Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Government-sponsored health initiatives raise questions
[Randy Scholfield, "Get fit," The Wichita Eagle, 3 May 2005.]
It's one thing when city boosters try to spend taxpayer money on ridiculous public works projects like stadiums, but it is a whole other ballgame when they try to spend taxpayer dollars to influence your behavior:
Most Wichitans already know what it takes to lead a healthier lifestyle, including getting more exercise and eating more fruits and vegetables, according to the report.
But they need more community outlets and encouragement -- and that will require a broad-based, coordinated effort by families, schools, businesses and policymakers.
Perhaps the best line came toward the middle of this editorial:
Among the good ideas that came out of the meeting:
- Promote farmers' markets and other healthy, affordable sources of fruits and vegetables. Wichitans often came up blank when asked about local resources for healthy food.
Wichitans often came up blank when asked about local resources for healthy food?!? Is there a shortage of grocery stores in the city? Have they all made a collective decision to stop selling fruits and vegetables? Or are the fruits and vegetables from the supermarket not healthy or affordable?
This recommendation is equally problematic, if not quite so absurd:
- Align public policy with community fitness goals. Planning that doesn't include greenways and parks, sidewalks and bike paths is stacking the deck against citizens' health.
Despite what they might tell you, city planners are not responsible for your health. Greenways, parks, sidewalks and bike paths are all lovely amenities. But they will by no means guarantee public health and their absence by no means dooms it, either. Decisions such as these should take place in the context of the economic trade-offs they entail and not as part of a misguided attempt to realize "community fitness goals."
City and county leaders should resist the temptation to abuse their positions by engaging is social engineering through public policy.
[Randy Scholfield, "Get fit," The Wichita Eagle, 3 May 2005.]
It's one thing when city boosters try to spend taxpayer money on ridiculous public works projects like stadiums, but it is a whole other ballgame when they try to spend taxpayer dollars to influence your behavior:
Most Wichitans already know what it takes to lead a healthier lifestyle, including getting more exercise and eating more fruits and vegetables, according to the report.
But they need more community outlets and encouragement -- and that will require a broad-based, coordinated effort by families, schools, businesses and policymakers.
Perhaps the best line came toward the middle of this editorial:
Among the good ideas that came out of the meeting:
- Promote farmers' markets and other healthy, affordable sources of fruits and vegetables. Wichitans often came up blank when asked about local resources for healthy food.
Wichitans often came up blank when asked about local resources for healthy food?!? Is there a shortage of grocery stores in the city? Have they all made a collective decision to stop selling fruits and vegetables? Or are the fruits and vegetables from the supermarket not healthy or affordable?
This recommendation is equally problematic, if not quite so absurd:
- Align public policy with community fitness goals. Planning that doesn't include greenways and parks, sidewalks and bike paths is stacking the deck against citizens' health.
Despite what they might tell you, city planners are not responsible for your health. Greenways, parks, sidewalks and bike paths are all lovely amenities. But they will by no means guarantee public health and their absence by no means dooms it, either. Decisions such as these should take place in the context of the economic trade-offs they entail and not as part of a misguided attempt to realize "community fitness goals."
City and county leaders should resist the temptation to abuse their positions by engaging is social engineering through public policy.
Comments:
Post a Comment
