By Katie Kieffer
Photo credit: http://tinyurl.com/yhzbqfc
I was reading a local health fitness magazine the other day and came across an article about foods that give you energy. The author surprised me by stating a little-known-fact about one of the biggest culprits to your health: High fructose corn syrup.
High fructose corn syrup is subsidized by the government. No big deal? Huge deal. Government corn subsidies total over $56.2 billion.
High fructose corn syrup is linked to obesity in America, as well as a whole host of other diseases including diabetes, coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, osteoporosis and premature aging of skin.
How can we trust the government to run our health care if it subsidizes such an unhealthy substance? Why should our taxpayer money subsidize food that’s packed with a disease-causing sweetener? Is this the kind of “doctor” we want dictating all other aspects of our health? Do we want to live in a Mary Poppins fantasy land where “Just a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down” … and the medicine itself is sugar?
I want a healthcare plan that’s run by an organization that has my health’s best interest in mind. I don’t want to wake up one morning and find out that my healthcare provider is also subsidizing something that’s detrimental to my health. This would cause me to lose trust in my healthcare provider and look into switching to a better provider.
There are lots of arguments against a public health care option. For today, I simply want to point out that our government is currently caught in “the uncomfortable position of subsidizing both the costs of treating Type 2 diabetes and the consumption of high-fructose corn syrup.”
The latest Gallup Poll on healthcare shows an increasing number of people feel that the “costs, quality and coverage” of their healthcare plan will worsen “if a healthcare bill passes.” Americans are ready for a healthier kind of coverage plan – one that’s less like an expensive, government-sponsored candy bar and more like a home-grown, nutrient-rich cucumber.
Ryan,
That wasn’t supposed to make sense. I was pointing out that those connections are similar to what KK tends to do: point out something the government supposedly does poorly as proof it can do absolutely nothing right.
I think that governments do some things well and some things poorly. We must constantly adjust and improve what things we do, not totally discount government altogether.
That said, corn syrup subsidies and health care are totally different beasts. Corn syrup subsidies are truly horrible for a variety of reasons. Our health care system is awful for a wide variety of other reasons. It seems superficial to just say “there is one reason why both are bad: government.” That does nothing to suggest how we can fix the problem, nor does it get to the deeper reasons why both are problems in the first place.
Quote from aguy “That said, do we want government to be providing police, if it encouraged slavery? Providing public universities, if it cannot get my mail to people on time?” Endquote
Neither of your attempts at making connections make any sense. The government doesnt encourage slavery….so how does that pertain to providing police? How does slow mail service connect to public universities? They’re not connected, so it doesnt work as a counter example.
Katie, on the other hand, makes a valid connection. She shows that High Fructose corn syrup is unhealthy. She then states that the government subsidizes it. Katie then asks whether it’s very smart to put the government in charge of healthcare when they are subsidizing something that is bad for us. She’s basically pointing out that the government not only has no business doling out healthcare, it also doesnt have a clue about it. That was much more logical than trying to link public universities and slow mail dont you think?
Here’s another example in that same vein. Would you rather your dentist supported a dental product company, or a company like Coca-Cola or Hersheys? It would seem a little odd if your dentist had advertisements for Coke and Hershey’s kisses all over his office and handed out cans of pop and bags of candy as you left wouldnt it?
Why should our taxpayer money subsidize food that’s packed with a disease-causing sweetener? Is this the kind of “doctor” we want dictating all other aspects of our health? Do we want to live in a Mary Poppins fantasy land where “Just a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down” … and the medicine itself is sugar?
That said, do we want government to be providing police, if it encouraged slavery? Providing public universities, if it cannot get my mail to people on time? Point is: perfection is not achieved by government (or anyone); but that proves nothing.
Insurance costs go down when, among other cost controls, we get poor people out of emergency rooms. If that takes a minimum baseline of service provided by the government, that seems like a good use of money. We’re seeing the costs in unearned wages, might as well see the costs up front and get people care in the process. It’s worked elsewhere — there’s no need to “guess” at what will happen, especially using irrelevant topics like food subsidies.
I’m totally agreeing w/ Mitch here; subsidies for corn is pretty terrible for everyone. Food, Inc. did a good job talking about this (you should check it out Katie — it really aims for the whole “technology/entrepreneurs will solve things” thing)
E. Dwyer said:
“The government subsidizes it”
and:
“it is the cheapest sweetener available”
but seems to miss the connection. *shrug*
A free market for crops is a dangerous proposition, as it can lead to vast food shortages that cannot self-correct.
Really?
Describe for me a “vast food shortage” in the past 200 years in a society that has both a free market and a free press.
Ever. In all of history.
Simple fact – every single famine in the past 200 years has been associated with either centralized control of food production/distribution, or centralized control of information (or just no information).
Not only can you not name a “vast food shortage” in any society in modern history that meets those two criteria, but you can not find a single imbalance in food production in more-free societies that doesn’t trace back to one or the other.
Less dramatically? Government subsidies have caused immense damage to farmland and wetlands; subsidies have created an immense corn-based monoculture that is playing havoc on farmland; much of the midwest has been pumping out corn so steadily that the land is exhausted and needs intense fertilization to produce crops; setaside and subsidy policy has caused farmers on the Plains to drain the wetlands that not only support most of North America’s duck and goose population, but also protects much of the midwest from catastrophic floods; the severity of the floods that destroyed much of the Mississippi Valley as well as the Red in the past fifteen years are directly attributable to the drainage caused by the subsidies you’re praising.
People do dumb things when they’re being paid to do them; in this case, farmers are abusing their land (they need to rotate more, fertilize less, leave the wetlands in place) because it makes economic sense – for now.
Subsidizing farming is no better an idea than corporate welfare or, for that matter, subsidizing poverty.
Corn goes much further than corn syrup. Nearly everything the average american eats, from bread to meat to chips to soda, is directly tied to corn. It is the root of our food chain. The government subsidizes it for political reasons, but also as a guarantee that farmers will produce the vast amounts of corn we require. A free market for crops is a dangerous proposition, as it can lead to vast food shortages that cannot self-correct.
As such, crop subsidies may be a necessary evil.
On the other hand, companies use high-fructose corn syrup because it is the cheapest sweetener available. The free market drives them towards this cheap and plentiful alternative. American dependence on the junk foods that are produced from it is also a market force encouraging their production.
The problem is the government is caught up in managing two critical necessities – food and healthcare, while our eating habits create a fundamental tension between the two. Perhaps we should work on treating the cause rather than the symptom?