Fat People Cheaper to Treat

Does it really have to take a study to figure out that dead people are low maintenance?

yeah this study is highly misleading- its not that fat people are cheaper to treat, its that they die sooner, so they require less maintenance health care. if you cost it out on a per year of life basis, healthy people are much cheaper- this is silly, and data manipulation to boot.

People have known that for a while, but not actual the numbers that have just been looked into. A study gives a solid backing to smack down media outlets and those with agenda's out to spread these ideas.

That's... cold. D:

Wasn't there a Yes Minster episode about this? Obese smokers bravely laying down their lives to save the NHS money?

i know how to save a TON, just kill everyone.
our best quarter ever. numbers are WAAYYYYYYY up...

Wow..yah..really misleading they way they wrote this. Yes, healthy people live longer, but they need less care. So you can't base the cost off of life span alone....other things need to be factored in.

No, no hark, that would be inhumane. What you gotta do is encourage people to take up really high risk hobbies. We just gotta make sure they die quick, none of this lingering on, hooked to a machine. Preferably something that also covers their own funeral as well.

A few suggestions if I may, arctic crevasse adventurer, live volcano tube spelunker, deep sea cave explorer, just to name a few. Hey, if they are actually any good at it, then its still a win.

Jaimee, people who live longer need just as much care, since we all have health problems toward the end of life. They noted that thin non-smokers have more strokes, because they just don't die of something else first.

Miss Cellania, yes toward the end of life we all have health problems. What I was referring to are health problems mid life that these individuals have. Like the need for gastric bypass surgery, trechiotomies, the higher risk of cancer (which yes many people get cancer that is unrelated to things like smoking, but it is un-denyable that people who do smoke are at a much higher risk. Even chewing tobacco can lead to tongue and jaw cancer that could otherwise have been easily prevented). In other words, in my opinion, there are many other factors excluded and you just cant calculate how much someone will cost through health care, just by how long they live.

"A few suggestions if I may, arctic crevasse adventurer, live volcano tube spelunker, deep sea cave explorer, just to name a few. Hey, if they are actually any good at it, then its still a win."

Best ideas for my new hobbies ever! My boyfriend wanted me to get out of skydiving, anyway...

I've heard of a similar study where the researchers found that its acutally 'better' for the environment if people drive instead of ride a bike for transportation. The gist being that because someone is driving, they're not getting as much excersize, thus have a shorter life span and then not staying around as long as the bike rider to produce trash, waste, etc.
My statistics teacher loved to use this one to show the 'power' of statistics - how you could really use the numbers to show anything you wanted if you worked hard enough.

Non-eaters and non-smokers eat less and smoke less, which is bad for the economy, so feh.

so, according to these "scientists," what is the underlying message here?

get fat; die young!

Jaimee is right, although it's possible that the researchers factored that in. But, you'll also see studies that suggest the opposite result -- it all depends on who is doing the research and to what end. Scientists and statisticians strangely can find data to support whatever cause is dear to their sponsors.

Regardless, this is an intrinsic risk with all socialized medicine schemes. Because the public in aggregate shoulders the cost of caring for people, the State uses this as an excuse to get into peoples' lives and control what they eat, how much they drink, what hobbies they have, &c. When folks are responsible for their own helth care costs (or purchasing insurance), they can make decisions that maximize their individual utility, whether that means eating lots of Twinkies, riding motorcycles, being a boozer, whatever. When you adopt a nanny state, liberty is the first thing that gets checked at the door.

Straight talk from Sid.

Actual costs of treatment aside, healthy people won't be in the hospitals as much. This article doesn't take into account bed shortages, the cost of updating beds and hospital floors to account for heavier people, doctors being tied up taking care of obesity-related illnesses, etc.

And I question the accuracy of the numbers presented here. If you divide cost by the number of years, you still find obese people being cheaper. If the higher cost of healthy people is truly just because they live longer, then that should be reflected in a year-by-year cost. I find it difficult to believe that a healthy person who suddenly drops dead at 84 would be more expensive than someone who lives the last 20 years of his/her life with diabetes, heart disease, possible amputations, heart bypasses, etc.

"The study...did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity"

1) People who die sooner are contributing less toward healthcare costs. Dead people don't:

- pay insurance premiums
- pay hospital and/or doctor copayments
- fund the government through taxes

Also, people who get sick earlier in life are more likely to miss work, hurting productivity and costing companies more.
It would be nice to see a study that considers revenues and costs from each group.

2) Smokers and other unhealthy people currently pay higher premiums for insurance. Does this study mean rates will go up for the healthy?

Fat people are cheaper to treat not only because of life expectancy but because health insurers can deny coverage to the obese. Causing a lot of people to either pay out of pocket, go into bankruptcy or wait to late to seek medical treatment.