The L.A. Times today ponders whether it’s time for a “fat tax” and argue that “offering incentives for lifestyle choices likely to cut medical costs is an idea worth considering.” The problem is that this is exactly why the market is far superior to government control. Markets generally provide the proper incentives, such as those that the L.A. Times argues for in their conclusion:
There’s the inevitable complaint that some smokers and overeaters live long and healthy lives and yet would have to pay the surcharge. That’s true enough, but the statistics are against them, and that should be reflected in insurance costs. Smoking and obesity greatly increase the risk of chronic and life-threatening health problems that in many cases are preventable, including stroke, cancer, heart disease and diabetes. It makes sense to tie higher preventable risk to higher premiums. Not all rock climbers have serious accidents, either, but they still pay more for life insurance, when they can find it.
This approach is far more appealing than taxing soda and is more likely to improve America’s health. It provides a direct link between unhealthy ways of living and the consequences. Americans need information, through labeling, nutrition education and medical advice, to make smart diet decisions. Then they should be free to eat what they want — as long as they bear the cost of their personal choices.
Governments consistently divorce people from the consequences of their actions, which is one of the serious problems with more and more government control of health care. It is sometimes illegal for health insurance companies to discriminate as the L.A. Times is advocating in this piece, but proper incentives are critical to good outcomes. Sadly the government does not provide good incentives because that’s not the job of politicians. The job of politicans is to do what they think will get them elected and tough love is frequently not popular.