Junk food, fast food tax

[Duff Miver]

:mj07:

boy, you are so rich!

did you notice that the Slate piece had links to several influential peer review articles?

Check those articles citation histories! Very influential peer review articles.

I also posted the Slate piece because it discusses these issues in a manner the lay audience here would understand better than links to a bunch of technical abstracts.

"Slate" has decidedly a different in reputation than Glenn Beck anyway, what a comparison:mj07:

I had a post on all this back in 2009.

The CBO issued a letter (warning pdf) a few months after my post (great minds think alike!) pointing out how most all preventative health programs will increase, not decrease, US health care costs.

again (tho I really shouldn't have to point it out!) look at the articles cited by the CBO from The New England Journal of Medicine, American Diabetes Association, and so on. The testimony of researchers from American Cancer Society and such...

Duff, all this reminds me of another post of yours I almost forgot to respond to...

And from that letter -

Another
recent study estimated that the annual medical burden of obesity is now almost
10 percent of all medical spending and, specifically, that Medicare and Medicaid
spending would be about 10 percent lower in the absence of obesity.

Your source confirms: Obesity costs money. Is that not what I said?

Thanks for proving my point and have another 16" pizza supreme.:facepalm:

 

[Trench]

Even if it were true the gluttons costs taxpayers money in increase health costs (which, it turns out, they don't)

Duff, haven't you heard?

Obesity's not a problem in the U.S. because fat people are jolly, guns don't kill -- people do, tax cuts for the wealthy create jobs, climate change is a hoax, Wall Street was hoodwinked by regulators who let them get away with their Ponzi schemes and killing brown people around the world keeps us "safe". :0003

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Proof is in the pudding--
The very people I spoke of that need gov to run their lives and detest anyone that leads productive life on their own merits-

Once again you have the Troll brothers The Tramp-Trench-and Muffins who travel in their little 3 some pack in every thread promoting ever entitlement and tax increase known to mankind--

They love that gov tit--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXqFS7ReAK0&feature=related

 

[hedgehog]

They love that gov tit--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXqFS7ReAK0&feature=related

:0002 :0002 :0002

 

[Terryray]

jeeze Muff, you are so rich :0074

1 - ya didn't bother to post the very next two sentences after quote you had:

However, the article also noted, "The extent to which greater use of obesity treatments would reduce spending in either the short or the long run remains unknown. The same is true for prevention. Many successful obesity prevention efforts are likely to be cost-effective ? but not cost saving [emphasis mine]. From a public health perspective, ? these interventions may still be worth pursuing."

that's even more caveats and "ifs" and "buts" than you normally see in such papers!


2 - The paper CBO and you cite is that same Finkelstein piece that comes under some criticism from experts as noted in the article from Slate. Do a MEDLINE search on citations from that paper and you'll see plenty of the sort of criticism that fully justified the Finkelstein's caveats...

Here's another fine study (from National Institute for Public Health and the Environment,The Netherlands--an independent agency of the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport.)

CONCLUSIONS: 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.

 

[Duff Miver]

jeeze Muff, you are so rich :0074

1 - ya didn't bother to post the very next two sentences after quote you had:

However, the article also noted, "The extent to which greater use of obesity treatments would reduce spending in either the short or the long run remains unknown. The same is true for prevention. Many successful obesity prevention efforts are likely to be cost-effective ? but not cost saving [emphasis mine]. From a public health perspective, ? these interventions may still be worth pursuing."

that's even more caveats and "ifs" and "buts" than you normally see in such papers!


2 - The paper CBO and you cite is that same Finkelstein piece that comes under some criticism from experts as noted in the article from Slate. Do a MEDLINE search on citations from that paper and you'll see plenty of the sort of criticism that fully justified the Finkelstein's caveats...

Here's another fine study (from National Institute for Public Health and the Environment,The Netherlands--an independent agency of the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport.)

CONCLUSIONS: 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.

So we should restore lead to gasoline and paint, encourage smoking and drug use, eliminate helmet and seatbelt laws, pass out free full auto weapons, eliminate speed limits and stop signs, use more asbestos and mercury, and ban sunscreen, because those things will result in more early deaths and hence lower overall healthcare costs?

That is your position, is it not?

Personally I prefer abortion on demand, which is the most health-care-cost-effective program of all. Well..... just behind condoms.

15 minutes of medical intervention before birth saves many dollars in later health care costs, eh?:0074

 

[Trench]

So we should restore lead to gasoline and paint, encourage smoking and drug use, eliminate helmet and seatbelt laws, pass out free full auto weapons, eliminate speed limits and stop signs, use more asbestos and mercury, and ban sunscreen, because those things will result in more early deaths and hence lower overall healthcare costs?

That is your position, is it not?

Personally I prefer abortion on demand, which is the most health-care-cost-effective program of all. Well..... just behind condoms.

15 minutes of medical intervention before birth saves many dollars in later health care costs, eh?:0074

You've been reading the Republican Party handbook again, haven't you Duff?

Your synopsis of Republican Healthcare Reform is spot on... :toast:

The Republican Party -- Where life begins at conception and ends at birth.