Fat People & Smokers cost LESS to treat (1 Viewer)

[Maurile Tremblay]

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.

The government can't sue for lost tax revenues, so that's not always relevant.If people want to do a different study they can do a different one, but that doesn't make the current one wrong. If I say something about the Colts' passing yards, it's no refutation to point out that I didn't take rushing yards into account.

 

[TxBuckeye]

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.

Don't forget disability pay and things like that. It would have to be taken in to account to get a full picture.

 

[Baconator]

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.

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?

People get "fat" for a lot of reasons. Genetics, bad Thyroids, and yeah, bad life choices too. My Dad has never been to a gym in his life, eats half and half with his cereal every morning and ice cream every night. He weighs 135 lbs and is on full time oxygen. Sometimes generalizations ARE correct. For example, there's a lot of black guys who are worthless pieces of #### who've never worked a day in their life, steal for drugs, father illegitimate children, and kill white people.

...Where do you want me to go with THAT empirical data?

If you're justifying bigotry with the notion that "sometimes bigotry is correct", you're headed down a bad path.

I'm probably as equally disgusted by the CBF's as others. But I don't try to hide behind nonsense like insurance premiums and health care costs to justify it.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Apparently money no longer has any time value.

Seriously. The obese/smoking patient costs more PER YEAR than the healthy patient.

Cost per year x Years of Life is the equation you're solving for.

Correct.

If we go with your route, we should force sterilization because childbirthing & newborn care are more expensive in year one than any other demographic.

Incorrect. LHUCKS wasn't making a normative statement, so that's not his route.

 

[TxBuckeye]

If people want to do a different study they can do a different one, but that doesn't make the current one wrong. If I say something about the Colts' passing yards, it's no refutation to point out that I didn't take rushing yards into account.

But it would at least partially invalidate the argument if the original premise was "The Colts have the best offense because their passing was xxx YPG." And that's what this article does, paints a false premise based on one small piece of the overall data.

 

[TxBuckeye]

People get "fat" for a lot of reasons. Genetics, bad Thyroids, and yeah, bad life choices too.

True. But this doesn't invalidate the fact that most over-weight people are over-weight due to the simple fact they over-eat and under-exercise. There are exceptions to everything. That's why it's called a "generalization," because it's generally true, not 100% of the time.

Sometimes generalizations ARE correct. For example, there's a lot of black guys who are worthless pieces of #### who've never worked a day in their life, steal for drugs, father illegitimate children, and kill white people. ...Where do you want me to go with THAT empirical data?

Wherever you want since I don't understand your point.

If you're justifying bigotry with the notion that "sometimes bigotry is correct", you're headed down a bad path.

Link to where I said anything abut bigotry? Just because I believe something unpleasant to be true doesn't make me a biggot. Just a realist. Sometimes the truth can hurt. That doesn't make it any less true.

I'm probably as equally disgusted by the CBF's as others. But I don't try to hide behind nonsense like insurance premiums and health care costs to justify it.

Once again, link to where I did? I didn't mention premiums or health care.

 

[adonis]

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.

The government can't sue for lost tax revenues, so that's not always relevant.If people want to do a different study they can do a different one, but that doesn't make the current one wrong. If I say something about the Colts' passing yards, it's no refutation to point out that I didn't take rushing yards into account.

I agree. I'm not saying the current study is wrong, I'm just saying it doesn't invalidate a claim by the government that unhealthy people cost more. Sure, healthy people's healthcare may cost more, but I'd need to see a study on the complete picture to determine which one ends up costing the government more over the long term, not just in terms of healthcare payments, but in terms of "lost" income, productivity, etc.And I wasn't saying the government could sue for lost tax revenues, but if an obese person lives to age 65 before dying where they normally would live to 70, and has an amount of income, productivity and taxes they didn't pay during their lives that they would've if they were healthy, then that is "lost" money for the government and should increase the overall cost of obesity, or any unhealthy lifestyle.So, while healthcare costs are higher for healthy people over their lifetime, the total cost of healthy people vs unhealthy people may be lower, when all things are considered. I'm in no way invalidating the results of the study, just trying to say that they're only applicable on certain issues, and that they shouldn't be applied further than the extents of the research actually are intended to be applied.

 

[bigbottom]

If people want to do a different study they can do a different one, but that doesn't make the current one wrong. If I say something about the Colts' passing yards, it's no refutation to point out that I didn't take rushing yards into account.

But it would at least partially invalidate the argument if the original premise was "The Colts have the best offense because their passing was xxx YPG." And that's what this article does, paints a false premise based on one small piece of the overall data.

I don't think so. As I understand it, the article says that it costs more to treat a healthy person over a lifetime than it does to treat an obese person/smoker over a lifetime. Assuming the data is correct, that's an accurate conclusion.I also fail to see how treatment cost per year is relevant to that conclusion, which addresses total cost, not periodic cost.

 

[Baconator]

People get "fat" for a lot of reasons. Genetics, bad Thyroids, and yeah, bad life choices too.

True. But this doesn't invalidate the fact that most over-weight people are over-weight due to the simple fact they over-eat and under-exercise. There are exceptions to everything. That's why it's called a "generalization," because it's generally true, not 100% of the time.

Sometimes generalizations ARE correct. For example, there's a lot of black guys who are worthless pieces of #### who've never worked a day in their life, steal for drugs, father illegitimate children, and kill white people. ...Where do you want me to go with THAT empirical data?

Wherever you want since I don't understand your point.

If you're justifying bigotry with the notion that "sometimes bigotry is correct", you're headed down a bad path.

Link to where I said anything abut bigotry? Just because I believe something unpleasant to be true doesn't make me a biggot. Just a realist. Sometimes the truth can hurt. That doesn't make it any less true.

I'm probably as equally disgusted by the CBF's as others. But I don't try to hide behind nonsense like insurance premiums and health care costs to justify it.

Once again, link to where I did? I didn't mention premiums or health care.

Loke, Grow up. You quoted a post that said that the general attitudes toward fat peoople is primarily based upon our one remaining acceptable bigotry. You then came back with "sometimes generalizations are true" as a response to that post. Either you were justifying bigotry, or you were making a thoroughly inane point. Of course "sometimes generalizations are true" what's your POINT? Don't sit there and cherry pick sentences out of context. It's tiresome.

 

[LHUCKS]

I don't think so. As I understand it, the article says that it costs more to treat a healthy person over a lifetime than it does to treat an obese person/smoker over a lifetime. Assuming the data is correct, that's an accurate conclusion.

It may be accurate, but it is misleading at best.

 

[Baconator]

I don't think so. As I understand it, the article says that it costs more to treat a healthy person over a lifetime than it does to treat an obese person/smoker over a lifetime. Assuming the data is correct, that's an accurate conclusion.

It may be accurate, but it is misleading at best.

Accurate, yet misleading. Hmmm...

 

[General Malaise]

Protein bars too. Tax the hell out of those things. You want protein? Eat a steak like a real man.

YEAH, SISSY BOY! EAT THAT MEAT!!!

 

[bigbottom]

I don't think so. As I understand it, the article says that it costs more to treat a healthy person over a lifetime than it does to treat an obese person/smoker over a lifetime. Assuming the data is correct, that's an accurate conclusion.

It may be accurate, but it is misleading at best.

Well, I haven't read the study, but I read the article, and am having trouble figuring out how it is misleading. Here's the opening section:

Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it doesn't save money, researchers reported Monday. It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.

"It was a small surprise," said Pieter van Baal, an economist at the Netherlands' National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, who led the study. "But it also makes sense. If you live longer, then you cost the health system more."

In a paper published online Monday in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that the health costs of thin and healthy people in adulthood are more expensive than those of either fat people or smokers.

Van Baal and colleagues created a model to simulate lifetime health costs for three groups of 1,000 people: the "healthy-living" group (thin and non-smoking), obese people, and smokers. The model relied on "cost of illness" data and disease prevalence in the Netherlands in 2003.

The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.

On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years, and obese people lived about 80 years. Smokers and obese people tended to have more heart disease than the healthy people.

To me, it's pretty clear that we're talking about cost of medical treatment over a lifetime. I'm not seeing how the study or the article is misleading.

 

[adonis]

I don't think so. As I understand it, the article says that it costs more to treat a healthy person over a lifetime than it does to treat an obese person/smoker over a lifetime. Assuming the data is correct, that's an accurate conclusion.

It may be accurate, but it is misleading at best.

Well, I haven't read the study, but I read the article, and am having trouble figuring out how it is misleading. Here's the opening paragraph:

Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it doesn't save money, researchers reported Monday. It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.

"It was a small surprise," said Pieter van Baal, an economist at the Netherlands' National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, who led the study. "But it also makes sense. If you live longer, then you cost the health system more."

In a paper published online Monday in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that the health costs of thin and healthy people in adulthood are more expensive than those of either fat people or smokers.

Van Baal and colleagues created a model to simulate lifetime health costs for three groups of 1,000 people: the "healthy-living" group (thin and non-smoking), obese people, and smokers. The model relied on "cost of illness" data and disease prevalence in the Netherlands in 2003.

The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.

On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years, and obese people lived about 80 years. Smokers and obese people tended to have more heart disease than the healthy people.

To me, it's pretty clear that we're talking about cost of medical treatment over a lifetime. I'm not seeing how the study or the article is misleading.

I dont' think the study is misleading, but here's my issue:The article presents the study as one that does the following:

It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.

My point is that it doesn't counter that claim because it doesn't take into consideration the entire net effect of unhealthy lifestyles vs healthy lifestyles.There is no problem with the study. It was very focused, and I don't doubt the claims. But to generalize the results to say that unhealthy people cost the government less, without accounting for other variables that also go hand in hand with lifestyles, is to extend the results beyond the scope of which they're intended to apply.

 

[bigbottom]

I don't think so. As I understand it, the article says that it costs more to treat a healthy person over a lifetime than it does to treat an obese person/smoker over a lifetime. Assuming the data is correct, that's an accurate conclusion.

It may be accurate, but it is misleading at best.

Well, I haven't read the study, but I read the article, and am having trouble figuring out how it is misleading. Here's the opening paragraph:

Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it doesn't save money, researchers reported Monday. It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.

"It was a small surprise," said Pieter van Baal, an economist at the Netherlands' National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, who led the study. "But it also makes sense. If you live longer, then you cost the health system more."

In a paper published online Monday in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that the health costs of thin and healthy people in adulthood are more expensive than those of either fat people or smokers.

Van Baal and colleagues created a model to simulate lifetime health costs for three groups of 1,000 people: the "healthy-living" group (thin and non-smoking), obese people, and smokers. The model relied on "cost of illness" data and disease prevalence in the Netherlands in 2003.

The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.

On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years, and obese people lived about 80 years. Smokers and obese people tended to have more heart disease than the healthy people.

To me, it's pretty clear that we're talking about cost of medical treatment over a lifetime. I'm not seeing how the study or the article is misleading.

I dont' think the study is misleading, but here's my issue:The article presents the study as one that does the following:

It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.

My point is that it doesn't counter that claim because it doesn't take into consideration the entire net effect of unhealthy lifestyles vs healthy lifestyles.There is no problem with the study. It was very focused, and I don't doubt the claims. But to generalize the results to say that unhealthy people cost the government less, without accounting for other variables that also go hand in hand with lifestyles, is to extend the results beyond the scope of which they're intended to apply.

You're taking one isolated sentence from the article and taking issue with it. It's obvious (to me, at least) from the context (just read all of the sentences around it), that we're talking about medical treatment costs.

 

[Sweet J]

There is no problem with the study. It was very focused, and I don't doubt the claims. But to generalize the results to say that unhealthy people cost the government less, without accounting for other variables that also go hand in hand with lifestyles, is to extend the results beyond the scope of which they're intended to apply.

It sounds like your issue isn't with the study (or even with the conclusions of the study, since we don't even really know them), but rather with the article's liberal interpretation of the study (and of the conclusions of the study).That is a valid point.But I do think it is instructive to at least acknowledge this principle: by dying early, unhealthy people ultimately drain our societies less than we may otherwise have considered.

 

[adonis]

I don't think so. As I understand it, the article says that it costs more to treat a healthy person over a lifetime than it does to treat an obese person/smoker over a lifetime. Assuming the data is correct, that's an accurate conclusion.

It may be accurate, but it is misleading at best.

Well, I haven't read the study, but I read the article, and am having trouble figuring out how it is misleading. Here's the opening paragraph:

Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it doesn't save money, researchers reported Monday. It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.

"It was a small surprise," said Pieter van Baal, an economist at the Netherlands' National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, who led the study. "But it also makes sense. If you live longer, then you cost the health system more."

In a paper published online Monday in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that the health costs of thin and healthy people in adulthood are more expensive than those of either fat people or smokers.

Van Baal and colleagues created a model to simulate lifetime health costs for three groups of 1,000 people: the "healthy-living" group (thin and non-smoking), obese people, and smokers. The model relied on "cost of illness" data and disease prevalence in the Netherlands in 2003.

The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.

On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years, and obese people lived about 80 years. Smokers and obese people tended to have more heart disease than the healthy people.

To me, it's pretty clear that we're talking about cost of medical treatment over a lifetime. I'm not seeing how the study or the article is misleading.

I dont' think the study is misleading, but here's my issue:The article presents the study as one that does the following:

It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.

My point is that it doesn't counter that claim because it doesn't take into consideration the entire net effect of unhealthy lifestyles vs healthy lifestyles.There is no problem with the study. It was very focused, and I don't doubt the claims. But to generalize the results to say that unhealthy people cost the government less, without accounting for other variables that also go hand in hand with lifestyles, is to extend the results beyond the scope of which they're intended to apply.

You're taking one isolated sentence from the article and taking issue with it. It's obvious (to me, at least) from the context (just read all of the sentences around it), that we're talking about medical treatment costs.

Right, but that's what I have issue with. They make the comment that it counters the common perception that obesity costs the government a lot of money and that this study seems to show that preventing smoking or obesity WONT save money. I'm saying that the study doesn't do that. I'm not just picking out a random sentence, it's the first few sentences in the study that are attempting to frame the results of the study in a way which doesn't lend itself to the facts shown later in the article. And I do see that later in the article it says much of the same things I said, about other lost costs.

But when an article is presented to the public in interpreted form, I think it's important to frame the results in such a way that they don't over-extend the implications of the results. I believe that this one did.

 

[scoobygang]

To me, it's pretty clear that we're talking about cost of medical treatment over a lifetime. I'm not seeing how the study or the article is misleading.

There was one line that seemed a little misleading to me. When the researcher said something to the effect that we shouldn't use economic rationales for government policies to combat obesity. I think that's a bit misleading when the article mentions (but doesn't call any particular attention to) the fact that the study never addressed lost productivity.Because its perfectly possible that smokers and the obese cost less to care for over their lifetimes (I don't doubt this at all), and yet to still have a valid economic argument for trying to control obesity.

 

[adonis]

There is no problem with the study. It was very focused, and I don't doubt the claims. But to generalize the results to say that unhealthy people cost the government less, without accounting for other variables that also go hand in hand with lifestyles, is to extend the results beyond the scope of which they're intended to apply.

It sounds like your issue isn't with the study (or even with the conclusions of the study, since we don't even really know them), but rather with the article's liberal interpretation of the study (and of the conclusions of the study).

Yes.

But I do think it is instructive to at least acknowledge this principle: by dying early, unhealthy people ultimately drain our societies less than we may otherwise have considered.

I think so too. The results were interesting to me, but I always get annoyed when scientific results are interpreted by journalists to say things they really don't say.Now, if the total costs of unhealthy vs healthy lifestyles were less for the government, all things considered, I wonder if arguments would then be made about taxing things like cigarettes, as essentially by making them harder to come by, you're actually costing the government more in the long term.

 

[bigbottom]

I don't think so. As I understand it, the article says that it costs more to treat a healthy person over a lifetime than it does to treat an obese person/smoker over a lifetime. Assuming the data is correct, that's an accurate conclusion.

It may be accurate, but it is misleading at best.

Well, I haven't read the study, but I read the article, and am having trouble figuring out how it is misleading. Here's the opening paragraph:

Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it doesn't save money, researchers reported Monday. It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.

"It was a small surprise," said Pieter van Baal, an economist at the Netherlands' National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, who led the study. "But it also makes sense. If you live longer, then you cost the health system more."

In a paper published online Monday in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that the health costs of thin and healthy people in adulthood are more expensive than those of either fat people or smokers.

Van Baal and colleagues created a model to simulate lifetime health costs for three groups of 1,000 people: the "healthy-living" group (thin and non-smoking), obese people, and smokers. The model relied on "cost of illness" data and disease prevalence in the Netherlands in 2003.

The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.

On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years, and obese people lived about 80 years. Smokers and obese people tended to have more heart disease than the healthy people.

To me, it's pretty clear that we're talking about cost of medical treatment over a lifetime. I'm not seeing how the study or the article is misleading.

I dont' think the study is misleading, but here's my issue:The article presents the study as one that does the following:

It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.

My point is that it doesn't counter that claim because it doesn't take into consideration the entire net effect of unhealthy lifestyles vs healthy lifestyles.There is no problem with the study. It was very focused, and I don't doubt the claims. But to generalize the results to say that unhealthy people cost the government less, without accounting for other variables that also go hand in hand with lifestyles, is to extend the results beyond the scope of which they're intended to apply.

You're taking one isolated sentence from the article and taking issue with it. It's obvious (to me, at least) from the context (just read all of the sentences around it), that we're talking about medical treatment costs.

Right, but that's what I have issue with. They make the comment that it counters the common perception that obesity costs the government a lot of money and that this study seems to show that preventing smoking or obesity WONT save money. I'm saying that the study doesn't do that. I'm not just picking out a random sentence, it's the first few sentences in the study that are attempting to frame the results of the study in a way which doesn't lend itself to the facts shown later in the article. And I do see that later in the article it says much of the same things I said, about other lost costs.

But when an article is presented to the public in interpreted form, I think it's important to frame the results in such a way that they don't over-extend the implications of the results. I believe that this one did.

From the article:

The results counter the common perception that preventing obesity will save health systems worldwide millions of dollars.

The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.

You are just picking out a random sentence from the article. Perhaps you don't like some of the quotes in the article, but other than that one random sentence, it is obvious to any competent reader that: (1) this is about health care costs; and (2) the cost differences are based upon differences in life expectancy. Indeed, the article is careful to state expressly that the study only addresses treatment costs and doesn't take into account other costs.I'm seriously shuked as to how someone could read this article and conclude that it is misleading.

 

[TxBuckeye]

Loke, Grow up. You quoted a post that said that the general attitudes toward fat peoople is primarily based upon our one remaining acceptable bigotry. You then came back with "sometimes generalizations are true" as a response to that post. Either you were justifying bigotry, or you were making a thoroughly inane point. Of course "sometimes generalizations are true" what's your POINT? Don't sit there and cherry pick sentences out of context. It's tiresome.

Why don't you go back and look at my post again? I bolded the exact sentence I was responding too. It had nothing to do with bigotry or attempting to justify it. I don't know how I could have made it any easier for you. But don't let facts get in the way of your emotional tirade. After all, reading for comprehension is way over-rated.Oh, edited to add, LMAO at the one getting all emotional telling me to grow up!

 

[Baconator]

Right, but that's what I have issue with. They make the comment that it counters the common perception that obesity costs the government a lot of money and that this study seems to show that preventing smoking or obesity WONT save money. I'm saying that the study doesn't do that.

I'm not just picking out a random sentence, it's the first few sentences in the study that are attempting to frame the results of the study in a way which doesn't lend itself to the facts shown later in the article. And I do see that later in the article it says much of the same things I said, about other lost costs.

But when an article is presented to the public in interpreted form, I think it's important to frame the results in such a way that they don't over-extend the implications of the results. I believe that this one did.

I see what you're saying, but that only works if you read the red sentence, not the subsequent blue. I've color coded your statements to the article: Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it doesn't save money, researchers reported Monday. It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars. "It was a small surprise," said Pieter van Baal, an economist at the Netherlands' National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, who led the study. "But it also makes sense. If you live longer, then you cost the health system more."

RED: It doesn't save money.

BLUE: ...Because It costs MORE to care for healthy people who live years longer.

Red in itself is not true. Add in the Blue and it IS true. That's why people write in paragraphs and not sentences.

 

[Baconator]

Loke, Grow up. You quoted a post that said that the general attitudes toward fat peoople is primarily based upon our one remaining acceptable bigotry. You then came back with "sometimes generalizations are true" as a response to that post. Either you were justifying bigotry, or you were making a thoroughly inane point. Of course "sometimes generalizations are true" what's your POINT? Don't sit there and cherry pick sentences out of context. It's tiresome.

Why don't you go back and look at my post again? I bolded the exact sentence I was responding too. It had nothing to do with bigotry or attempting to justify it. I don't know how I could have made it any easier for you. But don't let facts get in the way of your emotional tirade. After all, reading for comprehension is way over-rated.Oh, edited to add, LMAO at the one getting all emotional telling me to grow up!

So, answer the question, what's your POINT in saying "Sometimes generalizations are true"? That's the 2nd time I've asked. Either you just like posting obvious and totally Inane statements: "Sometimes ponies are brown!"

Or, hopefully, you have some intelligent reason for saying so in response to the post you quoted.

Which is it?

 

[bigbottom]

To me, it's pretty clear that we're talking about cost of medical treatment over a lifetime. I'm not seeing how the study or the article is misleading.

There was one line that seemed a little misleading to me. When the researcher said something to the effect that we shouldn't use economic rationales for government policies to combat obesity. I think that's a bit misleading when the article mentions (but doesn't call any particular attention to) the fact that the study never addressed lost productivity.

They state it expressly. Should they have underlined and italicized the sentence?

 

[scoobygang]

Here we go. Now I get that this is an attributed quote, but i just find this statement misleading.

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

I think a simple fix would have been to acknowledge that the study didn't address productivity and other social costs at that point, instead of leaving it as an afterthought at the end of the article.

 

[adonis]

From the article:

The results counter the common perception that preventing obesity will save health systems worldwide millions of dollars.

The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.

You are just picking out a random sentence from the article. Perhaps you don't like some of the quotes in the article, but other than that one random sentence, it is obvious to any competent reader that: (1) this is about health care costs; and (2) the cost differences are based upon differences in life expectancy. Indeed, the article is careful to state expressly that the study only addresses treatment costs and doesn't take into account other costs.I'm seriously shuked as to how someone could read this article and conclude that it is misleading.

The first two sentences were wrong:

Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it doesn't save money, researchers reported Monday. It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.

Preventing obesity and smoking might still save money, depending on the total cost of unhealthy lifestyles. I know they make this point later in the article, but to state unequivocally in the introduction that the report makes that case is wrong. The second sentence is wrong too, because the article doesn't counter that claim. The first two sentences of the article which are used to tell the public what the article means, are wrong.

The results counter the common perception that preventing obesity will save health systems worldwide millions of dollars.

This claim however, later in the article, is dead on. This is the kind of comment they needed earlier.

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

No we shouldn't, and to link that claim to the article results is misleading.It's not a big deal, but I get annoyed when science is used to support claims that it doesn't support.

 

[bigbottom]

Here we go. Now I get that this is an attributed quote, but i just find this statement misleading.

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

I think a simple fix would have been to acknowledge that the study didn't address productivity and other social costs at that point, instead of leaving it as an afterthought at the end of the article.

What you consider an afterthought, I consider a concluding point:

The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs."We are not recommending that governments stop trying to prevent obesity," van Baal said. "But they should do it for the right reasons."

 

[scoobygang]

To me, it's pretty clear that we're talking about cost of medical treatment over a lifetime. I'm not seeing how the study or the article is misleading.

There was one line that seemed a little misleading to me. When the researcher said something to the effect that we shouldn't use economic rationales for government policies to combat obesity. I think that's a bit misleading when the article mentions (but doesn't call any particular attention to) the fact that the study never addressed lost productivity.

They state it expressly. Should they have underlined and italicized the sentence?

They should have put it into the context of the argument the researcher was making instead of burying it at the end of the article. Imagine I was writing a story about Super Tuesday. I write 10 paragraphs about how Obama won more states and more delegates. I run a quote from someone saying "this proves that Hillary Clinton is no longer a viable candidate." Then at the very end of the article, i include a one sentence paragraph that says "Clinton won 8 states and captured a slight majority of the popular vote."I think that would be a misleading article.

 

[bigbottom]

From the article:

The results counter the common perception that preventing obesity will save health systems worldwide millions of dollars.

The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.

You are just picking out a random sentence from the article. Perhaps you don't like some of the quotes in the article, but other than that one random sentence, it is obvious to any competent reader that: (1) this is about health care costs; and (2) the cost differences are based upon differences in life expectancy. Indeed, the article is careful to state expressly that the study only addresses treatment costs and doesn't take into account other costs.I'm seriously shuked as to how someone could read this article and conclude that it is misleading.

The first two sentences were wrong:

Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it doesn't save money, researchers reported Monday. It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.

Preventing obesity and smoking might still save money, depending on the total cost of unhealthy lifestyles. I know they make this point later in the article, but to state unequivocally in the introduction that the report makes that case is wrong. The second sentence is wrong too, because the article doesn't counter that claim. The first two sentences of the article which are used to tell the public what the article means, are wrong.

The results counter the common perception that preventing obesity will save health systems worldwide millions of dollars.

This claim however, later in the article, is dead on. This is the kind of comment they needed earlier.

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

No we shouldn't, and to link that claim to the article results is misleading.It's not a big deal, but I get annoyed when science is used to support claims that it doesn't support.

Were you misled by the article? It's obvious you were not.I'll concede that the article is misleading to those who cannot understand a point in context, or those who only read the first two sentences of the article.

 

[TxBuckeye]

So, answer the question, what's your POINT in saying "Sometimes generalizations are true"? That's the 2nd time I've asked.

I thought I explained that pretty clearly. Generalizations are often true generally (hence the term generalization). You stated they aren't 100% of the time, and I agreed. Generalizations are normally true in a majority of instances, but not 100%. There are always exceptions. So providing a few instances of exception doesn't make the generalization false. Now what this has to do with bigotry is still beyond me given my original response.

 

[bigbottom]

To me, it's pretty clear that we're talking about cost of medical treatment over a lifetime. I'm not seeing how the study or the article is misleading.

There was one line that seemed a little misleading to me. When the researcher said something to the effect that we shouldn't use economic rationales for government policies to combat obesity. I think that's a bit misleading when the article mentions (but doesn't call any particular attention to) the fact that the study never addressed lost productivity.

They state it expressly. Should they have underlined and italicized the sentence?

They should have put it into the context of the argument the researcher was making instead of burying it at the end of the article. Imagine I was writing a story about Super Tuesday. I write 10 paragraphs about how Obama won more states and more delegates. I run a quote from someone saying "this proves that Hillary Clinton is no longer a viable candidate." Then at the very end of the article, i include a one sentence paragraph that says "Clinton won 8 states and captured a slight majority of the popular vote."

I think that would be a misleading article.

Were you misled? If it wasn't obvious to you from the article that the study was limited to health care costs, I don't really know what to say. There are multiple references throughout the article (including the title of the article) that reference treatment costs as the focus of the study.

 

[scoobygang]

To me, it's pretty clear that we're talking about cost of medical treatment over a lifetime. I'm not seeing how the study or the article is misleading.

There was one line that seemed a little misleading to me. When the researcher said something to the effect that we shouldn't use economic rationales for government policies to combat obesity. I think that's a bit misleading when the article mentions (but doesn't call any particular attention to) the fact that the study never addressed lost productivity.

They state it expressly. Should they have underlined and italicized the sentence?

They should have put it into the context of the argument the researcher was making instead of burying it at the end of the article. Imagine I was writing a story about Super Tuesday. I write 10 paragraphs about how Obama won more states and more delegates. I run a quote from someone saying "this proves that Hillary Clinton is no longer a viable candidate." Then at the very end of the article, i include a one sentence paragraph that says "Clinton won 8 states and captured a slight majority of the popular vote."I think that would be a misleading article.

Were you misled? If it wasn't obvious to you from the article that the study was limited to health care costs, I don't really know what to say. There are multiple references throughout the article that reference health care costs as the focus of the study.

I was asking myself "what about productivity costs?" throughout the entire article. So I guess I wasn't mislead. But my Obama article example wouldn't have mislead me either. I would have been saying to myself "wait, we have a dead heat in delegates and votes" throughout the entire article.

 

[bigbottom]

To me, it's pretty clear that we're talking about cost of medical treatment over a lifetime. I'm not seeing how the study or the article is misleading.

There was one line that seemed a little misleading to me. When the researcher said something to the effect that we shouldn't use economic rationales for government policies to combat obesity. I think that's a bit misleading when the article mentions (but doesn't call any particular attention to) the fact that the study never addressed lost productivity.

They state it expressly. Should they have underlined and italicized the sentence?

They should have put it into the context of the argument the researcher was making instead of burying it at the end of the article. Imagine I was writing a story about Super Tuesday. I write 10 paragraphs about how Obama won more states and more delegates. I run a quote from someone saying "this proves that Hillary Clinton is no longer a viable candidate." Then at the very end of the article, i include a one sentence paragraph that says "Clinton won 8 states and captured a slight majority of the popular vote."

I think that would be a misleading article.

Were you misled? If it wasn't obvious to you from the article that the study was limited to health care costs, I don't really know what to say. There are multiple references throughout the article that reference health care costs as the focus of the study.

I was asking myself "what about productivity costs?" throughout the entire article. So I guess I wasn't mislead. But my Obama article example wouldn't have mislead me either. I would have been saying to myself "wait, we have a dead heat in delegates and votes" throughout the entire article.

Does it make a difference that the OP didn't include the title of the article - "Fat people cheaper to treat, study says". The very title frames the issue as one of treatment costs, not productivity costs or overall economic impact.

 

[tppt]

Apparently money no longer has any time value.

If you can explain how that is relevant for this issue, I'd love to hear it.

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

$/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.

I told you I was stoopid

 

[adonis]

To me, it's pretty clear that we're talking about cost of medical treatment over a lifetime. I'm not seeing how the study or the article is misleading.

There was one line that seemed a little misleading to me. When the researcher said something to the effect that we shouldn't use economic rationales for government policies to combat obesity. I think that's a bit misleading when the article mentions (but doesn't call any particular attention to) the fact that the study never addressed lost productivity.

They state it expressly. Should they have underlined and italicized the sentence?

They should have put it into the context of the argument the researcher was making instead of burying it at the end of the article. Imagine I was writing a story about Super Tuesday. I write 10 paragraphs about how Obama won more states and more delegates. I run a quote from someone saying "this proves that Hillary Clinton is no longer a viable candidate." Then at the very end of the article, i include a one sentence paragraph that says "Clinton won 8 states and captured a slight majority of the popular vote."

I think that would be a misleading article.

Were you misled? If it wasn't obvious to you from the article that the study was limited to health care costs, I don't really know what to say. There are multiple references throughout the article (including the title of the article) that reference treatment costs as the focus of the study.

It's not that it was unclear that treatment costs were the focus of the study, what was unclear and misleading were the implications of the study.When you have a study on an issue important to the public, it's important to properly frame the results. Parts of the article properly framed the results, while other parts of the article expanded the implication of the results beyond what can be concluded from the results.

So again, it's not unclear that the study was dealing with treatment costs specifically, but it WAS unclear what the average, medium education level reader would take from the article. In my opinion, they would take that not only does it cost more to treat healthy people, but that government programs attempting to curb obesity or smoking should be rethought because this study seemed to indicate that healthy people actualy cost more.

I wasn't misled because I try to read precisely when it comes to journalists reporting scientific reports because stuff like this happens.

 

[bigbottom]

To me, it's pretty clear that we're talking about cost of medical treatment over a lifetime. I'm not seeing how the study or the article is misleading.

There was one line that seemed a little misleading to me. When the researcher said something to the effect that we shouldn't use economic rationales for government policies to combat obesity. I think that's a bit misleading when the article mentions (but doesn't call any particular attention to) the fact that the study never addressed lost productivity.

They state it expressly. Should they have underlined and italicized the sentence?

They should have put it into the context of the argument the researcher was making instead of burying it at the end of the article. Imagine I was writing a story about Super Tuesday. I write 10 paragraphs about how Obama won more states and more delegates. I run a quote from someone saying "this proves that Hillary Clinton is no longer a viable candidate." Then at the very end of the article, i include a one sentence paragraph that says "Clinton won 8 states and captured a slight majority of the popular vote."

I think that would be a misleading article.

Were you misled? If it wasn't obvious to you from the article that the study was limited to health care costs, I don't really know what to say. There are multiple references throughout the article (including the title of the article) that reference treatment costs as the focus of the study.

It's not that it was unclear that treatment costs were the focus of the study, what was unclear and misleading were the implications of the study.When you have a study on an issue important to the public, it's important to properly frame the results. Parts of the article properly framed the results, while other parts of the article expanded the implication of the results beyond what can be concluded from the results.

So again, it's not unclear that the study was dealing with treatment costs specifically, but it WAS unclear what the average, medium education level reader would take from the article. In my opinion, they would take that not only does it cost more to treat healthy people, but that government programs attempting to curb obesity or smoking should be rethought because this study seemed to indicate that healthy people actualy cost more.

I wasn't misled because I try to read precisely when it comes to journalists reporting scientific reports because stuff like this happens.

So none of us were misled, but the article is misleading to those who aren't as intelligent as we are.

 

[adonis]

To me, it's pretty clear that we're talking about cost of medical treatment over a lifetime. I'm not seeing how the study or the article is misleading.

There was one line that seemed a little misleading to me. When the researcher said something to the effect that we shouldn't use economic rationales for government policies to combat obesity. I think that's a bit misleading when the article mentions (but doesn't call any particular attention to) the fact that the study never addressed lost productivity.

They state it expressly. Should they have underlined and italicized the sentence?

They should have put it into the context of the argument the researcher was making instead of burying it at the end of the article. Imagine I was writing a story about Super Tuesday. I write 10 paragraphs about how Obama won more states and more delegates. I run a quote from someone saying "this proves that Hillary Clinton is no longer a viable candidate." Then at the very end of the article, i include a one sentence paragraph that says "Clinton won 8 states and captured a slight majority of the popular vote."

I think that would be a misleading article.

Were you misled? If it wasn't obvious to you from the article that the study was limited to health care costs, I don't really know what to say. There are multiple references throughout the article (including the title of the article) that reference treatment costs as the focus of the study.

It's not that it was unclear that treatment costs were the focus of the study, what was unclear and misleading were the implications of the study.When you have a study on an issue important to the public, it's important to properly frame the results. Parts of the article properly framed the results, while other parts of the article expanded the implication of the results beyond what can be concluded from the results.

So again, it's not unclear that the study was dealing with treatment costs specifically, but it WAS unclear what the average, medium education level reader would take from the article. In my opinion, they would take that not only does it cost more to treat healthy people, but that government programs attempting to curb obesity or smoking should be rethought because this study seemed to indicate that healthy people actualy cost more.

I wasn't misled because I try to read precisely when it comes to journalists reporting scientific reports because stuff like this happens.

So none of us were misled, but the article is misleading to those who aren't as intelligent as we are.

I have a background in science, and correct me if I'm wrong but you're a lawyer, and sweet j maybe, and scoobygang too, and MT as well?

I'd say all of us are pretty well above average in our understanding of facts and the clear conclusions we should or should not draw from them.

 

[Christo]

I'm seriously shuked as to how someone could read this article and conclude that it is misleading.

Apparently at FBG "misleading" now means the results don't jibe with my worldview.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

I'm seriously shuked as to how someone could read this article and conclude that it is misleading.

Apparently at FBG "misleading" now means the results don't jibe with my worldview.

New here?Addendum #4 of my plan will be to add ice cream to the food pyramid. The bottom of the food pyramid.

 

[scoobygang]

I'm seriously shuked as to how someone could read this article and conclude that it is misleading.

Apparently at FBG "misleading" now means the results don't jibe with my worldview.

Nothing in that article contrasted with my world view. I still think it was misleading in places.

 

[jonessed]

I'm going to eat at McDonald's today for the good of the country. Take that terrorists .

 

[Big Dumb Ape]

Anybody know if there's any correlation between health and income? Most of the people I know with the discipline to succeed professionally (and therefore pay a crapload more taxes) have the discipline to not become obese. I could be way off base here, but figured someone might know.

 

[jonessed]

To me, it's pretty clear that we're talking about cost of medical treatment over a lifetime. I'm not seeing how the study or the article is misleading.

There was one line that seemed a little misleading to me. When the researcher said something to the effect that we shouldn't use economic rationales for government policies to combat obesity. I think that's a bit misleading when the article mentions (but doesn't call any particular attention to) the fact that the study never addressed lost productivity.

They state it expressly. Should they have underlined and italicized the sentence?

They should have put it into the context of the argument the researcher was making instead of burying it at the end of the article. Imagine I was writing a story about Super Tuesday. I write 10 paragraphs about how Obama won more states and more delegates. I run a quote from someone saying "this proves that Hillary Clinton is no longer a viable candidate." Then at the very end of the article, i include a one sentence paragraph that says "Clinton won 8 states and captured a slight majority of the popular vote."

I think that would be a misleading article.

Were you misled? If it wasn't obvious to you from the article that the study was limited to health care costs, I don't really know what to say. There are multiple references throughout the article (including the title of the article) that reference treatment costs as the focus of the study.

It's not that it was unclear that treatment costs were the focus of the study, what was unclear and misleading were the implications of the study.When you have a study on an issue important to the public, it's important to properly frame the results. Parts of the article properly framed the results, while other parts of the article expanded the implication of the results beyond what can be concluded from the results.

So again, it's not unclear that the study was dealing with treatment costs specifically, but it WAS unclear what the average, medium education level reader would take from the article. In my opinion, they would take that not only does it cost more to treat healthy people, but that government programs attempting to curb obesity or smoking should be rethought because this study seemed to indicate that healthy people actualy cost more.

I wasn't misled because I try to read precisely when it comes to journalists reporting scientific reports because stuff like this happens.

So none of us were misled, but the article is misleading to those who aren't as intelligent as we are.

I have a background in science, and correct me if I'm wrong but you're a lawyer, and sweet j maybe, and scoobygang too, and MT as well?

I'd say all of us are pretty well above average in our understanding of facts and the clear conclusions we should or should not draw from them.

A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.Saul Bellow

 

[jonessed]

Anybody know if there's any correlation between health and income? Most of the people I know with the discipline to succeed professionally (and therefore pay a crapload more taxes) have the discipline to not become obese. I could be way off base here, but figured someone might know.

Maybe. They are also the people that can afford personal trainers, gym memberships, swimming pools, etc. I know a lot of successful fat people though.

 

[Big Dumb Ape]

Anybody know if there's any correlation between health and income? Most of the people I know with the discipline to succeed professionally (and therefore pay a crapload more taxes) have the discipline to not become obese. I could be way off base here, but figured someone might know.

Maybe. They are also the people that can afford personal trainers, gym memberships, swimming pools, etc. I know a lot of successful fat people though.

They're also the people that have the least free time, because they're busy working demanding careers. I used to not have a gym membership and be in great shape. Now I'm a member at 3 gyms and am in crappy shape. It's free to get up in the morning and go for a run, do some pushups and situps.

 

[Christo]

Anybody know if there's any correlation between health and income? Most of the people I know with the discipline to succeed professionally (and therefore pay a crapload more taxes) have the discipline to not become obese. I could be way off base here, but figured someone might know.

I'm a fat ******* and make a butt load of cash.

 

[adonis]

Anybody know if there's any correlation between health and income? Most of the people I know with the discipline to succeed professionally (and therefore pay a crapload more taxes) have the discipline to not become obese. I could be way off base here, but figured someone might know.

I'm a fat ******* and make a butt load of cash.

BTW, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for costing less for health care.

 

[Christo]

Anybody know if there's any correlation between health and income? Most of the people I know with the discipline to succeed professionally (and therefore pay a crapload more taxes) have the discipline to not become obese. I could be way off base here, but figured someone might know.

I'm a fat ******* and make a butt load of cash.

BTW, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for costing less for health care.

I'm always looking for ways to contribute.

 

[adonis]

Anybody know if there's any correlation between health and income? Most of the people I know with the discipline to succeed professionally (and therefore pay a crapload more taxes) have the discipline to not become obese. I could be way off base here, but figured someone might know.

I'm a fat ******* and make a butt load of cash.

BTW, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for costing less for health care.

I'm always looking for ways to contribute.

Have you had a smoke lately?

 

[Christo]

Anybody know if there's any correlation between health and income? Most of the people I know with the discipline to succeed professionally (and therefore pay a crapload more taxes) have the discipline to not become obese. I could be way off base here, but figured someone might know.

I'm a fat ******* and make a butt load of cash.

BTW, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for costing less for health care.

I'm always looking for ways to contribute.

Have you had a smoke lately?

Tobacco? No.