The Government Could Save Your Life By Regulating Your Salt Intake

That’s the conclusion of a (no-doubt taxpayer subsidized) study being put out by a professor at the University of California.

BOSTON (Reuters Life!) – Shaving 3 grams off the daily salt intake of Americans could prevent up to 66,000 strokes, 99,000 heart attacks and 92,000 deaths in the United States, while saving $24 billion in health costs per year, researchers reported on Wednesday.
The benefit to the U.S. population would be comparable to cutting smoking by 50 percent, significantly lowering obesity rates and giving cholesterol drugs to virtually everyone to prevent heart attacks, said Dr. Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo of the University of California, San Francisco and colleagues.
Such a goal, they said, is readily attainable. …
“Even if the federal government were to bear the entire cost of a regulatory program designed to reduce salt consumption, the government would still be expected to realize cost savings for Medicare, saving $6 to $12 in health expenditures for each dollar spent on the regulatory program,” the researchers wrote.

In the past critics of government health care such as myself have said that once we were dependent on the government for our health care, the government would use that as leverage to control how we live our lives. Under the auspices of making us healthier for our own good and saving the taxpayers money.
The problem is that we’re supposed to be living in a free country where we are allowed to live our lives in our own way. I interpret that as meaning that my salt intake is none of the government’s business.
And to the extent that my salt intake impacts my fellow citizens through the increased use of government programs and thus higher government spending and taxation, that’s an argument against such programs which allow my actions and decisions to impact my fellow citizens.
I wonder what our founding fathers, who went to war with the most powerful empire on earth because (among other things) their tea was taxed too much would feel about the republican government they founded now attempting to regulate the food we citizens eat?

Tags: , , ,


«
»
  • http://Array robert108

    “Even if the federal government were to bear the entire cost of a regulatory program…”

    The federal govt doesn’t bear the cost of anything; the private sector achievers pay for everything in this country, directly and indirectly. False premise.

    Where do the claimed “savings” go to?

    BTW, this isn’t comparable to smoking, since smoking harms people who don’t choose to smoke, and violates their right to not smoke. False equivalence.

  • sayanything-2

    spark, read the post, then, and this will be hard for you, think about it, then, and only then, comment about the post.

    So, pointy heads in USG don’t want these people to die from salt? What do they want them to die from? Because die they will. People die. Period. Government can not stop that, or alter it in any way what so ever.

  • sayanything-2

    spark, none of us is buying your socialistic sh*t, but keep spewing, boy, just keep spewing.

  • sayanything-15427

    It is okay to spend money to fight overseas only if it keeps the fight overseas and not here. If you are advocating a complete protectionist stance and bring home everyone but the Navy then I will agree with you. Let the rest of the world kill each other while we protect our borders. Unless they are developing weapons capable of reaching us. The Navy’s main purpose is to protect shipping lanes.

    It is not okay to spend money forcing people to be healthy, it is not okay to spend money forcing people to buy health insurance they don’t want. Medicare is needed but needs to be scaled back to be truly a safety net and not an entitlement just like Welfare. It is not the governments job to make sure everyone has healthcare, only that they have the chance to procure it for themselves. Including the chance to get a job, to make the money, to pay for it themselves.

  • sayanything-203

    I want you guys to say that poor sick people should die.

    Sparkie,

    I doubt you could find two people here who give a rat’s a** what you want. Or what you think, for that matter.

  • HG

    Sparkie is reeling over recent political events. It reminds me of Hannitized when we successfully stalled Obamacare the first time they tried to cram it down our throats.

  • sayanything-15427

    First they came for butter, now salt, next will be BACON!
    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • sayanything-2

    So, let me guess? Your girl got turned down by PA medical assistance and now you got to fins another state to scam?

  • sayanything-2

    That is the line you have been pushing from the first day you commented here. So, tell us, now that PA has refused to foot your woman’s medical bills, which state are you going to try and rip off next?

  • sayanything-203

    What Dr. Bibbins-Domingo and her colleagues do not acknowledge is that every one of those people whose lives they think would be saved, are all gonna die anyway.

    And of course the $24 billion which the government would presumably save would be zero if people were responsible for their own health care, instead of invading their fellow citizens’ pockets to pay for it.

  • sayanything-81

    ROb
    you are an ass. how does a study by one professor mean that? why not have a headline that reads, “The Government Could Eat You Alive.” After all, they could.

    What a puerile little a$$hole propagandist.

  • sayanything-81

    Jay.
    We are talking about saving 24 billion. Did you miss that?

  • bikebubba

    Sparkless, if we wanted to save far more than $24 billion annually, we’d move from comprehensive health insurance backed by the government to a system where people paid the consequences of their own health decisions. A nation where we didn’t subsidize maize, a nation where we didn’t subsidize daycare, and so on.

  • sayanything-81

    The post informs us that regulating salt intake can save the taxpayers 24 billion dollars. Rob talks about how the gov’t wants to save your life, but the post… not so much. Rob brings that up — maybe you need to read the post, kitty. Then Rob veers off-topic to talk about govt health care (He probably just reached into his RNC boilerplate post folder.). Even without gov’t healthcare, we incur these costs when the uninsured show up at the hospital with heart attacks, etc. So we are talking about salt intake and 24 BILLION DOLLARS. Just think about how many asinine wars you folks could fund with that.

  • sayanything-81

    Let me get your position right:
    1) It’s fine to spend taxpayer money to kill foreigners.
    2) It’s not acceptable to save taxpayer money by healthifying non-foreigners.
    3) Universal health care is like Satan on meth.

  • sayanything-4744

    The idea that the government would use taxpayer money to control behavior should be odious to anyone. Yes, I realize it’s been done before. Tobacco, the 55 And Stay Alive (or we’ll cut your highway funding) campaign. Either citizens are free to live how they choose or they’re not. But if we’re not, we should dtrive to get as close to that ideal as possible.

  • sayanything-2804

    As you requested:

    Jane Sturm tells the President it took three doctors to agree to implanting a pacemaker in her 100 year old mother’s chest. She is now 105. Would Obamacare have denied her life?

    The President’s answer was classic equivocation. This is so tough … but we just may have to tell your grandmother … to take a pill.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    You didn’t read the post did you?

  • sayanything-81

    Poor people deserve to die. Yup.

    Social darwinism. I thought you folks didn’t like the eugenics movement? You don’t like DIRECT eugenics, but you like it INDIRECT?

    How classy.

  • sayanything-81

    Batty One:
    So we should turn people away at the emergency room?
    That’s your position?
    People should die because they have a short spell of bad financial luck and a health emergency?
    Interesting.
    What if grandma would pay for it, but she’s asleep and not answering the phone?

  • sayanything-81

    Rob Port supports subsidized pre-natal care.
    Has he told you about that?

  • sayanything-81

    I want you guys to say that poor sick people should die.

    If that’s the line you are pushing, admit it.

  • sayanything-81

    Screech as you might, its too late for totally unsubsidized everything.

    Arguing with utopians like yourselves is pretty fruitless too. WTF am I doing?

    There will always be a reality to bash your head in.
    Moneyless people showing up at they emergency room.
    Yup, real reality.
    Not your utopos.

    You wanna sign on as advocating KILLING them by WITHHOLDING medical services?

  • sayanything-81

    I read it.

    My comment stands.

    How about this headline: US govt could save 24 billion per year. You’d rather spend it though, waste it, and have the taxpayers pick up the bill.

    Oh and you’re a fatty too. Since you SIT and EAT all the time, this threatens you.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development