In Defense of Free Market Food Capitalism

A few weeks ago Michael Pollan was in town promoting his new book Cooked. Kaitlyn and I became big fans of Mr. Pollan after reading In Defense of Food, and we really enjoyed the documentary on his book Botany of Desire. Since then I've read more of Mr. Pollan's editorials and found that we share similar concerns about the government's involvement in the food industry, and how the government's agriculture industrial policies contribute to America's obesity and health care cost epidemics. But I also sensed that Mr. Pollan and I would disagree on how government could fix these related problems.

After Mr. Pollan discussed his inspiration for Cooked and started the Q&A session, I walked up to the microphone and asked, "I think we both agree that government does more harm than good when it comes to both nutrition and health care in this country, but what do you think the government could do to help improve this situation?"

He started by offering two examples of the federal government's ineptitude in these fields: the omnibus farm bill currently slithering its way through Congress, and the recently passed "Monsanto Protection Act". Pollan added, "I think we need to try everything," including bans on soda like the ones recently championed by Michael Bloomberg.

 "I think he [Michael Bloomberg] is a good business man because the largest contributor to New York City's rising hospital costs is type-II diabetes. So reducing the size of sodas is a good business decision because it reduces type-II and will lower health care costs in New York City.

 "I also think we should try things like having the government reward farmers for planting good crops. I advocate using government to nudge consumers into making the right food choices...this nudging theme is cited in the field of behavioral economics, and I think it has some real promise. But really we need to try everything."

"Try everything" yet Mr. Pollan did not offer one recommendation that expanded freedom, nor one that channeled the power of the free market. I don't drink soda, but I would still like to have the freedom to buy a Big Gulp on a hot summer day (no Sarah Palin reference intended). And I believe that the amalgamation of American consumers, commonly referred to as the "market", is well equipped to reward farmers for planting "good" crops. No government involvement needed.

Restricting our freedom to make lifestyle choices and having the government pay farmers for planting good crops are not necessary solutions to fight obesity and rising health care costs. Instead of soda taxes and having government reward farmers, the government should allow for health insurers to price discriminate. I know discrimination has a negative connotation, but an insurance system that hides the true cost of our individual, voluntary lifestyle choices is not efficient and will not lead to lower obesity nor lower health care costs. Am I arguing that insurance companies should discriminate against people with any preexisting condition? No, and that's another discussion about what qualifies as an unavoidable preexisting condition. 

What I'm getting at is an individual who makes unhealthy lifestyle choices should not pay the same insurance premiums as an individual who makes healthy ones. But that is exactly what happens today. In effect, our government discourages personal responsibility, so unhealthy Americans can keep drinking all the soda they want while their fellow citizens pick up the tab. This is not right.

This is even more troubling because a large portion of America's rising health care costs stem from avoidable (and expensive) ailments such as: type-II diabetes, heart disease, many types of cancer, stroke, hypertension (high blood pressure), and a host of other ailments and inconveniences. If individuals had a monetary incentive (via lower insurance premiums) to improve their diet then many of these ailments would arguably decrease, as would the costs of treating these diseases.

Now moving onto a separate but related topic--I find it disturbing to hear claims or insinuations that free market capitalism is ruining our health care system, and/or that greedy capitalists are increasing health care costs, because America's health care system is far from a free market. 

The foundation of capitalism is that it's a profit and loss system; when individuals make healthy lifestyle choices they should profit (via lower insurance premiums), and when individuals make unhealthy decisions they should lose (via higher insurance premiums). And free markets work best when individuals are free to make their own decisions; if I decide that drinking three Big Gulps per day are worth the extra health insurance costs, then I am free to do so. What is not acceptable is drinking three Big Gulps per day, not exercising, and paying the same health insurance rate as my health conscious, soda avoiding, vegan wife. 

That's why I find it laughable to hear a smart man like Michael Pollan advocate for restricting New York City's freedom to purchase a 20oz Big Gulp; it's just not a necessary solution to America's health care and obesity crises. 

Mr. Pollan's specific public policy recommendations attack the symptom, not the disease. The only cure for the disease is to liberalize our health care and insurance systems by enabling insurers to price discriminate, and by doing so it will encourage personal responsibility and provide a meaningful incentive for individuals to make healthy lifestyle choices.

Limiting our soda freedoms to 16oz is silly, just as silly as making you pay for my unhealthy Big Gulp habits.