Unsettling Science in the Health Care Debate

By josh.eboch on Jun 11, 2009

Settled science rarely is. Except to those with a vested policy interest in the debate. True to form, a recent diatribe by Michael F. Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest acknowledges none of the widely available data that conflict with his passionate crusade against table salt. However, to a debate that has endured for decades, Jacobson does bring a modern twist:

As legislators struggle to craft a health-care program that covers every American…Congress should direct the Food and Drug Administration and Department of Agriculture to require industry to reduce sodium levels [in food] by half over the next five to 10 years.

Notice that government-provided universal health care is taken for granted. Unsurprisingly, so is the constitutional authority of Congress to dictate market terms to the private sector. If this is really a question of health, why not ask if exposing patients to the cost of their unhealthy lifestyle choices (instead of further obscuring them through legislation and health entitlement bureaucracy) might encourage people to alter such habits voluntarily?

Jacobson never asks because the debate is not about health, it is about control. And freedom is not a public option. He simply pronounces:

There are basically three ways to deal with the money issue [in providing universal health care]. One is to cover fewer people and slash services--defeating the very purpose of the legislation. A second is to bring in more revenues. The third is to trim costs. A smart mix of the second and third could help prevent the first. And doing so could be accomplished partly at the dinner table.

As long as Congress sets the menu.

A fourth way, apparently not considered by Jacobson, would be to reform the employer-based health care system and allow true market competition to provide individuals with affordable coverage that meets their needs. Then informed consumers making personal cost-benefit analyses can take an active role in their own treatment.

Of course, these days it seems that informed citizens taking an active role in anything is precisely what the government does not want.

Related Posts

markweee
November 20, 2009 - 7:17am

What we’ll really need to see is whether the Democrats’ health care bill will cover the plastic surgery necessary to remove all their extra nose tissue following the daily barrage of lies and misinformation they’re dumping on the American people. High school diploma AND Adison High School

markweee
November 20, 2009 - 7:18am

What we’ll really need to see is whether the Democrats’ health care bill will cover the plastic surgery necessary to remove all their extra nose tissue following the daily barrage of lies and misinformation they’re dumping on the American people. Ged Test Online AND Accredited High School Diploma AND home school diploma

josh.eboch
June 12, 2009 - 10:34pm
Of course that is not at all how it is today. Third party entities from insurance companies to the federal government separate people from the true cost of their care. More entitlements and more bureaucracy will only compound that problem. Price competition and consumer quality consciousness are the best ways to create incentives for medical providers that will lower costs and boost efficiency of care. Trust me, it's pretty obvious you're "puzzled by this whole free market idea." Suffice it to say that the answer to your question about parasitic middlemen is the tax and regulatory incentive structure the government has already built around the health care system. From employer-based coverage to laws against interstate commerce, it is the government-mandated rules in place now that are strangling the natural price and access benefits of true competition. How anyone could wish to further centralize such a monopoly and place it under the control of the same people who brought us the DMV and the Post Office is beyond me.
josh.eboch
June 12, 2009 - 1:13pm
Sickle, I'm sorry you are so dissatisfied with the way that the government currently dictates your health care. Incidentally, you make an excellent argument for a free market system. If you don't like the viewpoint I chose to contrast with Jacobson's claims about salt, that's just fine. There is absolutely nothing wrong with debating issues or evidence on their merits. But while you preach about how I'm "misleading people," you have never once addressed the questions of constitutional authority and freedom of choice with regard to a universal health care entitlement that make up the heart of my argument. Salt was just the segue, as any intellectually honest person can plainly see. Again: "If this is really a question of health, why not ask if exposing patients to the cost of their unhealthy lifestyle choices (instead of further obscuring them through legislation and health entitlement bureaucracy) might encourage people to alter such habits voluntarily?" Until you can answer that question, we're done here.
josh.eboch
June 11, 2009 - 2:35pm
Interesting indeed, but I notice you were careful not to address the real issue, which is freedom of choice for individuals in their medical care. Surely, those who find that sodium intake adversely affects their health will be better served by personally monitoring their salt intake with the help of a doctor than by paying through increased taxes for a regulatory regime over which they have no control.