There was a time when governments looked after the things that the people could not - the nation's finances, nationwide transport, education and health services and defence. No more.
Today's governments have largely given up on these critical areas due to their inability to manage them with any level of competence. Instead, they want to manage our daily lives by telling us what we should eat and drink, what exercise we should take, how our children should be 'parented' and so on. The latest piece of nonsense, following quickly on Cameron's plans for stopping 'binge-drinking', has come from the shadow health spokesman, Andy Burnham, who wants to ban certain foods because he thinks they're unhealthy.
Mr Burnham may well be right in his assertion that some foods are unhealthy but is it right for people such as him to be deciding that they should be banned ? Is it not for the people themselves to decide what they like and dislike, how they will live their lives and to acept what their choices bring ? The notion that government should be constantly deciding what is and is not good for us in order to try to extend our lifespans is ridiculous. If I'm happy munching on pizza and chips everyday in the knowledge that I'll probably shorten my life as a result, is that any business of the government's ? Of course not. Where the government has a responsibility is in how and when services are provided and, in particular, whether or not all services are provided free to all people at all times.
There is no doubt that our health services are horribly overstretched; they are often poorly managed and poorly provided but this is a consequence of the mad notion that we can continue to provide a universally free service to an ever ageing population whose expectations also rise daily. Logically, there must be some form of rationing for general health care as there already is for dental, optical and various other elements of the service. Those who choose a lifestyle which predisposes them to illness or injury should not expect the country to pay for their excessive treatment costs rather than accepting the financial implications themselves.
Do we really want a situation in which unhealthy living becomes an 'under the counter' activity due to governments attempting to ban a range of foods, drinks and dangerous sports or would it be better to leave people to make their own choices ? The only issue is for governments to ensure that appropriate advice is made available regarding the implications, both in terms of health and finance, of adopting any particular lifestyle, and for them to take proper action against those whose choices are truly antisocial.
If we let them carry on down the road charted by Cameron and Burnham, how long will it be before they decide to invade other, even more private, areas of our lives ? How long before little Jimmy is told he can't have children with young Sally because there's a risk of a child inheriting a genetic condition ? You may well scoff, but I'd lay money on such a policy appearing before very many decades have passed unless the people call a halt now.
No comments:
Post a Comment