The fallacy of centralized health care

The AP recently ran a story highlighting the one of the more insidious effects of centralized health care. Mike Stobbe does a fair enough job of laying out the basics of the issue, but never mentions the elephant in the room; that being the removal of any economic incentive to not smoke or eat healthily.

From an economist's perspective, there would be less reason to grouse about unhealthy behaviors by smokers, obese people, motorcycle riders who eschew helmets and other health sinners if they agreed to pay the financial price for their choices.

The key verb in this paragraph is agreed . In a free society, the verb that would be used would be choose. One can choose to smoke or not to smoke. One can choose to eat food or eat faux-food. If one chooses to smoke and eat crap, then one can choose, or not choose, any medical procedure they wish to prolong their life.

Unfortunately, we don't live in an economically free society. Every choice we make regarding our health is influenced by state policies. Railing against obese smokers and policies that coddle them are easy targets; low hanging fruit, as they say. But I would be remiss if I didn't point out that it is state policies that make faux-food so cheap and readily available. It is state policies that promote drug based treatments and inhibit natural treatments. And, of course, it is state policies that tell every american that it doesn't matter how you live your life, as long as you make it to 65 years old, your medical care will be taken care of.