8 ms·

It seems public healthcare is not feasible in the United States while the majority of Americans are overweight and a third are obese. It causes too many expensi

by ipnon 4y ago

It seems public healthcare is not feasible in the United States while the majority of Americans are overweight and a third are obese. It causes too many expensive health problems that are preventable by maintaining a healthy weight. Perhaps the government should simply pay people to keep their BMI under 25.

throwaway5959 4y ago
Oh well thanks for solving the problem there chief. Who knew you only had to pay people to lose weight. Edit: Downvote me all you want, these are just stupid internet points. But what the guy/gal said was offensive to anyone who’s struggled with weight loss. Edit 2: Sounds like I should really lose some weight before I interview.
- brianwawok 4y ago
  Why? I’ve been heavy. I’ve been light. Burn more calories than you consume and you lose weight. I don’t think it’s fair others should need to pay more for my healthcare if I choose to use my American freedom to be heavy?
  - throwaway5959 4y ago
    That’s not what OP said, they said the government should pay people to lose weight. As if getting a $100 check in the mail each month would change people’s behavior. It just lacks any real understanding of why people are overweight to begin with.
    - throwaway98797 4y ago
      they don’t want it enough money is a motivator losing weight sucks because the changes are slow weekly payments could help with motivation this would create a dystopian nightmare but people would be thinner
    - mjthrowaway1 4y ago
      Money is a huge motivator. Aside from the fact that $100 check every month can directly subsidize healthier food choices.
      - phpisthebest 4y ago
        A $100 check is not going to get someone to choose Broccoli over Ice Cream... for example I have for force myself to eat vegetables, cant stand them, no matter how they are prepared, I have a heightened sensitivity to bitter things. It is not a cost issue that prevents me (and many others I know) from eating "healtly" things, it is fact that to us they taste like crap and yes I know "how to prepare them", I am actually a pretty decent cook, and tried every preparation method known to man, just my taste buds reject veggies, especially cooked veggies, Salads greens, Spinach, Green Peppers, Tomato's, Cabbages, etc are tolerable and make up the bulk of my vegetable intake
        mbrodersen 4y ago
        I did what you are doing for years and finally switched to a low-carb diet instead. It works much better for me. I still eat 200g spinach and 150g broccoli a day to get the vitamins I need. It tastes excellent when fried in butter with lots of spices and eggs/meat. I instantly lost 7kg and 9cm around my waist eating the same amount of calories. And my blood results are “superb” according to my doctor. I recommend the “low carb down under” YouTube channel for the science talks.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - monetus 4y ago
      You're projecting an implementation onto an idea. It seems bad faith. The ability, or physical and emotional investment to lose weight isn't exactly insignificant, so you're right to emphasize that - projecting ignorance and malice on the idea rather than criticizing it's merits isn't helping though? $100 check contingent on nothing does seem like it could go wrong as well as being subjectively offensive, but you are the one who suggested that right? What would work best I wonder. I was lucky in the sense that my life's circumstances forced me to lose all my spare weight.
      - throwaway5959 4y ago
        You’re the one doing the projecting. I only offered one example of a possible implementation as the OP didn’t provide any.
        monetus 4y ago
        I certainly wasn't trying to, just giving you my impression of your intentions. Are you trying to impune and argue, or is that just me? What ideas are you suggesting besides the $100?
        throwaway5959 4y ago
        I think it’s just you. I welcome more ideas, but it’s not my job to come up with public health policy ideas.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - mbrodersen 4y ago
    It’s more complicated than that. If you don’t keep your insulin low then you literally can’t loose fat no matter how little calories you eat. The body will simply down regulate your energy expenditure to match your calorie intake if it can’t access your body fat. So you will be colder, have less energy, be more tired etc.
    - mbrodersen 4y ago
      For the down voter: https://youtu.be/LRHir1k9jmE https://youtu.be/LRHir1k9jmE
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
itake 4y ago
> Perhaps the government should simply pay people to keep their BMI under 25. The problem is we are doing the opposite: We pay people (subsidize) their unhealthy food (corn, sugar, and beef). We should just make healthy food cheaper.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  But it's not the kinds of food you eat that make you fat. It's how much food you eat. Remember the Twinkie diet?
  - hgomersall 4y ago
    There's more to being healthy than being not fat.
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      Sure, but this article is about obesity in particular.
    - dionidium 4y ago
      Is there? Because the evidence for weight loss to improve health is consistent, abundant, and overwhelming. And the evidence for all the other stuff seems to reside mostly in the realm of unverified "common sense."
  - swatcoder 4y ago
    What you eat and how much you eat don’t seem to be strictly independent from each other, especially when applied over long periods.
  - mjthrowaway1 4y ago
    Weight is a proxy for all sorts of related diet issues. You can lose weight on a Twinkie diet and not be metabolically healthy at the same time. A healthy diet requires more than just the appropriate caloric intake. Although that’s a great starting point.
fortran77 4y ago
Agreed. I think one step would be to have public healthcare, but only for people who are at a healthy weight (as determined by body fat percentage). For example, Type 2 diabetes is a big cost burden for any health system. 70% of people with Type 2 diabetes who are also overweight would be asymtomatic if they lost weight. Why spend money on these people if the best course of action is free? (I.e., eat less food)
- hef19898 4y ago
  Even better: Do what certain Latin Amercan countries did and take the fight against convenience food and the producing industry serious. Tax sugar, reduce max sizes of soft drinks,... You name it. Using public healthcare as a way to punish people seems to go counter the goal of oublic healthcare.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Yes, I think ultra-processed food is a good candidate for being the root of the problem, but it seems only recently that people have tried to do anything about it.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  It is very dangerous to advocate government prohibiting access to care based on limits they choose. be very wary of unintended consequences, and potentials of abuse It may sound find and good to impose limits in this way, but I can think of all kinds of ways that could be abused
- mbrodersen 4y ago
  Type 2 diabetics get fat because of the insulin injections they are using. Not because they are eating more or are more lazy than the average person. The real solution for Type 2 diabetics is a low-carb diet. Doctors in the US, UK, and Australia routinely reverse Type 2 diabetics for their patients using low-carb diets.
melling 4y ago
“For people aged between 65 and 69, around 2 in every 100 people have dementia. A person’s risk then increases as they age, roughly doubling every five years. This means that, of those aged over 90, around 33 in every 100 people have dementia.” https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf/factsheet_risk_factors_for_dementia.pdf https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf/factsh... So, as more people live longer, the odds of getting dementia increases greatly. Maybe we should spend the money to cure the disease?
- josephcsible 4y ago
  A cure would be great, but it's not something we can just buy by throwing enough money at it. This argument feels like saying to try to find a cure for lung cancer instead of getting rid of asbestos and getting people to stop smoking.
  - melling 4y ago
    “Top Modifiable Risk Factor” I think we should dig deeper into the numbers before deciding. I get the feeling we aren’t going to see the same numbers like we do for smoking. The odds for *everyone* increases greatly simply by aging. And it’s costing a fortune. “Costs Associated With Alzheimer’s Disease Reach $277 Billion Annually, Report Finds” https://acl.gov/news-and-events/news/costs-associated-alzheimers-disease-reach-277-billion-annually-report-finds https://acl.gov/news-and-events/news/costs-associated-alzhei...
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      Well the disease of Aging is the number one killer. We should solve that
      - melling 4y ago
        I’ll just leave off by saying that some causes of death have a much higher cost to society. Spending a decade with Alzheimer’s then dying is expensive. Simply dying quietly in your sleep at the age of 99 after living a healthy life, not so much
Jach 4y ago
Maybe instead the government should "simply" stop doing everything it can to increase the cost of healthcare. When something is cheap enough (as our tech industry has many times observed), it's not a big deal to leave big factors of inefficiencies on the table and get on with other stuff.
ben_w 4y ago
I’d be surprised if paying people to keep their BMI low had more of an impact than the doctors repeatedly and clearly telling everyone who listens that obesity increases the risk of dementia and premature death. But only a bit surprised.
inglor_cz 4y ago
Frankly, you are trendsetters, not the odd exception. You are just ahead of the curve, but the rest of the world is following you. I am 44 and I am aghast at how fat some of the youngsters here in Czechia are. Middle-aged people are, too, much fatter than when I was young. This isn't a common grumbling of an aging person, the trend can be measured fairly well. I am not sure how our public healthcare systems will cope 20-30 years down the line. Aging (greying) of the population plus chronic metabolic diseases caused by obesity, treatable but not yet curable, will be a double whammy.
seizethecheese 4y ago
It seems quite simple. Just allow insurance companies to charge more for “avoidable” things like motorcycle riding, inactivity, obesity, smoking.
- filoleg 4y ago
  > Just allow insurance companies to charge more for “avoidable” things like motorcycle riding, inactivity, obesity, smoking. Insurance companies already ask for a subset of this. My health and life insurance asked about smoking (multiple times), and life insurance specifically requires you to get a health exam done at a doctor if you are trying to opt into a high tier of coverage. My life insurance also asked me if I am doing any "extreme sports/activities", with their listed top examples of it being motorcycle riding and skydiving. None ever asked about obesity or inactivity. I am all for obesity being treated like smoking, but inactivity is a bit of a tough one to filter or screen for.

by ipnon 4y ago

throwaway5959 4y ago

Oh well thanks for solving the problem there chief. Who knew you only had to pay people to lose weight. Edit: Downvote me all you want, these are just stupid internet points. But what the guy/gal said was offensive to anyone who’s struggled with weight loss. Edit 2: Sounds like I should really lose some weight before I interview.

brianwawok 4y ago
Why? I’ve been heavy. I’ve been light. Burn more calories than you consume and you lose weight. I don’t think it’s fair others should need to pay more for my healthcare if I choose to use my American freedom to be heavy?
- throwaway5959 4y ago
  That’s not what OP said, they said the government should pay people to lose weight. As if getting a $100 check in the mail each month would change people’s behavior. It just lacks any real understanding of why people are overweight to begin with.
  - throwaway98797 4y ago
    they don’t want it enough money is a motivator losing weight sucks because the changes are slow weekly payments could help with motivation this would create a dystopian nightmare but people would be thinner
  - mjthrowaway1 4y ago
    Money is a huge motivator. Aside from the fact that $100 check every month can directly subsidize healthier food choices.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      A $100 check is not going to get someone to choose Broccoli over Ice Cream... for example I have for force myself to eat vegetables, cant stand them, no matter how they are prepared, I have a heightened sensitivity to bitter things. It is not a cost issue that prevents me (and many others I know) from eating "healtly" things, it is fact that to us they taste like crap and yes I know "how to prepare them", I am actually a pretty decent cook, and tried every preparation method known to man, just my taste buds reject veggies, especially cooked veggies, Salads greens, Spinach, Green Peppers, Tomato's, Cabbages, etc are tolerable and make up the bulk of my vegetable intake
      - mbrodersen 4y ago
        I did what you are doing for years and finally switched to a low-carb diet instead. It works much better for me. I still eat 200g spinach and 150g broccoli a day to get the vitamins I need. It tastes excellent when fried in butter with lots of spices and eggs/meat. I instantly lost 7kg and 9cm around my waist eating the same amount of calories. And my blood results are “superb” according to my doctor. I recommend the “low carb down under” YouTube channel for the science talks.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - monetus 4y ago
    You're projecting an implementation onto an idea. It seems bad faith. The ability, or physical and emotional investment to lose weight isn't exactly insignificant, so you're right to emphasize that - projecting ignorance and malice on the idea rather than criticizing it's merits isn't helping though? $100 check contingent on nothing does seem like it could go wrong as well as being subjectively offensive, but you are the one who suggested that right? What would work best I wonder. I was lucky in the sense that my life's circumstances forced me to lose all my spare weight.
    - throwaway5959 4y ago
      You’re the one doing the projecting. I only offered one example of a possible implementation as the OP didn’t provide any.
      - monetus 4y ago
        I certainly wasn't trying to, just giving you my impression of your intentions. Are you trying to impune and argue, or is that just me? What ideas are you suggesting besides the $100?
        throwaway5959 4y ago
        I think it’s just you. I welcome more ideas, but it’s not my job to come up with public health policy ideas.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- mbrodersen 4y ago
  It’s more complicated than that. If you don’t keep your insulin low then you literally can’t loose fat no matter how little calories you eat. The body will simply down regulate your energy expenditure to match your calorie intake if it can’t access your body fat. So you will be colder, have less energy, be more tired etc.
  - mbrodersen 4y ago
    For the down voter: https://youtu.be/LRHir1k9jmE https://youtu.be/LRHir1k9jmE

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

itake 4y ago

> Perhaps the government should simply pay people to keep their BMI under 25. The problem is we are doing the opposite: We pay people (subsidize) their unhealthy food (corn, sugar, and beef). We should just make healthy food cheaper.

josephcsible 4y ago
But it's not the kinds of food you eat that make you fat. It's how much food you eat. Remember the Twinkie diet?
- hgomersall 4y ago
  There's more to being healthy than being not fat.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    Sure, but this article is about obesity in particular.
  - dionidium 4y ago
    Is there? Because the evidence for weight loss to improve health is consistent, abundant, and overwhelming. And the evidence for all the other stuff seems to reside mostly in the realm of unverified "common sense."
- swatcoder 4y ago
  What you eat and how much you eat don’t seem to be strictly independent from each other, especially when applied over long periods.
- mjthrowaway1 4y ago
  Weight is a proxy for all sorts of related diet issues. You can lose weight on a Twinkie diet and not be metabolically healthy at the same time. A healthy diet requires more than just the appropriate caloric intake. Although that’s a great starting point.

fortran77 4y ago

Agreed. I think one step would be to have public healthcare, but only for people who are at a healthy weight (as determined by body fat percentage). For example, Type 2 diabetes is a big cost burden for any health system. 70% of people with Type 2 diabetes who are also overweight would be asymtomatic if they lost weight. Why spend money on these people if the best course of action is free? (I.e., eat less food)

hef19898 4y ago
Even better: Do what certain Latin Amercan countries did and take the fight against convenience food and the producing industry serious. Tax sugar, reduce max sizes of soft drinks,... You name it. Using public healthcare as a way to punish people seems to go counter the goal of oublic healthcare.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Yes, I think ultra-processed food is a good candidate for being the root of the problem, but it seems only recently that people have tried to do anything about it.
phpisthebest 4y ago
It is very dangerous to advocate government prohibiting access to care based on limits they choose. be very wary of unintended consequences, and potentials of abuse It may sound find and good to impose limits in this way, but I can think of all kinds of ways that could be abused
mbrodersen 4y ago
Type 2 diabetics get fat because of the insulin injections they are using. Not because they are eating more or are more lazy than the average person. The real solution for Type 2 diabetics is a low-carb diet. Doctors in the US, UK, and Australia routinely reverse Type 2 diabetics for their patients using low-carb diets.

melling 4y ago

“For people aged between 65 and 69, around 2 in every 100 people have dementia. A person’s risk then increases as they age, roughly doubling every five years. This means that, of those aged over 90, around 33 in every 100 people have dementia.” https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf/factsheet_risk_factors_for_dementia.pdf https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf/factsh... So, as more people live longer, the odds of getting dementia increases greatly. Maybe we should spend the money to cure the disease?

josephcsible 4y ago
A cure would be great, but it's not something we can just buy by throwing enough money at it. This argument feels like saying to try to find a cure for lung cancer instead of getting rid of asbestos and getting people to stop smoking.
- melling 4y ago
  “Top Modifiable Risk Factor” I think we should dig deeper into the numbers before deciding. I get the feeling we aren’t going to see the same numbers like we do for smoking. The odds for *everyone* increases greatly simply by aging. And it’s costing a fortune. “Costs Associated With Alzheimer’s Disease Reach $277 Billion Annually, Report Finds” https://acl.gov/news-and-events/news/costs-associated-alzheimers-disease-reach-277-billion-annually-report-finds https://acl.gov/news-and-events/news/costs-associated-alzhei...
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    Well the disease of Aging is the number one killer. We should solve that
    - melling 4y ago
      I’ll just leave off by saying that some causes of death have a much higher cost to society. Spending a decade with Alzheimer’s then dying is expensive. Simply dying quietly in your sleep at the age of 99 after living a healthy life, not so much

Jach 4y ago

Maybe instead the government should "simply" stop doing everything it can to increase the cost of healthcare. When something is cheap enough (as our tech industry has many times observed), it's not a big deal to leave big factors of inefficiencies on the table and get on with other stuff.

ben_w 4y ago

I’d be surprised if paying people to keep their BMI low had more of an impact than the doctors repeatedly and clearly telling everyone who listens that obesity increases the risk of dementia and premature death. But only a bit surprised.

inglor_cz 4y ago

Frankly, you are trendsetters, not the odd exception. You are just ahead of the curve, but the rest of the world is following you. I am 44 and I am aghast at how fat some of the youngsters here in Czechia are. Middle-aged people are, too, much fatter than when I was young. This isn't a common grumbling of an aging person, the trend can be measured fairly well. I am not sure how our public healthcare systems will cope 20-30 years down the line. Aging (greying) of the population plus chronic metabolic diseases caused by obesity, treatable but not yet curable, will be a double whammy.

seizethecheese 4y ago

It seems quite simple. Just allow insurance companies to charge more for “avoidable” things like motorcycle riding, inactivity, obesity, smoking.

filoleg 4y ago
> Just allow insurance companies to charge more for “avoidable” things like motorcycle riding, inactivity, obesity, smoking. Insurance companies already ask for a subset of this. My health and life insurance asked about smoking (multiple times), and life insurance specifically requires you to get a health exam done at a doctor if you are trying to opt into a high tier of coverage. My life insurance also asked me if I am doing any "extreme sports/activities", with their listed top examples of it being motorcycle riding and skydiving. None ever asked about obesity or inactivity. I am all for obesity being treated like smoking, but inactivity is a bit of a tough one to filter or screen for.