This morning, Bob posted a thoughtful (and provocative) piece on The Magnolia State's latest effort to curb its citizens' appetites. Whether or not this (presumably) well-intentioned legislative fat-cutting is successful, it appears to be based on a flawed premise:
"Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it doesn't save money, researchers reported yesterday. It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars."
Oh.
So that premise, which claimed a "61 percent increase in the number of Americans classified as obese between 1991 and 2000...(and) singled out Mississippi as having the highest rate" seems disconnected from the, ahem, solution: "proposing to make it illegal for a Mississippi restaurant to serve anyone with a body mass index of 30 or more."
Now, that's not to say that the effort is ill-advised (who am I to advise the residents of the Bayou State?). But it seems to me that, before we start passing more restrictive laws -- let alone those without, you know, actual "penalties (for) an eatery would face for violating" them -- we ought to have some kind of handle on what we're really hoping to accomplish.
"Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it doesn't save money, researchers reported yesterday. It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars."
Oh.
So that premise, which claimed a "61 percent increase in the number of Americans classified as obese between 1991 and 2000...(and) singled out Mississippi as having the highest rate" seems disconnected from the, ahem, solution: "proposing to make it illegal for a Mississippi restaurant to serve anyone with a body mass index of 30 or more."
Now, that's not to say that the effort is ill-advised (who am I to advise the residents of the Bayou State?). But it seems to me that, before we start passing more restrictive laws -- let alone those without, you know, actual "penalties (for) an eatery would face for violating" them -- we ought to have some kind of handle on what we're really hoping to accomplish.
Posts
