Liberals who defend Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s nanny mentality say that we have to do something to combat obesity. We have an epidemic of childhood obesity that leads to other diseases like diabetes. This is why the mayor has taken a “proactive” stance. He stated in his Meet the Press interview that they’re going to spend $5 billion on obese patients in New York City hospitals this year alone. He’s trying to reduce future healthcare costs by regulating the size of sugary soda containers, in hopes that people will limit the amount of soda they imbibe. It might be a small step, but you’ve got to start somewhere to get people to live more responsibly and to keep costs down.
Wouldn’t it be great if the nanny state controlled everyone’s dietary habits? That way, we could eliminate obesity and the diseases that come with it.
Well, here’s another epidemic that might also need a nanny: sexually transmitted infections. The Centers for Disease Control just released new data about how many sexually transmitted infections were contracted in 2008. (I know, it’s old “new” data.) Here’s what the study had to say:
“In 2008, there were an estimated 110 million prevalent STIs among women and men in the United States. Of these, more than 20% of infections (22.1 million) were among women and men aged 15 to 24 years. Approximately 19.7 million incident infections occurred in the United States in 2008; nearly 50% (9.8 million) were acquired by young women and men aged 15 to 24 years.”
When they say “prevalent,” they mean total cases; when they say “incidents,” they’re talking about new cases that year.
What effect do these STIs have on healthcare costs? The CDC stated that new venereal diseases cost about $16 billion per year. So, there’s a healthcare cost problem just like the obesity epidemic.
What would Mayor Bloomberg do to help reduce STIs in his city, thereby keeping healthcare costs associated with those diseases down? I saw a commenter yesterday bring this very issue up. Would Bloomberg limit the number of sexual “partners” a person can have to say, two? I mean, that may not solve the problem, but you’ve got to start somewhere, right?
Liberals may retort that this is why we have contraceptives. Fine, would Nanny Bloomberg mandate the use of contraceptives among 15 – 24-year-olds, since that age group seems to get the brunt of the STIs? And how would he go about enforcing that rule? Inspecting people’s bedrooms? Questioning people about their personal, sexual habits, and asking how many others they have slept with? New York City’s “stop and frisk” policy might have to be taken to a whole different level.
How much should the fine be for noncompliance? Would jail time be warranted? How far are the liberals willing to go to make sure people make sound personal judgments and to keep healthcare costs down?
Oh, but we can’t be invading people’s privacy. “We need to get the government out of people’s bedrooms,” the liberals have been telling us. They can’t be snooping around like that. But why not? I thought that sometimes we need a nanny to tell us how to live our lives. People shouldn’t be indulging in too many sugary sodas because it might make them fat and sick. Why should those indulging in sexual promiscuity not be treated equally?
I guess those who have illnesses that stem from a sexually promiscuous lifestyle don’t get the same “protection” that fat people do. This idea seems like it should be anathema to liberals, especially at a time when “gay” “marriage” is looked at as not only a logical possibility, but as a Constitutional right.
Maybe Nanny Bloomberg should spearhead a national sexual abstinence movement while he’s trying to ban sodas and guns. This is all about protecting everybody and keeping healthcare costs down, and somebody’s got to do something about all the STIs.