Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 45

Thread: Julian Robertson Gonna Put You on a Diet, Fatty

  1. #11
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,242
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Julian Robertson Gonna Put You on a Diet, Fatty

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    So you admit your argument was contradictory.
    What I'm saying is that it costs $1200 more to treat an obese patient than a person of normal weight.

    Would ya'll want a fat tax that just allowed the government to get fatter and more intrusive in our lives?

    Saying, ooooo, it costs $XXXX billions to treat obese people is misleading. What does it cost to treat non-obese people? Well, apparently, there's a difference of $1244....not exactly earth-shattering.

    Obese people die younger. They are highly unlikely to end up in Alzheimer's wards sapping the system of $120K a year for 6-8 years or more.
    Last edited by MaggieD; 11-08-10 at 12:58 PM.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  2. #12
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,253

    Re: Julian Robertson Gonna Put You on a Diet, Fatty

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    What I'm saying is that it costs $1200 more to treat an obese patient than a person of normal weight.
    Or, a 21% increase. As a greater percentage of the population becomes obese/overweight, this turns into an unsustainable trend.

    There are two issues with this:
    1.) It will require higher future taxation to pay for these increased health care costs.
    2.) The impacts on health care costs force non-obese citizens to internalize the increased health care costs. This relates to more money going towards health care spending, and less towards "widgets". Therefore, such a continuation will "crowd out" other aspects of the US economy.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  3. #13
    Sage
    Barbbtx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    W'Ford TX
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,467

    Re: Julian Robertson Gonna Put You on a Diet, Fatty

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Source

    JR believes tackling obesity (probably the no.1 issue regarding long run fiscal solvency IMHO) would add $1 trillion to the US economy. We do know that obesity costs about $130 per year, which would logically have a "cost push" effect on health care.



    source

    If you want to contain health care costs; if you want to contain long term government spending; you have to contain obesity.

    The cost of this epidemic completely exceeds the benefit.

    Comments?
    It's wrong thinking. People who live longer end up getting things like cancer which is very costly. Also hip, knee replacements and any number of ailments due to old age. Plus they will be collecting much more in SS.
    We should all try to live a healthy lifestyle, but the idea that it will cut costs in the long term isn't logical.
    Catawa is my favorite bleeding heart liberal.
    1/27/12

  4. #14
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,253

    Re: Julian Robertson Gonna Put You on a Diet, Fatty

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post

    Would ya'll want a fat tax that just allowed the government to get fatter and more intrusive in our lives?
    The reason for a fat tax is because the actions that lead people to be obese come with implicit costs. For example, the amount of health care physicians is "fixed" in short time durations. When a physician spends time tending to an infliction caused by obesity, they have less time to spend on inflictions such as cancer, traumas, etc.... This necessarily forces the costs of tending to these inflictions to increase (either in the form of opportunity costs, or explicit costs).

    Saying, ooooo, it costs $XXXX billions to treat obese people is misleading. What does it cost to treat non-obese people? Well, apparently, there's a difference of $1244....not exactly earth-shattering.
    Why do you ignore the costs that do not show up instantaneously? Money is flowing into obesity research because it is a major cause of sickness/death. That leaves less funding available to other ailments.

    Obese people die younger. They are highly unlikely to end up in Alzheimer's wards sapping the system of $120K a year for 6-8 years or more.
    So instead of being a productive member of society, earning a salary, saving for retirement, etc..., the tax payer is forced to pick up the tab.

    I always wonder why the demand for socialism is arbitrary.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  5. #15
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,253

    Re: Julian Robertson Gonna Put You on a Diet, Fatty

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbbtx View Post
    It's wrong thinking. People who live longer end up getting things like cancer which is very costly. Also hip, knee replacements and any number of ailments due to old age. Plus they will be collecting much more in SS.
    We should all try to live a healthy lifestyle, but the idea that it will cut costs in the long term isn't logical.
    Of course it is; consider the increasing cost of tending to the obese, as the complexion of the nation becomes more and more obese. This is commonly referred to as a non-sustainable trend.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  6. #16
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,242
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Julian Robertson Gonna Put You on a Diet, Fatty

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    The reason for a fat tax is because the actions that lead people to be obese come with implicit costs. For example, the amount of health care physicians is "fixed" in short time durations. When a physician spends time tending to an infliction caused by obesity, they have less time to spend on inflictions such as cancer, traumas, etc.... This necessarily forces the costs of tending to these inflictions to increase (either in the form of opportunity costs, or explicit costs).
    I kinda' think this is reaching a bit.

    Why do you ignore the costs that do not show up instantaneously? Money is flowing into obesity research because it is a major cause of sickness/death. That leaves less funding available to other ailments.
    Life is a major cause of sickness/death. The cause of obesity doesn't take a lot of research. It's from eating too much. Spending money on researching obesity would seem to be ridiculous. Spending money on developing a strategy to encourage people to eat healthy would make a lot more sense.

    I always wonder why the demand for socialism is arbitrary.
    Don't understand what you mean. This statement should be aimed at GoldenBoy, yes? Anyone who advocates that "the state" begin a Weight Watchers campaign would seem to be as far from Libertarian as one could get.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  7. #17
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,253

    Re: Julian Robertson Gonna Put You on a Diet, Fatty

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    I kinda' think this is reaching a bit.
    In a country that has seen obesity rise 37% in the past decade, in which the cost differential has reached 21%, this is a very basic synthesis.

    Life is a major cause of sickness/death. The cause of obesity doesn't take a lot of research. It's from eating too much. Spending money on researching obesity would seem to be ridiculous. Spending money on developing a strategy to encourage people to eat healthy would make a lot more sense.
    The bold is a straw-man. How much money is spent on gastric bypass surgery on a yearly basis? Is this an increasing trend?

    Don't understand what you mean. This statement should be aimed at GoldenBoy, yes? Anyone who advocates that "the state" begin a Weight Watchers campaign would seem to be as far from Libertarian as one could get.
    Obesity creates a negative externality in which all tax payers, consumers of health care, consumers of food, etc..., are forced to internalize the costs. This equates to coherrced socialization of the costs of obesity. The cost of these bad choices is spilling over into other parts of society.

    So my question again is: Why is it ok for certain aspects of society to have their costs socialized, but not others?
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  8. #18
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,242
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Julian Robertson Gonna Put You on a Diet, Fatty

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    In a country that has seen obesity rise 37% in the past decade, in which the cost differential has reached 21%, this is a very basic synthesis.

    The bold is a straw-man. How much money is spent on gastric bypass surgery on a yearly basis? Is this an increasing trend?
    It's all too easy to single out obesity as a national health crisis. Stats on obesity mean nothing until/unless they are compared to the costs of treating non-obese people....throughout their lives. I don't think there are such stats, frankly. But my common sense tells me that if people end up dying by drying up and blowing away, our social resources will be taxed far greater than the cost of "sin behaviors."

    Obesity creates a negative externality in which all tax payers, consumers of health care, consumers of food, etc..., are forced to internalize the costs. This equates to coherrced socialization of the costs of obesity. The cost of these bad choices is spilling over into other parts of society.
    I don't argue with that. Yes, there's a cost to it. Just like there's a cost associated with those people who engage in other risky behaviors -- also and always at society's expense one way or another. Other bad choices that spill over? Let me count the ways.

    Teach people to eat healthy. Give them stores in their neighborhoods in which they can buy real food. Teach self-esteem. But don't be taxing "unhealthy food," as this just allows the government to grow even larger than it is already.

    So my question again is: Why is it ok for certain aspects of society to have their costs socialized, but not others?
    I still don't understand this in context to what we're talking about. Whose costs are socialized in relation to this discussion?
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  9. #19
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,253

    Re: Julian Robertson Gonna Put You on a Diet, Fatty

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    It's all too easy to single out obesity as a national health crisis. Stats on obesity mean nothing until/unless they are compared to the costs of treating non-obese people....throughout their lives. I don't think there are such stats, frankly. But my common sense tells me that if people end up dying by drying up and blowing away, our social resources will be taxed far greater than the cost of "sin behaviors."
    Your "common sense" lacks theoretical and empirical backing. Consider the tobacco regulation and pigouvian taxation.

    I don't argue with that. Yes, there's a cost to it. Just like there's a cost associated with those people who engage in other risky behaviors -- also and always at society's expense one way or another. Other bad choices that spill over? Let me count the ways.
    You have to engage in a cost benefit analysis, in which societal benefit is > societal cost.

    Teach people to eat healthy. Give them stores in their neighborhoods in which they can buy real food. Teach self-esteem. But don't be taxing "unhealthy food," as this just allows the government to grow even larger than it is already.
    I agree, education has an important role in reversing negative behaviors. However, you cannot expect bad behavior to instantaniously diminish becaue of educational opportunnity. Pigouvian taxation is therefore necessary.

    I still don't understand this in context to what we're talking about. Whose costs are socialized in relation to this discussion?
    Socialization of costs does not always require government. Negative externalities that cause deadweight loss force the cost to be imposed on all of society, thereby socializing the cost on all society. Internalizing the externality via taxation to diminish quantity demanded allows for a more efficient outcome.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  10. #20
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,253

    Re: Julian Robertson Gonna Put You on a Diet, Fatty

    Something else to consider:

    Currently, more than 64% of US adults are either overweight or obese, according to results from the 1999-2000 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). This figure represents a 14% increase in the prevalence rate from NHANES III (1988-94) and a 36% increase from NHANES II (1976 -80). (Prevalence is the percentage of the population that falls into the designated category.)


    NAASO, The Obesity Society
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •