Tar Heel Business

New York City thought that it could improve the health of its citizens when it passed a law in 2008 requiring restaurants such as McDonalds and Wendy’s to label the calories in their products.  The thought behind this measure was that many customers were choosing unhealthy options merely because they were uninformed about nutritional information.

However, a recent study by New York University conducted in low income areas of New York has challenged this assumption.  In fact, the research shows that the average amount of calories ordered from a sample group of fast food restaurants rose from 825 calories to 846 calories after the enactment of the labeling law.

The results of this study demonstrate that low cost overrides health concerns in the minds of low income families.  William Mitchell of Harlem evidenced this finding by saying, “It’s just cheap, so I buy it. I’m looking for the cheapest meal I can.”

Tameka Coates had another reason for eating so much fast food.  She explained, “I don’t really care too much…I know I shouldn’t, ’cause I’m too big already.”  Whether for better or worse, Tameka values the satisfaction she receives from eating greasy food over her own health.

Every American has the right to consume as many calories as he or she pleases.  Tameka should have the right to eat as many Big Macs as her heart desires because this personal decision should not have a great impact on other people.  However, if the proposed healthcare bill passes in its current form, Tameka’s freedom to be unhealthy would need to be reconsidered.  The healthcare bill would subsidize low income Americans that lack insurance, which essentially means that Americans with insurance will be taxed to help cover those without it.  Subsidizing people like Tameka will obviously frustrate many taxpayers because they will be covering the high medical costs that will arise from her indifference to her own health.

Despite all of its complexity, the current healthcare bill fails to address such issues.  The bill was crafted in a way that sought to avoid offending or upsetting anyone, and in the process it has lost any ability it may have had to decrease healthcare costs in the long term.  Rather than slowing the growth of healthcare costs, it appears that the goal of the legislation has shifted to expanding coverage.  While this is certainly a noble goal, relying on bureaucrats to conciliate expanded coverage and cost reductions reeks of idealism.

If the administration was serious about creating a long term change in healthcare costs, they would look to the root of the problem: America’s health (or lack thereof).  Currently, one in three Americans is obese.  It is no coincidence that the rise in American body weight has been matched by a rise in healthcare expenses.  By focusing on measures that improve health itself, trips to the doctor will be reduced and medical costs will naturally fall.

The reason that this seemingly obvious solution gets so little consideration is because health is a sensitive subject to Americans.  No one likes to be told that they have a problem to begin with.  Also, the idea of the government coming in and telling people to put down that second Big Mac will go down with voters about as easy as an extra large serving of chili cheese fries.

However, the goal of making America healthier can be achieved through indirect means that focus on providing the right incentives for consumers.  As demonstrated by Mr. Mitchell, many Americans frequent greasy fast food restaurants on a regular basis because of the low costs.

One of the reasons that fast food costs so little is because of the subsidies that large scale farmers receive from the government.  While farmers that produce massive quantities of food that supply the popular fast food chain restaurants receive benefits to help keep their prices low, local farmers receive no such help and as a result must charge higher prices.

Food prices in America are artificially low because of government interference, and lowering farmer subsidies would decrease the amount of food produced and subsequently increase the price of food to its natural level.  Locally produced goods would become relatively more attractive from a cost standpoint, and perhaps higher prices would discourage many of America’s overweight from persisting in their gargantuan eating habits.

Another way to incentivize Americans to be healthy would be to encourage insurers to charge lower premiums to people that exercise and maintain good health.  It is reasonable that people who put themselves at less risk for health problems by taking care of their body pay less for insurance.

While these measures would benefit the physical and fiscal health of America, initially they would add burdens to low income citizens.  However, the government could cushion the blow to these people in a variety of ways, and the cost of such aid would be miniscule compared to the long term savings achieved through a change in culture.

In healthcare reform, the Obama administration has an enormous opportunity to bring a positive change to America.  Let us hope at some point they realize that addressing our problems directly is more effective than putting all of our faith into a byzantine plan that circumvents the fundamental issues.

-Brian Stockton