Skip to main content

Just look at the cost of obesity

The trend toward obesity throughout the world continues unabated.    Despite all the warnings and entreaties from health authorities to cut down on over-eating, not to eat the wrong foods and for people to exercise, people just don't want to listen let alone take some positive action to make themselves healthy.   And there is a material cost to the community to all of this apart from obesity itself giving rise to a multitude of health issues.  

The situation in America can readily be replicated in Canada, Australia, the UK, etc. etc.

"Obesity is among the biggest drivers of preventable diseases and health care costs in the United States. Estimates for these costs range from $147 billion to nearly $210 billion annually, with job absenteeism related to obesity costing another $4.3 billion annually.

In 2012, the Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation commissioned a modeling study which found that if obesity rates continue on their current trajectory, by 2030 combined medical costs associated with treating preventable obesity-related diseases could increase by between $48 billion and $66 billion per year. The loss in economic productivity could be between $390 billion and $580 billion annually.

Based on current trends, the nation would see a continued rise in the five most expensive conditions related to obesity: Type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease and stroke, hypertension, arthritis, and obesity-related cancers (among other health problems).

The study also found that if obesity trends fell as a result of reducing the average adult body mass index (BMI) by 5 percent, millions of Americans could be spared from serious health problems and the country could save $29.8 billion in five years, $158 billion in 10 years, and $611.7 billion in 20 years."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more