Recent talk about establishing what some call a “fat tax” have emerged after Arizona’s recently proposed legislature to impose a $50 annual fee on obese and tobacco-smoking Medicaid patients who fail to follow through with their physician’s advice to a healthier lifestyle. The measure will not only promote a healthier lifestyle, but it will also help to bring in more money to the state’s Medicaid program.
Another approach proposed involves putting a higher tax on unhealthy foods to help pay for health complications that develop as a result of unhealthy lifestyles. However, both of these are an overreaching approach to encourage lifelong healthy habits.
First of all, for many people an increase in taxes won’t do much to change their lifestyles. Once an individual becomes dependent on cigarettes or unhealthy foods, his or her mentality won’t be strong enough to see the few extra cents or dollars in taxes on foods and tobacco as a highly regarded reason to not buy such products.
As for obesity, many Americans are obese because of their genes, making it harder for them to lose weight. And in the rest of the obese population’s defense, many people live their lives being obese without facing any health complications, or losing weight is difficult due to other medical problems.
Recently, in a Chicago elementary school, certain fatty foods packed in lunches from home have been prohibited. The students are being encouraged — and nearly forced — to eat only the food provided by the school cafeteria.
The intention with all of these proposals is a good one, for the most part. And yes, our government is here to ensure the population’s overall well-being. However, paying such keen attention to each individual’s Body Mass Index (BMI) or smoking habits is intruding on our personally chosen lifestyles. It’s like the South Park episode featuring Cartman’s eye-opening visit to the Museum of Tolerance taught its viewers, obesity — and tobacco use for that matter — is merely a lifestyle choice and should not be controlled through any local, state or federal government.
Until a child lives outside of his or her guardian’s watch and care, the food they put into their body should be up to their parents or guardian. It is a parent’s responsibility to inform themselves of healthy eating habits in order to better care for their offspring. This should be common sense. Who would want to stock their kids up with Lays potato chips and extra buttery movie theater popcorn? As delicious as it all sounds, it’ll only bring a number of complications to our lives in the end, physically and mentally.
Let the lesson be learned: There is no need for any government to intervene in how people choose or have to live their lives. At least California authorities realize this issue involves too many personal complications to make way for government imposed obesity and tobacco-use prevention. If this were to be implemented, we would only be ignoring all the preventable health complications that arise in the non-smoking and healthy BMI population.
Sonia Guillen is a junior journalism major and opinions editor for the Daily 49er.
Disclaimer: The Daily 49er is not responsible for Postings made on www.daily49er.wpengine.com. Persons commenting are solely responsible for Postings made on this website. Persons commenting agree to the Terms of Use of the website. If Postings do not abide by the Rules of Conduct or Posting Regulations as listed in the Postings Policy, the Daily 49er has all rights to delete Postings as it deems necessary. The Daily 49er strongly advises individuals to not abuse their First Amendment rights, and to avoid language suggestive of hate speech. This site also encourages users to make Postings relevant to the article or other Postings.
