Term life insurance offers two different premiums: A lower one for non-smokers and a higher one for smokers.

Auto insurance premiums are based on a formula that takes into account driving history, whether antitheft devices are installed on the car, etc. A safer driver may qualify for a lower premium.

I suggest doing the same thing with health insurance: Someone who is more than 20% overweight should have to pay a surcharge on their health insurance premium. Very simple.

This avoids discriminating against people’s lifestyles, and lets them make whatever choices are necessary to stay healthy within their chosen lifestyle. Someone who leads an active lifestyle (marathon runner, say) should be able to eat Big Macs without gaining weight. Someone who leads a sedentary lifestyle may need to cut out the fatty foods in order to keep from becoming overweight.

(*SMILE*) Fair enough, Geoff. (*WINK*)

“But we did pretty effectively remove lead from people’s lives.”

Yeah… the same idealists also banned DDT and millions have died because of it.

Remember MTBE? (*SNORT*)

Oh, yeah… leave the frigg’n PCBs buried and stop screwing around with old asbestos.

Geoff… this recap of recent environmental regulation aside… we’re talking cheeseburgers, etc., not poisons. Yes, it’s un-American (IMHO) to tell restaurants they can’t offer all you can eat buffets.

(*SHRUG*)

I gave you the solution. Nip obesity in the bud. When it comes to minors the state has powers it doesn’t – and shouldn’t – possess in terms of dealing with adults. I say use these powers.

As to obesity as it effects healthcare costs, I’m all for using actuarial data properly in insurance pricing. That’s the way you tackle obesity – by targeting those who abuse their freedoms, not by taking my freedoms away from me.

BILL

I recall a similar uproar over trans fats bans sprouting up. God, save us from that regulation.

And I get it. I do. Here’s you on that elections post: “What “reforms” are going to create an educated, active, civic minded, ethical, informed, logical electorate…??? Hmm…???” Your point is well taken. We can’t over-regulate or nanny-state our way to a perfect world or a perfect electorate.

But we did pretty effectively remove lead from people’s lives. And we’ve banned certain plastics that seep into your foods. And we ban pesticides. Prescription meds are selectively applied mini-bans. We ban certain additives. And diseased animals. The list goes on…

Heart disease is a (the, correct?) leading cause of death in the US. Obesity is an epidemic. Health care has spiraling costs. It’s not fear-mongering, nor un-American, nor anything but pragmatic theory to put the three together and come up with a solution.

But yeah. Back to your point. Cocaine was a little off.

You really wanna stick with that… er… analogy…???

(*SHRUG*)

No. Banning cocaine use is not un-American. Banning half pound restaurant burgers would be.

BILL

At Bill: we outlaw crap all the time. Is the ban on cocaine distinctly un-American to you as well?

At Tim: there are really sweet urban planning studies done on low-income neighborhoods with little-to-no access to legit grocery stores. The alternative? McDs.

And to force fast food restaurants to offer healthy alternatives puts us on the road down to unintended consequences – McDonald’s salads, for example, are more fattening than a a big mac when you put cheese and dressing on.

Why force fast food restaurants to do anything? If people want to lose weight (and surely there are society pressures to do so), they will stop eating junk food.