why don't we do this in America? Link
Registered User
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,018
Likes: 0
From: Moving
Originally Posted by Scot,Jun 13 2008, 11:28 AM
^ but don't we give life lengthening pills to fat people so they can just lay around and shit themselves well into their 80's-90's just like the skinny folk???
Wish it was in a cheap pill form.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,187
Likes: 3
Originally Posted by JustAyoungMC,Jun 13 2008, 01:27 PM
Basically while not being obese saves money that would be spent on direct-costs of being obese, it also increases your lifetime which then causes an increase in costs which outweighs (ha..ha..) the decrease.
but it souds like insurance reform is what you're after, scot, not anything to do with the government. as a military brat, i'm damn sure i dont want the government to be responsible for my health!
Former Moderator
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 59,195
Likes: 1
From: Ventura, California, USA
Originally Posted by Gymkata,Jun 13 2008, 10:44 AM
Punishment for 20lb over-weight is Seppuku!!
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 8,504
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by vtec9,Jun 13 2008, 11:55 AM
As I have pointed out before, the study you linked to does not debunk the findings referred to by Backspin23 whatsoever. The linked study is referring solely to medical costs. Fat people die earlier, so the increased cost to treat them while alive is offset by the necessary duration of treatment. The study showing that we'd save money if the country were inhabited solely by thin people included countless other factors besides healthcare costs -- from the increase use in airline fuel to carry heavier passengers, to the added material costs for producing doors at McDonalds that are wide enough for a fatass to fit through.
1 study, which was a *model* assessment, not even an analysis of real costs ,FFS.
They do cite a real study, which showed fatties cost the most. (..."while only one [20] took into account medical costs of substitute diseases in life-years gained. It concluded that obesity causes higher lifetime medical costs, implying that prevention in this area can indeed result in cost savings.")
The "study" compared the fatties to ...smokers..., now there is a good medical endpoint for cost. "Until age 56, average annual health-care costs are highest for an obese person. In higher age groups smokers are more expensive."
Oh wait, looking at the table (1), no statistical difference in average annual healthcare cost, oops. But that is why we didn't run statistics. Despite their unsubstantiated statements: "Despite the higher annual costs of the obese and smoking cohorts, the healthy-living cohort incurs highest lifetime costs."
The Figure 1 clearly shows fatties being responsible for 12% of the cost above the healthy cohort.
The analysis needs to follow live patients. The direct economic and social costs are vast and not presented in the study. Fat people are restricted in their jobs and have a higher rate of job related claims and, likley injuries. The lost productivity (either due to sick days and zero sum impacts on the medical infrasturcture are economic costs. When fat people need able-bodied assitance, it also lowers productivity.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post