When fat camp costs too much

The New York Times reports that as the price of weight-loss camps rises, families with obese children are being priced out -- and that the cry is being raised for government funding or mandated health insurance coverage to fill in the gap.

I've always struggled with my weight. I sympathize with children who get teased because of their weight -- I was a chubby child myself, and didn't grow out of my weight until I was in high school and suddenly developed a metabolism. When I got to college, I continued to eat a lot even though I'd stopped growing, and I packed on the pounds. As an adult, I was once about 50 pounds overweight. So I know what it feels like to long for boys to notice me, and yet to know that they won't because of my weight. I know what it feels like to be laughed at because I'm the slowest runner in the class. I know what it feels like to go to a store and see that the cutest clothes aren't available in my size.

But, just because I sympathize, doesn't mean I want the government doing anything about it -- not government funding for camps, and not government ordering insurance companies to include weight-loss camps among the services they cover.

You'll notice that I said I was overweight. I'm not, and haven't been for more than five years now. I dieted for a long time to get to my current, healthy weight. I eat carefully and run upwards of 25 miles a week to stay the way I am. I didn't need fat camp to tell me to do that. I, as an adult, simply made the decision to do what I knew was right, no matter what I might have learned about eating as a child. It didn't cost me a thousand dollars a week, as the article quotes some weight-loss camps do, to do it.

Why should I, or anybody else, be forced to pay for these programs, many of which don't even work (the article states that while most children lose weight at camp, the majority gain it back upon reentering the real world), because someone else's children are making poor food choices? If government pays for these programs, we will pay directly in the form of higher taxes. If government forces health insurance companies to cover camp, we will pay indirectly when premiums rise, both as the employee-paid portion of health benefits rises and as employers offer lower salaries than they would be able to do if premiums were lower. No matter which way it is done, somebody's rights get trampled in order to grant the nonexistent "right" of weight-loss camp to obese children.

If insurance companies want to offer coverage for weight-loss camp, that is perfectly fine -- and in a free market, I'd be free to walk away from an insurance plan that included weight-loss camp and other goods and services I won't be needing. But the government must not step in to make such coverage a requirement, nor to pay for these programs with taxpayer money.

The way weight-loss camps are approaching the situation -- by voluntarily offering a limited number of scholarships and seeking corporate sponsorship so that they can offer more free or reduced-price slots -- is exactly how it should be done. Voluntary charity is perfectly fine; perhaps weight-loss camp owners could expand their search for donations from corporations to individuals who, like me, have struggled with their weight and are therefore inclined to sympathize with these kids. But that's how it must remain: voluntary. That weight-loss camps cannot provide a free stay for every obese child in America is not a justification for violating individual rights by forcing others to pay.