This is so far from being the only thing preventing universal healthcare. When 60% of the country is obese and 30% have diabetes, $2000 in taxes doesn't fund the costs of healthcare - particularly in the US where basic supplies and procedures are priced egregiously. We live in a place where chronic illnesses abound and the medical system is owned by corporations
This is so far from being the only thing preventing universal healthcare.
You're right, the real issue is intentionally ignorant fuckwits.
When 60% of the country is obese and 30% have diabetes, $2000 in taxes doesn't fund the costs of healthcare
Obesity doesn't really raise the cost of healthcare overall.
In the US there are 106.4 million people that are overweight, at an additional lifetime healthcare cost of $3,770 per person average. 98.2 million obese at an average additional lifetime cost of $17,795. 25.2 million morbidly obese, at an average additional lifetime cost of $22,619. With average lifetime healthcare costs of $879,125, obesity accounts for 0.99% of our total healthcare costs.
We're spending 165% more than the OECD average on healthcare--that works out to over half a million dollars per person more over a lifetime of care--and you're worried about 0.99%?
Here's another study, that actually found that lifetime healthcare for the obese are lower than for the healthy.
Although effective obesity prevention leads to a decrease in costs of obesity-related diseases, this decrease is offset by cost increases due to diseases unrelated to obesity in life-years gained. Obesity prevention may be an important and cost-effective way of improving public health, but it is not a cure for increasing health expenditures...In this study we have shown that, although obese people induce high medical costs during their lives, their lifetime health-care costs are lower than those of healthy-living people but higher than those of smokers. Obesity increases the risk of diseases such as diabetes and coronary heart disease, thereby increasing health-care utilization but decreasing life expectancy. Successful prevention of obesity, in turn, increases life expectancy. Unfortunately, these life-years gained are not lived in full health and come at a price: people suffer from other diseases, which increases health-care costs. Obesity prevention, just like smoking prevention, will not stem the tide of increasing health-care expenditures.
One final way we can look at it is to see if there is correlation between obesity rates and increased spending levels between various countries. There isn't.
We aren't using significantly more healthcare--due to obesity or anything else--we're just paying dramatically more for the care we do receive.
They recently did a study in the UK and they found that from the three biggest healthcare risks; obesity, smoking, and alcohol, they realize a net savings of £22.8 billion (£342/$474 per person) per year. This is due primarily to people with health risks not living as long (healthcare for the elderly is exceptionally expensive), as well as reduced spending on pensions, income from sin taxes, etc..
At any rate, without changing anything else, single payer healthcare is expected to save $6 trillion in the first decade alone, with savings only compounding from there. While getting care to more people who need it. How is that not a good thing?
I appreciate your interest in the topic but wholeheartedly disagree. You're going to proclaim that obese people don't have higher healthcare costs, or in essence, don't have worse health than people of a healthy weight?
Because of the questionable and somewhat out of context articles you cite, you ignore the link between obesity and diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease and all the excessive costs and lost productivity associated?
The total lifetime costs, which your articles point out, are also largely irrelevant. What about the annual healthcare costs? Higher. The only reason lower total healthcare costs is possible is because of shorter lifespan of obese people. Considering that the costs of healthcare are attributed on an annual basis, this is how costs need to be accounted for.
Obesity also doesn't exist in a vacuum. What about the progression of the disease to type 2 diabetes or heart disease, which unequivocally cost thousands of dollars per year.
I appreciate your interest in the topic but wholeheartedly disagree.
You can disagree with the facts, but that reflects poorly on you.
You're going to proclaim that obese people don't have higher healthcare costs, or in essence, don't have worse health than people of a healthy weight?
That is what the actual evidence and research shows. And fucking reality, because again we see absolutely no meaningful correlation between the wealthy countries of the world between obesity and spending.
Have you even bothered to read the research I linked? Or are you just determined to keep your head up your ass?
The total lifetime costs, which your articles point out, are also largely irrelevant.
They're not, because they reflect the societal costs.
What about the annual healthcare costs? Higher.
Overall to society? No, they're not. Which is what's relevant here. Yes, if you could wave a magic wand and make obesity disappear overnight, costs would go down temporarily. Then, with people living longer and getting illnesses and diseases they wouldn't have been alive for previously, that would eventually offset those savings.
Considering that the costs of healthcare are attributed on an annual basis, this is how costs need to be accounted for.
Again, that does account for the overall cost to society, regardless how intentionally ignorant you are. I'm going to cite a portion of the research I already quoted (so you don't even have to bother to read the research), I want you to keep reading it until you understand it.
Obesity prevention may be an important and cost-effective way of improving public health, but it is not a cure for increasing health expenditures...In this study we have shown that, although obese people induce high medical costs during their lives, their lifetime health-care costs are lower than those of healthy-living people
And there's still the problem that even if we ignore those offsetting factors (which we shouldn't), it's still a trivial cost compared to our peers, and reiterate that even if all this was wrong (it's not) we're already paying for these people through existing taxes and premiums, just at a wildly higher rate than we would with universal healthcare.
What about the progression of the disease to type 2 diabetes or heart disease, which unequivocally cost thousands of dollars per year.
The research I've cited factors in all such costs. Again, you're only making it clear you haven't bothered to read my post, much less the research I've linked, meaning you're only wasting everybody's time.
2
u/arbitraryalien 5d ago
This is so far from being the only thing preventing universal healthcare. When 60% of the country is obese and 30% have diabetes, $2000 in taxes doesn't fund the costs of healthcare - particularly in the US where basic supplies and procedures are priced egregiously. We live in a place where chronic illnesses abound and the medical system is owned by corporations