Cash for Fatties

We've seen the success of the Cash for Clunkers program. I'd like to see the administration go forward with a program called Cash for Fatties.

According to a recent report from the Trust for America's Health (TFAH) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), the Top 5 states that have the highest percentage of overweight people are all Republican red states. In fact in the Top 10 ranking of most overweight states, only Michigan (ranked 8) and Ohio (tied for 10th) are the only blue states among a field of red.

Here is the report.

Basically, people in the thinner and mostly bluer states are paying for the healthcare costs of all of the uninsured and Medicare covered individuals in these red states. It's no secret that the more overweight a person is, the greater likelihood that his/her medical costs increase. Thus, the blue states in which we want a public option, are paying the costs of the red states where they oppose it.

Therefore, here's what I propose. The government should institute a program in which people are paid to lose weight. You can only register for this program if it is determined that you are heavily overweight. If you enroll in a weight loss program like Weight Watchers, (the gov't will pay for it whether you have health insurance or not) and lose a significant amount of weight, the gov't will pay you a fee. If you keep the weight off after 6 months or a year, the gov't will give you an additional payment.

I guarantee medical costs will drop for these individuals. In addition the cost on the system by everyone else will also decrease.

Comments

[Mesma]

Are you sure you can spare this money?

Drug addicts (the ones the doc doesn't give you), alcoholics, etc, seem to be thinner than average. So even if you could slim people down, you'd need more rehab, mental institution and probably prison cells to house them.

I don't think you'd make a profit even if you didn't pay fat people.

[FatNSassy]

What a ridiculous argument. The author should be embarrassed if she was not being factitious. (The writing was not good enough to tell.) In the first place, the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation acts in the interest of pharma giant Johnson & Johnson who makes money of many weight loss ventures. (You know J&J, the company that sued the Red Cross!!!) The RWF will stoop as low as possible to make a buck off fat people. Furthermore, Weight Watchers has a huge recidivism rate. Most people who go on it gain their weight back and more because dieting makes you fatter. That is why Susie Orbach, former eating disorder therapist for Lady Di wants a class action suit against Weight Watchers and I couldn't agree more.

Far from cost going down, cost would go up as yo-yoing contributes to diabetes, heart disease and a whole host of other medical conditions. A large percentage of fat people have already tried Weight Watchers, and it has only made them fatter. What's more, dieting even before pregnancy increases the chance of low birth weight babies that will develop heart disease, obesity, and diabetes later on in life.

This article is an embarrassment to the Huffington Post! And we wonder why this country is in the mess it is in. Look no further than journalist who would rather make a buck than dig for the truth!

"I have never had a problem with my weight that wasn't caused by other people!"

[Alabama John]

A BETTER WAY -- PAY ALL WHO ARE HEALTHY

Over 90% of illness is caused by a high fat diet, our processed food 50% fat all American diet.

So what do you think would happen if government gave everyone $2,000 worth of healthy low fat food each year -- if they had no medical expenses? Guess what, half the junk food industry and most hospitals would go bankrupt.

For we now give to the medical industry over $8,000 each year for every man, woman and child in America.

For most of those with poor health are not obese, and a high fat diet does a whole lot more damage to the mind and body then just add fat to the belly.

Wendy has the right idea, but if you give fat people free money while they are fat, then surely they will just get all the more fat.

[truthfan]

So - no healthy food for you if you got knocked over by a drunk driver? Or had to be treated for parasites?

And if you're poor and you need medical care you put it off while the condition gets worse, so that you qualify for your free food. By which time the condition needs more extensive and expensive attention.

Hmmm. This is not the answer.

By the way, a LOW-fat diet makes people more cantankerous. It's a matter of getting adequate all-round nutrition while not going over your caloric requirements.

NO ONE is suggesting fat people get free money! Wendy is suggesting they get some help with attending to their health.

[Alabama John]

EAT NOTHING PROCESSED BY MAN OR ANIMAL

Over 90% of illness is caused by a high fat diet, the average American diet being 50% fat, 40 protein and only 10 complx carbohydrates. Comes now the solution:

(1) A law that would give every adult with perfect health $2,000 a year to spend on healthy unprocessed food. It would take money away from the medical industry,

(2) Food served in public schools to be nothing processed by man or animal. No processed food, dairy products or dead flesh.

(3) Food stamps and other free food purnished by government to be nothing processed by man or animal.

(4) Tax processed food industry in direct proportion to the amount of harm they cause to our health.

[truthfan]

What qualifies as "perfect health"? Does anyone have such a thing?

And when you say "processed", how unprocessed would it have to be for you to be satisfied? Can it be washed? Can it even be picked off the plant? Can it be peeled, cut, crushed or ground in any way? Must it be raw? Can it be mixed with other foods? I mean, how far do you go with this?

How do you determine exactly "how much" harm each product causes, and thus place them on a scale of taxation? After all, even among scientists with no axe to grind, there's not agreement on such matters. And think how long it would take to apportion each item a level of harm!

[Wendy Kirsner]

Ok, I'm sure I will benefit in the future, but somehow I keep losing out! I am skinny, I am vegan, I do my best to help the environment, I have an economical car that's paid for, I recycle, I pay my debts, and I got laid off. How come only the fat, gas guzzling, excessively in debt people get to refinance to a 2% loan, $4500 for their clunkers and now money to lose weight???? And I have to keep paying for it! Where is my rebate?

[Alabama John]

Because it would save you and the government more then it would cost.

We are unable to compete in a global economy because our healthcare costs are more then double those of any other nation. Surely GM builds cars in Canada for this reason.

Over 90% of illness in America is caused by a high fat diet. So give $2,000 worth of unprocessed food each year to every adult who has perfect health, you included,, and half of hospitals would go bankrupt.

[truthfan]

The reason US healthcare is twice as expensive as anywhere else has nothing to do with there being very few vegans or vegetarians. There are very few in the civilized countries, where there is universal healthcare. (Try finding more than one in the whole of France, for instance!)

See, the fundamental difference between the US and the civilized countries is not diet, it's that the civilized countries have guaranteed universal healthCARE (not cover).

[truthfan]

Why would hospitals go bankrupt if you gave food to people who stay away from hospitals anyway?

If you think the problem is diet, you need to give the healthy food to the people who DO use the hospitals, thus rendering them healthy and so eliminating the need for their hospital visits. THAT would be more likely to drive hospitals bankrupt.

[bighat]

Which cost the nation more? Long life or life shortened by food,drink, and smoke.

[truthfan]

That probably depends on what you mean by "long life". If it is a healthy life, then the burden to the public purse will be low.

If someone lives a shorter life, that’s often because they had multiple chronic illnesses that needed a lot of medical attention and cost a lot of money – such people are also much more likely to lack health insurance and so much more likely to be treated in the most expensive way – via ER.

So, even from a purely economic point of view, it is better for people to be healthier. It also leads to a longer working life and less absenteeism. And a healthier body very often means a healthier mind, too, so healthier people tend to be assets to society, no matter what their age.

[noneIn2008]

The cigarette companies have previously published the studies showing smoking reduces overall health care and retirement costs to a nation because it shortens life at the highest cost years. You still get the working years and payments to social security, but smoking significantly cut short the retirement years. Smokers subsidize non smokers retirement plans.

[markg1956]

Tax veggie burgers, gym memberships, and alfalfa sprouts. If your going to live longer on
Social Security you're have to pay.

[sunnybunny]

As for the program proposal, I like it. I would definitely participate.I know I'm overweight , but I don't have any health problems. I work out and watch what I eat, but am inconsistent at times.I think I might be better able to put the time and energy and commitment into losing weight if there were cash incentives involved. Overall, if the govermant were paying for health care, surely it would save them money on that , and what of the unmeasurable benefits of a generally more fit population? I don't like the whole red state vs blue state thing though - that rivalry thing is really counterproductive.

[bighat]

All govt programs have to be funded. Once a program begins and is funded it never goes away?

Will a council that begins with obesity stay there and end if obesity becomes a thing of the past or at least manageable. Will it then change to another behavior in order to keep its funding? (Does congress still fund tea testing? A program started with the birth of the US

In the annals of time it is not that long ago that alcohol and cigarette commericals were the norm. It was once thought that w/o them TV would die. Back when TV was only 2 or 3 channels.

Alcohol, then cigarettes and now fat. What is next?

[truthfan]

The basic idea is that it would save a lot of money overall. So any funding would more than pay for itself. This would also be the basic idea behind any program that replaced or emulated it.

I'd be delighted if ads for unhealthy foods were restricted.

[claylandg]

stay out of my life!!!!!

[AntsyAmerican]

How so? The author doesn't advocate requiring you to do anything. You can take the incentive or not.

[yourmotherwasahamster]

Instead of taxing the end-user--the smoker, the twinkie eater, or the soda chugger--let's tax the corporations that foist this poison on us. Perhaps it is THEIR behaviour that needs to be shaped by making it less easy for them to corrupt the food supply.

[LeighAnnes]

That would be better. But corporations have too much power.

[Proletarian101]

And who do you think would ultimately pay those taxes?

[MisterHands]

Six of one, half-dozen of the other. Ultimately the consumer pays-- and I'm fine with that.

[truthfan]

They rely a great deal on marketing, advertising, propaganda etc. to sell their junk. They also rely on lax laws and regulation regarding foods, especially animal products.

If there were no factory farming, and burgers were spot-tested for fecal matter and if found, the whole operation were closed down, very soon the quality of the food industry would improve.

[yourmotherwasahamster]

Yes, regulation is KEY!

[GardenerNorCal]

Funny thing, we all for further taxing the underpriveleged US citizens, but we are never going to consider repealing Bush's tax break for the wealthy. That lead us to this state of prosperity where we are losing jobs and can't afford health coverage. Seems like we never address the errors we make, we only demonize those least likely to defend themselves.

[truthfan]

I agree with all your comments here. However, I don't believe the suggestion is demonizing overweight people, since there is no suggestion that they will be penalized or have to pay for anything. And after all, whatever the reasons for being overweight, it is still better for the person to be a healthy weight.

I would like to see nutrition and food preparation being taught at the same time: a lot of Americans don't have a clue how to cook from scratch, and they have a very limited dietary repertoire. A lot of overweight Americans are like that, too, because they have the money for cheap empty calorie food, but not enough for good nutrition - especially if they don't know how to obtain it: this is certainly a matter of economic justice, but it could be mitigated somewhat by education.

[reader1]

First of all, nol everyone that lives in a red state is stupid or ingnorant of the facts.
We are not all bible toting or hate mongers. although the point is well taken that something should be done. If you check at Democracy Now, Amy Goodman had on two guest on her show that discussed how the food industry has found ways to make you eat even when you are not hungry. The key is Fat, salt, and sugar. We all know that we need to exercise as well. Check out her August 3, show on democracynow.org. It is mind blowing.

[MisterHands]

Gallup: GOP Losses Span Nearly All Demographic Groups

The losses are substantial among college graduates, which have shown a decline in GOP support of 10 points. (The losses are even greater -- 13 points -- among the subset of college graduates with postgraduate educations.) This may reflect in part Barack Obama's strong appeal to educated voters, a major component of his winning coalitions in both the Democratic primaries and the general election.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118528/GOP-Losses-Span-Nearly-Demographic-Groups.aspx
-----
Birthers:

"Only 47 percent of respondents in the South said they believed Obama was born in America, with 23 percent saying he was not and 30 percent saying they were unsure. In the Northeast and Midwest, the percentage of respondents who believe Obama was born in the U.S. was over 90 percent."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/31/760087/-Birthers-are-mostly-Republican-and-Southern
----
High School Graduation Rates

South Carolina 56.6%
Louisiana 57.5%
Alabama 59%
Texas 64.1%
Arizona 59%

Illinois 78%
Delaware 73%

America’s Health Rankings 2008
South Carolina is 48th in annual state health rankings, Louisiana is 50th and the least healthy state, while Mississippi is 49th. South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas complete the bottom five states.

http://www.americashealthrankings.org/2008/results.html

[LeighAnnes]

I don't know what people had against the soda tax. I think soda and any junk food commonly eaten by children should be taxed. At summer camp, the counselors had to send out notes stating what a healthy lunch is. Some parents would send their kids in with a coke and a bag of chips. They wouldn't do that if it were more expensive.

The fact is that less than 5% of the people who join weight watchers, use any other diet or drug, are able to lose up to 50% of their excess weight and keep it off for more than five years. Any expert will tell you that we don't know all the causes for this: high-fat, high-sugar foods, lack of exercise, differences in metabolism, heredity, actual physical addiction, psychological addiction, glandular diseases, etc.

It doesn't mean people shouldn't try. It just means an idea like this will have limited success. Concentrating on programs that would stop children from developing bad habits that will turn them into overweight adults would be more effective.

[bighat]

Just how expensive should a coke and a bag of chips be?

[truthfan]

More expensive than a nutritious snack and drink of equivalent size and energy value. Only heavily regulated taxation can achieve that.

Oh, and how about stop giving subsidies and lax laws in all the wrong places, too.

[bighat]

I also do not want to pay for your thereapy or country club prisons

[truthfan]

And I do not want to pay for your street lights, highway repairs, fire fighting, police protection, protection from foreign invaders, employees' education, GPS and cellphone satellites, or regulations that keep poisons off your dinner plate and stop your car exploding.

I only want to pay for my own. So there. Nur nur nur.