http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080205/ap_on_he_me/obesity_cost

LONDON - 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.

-----------

Click the link for the full story.

I don't buy it.

I don't treat healthy people.

How do they rack up 100s of thousands in hospital bills being healthy, in the difference of life expectancy? When a typical stay in my ICU for being obese, or having COPD(from smoking), will cost you(I mean US) 300K just for a week.

The study or article does not say.

How do healthy people cost the healthcare system in the first place? Respective that this article and study state they cost MORE.

All of my patients are obese, smokers, non compliant, or just old. With a few genetic defectives and alcoholics needing detoxing thrown in for good variety and fun. You don't pay me to treat healthy people.

I don't buy it.
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.
"Lung cancer is a cheap disease to treat because people don't survive very long," van Baal said. "But if they are old enough to get Alzheimer's one day, they may survive longer and cost more."
Also note that various pension plans and Social Security experienced problems when they discovered that they didn't have enough money to cover people because their plans were based on tables created when many people smoked and died earlier.

Again, in any case, my prior augment was that the people with weight problems need help, not condemnation. If you wish to blame people for their problems rather than see they need help, you will do so.

Blaming the victim is the American way, after all. As I stated once before, they really don't want to be fat, they just don't know how to control themselves. Therapy and behavior modification help, along with nutrition and changing the US policy of subsidizing companies to make cheap high fat, high sugar (high fructose corn syrup), high salt foods might help.

But it is much easier to blame them than to decide that it is a public health problem that needs to be handled as a medical problem. Much easier to just say they are weak, lazy people, than to try to understand why they have problems and help them overcome them.

The last time the US government decided to try to do something about poverty was when LBJ was president. Since then, no one cares and just blames the victims. Sure, some of the policies that LBJ created made things worse.

But no one has studied the issues, looked at what worked and what didn't, and decided to spend the money needed to deal with it. Instead, the worst failures were exploited for political reasons and as "proof" that it is all the fault of the poor and the liberals that money was spent and didn't "cure" poverty, so therefore, all attempts will fail, so just cut the funds and buy more weapons.

So instead of funding programs to help these people get therapy to fix their behavior, let's just cut off all money for their health care. Maybe they will just die and leave all the "good" people to live in utopia.

Funny, that hasn't worked yet. They just keep breeding. Of course, cutting funding for birth control, teaching only abstinence in schools and nothing else, and restricting abortion is not exactly going to help. But hey, the corporations need drones to work at low paying jobs and buy cheap Chinese crap. Uneducated voters are needed to vote for someone who has proven they couldn't manage a McDonalds, never mind the worlds most powerful nation.

Rant done, carry on. Be sure to flame me for my "wacko" views. Truth hurts.

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.

I think you also have to consider that obese people have less years at work than the healthy people. If you can add extra years to both your working life and your pension life through being healthy then hopefully we will see some balance.

Exactly, Anka.

All of my obese patients have been on Disability for years, or decades.


And fat people are NOT victims. Get that out of your noggin right now Fanra.

Sure, some of the policies that LBJ created made things worse.

What ever LBJ, or FDR, or both combined did to affect our healthcare system has not EVEN come close to what Ronald Reagan did when he signed EMTALA into law.

We have Universal Healthcare right now because of Ronald REAGAN.

I think you also have to consider that obese people have less years at work than the healthy people. If you can add extra years to both your working life and your pension life through being healthy then hopefully we will see some balance.
I'm sure there are lots of factors that need to be considered.

And, yes, it makes sense that healthier people will work more and contribute more to society.

I just posted this to point out that not everything is cut and dried. There are many factors involved.

Again, to use the example of less smoking, it certainly cut down on lung cancer and other diseases that cost us money. But it also means people live longer and hurt pension plans and Social Security.

I just saw the study and decided to post it as an example that not everything has easy answers and simple solutions. You can blame fat people for high health costs but you have to also credit them for lower Social Security costs, because they don't live as long. Are the health costs so high that they are greater than the health costs of the elderly and higher Social Security costs? I don't know.

In any case, isn't the cheapest answer, in the long run, to pay for therapy for these people to help them stop being fat? As I said, who wants to be fat? Almost no one. Therefore, they are doing actions that hurt them and they know it. They need advice and training on how to deal with problems. Yes, there will always be some people who can not be helped. But you would be surprised at how many can be, if the will and money is there to help.

And fat people are NOT victims. Get that out of your noggin right now Fanra.
They are victims of their own minds, if nothing else.

So, all these fat people you treat tell you they WANT to be fat?

What ever LBJ, or FDR, or both combined did to affect our healthcare system has not EVEN come close to what Ronald Reagan did when he signed EMTALA into law.

We have Universal Healthcare right now because of Ronald REAGAN.
No, we have Universal Emergency Care right now because of the EMTALA.

If you can't see the difference between Universal Emergency Care and Universal Health Care, then no wonder you can't see logically.

What Fyrr is getting at and I see his point, is this was a simulated survey. They basically crunched numbers based on cancer rates, heart disease rates and so on and to come up with those numbers, and I also would assume things like the cost assciated with bi annual physicals and such. Also, I would wonder about things like inflation and also health care costs in other countries as well.

Afterall, a patient in a third world country or something where the costs of a lung cancer treatments might be less costly( in a manner, afterall 300k or so dollars there would be more around a couple million here). I think Fyrr and I would rather see factual data, on real patients, unsimulated and see the cost asscociated with such lifestyles in an even environment. That might be more interesting to read about. Fyrr's point is typically "healthy" people do not go to hospitals, or health care providers as much. And when they do they are generally injured or small things like colds, fevers, and such like that, but, those often inflict the smokers and obese people.

The study groups point they are trying to make is a smoker will typically live like a healthy person more or less, but, die earlier than a healthy person, and will not typically live to see very expensive diseases like Alzeimer's and things like that, and live with those illnesses for years, instead opting out for the relatively cheaper option of dying of lung cancer, while pricey most certainly, but, generally a quick killer.

No, we have Universal Emergency Care right now because of the EMTALA.

If you can't see the difference between Universal Emergency Care and Universal Health Care, then no wonder you can't see logically.

You are wrong.

You can go to the Emergency Room of any hospital in the country, for ANY ailment you have.

If you are really sick, you will be admitted, and treated.

If you just need anti biotics for your bladder infection, you can get that. And don't have to pay for it.

If you have tummy ache, and need pepto bismol, you can go to the ER, and get free treatment. You can even get an ambulance to take you. Never have to pay anything.

I work in a hospital. I know.
y friends use the ERs of all the local hospitals as their primary care. They go whenever they want, and are ALWAYS treated. NONE of them EVER pays for their treatments.

NEVER, ever, has any of them EVER been NOT treated, been not provided healthcare.

We have UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE.

You don't even have to be an American. You can still be wet from crossing the Rio Grande, and we will treat you. It is the law.

The Emergency Room is no longer just for emergencies. Most people treated in ERs are not in any form, in any sense, in an emergency. Emergency Rooms provide primary care for most of their patients.

They are victims of their own minds, if nothing else.

So, all these fat people you treat tell you they WANT to be fat?
Usually, almost always.
They are passive aggressive. Have an enabler, usually a stay at home daughter.
They have an extremely, almost unnatural, low tolerance for pain.
They are whiny and needy and starving for attention.

All learned behaviors.

Now Madie, who is in the same line of work, and decades more experience than myself, may disagree with me telling you, confiding in you, these things. But she will not tell you that I am wrong.

I will say the truth when it is politically incorrect, even if it hurts my overall arguments. I will tell you the truth.

To wit, as a male, I am usually assigned to the obese patients over other female nurses.
And many of the nurses I work with are ****ing fat too.

but you have to also credit them for lower Social Security costs, because they don't live as long.

They live on Social Security. They don't cost less.

I don't know where you live. But go into your local WalMart. See all those fat people, taking up Blue spots up in front of the parking lot, riding around on WalMart provided scooters(ostensibly for honest to goodness handicapped people), while they are shopping, and stuffing their faces. Those are who we are talking about. They are too lazy to walk.

And I will say, that your acceptance, our acceptance of being fat. Our wanting to not appear mean or politically incorrect. Is EXACTLY one of the largest reasons why we have so many morbidly obese people in the first place. Being fat needs to be made socially unacceptable again. And your coddling them will not help them, it will only enable them to continue their fat ways.

It is Intervention time. Put the fried chicken down, fatsos. Step away from the bucket of potato salad and cheesecake.

very expensive diseases like Alzeimer's
With respect.

That is not an expensive disease.
Partly because we really have nothing to treat it.

We do have some memory enhancing drugs for it, but all they do is extend and prolong the deterioration time. Those are expensive because the huge cost of RnD, FDA overhead, legal overhead. And its not just that they are not a cure, they don't even work on the disease process. You and I could take them, and we would notice the enhanced memory effects.

Diabetes is expensive, especially when brought on by obesity. That is an expensive long drawn out disease process. One of the first thing that goes for a Diabetic are the kidneys. When that happens, a person has to go on dialysis. Hemodialysis is usually done 3 times a week, and costs the system about 5K a week. I don't know what the cost of peritoneal dialysis is, but sure it is less than that.

5K a week, for years. You get your calculator out, and figure out that cost.

Edit: I still would like to see a lot of work done in the area of what Pan suggested years ago. That there is a connection between glucose and dementia and AD. I find that a very plausible hypothesis.

Wow!! I mean just Wow!! Thank you Fanra for giving me something to read!! Yeah umm... so much to think about. I agree the study is not perfect. I would like to see a study like Pan suggested - it would be a good thing I think.

I miss Tudamorf... his comments here would be.... well unique :)

And Fyyr... it's no secret that ICU nurses are fat ;) Especially those of us who worked nights for years!! How many times do people bring in food? Nightly? We used to have chips and salsa every night and at least once a week we would have some sort of "theme" night where everyone brought in a dish - lol.

ost nurses I know are co-dependant people who thrive on stress and "helping others." We relieve our stress with eating - or least those of us in the Midwest. Maybe in Calif there are more healthy ways of relieving stress. Mostly I see the older nurses get heavy by eating and the younger nurses get drunk - heh.

I read that a few days ago. It made me chuckle.

My Mom would have been considered "healthy". Slim, no diabetes, exercised regularly. But at the end of her life she required nearly 2 years in a nursing home. My Dad on the other hand was pretty overweight and died in 4 days after having what was probably a stroke.

I think the difference is it takes someone healthy a lot longer to die and yet you're debilitated during that process. Whereas people in lousy health just do it and get it over with.

Also, I heard the author of this study and he said they didn't take into account lost worker productivity.