L&T Publisher Earl Watt
I’m a fan of Oatmeal cream pies, you know, those Little Debbie discs of deliciousness holding in a sweet cream like two soft cookies around icing.
Maybe I walk those off after eating them, maybe I don’t.
What enjoyment do they bring to me? It’s not something anyone could understand.
It’s similar to the Cadbury Easter Egg or almost anything I’ve eaten while inside a Disney park.
Food and enjoyment go hand in hand for me.
That includes my use of the salt shaker. Anyone who has been to a restaurant with me knows they are only granted temporary use of the shaker, and then it is returned where it belongs, which is right next to my plate.
From time to time Heather will make breakfast for supper, and for me that means a bowl full of bacon and perhaps a slice or two of cinnamon toast.
Will my diet lead to a long life? The odds say no, but do I really want to live beyond my ability to know what I am eating?
While I may eat a fair amount of fast food and other less-than-preferred health food choices, I do not smoke or chew tobacco or use drugs or medications. I do take a couple supplements, but they are self diagnosed and not prescribed by a medical professional.
I am not alcoholic even though a recent health test suggested I have wine on a regular basis or a few ounces of alcohol to improve my “good” cholesterol level. The same test also suggested I eat more purple vegetables, and as soon as I can identify exactly which ones taste good, I’ll add them to my menu.
With the addition of Robert Kennedy, Jr., as the chief health officer of the incoming Trump Administration, many believe we will become a healthier nation.
Perhaps.
Like anything else, we have to balance what is good for us and what is allowed in a free society.
In the Peoples Republic of New York City, sodas and other “calorie-rich” beverages are limited to be served in containers 16 ounces or less.
That means the 7-Eleven Big Gulp at 32 ounces is criminal.
Some believe it is the role of government to protect us from certain products that are harmful to us.
That is a big, big problem in a free society if taken too far, and it also leads to the slippery slope of believing health care is a right.
Let’s all agree on this — access to health care is a right. No one should be refused health care on the basis of age, religion, race, national origin or sexual preference.
Just like access to purchasing a house is a right but housing itself is not a social guarantee.
If health care is a right, then it would fall upon health care providers to serve anyone and everyone no matter their ability to pay.
If that were true, then many other cases could be made about what is a right and what is not.
For example, is it a right to have a car? Is it a right to receive plastic surgery if you don’t like your nose?
Is it a right to receive a hair cut or a styling?
Health care is a very broad term. From treating a fever to getting a breast enhancement, health care is a far reaching term that would lead many of us to agree that not every procedure would fall under a right.
That alone would disqualify health care as a right.
The freedom to worship expands to all religions, or even the lack thereof.
Rights go beyond circumstances and exist for all in all cases. Since health care procedures do not extend to all people in all cases, it cannot be a right.
But if the state tried to make health care a right, then it also extends to those choices I made about what I want to eat.
Let’s compare that to smoking.
The Surgeon General at some point put a label on cigarette packaging that tells you the health risks. In many different ways, warnings required to be on packaging include, “Cigarettes are addictive,” “Tobacco smoke can harm your children,” “Cigarettes cause fatal lung disease,” “Cigarettes cause cancer,” “Cigarettes cause strokes and heart disease,” “Smoking during pregnancy can harm your baby,” and more.
And yet 11.6 percent of the adult population still smoke according to the American Lung Association.
Should I be responsible for their lungs? Should you?
According to the Pew Charitable Trust, 29 million Americans have an alcohol use issue. Should I be responsible for their liver? Should you?
And if I develop issues form overindulgence in sugars and salt, should that be your obligation?
The role of the government is not to protect us from ourselves. It is the role of government to make sure we know the threats and to prevent harmful procedures. We all agree having meat inspectors in packing plants is a good thing. But limiting us to four ounces of red meat per week is not their place.
But only when the government perceives health care as a right does it then also take on the role of our health in general.
There is a cost of freedom, and it requires self-responsibility. That means we may choose what we eat and what we drink, but we also choose the consequences of those choices.
Not one smoker in America can claim ignorance to the harmful effects of smoking.
I am not oblivious to the risks of sugar and salt.
But those are decisions we each must make for ourselves if we are to be a free people.
Health controls have no boundaries, from our diet to our hobbies to our activity level to genetics.
Should a person with a family line with a history of heart disease be banned from having children?
We may think the answer to these questions are simple, but they are not, and recent history has shown that if you give the government an inch, it will take a mile.
While the new administration may point out a number of health risks we didn’t recognize before, we still have to make our own decisions in our own pursuit of happiness.
Freedom and rights cannot be regulated. Our choices and our consequences are our own.
