5 ms·

There's more money in sugar-addicted fat people. Even in the US, drug and food policy is coordinated (see FDA drug approval board https://academic.oup.com/jnci/

There's more money in sugar-addicted fat people. Even in the US, drug and food policy is coordinated (see FDA drug approval board https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/100/5/296/938813/Members-of-New-FDA-Board-Tied-to-Industry https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/100/5/296/938813/Membe...). It's a big industry where profitable addictive foods also support a lucrative obesity healthcare industry ($190bn in the US, https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-consequences/economic/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesi...).

mtgx 10y ago
> It's a big industry where profitable addictive foods also support a lucrative obesity healthcare industry And that's the crux of the problem, isn't it? If the U.S. had a single-payer healthcare system, you can bet it would care a lot more about issues like obesity, pollution, and all the things that make people sick and would make the government pay more for healthcare. It would have an incentive to reduce those issues. Instead, the U.S. has a system where it's "profitable" to have sick people, so the stuff that makes people sick is kept in place. It's the same kind of the same perverse incentives we see with the private prison industry.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  I agree 100%, but have you see the rhetoric from people who think soda tax is just another big gubmint shakedown and that healthy food is being forced down our throats etc. etc.? There's a lot of people who have, well, brainwashed. I hate using that word because people of any political persuasion can and do get into an intellectual echo chamber where their worldview is reaffirmed by the social circles they inhabit and the media they consume. But whenever I put time aside to actively listen to a few hours of talk radio (which is dominated by Tea Party types) my brain just wants to escape from between my ears. I feel this is reflected in the present administration's explicit disregard for facts, data and evidence. Are you familiar with 4th generation war theories? If you're interested drop me a line at gmail and I'll direct you to some fascinating reading.
  - andrei_says_ 10y ago
    > Are you familiar with 4th generation war theories? If you're interested drop me a line at gmail and I'll direct you to some fascinating reading. Would you mind sharing a bit here?
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      Maybe start with this blog. and the Wikipedia article which is shallow but a good overview. I don't want to politicize the thread. http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/ http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/
- Someone1234 10y ago
  Your argument is based on the incorrect assumption that the obese and smokers cost more over their lifespan for healthcare relative to a health individual. The reality is the opposite. For the population at large, MOST health care costs are accumulated at 60+, see this graph[0]. In fact ages 1-50, on average, cost almost as much as 65-75. And worse still from retirement people pay a lot less tax. Why is this relevant? Smokers and the Obese often die after their working (and taxpaying) life but before their expensive retirement. This means that while their last few years might be more expensive, their costs over the course of their life may be half that of someone that lived until 85. The ironic thing is that obesity/smoking might save social security from insolvency and be a massive saving for Medicare (as the Obese/Smokers won't ever enter Medicare, but will pay tons into it). Single payer would likely include the current Medicare ages, thus it would still remain cheaper to cover an Obese/Smoker who dies at 60 than a completely healthy person that dies at 80. The reality is that people hate the Obese/Smokers due to biases, not costs. Or because they think it is immoral/a character flaw to allow oneself to die early. There's no actual economic argument to be made that Obesity/Smoking is bad for society, they're net contributors by every major metric (particularly healthcare, retirement contributions, and taxes). There's been multiple studies drawing the same conclusion[1][2][3]. But most won't look at the data, and ignore the "long tail" of healthy individuals that is so expensive while talking about the "short tail" expense of the obese or smokers. [0] http://blogs-images.forbes.com/danmunro/files/2014/04/hccostsbyage.png http://blogs-images.forbes.com/danmunro/files/2014/04/hccost... [1] http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029 http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jou... [2] http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199710093371506#t=article http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199710093371506#t=a... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2225433/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2225433/
  - glitcher 10y ago
    Does this imply that higher health insurance rates aimed at people with less healthy lifestyles is really just another insurance scam? Penalize them while we can, and easily get away with it because it is socially acceptable?
    - 10y ago
- dragonsky 10y ago
  I'm in Australia and we have a fairly effective public health system. We seem to have much the same problems as the US WRT regulation of harmful recreational foods.

mtgx 10y ago

> It's a big industry where profitable addictive foods also support a lucrative obesity healthcare industry And that's the crux of the problem, isn't it? If the U.S. had a single-payer healthcare system, you can bet it would care a lot more about issues like obesity, pollution, and all the things that make people sick and would make the government pay more for healthcare. It would have an incentive to reduce those issues. Instead, the U.S. has a system where it's "profitable" to have sick people, so the stuff that makes people sick is kept in place. It's the same kind of the same perverse incentives we see with the private prison industry.

anigbrowl 10y ago
I agree 100%, but have you see the rhetoric from people who think soda tax is just another big gubmint shakedown and that healthy food is being forced down our throats etc. etc.? There's a lot of people who have, well, brainwashed. I hate using that word because people of any political persuasion can and do get into an intellectual echo chamber where their worldview is reaffirmed by the social circles they inhabit and the media they consume. But whenever I put time aside to actively listen to a few hours of talk radio (which is dominated by Tea Party types) my brain just wants to escape from between my ears. I feel this is reflected in the present administration's explicit disregard for facts, data and evidence. Are you familiar with 4th generation war theories? If you're interested drop me a line at gmail and I'll direct you to some fascinating reading.
- andrei_says_ 10y ago
  > Are you familiar with 4th generation war theories? If you're interested drop me a line at gmail and I'll direct you to some fascinating reading. Would you mind sharing a bit here?
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    Maybe start with this blog. and the Wikipedia article which is shallow but a good overview. I don't want to politicize the thread. http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/ http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/
Someone1234 10y ago
Your argument is based on the incorrect assumption that the obese and smokers cost more over their lifespan for healthcare relative to a health individual. The reality is the opposite. For the population at large, MOST health care costs are accumulated at 60+, see this graph[0]. In fact ages 1-50, on average, cost almost as much as 65-75. And worse still from retirement people pay a lot less tax. Why is this relevant? Smokers and the Obese often die after their working (and taxpaying) life but before their expensive retirement. This means that while their last few years might be more expensive, their costs over the course of their life may be half that of someone that lived until 85. The ironic thing is that obesity/smoking might save social security from insolvency and be a massive saving for Medicare (as the Obese/Smokers won't ever enter Medicare, but will pay tons into it). Single payer would likely include the current Medicare ages, thus it would still remain cheaper to cover an Obese/Smoker who dies at 60 than a completely healthy person that dies at 80. The reality is that people hate the Obese/Smokers due to biases, not costs. Or because they think it is immoral/a character flaw to allow oneself to die early. There's no actual economic argument to be made that Obesity/Smoking is bad for society, they're net contributors by every major metric (particularly healthcare, retirement contributions, and taxes). There's been multiple studies drawing the same conclusion[1][2][3]. But most won't look at the data, and ignore the "long tail" of healthy individuals that is so expensive while talking about the "short tail" expense of the obese or smokers. [0] http://blogs-images.forbes.com/danmunro/files/2014/04/hccostsbyage.png http://blogs-images.forbes.com/danmunro/files/2014/04/hccost... [1] http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029 http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jou... [2] http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199710093371506#t=article http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199710093371506#t=a... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2225433/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2225433/
- glitcher 10y ago
  Does this imply that higher health insurance rates aimed at people with less healthy lifestyles is really just another insurance scam? Penalize them while we can, and easily get away with it because it is socially acceptable?
  - 10y ago
dragonsky 10y ago
I'm in Australia and we have a fairly effective public health system. We seem to have much the same problems as the US WRT regulation of harmful recreational foods.