Does This Legislation Make Me Look Fat?

In the years since Baby and I migrated from the suburbs to the deep suburbs (read: country), so too has urban sprawl migrated, and when you build a plethora of McMansions and fill them with McFamilies, you need McStores to support the McGrowth...and by "need" I mean "want," and by "support the McGrowth" I mean "cash-in on the McBoom." Struggling now are the mom-and-pops that were the backbone of our once-small town, as they are slowly being strangled by hands with fingers that look eerily like strip malls. But no growth industry has grown around here quite like the food service industry.

In 1999, we had three diners, a couple of pizza/sandwich shops, a Mexican place, a Chinese place, a Dunkin' Donuts, a Waffle House, a McDonald's, and a Burger King. There was something for everyone.

In 2008, we now have two diners, a few pizza/sandwich shops, two Mexican places, an Italian place, two Chinese places......an Applebee's, a Friendly's, a Hardee's, a KFC, a Taco Bell, an Arby's, a Dairy Queen, a Rita's, a Ruby Tuesday's, a Bruster's, a Starbucks, three Dunkin' Donuts, a Waffle House, a McDonald's, a Burger King, a couple of BBQ joints, some bagel hut, and a pretzel place (?!). Now, there is everything for everyone.

I wish I were making that up. As I cruise around town most days, I see a lot of people at these eateries, and these people I see at these eateries have a lot of people to them. What I'm trying to say is that this ever-growing town has ever-growing townsfolk.

It is no great secret that obesity is on the rise in this country. Simply watch your late local news every night for a week, and surely on one of those nights, a Health Watch or a Medical Alert or a First-Aid Warning will highlight something about obesity - something the network down the street probably reported the previous week, and something the network up the street will probably report the following week. The net result of most of these reports is usually nothing new: junk food is bad, fruits and veggies are good, and now here's Suzie with the five-day forecast. But sometimes they let us know how other parts of the country are handling obesity.

New York City has mandated that calorie-counts be included on many restaurant menus, so that patrons are better informed; but just because you give someone knowledge doesn't mean they know what to do with it. Think about it. Do we send our kids to schools or to libraries? Both are full of educational material, but one teaches while the other merely informs. So, when New York tells New Yorkers that Muffin X is 800 calories and Muffin Y is 400 calories, but they cost the same, will New Yorkers go for the 400-calorie muffin because fewer calories are healthier, or go for the 800-calorie muffin because if there is anything to be learned from the Wal-Mart model, it's that more of something for the same price is always better?

Los Angeles passed a temporary moratorium on the construction of new fast food restaurants in South L.A., where obesity is a greater issue than elsewhere in the city. How pointless. If overweight South Angelinos have access to X fast food restaurants today, and tomorrow they have access to the same X restaurants, do the city's decision makers expect their constituents to suddenly forget where all the fried greasy goodness came from yesterday and simply wile away their hours today standing on empty parcels of land, waiting for new fast food joints to fall from the sky? This isn't even school vs. library. This is telling the kid who never returns library books that he's not allowed to borrow any new books, but if he still has the old ones, eh, what's the harm.

And in Alabama, the State Employees' Insurance Board has indicated that it will begin charging obese state employees a $25-per-month fee to offset the increased health costs associated with obesity. This fee will also be charged to people with blood pressure, glucose, or cholesterol issues. If an employee's health improves (through various measures), the fee will no longer be assessed.

This one troubles me.

The thinking behind it is that these health problems are lifestyle-based, and if you change your lifestyle, you will improve your health, which will save your employer a few bucks, which will save you a few bucks. On the surface, it kind of makes sense: if you require more of something, then you ought to pay more for it, right?

Not so fast.

How will the boss know what to charge you for benefits? A visual assessment might work for obesity, but what about the other health issues? Do you remember that commercial with the studly older guy being eyed-up by some ladies at the pool, and instead of nailing the expected perfect-ten dive, he belly flops into the water? That was a pharmaceutical commercial, and the point of it was to illustrate that you could look great and still be plagued with health problems.
That means the boss has to make sure everyone is tested. Everyone. Are you up for that? Are you up for middle-management knowing the details of your health? They can't even change the toner in the printer; you want them to be privy to your bodily secrets?

Maybe you're ready for that, but what about the assumption that if you suffer from one of these ailments, it must be based on lifestyle, yet each of the ailments could be due to some other factor. Again with the stud at the pool in the commercial, the message is clear: you might exercise regularly and have a low Bady Mass Index or a muscular build, yet you might still be plagued with health problems.

That means someone, or a group of someones, gets to pass judgment on your health. Are you up for that? Are you up for some unknown committee or triumvirate...or worse, Human Resources...looking at your charts and hanging a price tag on you? I mean really...HR?! What if your vitals accidentally wind up in a PowerPoint presentation at the next quarterly?

So maybe you're ready for that, too. Maybe you just don't care. Maybe you believe that if someone requires more of something, then they ought to pay more for it. Faster cars, more money. Bigger houses, more money. Bigger health risks, more money, right?

Um, not so fast again.

Since when did you become a by-volume person? You are a person, period. When you go to the movies, you aren't charged by your weight or your size or your height, you are charged by your being. That's why the ticket stub says "Admit One," not "Admit (See Chart on Back)." In elections, you only get one vote. In Pollyanna, you only get one present. Why shouldn't healthcare be the same and treat you as one?

Even if Alabama has the perfect plan to avoid charging those with true genetic ailments (versus lifestyle-induced ailments), charging extra to those whose lifestyles create the potential for increased healthcare costs is a perilous path to follow, because its definition is so broad. Someday, someone in some office will be tasked with mitigating healthcare costs. The idea will hit him that the phrase LIFESTYLE can be applied to more than just diet. So, in addition to, "What's your BMI and LDL count?" you might be asked, "Do you rock climb?" "Do you ride a motorcycle?" "Do you frequently ice skate?" "Are you promiscuous?"

Feel invaded yet? Each example is a lifestyle (of sorts) and carries with it higher risks for health problems. Now, I want you to take those questions I just asked...and ask them of your spouse and of your children, because if $25 a month is helping subsidize healthcare costs, somebody in some cubicle is going to do the math as he imagines what $50, $100, or more could do.

I respect what the government is trying to accomplish, and I'm sure they are using the finest of intentions to pave that road to perdition, but Uncle Sam needs to keep his thumb out of the pudding. I mean, who knows where that thumb has been?