weight loss and its issues

Post Reply New Topic

Ok, for the last time.

You claim that obesity alone does not cost money.

I have stated that this is not correct - obesity alone does cost money and I have provided examples which demonstrate that this is the case.

That is the point that I was making and your repeated efforts to change the subject serve only to show that you are unable to admit that you are wrong.

you can keep asserting your flimsy point, but the bottom line is that every group costs extra money when studied in isolation. obese people don't cost any more that any other group that you can cherrypick. you could mak the same argument that every single group costs the taxpayers money for specialised services. check your hem, your bias is showing.

I don't see how not wanting people to be obese is some strange bias.

I have a feeling you have weight issues your self friend. because your at times getting overly defensive of the subject.

We can debate about this forever, the fact remains that nobody wants to be obese, just as nobody wants to be viewed as unattractive.

no, i actually don't. but they are one of the few groups that people feel as though they can fairly discriminate against and hate on. it's kind of sick.


there is nothing actually *wrong* with them, so it is indeed a strange bias.


wrong and... wrong. many people are perfectly happy being obese. i am afraid you're viewing it through your skewed view of it being lesser. i thought we got past that, and that you understood they may not be interested in working towards YOUR goals. not everyone finds muscles attractive.

Tell me how disagreeing with a statement you made, and supplying facts to support my position is "bias"?

What is even more strange is that in the exchange in which I have been accused of bias, I didn't express any opinion about obesity itself. I provided information about the costs of obesity in direct response to a claim made by Hyperlexian.

once again... you are cherrypicking statistics. let me do the same:

elderly people are costing extra money for specialised services:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361028/

uh oh, look how much autistic people cost:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/02/pf/autism/index.htm

children cost money too:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16131769

the point is that all of these groups are included in the total health care costs. the costs associated with any one of them can be pulled out and waved around as somehow costing "extra" money, but who decides what is "regular" and what is "specialised" care? you?

i really hope that this clears it up for you.

you also said this:


your bias is clear. nice try, though

Wow!

You really can't comprehend what you're reading.

Either that, or you're all hem and your bias is so big that you just can't see past it!

MY reading comprehension skills are definitely not the issue behind your unwillingness to grasp the point.

i do have a bias, and it is based on factual evidence and not anecdotal nonsense. i have posted several studies on the thread but they are mostly ignored in favour of imitating ostriches.

just an FYI... obese people actually cost the health system LESS than average people, so i think we can throw in a couple of supersized wheelchairs, no?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall ... ems-money/

Bias is defined in my dictionary as "an inclination to favour or disfavour certain people or things, esp a personal prejudice".

I'd like you to tell me how you feel I have displayed bias, and against whom or what, in the post you've quoted here.

I will admit to favouring acceptance of personal responsiblity for one's actions, and when I wrote this post one of the key issues on my mind was that many obese people prefer to attribute their excess weight to factors outwith their control, rather than to those matters which they could do something about, ie, diet and exercise.

Actually, the video you linked to a day or so ago, makes that same point.

Last edited by Marcia on 20 Jul 2012, 8:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Ok, I think my non-comprehension of your accusations against me of bias is down to the fact that we clearly have a radically different understanding of what constitutes bias.

The author of the article you've linked to in support of your position chooses to use the term "lardbucket" when refering to obese individuals, and he goes on to speak of "the visual pollution of someone 300 lbs overweight". Personally, I find such terminology to be derogatory, prejudiced and demeaning, maybe even biased, but you seem to consider him to be a more neutral observer and commentator than I am and so have more faith in what he has to say.

So, setting aside my own bias against people who use such offensive language, I had a look at what else he has to say.

His starting point is that "unhealthy behaviours reduce costs to health care systems", and they do so because they result in a "shortened lifespan". Indeed, he argues that if such unhealthy behaviours were positively encouraged by subsidies, then health services would benefit financially.

He bases his argument on a study based on data from The Netherlands which showed that "until age 56 years, annual health expenditure was highest for obese people." However, "lifetime health expenditure was highest among healthy-living people".

So, by his argument, it would have been financially more prudent for public services in Wales to have left morbidly obese Georgia Davis in her home to die - at the time of her £100,000 rescue it was estimated that she would have died within days without assistance. After all, it would have been easier and cheaper to remove her corpse than her living self, and the funeral expenses would be met by her family and the local authority, not the health service. And of course, once she was dead, there would be no cost to the health service at all! As the article you link to concludes, "those who die young save health care systems money, not cost."

While is undoubtedly is true - dead people don't require medical attention - I would rather see taxes and National Insurance being spent on helping Georgia and others like her, than them being left to die because it's cheaper, and I would much rather see public money spent on helping people avoid situations like Georgia's and be able to lead longer, healthier, albeit in the long-run more costly to the health care system, lives.

That said, it remains the case that increasing rates of obesity result in increasing costs, at least while that growing group is alive, and it also remains the case that not all costs associated with obesity are borne by the health service.

Edited to add: I don't think the fact that obese people have shorter lives, and are less healthy during those shorter lives, is good news really. Maybe it depends on which you value more - people or money.

ahhhhh so now you are adding conditions. well, the fact remains that the majority of those costs are in fact for health problems like diabetes and high blood pressure which are correlated with some obese people but not caused by it. if a large number f obese people are healthy over time (about 40%), then obesity itself is not the cause of those health problems.


http://suewidemark.freeservers.com/why- ... leibel.htm

also, the health costs promoted by the CDC and requoted frequently have been proven inaccurate:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/healthcar ... dstats.htm


this is a bias, not borne out by research. all you have to do is read the studies that have been posted in this thread to see that. i noticed you didn't have a comment on the youtube video and list of items causing obesity that are NOT within a person's control. it has been shown that the factors outside a person's control may account for the majority of the factors that a person is obese, yet you still carry this bias that it all boils down to "personality responsibility".