Study: Obesity adds $190 billion in health costs

[Katzndogz]

The government hasn't even gotten to second hand fat yet!

 

[Political Junky]

Our First Lady has made an effort to encourage healthier eating habits. The reaction of cons is to call her fat. No doubt many of them wish they looked as good as she.

 

[dilloduck]

The government hasn't even gotten to second hand fat yet!

I did. She was horrible.

 

[initforme]

Well obesity is a pre-existing condition. So I dont care how much you are willing to pay, your insurance company should say "sorry, no can do."

 

[gallantwarrior]

After establishing a government-run health care system, every citizen will be issued a "Health Card", or some similar device at birth, or for those already sucking oxygen, a prorated amount. Any time that citizen requires health care, they present their card, which is debited an appropriate amount to compensate for health services rendered. Once they have used their allocation, tough crackers. The amount will be the same, regardless of income or inherited wealth. If a person fails to use their entire allocation prior to their demise, then the remaining "balance" can be passed on to another person of their choice.

 

[whitehall]

What do you think the 3.000 page law says about obesity? You can't find a democrat who admits to having read the thing before they voted on it but it is rumored that there are penalties in place for risky behavior. What do you expect? If the government supplies health care the government has the right to control behavior.

 

[Political Junky]

After establishing a government-run health care system, every citizen will be issued a "Health Card", or some similar device at birth, or for those already sucking oxygen, a prorated amount. Any time that citizen requires health care, they present their card, which is debited an appropriate amount to compensate for health services rendered. Once they have used their allocation, tough crackers. The amount will be the same, regardless of income or inherited wealth. If a person fails to use their entire allocation prior to their demise, then the remaining "balance" can be passed on to another person of their choice.

And you have a link for that?

 

[gallantwarrior]

After establishing a government-run health care system, every citizen will be issued a "Health Card", or some similar device at birth, or for those already sucking oxygen, a prorated amount. Any time that citizen requires health care, they present their card, which is debited an appropriate amount to compensate for health services rendered. Once they have used their allocation, tough crackers. The amount will be the same, regardless of income or inherited wealth. If a person fails to use their entire allocation prior to their demise, then the remaining "balance" can be passed on to another person of their choice.

And you have a link for that?

I don't need a link, it's just my proposal. What the hell, why not something like this? Or should there just be no limits? Do you really think you should pay for someone else's bad choices, or the fact that there are some genetic proclivities that might determine whether someone develops one disease, or another?

Do you want to pay for someone who can't do a table push-away, or who cannot put down the smokes or booze? How about paying for someone suffering from FAS? Or Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, or sickle cell anemia?

 

[chanel]

We are reading 1984 in my English class. I posed this question to my students who felt that mandatory exercise was an outrageous idea, but fat taxes were not. After further discussion, they came to the conclusion that anyone who buys a burger for a $1 at McDonald's would probably not be dissuaded at $1.50. It wouldn't work.

A high school (?) English class takes the economics world by storm by proving the ineffectiveness of Pigouvian taxes. A feel-good story.

It's called an antecdote. A high school English class is microcosm of the community. They may not discuss the effectiveness of "Pigouvian taxes" at the dinner table, but they may discuss what they are eating. I know that may be too simple a concept for elitists to grasp, but a majority of Americans live in the real world.

Billions of dollars are spent on weight loss programs in this country, and yet we are still a nation of fat people. Will the government be able to do a better job? hahhahahhahhahahha!

 

[BillyV]

I don't need a link, it's just my proposal. What the hell, why not something like this? Or should there just be no limits? Do you really think you should pay for someone else's bad choices, or the fact that there are some genetic proclivities that might determine whether someone develops one disease, or another?

Do you want to pay for someone who can't do a table push-away, or who cannot put down the smokes or booze? How about paying for someone suffering from FAS? Or Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, or sickle cell anemia?

My gosh, you're right! Why should healthy people pay for those with "genetic proclivities"? In this day and age, why do we even allow those with "genetic proclivities" to even continue breathing? I say test them at birth for those and if they fail, get rid of them.

As for those who make bad health choices like smoking, I totally agree; they should not be allowed to sponge excess medical care from the rest of the "holier than thou" health crowd. How dare they? Of course, as long as we're exhibiting tunnel vision, they also shouldn't have to contribute to Social Security or Medicare, since they won't be alive long enough to use them. Fair is fair, right?

 

[gallantwarrior]

I don't need a link, it's just my proposal. What the hell, why not something like this? Or should there just be no limits? Do you really think you should pay for someone else's bad choices, or the fact that there are some genetic proclivities that might determine whether someone develops one disease, or another?

Do you want to pay for someone who can't do a table push-away, or who cannot put down the smokes or booze? How about paying for someone suffering from FAS? Or Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, or sickle cell anemia?

My gosh, you're right! Why should healthy people pay for those with "genetic proclivities"? In this day and age, why do we even allow those with "genetic proclivities" to even continue breathing? I say test them at birth for those and if they fail, get rid of them.

As for those who make bad health choices like smoking, I totally agree; they should not be allowed to sponge excess medical care from the rest of the "holier than thou" health crowd. How dare they? Of course, as long as we're exhibiting tunnel vision, they also shouldn't have to contribute to Social Security or Medicare, since they won't be alive long enough to use them. Fair is fair, right?

Why wait until they're born. We should do in vitro testing and flush the damaged ones down the sink.

 

[Star]

The startling economic costs of obesity, often borne by the non-obese, could become the epidemic's second-hand smoke. Only when scientists discovered that nonsmokers were developing lung cancer and other diseases from breathing smoke-filled air did policymakers get serious about fighting the habit, in particular by establishing nonsmoking zones. The costs that smoking added to Medicaid also spurred action. Now, as economists put a price tag on sky-high body mass indexes (BMIs), policymakers as well as the private sector are mobilizing to find solutions to the obesity epidemic.

"As committee chairmen, Cabinet secretaries, the head of Medicare and health officials see these really high costs, they are more interested in knowing, 'what policy knob can I turn to stop this hemorrhage?'"

“Smoking added about 20 percent a year to medical costs,” said Mayo’s James Naessens. “Obesity was similar, but morbid obesity increased those costs by 50 percent a year. There really is an economic justification for employers to offer programs to help the very obese lose weight.”

For years researchers suspected that the higher medical costs of obesity might be offset by the possibility that the obese would die young, and thus never rack up spending for nursing homes, Alzheimer’s care, and other pricey items.

That’s what happens to smokers. While they do incur higher medical costs than nonsmokers in any given year, their lifetime drain on public and private dollars is less because they die sooner. “Smokers die early enough that they save Social Security, private pensions, and Medicare” trillions of dollars, said Duke’s Finkelstein. “But mortality isn’t that much higher among the obese.”

True cost of obesity in America: $190 billion - Health - Diet and nutrition - msnbc.com

Here it comes folks.

Mandatory military service could be a way to stop obesity. E.g. 3-6 months mandatory military service after high school to get good knowledge about nutrition and pe. At the same time they can learn military skills and go into the reserve forces or if they want to serve in the army.

Despite the wealth of knowledge concerning the benefits of physical education and physical activity, only 8% of elementary schools, 6.4% of middle schools, and 5.8% of high schools provide daily physical education to all of its students ~ (SHPPS, 2000).


Another example of Republican tax-cutters stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime.


But it's not just about the math connected to how much it costs to treat each individual patient over their lifetime. There are other extraneous costs, such as missed days (lost production) of work where the healthcare system does not get accessed, but how about learning disabilities, or reduced educations, that is, because of a lack of fitness we're not-----NOT leveraging our greatest asset, our people/students/children, due to poor nutritional and physical activity choices, i.e. fitness, to name just one of the negative externalities of poor fitness choices.


Is student health a concern for schools -- of course it is, well nourished-active-physically fit kids are:It is a known fact that physical activityimproves overall health. Not only does it improve circulation, increase blood flow to the brain, and raise endorphin levels, which all help to reduce stress, improve mood and attitude, and calm children, physically active students may also achieve more academically. Physically fit students are less likely to miss school, partake in risky behaviors, get pregnant, or attempt suicide, which are all associated with better outcomes in school (Taras, 2005).


Many studies have demonstrated the positive effects of physical education and physical activity on school performance. Several studies have stated that providing increased time for physical activity can lead to better concentration, reduced disruptive behaviors and higher test scores in reading, math and writing (Satcher, 2005).

<snip>


It has also been proven that when students are involved in a physical activity program, there is an "improved rate of academic learning per unit of class time" (Taras, 2005) and that increased time spent in physical education does not negatively effect student scores. A study done in France increased its physical education time to 8 hours per week, reducing time devoted to academic subjects. The students in this experiment were physically and psychologically healthier and had increased academic performance when compared to the control group (Sallis, 1999).


Conscription has many positive's, but I would rather see a lifelong commitment via the public school system, to nutrition, exercise i.e. fitness, would improve not only our physical health but also our productivity, mental capabilities which extrapolates to keeping us ahead of the curve for military and national security issues.


The alternative to a national commitment to fitness is, give the South their wish -- let the South secede and the country becomes exponentially more fit-------overnight.

 

[gallantwarrior]

All this is well and good, but there are a number of us here who remember when kids were physically fit and naturally active. What are some of the differences?
1. There's been a significant change in the family structure and how families interact. There was a time when the family sat down to meals together. No fast food junk, no TV trays in front of the tube. After dinner, chores and homework, a family often read or played games together. Both parents were active in raising their children instead of foisting them off on the school system or child care providers. Mothers were not condemned for being just mothers. Motherhood was an honored position in society.
2. At school, children ate the food provided by their parents or bought a hot lunch that included decent portions of food prepared on site. They were fed the local fast food trash trucked in and re-warmed. When they went out for recess, they ran, played group games, and generally burned off a lot of energy. PE classes included things like square dancing, volleyball, soccer, or any other variety of team activities. The primary function of school was to arm children with the academic skills they would need to function after graduation. Now, we see useful programs like auto shop, wood shop, home-economics, and such dumped in favor of classes that teach our children how important it is that Sandy has two mommies, or that "creationism" is equal to evolution. Everyone has to feel good about how hard they tried, but no one has to be responsible for actually succeeding at the tasks required.
3. When at home, kids went outside and played. We got to watch some cartoons on Saturday morning but after that, out we went. We built forts, ran through the woods, explored our world, went to the school playground, and any other variety of physical activities. We did have to be home in time to sit down to dinner with the family. We did not have the internet, computers, wii, or any of the other high-tech crap kids shackle themselves to nowadays.

There is so much more. But all the government programs that all the politicians can hatch will not change the fact that we are a bunch of fat, sedentary slobs. Only we can do that. Like the alcoholic or drug addict, no one will change us unless it is us.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm surprised the cost is not higher and suspect that it actually is. Trying to put an actual dollar figure on it is not easy. The fact is that anyone overweight is much more likely to need ongoing medical care. We see this with the massive increase in the number of people living with diabetes. While they may die sooner than everyone else, most do still live close to normal lifespans, but because they are not very healthy, they rack up all kinds of medical costs.

I honestly believe we need to address our public health dilemma, starting with better physical education programs in our schools as well as better education on nutrition for everyone. Americans eat like shit for the most part, and most kids do not get nearly enough exercise. We could address both of these issues in a very cost effective manner. Requiring greater physical activity for kids in school would be fairly easy. Educating people to eat better wouldn't be much harder, although I don't suggest trying to force people to eat things they don't want, just make them aware that eating somewhat healthy isn't as difficult as it sounds.

Maybe glorious peoples union can set up neighborhood cafeterias. They can outlaw private possession of food, thus ensuring that the subjects eat only what glorious peoples commissars decide they will eat.

562-97-8997, you are not exercising vigorously enough. Failure to comply will bring punishment.

Obama was already considering group housing, wasn't he?

 

[Star]

All this is well and good, but there are a number of us here who remember when kids were physically fit and naturally active. What are some of the differences?
1. There's been a significant change in the family structure and how families interact. There was a time when the family sat down to meals together. No fast food junk, no TV trays in front of the tube. After dinner, chores and homework, a family often read or played games together. Both parents were active in raising their children instead of foisting them off on the school system or child care providers. Mothers were not condemned for being just mothers. Motherhood was an honored position in society.
2. At school, children ate the food provided by their parents or bought a hot lunch that included decent portions of food prepared on site. They were fed the local fast food trash trucked in and re-warmed. When they went out for recess, they ran, played group games, and generally burned off a lot of energy. PE classes included things like square dancing, volleyball, soccer, or any other variety of team activities. The primary function of school was to arm children with the academic skills they would need to function after graduation. Now, we see useful programs like auto shop, wood shop, home-economics, and such dumped in favor of classes that teach our children how important it is that Sandy has two mommies, or that "creationism" is equal to evolution. Everyone has to feel good about how hard they tried, but no one has to be responsible for actually succeeding at the tasks required.
3. When at home, kids went outside and played. We got to watch some cartoons on Saturday morning but after that, out we went. We built forts, ran through the woods, explored our world, went to the school playground, and any other variety of physical activities. We did have to be home in time to sit down to dinner with the family. We did not have the internet, computers, wii, or any of the other high-tech crap kids shackle themselves to nowadays.

There is so much more. But all the government programs that all the politicians can hatch will not change the fact that we are a bunch of fat, sedentary slobs. Only we can do that. Like the alcoholic or drug addict, no one will change us unless it is us.

Ahhh yes
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znrjbo9QRLk"]those were the days[/ame]
the days of
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMAi6JwxlGo"]Leave it to Beaver[/ame],
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0janfcZ8LUw"]Ozzie and Harriet[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fn7PKzf5tk"]I Love Lucy[/ame].


The days when the single paycheck family was the norm-----the norm on TV anyway.
I remember one HS friend in particular, Dad Johnson was a teamster. The Johnson family lived in a house that my friend (after his Mom died) sold just a couple of years ago for $1.4 million. The Johnson's had two cars, every 4 years, one of the cars was new.
On good weather week-ends the Johnson's usually took their boat up to the San Juan Islands.
Every year the Johnson's screwed up our Little League/Babe Ruth/Connie Mack baseball team by taking our shortstop to visit family in Sweden, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand for a month.

I could go on and on, but you get the picture, the Johnson's lived a very nice lifestyle-----and they did it on one paycheck?-----well, not quite, Mom Johnson worked 5 hours/day, 5 days/week in a Seattle School District lunchroom----"to fill in a few household budget gaps".

Employees were treated like assets, and most felt secure in their positions and union membership was in the 25% - 30% range.
Health Insurance was essentially non-profit and "co-pay" was a word for the future.
The top marginal tax rate was 91%, the pay gap between Fortune 500 CEO's and the average American worker was a ratio of about 27:1.
Minimum wage went from 0.75¢/hr to $1.40/hr and the average price of a gallon of gasoline was in the 0.32¢ range.
During the period of the "Great Convergence" 1940-1980, the gap in income inequality narrowed to about 19% between the 1% and the 99% and-----and wages and productivity were...

​

Ahhh yes
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znrjbo9QRLk"]those were the days[/ame]
the bygone, halcyon days of yesteryear, the days when the "greatest generation" created the greatest middle class, then...

 

[Brawd]

Blame the GMO's

[youtube]XPePUJyJ6yc[/youtube]

eeds of Deception - GMO Foods, Biotech Hijacking of World's Food Supply [MONSANTO] An In-depth look at the destructive practices of the "world's most evil corporation" MONSANTO. Indian Farmers[forced into debt] Suicides of 250,000+, Animals won't eat GMO foods(unless forced), Human Cellular Damage[DNA], Internal Organs .... Jeffrey Smith talks about safe foods to buy and consume vs. GMO foods and what to watch out for. 93% corn and soy crops are genetically altered already, 90%+ of cotton and canola... Monsanto so-called "gifts" to starving third world countries in the form of their GMO seeds which they are hoping the farmers will use and contaminate their crops with, therefore giving MONSANTO control of their crops(food supply). "gift" = trojan horse

 

[whitehall]

"Studies" will show a lot more when Obama-care clicks in. If the government supplies health care and employs a thousand new IRS agents you can bet your ass(ets) that they will find a lot more creative ways to correct unhealthy habits than just "studies". Beware of the brave new world of elitist liberalism..