|
Do That Again, and I’ll Smack You
|
The state has one more cost-saving card to play: not just
discouraging behaviour, but outlawing it entirely.
Government already orders us to do what’s (supposed to be)
good for us all the time. Say no to drugs. No sex for money.
No gambling allowed. Put on a helmet. Buckle up. And the
list grows ever longer.(10)
Setting aside the disastrous consequences of the war on
drugs, isn’t this a good thing? Who’ll really miss
trans fats? Can’t trans fat-free cookies be just as
delicious? And if not, won’t we soon forget how the old ones
tasted, anyway, and be healthier for it, too?
It’s possible. So where does it stop? If banning cigarettes
makes sense, what about smokeless tobacco?(11)
If forcing boxers to wear gloves is reasonable, should we
prohibit fighting between consenting adults?(12)
If it’s a no-brainer to mandate helmets while biking, what
about while skiing?(13)
If it’s no big deal to order restaurants not to use trans
fats, what about telling them not to use salt?(14)
If a bartender should refuse to serve you alcohol if you’re
drunk, what about a waiter refusing to serve you food
because you’re fat?(15)
So, you don’t use tobacco, hate sodium, think extreme
fighting is barbaric, never hit the slopes and your figure
is more Madonna than Maradona—but don’t think you’re off the
hook. Whether it’s a sun-drenched beach, a piece of
chocolate, or just a stroll around the block (watch out for
that car!), something you do harms your health (or threatens
to). No, the government is not about to ban a leisurely walk
on the grounds that you might get hit by a bus. But in a
bygone era, it was a given that one could ride in a car
without being strapped in, or bike without a helmet. Just a
few years ago, most New Yorkers didn’t even know what trans
fats were, much less dwell on their freedom to consume as
much of them as they wanted.
This is a slippery slope, greased by the federal
government’s empty coffers and whose only brakes are the
ever-changing boundaries of what people accept as reasonable
legal limits on their actions. The pattern is familiar: a
new restriction is laughed off as absurd. Then it becomes
worth considering. Somewhere along the way, it becomes an
experiment. Gradually, it gains increased acceptance.
Finally, people can’t believe that things were ever any
different. At the advanced age of 30, I can’t imagine a
world with school prayer, indoor smoking or newspapers and
tin cans that are thrown away, never to be seen again. And
yet all these things existed in Canada within my lifetime.
There are limits to what people will accept today. There are
none to what they will accept… one day.
Slippery slopes can be good things. Slippery slopes brought
us desegregation, secularism, legalized abortion and gay
marriage. Good things all, in my view. But even if you
disagree, the point is that policy is not static. Like a
shark, it is forever in motion. Sometimes it moves in
directions you like, sometimes not. Sometimes it moves in
your favoured direction and reaches your ideal destination—only,
to your horror, to continue along its way, by which point
your feckless cries of “Too much!” go unheeded.
In her statement, Ms. Pelosi predicted that socialized
medicine will mean “more liberty” for Americans, but
experience suggests otherwise. As a middle-class entitlement
program, repealing “ObamaCare” is out of the question. With
no money left in the kitty, Washington will have to find a
way to rein in costs and those who enjoy unhealthy pursuits—easily
stigmatized as self-indulgent—will present tempting
scapegoats. A century hence, incredulous youngsters may
shake their heads in disbelief as aging grandparents recount
a time when people could pick up a bottle of herbs at the
health store,(16)
enjoy music while running,(17)
carry pocket knives(18)
or play road hockey.(19)
The ultimate step will come when we accept that government
should not only prohibit unhealthy activities but actually
require healthy behaviour. The forced calisthenics
Winston endures in the novel 1984 happily remain just
as unthinkable today as they were in Orwell’s time, but
should we scoff smugly at the idea that one day, taxpayers
frustrated with an ever-growing fiscal burden might think
that salvation lies in dragging fat men onto treadmills? If
they do, how long before people wonder how we ever got along
in a world where such things were seen as a matter of
private, individual choice?
|
One possibility is that the government could ration care based on
the identity of the patient or the nature of the ailment. In your ninth decade?
You’re not worth saving. Like sun tanning? Enjoy your melanoma. Sarah Palin’s
death panels, here at last!
