Balko develops an angry tone regarding the fact that the government believes that unhealthy people should depend on healthy people otherwise they shouldn't take any responsibility. In fact, Balko complains that the way the government prohibits any private insurer from charging additional fees to obese customers is unwise. Balko's claim is that if people had to pay more, they would be more cautious in choosing the foods they consume. I agree with him on this point, because if insurers wanted to charge higher premiums to overweight customers, customers would try to stay fit in the middle range to avoid paying their hard-earned money out of pocket. Balko evokes ethical appeals by demonstrating that if the government is being paid voluntarily for its anti-cholesterol medicine, then what are the motivations to exercise. He makes the public sympathize with him by saying that what the government is doing is wrong. Toward the end, Balko implies that people will make better choices if there is no one responsible for those choices. Throughout the article, Balko uses unpleasant ways to convey the message to readers that what the government is trying to do is wrong and that the government should adjust to improve its system. Although many students believe that this article is not true because they believe that reducing the obesity rate is the government's job, I believe that this article is somewhat true because we have to cooperate with the government to make it work, otherwise only the government or only we ourselves are not enough. Not only that, this article somehow arouses my sympathy for the writer, even if there are some points I disagree with