There has been more and more press with health experts claiming that healthcare costs will become completely unmanageable, with our without reform, unless we, as a society take action to improve our collective diets. They go so far as to suggest banning sweet snacks, and high fat foods. They could be right.

I don't care if they are right, and this is where some opinions of healthcare reform proponents start to collide with my opinions on personal liberty. Jacob Sullum takes this on at Reason http://www.reason.com/news/show/28840.html. Showing how really, depending on what your interests are, you can make a case for virtually any and every ingestable substance to be eligible for inclusion in dangerous foods that cost our healthcare system money.

The relative costs of food to our heathcare system is a separate debate, and reform supporters should take great care to keep these arguments separate and fight the food police just as hard as they fight the misguided souls who protect the status quo of a government bought and paid for by the health insurance industry. I see healthcare reform, especially the public options, as a balance to the regulatory capture of our government with respect to history of the industry using its resources to influence the government into protecting and enriching their industry, to the detriment of the citizens that government is supposed to represent, all far outside of the parameters of free-market economics.

This is where I start to wonder if the slippery slope argument of reform opponents may hold some water. Except that we are already moving down this slippery slope, and they remain completely separate arguments.
Given a choice between having the government tell me what I may and may not ingest, and having unaffordable health insurance, I'll choose unaffordable health insurance costs, but that is NOT the choice being made. Reform proponents often cite mandatory car insurance as a model for mandatory health insurance, but the big difference in how they want health insurance to look is in underwriting. Car insurance is underwritten on a driver by driver basis. People with a history of bad driving, or members of groups that are deemed to be higher risk drivers, pay higher premiums. In healthcare, the goal seems to be to have the same premium, regardless of risk. I am fine with that, if we have a large enough group that can absorb high risk and low risk individuals resulting in a reasonably affordable individual cost. What I absolutely oppose is using the fact that all risk is equally shared as the foundation of an argument that since we all pay in equally, it's not fair for some to have unhealthy lifestyles, and then legislate prohibitions on lifestyle choices.

In my view, personal freedom demands that we accept the risks of individuals who make bad choices, or we let insurers (public or private) underwrite individuals and charge them a premium for their lifestyles. What we absolutely cannot allow is for one good argument (sharing risk) to be used as the foundation for one very bad argument, that since we are sharing the risk, people can prohibited from exercising personal freedom that harms no one but them, using the argument that since we are sharing the risk, they are now harming the collective, therefore it is within the rights of the collective to apply these prohibitions. This argument is being used now to pass legislation, and will continue, with or without health insurance reform.

I live a pretty healthy lifestyle, though I have my vices, and already pay sin taxes on those vices. I can live with sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco, they are demonstrably a revenue drain on every system, and in moderation, the sin taxes are moderate. But I would sooner argue that even these sin taxes should be abolished as anathema to liberty than allow that since we accept that these products are a drain on the collective and are taxed as such, that any and every product that could fit this description could, or should be taxed.

There are degrees here, but freedom loving Democrats should be very vocal in disputing any notion that any form of collective healthcare automatically allows limitations on individual rights. None of this means that government policy cannot be mindful of its impact on dietary choices. While I disagree with policies designed for the sole purpose of discouraging a behavior, I also oppose the existing policies which encourage, and subsidize bad dietary offerings and choices. I find it ironic that while some want to place a sin tax on sugar, we already subsidize sugar production, making the product artificially cheaper than it should be. Removing the subsidies does not deny freedom, and really, to have a subsidy on one side of the equation, and a sin tax on the other, seems to be something of a conflict, most likely resulting in the same outcome as simply removing the subsidies. The same with corn, no better than other veggies(nutritionwise), and after massive processing, it does more to add bulk than nutrition to our diets. Don't punish corn eaters, but by the same token, don't encourage corn consumption by subsidizing it's production.

The fact that that America does not have armed guards or electrified fences across every linear foot of our borders makes us more vulnerable to terrorism. So what? This is the cost of liberty. The fact that we do not allow police to enter any premise at any time makes us more vulnerable to drugs and crime. So what? This is the cost of liberty. The fact that people who arouse suspicion cannot be tortured until someone decides whether or not the suspicion was warranted makes us more vulnerable to violence. So what? This is the cost of liberty. The fact that illegal immigrants cannot be stopped by government officials or citizens and asked for their papers makes us more vulnerable to immigration problems as well as terrorist attacks. So what? This is the cost of liberty. The fact that the government cannot eavesdrop on every phone call, email message, or web session makes us more vulnerable to all manner of crime and violence. So what? This is the cost of liberty.

Liberty has a cost, and I will gladly pay that cost. Liberty has risks, and I will gladly take those risks. When we rely on the state to protect us from everything, including ourselves, there will be no protection from the source of our greatest risk, the state itself.

I would go so far as to suggest that it be included into any legislation that no future legislation may seek to contain healthcare costs by taxes or prohibitions on any common dietary elements, including sugar, fat, caloric density, or any other characteristic.

The experts may be right about the cost of our collective diet, or even individual diets, but it's either a cost we need bear, or an individual responsibility, we can never allow our diets to be a collective decision.

All this said, it is important to point out that even without heath insurance reform, these arguments exist, and these laws are being passed. Since 60% of healthcare dollars pass through government at some level or another, the collective argument is out there and being made and being won in some cases. So while I make the argument against these collective dietery prohibitions, health insurance reform is needed, and the arguments that passing reform is a slippery slope to authoritarian diet mandates fails in one major respect, we are already on that slope, and these encroachments on our liberty need to be argued for what they are, separate and distinct arguments. Support health insurance reform, oppose authoritarian dictates on individual choices, but don't conflate the two.