| Author |
Message |
    
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 761
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 1:39 pm: |     |
It's costing us 93 Billion a year. Let's just be honest and consistent with ourselves and tax the obese as we have smokers and take that money and bail out deficits of wasteful state governments....sorry. Take that money and help these poor people and pay for the costs of obesity on our society.
The UN is behind this too. That means it must be good.
"Obesity Costs Rival Smoking
Americans Spend Billions on Obesity-Related Health Care Costs
By Jennifer Warner
WebMD Medical News Reviewed By Brunilda Nazario, MD
on Thursday, May 15, 2003
May 15, 2003 - The health care costs associated with obesity now rival those attributable to smoking, according to a new study. Researchers say obesity costs in the U.S. totaled up to $92.6 billion last year, and government-funded public insurers Medicare and Medicaid financed about half of those expenses.
Federal statistics show that more than half of Americans are obese or overweight, and that number has grown dramatically over the last decade. Researchers say the obesity epidemic poses a major threat to public health due to the clear association between obesity and a variety of chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.
In this study, researchers used statistics on obesity and medical spending provided by the CDC to estimate the health care costs attributable to obesity paid by insurance companies and individuals.
The results appear in the May 14 issue of the journal Health Affairs.
The study found that Americans spent $78.5 billion in overweight and obesity costs in 1998 ($92.6 in 2002 dollars). That figure translates to 9.1% of all national health care costs. Researchers say those health care costs are comparable to those associated with smoking, which are estimated at between 6.5% and 14.4% of total spending.
Even with health insurance, people that were obese or overweight paid more in health care costs than those of normal weight. In 1998, overweight and obese individuals paid an average of 11.4% and 26.1% more on out-of-pocket medical costs.
In addition, the study shows that Medicare had the highest prevalence of obese and overweight people combined, but Medicaid had the highest rates of obese patients. Accordingly, the health care costs attributable to obesity and being overweight were also highest among these groups.
"Therefore, as with smoking, there is a clear motivation for payers to consider strategies aimed at reducing prevalence of these conditions," writes researcher Eric A. Finkelstein, PhD, of RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C.
He says many health insurers include smoking cessation as a covered benefit and some private life insurance companies charge smokers much higher rates. Although some insurance companies subsidize health club memberships to encourage physical activity, Finkelstein says most do not include incentives to promote weight loss.
Since the amount of money spent on obesity-related health problems now rivals that spent on smoking, "it may be increasingly difficult to justify the disparity between many interventions that have been implemented to reduce smoking rates and the paucity of interventions aimed at reducing obesity rates," says Finkelstein.
SOURCE: Health Affairs, May 14, 2003."
|
Lizziecat
Citizen
Username: Lizziecat
Post Number: 139
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 8:25 pm: | |
Smoking is a choice. Obesity isn't, any more than skin color, height, or eye color. Why not tax the disabled, too? Think how much it costs to supply wheelchairs for people who can't walk. While we're at it we should tax the stupid--that means that CJc would have to pay bundle. |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2119
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 5:51 am: | |
A lot of overweight people are overweight by choice. A very large number of overweight people are overweight because they have made a choice to live on their couch watching T.V. rather than getting some form of exercise. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 766
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 9:21 am: | |
Lizzie -- smoking and eating too much are both behaviors, not diseases. If you stop the behavior, you eliminate the problem. You can see that, can't you?
I'm not saying you can't be obese, just that you have to pay for it. Why not have people that smoke and are obese go door to door and demand -- not ask -- demand that people pay for them? And then, don't even thank them for doing it. Kind of like Medicaid and Medicare is already.
Nice personal attack, Lizzie. This topic a little close to you? |
Brett
Citizen
Username: Bmalibashksa
Post Number: 610
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 9:43 am: | |
If you obese and it is really a disease, I would have no problem paying for healthcare if you can prove to me you haven’t eaten any Fast Food in three years. People with Diabetes have to watch what they eat constantly, you don't see them giving up and sitting on the couch with a Big Mac.
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 480
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 10:31 am: | |
smoking is a real addiction and as such must be treated as a medical problem. it is a disease. and people can stop smoking altogether.
obesity is a medical problem as well, but more complicated to treat because people can't go "cold turkey" from food. they have to learn to eat properly.
this thread bothers me because it seems like it's being used sarcastically to make political points about "the nanny state."
personally, I neither smoke, nor am I overweight, but I think a little less hostility toward both groups might go a lot further than sarcasm and accusations of moral laxity as the cause of people's medical conditions.
|
JJC
Citizen
Username: Mercury
Post Number: 177
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 11:08 am: | |
Smoking and obesity may result in medical problems but that does not let you a free ticket. Changing your habit is difficult but it is more about self-control than anything else. We all know the risks, yet some choose to continue the behavior. That's fine in a vacuum but when you ask others to pay for your lack of self-control, I think we all have a right to question that. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 481
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 11:30 am: | |
jjc,
sure but what about all the other choices we "pay for" in health insurance premiums:
Risky hobbies like motorcyles or skiing
Unprotected sex
Corporate decisions to pollute air or groundwater
ETC
ETC
ETC
the nature of insurance is that all these risks are spread out over millions of people, so none of us is hit with extraordinary costs.
most of us engage in some type of behavior that puts us at risk for injury or illness.
Should our health insurance be completely a la carte? If you drive without a seatbelt, or don't use condoms, or choose to live near a nuclear reactor, should you be charged on your health insurance?
|
Brett
Citizen
Username: Bmalibashksa
Post Number: 616
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 11:34 am: | |
When I was in the Navy I had a motorcycle. If I got in an accident and I was not wearing helmet, orange vest, hard soled shoes and long pants the Navy would not cover the Medical expenses. |
JJC
Citizen
Username: Mercury
Post Number: 178
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 11:48 am: | |
When the cost of skiing injuries (or anything else you listed) is in the same ballpark as obesity and smoking, we can talk. We are talking $93 BILLION |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 483
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 11:53 am: | |
assuming about 200 million Americans probably have some form of health insurance, it's about $465 per person per year. that's a drop in the bucket against my total premiums for the year.
but I guess as a skinny guy I can count on getting back an extra $40 a month in my premiums.
woo-hoo! |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 769
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 11:57 am: | |
As for costs of unprotected sex....AIDS has political cover behind it. Smokers don't. The obese seem to have political cover now.
Bottom line, you can't tax or otherwise go after groups that are responsible for their own misfortune and the costs they put on people other than themselves if they're politically covered.
Being a bad student in school qualifies, as society, lack of funding or racism is usually cited as the cause. |
JJC
Citizen
Username: Mercury
Post Number: 179
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 11:58 am: | |
Assuming 200 million Americans have insurance (that's a stretch), and you live another 25 years, that's $12,000 in your pocket. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 485
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 12:16 pm: | |
I thought 1/3 of US citizens are uninsured. we've got 290 million citizens.
but again, the nature of insurance is that we share risk, so we're all paying for each other's unhealthy habits, lifestyle, genetics, etc.
and if you want that thin person's discount, I guess you'll have to weigh in every year. |
Michaela May
Citizen
Username: Mayquene
Post Number: 51
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 4:19 pm: | |
It doesn't seem to me like the federal government is all that serious about really curbing obesity, despite that inane commercial with Tommy Thompson, the HHS secretary. Take our food pyramid, with its egregious suggested servings of 6-11 servings from the bread, cereal, rice & pasta group. 11?! Those numbers are arrived at by the Agriculture Dept., not say Health and Human Services. USDA's loyalty is to farmers, not to consumers -- hence the ridiculous suggestions. Plus, the agriculture sector's interests are well represented in Washington.
We eat too large portions, and often we are eating all kinds of processed foods, so we have no idea what is going into those products. Even so-called healthy foods can be so bogged down by salt, sugar or fat, or are sold in such excess portions, that they are harmful.
Also, most people receive very limited formal eduction in nutrition (something I can attest to, as a CHS alumna).
We need to rethink how foods are sold and packaged. We need more healthy, enjoyable alternatives to soft drinks. We need to rethink what is a "normal" portion. And we need teach children the basics of nutrition and health. |
mem
Citizen
Username: Mem
Post Number: 2660
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 4:50 pm: | |
Thanks Little May, I always wondered how I could find the time, money and appetite to eat six servings of vegetables a day. I don't have to feel guilty about malnutritioning myself anymore! |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 488
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 5:56 pm: | |
Michaela,
may I say that your emergence on MOL has been a breath of proverbial fresh air. You are absolutely right. Education is the proper way to solve health issues like obesity.
Taxing or surcharging overweight people on their health insurance is insanity.
|
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 1841
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 7:04 pm: | |
And there is the shocking editorial in the Times today called "The Sweet and Lowdown On Sugar". THe World Health Org and the Food and Agriculture Organization (U.N.) suggest strategies to help cut out sugars since obesity is skyrocketing around the globe, and the US Health and Human Services comes in and says "ahhh that's bunk", basically protecting the food industry here in the US. APPALLING!!!!!! GET the damn obscene amounts of sugar and faux sugars out of our foods!!!!!!And eat your vegies!!!How can you have any pudding if ya don't eat your meat???!!! |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1845
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 10:53 pm: | |
Always at the service of ADM, and their fine high-fructose corn syrup. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 779
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 10:34 am: | |
So can we now take away the regressive taxes on cigarettes that hurt the poor especially hard and return to 'education' as the way to combat that evil?
|
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 904
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 1:34 pm: | |
I think some major health organization should have a "High Fructose Corn Syrup Awareness Drive". When more people become aware of how much HFCS is in their food, they may start to wonder what it might be doing to their health, and they may look for foods that don't contain it.
Meanwhile, excellent alternatives such as the non-caloric, totally natural sweetener Stevia languish because the sugar lobby has kept the FDA from recognizing Stevia as a food, allowing it to be sold only as a "dietary supplement".
Obesity is yet another major problem affecting this country that is not being handled properly because our leaders care more about money for a few than safety and happiness for the masses. |
mem
Citizen
Username: Mem
Post Number: 2675
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 2:30 pm: | |
Is the government responsible for what we eat now?
Sheesh, maybe they can tie my shoes for me and drive me to work. Hey, maybe the government can do my work for me! |
JJC
Citizen
Username: Mercury
Post Number: 185
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 2:35 pm: | |
While education AND self control are the issues here, I don't see where government involvement is going to help. They can certainly do things on the policy end. But on the consumer end, you just need to pay attention to what you are putting into your mouth. Information on high fructose corn syrup, fats, etc are readlily available...no excuses. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 1847
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 4:37 pm: | |
The government is already involved. The Dept of Health and Human Services just debunked an obesity/sugars study by the World Health Org and U.N Food and Ag. Org. Why? To protect the food/sugar industries!!! |
JJC
Citizen
Username: Mercury
Post Number: 187
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 6:10 pm: | |
Exactly - probably not a good idea to get them MORE involved. What I am saying is that you don't need to be very smart or look very hard to figure out what is good for you to eat and what is not. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 1852
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 7:46 pm: | |
oh, i completely agree! But the government, by blatantly supporting the "evil" food companies' dependency on adding ridiculous amounts sugar and HFCS to many many foods, has made it harder on the average joe american (and joe any country) to sort through it all. Government More involved, no, but properly involved, yes...like how about they just support the WHO findings? How hard is that? What does the government gain by debunking this study? It makes no sense. Another chance for the gov to actually do something for the common good of the people, and they protect big industry instead (and inadvertantly support high insurance costs because of all the inate diseases that go along with obesity, I might add.)
Ooohhh, I'm getting so wound up I feel like John Belushi on Weekend Update! |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page