Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Fat People & Smokers cost LESS to treat (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter St. Louis Bob
- Start date
St. Louis Bob
Footballguy
The FCC should repeal the ban on smoking ads on television too.
Heck get rid of those taxes as well.
Heck get rid of those taxes as well.
This has been known for quite a while. I saw articles saying the same thing in the early 1990s.
It's hard to argue with the data.
It's hard to argue with the data.
St. Louis Bob
Footballguy
You wouldn't know it on these boards or the political climate today. All you ever hear is that cigarettes shoud be $20 a pack because smokers are such a drain on the system.Fat taxes? Sure!I say Ray Kroc should be posthumously awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his $1 menu.
A
awesomeness
Guest
St. Louis Bob said:
AhrnCityPahnder
Yinz-o-riffic
Hooray!
/porkchop and lucky strike 
/porkchop and lucky strike 
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Apparently money no longer has any time value.
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
:lightsup:
If you can explain how that is relevant for this issue, I'd love to hear it.
St. Louis Bob
Footballguy
Hooray!/porkchop and lucky strike
isnt it quite simple?if it costs 417,000 bucks to treat a healthy person till death and and 371/326 for obese and smokers, the difference is that the cost per year of life is less for that of a healthy person.what would you rather do, pay 371,000 over 30 years or 417,000 over 40, 45, 50 yearseither that or Iam stupid
Last edited by a moderator:
St. Louis Bob
Footballguy
Protein bars too. Tax the hell out of those things.
You want protein? Eat a steak like a real man.
You want protein? Eat a steak like a real man.
$/Yr has nothing to do with time value. Chase is arguing that we're spending the money on the obese/smokers sooner than we are on "healthy" people. That may be true if we're comparing one smoker or one obese person vs. one "healthy" person of the same age. But the fact is were spending $$$ today on the obese, smokers and the "healthy." So the time value factor is not an influence on the overall cost comparison.isnt it quite simple?if it costs 417,000 bucks to treat a healthy person till death and and 371/326 for obese and smokers, the difference is that the cost per year of life is less for that of a healthy person.
what would you rather do, pay 371,000 over 30 years or 417,000 over 40, 45, 50 years
either that or Iam stupid
No, I was thinking time value should matter too and it's not clear from the article if it was considered or not. You would think it was, because it's just so obvious and elementary. Also, cost aside, the study failed to assign a "cost" to the lost productivity of a smoker or obease person dying at 70 or whatever vs. 80. That's 10 years of lost value from a person/employee/business owner/ or whatever and factoring in those "costs" it's not even close. It's expensive to smoke or be obease because of the opportunity costs.$/Yr has nothing to do with time value. Chase is arguing that we're spending the money on the obese/smokers sooner than we are on "healthy" people. That may be true if we're comparing one smoker or one obese person vs. one "healthy" person of the same age. But the fact is were spending $$$ today on the obese, smokers and the "healthy." So the time value factor is not an influence on the overall cost comparison.isnt it quite simple?if it costs 417,000 bucks to treat a healthy person till death and and 371/326 for obese and smokers, the difference is that the cost per year of life is less for that of a healthy person.
what would you rather do, pay 371,000 over 30 years or 417,000 over 40, 45, 50 years
either that or Iam stupid
All Your Base Are Belong To Us
Footballguy
Smoke up, Johnny!
If it's so obvious and elementary could you explain it to us?And why would the "cost" of lost productivty be relevant when we're talking about health care costs.No, I was thinking time value should matter too and it's not clear from the article if it was considered or not. You would think it was, because it's just so obvious and elementary. Also, cost aside, the study failed to assign a "cost" to the lost productivity of a smoker or obease person dying at 70 or whatever vs. 80. That's 10 years of lost value from a person/employee/business owner/ or whatever and factoring in those "costs" it's not even close. It's expensive to smoke or be obease because of the opportunity costs.$/Yr has nothing to do with time value. Chase is arguing that we're spending the money on the obese/smokers sooner than we are on "healthy" people. That may be true if we're comparing one smoker or one obese person vs. one "healthy" person of the same age. But the fact is were spending $$$ today on the obese, smokers and the "healthy." So the time value factor is not an influence on the overall cost comparison.isnt it quite simple?if it costs 417,000 bucks to treat a healthy person till death and and 371/326 for obese and smokers, the difference is that the cost per year of life is less for that of a healthy person.
what would you rather do, pay 371,000 over 30 years or 417,000 over 40, 45, 50 years
either that or Iam stupid
Even if it was, do you really want to hang your hat on the "productivity" of people in their 70s and 80s, healthy or otherwise?
Jeff Pasquino
Footballguy
Is this because they don't last as long?St. Louis Bob said:
Chaka
Footballguy
I get your point about restricting this to raw medical costs but an article like this creates a false notion that medical costs are the only concerns when discussing these issues. The obese and smokers are generally less productive in their younger years too, not just when they turn 70+. The fact that their is a societal cost beyond the medical should be noted before the fatties and lungers start running amok and killing all the healthy people to save money on health care.If it's so obvious and elementary could you explain it to us?And why would the "cost" of lost productivty be relevant when we're talking about health care costs.No, I was thinking time value should matter too and it's not clear from the article if it was considered or not. You would think it was, because it's just so obvious and elementary. Also, cost aside, the study failed to assign a "cost" to the lost productivity of a smoker or obease person dying at 70 or whatever vs. 80. That's 10 years of lost value from a person/employee/business owner/ or whatever and factoring in those "costs" it's not even close. It's expensive to smoke or be obease because of the opportunity costs.$/Yr has nothing to do with time value. Chase is arguing that we're spending the money on the obese/smokers sooner than we are on "healthy" people. That may be true if we're comparing one smoker or one obese person vs. one "healthy" person of the same age. But the fact is were spending $$ today on the obese, smokers and the "healthy." So the time value factor is not an influence on the overall cost comparison.isnt it quite simple?if it costs 417,000 bucks to treat a healthy person till death and and 371/326 for obese and smokers, the difference is that the cost per year of life is less for that of a healthy person.
what would you rather do, pay 371,000 over 30 years or 417,000 over 40, 45, 50 years
either that or Iam stupid
Even if it was, do you really want to hang your hat on the "productivity" of people in their 70s and 80s, healthy or otherwise?
Link?I get your point about restricting this to raw medical costs but an article like this creates a false notion that medical costs are the only concerns when discussing these issues. The obese and smokers are generally less productive in their younger years too, not just when they turn 70+. The fact that their is a societal cost beyond the medical should be noted before the fatties and lungers start running amok and killing all the healthy people to save money on health care.If it's so obvious and elementary could you explain it to us?And why would the "cost" of lost productivty be relevant when we're talking about health care costs.No, I was thinking time value should matter too and it's not clear from the article if it was considered or not. You would think it was, because it's just so obvious and elementary. Also, cost aside, the study failed to assign a "cost" to the lost productivity of a smoker or obease person dying at 70 or whatever vs. 80. That's 10 years of lost value from a person/employee/business owner/ or whatever and factoring in those "costs" it's not even close. It's expensive to smoke or be obease because of the opportunity costs.$/Yr has nothing to do with time value. Chase is arguing that we're spending the money on the obese/smokers sooner than we are on "healthy" people. That may be true if we're comparing one smoker or one obese person vs. one "healthy" person of the same age. But the fact is were spending $$ today on the obese, smokers and the "healthy." So the time value factor is not an influence on the overall cost comparison.isnt it quite simple?if it costs 417,000 bucks to treat a healthy person till death and and 371/326 for obese and smokers, the difference is that the cost per year of life is less for that of a healthy person.
what would you rather do, pay 371,000 over 30 years or 417,000 over 40, 45, 50 years
either that or Iam stupid
Even if it was, do you really want to hang your hat on the "productivity" of people in their 70s and 80s, healthy or otherwise?
Chaka
Footballguy
LinkLink?I get your point about restricting this to raw medical costs but an article like this creates a false notion that medical costs are the only concerns when discussing these issues. The obese and smokers are generally less productive in their younger years too, not just when they turn 70+. The fact that their is a societal cost beyond the medical should be noted before the fatties and lungers start running amok and killing all the healthy people to save money on health care.If it's so obvious and elementary could you explain it to us?And why would the "cost" of lost productivty be relevant when we're talking about health care costs.No, I was thinking time value should matter too and it's not clear from the article if it was considered or not. You would think it was, because it's just so obvious and elementary. Also, cost aside, the study failed to assign a "cost" to the lost productivity of a smoker or obease person dying at 70 or whatever vs. 80. That's 10 years of lost value from a person/employee/business owner/ or whatever and factoring in those "costs" it's not even close. It's expensive to smoke or be obease because of the opportunity costs.$/Yr has nothing to do with time value. Chase is arguing that we're spending the money on the obese/smokers sooner than we are on "healthy" people. That may be true if we're comparing one smoker or one obese person vs. one "healthy" person of the same age. But the fact is were spending $ today on the obese, smokers and the "healthy." So the time value factor is not an influence on the overall cost comparison.isnt it quite simple?if it costs 417,000 bucks to treat a healthy person till death and and 371/326 for obese and smokers, the difference is that the cost per year of life is less for that of a healthy person.
what would you rather do, pay 371,000 over 30 years or 417,000 over 40, 45, 50 years
either that or Iam stupid
Even if it was, do you really want to hang your hat on the "productivity" of people in their 70s and 80s, healthy or otherwise?
encaitar
Footballguy
I am either an idiot, or this article doesn't make any sense. Are they really telling us that they have followed a specific group of people around for their entire lives and added up every medical cost they have acrued? This surely would've made news before this, considering they are talking about people reaching into their 80s.
There is no way you can do this by taking samples of people who are skinny or obese at different age groups. How many athletes are overweight today? How many become overweight afte their playing years? You can't do this study arbitrarily. Plus, many older people lose a lot of weight when they contract a certain disease. Does that put them in the thin and healthy category, or the obese category? Is someone who is malnurished considered thin and healthy? I know a few women with anorexia and they're thin as a rail, but I certainly wouldn't call them healthy despite them having 4% body fat.
Plus, considering how much of a role genetics plays into all of this, how can you take random samples without bringing family history into the equation.
There is no way you can do this by taking samples of people who are skinny or obese at different age groups. How many athletes are overweight today? How many become overweight afte their playing years? You can't do this study arbitrarily. Plus, many older people lose a lot of weight when they contract a certain disease. Does that put them in the thin and healthy category, or the obese category? Is someone who is malnurished considered thin and healthy? I know a few women with anorexia and they're thin as a rail, but I certainly wouldn't call them healthy despite them having 4% body fat.
Plus, considering how much of a role genetics plays into all of this, how can you take random samples without bringing family history into the equation.
St. Louis Bob
Footballguy
I would like to propose another law.
All college students would be required to take Smoking/Big Mac 101. It would be a 3 credit hour class in which students would do nothing but smoke, eat Big Mac's and other fatty foods.
Not only would this help the health care system, it would help lower income people that can't afford college. According to studies, tobacco smoke is so addictive that the vast majority of these college students would become hooked and therefore become life long smokers.
Assuming these LI people are non-smokers and healthy, they would theoretically live longer. Thus there would be some equality in trading off length of life for income through out a person's life time.
All college students would be required to take Smoking/Big Mac 101. It would be a 3 credit hour class in which students would do nothing but smoke, eat Big Mac's and other fatty foods.
Not only would this help the health care system, it would help lower income people that can't afford college. According to studies, tobacco smoke is so addictive that the vast majority of these college students would become hooked and therefore become life long smokers.
Assuming these LI people are non-smokers and healthy, they would theoretically live longer. Thus there would be some equality in trading off length of life for income through out a person's life time.
e-mom
Footballguy
You've been doing lots of thinking about this, eh Bob? While you're at this, you might as well make all smokers and fatties raging alcoholics, too. I mean, why wait for death to sneak up on you with agonizing cancer and a gazillion other known diseases associated with both issues when you can beat it to the punch...you know...show 'em who is boss.
St. Louis Bob
Footballguy
Great idea!Although none of this will guarantee people will die younger. My Unlce Jackie died last year at 86. He spent the last 25+ years at the bar. I mean EVERY DAY at the bar. He also smoked about 4 packs a day.So there are no guarantees.I say we try it though. I think the worst case scenario is that more people will get laid on a more regular basis.
encaitar
Footballguy
Isn't that a best case scenario
Why wait so long to start? I say start handing out free cartons at the middle school level.
CBusAlex
Footballguy
You don't need a law to make college students become raging alcoholics.
LHUCKS
Footballguy
thank you. Also, they should be using money spent/years paying taxes anyhow.Ridiculous article.
The reality is, whether we like to admit it or not - that we as a society are biased against the crapper busting fatties. They disgust us. The current environment - using cost as a rationalization of our bias - allows us to be bigots - "for the public good". End of the day, most people don't give a good goshdarn about some CBF's health, know perfectly well that the economic argument is a sham - they just can't stand the sight of them; Think they're lazy and weak and digusting.
- And that's all based on looks alone. - Which my friends is simply bigotry - the last acceptable bigotry, but bigotry nonetheless.
- And that's all based on looks alone. - Which my friends is simply bigotry - the last acceptable bigotry, but bigotry nonetheless.
Black Box
Footballguy
A follow up study determined that decapitation on the 19th birthday decreased the cost further by 1.25%.
St. Louis Bob
Footballguy
There will probably be more fights too, but that is always entertaining, so win-win!Isn't that a best case scenario
Sucks being wrong all the time doesn't it?
Don't forget smokers.My ongoing proposal will eliminate these bias's as well as drastically lower the amount spent on health care.- And that's all based on looks alone. - Which my friends is simply bigotry - the last acceptable bigotry, but bigotry nonetheless.
I am currently in discussions to save this country from thecurrent economic downturn.
How? Fatties will get a one time check cut for $46,000 while smokers will get $91,000.
Now that will stimulate the economy.
adonis
Footballguy
That factors in only medical costs, but total costs is another story. The longer the live the more money you make. The healthier you are the more money you make. THe more money you make the more taxes you pay. THe longer you live the more health insurance you pay.
So, even though healthy people live longer than unhealthy ones, the total benefit of staying healthy pays back towards the costs of treating someone over that lifetime. I don't know how much, but it certainly does.
Obese people and smokers are likely to have more health problems at a younger age, require more money over a smaller period of time, miss work more often, and pay insurance and taxes for fewer years than healthy people.
So, even though healthy people live longer than unhealthy ones, the total benefit of staying healthy pays back towards the costs of treating someone over that lifetime. I don't know how much, but it certainly does.
Obese people and smokers are likely to have more health problems at a younger age, require more money over a smaller period of time, miss work more often, and pay insurance and taxes for fewer years than healthy people.
I think a lot of people are misunderstanding the article. It's not advocating smoking. It's just saying that a smoker is cheaper to give health care to than a non-smoker.
It's relevant when, for example, state governments try to sue Marlboro to recover the "increased" (read: decreased) Medicaid costs associated with smoking.
It's relevant when, for example, state governments try to sue Marlboro to recover the "increased" (read: decreased) Medicaid costs associated with smoking.
Boy, lots of generalizations there. Generally, incomes drop like a friggin stone after 55-60. Some 70 y.o. geezer living the next 30 years in a nursing home costs one HELL of a lot of money. - Not to mention all the inherent health issues that come in your declining years. And, I'm not really sure where the heck you came up with the healthier you are the more money you make. But there's a crapload of super-fit bartenders, waiters/waitresses & others who pay little or no taxes, pay no insurance premiums, who make & contribute diddly to the system - but invariably end up in the ER at least twice a year for any number of reasons. Their patrons that they serve? May pay taxes & insurance premiums for 40 years - and drop dead of a heart attack. Bottom line, the economic argument is a stupid one. You're going to find perfectly healthy 9 year olds with Leukemia who tax the system far more in their first 20 years of life than 20 CBF's do for their entire life. - And arguments the other way as well. There's a lot of compelling reasons for wanting to curb obesity. The economic argument is perhaps one of silliest.
LHUCKS
Footballguy
No, it's not really cheaper.
glock
"Don't grumble, give a whistle!"
Seriously. The obese/smoking patient costs more PER YEAR than the healthy patient.
LHUCKS
Footballguy
Simple math has escaped the author of this article.
Last edited by a moderator:
adonis
Footballguy
It's a little unclear exactly what it's referring to when the first part of the article says this:
My point is that the government is funded by taxes, which are paid by people who work or generate income. Not to take into account the return of healthy people over unhealthy people is to get an unduly show the cost of healthy people vs unhealthy people.I understand the study showed that the health costs for healthy people were more than for unhealthy people, but when we're talking about government programs and in decisions with regards to whether or not they should try to reduce obesity or smoking, I think you can still make an economic argument, when all other factors are taken into consideration.
Sometimes generalizations are correct. People generally don't get fat by eating right, hitting the gym and maitaining a relatively healthy lifestyle now do they?
Cost per year x Years of Life is the equation you're solving for. If we go with your route, we should force sterilization because childbirthing & newborn care are more expensive in year one than any other demographic.
adonis
Footballguy
The article doesn't speak about the economic argument. It simply focuses on health care costs. There was no analysis of the total economic impact of healthy people vs unhealthy people. Again, I'd expect healthy people to contribute more to the economy than unhealthy people.However, if you include things like the taxes smokers pay, that might make it interesting. I'd love to see a study that builds on this one, that finds average incomes for healthy people vs unhealthy people, the amount of taxes they pay, the amount of work/productivity each achieves, and the average age at which each retire or have to leave for medical reasons. THAT study would make a much more compelling economic or government argument, on a macro scale.
glock
"Don't grumble, give a whistle!"
Hmmm...Throw that out because EVERYONE gets birthed and is a newborn.Cost per year x Years of Life is the equation you're solving for. If we go with your route, we should force sterilization because childbirthing & newborn care are more expensive in year one than any other demographic.
