![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ebonypearl) wrote2008-02-05 07:02 am
Fat People Have Lower Medical Bills
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1709882,00.html
The Netherlands' National Institute for Public Health and the Environment led a study on the lifetime costs of obesity, smoking, or being skinny and healthy, and determined that skinny, healthy people actually cost more medically than either the obese or the smoker.
Life expectancy is the lowest among smokers, who lived an average of 77 years. Both the obese and the skinny lived 80 or more years. But even then, the age spread isn't that great - the skinny, healthy people lived on average only 84 years - a difference of a mere 7 years between the shorter lived smokers and the healthy skinny people. On an individual basis, that's hardly any time at all.
My mother was a 3 pack-a-day smoker for 70 years. She died of an MRSE in her mid-80's when she went to the hospital to treat dehydration from a stomach virus. It's a crap-shoot, who lives and who dies, and it's a crap shoot we each face on our own. What society does to try to change that does nothing more than add to our public expense without making any real difference on the bottom line of life.
The skinny healthy group of people cost an average of $417,000 during their adult lives. The obese cost a mere $371,000 in comparison.
Both the smokers and the obese tended to die of inexpensive ailments (diabetes, lung disease), and were sick for a shorter period of time than the skinny healthy people. The skinny healthy people tended to get expensive to treat strokes, Alzheimer's, and digestive diseases.
It costs more to fund weight loss and anti-smoking campaigns than it does to treat the illnesses of overweight or smoking.
Societally, to save public funds, we should let people smoke, drink, and eat as they will. It's cheaper.
Just think - no more wasting money for the War on Obesity. No more spending funds on discriminating against people based on their appearance, or making school children feel bad about themselves. No more anti-smoking campaigns. No more spending funds on segregating people based on their habits, or making them feel like pariahs in public.
All those savings could be set aside to fund the expensive health care of the skinny people, who cost more in health care.
no subject
This is past protecting the "health" of non-smokers, and into punishing smokers for having a habit that the antis have made socially stigmatized.
no subject
And I agree that most laws against smokers have gone too far - there are places where it isn't even allowed to smoke inside your own home, let alone in your own yard. They act as if even homeopathic doses (and we all know just how minute that is) are lethal.
When it was just businesses complying with customer requests, long before it was law, there was sensibility in handling it. Non-smokers didn't hang out where the smokers were, and smokers refrained from smoking when hanging out with their non-smoking friends and family members. No one abused anyone over it, or forced smokers from their desks to a small back room to outside to nowhere at all because there's room in this world for all of us to engage in enjoyable activities. I'd say "enjoyable legal activities" but anymore just about everything is illegal - can't smoke, can't be fat, can't be ugly, can't dress confortably...can't just live your own life without others getting all offended by it.
no subject
This is past protecting the "health" of non-smokers, and into punishing smokers for having a habit that the antis have made socially stigmatized.
Agreed. New Mexico has recently gone that route (well, almost; still allowed to smoke outside, at least 25 feet from a door), and I feel for those who are craving and can't light up. I don't want to be too close to someone who's smoking, but it always seemed sufficient to put a wall or a wide enough space between the two groups. It's just crazy -- no one seems willing to compromise, anymore.
.
no subject
Agreed!