Contact
Subscribe
Being the healthiest corpse the mortician has seen
Photo by silas216/flickr.com
“They speak of my drinking but never consider my thirst.” — Winston Churchill
In 1976 he was a rambunctious graduating senior at Albuquerque High when he took my English class. Recently I was thrilled to see him — until he blurted, “Boy, you got fat.” Then, “I bet government health care makes you lose 100 pounds.” Excuse me, returning to my high school weight would only be sixty pounds.
My nickname was “Slim” in high school. I was on swim teams a number of years and went to NMSU because of swim coach Dave Stacey, but I suffered a career-ending injury. Now when one of the old gang calls me “Slim” it is just a juvenile sense of humor.
Would I like to be back at my swimming team weight? Yes, but only on my own terms. With this health-care reform debate, the government is set to take that decision out of my hands. It is somewhere in the actual language or intent of the more than 2,000 pages. No one has read every page. During WWII, Winston Churchill quipped, “This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read.”
Michael Swickard
Even if I do not spot exactly the specific language, I know what the health-care bill means. It is like the story of a man who went to vote years ago in Georgia. Locals kept “undesirables” from voting with a “literacy test” that was actually a mixture of Latin and Greek. They looked smugly at the man and asked if he knew what it meant. He said he did. They were incredulous. He said resignedly, “It means I do not get to vote.”
Back to what is weighing upon me. With the Thanksgiving celebration this week, what are the chances that when I sit down to the feast with my loved ones and friends I will just have a few bites of the tofu turkey and then jump on my treadmill for the rest of the holiday? Slim. Am I a typical American? Yep.
Those gazelle-like exercisers among us will tisk-tisk at me as they spend hours each day in the gerbil wheel of their choice. Then, after a three-hour workout, they eat a 231-calorie meal that will eventually make them the healthiest corpse the mortician has ever seen.
The right to be fat
The health-care bill will be passed because both political parties live to control lives. To hold down costs the government will be forced to force me to become slim, healthy and smart. My first thought was, “Lots of luck.”
My government and I part ways when government minders try to force me to lose weight in the name of saving money for the society. They will have the ability to control what I eat and how much I exercise each day. I will not worry about trying to live to be 100 because eating like the government wants me to will make me feel like I have lived forever.
The core question is: Do Americans have a right to be fat? Do they have a right to pilot the couch all weekend while smoking and drinking adult beverages? In short, do Americans have a right of gluttony and slothfulness? I hate to be on the side of gluttony and slothfulness, but I believe having government minders deciding what is best for each of us is wrong. We have the right of self-destiny even when making mistakes. We have the right to be fat, dumb and happy.
More importantly, since we are a nation with a constitution, I wonder if the health-care reform bill is even constitutional. Going back to the thoughts of our country’s founders I see no intention to deprive anyone of the benefit of their own stupidity. In fact, if those writers of our constitution were not already dead, this health-care reform debate would kill them.
We should enjoy this Thanksgiving because when the government wheedles itself into more and more power over you in the name of making your life better, Thanksgiving may become a few bites of tofu turkey and lots of time on treadmills. Stand by for when the government health-care minders fat-test each of us before every meal.
Swickard is a weekly columnist for this site. You can reach him at michael@swickard.com.
Swickard bio │ Archives │ Feed
|
Share
Tweet
|
Advertisements
|
16 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Sorry, I have been on the road several days and so could not respond. I have a different take on requiring seat belts and helmets. Most people want to talk about the benefit for the person wearing the safety devices while I do not. Not that I do not care about people. I usually do not get involved in their harmful or dangerous activities, be it smoking, marrying the wrong person or not taking adequate safety precautions when driving.
This is really about us, who in a lifetime of driving may have a bad moment. In a lifetime of driving, all of us will occasionally make driving errors. Example: you are driving down the street with your driver’s side window open when suddenly a swarm of bees fly in the window. Well, that is good for a few mad moments of distraction. So you inadvertently swerve out of your lane and bump a motorcycle in the next lane.
For the purpose of our discussion, you are entirely wrong in this accident, though most people will understand how it happened. You stop. With your heart in your mouth, you go back to check on the motorcycle rider. You can see that he has landed in the ditch. If the rider is wearing appropriate clothing and a helmet, he steps out of the weeds and say, “Gee, Michael, please be more careful,” or words to that effect. You are eternally grateful that all you did was bend some metal and did not physical harm to the rider.
If the other driver was not wearing a helmet and appropriate clothing, your bee driven boo-boo is ever so much more serious. I repeat, for the purpose of my scenario, you are entirely wrong. Likewise, if someone is not using a seat belt and the same scenario happens and that person is ejected from their vehicle, bad things can happen. Again, you are wrong to have caused the accident but the accident is so much more serious because of the death of the other person.
I believe it does no good to pass a law holding harmless the person who is wrong because they still have to help scrape someone off the pavement. It is horrible. Even though we are wrong, we do not deserve having a dead person in our memory.
According to our wise leaders FAT is good. If this an untruth then why do they bailout those too BIG to fail?
Advocates of universal healthcare are clearly overweight with unproductive life styles, such as abundant unaffordable progeny and maxxxxed credit, which, of course also deserve a bailout.
Today’s affluent debt demands spending tomorrow’s supply of prosperity that can only produce opulent slavery for all.
Obviously, misery enjoys company.
wedum59, of course Downs Syndrome or other challenged individuals do not “choose”, but their parents do, and you know as well as I many want them to “choose” something other than life due the exact same reasons you mention for motorcyce riders’ injuries, that is what I was talking about. And you must be naive about politics, do you really think my attending a Harry (or Jeff or Tom) meetings or writing letters to him or our incompetent Senators is going to have any impact what so ever on how they think, or vote, or the legislation they introduce??? No way, no how. I have tried that for years and nothing changes, since they only listen to people with money, power, and voters they can deliver (like unions), and since I have none of these, I am powerless.
… Are you planning to campaign against their use, defending your right to be killed in an automobile accident? ..the same way as anything else. Not only I don’t need some idiot in government to tell me how to live my life. Besides usually idiot gets paid for lying by seat belt manufacturers or trying to start new government-business by collecting fines. We have enough police and policing. On the other hand looking at other developed countries, and their health care systems, ours is hands down the worst and most expensive. Americans are not only fat, but also tootles. It’s a disgrace. Good health system does not force the people to go to certain doctors. It allows them to receive a health care. Not the best, but available. Those who want, and can afford a fancy doctor can go there…Right now inmates in eastern Europe have better health care then many working Americans.ex-inmate
Dr. J wrote, “…how do you feel about Downs Syndrome babies or other “mentally and physically challenged” individuals using your tax money or insurance money?” Be logical, DJ. A Downs syndrome baby does not choose to have an extra gene. You and Swickard seem to think it is all right for you to choose to behave dangerously and then expect the taxpayers to cover your expenses when you get into trouble. …………………………….DJ also claims , “all we can do is vote.” Get off your duff and go to one of Teague’s “Harry in Your Hometown” meetings. You will find that you can speak your mind directly to your representative as well.
I agree with much of what you say Thinker. However, explain to me how it is that ” the very reason why we pay so much for our health care–or are denied coverage at all–is because we are all being penalized for the costs of health care by unhealthy people”, and yet since ObamaCare forces all these unhealthy people into our “pool” (no one is denied coverage for pre-existing conditions or health history, no caps, no high deductables), as well as the uninsured, and that somehow magically that will cost us less? I don’t understand your math. Even if you deny profits for any insurance company, and they all become Blue Crosses, you cannot put all these sick people with no restrictions, caps, and low deductables into the pool and make my premiums less than it is today with all these people excluded from my pool with caps and high deductables. That just is not logical.
Powakee is correct. There is little accurate fact and a whole lot of “sky is falling” assumption put forth in the arguments made in this column. As well as quite a bit of amnesia, which is always necessary if you are to blindly oppose reform or change. First of all, there is nothing in this health care bill that will make you get up off your couch and take a walk, or force you to quit smoking, or punish you for being overweight. Nothing. A truly effective health care system that actually tries to reduce costs and increase the health and well being of a nation should have reforms, incentives and goals that help guide health decision making in a positive and effective way–but this legislation fails all of us in this aspect. So, relax. Second, if you think the current system retains your “right” to be unhealthy and act in ways that are high risk with no penalty, think again. The very reason why we pay so much for our health care–or are denied coverage at all–is because we are all being penalized for the costs of health care by unhealthy people. If everyone was in the “pool”, it would increase the numbers of people like me, who pay for family coverage well in excess of our usage, and all of our premiums would decrease. Instead, we have an ugly hodgepodge crazy quilt of insurance in which the minority lucky get halfway decent, but still expensive, health care coverage, while it grants insurance companies the total control over how people can access health care. The resulting system gouges people while providing few benefits, denies others for ridiculous actuarial differences or outright discriminates based on age or income or association or gender–legally. And, unfortunately, since insurance coverage is provided by free market capitalists, you have few or no rights to redress this lack of equal protection. At least with government sponsored health care, the Constitution would again apply. What is truly sad is that what would be the most effective solutions to our health care problems in this country will never come into fruition because of the drag created by two groups: the greedy who are quite happy with the way things are right now, thank you, and the knee-jerk naysayers who are constitutionally afraid change. But “no change” isn’t a solution, it’s a decison to accept the waste and negative outcomes and indignities to the quality of human life we have in the present system. Honestly, if you or I were handed the task of “fixing” health care in this country, we would probably do what we would do with our own businesses or family budgets: use some freaking common sense and get the most bang out of our buck. Stop waste. Pool health care related income and resources. Give everyone the same opportunities and options instead of having separate programs that reinvent the overhead costs wheel. Help everyone be healthier by expanding pro-active and preventative services. Encouraging innovation and research into decreasing expensive and ineffective treatments or drugs. Stop making health care professionals take on enormous lifetime debt that they must pass on to patients. Oh, and get rid of the the damn Viagra commercials.
I find powakee’s observations quite interesting. There is no argument or revelations that special interests can buy or lobby or threaten government into passing laws. But it is always government who does this, not the citizens at large, all we can do is vote. And when the government does not reflect our views and values, we can complain, protest, write our legislators and organize, but we cannot pass laws. That is what I learned in Civics class, and as a citizen, you are mostly powerless as an individual and as a minority interest. I would add that individuals who want to impose their way of life and values on everyone else have a curious sense of “community” or “common good” when those being told how to live and what to do and think do not accept how they live, act, or think effects others so negatively as to need “control”. When government imposes the special interests’ values and rules on all of us, without asking us, we have a right to speak out about it too, and to blame government since they are responsible for all laws.The example of MADD is interesting, as no one argues with their drunk driving issues, but few may know their true agenda today is total prohibition of all alcohol, temperance for all. It got so bad Candi left in disgust. Nader likewise got the Corvair off the road, but the collateral damage that was done to all cars and our society in general by this man and his followers is still being paid for by taxpayers and consumers, much of it unnecessary and expensive, including handing the 2000 election to Bush. Some “heroes” just get to full of themselves and don’t know when to quit.
My, you progressives are such bleeding hearts types, NOT. If someone wants to be a vegetable, that is their right, how do you feel about Downs Syndrome babies or other “mentally and physically challenged” individuals using your tax money or insurance money? You see, your logic is indefensible in my opinion, as I have no problems with this at all, free personal choice by a rider, a Mom, or a Dad. I would bet you also support the Calif. laws that will outlaw certain digital HD/3D TVs as well, since they use “too much” electricity. Yes, the progressive controls over all our lives continues.
From what I gather listening to Swickard on the radio and reading his ramblings he cannot distinguish between a human being’s right to petition the government for some change or to make a law and ‘the government.’ Candi Lightner, founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is an American citizen and not “the government.” Yet, most of us today credit Candi with starting the movement to take away Swickard’s right to drink and drive. Ralph Nadar, an American citizen and not “the government” is generally credited with the movement to take away Swickard’s right to drive a car that explodes on impact. While I could continue the history lesson I would only be doing so for my edification, not Swickard’s. I am of the firm belief that when it came to history classes while Mr. Swickard was obtaining his PhD the thought that went through his head was ‘I ain’t gonna take no class that is just about the goberment taking away my rights.’ What Swickard’s writings and grumblings are about are social issues wherein some ‘one’ person stands up and says that something in our society is not right and then that person goes about fixing it. As it turns out many people, actually a majority, agree with the change and the majority then cause the change to occur. What Mr. Swickard’s position boils down to is that he thinks it alright to drink and drive. He just can’t muster an argument that is persuasive to the majority. Thus, he grumbles away that ‘the government’ is taking away his right. In the end it does not matter what the issue is Mr. Swickard ignores the individual and blames the ‘collective’ government for his woes. I am picking on Swickard because he wrote the above article; however, any of us could substitute his name for the conservative political position on any topic and the argument remains the same – individual rights are great unless they address the safety and welfare of anybody besides the individual. I took civics back in middle school and I learned about what makes up the American government. I wonder what the civics class of the 21st century would look like designed by the individuals who support the conservative position?
Personally, I think that either motorcycle helmets SHOULD be required or motorcyclists should be required to sign a waiver that if they are in an accident and suffer a head injury while not wearing a helmet, no medical aid should be given. That’s the other side of the “I don’t want any government protection.” If you really want that freedom, you should be free to die when you do something silly, instead of becoming a vegetable that is maintained at taxpayer expense (or insurance company expense, thereby raising the rates of all the other insurees) for the next 40 years or so.Agreed?
I believe seat belts, like motorcycle helmets, should be made available for all to use. But, I do not think it should be a crime not to wear either of these items while driving/riding. That is another personal choice. Like smoking, drinking, eating good food you love and being overweight, using incandescent bulbs for the heat they emit, etc. I always wear my full face Shoei helmet when I ride my motorcycle, but many of my friends don’t or just wear silly headgear (bandanas, skull cap helmets, etc.), that is their choice in a free country. They are not criminalized by the cops and others (progressives) who want everyone to live like they do. I also always wear my seat belt, except for short trips around my property in my Jeep, but again why is it a crime not to wear a seat belt while helmets are not required? This is just another stupid law made by a controlling government bent on making us all live alike and giving cops another excuse to look inside your car when they stop you.
Dr. J writes, “ I look at the items government is dictating to us now, like what cars you can drive, …”So you are opposed to seatbelts too?
Thanks Dr., well said once again. It has always concerned me that government seems to think they know what is best for you on almost all things in your life. They also seem to think there is some overriding “common good” for the citizens by forcing people into their ideas and controlling their lives. There are also many in government, who as you say, want to make sure no one has the chance to fail, get hurt, lose money, etc. But these types don’t seem to understand that all these things are what consititute freedom of choice and outcomes. If all people are protected from themselves at all times in all things by government control, they have no freedom. I look at the items government is dictating to us now, like what cars you can drive, what light bulbs you can use, what you can watch on TV, what you can say on TV, what electricity you can use from what sources, what you can eat, etc., and soon what health care insurance you are allowed to buy. I do wonder where it will all stop, but alas as long as we keep electing politicians like we have in DC and NM today it will just accelerate.
You may have the right to be so, but fortunately, you don’t speak for US.
Fat, dumb, and dead is more like it. If I do the math correctly, you only weigh 160 pounds, which isn’t bad unless you are 5′ 2″ or so tall. But for people who are seriously overweight, it is difficult to be happy when your knees and back hurt from carrying all that excess weight around. And it’s true, knee replacements are expensive. Back surgery is expensive and often does not work, leading to more expensive surgery. I don’t see how all of that mucking around with your innards, which could be prevented by maintaining a healthy weight, can make you happy.HR 3962 places a great emphasis on preventive care, but in an incentivized (is that a word?) way. There are NO co-pays or deductibles for checkups, etc. So, how do you feel about mandatory seatbelts? Are you planning to campaign against their use, defending your right to be killed in an automobile accident?