The Costs of Obesity

Although the rate of obesity in the U.S. did not rise over the last year, (perhaps due the poor economy), it was reported in this morning's Dallas Morning News that in the U.S. more than two thirds of adults, and a third of children remain overweight. The percentage of "extremely obese" children and young adults has risen from 9 percent in 2000 to fifteen percent today. "We haven't turned the corner yet" said Dr. William Dietz, an expert on obesity with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. According to statistics, the majority of Americans are overweight. Sixty four percent of Americans are described as overweight. Thirty four percent of those are considered obese. Seventeen percent of children were reported as obese. Most of those children were "extremely obese" as measured by the body mass index. Ten percent of of babies and toddlers are "precariously heavy." The statistics, if nothing else, indicate that growth does not stop after puberty. The good news is that the rate of obesity, as troubling as it is, has remained steady over the last five years. The bad news is that the obese are getting even more obese.

The health care costs associated with obesity are substantial. The costs include not just the direct costs of treating obesity related illness, but also the loss of productivity and loss of work due to obesity related illness. Diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and colon cancer are among the plagues that affect the obese at higher rates than those who are not obese. There is also the spectre of premature death hanging over the obese. According to the Department of Medicine, Brigham Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, "the direct costs of lack of physical activity, defined conservatively as absence of leisure-time physical activity, are approximately 24 billion dollars, or 9.4% of the U.S. health expenditures." The CDC reports that in 1998, $78.5 billion was spent on obesity related illness. In a 2006, report, the California Center for Public Health Advocacy estimated that the health related costs of obesity to California was $12.8 billion. The health care costs related to physical inactivity were pegged at $7.9 billion (That is a lot of money in a cash strapped state like California.) Smoking, on the other hand, was estimated to cost the U.S. $157 billion between 1995-1999. It is worth pointing out that while the number of smokers in the U.S. declines every year, the number of obese is rising.

A lot of money is being spent in the U.S. to treat illness caused or exacerbated by overweight and obesity. Once the government becomes involved in health care, a person's health will no longer be their own business. It will be the government's business as well. And you can bet the government will not be content to simply write checks. There will be pressure to use the power and influence gained by the government over health care to manipulate society to achieve health care goals desired by the government and special interests. One goal will almost certainly be to control the health care costs presented by the obese. The only way to control those costs will be to reduce the number of obese. The only way to reduce the number of obese will be to get people eat less and exercise more. This was the conclusion of the California report.

The most likely way to achieve the goal of reducing obesity would be through the usual method: manipulating the tax code. Indeed, the California report concluded that "policies must be established at all levels to promote healthy eating and physical activity." The traditional method of manipulating the behavior of the public is by adjusting the tax code. If this method is adopted, it would open a Pandora's box of legislation and regulation. Might there someday be tax breaks for fitness? Would cheeseburgers be taxed? Would french fries? Will there be tax breaks for vegetables? Will there someday be mandatory exercise? Will people be taxed according to their body fat index?

If manipulation of the tax codes doesn't succeed in getting people to lose weight and get into shape, I suppose the government could try shaming and exhorting them. Maybe every household in America should receive a free subscription to Vogue and GQ. After all, if regulation and taxes aren't enough help to reduce obesity and encourage people to get into shape, maybe vanity and shame will.

Like it or not, when national health care becomes law, we will all have a greater share in bearing the burden of the obese. Each American will have a stake in the health of his or her neighbor. Like with smokers, many will feel that since society must bear the costs of that vice, society has a right to insist that the obese desist in their unhealthy ways. Not only should those who are over weight be concerned, but those with bad posture or who do not eat their vegetables should be uncomfortable. They might be next. The ire of the left is rarely placated for long.

Hair in the eyes of Texas

The contest in Mesquite, TX over a young boy's hair is dragging on. Four year old Taylor Pugh attended school Tuesday with his long locks flowing. He was promptly sent to the library. The young Pugh and his parents have been in a contest with the school district for the last three months over the length of Taylor's hair. His hair violates the school's dress code because it covers his eyes and falls to his shoulders. Mesquite school district officials have argued that the dress code is necessary to provide an environment free of distraction. Several appeals courts have upheld the legality of student dress codes.

School officials have tried to accommodate young Taylor's vanity by telling him he could keep his long hair if he tied it in tight braids and wore them above his collar. His parents objected, saying it would not be possible. They said they had tried braiding Taylor's hair but it caused Taylor's scalp to bleed. The school attempted another compromise, albeit a half hearted one, by saying Taylor would be allowed to attend school but in the school office rather than letting him study in the school library with a teacher's aide as had been asked. Taylor's parents disapproved of the idea.

The issue has become a major headache for those involved. All this because a four year old boy does not want his hair cut. Taylor's parents are unhappy that they are being requested to make their son do something that their son doesn't want to do. How his parents get him to eat his vegetables is beyond me. His father declared "there is no reason [Taylor] should have to cut his hair."

Actually, I can think of a good one: so his child can go to school with the rest of the kids. I am sure there are many in Mesquite who can think of some good reasons too. I suspect the only people who cannot think of a reason why Taylor should cut his hair are his parents. And, of course, little Taylor.

Paying Back the Taxpayers

It was reported this morning that President Obama wants to make sure that the taxpayers are paid back the $700 billion the government provided to troubled financial sector. This is a fine position to take. But I have to wonder, even if the financial sector pays the money back, will the taxpayers really be repaid? Or will it be the government that is repaid?

The $700 billion, if and when it gets paid, undoubtedly will be absorbed by the government and in the end, simply be entered into the ledgers. I suspect it would be a waste of time to stand by the mailbox waiting for a check from the financial sector. I will simply save myself some aggravation and assume it is the government that will be repaid, not the taxpayers. When it comes down to it, "paying back the taxpayers" is little more than a figure of speech. Taxpayers will not see a dime of that $700 billion.

Harry Reid's Big Mouth

Republicans are seeking to get some mileage out of Senator Harry Reid's recent comments saying that Obama is "light skinned" and speaks without a "negro dialect." Many republicans relish the opportunity to turn the table on the democrats. Republican National Chairman Michael Steele has called for Reid to resign from the Senate. "There is a standard where Democrats feel that they can say these things and they can apologize when it comes from the mouth of one of their own" said Steele. There is truth in this. Democrats and liberals are far more likely to give the benefit of doubt when one of their own makes an insensitive or insulting comment. They are inclined to understand it as a misstatement or slip of the tongue signifying no sinister or malicious motivation. If a Republican says something insensitive, or just plain foolish, Democrats are quick to perceive the worst.

Curiously, Democratic Party Chairman Tim Cain came to Reid's aid by telling Fox news that Reid's comments were "clearly in the context of praising Obama." If Reid and Cain believe Obama's light complexion is something that merits praise, there might be something to the accusations of racism in the Democratic Party after all.

Senator Reed's comments were insensitive and foolish. But it is difficult to interpret them as racist, that is unless Cain is correct concerning Reid's motivation. Apart from the poor choice of words, and the poorer choice of subject, there was no malice or intent to slight or demean the president or African Americans. At least I assume that from what I have read. I did not hear the tone of his voice or see the look on his face when he made those comments. Reid's comment that President Obama is "light skinned" is simply a description. If one were to try and describe Obama's appearance to a friend, "light skinned" would not be a racist remark. Clumsy and in poor taste perhaps, but not insulting. I am sure Obama has been described by many as "light skinned", just as Sophia Loren was often described as "olive skinned". It is not necessarily a remark made in distaste.

"Negro dialect" is another matter. Again, apart from the poor choice of terms, African American dialect is recognized by many as a distinct manner of speaking. Not all understand it as an insult. It too can simply be a descriptive term. John Baugh, a professor of psychology and the Director of African and African American Studies at Washington University in St. Louis, has asserted that Ebonics is, among other things, "the equivalent of Black English and is considered to be a dialect of English." While there are those who contest this idea, many African American scholars share it. If we accept this understanding of Ebonics as an African American dialect, then it is true that Obama speaks without using it. It is difficult to interpret Sen. Reid's statement as a racist remark: particularly since Obama prides himself on his oratorical abilities. It might be that Sen. Reid intended his comment to be a back handed attempt to demean African Americans. But why would he do that? Is it because Reid is so filled with secret racism that, despite his best efforts to conceal it, some if it just sloshed out? No doubt this is what many Republicans would like us to believe.

If Reid's comments were made in regard to Obama's popularity with the public, this would also be difficult to interpret as racist. If anything, it would indicate an accusation on Reid's part of racism among the American public by implying Obama's popularity is due to his inoffensiveness to white sensibilities. Furthermore, why would Reid see fit to demean the popular leader of his own party? It makes little sense.

It is hard to understand why Reid felt it necessary to make those observations. It is even harder to understand why Reid felt Obama's complexion was relevant and worth praise. It may be that Reid might have been trying to insult Obama's eloquence, bearing, and appearance. But that is hardest to believe of all. After all, Obama was considered attractive enough to adorn a billboard and his eloquence has frequently been commented on. His bearing is near impeccable. It most likely the case that Reid simply said something stupid and regrettable.