PDA

View Full Version : Issue: Government Reform: Why do we need a Surgeon General?




Matt Collins
08-09-2007, 12:06 PM
As the debate ramps up over who should be surgeon general of the United States, the Cato Institute's Michael Tanner asks this very sensible question in the Chicago Tribune:

"Do we really need a surgeon general at all?"

"When you get right down to it, the surgeon general doesn't do very much. The office was originally established in the 19th Century to ensure medical care for the Navy. For years, surgeon generals labored in quiet obscurity, until C. Everett Koop dragged the old Navy-style uniforms out of mothballs and discovered television.

"The truth is, nowadays the surgeon general is little more than the 'national nanny,' nagging us to stop smoking, lose weight, and never leave home without a condom.

Tanner notes that President Bush has nominated Dr. James W. Holsinger for the post, because Holsinger is an expert in childhood obesity.

However, responds Tanner: "I've been flipping through my copy of the Constitution, and I can't find the part where the federal government is charged with making our kids eat better."

Tanner concludes:

"There are plenty of private groups that are fully capable of instructing us on how to be healthy, wealthy and wise without government involvement. The American Lung Association can tell us not to smoke. Alcoholics Anonymous can preach sobriety. The American Medical Association can lecture couch potatoes on the benefits of losing weight and exercising more. Planned Parenthood and the Family Research Council can fight it out over when and how we should have sex. Surely someone can deal with overweight children.

"Given the government's track record of efficiency, being the nanny for 300 million Americans seems a little beyond its ability."

(Source: "Can't We Dump This Nanny Job?" by Michael Tanner: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8282 )

SWATH
08-09-2007, 12:09 PM
Well if we don't have one then who will tell us we need to jerk-off and that smoking poisonous chemicals is bad for our health?

Perry
08-09-2007, 12:24 PM
Well then you would probably be happy to know that the Bush administration has minimized the roll of surgeon general almost to the point of insignificance.

Matt Collins
12-02-2007, 06:46 PM
Well then you would probably be happy to know that the Bush administration has minimized the roll of surgeon general almost to the point of insignificance.Minimization is not as good as abolishing