No one will agree with me, but here is my late night, slightly intoxicated solution to our healthcare problems....

I think we should employ a cap and trade policy on the number of acres on which corn can be grown for commercial use in the US - similar to what we currently employ for the sale of liquor.

We already employ cap and trade for liquor sales.  We set a limit on the number of establishments that can sell liquor, we distribute a number of licenses equal to that limit, and we allow for those licenses to be traded (for the most part, depending on where you live).

Why not do the same thing for corn production for commercial sale?  Why not cap the number of acres of land on which corn can be produced, issue that number of licenses, and then allow for those licenses to be freely traded on the free market?

The results?  First and foremost, we could all walk into a grocery store and buy food that isn't merely repurposed corn!  Isn't this a primary contributing factor to that which drives the demand for healthcare in the first place?  I would argue that the majority of products that any of us currently find in a typical supermarket are nothing more than repurposed corn:  essentially, high fructose corn syrup which has been given a new texture, shape, color, and taste such that it looks like something completely new.  There are countless scientific studies that show us the harm that overconsumption of corn has wrought on our society.  Cap it!

We could spend all day arguing about how to best allocate healthcare resources to treat people with ailments that arise from our perverse farming industry and how corn has completely overtaken it, but that would be akin to arguing over what size bucket to place on the ground to catch the water that leaks through the roof.  Why not simply fix the leak?

This isn't a short term bandaid, but, rather, a longterm solution.

I would disagree.   You are attacking the problem at the wrong end of the vertical market.   A bushel of corn in not a health hazard.   A bushel of corn meal is not a health hazard.   A bushel of corn converted into a number of products, MAY be a health hazard.  

Your analysis of what drives the costs of our health system as a key approach to lowering costs however, is the proper analysis.   I would suggest that simply removing over 300 billion of grain subsidy contained in the farm bill over a twenty year period, would see that bushel of corn and the price of corn rise as the current cost of production subsidized by the American taxpayer lets real market forces discourage cheap and dangerous products impacting American's health.   It starts and ends on why we need to give almost six fold subsidy to and industry than we give the fifty million people in poverty who get snap benefits which have just been cut in an amount equal to all private donations for food for the poor.  It begin and ends with the subsidy to grains.....the market will correct,and those harmful products will get more expensive.

Would you not agree with the following:

- As a country, we are simply unhealthy, and that is why we spend more per-capita than any other industrialized country on our healthcare

- We grow more corn than we know what to do with, so we figure out new ways to repurpose it into new products: soft drinks, bread, microwaveable dinners, ketchup, any sauce that anyone would buy in any grocery store, etc,...

- For the most part, our degree of unhealthiness can be traced to our repurposing of corn

2seaoat, if I am attacking the problem at the wrong point in the vertical market, where is the correct point at which to attack? Subsidies isn't it, in my mind.

Here is the problem with the corn industry:  We grow too much of it.  As a result, the price falls.  How do corn farmers deal with that?   They grow more corn.  How does that affect price?  It drives it even lower.  How does our government deal with that?  It subsidizes it.  How does the market deal with that?  It wants to buy even more land on which to grow corn.  What results?  Greater and greater corn production.  What is the result of that?  A greater percentage of products on the supermarket shelfs that are nothing more than repurposed corn.  What is the result of that?  An unhealthy population at  large.  And what is the result of that?  We find ourselves arguing over how to adequately supply healthcare to those people.

This is a downward spiral. Why not recognize the problem and apply common sense regulation? Fix the leak!

I think that the uses of corn have created products which are clearly showing trends which are causing real catastrophic risk to our entire healthcare system. However, corn has been a food staple for thousands of years. It is not inherently the problem.

I suggest subsidy as the proper junction. First, the animal feed which is subsidized artificially makes meats very inexpensive in America. It makes our high fat foods cheap. Yes, the refined sugars from corn are largely responsible for the obesity problem in America, but I have lived in a Country where unrefined sugar was put on the bakery goods and the population was as skinny as rails, yet I visit the local dairy queen and see the impact of refined sugar.......all subsidized. We have made the corn product cheap by providing subsidy, at the same time with ethanol we have allowed those same large grain producers to double dip and profit on the product.

We solve the problem by attacking SLOWLY the 300 plus billion grain subsidy. Your argument is valid, but our exports and the basic corn product is not the problem.......it is the cheap price.

My cap and trade solution directly solves the problem of cheap price.

At the very least, we should cap the number of acres that can be utilized for domestic commercial production. Everything else should be purely for export.

We grow too much of it.

Yes, and what drives that farmer who is 60 miles from a large market for fresh vegetable and fruits to go to grain. Subsidy. Look at how few dollars subsidize fresh fruit and vegetables. In the 1940s around every metropolitan area were large areas of what were called truck farms where fresh fruits and vegetables would be trucked to those markets.

Without subsidy, there has been wide spread genocide to the ecological natural flora of the entire midwest.......even historical natural field barriers with trees and native plants are being excavated and plowed under as no longer fields are divided into 100 or 200 acre sections where the family farm makes a comfortable living. I have told stories of three individuals farming 5k acres of grain with 32row discs and air conditioned cabs. I have lived long enough to know friend who farmed behind horses where a four row plow was astounding behind a team and many a good farmer was disabled by a kick to the head from a horse. Our farm implement industries, our midwest grain farmers, our grain processors like ADM are making historical profits.....with genetic corn I am seeing outright historic droughts where farmers are still bringing in 180 bushels an acre. No this problem starts and ends with the slow removal of subsidy which artificially lowers the price of grains.......often at the expense of fruits and vegetables. Subsidies directly impact health.

I have to work mañana. I'll revisit in the morning.

My cap and trade solution directly solves the problem of cheap price.


It fails to understand the required export component of our grains to feed the world. You suggest that we have too much. The world market would suggest that we are barely staying ahead of the curve. In my lifetime I have seen families of three or four people farming a couple hundred acres getting 100 bushels of corn top from grade A soils. I now see three people farming 5k acres and producing 200 bushels an acre. This farm productivity in America has saved this world from starving. However, the answer is not to artificially suspend production, it is to assign real costs to production and let the market dictate price. Our obesity and health concerns are secondary to mass starvation in the world. Our farmers our the most efficient and productive in the world. We have protected them from market forces when they farmed 200 acres.......the economy of scale in modern agriculture does not require subsidy, and most of this subsidy is going to corporate interests.

Why do we have to have government always telling us what we can and cannot do?

Why do we have to have government always telling us what we can and cannot do?


Agricultural regulation and subsidy started with wild fluctuations in markets and disruption in production. With regulation and subsidy the American agricultural sector has been the most productive in the world. However, some of the regulation and subsidy should have been ended. The problem is not government telling us what to do in an emergency where the need is defined......it is getting rid of regulation when it is no longer necessary.

I do not believe that the cap and trade paradigm would be successful because of the reasons outlined by Mr. Oats.  Some years ago we had adopted a form of these agriculture production restrictions by paying farmers not to plant on X amount of acreage but still receive compensation through a subsidy for banking that acreage.  The current system of paying subsidies to farmers, big and small, has resulted in egregious abuses resulting in unrealistic and disproportionate pay outs to the corporate interests or large landowners who learned how to play this game.

I have a personal friend who is one of those farmers.  Last year he had a record crop.  His wheat yield alone netted over $300,000 which was sufficient, according to him, to plant the corn crop on 6000 acres.  At harvest time the corn yield was one of the best years ever . . . . no subsidy, right? Wrong, the formula devised to compensate those under the Farm Insurance Program is flawed in that it uses production reflected County-wide which allowed my friend to collect a single payout of $1,550,000.00 under the crop insurance program.  Even he is amazed and shrugs his shoulders saying his Daddy would turn over in his grave with joy if he were still alive to witness such programs.  This is one farmer in a big country.  Mr. Oats is right on this one.