CNN-Medical cost of obesity $75 billion...(uh-oh..here we go )

[SoCalDem]

Now that smokers have been "dealt with", it's time for stage 2.. Watch for insurance rates to go up.. and even more discrimination that ever..:(

---

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/conditions/01/21/obesity.spending.ap/index.html

CDC: Medical cost of obesity $75 billion
Wednesday, January 21, 2004 Posted: 1:26 PM EST (1826 GMT)


ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- Taxpayers foot the doctor's bill for more than half of obesity-related medical costs, which reached a total of $75 billion in 2003, according to a new study.

The public pays about $39 billion a year -- or about $175 per person -- for obesity through Medicare and Medicaid programs, which cover sicknesses caused by obesity including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, several types of cancer and gallbladder disease.

The study, to be published Friday in the journal Obesity Research, evaluates state-by-state expenditures related to weight problems. The research was done by the nonprofit group RTI International and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"Obesity has become a crucial health problem for our nation, and these findings show that the medical costs alone reflect the significance of the challenge," said Tommy Thompson, secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services. "Of course, the ultimate cost to Americans is measured in chronic disease and early death."

snip....

[Sandpiper]

1. I'm sure it's just more "faulty science"

Like Bush said the WHO report was.

In the mean time, relax, have a big mac, super sized coke and a pack of twinkies.

[eridani]

23. Actually, it is faulty science

Fat 'fact' takes on life of its own
Paul Campos, Rocky Mt. News
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_1213969,00.html
June 18, 2002

An abiding weakness of the conventional wisdom is that, once a supposed fact has become part of that wisdom, it becomes almost impossible to dislodge it. Contemporary journalism contributes to this problem by relying on technologies that help ensure an assertion, once it is repeated enough times, will never be checked against the actual evidence. Consider for example the claim that fat kills 300,000 Americans per year, and is thus the nation's second-leading cause of premature death, trailing only cigarettes.

A Lexis database search reveals that this "fact" has been repeated in more than 1,000 news stories over the past three years alone. Yet the evidence for this claim is so slim as to be practically nonexistent.

As University of Virginia professor Glen Gaesser points out in the forthcoming revised edition of his book Big Fat Lies, the supposed source for this claim was a 1993 medical study that made no such assertion. That study attributed around 300,000 extra deaths per year to sedentary lifestyle and poor dietary habits, not to weight, which was not even evaluated as a risk factor. Indeed the authors of the study, Michael McGinnis and William Foege, became so frustrated by the chronic miscitation of their data that in 1998 they published a letter in the New England Journal of Medicine, objecting to the misuse of their study.

A year later the journal published an article which actually did assert that obesity causes approximately 300,000 deaths annually. This article, "Annual Deaths Attributable to Obesity in the United States," is a classic example of junk science at its worst. After calculating the death risk associated with various weight levels derived from six epidemiological studies, the authors employed the following assumption: "Our calculations assume that all excess mortality in obese people is due to their obesity" (emphasis added). That was, to put it mildly, a remarkable assumption. As Gaesser points out, "the authors made no attempt to determine whether other factors -- such as physical inactivity, low fitness levels, poor diet, risky weight loss practices, and less-than-adequate access to health care, just to name a few -- could have explained some, or all, of the excess mortality in fat people."

In fact there is a great deal of evidence that such factors are far more relevant to mortality than weight. Indeed, long-term studies conducted at Dallas' Cooper Institute, involving tens of thousands of subjects tracked for a decade or more, have concluded that all of the excess mortality associated with increasing weight is accounted for by activity levels, not weight. These studies show moderately active fat people have far lower mortality rates than thin sedentary people, and essentially the same mortality rates as thin active people. In other words, adding just one variable to the mix -- activity levels -- eliminates fat as a risk factor (the activity levels associated with optimum mortality rates are quite modest -- a brisk daily half-hour walk will by itself put a person in these categories).

Furthermore the 300,000-deaths-per-year figure was derived without taking into account factors such as yo-yo dieting and diet drug use, both of which have been shown to have devastating effects on health. Nor were variables such as class -- poor people die sooner than the well-off -- and social discrimination, which has been shown to have a very negative impact on health, taken into account. In short, the claim that fat causes 300,000 deaths per year should be dismissed as an assertion for which there is essentially no evidence. Journalists in particular ought to start noticing that fact, rather than endlessly reprinting the same piece of junk science.

Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado. He can be contacted at [email protected].

[icymist]

25. Good article. It shows how the media can manipulate

public opinion through repetition... much like an advertising campaign.

[hlthe2b]

2. Well, some good may come out...

If it pressures various aspects of the food industry to produce healthier foods and perhaps for Congress to look at where subsidies are going, perhaps ways to lower the price of the healthiest fruits, vegetebles, and other healthy foods to encourage their consumption, this could be good. If it increases research into effective ways to encourage weight loss, this is good. If it pressures health insurance companies to cover weight loss-related health referrals, that could be good. If it encourages employers to make walking or other exercise options for employees throughout the day, that could be good....

While I know this could be Pandora's Box and I am very concerned about increasing evidence of obesity (and age) as "acceptable" forms of discrimination, I hope that this might be used to help people and not hurt them. Ahhh, idealism survives-- even among baby boomers!

[beyurslf]

3. we as a country need to address the consequences of obesity.

We must also address the discrimination against those who obese but this doesn't mean we can ignore the health risks. The number one killer in the US is a preventable disease that is directly related to obesity. It should be a concern.

[veganwitch]

4. well the top three killers

are very heavily lifestyle based. granted they have genetic components but a sendentary, unhealthy lifestyle just exacerbates it.

and sometimes the only way to can get to peoples heads is their wallet.

[FlaGranny]

5. We also need to stop

focusing on extreme thinness as being attractive. Too many young people start a dieting lifestyle to be thin. Dieting is not good for you. I have a strong opinion that dieting is a major cause of obesity. Teens go on a diet because they think they'll look more like a model if they lose 5 pounds. They starve themselves, lose the 5 pounds and then comes the rebound so they start over. Only next time it is 10 pounds they have to lose. This cycle is repeated over and over until the 5 pounds is now 100 pounds. I think that first diet started the whole thing for many overweight people - that, combined with the poor food choices that are available in today's world.

[drscm]

6. Would oxycontin help?

Rush has been on a binge against "fat" kids the past few days, especially since Edwards pointed out that there are children still going to bed hungry in our nation. Rush points out that all the kids in the mall do not look hungry.

[FlaGranny]

8. The last place I'd look for hungry kids

would be the mall. Does that idiot believe that people who can't afford to feed their kids go to the mall?

[Mari333]

7. well lets see...I pay almost 5 dollars for a pack of cigs

and am relegated to standing in alleys to smoke one on occassion, lest someone be offended by my presence. Since smokers are in the minority, they are the new pariahs . I cant tell you how often a large person has tsked tsked me for occassional cigarette.
So, I shell out 400 dollars a month for health insurance (the rates just went up), and get taxed for cigarettes, but anyone out there who wants to eat 4-5 Big Macs a Day, which increases MY payments to higher health insurance costs, can get away with it scott free, no taxes, etc.
and since the obese are the majority in the USA, they will not be scapegoated or taxed and will put up a fight not to be taxed or ostracized.
Thats pretty much what it boils down to.

[FlaGranny]

9. You would probably be interested in a science fiction story I once read

about a future where health care was only available to healthy people with healthy lifestyles. If you had any illness at all that could possibly be caused by lifestyle, you were left on the street to die. That included heart attacks, any smoking-related illness, diabetes, and any accident that was caused by not using due caution (of course that included all sports-related injuries), etc., etc. It was an eye opener of a story.

Edit: Good heavens - look what I just found in my in-box from a person a work. Made my hair stand on end.

"Ordering Pizza in the year 2015

Operator: "Thank you for calling Pizza Hut. May I have your..."

Customer: "Hi, I'd like to order."

Operator: "May I have your NIDN first, sir?"

Customer: "My National ID Number, yeah, hold on, eh, it's
6102049998-45-54610."

Operator: "Thank you, Mr. Sheehan. I see you live at 1742 Meadowland
Drive, and the phone number's 494-2366. Your office number over at
Lincoln Insurance is 745-2302 and your cell number's 266-2566. Which number
are you calling from, sir?"

Customer: "Huh? I'm at home. Where d'ya get all this information?"

Operator: "We're wired into the system, sir."

Customer: (Sighs) "Oh, well, I'd like to order a couple of your All-Meat
Special Pizzas..."
Operator: "I don't think that's a good idea, sir."

Customer: "Whaddya mean?"

Operator: "Sir, your medical records indicate that you've got very high
blood pressure and extremely high cholesterol. Your National Health Care
provider won't allow such an unhealthy choice."

Customer: "Dang . What do you recommend, then?"

Operator: "You might try our low-fat Soybean Yogurt Pizza. I'm sure you'll
like it."

Customer: "What makes you think I'd like something like that?"

Operator: "Well, you checked out 'Gourmet Soybean Recipes' from your local
library last week, sir. That's why I made the suggestion."

Customer: "All right, all right. Give me two family-sized ones, then. What's
the damage?"

Operator: "That should be plenty for you, your wife and your four kids, sir.
The '"damage", as you put it, heh, heh, comes to $49.99."


Customer: "Lemme give you my credit card number."

Operator: "I'm sorry sir, but I'm afraid you'll have to pay in cash.
Your credit card balance is over its limit."

Customer: "I'll run over to the ATM and get some cash before your
driver gets here."

Operator: "That won't work either, sir. Your checking account's overdrawn."

Customer: "Never mind. Just send the pizzas. I'll have the cash ready. How
long will it take?

Operator: "We're running a little behind, sir. It'll be about 45 minutes,
sir. If you're in a hurry you might want to pick 'em up while you're out
getting the cash, but carrying pizzas on a motorcycle can be a little
awkward."

Customer: "How the heck do you know I'm riding a bike?"

Operator: "It says here you're in arrears on your car payments, so your car
got repo'ed. But your Harley's paid up, so I just assumed that you'd be
using it."

Customer: "@#%/$@&?#!"

Operator: "I'd advise watching your language, sir. You've already got a
July 2006 conviction for cussing out a cop."

Customer: (Speechless)

Operator: "Will there be anything else, sir?"

Customer: "No, nothing. Oh, yeah, don't forget the two free liters of Coke
your ad says I get with the pizzas."

Operator: "I'm sorry sir, but our ad's exclusionary clause prevents us from
offering free soda to diabetics."

[Buffler]

10. Tax their fat asses!

How about we start taxing fat people. I say $50 a pound over 110% of the governments stated "ideal weight" for ones height. And not by an annual "weigh in". Once a month people have to submit to a weigh in and the annual average is what will be used to levy the tax. That way fat asses can't go on a crash diet just before the annual weigh in if it was done annually.

People will say, your crazy! Well, I am not. Others will say that McDonalds and other fatty food providers should be taxed. Well plenty of skinny people eat McDonalds and other fatty foods. The food isnt the problem. Its the people!

[FlaGranny]

11. Indeed, the fat people sitting across the

table from the skinny people, eating the exact same food in the exact same amounts, in the same restaurant - gotta punish them. I hope you realize that a skinny guy eating all that slop is pretty much as likely to drop over from a heart attack after years of that kind of eating as a heavy guy is, even if he can eat two big macs, large fries, and a coke without putting on an ounce, he's still plugging up his arteries.

Edit: Spelling

[SoCalDem]

22. Does the name Jim Fixx ring any bells???

He keeled over DEAD.. (Heart attack)..He was a competitive runner.. Face on Health magazines..

This is another "wedge".. Thin vs Fat.. We already have young v old, men v women, childless v parents, stay-at-home v "working" mom, non-smoker v smoker,suv owner v hybrid, and the ever popular north v south..

These "studies" are just musings of a bunch of folks who take the obvious, and spin it in a sinister way.. Anyone could design a study that would prove what they set out to find, as long as they selected their subjects carefully and interpreted their findings "loosely"..

At the back, waaaaay in the corner, sits the "winner" of the debate..The insurance/hmo/drug companies are the winners here , folks..

The insurance companies are always looking for ways to "rate" people and charge them more, or to deny them altogether.. This is just a new way to "narrow" the customer base, so that they do not have to actually pay claims for customers.. They are only interested in collecting the premiums.. They do not actually want to pay claims..

They have already changed the rate that is now consideres "high" for blood sugar and blood pressure.. Of course they claim that it's for "your own good", but next time you fill out insurance applications, pay attention to the area that asks for medications..

Doctors/pharm cos "NEED" for you to be on medication, "for your own good",and to keep you coming back for "monitoring".. but when your premiums double, or you are denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, or denied life insurance, you might also be denied for a JOB.. More and more jobs require medical exams..

The thing I find funny too, is that according to something I heard today on CNN, the "average" woman is 5'4" and weighs 145.. NOT 5'11" and 118 (the "ideal" model size)..

Non smokers get testy about "paying for the illnesses of smokers", but a non smoker who lives on McDonalds,pizza and donuts is probably as likely, if not more , to have cholesterol.blood pressure.heart disease issues...

This is just another reason why a national insurance polisy is the ONLY way to go.. EVERYONE would be in the same pool, and no one would need to feel "put-upon" by people who are "not like them"..

When you are young and healthy, you do not use your medical coverage unless you get hurt.. It's only later as you age, that you need to use the care, and that's just when it's likely to be withheld..
For YEARS and YEARS we had FREE prescriptions, and NO ONE in our family too any meds.. I was not aware that I should have been hostile towards my coworkers who WERE taking meds :eyes:..

Of course , now that we are older ,and we have horrewndously high co-pays, my husband has been turned into a "drug addict" by his doctor..
3 diabetes meds, bp med,blood thinner,cholesterol, and probably a few I forgot :(. On a few of them the CO PAY is $50.00.:(

</ramble>



edit.. to let you know I know about the typos.. I am too lazy to fix them :) sorry :)

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. Along those lines

Why not start taxing bigots.

Overweight people often can't help themselves. Bigots, it seems, can be found about anywhere.

[camero]

15. LOL... brilliant

I can't entirely disagree with you on that. And bigotry certainty can be helped. I'm not laughing at ya. The sarcasm is showing.

[Born Free]

17. well lets see...I pay almost 5 dollars for a pack of cigs"

"and am relegated to standing in alleys to smoke one on occassion, lest someone be offended by my presence. Since smokers are in the minority, they are the new pariahs . I cant tell you how often a large person has tsked tsked me for occassional cigarette.
So, I shell out 400 dollars a month for health insurance (the rates just went up), and get taxed for cigarettes, but anyone out there who wants to eat 4-5 Big Macs a Day, which increases MY payments to higher health insurance costs, can get away with it scott free, no taxes, etc.
and since the obese are the majority in the USA, they will not be scapegoated or taxed and will put up a fight not to be taxed or ostracized.
Thats pretty much what it boils down to."


Although I don't agree with states taxing the hell out of smokers because they are afraid to pass taxes equally, I think you are off base. Smoking may not be any worse then obesity, but standing next to an obese person will not affect your health. They love to keep people fighting between each other, rather than look at the tax cuts for the wealthy, lets go after the smokers, then the obese then the ugly anyone that isn't part of the top 1%. Furthermore to increase profits we will cut benefits, make them work longer and make them compete with illegal aliens that are happy just to be alive.

[Nay]

12. The bad thing is that this society will address obesity by

punishing fat people one way or another, not by mandating that sidewalks and fitness parks be built in every neighborhood, or that schools should have Phys Ed for an hour a day minimum. Or that fast food places stop supersizing and get the trans fats and corn syrup out of all foods.

[camero]

13. What they don't want you to know.

http://www.feelgoodfood.com/education.html#sweet

Sugar lurks where you least expect to find it and affects the human body in myriad ways. Not surprisingly, the sugar industry denies that sugar is hazardous to human health. But are the parallel increases in sugar consumption, obesity, and diabetes just a coincidence? I have studied the dark side of sugar for more than 30 years and have spoken out against this overused additive. Now I'd like to share what I've learned with you. Here is everything you should know about sugar.

EATING TOO MUCH SUGAR, IN MY OPINION, can compromise your immune system. And other colleagues agree. According to Kenneth Bock, M.D., an expert in nutritional and environmental health with practices in Rhinebeck and Albany, N.Y., two cans of soda (which together typically contain 20 to 24 teaspoons of sugar) reduce the efficiency of white blood cells by 92 percent-an effect that lasts up to five hours. Because white blood cells are an integral part of your immune system, if you happen to meet a nasty virus or bacteria within five hours of drinking a few sodas, your immune system may be unable to fight off the invader.

Eating large amounts of refined sugar may also stress your pancreas and adrenal glands. Your body quickly absorbs refined sugar into your bloodstream, which puts your pancreas into overdrive as it tries to make enough insulin (which carries the sugar to your cells to be used for energy) to normalize blood sugar levels. But this rapid release of insulin can cause a sudden drop in blood sugar. And to bring your blood sugar back to a normal level, your adrenal glands have to release high levels of the hormone cortisol, which puts your body in high-stress mode. A constantly high intake of simple dietary sugar keeps this roller coaster going, and in my opinion-and the opinions of many of my colleagues-this may lead to early make enough insulin (which carries the sugar to your cells to be used for energy) to normalize blood sugar levels. But this rapid release of insulin can cause a sudden drop in blood sugar. And to bring your blood sugar back to a normal level, your adrenal glands have to release high levels of the hormone cortisol, which puts your body in high-stress mode. A constantly high intake of simple dietary sugar keeps this roller coaster going, and in my opinion-and the opinions of many of my colleagues-this may lead to early menopause, adult-onset diabetes, hypoglycemia, and chronic fatigue, although there is no scientific proof of these connections.

This is what I believe to be the cause of alot of our medical problems. It's like the difference between smoking and pollution from industry. It's the same as someone crying about you poking yourself with needles when someone has stuck a knife in your back.

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. But what about the money saved by early deaths

That is less money paid out by Social Security.

[Djinn]

18. the percentage of obesity caused by genetic/"glandular" reasons

is so small it is statiscally insignificant.

a earlier post mentioned something about the skinny people sitting opposite the fat people in McD's and "eating the same stuff" but the fact is (unless the fat people are in the 0.00000000001% affected by other factors) the skinny people get enough excercise for the calorie consumption and the fat people don't.

If this amounts to "discrimination" against fat people then as a pot smoker I'm discriminated against because I can't smoke in public!

In Australia (and I assume probably most western nations) it is quite expensive to eat a lot of fresh meat and fruit and veg (patricularly if you go organic) but buying sugar filled cereals and soft drinks isn't all that cheap either - and it costs NOTHING to get off your lazy bum and go for a walk - moderate eating and moderate excersise - people seem to have the idea that it's a choice between fat and undernourished srawniness - there is a happy medium.

[FlaGranny]

19. I'm sorry, but it's just not that black and white.

Some people can eat anything and maintain a low weight and not exercise. I have a niece who was always slim her entire life. About 5' 6" and 125 pounds. She ate whole bags of cookies at one sitting, drank soft drinks, ate mashed potatoes and gravy, cakes, pies, cookies, everything and anything. She got an average amount of exercise. She stayed at 125 pounds or less until she hit menopause, when, her weight suddenly shot up about 40 pounds. Nothing changed about her lifestyle, except that now she has to "diet" to keep her weight down when she never did before. Hormones?

Everyone knows people like this. There most definitely is something at work here besides just lack of exercise and overeating.

[Djinn]

20. yeah it is sorry

like I said there is some variation between individuals and maybe people need to be clear about "not scrawy", "a little overweight" "fat" and "obese"

I was speaking about obesity - speak to ANY doctor - particularly those who work in the fields of endocrinology/nutrition and they wuill tell you the same thing - people who have reasons other than lack of adequate excersise or excess calories for their obesity make up a minute fraction of all those with obesity.

I work for a health service who run the most comprehensive obesity and nutrition program in the country - this isn't just a judgemental skinny person having a waffle (I'm pretty average sized but spent years really underweight and it's no picnic either)

There is considerable evidence showing that obese people regularly understate their food intake and over estimate their excersise.

BTW - I'm talking about extremely overweight and obese people, at 125 pounds your niece was never obese or even very overweight even after the weight gain she would have been classed as slightly overweight (unless she was REALLY short) medically I mean not socially

[LiberalTexan]

21. You've all missed the black and white of the issue

The fact of the matter is that we don't have healthcare in this country that values wellness. We wait until there is a serious health issue in the patient and then attempt to treat it-- usually after the first heart attack, first stroke, or onset of Diabetes for example. Insurance will not pay for those people who are obviously at risk for developing these diseases to even see a Registered Dietitian, for example.

It's only been one year since insurance companies let patients start seeing Dietitians -- but only AFTER they have been diagnosed with one of two things: Renal failure or Diabetes. So, if every person in your family is obese and has Diabetes, and YOU are obese and are at risk for Diabetes (but don't have it yet), you cannot be reimbursed for seeing a Dietitian to find out ways to prevent it.

We are going at this problem completely BACKWARDS in this country. Until we take back our medical care system and start to be proactive in talking to people about wellness, we'll continue to have these health problems and people will continue to discuss on DU about taxing fat people or the like...

Off my soapbox (maybe I should become a lobbyist when I graduate from dietetics school).

[Spentastic]

24. This is interesting

There seems to be a feeling running through this thread that Obese people are being picked on.

I agree, but not by those wishing to point out that obesity does bring with it health risks. Although there appear to be differences in the science who would honestly like to argue that morbid obesity is neutral or beneficial to health?

What I see is the food industry coopting people to follow their agenda. There are powerful vested interests involved in food companies keeping Americans fat. Blame appears to be directed at individuals who then blame genetic factors and point to science that appears to back their position. If anyone thinks that the food industry are not cooking the books in the same way that big tobacco did you're insane.

Some people are genetically fat. The majority are fat because they consume more than they burn through excercise. Furthermore the term "fat" is being used to apply to anyone who isn't skeletal. It's all done at the behest of vested interests.

[SoCalDem]

26. Yep.. Big advertising.. selling us the fast foods

Big pharm selling us the meds to either lose weight, or live with the side effects, hmo/hospitals waiting in the wings to cut us open and re design our innards...medical & life insurers drooling over the opportunity to charge us higher premiums....advertisers flaunting gaunt prepubescent women everywhere, mostly to make us feel inadequate , perhaps so we will get depressed (more drugs!!) and /or head out for some "pity munching".. rinse & repeat


edit.. the corporate leaders of all of the above entities donate and lobby heavily to maintain their grip. Wonder which party gives them the best favors :)