure).

It is morally wrong to coerce some people to disproportionately pay for others’ costs or to tell someone who decides to take his chance that he cannot do it.

A mandate would almost surely be accompanied by excessive regulation which would adversely affect medical research and the quality of healthcare provided.

It will encourage the passage of nanny-state laws designed to compel people to stay healthy.

Despite these flaws, it was assumed that such a measure would at least reduce medical costs and thus make life better for a lot of people. However it now appears that even this economic rationale does not hold good.

Of course, the linked article of course only looks only at the Massachusetts model but it seems extremely likely that the same problems will arise in any similar scheme.

So what’s the best solution? I don’t have a completely satisfactory answer; check out, however, Milton Friedman’s short essay on the topic.

Read Full Post »

From the SF gate report:

Mayor Gavin Newsom has proposed prohibiting tobacco sales in pharmacies, including Walgreens and Rite Aid. The city’s public health chief said the proposal is modeled after rules in eight provinces in Canada but has not been tried anywhere in the United States.

Supervisor Chris Daly has proposed legislation that would vastly limit areas where people can smoke.

Gone would be smoking in all businesses and bars, which now make an exception for owner-operated ones.

Gone too would be lighting up in taxicabs and rental cars, city-owned vehicles, farmers’ markets, common areas of apartment buildings, tourist hotels, tobacco shops, charity bingo games, unenclosed dining areas, waiting areas such as lines at an ATM or movie theater, and anywhere within 20 feet of entrances to private, nonresidential buildings.

Mitch Katz, director of the Department of Public Health, said he strongly supports both measures – even if they are angering business owners who say it’s one more example of San Francisco City Hall overstepping its bounds.

“Tobacco remains the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the U.S. – period,” he said. “It’s government’s responsibility to protect people from obvious risks.”

To paraphrase a comment at the Reason blog, whose responsibility is it then to protect people from tyranny?

Indeed, it’s scary listening to these public-health fanatics. By their logic, speed limits should be lowered to 10 mph, burgers and cokes banned and motorcycles outlawed. Gambling and extreme sports ought to be banished from the face of the earth. And did I forget to mention unprotected sex?

Its a simple enough principle but some don’t get it. Costs and benefits are different for different people. An act that one person views as self-destructive is completely worth the risk to another.

As Jacob Sullum eloquently put it:

Maximizing health is not the same as maximizing happiness. The public health mission to minimize morbidity and mortality leaves no room for the possibility that someone might accept a shorter life span, or an increased risk of disease or injury, in exchange for more pleasure or less discomfort. Motorcyclists, rock climbers, and sky divers make that sort of decision all the time, and not all of them are ignorant of the relevant injury and fatality statistics. With lifestyle choices that pose longer-term risks, such as smoking and overeating, the dangers may be easier to ignore, but it is still possible for someone with a certain set of tastes and preferences to say, “Let me enjoy myself now; I’ll take my chances.” The assumption that such tradeoffs are unacceptable is the unspoken moral premise of public health. When the surgeon general declares that “every American needs to eat healthy food in healthy portions and be physically active every day,” where does that leave a guy who prefers to be fat if it means he can eat what he likes and relax in his spare time instead of looking for ways to burn calories?

It’s true that, as the anti-smoking activist William Cahan pointed out on a CNN talk show several years ago, “People who are making decisions for themselves don’t always come up with the right answer.” They don’t necessarily make tradeoffs between health and other values in an informed or carefully considered manner. Sometimes they regret their decisions. But they know their own tastes and preferences, and they have access to myriad pieces of local information about the relevant costs and benefits that no government regulator can possibly know. They will not always make good decisions, but on balance they will make better decisions, as measured by their own subsequent evaluations, than any third party deciding for them. Leaving aside the question of who is better positioned to decide whether a given pleasure is worth the risk associated with it, there is an inherent value to freedom: When it comes to how people feel about their lives, they may well prefer to make their own bad choices rather than have better ones imposed on them.

Now the smoking ban of course goes beyond nanny-statism. It is also about protecting other people from the risks of second-hand smoke. That’s a laudable intention and as a libertarian I have no quarrels with the underlying principle. But my point is this — how does preventing the sale of cigarettes from certain shops or preventing their use in private bars designated for smoking serve this goal? People who enter such a bar or restaurant usually do with the intention to smoke — those who do not can always choose not to enter.

And whats this about banning smoking in rental cars? Second-hand scent? WTF?

Ultimately, we must recognise these type of bans for what they are – an act of those who are pompous enough to believe others’ well-being is their business and deluded enough to think they are in a better position to make these value judgements than the individual involved. The result is a further expansion of government power in an era when the threat to civil liberties and personal freedom from such intrusions gets bigger every day.

And just so that no one ascribes imaginary motives – I have never smoked, do not ever intend to and hate the smell of second-hand smoke as much as any regular guy. (I do however believe in respecting others’ choices.)

(Hat-tip: Reason Hit and Run)

Read Full Post »

This one is by former U.S. surgeon general Richard Carmona:

As we look to the future and where childhood obesity will be in 20 years … it is every bit as threatening to us as is the terrorist threat we face today. It is the terrorist threat from within.

Kerry Howley’s reaction to the above is funny:

I’m not sure whether we should be more or less afraid of the “War on Terror” now that the phrase terrorist threat means “bad thing.”

Read Full Post »

I had written earlier about the Japanese government acting as health police to force its citizens to slim down. Here’s a CNN video on the matter.

One thing struck me after watching the video – not many people seem that unhappy at what I would consider an outrageous interference into one’s private matters. Well, if they have that attitude, I guess they deserve to have a nanny-state government. One thing’s for sure, I am not moving to Japan.

Read Full Post »

One of the dangers of publicly funded healthcare is that it increases the likelihood of the government micromanaging your health and other private affairs. Jacob Sullum wrote an excellent article in Reason last year about the totalitarian implications of public health. The Japanese government is the latest to prove him right.

Under a national law that came into effect two months ago, companies and local governments must now measure the waistlines of Japanese people between the ages of 40 and 74 as part of their annual checkups. That represents more than 56 million waistlines, or about 44 percent of the entire population.  

Those exceeding government limits – 33.5 inches for men and 35.4 inches for women – and having a weight-related ailment will be given dieting guidance if after three months they do not lose weight. If necessary, those people will be steered toward further re-education after six more months.  

Here is the link to the above article.

And while you are at it, do read Sullum’s article from last year. It is full of truths that are obvious but often not recognized by those in power.

Maximizing health is not the same as maximizing happiness. The public health mission to minimize morbidity and mortality leaves no room for the possibility that someone might accept a shorter life span, or an increased risk of disease or injury, in exchange for more pleasure or less discomfort. Motorcyclists, rock climbers, and sky divers make that sort of decision all the time, and not all of them are ignorant of the relevant injury and fatality statistics. With lifestyle choices that pose longer-term risks, such as smoking and overeating, the dangers may be easier to ignore, but it is still possible for someone with a certain set of tastes and preferences to say, “Let me enjoy myself now; I’ll take my chances.” The assumption that such tradeoffs are unacceptable is the unspoken moral premise of public health. When the surgeon general declares that “every American needs to eat healthy food in healthy portions and be physically active every day,” where does that leave a guy who prefers to be fat if it means he can eat what he likes and relax in his spare time instead of looking for ways to burn calories?

It’s true that, as the anti-smoking activist William Cahan pointed out on a CNN talk show several years ago, “People who are making decisions for themselves don’t always come up with the right answer.” They don’t necessarily make tradeoffs between health and other values in an informed or carefully considered manner. Sometimes they regret their decisions. But they know their own tastes and preferences, and they have access to myriad pieces of local information about the relevant costs and benefits that no government regulator can possibly know. They will not always make good decisions, but on balance they will make better decisions, as measured by their own subsequent evaluations, than any third party deciding for them. Leaving aside the question of who is better positioned to decide whether a given pleasure is worth the risk associated with it, there is an inherent value to freedom: When it comes to how people feel about their lives, they may well prefer to make their own bad choices rather than have better ones imposed on them.

Indeed.

(Link via Reason Hit and Run)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.