Health Care

[Tahoe]

Pouting? Make sense.

Now I agree with Gla.

Uh oh, you're getting owned. Have to bring in third person.

[Fool]

Only in your disjointed vodka in your orange juice thoughts are you making sense, let alone owning anyone.

[Glenn]

No death threats or spitting, please.

[Uncle Mxy]

As for the cost of obesity vs cancer argument, do you factor in the lost research dollars that could be going toward curing something that in many cases is an unavoidable disease vs finding ways to help people who have consciously fucked themselves over?

Also, isn't the point of health care "longer life". So wouldn't you have to do it as a ratio to life span rather than simple $ amounts.

My argument is simply that most of the dollar costs associated with obesity seem like funny math to me. To get a true sense of the cost of obesity, you have to subtract "costs because some are obese" from "costs if no one were obese". No one seems to do that, instead preferring to throw big dollars around to shock the innumerate people. You see the same thing with the costs of cybercrime, software and media piracy, etc.

What led me to mentioning cancer a lot are two intertwined concepts:

1) If you die of nothing else, you die of cancer. This was something I heard an oncologist say on some PBS special awhile back that stuck with me. Given the many manifestations and causes of cancer, I don't think there'll be a silver bullet for it.

2) Cancer treatment can cost an awful lot. Most of the way that it _doesn't_ cost a lot involves you being too late or too old/infirm to catch it. As better screening tests evolve, you can end up spending a fortune over nothing, thus the recent controversies about how to screen for breast and prostate cancer.

I'm not sure I totally get your point about ratios. It certainly is the case that if you were to eliminate obesity, the ratio of people dying from other diseases would increase to some degree. That's not necessarily a bad thing, if the quantity/quality of life goes up. But it can be a costly thing, inasmuch as we have a system where >65 means Social Security and ending one's stint in the general workforce. While we have improved quantity of life, we haven't improved the quality of life to the point where we could justifiably raise the minimum retirement age to 70+.

[Tahoe]

Mxy to the rescue!

I mean putting it back on topic.

[geerussell]

My argument is simply that most of the dollar costs associated with obesity seem like funny math to me. To get a true sense of the cost of obesity, you have to subtract "costs because some are obese" from "costs if no one were obese". No one seems to do that, instead preferring to throw big dollars around to shock the innumerate people. You see the same thing with the costs of cybercrime, software and media piracy, etc.

The math may indeed be funny because there are a lot of different ways to estimate those costs. However, obesity as a risk factor in a whole host of expensive chronic conditions is something that can be measured in a meaningful way and there's a pretty solid consensus that it's a problem.

Of course the scope goes far beyond health care. To places like the farm bill where we subsidize the crap the makes us fat and the schools where phys ed is becoming extinct.

[Hermy]

The math may indeed be funny because there are a lot of different ways to estimate those costs. However, obesity as a risk factor in a whole host of expensive chronic conditions is something that can be measured in a meaningful way and there's a pretty solid consensus that it's a problem.

But you'd end up with some condition eventually anyway. And I don't think those are any cheaper than a swift stroke. Dirty little secret, it's the old people who soak up all the healthcare.

As far as kicking the bucket early, yeah, no question, being fat kills you young. But dying at all? Turns out everyone does it.

[geerussell]

But you'd end up with some condition eventually anyway. And I don't think those are any cheaper than a swift stroke. Dirty little secret, it's the old people who soak up all the healthcare.

Would you rather pay for 40, 50, 60 years of treatment for chronic conditions that obesity puts you at higher risk for at a younger age? Or try to dodge as many bullets for as long as possible--shortening the number of years that it would have to be treated before you died?

As an aside, not all strokes are swift. Many lead to lengthy and expensive rehabilitation or even permanent and expensive disability.

As far as kicking the bucket early, yeah, no question, being fat kills you young. But dying at all? Turns out everyone does it.

It would be better (ie: cheaper) if it killed you young. So many of the things it puts you at risk for though are treatable so you can go another 30 or 40 years taking pills and getting treatments for your chronic conditions.

[Hermy]

Would you rather pay for 40, 50, 60 years of treatment for chronic conditions that obesity puts you at higher risk for at a younger age? Or try to dodge as many bullets for as long as possible--shortening the number of years that it would have to be treated before you died?

I'd sooner pay for the 40-60 since I'm guessing obese dude will get something else in the next 5. I am pissed about paying for the hoverround.

It would be better (ie: cheaper) if it killed you young. So many of the things it puts you at risk for though are treatable so you can go another 30 or 40 years taking pills and getting treatments for your chronic conditions.

What flavor are the pills? I might hang around if they are grape.

[b-diddy]

this is a pretty good schpeal on some of the obvious early cracks:


http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogsp...dividuals.html

the gov just incentivized companies that did offer coverage to drop, and with the prohibition on screening pre-existing, it just incentivized healthy individuals to just not have health insurance, and wait til something bad happens. i will look at this, but i have pretty good coverage and pay less a year than the fine, i think.

if you think healthcare was broken before, get ready.

no one wanted this bill. people maybe wanted reform, but not this.

the dems knew they had 7 months before they'd lose the votes needed, and wanted a buffer before the elections. if nothing passed it would have looked like a political defeat, so they just passed whatever, lied about the price ( since they lost the 60 super majority, reconciliation was their only option. reconciliation required the bill to be deficit neutral. or atleast be called deficit neutral. anyway...) and called it a day.