There is an article in JAMA stating that the State should have the prerogative to take control of children in families where they are allowed to become obese. It concludes:
An increasing proportion of US children are so severely obese as to be at immediate risk for life-threatening complications including type 2 diabetes. Some will become candidates for treatment at newly established pediatric surgical weight loss programs throughout the country. As an alternative approach, involvement of state protective services might be considered, including placement into foster care in carefully selected situations. Ultimately, government can reduce the need for such interventions through investments in the social infrastructure and policies to improve diet and promote physical activity among children.
Needless to say this is a rather strong solution. We have argued that the market can handle this at almost all levels. Yes there are cases of true child abuse, but one must wonder if with all those obese children that they parents are abusers. In fact the parents are equally obese so who is to take them away, is that next.
A simple solution is a Kcal or carb tax. Let them make their choices but have the choice be reflected in the price. That is a market solution.
In contrast the Libertarian approach is that we just let everyone do what they want. However there are costs or penalties on those of us who are not obese. Why should we pay. Is there a Coasean option whereby we can sue them for their excess use of health care based on their personal choice. Did the children so choose as well.
Thus between the Statist or Progressive's approach of taking the child and the Libertarian approach of letting everybody do what they want and the costs be damned, the free market approach applies a price to the choice, and a price equal to the excess demand created by that choice. We can and have measured that cost by the unit of excess BMI and we should consider such an approach as well.
Posts
