Lincoln/Coverdale

Prof. Becker disagrees with Judge Posner’s belief that obesity is partially a problem of consumer ignorance of the decreasing quality of food over the past thirty years. This ignorance leads to a discount rate on future health that is higher than it “should” be. Prof. Becker supposes instead that the rise of medical treatments for conditions such as high cholesterol have given people less incentive to lead healthy lives. I think it is clear that either of these are consistent with recent trends toward higher levels obesity, but it seems that Prof. Becker’s explanation does not agree with the higher rates of obesity among those with lower incomes and less education. Posner’s belief, however, does accord with these higher rates.

Still, I wonder if it isn’t something more rooted in psychology. Maybe those with the fewest resources have high discount rates not because they lack information, but because the uncertainty of the future makes it foolish to say no to cheap calories today. I don’t think this has to be conscious; it could be a behavior that leads to better chances of survival in an environment where famine could start at any time.

Like almost all, if not all, law students, my first year included reading many opinions penned by Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner. I get a kick out of Posner and when I’m bored, I check out the blog that he writes with University of Chicago Professor Gary Becker: The Becker-Posner Blog. While reading this post on health care reform and obesity, I came across this passage:

I do not think that government should regulate behavior on the premise that it knows better what makes people happy than people themselves do; but controlling external costs is or should be an uncontroversial governmental function.

I’m not 100% convinced that I would put this bumper sticker on my car, but I like the sound of it. I certainly agree that the government should not be in the business of determining what makes people happy. And assuming that “controlling” does necessarily mean “eliminating,” I think I can agree with the second clause.