View Full Version : Slate: Should the government pay you to lose weight?
http://www.slate.com/id/2179078/?gt1=10733
medical examiner
Penny a Pound
Should the government pay you to lose weight?
By Jake Halpern
Posted Tuesday, Dec. 4, 2007, at 7:53 AM ET
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Gianluca Buonanno is the slightly overweight mayor of the town of Varallo,
which is situated in the pastoral foothills of the Italian Alps. Buonanno
says he could stand to lose about 13 pounds and, in his estimation, so
could many of his neighbors. And so, not long ago, Buonanno made an
official proclamation in which he promised to pay his fellow townspeople
cash to slim down. Townsmen would receive 50 euros (about $74) if they lost
9 pounds in a month; townswomen would get that same amount for shedding 7
pounds. What's more, if participants managed to keep the weight off for
five solid months, they each stood to gain an additional 200 euros ($295).
"Lots of people are saying, 'I really need to lose some weight but it's
really tough,' " explained Buonanno. "So I thought, why don't we go on a
group diet?"
Before you write this off as a stunt, consider the possibility that Mayor
Buonanno has stumbled on a way to save billions of dollars in health-care
costs and throw a lifeline to millions of overweight Americans. The
increasingly dire numbers are familiar: Currently, roughly 65 percent of
Americans are either overweight or obese, which is an increase from 56
percent in 1994 and 46 percent in 1980. People who are obese or overweight
often suffer from a range of medical problems. According to a study in
Health Affairs, the average annual cost of treating an obese person is
$1,244 more than the cost of treating a healthy-weighing person. Obesity
also leads to more lost work time . The typical American company with 1,000
employees pays a total of $277,000 per year for the medical expenditures
and absenteeism caused by obesity.
Could the answer to this problem really be paying people to eat less and
exercise more? According to Dr. Eric Finkelstein, author of the forthcoming
book The Fattening of America, the answer is most definitely yes. This
fall, Finkelstein published a study involving 207 overweight or obese
people who wanted to lose weight. They were randomly broken into three
groups. One group was offered $14 for every 1 percent reduction in body
weight over the course of three months; another group was offered just $7;
and a control group nothing at all. On average, members of the $14 group
lost 5 pounds, members of the $7 group lost 3 pounds, and members of the
control group lost just 2. Finkelstein says that the most persuasive data
concerned the participants who shed 5 percent of their body weight, which
is generally considered to be the threshold for real health benefits. The
members of the $14 group were four times more likely to hit this marker
than the control group. The beauty of this, insists Finkelstein, is that it
is so cost-effective for insurers or employers. "If people aren't losing
weight and hitting their targets, then you're not paying," he says. "You
are only paying for success."
In truth, the results of Finkelstein's study aren't entirely surprising.
Incentives of this kind can be quite effective. (Check out this defense of
giving students cell phones as an incentive to do well in school.) A number
of studies have shown that financial incentives, when they are directly
linked to the achievement of goals, can be remarkably effective in getting
people to change their behavior—even when potent addictions are involved.
One of these studies, conducted by professor Stephen Higgins, director of
the Substance Abuse Treatment Center at the University of Vermont, was
designed to get pregnant women to quit smoking. There were two test groups,
and the women in both received a weekly stipend and a number of pamphlets
outlining the dangers that smoking posed.
There was one crucial difference. The women in the first group were
rewarded on a pay scale so that, for each week they abstained from smoking,
they were given a raise. If their urine tests indicated a relapse, they
were knocked back to the bottom of the pay scale. Meanwhile, the women in
the second group were paid a flat rate regardless of whether or not they
abstained. On average, the women in both groups ended up earning roughly
the same amount—$300 to $400 worth of vouchers—but the behavioral outcomes
were quite different. The women in the first group were almost five times
more likely to quit smoking.
Why would women quit smoking for less than $100 dollars a month, when
what's really at stake is the health of their babies? The answer, Higgins
says, is about timing. People who are trapped in an unhealthy relationship
with something that makes them feel good—whether it is cocaine, cigarettes,
gambling, or eating—often focus on immediate gratification and short-term
payoffs to the exclusion of everything else. One famous study asked heroin
addicts and nonaddicts to tell a story by completing the following
sentence: "I woke up this morning and I thought about the future and I
thought ..." On average, nonaddicts described a future that was 4.7 years
away, whereas the addicts described a future that was just nine days away.
The key to changing behavior triggered by this type of short-term mindset
may not be to push a longer-term view but to provide an alternative payoff
scheme that is also immediate. And this is exactly what Finkelstein and
Higgins managed to do.
One of the main criticisms of programs like theirs is that participants may
relapse once the money runs out. Undoubtedly, in some cases this is quite
true, but there are two points to consider. Somewhere along the line, the
long-term benefits kick in. When successful dieters and ex-smokers begin to
feel better as they skip up a flight of stairs or chase after their kids,
this reward may sub in for the payouts they're no longer getting. In
addition, the reward system can be structured to offer long-term benefits.
Mayor Buonanno, for example, offered his townspeople a big payoff if they
hit a five-month goal. Employers or insurers could do the same
thing—quarterly or yearly payoffs for employees who maintain a healthy body
weight.
One of the main obstacles to such efforts is that employers and insurers
are often reluctant to make long-term investments in employees. The average
tenure of an American employee is just four years. The disincentives this
creates for companies raises the question of whether state or local
governments should follow Mayor Buonanno's lead. Indeed, this is a mayor
who may have a great deal to teach us. His other social initiatives include
a plan to supply the good people of Varallo with Viagra. "Ensuring the
wellbeing of one's fellow citizens also means making sure they have the
possibility of a serene sex life," the mayor has declared. Ahh, to be
Italian.
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Abby wrote:
> Gianluca Buonanno is the slightly overweight mayor of the town of Varallo,
> which is situated in the pastoral foothills of the Italian Alps. Buonanno
> says he could stand to lose about 13 pounds and, in his estimation, so
> could many of his neighbors. And so, not long ago, Buonanno made an
> official proclamation in which he promised to pay his fellow townspeople
> cash to slim down. Townsmen would receive 50 euros (about $74) if they lost
> 9 pounds in a month; townswomen would get that same amount for shedding 7
> pounds. What's more, if participants managed to keep the weight off for
> five solid months, they each stood to gain an additional 200 euros ($295).
> "Lots of people are saying, 'I really need to lose some weight but it's
> really tough,' " explained Buonanno. "So I thought, why don't we go on a
> group diet?"
Is that 50 euros to lose 9 lbs, or 50 euros for each 9 lbs block lost?
That is, if someone lost 18 lbs, do they get 100 euros, or still only 50?
I know I COULD lose weight, I've done it before. But as soon as I stop
"dieting" and start living again, it just comes right back. Diets are
hard work, you are constantly hungry, and you eat food that is foreign to
you... It's torture, but the only way to keep it off is to keep up the
diet.
Sure, pay me $74, I'll lose 9 lbs... Give me $295 more, I'll keep itoff
for 5 months. But I promise you, I'll stop dieting as soon as your check
clears, and it will come right back.
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Abby wrote:
> Before you write this off as a stunt, consider the possibility that Mayor
> Buonanno has stumbled on a way to save billions of dollars in health-care
> costs and throw a lifeline to millions of overweight Americans. The
> increasingly dire numbers are familiar: Currently, roughly 65 percent of
> Americans are either overweight or obese, which is an increase from 56
> percent in 1994 and 46 percent in 1980. People who are obese or overweight
> often suffer from a range of medical problems. According to a study in
> Health Affairs, the average annual cost of treating an obese person is
> $1,244 more than the cost of treating a healthy-weighing person. Obesity
> also leads to more lost work time . The typical American company with 1,000
> employees pays a total of $277,000 per year for the medical expenditures
> and absenteeism caused by obesity.
Lets take a look at the above statistics, and run some actual math...
65% of Americans are over weight or obese. This almost matches a previous
figure that 1/3rd of Americans have a "normal" BMI. The other statistic I
mention further breaks down the remaining population, saying that 1/3rd
are overweight, and 1/3rd are obese. I will use the 1/3rd break down for
each population segment.
For a company of 1,000 employees, that means that 333 people have a
"normal" BMI, 333 people are over weight but not obese, and 333 are obese,
with 1 extra person randomly assigned to a group. For argument sake, he's
skinny.
333 obese employees, at $1,244 worth of additional health costs above
"normal" population segment per person, is $414,252 total.
Yet American companies are seeing $277,000 worth of medical related
problems AND time off work. That's only 67% of the $414,252 figure, when
it should be more (the $277,000 includes time off work, while the $414,252
does not).
The numbers don't match, so there is a basic problem here... Assuming
both the $1,244 per person, and the $277,000 figures are correct, the
problem must be in the number of obese people.
$277,000 in additional medical costs, at $1,244 per person, makes 222.6
people, so lets call it 223 (you cannot have .6 of a person). That means
that out of 1,000 employees, only 22.3% of them are obese, for the figures
to work out.
Less then 1/4th of the population would therefore be obese, not 1/3rd.
Either the obesity "problem" isn't as bad as the AMA says it is, or the
medical cost of obesity is not as bad as the AMA says it is. Either way,
the AMA is full of crap.
That is not true for low carbers.
The Master wrote:
| Diets are hard work, you are constantly hungry, and you eat food that
| is foreign to you...
Abby wrote:
> http://www.slate.com/id/2179078/?gt1=10733
>
> medical examiner
> Penny a Pound
> Should the government pay you to lose weight?
> By Jake Halpern
> Posted Tuesday, Dec. 4, 2007, at 7:53 AM ET
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
> Gianluca Buonanno is the slightly overweight mayor of the town of Varallo,
> which is situated in the pastoral foothills of the Italian Alps. Buonanno
> says he could stand to lose about 13 pounds and, in his estimation, so
> could many of his neighbors. And so, not long ago, Buonanno made an
> official proclamation in which he promised to pay his fellow townspeople
> cash to slim down. Townsmen would receive 50 euros (about $74) if they lost
> 9 pounds in a month; townswomen would get that same amount for shedding 7
> pounds. What's more, if participants managed to keep the weight off for
> five solid months, they each stood to gain an additional 200 euros ($295).
> "Lots of people are saying, 'I really need to lose some weight but it's
> really tough,' " explained Buonanno. "So I thought, why don't we go on a
> group diet?"
>
> Before you write this off as a stunt, consider the possibility that Mayor
> Buonanno has stumbled on a way to save billions of dollars in health-care
> costs and throw a lifeline to millions of overweight Americans. The
> increasingly dire numbers are familiar: Currently, roughly 65 percent of
> Americans are either overweight or obese, which is an increase from 56
> percent in 1994 and 46 percent in 1980. People who are obese or overweight
> often suffer from a range of medical problems. According to a study in
> Health Affairs, the average annual cost of treating an obese person is
> $1,244 more than the cost of treating a healthy-weighing person. Obesity
> also leads to more lost work time . The typical American company with 1,000
> employees pays a total of $277,000 per year for the medical expenditures
> and absenteeism caused by obesity.
>
> Could the answer to this problem really be paying people to eat less and
> exercise more? According to Dr. Eric Finkelstein, author of the forthcoming
> book The Fattening of America, the answer is most definitely yes. This
> fall, Finkelstein published a study involving 207 overweight or obese
> people who wanted to lose weight. They were randomly broken into three
> groups. One group was offered $14 for every 1 percent reduction in body
> weight over the course of three months; another group was offered just $7;
> and a control group nothing at all. On average, members of the $14 group
> lost 5 pounds, members of the $7 group lost 3 pounds, and members of the
> control group lost just 2. Finkelstein says that the most persuasive data
> concerned the participants who shed 5 percent of their body weight, which
> is generally considered to be the threshold for real health benefits. The
> members of the $14 group were four times more likely to hit this marker
> than the control group. The beauty of this, insists Finkelstein, is that it
> is so cost-effective for insurers or employers. "If people aren't losing
> weight and hitting their targets, then you're not paying," he says. "You
> are only paying for success."
>
> In truth, the results of Finkelstein's study aren't entirely surprising.
> Incentives of this kind can be quite effective. (Check out this defense of
> giving students cell phones as an incentive to do well in school.) A number
> of studies have shown that financial incentives, when they are directly
> linked to the achievement of goals, can be remarkably effective in getting
> people to change their behavior—even when potent addictions are involved.
> One of these studies, conducted by professor Stephen Higgins, director of
> the Substance Abuse Treatment Center at the University of Vermont, was
> designed to get pregnant women to quit smoking. There were two test groups,
> and the women in both received a weekly stipend and a number of pamphlets
> outlining the dangers that smoking posed.
>
> There was one crucial difference. The women in the first group were
> rewarded on a pay scale so that, for each week they abstained from smoking,
> they were given a raise. If their urine tests indicated a relapse, they
> were knocked back to the bottom of the pay scale. Meanwhile, the women in
> the second group were paid a flat rate regardless of whether or not they
> abstained. On average, the women in both groups ended up earning roughly
> the same amount—$300 to $400 worth of vouchers—but the behavioral outcomes
> were quite different. The women in the first group were almost five times
> more likely to quit smoking.
>
> Why would women quit smoking for less than $100 dollars a month, when
> what's really at stake is the health of their babies? The answer, Higgins
> says, is about timing. People who are trapped in an unhealthy relationship
> with something that makes them feel good—whether it is cocaine, cigarettes,
> gambling, or eating—often focus on immediate gratification and short-term
> payoffs to the exclusion of everything else. One famous study asked heroin
> addicts and nonaddicts to tell a story by completing the following
> sentence: "I woke up this morning and I thought about the future and I
> thought ..." On average, nonaddicts described a future that was 4.7 years
> away, whereas the addicts described a future that was just nine days away.
> The key to changing behavior triggered by this type of short-term mindset
> may not be to push a longer-term view but to provide an alternative payoff
> scheme that is also immediate. And this is exactly what Finkelstein and
> Higgins managed to do.
>
> One of the main criticisms of programs like theirs is that participants may
> relapse once the money runs out. Undoubtedly, in some cases this is quite
> true, but there are two points to consider. Somewhere along the line, the
> long-term benefits kick in. When successful dieters and ex-smokers begin to
> feel better as they skip up a flight of stairs or chase after their kids,
> this reward may sub in for the payouts they're no longer getting. In
> addition, the reward system can be structured to offer long-term benefits.
> Mayor Buonanno, for example, offered his townspeople a big payoff if they
> hit a five-month goal. Employers or insurers could do the same
> thing—quarterly or yearly payoffs for employees who maintain a healthy body
> weight.
>
> One of the main obstacles to such efforts is that employers and insurers
> are often reluctant to make long-term investments in employees. The average
> tenure of an American employee is just four years. The disincentives this
> creates for companies raises the question of whether state or local
> governments should follow Mayor Buonanno's lead. Indeed, this is a mayor
> who may have a great deal to teach us. His other social initiatives include
> a plan to supply the good people of Varallo with Viagra. "Ensuring the
> wellbeing of one's fellow citizens also means making sure they have the
> possibility of a serene sex life," the mayor has declared. Ahh, to be
> Italian.
>
>
>
in the context of this post why not?
Our" government spends billions on corporate welfare.
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, The Master <tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>
wrote:
>On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Abby wrote:
>
>>Before you write this off as a stunt, consider the possibility that Mayor
>>Buonanno has stumbled on a way to save billions of dollars in health-care
>>costs and throw a lifeline to millions of overweight Americans. The
>>increasingly dire numbers are familiar: Currently, roughly 65 percent of
>>Americans are either overweight or obese, which is an increase from 56
>>percent in 1994 and 46 percent in 1980. People who are obese or overweight
>>often suffer from a range of medical problems. According to a study in
>>Health Affairs, the average annual cost of treating an obese person is
>>$1,244 more than the cost of treating a healthy-weighing person. Obesity
>>also leads to more lost work time . The typical American company with 1,000
>>employees pays a total of $277,000 per year for the medical expenditures
>>and absenteeism caused by obesity.
>
>Lets take a look at the above statistics, and run some actual math...
>
>65% of Americans are over weight or obese. This almost matches a previous
>figure that 1/3rd of Americans have a "normal" BMI. The other statistic I
>mention further breaks down the remaining population, saying that 1/3rd
>are overweight, and 1/3rd are obese. I will use the 1/3rd break down for
>each population segment.
>
>For a company of 1,000 employees, that means that 333 people have a
>"normal" BMI, 333 people are over weight but not obese, and 333 are obese,
>with 1 extra person randomly assigned to a group. For argument sake, he's
>skinny.
>
>333 obese employees, at $1,244 worth of additional health costs above
>"normal" population segment per person, is $414,252 total.
>
>Yet American companies are seeing $277,000 worth of medical related
>problems AND time off work. That's only 67% of the $414,252 figure, when
>it should be more (the $277,000 includes time off work, while the $414,252
>does not).
>
>The numbers don't match, so there is a basic problem here... Assuming
>both the $1,244 per person, and the $277,000 figures are correct, the
>problem must be in the number of obese people.
>
>$277,000 in additional medical costs, at $1,244 per person, makes 222.6
>people, so lets call it 223 (you cannot have .6 of a person). That means
>that out of 1,000 employees, only 22.3% of them are obese, for the figures
>to work out.
>
>Less then 1/4th of the population would therefore be obese, not 1/3rd.
>Either the obesity "problem" isn't as bad as the AMA says it is, or the
>medical cost of obesity is not as bad as the AMA says it is. Either way,
>the AMA is full of crap.
Are you able to read? One figure is citing the extra cost of treating an
obese person annually, the other figure is how much obesity costs
companies. One is not like the other.
Fat = Stupid.
>> One of the main criticisms of programs like theirs is that participants may
>> relapse once the money runs out. Undoubtedly, in some cases this is quite
The program should be designed to give the desired incentives, which
may be harder than it sounds.
- If you aren't careful, you will reward yo-yo dieting. For example,
if you don't reward the people who aren't overweight, but you do
reward people who are overweight but lose weight, it is more
profitable for those near their goal to alternately lose and gain
a couple of pounds to get the reward half of the time. This could
also be accomplished by alternating wearing heavy and light clothing
and shoes and contents of pockets without actually alternately
gaining and losing weight.
(Income taxes also do this. You might be close to being able to
itemize deductions. With careful timing of when you pay deductible
expenses, you can get some deduction beyond the standard deduction
every OTHER year, rather than getting the standard deduction every
year.)
- If you reward only someone meeting a weight goal (but don't reward
losing towards that goal), the very overweight are so far from a
reward (it may take them several years at the maximum safe rate to
lose weight) they'll ignore the possibility, and possibly get very
pissed off at the Big Brother aspects of the program which will not
benefit them in the forseeable future.
- A lot of the money may be spent on people who weren't overweight in
the first place, but you want to avoid encouraging them to gain weight
to the high end of healthy, then yo-yo.
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Molly wrote:
>>> According to a study in
>>> Health Affairs, the average annual cost of treating an obese person is
>>> $1,244 more than the cost of treating a healthy-weighing person. Obesity
>>> also leads to more lost work time . The typical American company with 1,000
>>> employees pays a total of $277,000 per year for the medical expenditures
>>> and absenteeism caused by obesity.
<<snip>>
> Are you able to read? One figure is citing the extra cost of treating an
> obese person annually, the other figure is how much obesity costs
> companies. One is not like the other.
Ever hear of a self insured company before? The American companies that
self insure will have "medical expenditures". A company that uses an
insurance company will not have direct "medical expenditures" now will
they? If the story didn't mean "medical expenditures", they should not
have used the words "medical expenditures".
> Fat = Stupid.
And skinny means retarded?
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Hollywood <maxlharris@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 6, 9:34 am, The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Abby wrote:
>> > Before you write this off as a stunt, consider the possibility that Mayor
>> > Buonanno has stumbled on a way to save billions of dollars in health-care
>> > costs and throw a lifeline to millions of overweight Americans. The
>> > increasingly dire numbers are familiar: Currently, roughly 65 percent of
>> > Americans are either overweight or obese, which is an increase from 56
>> > percent in 1994 and 46 percent in 1980. People who are obese or overweight
>> > often suffer from a range of medical problems. According to a study in
>> > Health Affairs, the average annual cost of treating an obese person is
>> > $1,244 more than the cost of treating a healthy-weighing person. Obesity
>> > also leads to more lost work time . The typical American company with 1,000
>> > employees pays a total of $277,000 per year for the medical expenditures
>> > and absenteeism caused by obesity.
>
>> Less then 1/4th of the population would therefore be obese, not 1/3rd.
>> Either the obesity "problem" isn't as bad as the AMA says it is, or the
>> medical cost of obesity is not as bad as the AMA says it is. Either way,
>> the AMA is full of crap.
>
>Apples and oranges, neither of which allow you to build a strawman.
>
>Where'd you go astray? You're assuming that the company pays all of
>the
>cost of treatment, which is not the case unless they have old school
>in house insurance, which nearly no one has at this point in time. The
>typical
>1000 person company has a group plan, with the insurer covering a
>portion
>of the costs.
>
>Thanks for building it. It took me a minute to figure why your numbers
>didn't
>add.
>
>The second number, the $831/ obese employee at our theoretical 1000
>person
>company could be entirely from absenteeism. Given that at least one
>study
>has found a 5 hour/week additional productivity loss to absenteeism
>and work
>slowdown among employees at BMI >27, we can safely use 1 hour/week as
>the deadweight loss and call ourselves conservative. If we break out
>$831 over
>50 pay weeks, at 1 hour per week, we're looking at a pay rate of
>$16.62/hour.
>Not exactly minimum wage, but not exactly Warren Buffet either. It's
>an
>annual income of $33,240, which is not exactly exorbitant. And
>remember, this
>was our conservative estimate. Meanwhile, they boosted the insurance
>company (for other reasons, I hope it was Kaiser) for an extra $400K.
>And those
>of us not obese get to pick up the slack in the next round of rate
>increases.
>
>Before you say that I said that shouldn't happen, we're talking a
>large shift in
>the risk pool here, not an individual event. Apples and oranges, which
>you
>love to erroneously compare. On wonders at cognitive difficulties.
"The Master" is not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer. Of course,
the fat acceptors view him as some kind of genius.
On 7 Dec 2007 01:48:13 -0000, molly334@gmail.com (Molly) wrote:
>On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, The Master <tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>
>wrote:
>>On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Abby wrote:
>>
>>>Before you write this off as a stunt, consider the possibility that Mayor
>>>Buonanno has stumbled on a way to save billions of dollars in health-care
>>>costs and throw a lifeline to millions of overweight Americans. The
>>>increasingly dire numbers are familiar: Currently, roughly 65 percent of
>>>Americans are either overweight or obese, which is an increase from 56
>>>percent in 1994 and 46 percent in 1980. People who are obese or overweight
>>>often suffer from a range of medical problems. According to a study in
>>>Health Affairs, the average annual cost of treating an obese person is
>>>$1,244 more than the cost of treating a healthy-weighing person. Obesity
>>>also leads to more lost work time . The typical American company with 1,000
>>>employees pays a total of $277,000 per year for the medical expenditures
>>>and absenteeism caused by obesity.
>>
>>Lets take a look at the above statistics, and run some actual math...
>>
>>65% of Americans are over weight or obese. This almost matches a previous
>>figure that 1/3rd of Americans have a "normal" BMI. The other statistic I
>>mention further breaks down the remaining population, saying that 1/3rd
>>are overweight, and 1/3rd are obese. I will use the 1/3rd break down for
>>each population segment.
>>
>>For a company of 1,000 employees, that means that 333 people have a
>>"normal" BMI, 333 people are over weight but not obese, and 333 are obese,
>>with 1 extra person randomly assigned to a group. For argument sake, he's
>>skinny.
>>
>>333 obese employees, at $1,244 worth of additional health costs above
>>"normal" population segment per person, is $414,252 total.
>>
>>Yet American companies are seeing $277,000 worth of medical related
>>problems AND time off work. That's only 67% of the $414,252 figure, when
>>it should be more (the $277,000 includes time off work, while the $414,252
>>does not).
>>
>>The numbers don't match, so there is a basic problem here... Assuming
>>both the $1,244 per person, and the $277,000 figures are correct, the
>>problem must be in the number of obese people.
>>
>>$277,000 in additional medical costs, at $1,244 per person, makes 222.6
>>people, so lets call it 223 (you cannot have .6 of a person). That means
>>that out of 1,000 employees, only 22.3% of them are obese, for the figures
>>to work out.
>>
>>Less then 1/4th of the population would therefore be obese, not 1/3rd.
>>Either the obesity "problem" isn't as bad as the AMA says it is, or the
>>medical cost of obesity is not as bad as the AMA says it is. Either way,
>>the AMA is full of crap.
>
>Are you able to read? One figure is citing the extra cost of treating an
>obese person annually, the other figure is how much obesity costs
>companies. One is not like the other.
>
>Fat = Stupid.
>
>
Molly = idiot
Idiot = not human = loss of humanity/selfish/self serving
====USELESS...
LV
"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank."
---Sympathy for the Devil-The Rolling Stones
--------------------------------------------
"A fanatic cannot change his mind and will not
change the subject."
---Winston Churchill
----------------------------------------------
On 7 Dec 2007 20:35:04 -0000, molly334@gmail.com (Molly) wrote:
>On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Hollywood <maxlharris@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Dec 6, 9:34 am, The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>
>>wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Abby wrote:
>>> > Before you write this off as a stunt, consider the possibility that Mayor
>>> > Buonanno has stumbled on a way to save billions of dollars in health-care
>>> > costs and throw a lifeline to millions of overweight Americans. The
>>> > increasingly dire numbers are familiar: Currently, roughly 65 percent of
>>> > Americans are either overweight or obese, which is an increase from 56
>>> > percent in 1994 and 46 percent in 1980. People who are obese or overweight
>>> > often suffer from a range of medical problems. According to a study in
>>> > Health Affairs, the average annual cost of treating an obese person is
>>> > $1,244 more than the cost of treating a healthy-weighing person. Obesity
>>> > also leads to more lost work time . The typical American company with 1,000
>>> > employees pays a total of $277,000 per year for the medical expenditures
>>> > and absenteeism caused by obesity.
>>
>>> Less then 1/4th of the population would therefore be obese, not 1/3rd.
>>> Either the obesity "problem" isn't as bad as the AMA says it is, or the
>>> medical cost of obesity is not as bad as the AMA says it is. Either way,
>>> the AMA is full of crap.
>>
>>Apples and oranges, neither of which allow you to build a strawman.
>>
>>Where'd you go astray? You're assuming that the company pays all of
>>the
>>cost of treatment, which is not the case unless they have old school
>>in house insurance, which nearly no one has at this point in time. The
>>typical
>>1000 person company has a group plan, with the insurer covering a
>>portion
>>of the costs.
>>
>>Thanks for building it. It took me a minute to figure why your numbers
>>didn't
>>add.
>>
>>The second number, the $831/ obese employee at our theoretical 1000
>>person
>>company could be entirely from absenteeism. Given that at least one
>>study
>>has found a 5 hour/week additional productivity loss to absenteeism
>>and work
>>slowdown among employees at BMI >27, we can safely use 1 hour/week as
>>the deadweight loss and call ourselves conservative. If we break out
>>$831 over
>>50 pay weeks, at 1 hour per week, we're looking at a pay rate of
>>$16.62/hour.
>>Not exactly minimum wage, but not exactly Warren Buffet either. It's
>>an
>>annual income of $33,240, which is not exactly exorbitant. And
>>remember, this
>>was our conservative estimate. Meanwhile, they boosted the insurance
>>company (for other reasons, I hope it was Kaiser) for an extra $400K.
>>And those
>>of us not obese get to pick up the slack in the next round of rate
>>increases.
>>
>>Before you say that I said that shouldn't happen, we're talking a
>>large shift in
>>the risk pool here, not an individual event. Apples and oranges, which
>>you
>>love to erroneously compare. On wonders at cognitive difficulties.
>
>
>"The Master" is not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer. Of course,
>the fat acceptors view him as some kind of genius.
>
Come into the light. It will only hurt for a minute.
LV
"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank."
---Sympathy for the Devil-The Rolling Stones
--------------------------------------------
"A fanatic cannot change his mind and will not
change the subject."
---Winston Churchill
----------------------------------------------
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
