What if at age 55 you were told by the federal government that you were prohibited from playing racquetball or riding a bike?  What if you were told at any age that you weren’t allowed to rock climb, eat ice cream or candy bars, or eat foods with lots of fat, such as your occasional burger and fries?  The reason for the restriction:  Those activities and foods are deemed too unhealthy for you, and you might become sick or injured, creating a costly burden for the nation’s health care system and therefore, your fellow taxpayers.

Sound farfetched?  Not really, according to health care expert Michael Cannon from the Cato Institute in Washington, who is also co-author of “Healthy Competition: What’s Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.”

I recently interviewed Cannon and asked him a question I hadn’t heard addressed in much of the debate about nationalized health care:  Could a government-run health care system eventually prohibit us from eating certain foods and participating in certain everyday activities?

Before I get to his answer, let me state that I am not going to get into a debate with those who argue that there is no government takeover of health care in the House-passed health care reform bill.  That would take way too long, and has been done elsewhere.  Even the architect of the health care bill, Jacob Hacker of U.C. Berkeley, has admitted that the public option part of the bill is designed to lead to an eventual government takeover and a “single payer” system where the federal government is the sole health insurer.  President Obama has also talked about his desire for a single payer, government-run system.

Now, back to my question.  To answer it, Cannon pointed out that when we are all under a taxpayer-subsidized health care plan, all taxpayers (and therefore, the government) will have a vested interest in making sure we are not committing acts that will increase medical costs.

According to Cannon, “When the government subsidizes health care, anything you do with that money becomes the voters’ business.  And rather than allow for choice between different ways of doing things, the government typically imposes the preferences of the majority — or sometimes, a vocal minority — on everybody.”

Congress may either prohibit certain foods and activities altogether, or impose heavy taxes on them to discourage their use.  Congress is already considering a tax on “sugary drinks” to pay for health care.  The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based watchdog group, is pushing the Senate for a federal tax on soda, certain fruit drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks, and ready-to-drink teas.  And calls for a national “fat tax” have been around for years and are gaining even more ground now that implementation of socialized medicine looks possible.

It is harder, but possible, to impose a tax on certain activities considered high risk.  On other activities, it may just be easier to ban them outright, especially for older people who are considered more susceptible to injury and disease.

Liberals, conservatives, and moderates alike should all fear this level of government intrusion into our lives and the potential loss of freedoms it bodes.  Is “discounted” health insurance really worth giving up all that?

To hear my full interview with Michael Cannon, visit www.FandPRadio.com.  To hear my interviews with other experts from around the country on the political issues important to Virginians – such as cap and trade’s killer effect on the Virginia coal economy, how your state legislators have voted on some of the most important bills in American history, and more – listen to Freedom & Prosperity Radio, Sunday nights at 8pm on WFIR 960AM.  In one half hour, we’ll bring you up to speed on the issues that affect your freedom and your wallet.  If you can’t tune in on Sunday nights, you can listen to our past shows at FandPRadio.com, or email me to get on our show email list.

By Brian Gottstein

bgottstein1@yahoo.com

No More Ice Cream, Burgers, Or Hang Gliding Under Nationalized Health Care?4.6105