Lawrence J. Rakowski, a member of the Journal Sentinel's Editorial Board Reader Advisory Committee (did you know there was such a thing?), says that obese people need to "pay their fair share" of the health care reform bill:

Taxing the rich won’t pay our trillion-dollar health reform bill. No, the obese must pay their fair share, too. A study released this week shows that obesity-related health care spending is now $147 billion dollars a year, or nearly 10% of all medical costs.

Diabetes, congestive heart failure, stroke, fatty liver disease – the health problems caused by obesity are many. And almost all obesity results from personal life style choices.

Before you reach for that second butter burger, tell me this: Why should I, someone who exercises and watches my diet, be liable for your healthcare? Separate checks, please!

I'm assuming he really means that we need to tax things soda, candy, potato chips, and anything else that people enjoy eating.  He claims it's because obese people cost a lot to treat.  That's actually not very true.  While there is evidence that they cost more on a year by year basis, their total health care costs over their lifetime are lower, mostly because they die younger.  If our concern is over the total cost of health care, than we should be taxing vegetables, and forcing Mr. Rakowski to eat Culvers.  You see, the elderly are far more expensive to care for than the obese, so we should be encouraging activities that prevent people from living long lives.

The really funny thing about this brief editorial post of Larry's is that he has already assumed that health care reform requires a grand government solution which applies to all people equally... and then complains that because people don't act the same, that it's unfair for him to be penalized for his good choices.  Well Larry... welcome to the problem with government solutions.

If you really want people to pay for their bad choices, than you should allow insurance companies to charge people different amounts based on their risk factors.  However, both the House and Senate bills explicitly forbid this, by making forcing insurance plans to use community rating.  A "public option" would be even worse, since everyone would be in the same tax supported plan.  Then there would be even less reason to change behavior.

In fact, the best option for "fixing health insurance" is the only one nobody talks about.  Allow health insurance to be deductible from taxes, even if you're not self employed (something which is currently not allowed).  This would allow people to not pay a tax penalty if they forgo their company's health insurance plan.  People would then shop for their own insurance, just like they can shop for their own car insurance.  The other important aspect to this is for states to reduce or eliminate all of the mandated coverage they now demand.

That would truly "separate the checks" as Mr. Rakowski demands.  Of course, it would also take government completely out of the equation, which is something I assume would upset him just as much.