Besides the voluminous amount of references to Ronald Reagan, the only topic that unites the GOP more is their abhorrence for First Lady Michelle Obama's nutrition program "Let's Move" and her vegetable garden. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney recently derided the White House for making Americans eat "organic cake," while Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann cited anti-obesity efforts as the first step towards "a nanny state." However, the "fiscally conservative" Republican Party fails to realize that efforts to fight obesity not only lead to a healthier society, but to stronger national and state budgets.
There is no group that articulates the dangers of reigning in deficit and specifically healthcare spending like the Grand Old Party. Despite ignoring these very same concerns when the Bush Administration passed Medicare Part D, Republicans have voiced their outright opposition to Obamacare as "fiscal insanity." Yet, if the GOP were truly serious on combating healthcare costs, they would be leading the charge in the anti-obesity campaign.
In the debate over lowering healthcare prices and premiums, no single item could lower costs more than improving the American diet. By 2018, an obese patient will pay an average of $8,315 in medical bills a year, while a fit patient will pay an average of $5,855 over the same period. This $2,440 annual difference in expenses can hardly be considered pocket change. With the United Health Foundation's projection of a 43% obesity rate in the next decade, the United States will soon be allotting $344 billion in obesity-related medical expenses. This amount has already doubled what it was a decade ago.
Chairman of the Department of Health Policy and Management at Emory University, Kenneth Thrope contends, "Obesity is going to be a leading driver in rising health-care costs." Great increases in obesity-related cases of diabetes, hypertension, gallstones, arthritis, and heart disease have proven to be symbolic for this health and financial epidemic. As Reed Tuckson of the United Health Foundation surmises, "There is a tsunami of chronic preventable disease about to be unleashed into our medical-care system which is increasingly unaffordable."
As the federal deficit continues to increase with the American waistline, so do state budgets. The average state spends $2.27 billion annually in obesity-related expenses from skyrocketing Medicare and Medicaid costs. One can only expect these costs to rapidly increase in the near future. By the end of the decade, Colorado will be the only state with an obesity rate below 30%. States such as Oklahoma, Mississippi, Maryland, Kentucky, Ohio, and South Dakota could boast a rate higher than 50%. Cities across the Union are also suffering a similar challenge with obesity. America's ten largest cities on average suffer $50 million in direct costs from obesity-related diseases per 100,000 residents.
Unfortunately, the "weight" of these costs is being unevenly distributed to those on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum. In Utah, 25% of the population earning less than $25,000 are obese. While of those making over $75,000, only 10% are found to be overweight. Consequently, those who are least capable of affording the increase in medical expenses are the most likely to be paying for them. After examining these expenses on national, state, and city level medical costs, Republicans should be standing in line to help build the vegetable garden with Michelle Obama.
In identifying solutions to this human and financial problem, one cannot help but ironically be reminded of the old Reagan adage, "the truth is, there are simple answers, they just are not easy ones." The American Heart Association correctly identifies the two core inhibitors of a healthy American society. The first is that of food consumption. Americans eat too much, while still unfortunately not acquiring enough nutrition. The American diet needs to decrease in the former and improve upon the latter. As a society that has increasingly gravitated towards eating out at usually more unhealthy restaurants than partaking in healthier home cooked meals, this problem has proven to be more systematic. However, there is no factor more important in correcting these habits than education. The United States must significantly introduce and improve upon its educational curriculum in teaching students and parents on the value of healthy choice.
As a society we do not necessarily make and promote easy healthy eating habits. One of the main problems related to this matter is the sheer cost of healthy foods. University of Washington Professor Dr. Adam Drewnowski illustrated this problem in identifying the buying power of a hypothetical dollar at a supermarket in terms of purchasing healthy and unhealthy foods. The study soon found that this hypothetical dollar could purchase over 1,000 calories of cookies or potato chips, but just 250 calories of carrots. Dr. Drewnowski also discerned that this same dollar amount could purchase 900 calories of soda, but just 170 calories of orange juice.
Finally, in an era where we continue to push our students to complete new and an ever-expanding amount of standardized tests, time must continue to be allocated for physical activity and fitness. In the long run, improving fitness scores will prove equally as important as improving math and science scores. With the average youth spending around 45 hours of week on some form of media entertainment, schools must concentrate ever more on physical fitness in the days of 21st century technology.
Whether we are discussing national security or deficit spending, today's political emphasis always seems to be placed on protecting our children and the next generation from these impending threats. However, obesity has and will continue to produce more deaths in this country than any perceived Osama Bin-Laden terrorist plot. Fiscally, obesity has and will continue to enlarge government and healthcare spending to an unimaginable height. In light of these circumstances, Republicans should change Mrs. Obama's slogan of "Let's Move" to "Let's Move Now."
Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson: Fiscal Follies: Is Slamming the Brakes on Spending Such a Good Idea?
Doug Schoen: Democrats' Part D Opportunity
Like a French revolution in reverse, those others will fiercely demand that you deny their children the healthy upbringing, a safe environment, access to truth, and even the chance of a good job. I therefore implore you to apply the idealism and energy of your youth to not just one small piece of this fight for the nation's future but to the whole of it. Find what it is that makes some of us so self destructive and to wish it upon all of our children. Find it and find the means of stopping it before it seems to you like it does to some of us that it may already too late. Thank you.
The program promoting healthy diet is fine - but since food stamps for needy families have been cut, it becomes a choice between filling foods that are cheaper so the stamps will last a full month or healthy choices of fresh fruits and vegetables, lean meats that are much more expensive. Low-income children can get free breakfasts and lunches at school - but what about the evening meal, the week-ends, the school holidays?
Due to higher fuel costs, groceries are becoming more expensive. Plus, many schools have cut the classes in physical education and then there is the lure of the video games, the computers, Facebook, and other goodies that keep a kid glued to a chair once he/she gets home.
Does anyone think that potato chips are as healthy as carrots? Really? I think we have the education, just not the will. I suppose if the state is going to cover whatever people do to their own health it had better step in on what they can eat as well.
Time is what rarely gets discussed. (if a person had to work two jobs each day, or job and college, they are not going to have the same amount of time as somebody with the increasingly-rare "full time job with no other responsibilities".)
People screwed up by chiropractors, car accidents, and the like can end up with life-altering issues as well.
Not to mention that excessive levels of stress increases cortisol production, which also leads to more abdominal fat.
The whole of fitness is always centered around diet and glib generalizations about exercise. Rarely is every facet of our society discussed. But why bother to look at how our society is structured and what its demands are? One-liner generalizations do a lot more to feel good and to neatly bury the issue while making some convenient targets of blame. A half-tangent, I remember when the news commented on the increase of "road rage", but like with most issues it's easier to sweep it under the carpet and make a few generalizations (and even scapegoats as a convenient bonus, too.)
And, by the way, if you eat potatoes, don't skip the butter. Buy real full fat butter & it will slow the body's ability to break down those potatoes into glucose, thereby blunting the spikes insulin resistant folks will have from potatoes.
I understand you are a student, perhaps run your work past a faculty member next.
Wordy, poor grammar and syntax, lacks organization. Most of all, lacks documentation for the assertions made.
Just because Mr. Bendetson is a student does not make him a poor writer. I think the article above proves that he is capable of making an original argument on food costs, analyzing the economic effects, and turning those effects into policy suggestions and partisan conclusions.
Next time, instead of being trite and ripping a talented kid, you should actually read the article and provide to the discussion, rather than comment on the banner underneath the author's name.
Now, that Michelle Obama proposes an anti-obesity campaign, Republicans criticize the idea.
Since that horrible word called "life" was shoehorned in, one could easily infer such mandates or regulations.
Besides, if conservatives talk about power grabs and staying out of peoples' lives, why do they discuss abortion, people being gay, and other issues, and wanting to impose their way on everyone else? Shouldn't it work both ways? Abortion obviously has to do with "life", but since you're saying there should be no regulations or mandates for quality of life, then it should be the same for life. You're the "conservative", so you tell us what's allowed to have a double standard and what's not.
Having said all that, assuming the parents have the money to buy the proper food, and time to cook it, they have a part to play in getting children to eat right as well. But in this new-normal economy where everyone is too busy getting more education, multiple part-time wastrel jobs, and so on, McSlop is here to stay. I suppose the speculators will say we should all buy some McStock...
That is one issue but, in general it is a great way to attack our health issues from multiple angles putting a short and long term impact with real numbers.
Healthy food is expensive - and for those attempting to survive on the Food Stamp Program, it is considerably more difficult. Higher fat ground beef and less lean meats, high sodium quick meals (canned or frozen), cheaper oleo, and cheese. Yet these are the affordable foods.