As part of my “great moments” in government series, I periodically share stories about really foolish regulations and really wasteful spending.
And sometimes I’ll even have a story that combines dumb regulation and boondoggle spending. For instance, you won’t believe the government’s inane approach to different-sized condoms.
I also have a satirical series about “great moments in human rights” and it’s time to augment that collection.
Europe’s political elite may decide that being overweight is a protected disability.
Here are some passages from a BBC report.
The EU’s top court is considering a test case which could oblige employers to treat obesity as a disability. Denmark has asked the European Court of Justice to rule on the case of a male childminder who says he was sacked for being too fat. …The court’s final ruling will be binding across the EU. It is seen as especially significant because of rising obesity levels in Europe and elsewhere, including the US. …Audrey Williams, an employment discrimination expert at Eversheds law firm, said the judges would have to decide “whether obesity itself should trigger preferential rights…”. If the judges decide it is a disability then employers could face new obligations, she told the BBC. Employers might in future have a duty to create reserved car parking spaces for obese staff, or adjust the office furniture for them, she said.
Yes, you read correctly.
If the European Court of Justice rules the wrong way, you can eat all you want, knowing that you’re part of a protected class and that your employer has to incur all sorts of costs for your benefit.
Now it’s time for a bit of libertarian dogma. I think people have the right to over-eat, and I don’t think the government should be trying to impose lifestyle choices, either through coercion or by tilting our behaviorwith penalties or subsidies.
But I also think we should bear the costs (or reap the benefits) of our behavioral choices. In other words, we don’t have – 0r shouldn’t have – the right to compel others to like us, to hire us, to promote us, or to incur costs on our behalf.
Simply stated, a free society should have free association.
If you want to read more “great moments in human rights,” here’s an ever-growing list.
- Academics in both America and Europe, as well as a committee from the Council of Europe, claim there is a right to other people’s money.
- Across Europe, a satellite dish is now a human right.
- The Department of Housing and Urban Development asserts there is a right to “emotional support animals” in college dorms.
- In Finland, broadband access is a basic right.
- In France, it is against the law to say your husband is under-endowed or that your wife is fat.
- There’s now an entitlement for free soccer broadcasts in Europe.
- In Italy, you have the right to…um…your testicles.
- Both the United Nations and the Obama Administration think there’s a right to taxpayer-financed birth control.
And let’s add one more to the list.
The federal government has now decided that taxpayers should be liable for the cost of sex-change surgeries.
Here are some excerpts from a story last month in The Hill.
Medicare beneficiaries who are transgender may now receive coverage for sex reassignment surgeries, a federal health board ruled Friday. The decision lifts a decades-old ban on coverage for sex-change operations with Medicare and hands a major victory to transgender rights advocates who argued the rule was discriminatory.
I suppose you could categorize this story as an example of wasteful spending, but I doubt there are that many people over age 65 who will be signing up for this surgery. So while Medicare is bankrupt, this change presumably doesn’t ever merit a fiscal asterisk.
And I suppose you could use this story to make a point about why, in a sensible health care system, voluntary medical procedures should be paid directly by the consumer rather than via insurance (though if private insurance companies want to offer that coverage, it’s not my business to object).
In my opinion, though, this story belongs in the “human rights” category because the policy apparently was made on that basis.
Now, time again for some libertarian commentary.
As far as I’m concerned, people should have the right to choose this type of surgery. Indeed, I personally know a great economist who has undergone this procedure.
All I’m saying is that other people shouldn’t be coerced to pay for it.
Which also describes my views on aspirin purchases, dermatologist appointments, and other health costs as well.
See, isn’t it great to be a libertarian! You don’t coerce other people and they don’t coerce you. Instead, you have a peaceful society based on voluntary cooperation and exchange.
