BCT Editorial – 4/30/10

Focus on the following statements in the editorial: “What’s troubling is that many cases - though most definitely not all - could be prevented if more people took responsibility for their health. … It’s not just about our personal health.  These diseases add billions of dollars to health care every year.  Something has got to change, and soon.”

If you’re familiar with the Times editorial body of work, you are aware editorials routinely talk about personal responsibility, only to be followed by editorials demanding government ban behaviors the Times doesn’t like.  I covered this in my critique of “Do no harm.”  As I noted in my critique of yesterday’s “Filling a void,” Times editorials give the same lip service to “local control.”

Here’s the purpose of the editorial.  We already see the government making demands on diet composition (salt, sugar, trans fats, et cetera) in addition to ridiculous taxes on tobacco and the ban of smoking on private property.  Now that we have Obamacare, expect to see further control over your diet and other “risky” behavior all in the name of keeping medical insurance premiums/taxes “affordable.”  Though the Times doesn’t really need a reason other than ideology to support government control over personal behavior, it wants to be able to write an editorial someday that goes something like “Doggonit, you know we really support personal responsibility because we wrote editorials about it.  Unfortunately, too many of us are irresponsible and this drives up medical insurance premiums/taxes for the rest of us.  Therefore, reluctantly and with great sorrow in our hearts, we support government regulating your diet.”