NEW FEATURE: VOTE & EARN NEATOPOINTS!
Submit your own Neatorama post and vote for others' posts to earn NeatoPoints that you can redeem for T-shirts, hoodies and more over at the NeatoShop!


Fat People Cheaper to Treat

Conventional wisdom says that communities will save on health care by getting people to lose weight and quit smoking. But a recent Dutch study finds that, compared to obese people and smokers, healthy people place a greater burden on health care systems! The reason: it costs more to care for people who live longer. The study found that healthy people lived about 84 years, costing $417,000 in health care from age 20 on. Obese people live about 80 years, costing $371,000, and smokers lived 77 years, at a health care cost of $326,000.
"This throws a bucket of cold water onto the idea that obesity is going to cost trillions of dollars," said Patrick Basham, a professor of health politics at Johns Hopkins University who was unconnected to the study. He said that government projections about obesity costs are frequently based on guesswork, political agendas, and changing science.

"If we're going to worry about the future of obesity, we should stop worrying about its financial impact," he said.

http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/O/OBESITY_COST?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-02-05-02-58-08

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.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
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.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
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.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
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.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
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.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
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.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
"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...
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it 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.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
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.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
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.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
"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?
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
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.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.
Click here to access all of this post's 18 comments




Email This Post to a Friend
"Fat People Cheaper to Treat"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.

 

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More