Tuesday, May 14, 2002

Proponents of taxing fatty foods and suing the pants off the food industry like Big Tobacco don't believe it's "fair for the 39 percent of Americans who aren't overweight ... to carry the financial burden of higher health costs for the fatties," Scripps Howard News Service reports. Well, if one believes government statistics � 61 percent of Americans are overweight, 300,000 die prematurely every year from their fatness, overeating annually accounts for $117 billion in medical bills � their complaint seems valid.

But Americans should remember statistics, like bikinis, show much but not everything; history tells us that very few dollars the government might extort through fat taxes and lawsuits will go for their intended purposes; and a tax structure and legal system that punish poor lifestyle choices could cut the other way.

Sixty-one percent of Americans are fat simply because the government says they are. Based on its "body-mass indicator," Michael Jordan is overweight and Tom Cruise obese.

Yes, excessive intake of beer and chips can cause obesity, but millions of people, including many who exercise regularly and count their calories religiously, are fat because they are genetically predisposed to weight gain, and anyone who has celebrated his 40th birthday knows how tough it is to shed pounds as one ages. Also, obesity isn't always an accurate medical indicator. A lot of overweight people live good long lives with few medical problems while joggers in their 30s drop dead at the curb.

Taxing fat foods or suing the industry are bad ideas. A new tax only gives the government another way to separate people from their money. If Americans learned anything from the tobacco lawsuit, it was politicians blew smoke when they promised to dedicate the $260 billion settlement on smoking-related expenses and tobacco cessation. And even with $100 million a year coming in from Big Tobacco, legislative Democrats still managed to turn billions in surpluses into a $1.5 billion deficit.

What about using the tax and legal systems to punish poor lifestyle choices? In many respects, it's already happening. Today's society is largely the product of years of government decisions that rewarded certain behaviors and punished others. Landmark court cases likewise have dictated public policies that led Americans down lifestyle roads they might not otherwise have taken.

But if one argues it's not "fair" for the fit to help the fat foot the bill, then why is it "fair" that Americans who don't have children out of wedlock or who don't have more children than they can afford to clothe, house and feed, or who don't engage in activities that put them at risk for sexually transmitted diseases, are forced to subsidize the poor lifestyle choices of those who do?

Some in Congress want a national prescription-drug program so millions more elderly in this country might better afford blood-pressure and cholesterol medications they need mostly because they're overweight. Some think that program would be compassionate, but would it be "fair" to expect the young and the fit to subsidize those costs?

If the strain that fat people are putting on the medical system is that great, the better answer would be for insurers to establish rate structures that take a person's weight into account, just as they do for smokers and bad drivers. And if one takes the fairness doctrine to its illogical end, doctors and hospitals would have to charge for their services by the pound, and the government would have to set higher premiums and co-pays for overweight Medicare and Medicaid recipients.