Government Overreach in what is Becoming a Nanny State: State of Ohio Takes 200-Pound Child Away From Mother

From the Associated Press:

An Ohio third-grader who weighs more than 200 pounds has been taken from his family and placed into foster care after county social workers said his mother wasn't doing enough to control his weight.

The Plain Dealer reports (http://bit.ly/t68M7D ) that theCleveland 8-year-old is considered severely obese and at risk for such diseases as diabetes and hypertension.

The case is the first state officials can recall of a child being put in foster care strictly for a weight-related issue.

Lawyers for the mother say the county overreached when authorities took the boy last week. They say the medical problems he is at risk for do not yet pose an imminent danger.

A spokeswoman says the county removed the child because caseworkers saw his mother's inability to reduce his weight as medical neglect.

The mother was working with the State to reduce her child's weight.  The foster family is having similar problems the mother was having, with others sneaking him food.  But beyond all this how is being overweight considered neglect or medical neglect?  Was "medical neglect" recently added so as to give the State another excuse reason to intervene where the State has no business doing so?  And who decides what qualifies as "medical neglect"?  Both the mother and her child obviously need some type of assistance and/or counseling but IMO taking away the child harms the child more than keeping the child with his mother.  This is government interventionism run amok.  We need to put the kabosh on the government overreaching into our private lives.  

Debate: Is Big Government Stifling the American Spirit?

While surfing the televison channels a couple of weeks ago I found these very interesting debates on Bloomberg called Intelligence Squared Debates.  This weeek I watched a very interesting debate where the question being raised was:  Is government intervention in everything from economic policy to health care rewarding the “takers,” and not the “makers,” stifling innovators, entrepreneurs and business owners? Or has government done too little to support the growing poor and rapidly shrinking middle class? The motion being set forth stated that big government is stifling the American spirit.

Phil Gramm and Arthur Laffer supported the motion which stated that Big Government is stifling the American spirit while Nouriel Roubini and Laura Tyson were against the motion.  The debate is about 1 hour and 45 minutes but well worth your watching it.  I suggest that you grab a snack and a beverage, sit back, and enjoy watching a most interesting debate.   

Here is the debate:



BIG GOVERNMENT IS STIFLING THE AMERICAN SPIRIT (IQ2US.ORG) from Intelligence Squared US on Vimeo.