Thread by @Coyoteblog

I have been predicting for years a new prohibitionism, this time driven from the Left rather than the Right. I see government-provided healthcare used to justify all sorts of micro-behavioral interventions in the name of reducing costs to public spending

pjmedia.com/columns/bryan-…

One small example is motorcycle helmet use, where attempts to mandate helmet use are often justified by arguing that helmet use would decrease public health costs from costly head injuries in motorcycle accidents

I can just see some folks nodding their head and saying, "good, they should mandate that." And the same folks are also likely wanting to ban soda pop, snack foods, and a zillion other things in the name of reducing public health care costs.

In my mind the financial incentive to nanny is an oft-missed cost of government health care. But for those tempted by this argument, I will ask this question: what private activity (eating, smoking, whatever) is the absolutely largest driver of health care costs? My answer is....

...sex. It leads to STD's. Fertility treatments. Abortions. And of course, that single largest category of health care spending under 50 -- pregnancies. Be careful what you wish for when you start banning behaviors that increase health care costs.