Texting while driving (TWD) has been in the news a lot lately — most recently because of a new gone-viral video on YouTube that dramatizes its dangers. Although it’s frequently lumped into the category of “distracted driving,” TWD is a far cry from just talking on a cell phone. Talking basically translates to a phone and a crunched-up shoulder, leaving one hand free for steering. For the unskilled among us, TWD frequently requires the use of both hands — one to hold the device and the other to text. It also involves translating abstract thought into written language, no matter how truncated that language may be. Most importantly, TWD requires a driver to take his eyes off the road, making it both mentally and physically distracting. 

While drunk driving is being driven into oblivion by a convergence of tougher policing and DUI laws and social pressure from groups like MADD and the general public, TWD doesn’t seem to have the same stigma. Drunk driving is bad in part because it suggests a lack of a self-control. Texting while driving frequently involves work — and in today’s neo-Puritanical society where people are working longer and harder than ever, what could possibly be wrong with working constantly, even behind the wheel?

And guess what? Your peers are not only doing it, but admitting to it.  We conduct a weekly “quick poll” on the AA&B Web site, with questions ranging from the silly (name your favorite fast food) to the serious (weighing in on the health insurance reform debate). The question that has gotten the biggest response so far was, “Have you ever texted while driving?” — and almost a third of the respondents admitted that they had. If TWD levels are that significant among insurance people – who should really know better – the numbers are probably much higher in the general population.

While unscientific, our survey suggests that TWD isn’t the exclusive domain of Gen Y-ers, who I don’t think comprise much of AA&B’s readership. Text-intensive social networks like Twitter are peopled primarily by the 35-and-up demographic. Maybe it’s just me, but the thought of a horde of aging drivers texting and hurtling down the expressway at 85 mph in their 5,000-pound SUVs beats the hell out of any Stephen King novel for scare value.

But the tide may be turning. Some states are passing laws prohibiting TWD, and federal legislation is on the table as well. A recent survey by Nationwide Insurance found that 80 percent of Americans favor a ban on texting while driving, while two thirds favor a ban on cell phone calls, and more than half say they would support a ban on cell phone use altogether.

It’s unclear whether any laws will really stop the hard-core from texting while driving, but at least it might make them stop and think — even if they’re only thinking about avoiding a costly ticket or better yet, a jail sentence.

And for those of you who are proud of your TWD ways — please let me know when you plan on being on the road so I can stay home.

Everyone is worried about healthcare, whether it’s the cost, the coverage, or how legislastive reform will change the way we’re used to dealing with it. Just yesterday, after meeting with representatives of all factions of the healthcare equation, President Obama reiterated his commitment to moving a healthcare reform bill through Congress before its August recess. Details are sketchy, other than suggestions that the plan could center on expanding Medicare to cover the uninsured (even though the recession has both Medicare and Social Security on the ropes).

Healthcare reform is a huge, complex issue that’s tough to get your arms around. But a recent New York Times article brought it down to a more human scale, and provides a hint of what could be in store if Washington takes a more active role in healthcare issues.

The article dealt with Congress’s plans to “give employers sweeping authority to reward employees for healthy behavior, including better diet, more exercise, weight loss and smoking cessation.”

Federal rules currently limit what employers and insurance companies can do to “incentivize” employees to focus on prevention and wellness. Several proposals are afloat that would rescind these limitations as part of whatever federal healthcare reform program gets passed.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that, right? According to the article, employers currently face some confusing tax, labor and insurance laws when it comes to offering wellness programs. It only makes sense to introduce some standardization to these well-meaning programs.

What bothers me about this move is the potential to punish rather than encourage — and the not-so-subtle subtext of lifestyle discrimination.

Everybody knows that prevention programs are far less costly to administer than having to treat an illness directly arising from poor lifestyle choices.  But somewhere in the inevitable gray area in between lies the touchy issue of personal freedom — you know, that pursuit-of-happiness stuff that’s written into the Declaration of Independence.  

When it comes to the workplace, we’re already living in a recessionary, layoff-driven “buyers’ market,” with most states giving employers at-will rights to hire and fire. Employees still left standing in today’s job market are dancing as fast as they can, picking up the slack for their laid-off brethren. It doesn’t seem right that on top of everything else, their employers can levy financial penalties for unhealthy practices, either on or off the job.

And I’m not talking about shooting black-tar heroin or killing a quart of Finlandia before work. Clarian Health, an Indiana hospital chain, made headlines several years ago when it announced plans to deduct as much as $30 per paycheck for workers it deemed obese.

We’re living in a culture where We-TV can get away with “I Want to Save Your Life” — an “Intervention”-type program that puts overeating on the same level as drug or alcohol abuse.  In this sort of environment, it isn’t that far-fetched to think your employer could send a skeletal guy in Spandex charging into your office to make sure your carbs are curbed.

It seems to me that this sort of Big Nannyism would ultimately be bad for employee retention and productivity, not to mention opening the floodgates for some really nasty EPL lawsuits.

If employers want their workforce to focus more on the carrot than the steak, they should use the carrot instead of the stick. And if Congress wants to help them, legislators should be careful not to introduce measures that could make it easier to punish workers instead of helping them.