After 58 years, Ehler retiring
.jpg)
Funeral for Miami student manager
Winter weather photos
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > November > 30 > Entry
Guest column: Obesity rate taking toll on society
This column was written by Dr. Jeff Harwood. He practices in Norwalk and is president of the Ohio Academy of Family Physicians.
Flu season 2009 has injected words like “epidemic” and “pandemic” into the news. But a national report just released points to another health epidemic, with alarming results for Ohio.
The report, “The Future Cost of Obesity,” was written by Ken Thorpe, executive director of the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease. He paints a sobering picture of the economic impact obesity will have on national health care costs during the next 10 years.
If current trends continue, 103 million American adults — 43 percent of the population — will be obese by 2018. The news is even worse for Ohio.
Thorpe projects that Ohio will be one of six states nationwide where more than 50 percent of residents will be obese if obesity growth rates continue to grow at the current pace.
At present, the Centers for Disease Control estimates that one-third of Americans are overweight and another third are obese. Among children and teenagers, obesity rates have tripled in the last 20 years. Disturbingly, one in every four 5-year-olds is obese.
On a national scale, Thorpe’s report found that these trends in the obesity growth rate will add nearly $344 billion to the nation’s annual health care costs over the next 10 years and account for more than 21 percent of all health care spending.
If we are successful in holding obesity levels to their current rates, the U.S. could save $820 in health care spending per adult by 2018, generating total savings of nearly $200 billion.
In addition to its costs in health care terms, obesity places significant strain on governmental budgets. It adds additional costs to businesses and impedes the competitiveness of our work force due to illness and lost productivity.
In short, the financial toll of obesity ripples through society far beyond the health care system itself.
Obesity increases a person’s risk of developing serious and costly health conditions, many of them chronic. These include Type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer, stroke, high cholesterol, osteoarthritis, liver and gall bladder disease, sleep apnea and respiratory problems.
Underscoring this reality, the American Institute for Cancer Research found that obesity is responsible for more than 100,000 cases of cancer annually.
CDC studies also have shown that obesity is closely linked to the explosion of chronic disease rates in the U.S., and is directly responsible for 112,000 deaths annually. As daunting as all of our challenges with respect to obesity may seem, it’s within our power to bring the obesity epidemic under control.
We should, for example, make it easier for people to lead healthier, more active lives by such means as lowering co-pays on preventive care, providing more and better nutritional information on food packages and restaurant menus, and offering more effective programs to help overweight Americans.
Support and resources for healthy lifestyles literally should surround us at every turn — in the workplace, our communities and our schools. Above all else, prevention must be a part of any solution to the obesity crisis in America.
While the health reform legislation now being debated in Washington is generating much controversy and disagreement, it nevertheless contains some policy provisions aimed at reducing and controlling obesity that could make a genuine difference. These include programs aimed at preventing obesity among children, promoting workplace wellness and strengthening nutrition labeling requirements.
Contact your elected representatives and let them know that any attempt at meaningful health reform must include a robust obesity prevention and control component.
Permalink | Comments (21) | Post your comment |
Comments
By daveb
November 30, 2009 9:29 AM | Link to this
Last week smokers, today the obese. Since when is it the place of government to be our watchers?
By BOB
November 30, 2009 9:53 AM | Link to this
How much does people having unprotected sex and getting AIDS cost? Get off the fat people wagon.
By Living Large
November 30, 2009 10:18 AM | Link to this
Dr. Harwood is absolutely correct. There needs to be a control component. I presume the government will distribute muzzels for the obese to wear. Please pass the fries and mayonaise.
By Fat Boy
November 30, 2009 6:24 PM | Link to this
350 pounds and still growing. Life is good. Pass the doughnuts, please.
By drunken orangetree
November 30, 2009 7:00 PM | Link to this
Why should I have to subsidize Fat Boy’s disgusting habits?
By Quentin
November 30, 2009 7:32 PM | Link to this
I wonder how many fat people cheered them going after s smokers? I guess they fgured it was OK to go after others but if they are targeted they will cry like babies. How about dropping a few pounds instead of grabbing a motorized chair at Walmart like you all told me to just stop smoking?
By Fat Boy
November 30, 2009 9:15 PM | Link to this
Quentin, you need to give up smoking. It’s going to shorten your life…Drunken Orangetree, I receive no subsidies. I pay for my own doughnuts.
By drunken orangetree
December 1, 2009 7:20 AM | Link to this
Yes, Fat Boy, you do receive subsidies: in health care expenses that result from your bloated carcass. All you tubbies are more likely to have diabetes, bad joints, heart problems—to just name a few—and the healthy have to pay higher premiums to cover those problems’ treatment.
By joe_mamma
December 1, 2009 8:17 AM | Link to this
Drunk, If you have a problem with Fat Boy then you should be AGAINST government run healthcare because with the current proposals you are likely going to be subsidizing his medical even more. You should be advocating for more Health Savings Accounts in the marketplace. You should be pushing for tort reform to disallow State Governments or the Federal Government from dictating to insurance companies what they need to cover. You should also be for tort reform to eliminate the tax advantage that employer provided healthcare receives. More individually purchased plans will increase the number of risk pools…heck there might even be an insurance company that has a risk pool consisting only of waifish organic only eating socialists.
By ch
December 1, 2009 8:31 AM | Link to this
They came for the gays-and I said nothing, They came for the jews— and I said nothing, They came for the smokers— and I said nothing. Now they’re coming for me and there is no one left to say ANYTHING. While everyone is all worried about the health care fiasco the Government is quietly stripping away our rights to do and be who we please. Don’t think that singling out certain groups for un healthy behavior will save you money-it wont, there will always be something that increases your insurance rates even if it’s a made up reason.
By drunken orangetree
December 1, 2009 9:06 AM | Link to this
No, joe. There are two different issues: Fat Boy’s addiction to doughnuts and insurance companies’s addiction to obscene profits. And tort reform will do diddley to fix it, since malpractice suits make up less than 1% of medical care expenses in the US. ch, your comparing smokers to Jews would be laughable, if it weren’t so disturbing. But I will say that I smoked for almost forty years and managed to quit. You should try it yourself. You’ll feel a lot healthier and we won’t have to pay for your hospital bills.
By Quentin0352
December 1, 2009 11:20 AM | Link to this
Monkey, so why is it you think I should pay more to give you insurance but you want to exclude everyone you can besides youself? For someone that claims to care about others as your primary reason for government insurance you sure get greedy fast if it is your wallet!
By joe_mamma
December 1, 2009 1:50 PM | Link to this
Ummm…Drunk…I didn’t say anything about malpractice suits. Anyways regarding malpractice suits the key isn’t just about how much insurance companies payout in malpractice suits. It should include how much it costs doctors to buy the insurance. That is a direct overhead cost for a doctor. Also high malpractice insurance premiums affects the supply of doctors. The lower the number of doctors the more it costs to see one. High malpractice insurance is suppressing the supply of doctors to the medical market place. Do not forget the army of lawyers that hospitals, doctors and insurance companies employ to fight malpractice suits…none of these costs are factored into your less than 1% of medical expenses. I understand your concern for Fat Boy. Socialist like to insert themselves into other peoples lives. They believe they know what is best for the unwashed masses and that their lives will be better if life decisions are made by an enlightened few.
By ch
December 1, 2009 2:02 PM | Link to this
Drunk I was not trying to compare jews to smokers (sorry if it came across that way) I was trying to repeat a saying I remember that was dealing with the way the nazis took control, by taking down sections of the population one at a time until there was no one left to stand up to them-which is what will (is) happen(ing) here in this country. You don’t know for a fact weather I smoke or not, your making an A*S-UMTION it’s none of your business what I do and it wouldn’t matter I don’t support charging more or banishing on group of people over another just to make myself feel like I’m saving money-IT DON’T HAPPEN, as I said in the rest of my post the insurance companies will find something else to charge you for even if no one smoked at all.
By Fat Boy
December 1, 2009 6:07 PM | Link to this
Drunken Orangetree, you’ve inspired me. If you can kick a forty-year smoking habit, I can kick my doughnut habit and get in shape. One more doughnut orgy and then I’m going to go cold turkey.
By drunken orangetree
December 1, 2009 7:37 PM | Link to this
Quim, keep up the good work.
By drunken orangetree
December 1, 2009 7:49 PM | Link to this
joe, what would tort reform be about if not malpractice suits? ch, I’m not trying to get in your face, and I apologize if I gave you that impression. Nevertheless, taking care of the expense brought smoking is significant. What do you propose we do about that?
By joe_mamma
December 2, 2009 8:15 AM | Link to this
Drunk, My bad. I did say tort reform when I was talking about changing the laws that prevent consumers from buying insurance across state lines. Regardless as I laid out in my previous comment your less than “1%” claim does not stand up to reason when talking about malpractice suits.
By Soul60
December 3, 2009 2:28 PM | Link to this
The people need to focus on the people who came up with this great idea of supersized meals and all this other excessive fast food,fast eating. It’s obvious all that gluttony from the 80’s and under the republican party has caught up with this country.
By ch
December 4, 2009 8:40 AM | Link to this
Drunk, no problems here. As for your question on what to do about the expense of smokers, I have to wonder-what about the expense of drinking alcohol? Lots of health problems caused there, what about the expense of obesety? More health issues there, what about the expense of someone whose job requires them to work with hazzardous materials? More health problems,and lets not forget professional athletes either, the very nature of the game for pro football players puts them at risk of injury ( and increasing costs) every game they play. The point is there are a LOT of things in this world that will cause health problems-Some of them are just plain genetics-and to start singling out one group over others to increase profits ( since that’s the real goal of any “for profit” orginization-ie..insurance companies)is wrong. It’s the old “divide and conquer” strategy don’t believe for a minute that this will stop with smokers, it starts there and once the insurance companies find out they can get away with that they will go after other bad habits ( hence my poor reference to the nazi tactics). You may be the healthiest person in the country, good for you if you are, but this is still a supposedly free country (although that is coming into question more and more these days) and as long as smoking is not illegal no one should be punished for it by paying more. Get over all health care costs down and it won’t matter who does what un-healthy activity (within reason of course)because costs are contained and it won’t put burdens on anyone.
By Edward K. Turner
December 7, 2009 2:18 PM | Link to this
First, I am not obese at all. I do get tired of hearing medical associations and their statistics used to measure and criticize heavy set people. They are human beings that need to be cared for with dignity and respect. Whatever the cost, the individual is a valued member of our society, not just a statistic! We need to worry more about the overthrow of our healthcare industry! It must be stopped! We need a whole new bill written that is participative and not a mandate! It needs to exclude the government!