Banning Tony the Tiger?

Mark Steyn (who I think is always worth a read) points out a problem with Obamacare. According to him, "reforming" healthcare is the first step in redefining the roles of the government and its citizens, so that the government can regulate all human affairs as it sees fit. Steyn warns that this will lead to considerably less freedom. In Britain, he points out, one bill tried to ban Tony the Tiger from daytime television, because of his bad influence on children. Another bill, he says, would have allowed citizens to fly only a certain number of miles before being charged eco-surtaxes. 

I think this ties in well  with the current discussion on this blog regarding taxes on soft drinks. It might be easy to accept new taxes on soft drinks, but if we do, might it not pave the way for the taxation of other things? Are we willing to have every choice we make subject to monetary punishment? Or are we only willing to be punished for some of our choices? Where do we draw the line?

I understand that this is a slippery slope argument. Still, if it can happen in Britain, it can happen here.

Comments

[caheidelberger]

For Pete's sake: can we just accept that health care reform could be nothing mroe than health care reform, an effort to fix a very broken system, and not the keystone in some grand socialist/fascist/whatever-you-might-call-it plot? That language only fuels the fringe foolishness that wants to believe in conspiracies and lacks the brinapower to deal with actual policy.

And are you trying to suggest that the Tony-the-Tiger ban (akin to the Joe Camel ban?) is a result of Britain's national health care system?

[A.I.]

While I appreciate the need to be ever vigilant of government intrusion into our private lives, the downward slippery slope you refer to is not the great concern in the current health care debate. Rather, it is the upward slope of health care costs which, in a practical sense, is the cost of health insurance. With premiums rising three-times as fast as wages and employers being forced to shift more of the expense to employees or dropping coverage all together, the status quo is obviously unsustainable. So, instead of following the red-herring argument of "jack boots" and "iron fists", would we not all be better served by discussing problems that are real and pressing.

[FascistSocialist]

You don't need to draw a line. If something makes sense then DO IT. FFS. There is no slope unless it's something that creates a new precedent. Government in health care is not a new precedent. In fact, the only reason that health care works AT ALL in this country is because of government intervention as explained here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/opinion/31krugman.html

Why would you think that drivel is worth typing?

[Miranda]

Mr. Heidelberger: Sure! Just like the Democrats assumed that Bush’s heart was in the right place when we went to war in Iraq. Bush was never given a pass. No one just took what he said at face value, and I have no problem with that. Politicians’ motives are rarely pure and the people ought to scrutinize them. But I do have a problem with those who think that Republicans ought to scrutinized, while Democrats are left unquestioned and unchallenged.

Steyn seems to be suggesting that the ban was proposed because of a redefined relationship between the state and its citizens, brought on, in part, by a socialized health program. I think that he is right to be concerned.

A.I.: I think the chance of losing one’s freedom is more dangerous than the chance of paying higher premiums. There is a reason that our founding father’s cried, “Give me liberty or give me death!” Furthermore, discussing this issue does not preclude any of us from discussing any other issue. I have the time and the will for both. You may choose for yourself whether or not the discussion is worth your time. I am not twisting anyone’s arm.

FascistSocialist:
Thank you for your valuable comments and for taking the time to respond to my drivel.

[A.I.]

You miss the point. The jack-boot arguments you repeat here are exactly the distraction insurance providers and their congressional supporters want dominating the health care debate. They will do anything in their power to avoid discussing rising costs, monopolized markets, etc. In a nut shell, their goal is to keep us talking about Tony the Tiger in England while they pick our pockets here.

And if you don't believe the problems we face are a little more pressing than some contrived notion that government will cut off our supply of pre-sugared breakfast flakes, go here and click on South Dakota: http://healthcareforamericanow.org/site/content/state_reports_competition

[Miranda]

Isn't what you are saying fear mongering as well?
You assume that if anyone suspects the motives of those behind Obama's health care plan, then they must be a tool of insurance companies. Because others have lost some of their freedom as a result of plans socialized healthcare plans, and the presence of government where it does not belong, I think it is important to be wary, whether or not insurance
companies feel the same way.

I also think it is foolish to dismiss that concern. Your source is unquestionably biased.If I can use articles from Townhall as evidence for my arguments, I'll accept your political action site. Otherwise, let's try to work with credible sources.

[FascistSocialist]

Miranda - question people's actions, but not their motives.

If someone makes a stupid or invalid argument, point it out. But don't impugn their motives.

If you think someone is stupid, feel free to say it, but questioning someone's motives is a reckless and worthless pursuit in so much as motives are something you cannot know unless someone explicitly tells you, and are something you have to accept at face value. If someone says they are trying to HELP you have to accept that and argue against their policies, not their underlying motive.

Did you read the Krugman piece? What are your thoughts on it? Do you disagree that government is currently playing a beneficial role in our current health system?

[A.I.]

So I'm to believe health care is a Trojan Horse through which Obama can realize his ultimate goal of repealing the First Amendment! Or is his goal killing babies and elderly people? Or is it both? I'm sorry Miranda, that kind of stuff just doesn't wash as anything more than scare tactics.

Oh, and if you are referring to Health Care for America as my source, read the end notes. The conclusions are theirs, but the numbers come from other sources including the AMA. I think two providers having 71% of the South Dakota health insurance market is reason for concern. If that is fear mongering, so be it.

[William]

As I've said before, "If, as is now the case with far too many, "Public Health" is viewed as one's obligation to live one's life in the manner the state deems best lived for society's sake, then what essential freedoms will be left to the individual?"

I view a "single payer" system, to be the inevitable result of the current Democratic health care proposals.

With either no attempt, or minimal efforts at best, to address tort reform, individual tax breaks for personal ownership and control of health insurance, insurance reforms that allow purchasing insurance across state lines, high risk pools, etc., I think it fair to view that Steyn is correct when he fears that "reforming healthcare is the first step in redefining the roles of the government and its citizens, so that the government can regulate all human affairs as it sees fit."

[FascistSocialist]

William you demonstrate a thorough lack of understanding of the American health system.

Try reading something man...

[William]

Why don't I just take a look around the health care facility I work at? Or, maybe I could discuss it some more with the doctors and nurses?

[FascistSocialist]

A.) doctors and nurses often are unaware of what is the best treatment for a given ailment, what in the world leads you to believe that a consumer of health care could know what the best course of action in a situation is?
B.) it's a bit counter-intuitive, but stimulating competition between health plans to improve the health system is something that is a myth. It hasn't happened for the last 20 years we've been trying it and it isn't going to ever work
- let's say there's a practice with 100 patients, 20 are covered by blue cross, 20 by aetna, etc.
- to get improved health to those patients the measurement data regarding them has to be analyzed and then acted on

- each health plan wants to guard its own measurement data because it sees this as an advantage for them so they can use it to provide better health care for their own members.
- the problems are that they only have access 20% of the data, they don't want to make a recommendation to the practice because that helps all other 80% of patients and strengthens their competitors, so instead of providing the information on how the health system could be improved to the practice (where the information should be implemented) they try and hire more people and set up some outside entity that does follow-up with patients only on their plan. Well, this entire system is deeply problematic because as a the nature of this heavily guarded information goes, practitioners never get to see it, nor do hospitals or patients.

This is why fostering competition between health plans does not work.

In the end, rather than improving the health of patients, or improving the health system the measurement data is typically used to create tiered health plans, which helps no one receive better care and does nothing to cut costs.

[Miranda]

Fascist Socialist: I do not think there is much wisdom in either of your arguments. If we do not speculate about what someone's motives are, we cannot hope to act before they do. Churchill suspected Hitler's motives before he had gained much ground. If those in power had listened to him, Britain might have been able to prevent further disasters. Furthermore, people often lie. Hitler said he would stop at Czechoslovakia. He did not. We can't just sit around stupidly believing everything everyone says.

A.I.:
You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. I believe that letting the government penalize you for eating foods it does not approve of creates a dangerous relationship between the government and is citizens. I think that the loss of one's freedom is something to take seriously. That is not to say that there aren't problems with the current system, but when the solution begins to look worse than the problem,
I think the responsible thing to do is to question it. You may have other things
that you would like to discuss and I am perfectly happy to discuss them, but that does not mean you are right in dismissing the concerns of others or discouraging the discussion of other issues.

[FascistSocialist]

We are the United States of America, Miranda, we are talking about our PRESIDENT and MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, not HITLER. You are saying that we should apply the same skepticism about our own president and members of congress that one should apply to Hitler. You are crazy.

You are a crazy person.

Do you even hear what you're saying?

Good god.

[Miranda]

FS: Because our opinions are so different on many things, I wanted to find an example that was clearly bad to demonstrate my point. You might think eating cheeseburgers is bad, I might disagree. Conversely, I think abortion is bad, but you might disagree. However, I think that we can both recognize the Holocaust as something bad.

I am not calling Obama Hitler. I am merely making the point that sometimes it's important to try to understand what motivates people.

You might think that that makes me crazy, but I think it's crazy for someone to believe everything he is told, just because he happens to be part of the same party as the person talking to him.

[FascistSocialist]

You are a crazy person because you fail to realize that we live in the USA and not Nazi Germany.

In the USA we have a system of government with checks and balances, it's pretty transparent and we have open debate on our legislative process both during the mark-up of the bills and during the actual passage.

Not only that, but we have freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

No one is going to slip anything by anyone in this government, unless it's Dick Cheney's secret hit squad, lol.

Anyway, certainly not something like a fucking single payer health care system.

So, what that means, is that you and every other idiot has ample time to examine the bills as they pass through congress, before they are even voted on.

What that means is that you don't have to guess at what someone's intentions are, you can see exactly what it is they are doing in that bill.

This is not Hitler's Germany. We do not have a Führer.

You live in the United States of America. Not Nazi Germany, Miranda.

This... is why you are a crazy person.

[FascistSocialist]

Further, if a congressperson I despise, say Michele Bachmann, proposed legislation I would approach that legislation with some skepticism, I would read it and point out its fault and problems, I might even have an uncontrollable visceral reaction to that legislation as I do to most of the words that come out of her mouth.

But, I would never say that she is motivated by a desire to kill people or destroy the United States or turn us into Nazi Germany or Stalin's USSR, even if her legislation, in my opinion, would lead us to that end.

It's not useful and not knowable to question people's motives. Question provisions in their legislation and their ideas.

[public works environment]

In public works environment it's not useful and not knowable to question people's motives. Question provisions in their legislation and their ideas.