DrDonkeyLove wrote:If being a fatty fat fat doesn't increase health care costs and kill you quicker, why is Mrs. Ossiah diddling with school lunches and the food police chasing purveyors of fast foods for their evil fattening deeds and such?
If being fat is fine, then the people who help you get fat are fine.
I'm feeling some cognitive dissonance in the ether.
Surely you don't expect public policy to be based on anything substantive? Though it's truer than true, school lunches are nasty and contribute to overall hogbodiedness.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
DrDonkeyLove wrote:If being a fatty fat fat doesn't increase health care costs and kill you quicker, why is Mrs. Ossiah diddling with school lunches and the food police chasing purveyors of fast foods for their evil fattening deeds and such?
If being fat is fine, then the people who help you get fat are fine.
I'm feeling some cognitive dissonance in the ether.
Surely you don't expect public policy to be based on anything substantive? Though it's truer than true, school lunches are nasty and contribute to overall hogbodiedness.
Blaidd Drwg wrote:From what I can tell, it's the main one that gets cited. Still hunting a free version to see how they deal with the correlation causality thing.
Are you familiar with instrumental variables?
Either way, Google Scholar will point you to PDFs people have posted online.
"The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all."
My most recent ex-girlfriend is naturally thin with big boobs - but because she was a womens' studies minor, she took up transgender(ism?) and fat shaming as her cause célebrès. She didn't get it when I got her a "The Body Is Not An Apology" shirt one size too small.
What I think I was recalling was a counter maybe to this study in particular that being "overweight" has negligible impacts, whereas Obeses does have more significant impacts. At least, that's what you see when you look at the graphs, it's not until you're bordering on or into Obese that you get the uptick in costs. This probably has more to do with the fact that what the BMI reflects as "overweight" is probably not "overweight" at all rather it's well within the range of someone who's well nourished.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
People in the west are increasingly fat because calories are cheap and people are stupid. We are only seeing an explosion now, because in the past wide spread smoking kept obesity in check. It lead to a lot of cancer etc., but it kept previous generations from gorging themselves to death.
Peoples poor choices only cost society (via government spending) when society is footing the bills (via social programs) for the consequences on the back end. Food (calories) have been getting cheaper and cheaper since the dawn of the industrial revolution. The moment we removed any negative feed back for the lard asses of society, we removed any reason for lard asses to change their behavior.
If obesity is truly costing society bucks full of $$$, we need to reintroduce the negative feed back. IMO nature is the best negative feed back generator. Nothing beats that cold hearted bitch Mother Nature. Barring the intelligence to reintroduce natural selection to the mix, I say allow Government, people and society discriminate against lard asses. Make them pay higher prices on everything; transportation, insurance, food etc. Also, make them pay a cultural price; let their bulk mark them as objects of pity and scorn.
If you want more of something subsidize it. If you want less of it tax it. We've been subsidizing these fucktards at almost every level of society. Now they want to abolish the whole concept of "FAT"? Fuck them!
Another sane idea would to stop the nanny state fucks from trying to ban vaporizers in public bars and in door areas. The reintroduction of nicotine to peoples chemistry would do wonders for obesity rate. In my opinion, most fatties over eat because they are bored and are looking for stimulation.
Last edited by Batboy2/75 on Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Arms are the only true badge of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of the free man from the slave.
Blaidd Drwg wrote:What I think I was recalling was a counter maybe to this study in particular that being "overweight" has negligible impacts, whereas Obeses does have more significant impacts. At least, that's what you see when you look at the graphs, it's not until you're bordering on or into Obese that you get the uptick in costs. This probably has more to do with the fact that what the BMI reflects as "overweight" is probably not "overweight" at all rather it's well within the range of someone who's well nourished.
Also, those likely to be obese tend to have the least regular access to medical care (and Medicare is definitely substandard medical care).
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
Blaidd Drwg wrote:What I think I was recalling was a counter maybe to this study in particular that being "overweight" has negligible impacts, whereas Obeses does have more significant impacts. At least, that's what you see when you look at the graphs, it's not until you're bordering on or into Obese that you get the uptick in costs. This probably has more to do with the fact that what the BMI reflects as "overweight" is probably not "overweight" at all rather it's well within the range of someone who's well nourished.
Also, those likely to be obese tend to have the least regular access to medical care (and Medicare is definitely substandard medical care).
They actually corrected for that in the study pretty well. It's a worthy read.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
Blaidd Drwg wrote:What I think I was recalling was a counter maybe to this study in particular that being "overweight" has negligible impacts, whereas Obeses does have more significant impacts. At least, that's what you see when you look at the graphs, it's not until you're bordering on or into Obese that you get the uptick in costs. This probably has more to do with the fact that what the BMI reflects as "overweight" is probably not "overweight" at all rather it's well within the range of someone who's well nourished.
Also, those likely to be obese tend to have the least regular access to medical care (and Medicare is definitely substandard medical care).
They actually corrected for that in the study pretty well. It's a worthy read.
It is a good read, thanks for the recommendation. Personally I think that ending all subsidies on sugar and sugar substitutes would go a long way to help with the problem.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
Blaidd Drwg wrote:Fast googlage. This link is right in my wheelhouse. This is their real work.....
NLC lobbies Congress on multiple issues, including city infrastructure, particularly transportation; supporting local energy efficiency and conservation efforts; strengthening and stabilizing the housing market; helping build stable families; supporting community safety; and reforming the country’s immigration system. NLC’s core lobbying principles include avoiding unfunded mandates, preserving local authority and protecting the intergovernmental partnership.
Get that federal dolla dolla bills. yo.
Good start though, at least they provided a footnote to the Cawley study and several others. Most of them look pretty solid but the ones I looked at didn't correct for income level or other health factors like smoking etc. I'm probably wrong on the rebuttal study because I can;t find it.
Regardless of the shitbags running public health statistics, the obvious truth is more useful. This bitch is too fat and she is crazy.
Yeah. Having worked with number of them, a clap and diabetes is way easier to stomach than being hungry. I don't have a problem with chubby, and fat girls are strong, but obese is obese. Not good.
Miss Piggy wrote:Never eat more than you can lift.
Blaidd Drwg wrote:What I think I was recalling was a counter maybe to this study in particular that being "overweight" has negligible impacts, whereas Obeses does have more significant impacts. At least, that's what you see when you look at the graphs, it's not until you're bordering on or into Obese that you get the uptick in costs. This probably has more to do with the fact that what the BMI reflects as "overweight" is probably not "overweight" at all rather it's well within the range of someone who's well nourished.
Also, those likely to be obese tend to have the least regular access to medical care (and Medicare is definitely substandard medical care).
They actually corrected for that in the study pretty well. It's a worthy read.
It is a good read, thanks for the recommendation. Personally I think that ending all subsidies on sugar and sugar substitutes would go a long way to help with the problem.
That's far too sensible...stop paying money we don't have for shit we don't need that kills us?
Heresy.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
I think there was a study done a while ago that showed that smokers had lower lifelong healthcare costs than non-smokers because they don't live so long. Maybe the same is true about obesity. Don't underestimate the cost of the diaper years! If you care about your kids' inheritance, get yourself a carton of Camel unfiltereds and a deep fryer
But when I stand in front of the mirror and really look, I wonder: What the fuck happened here? Jesus Christ. What a beating!
[quote="TomFurman"]Supposedly Mike Boyle told Alan Aragon that he really couldn't be effective about educating in diet since he's never been fat.
[Therefore all Oncologists must have cancer to get board certif
I kind of agree with Boyle because any non-ridiculous diet works fine if it gets you moving more and eating less. The problem is compliance and there are a lot of people who have always been thin that just have no idea what goes on internally, mentally, and have no ability, formal education or natural ability, to help someone with that. Sure there are people who can just quit drinking soda and lose fifteen pounds and be done but those are the easy ones.
There are a lot of things where I'll bet on psychology over physiology, but with diet, I'll bet on psychology nine times out of ten. The physiology is the easy part.
But when I stand in front of the mirror and really look, I wonder: What the fuck happened here? Jesus Christ. What a beating!
Blaidd Drwg wrote:What I think I was recalling was a counter maybe to this study in particular that being "overweight" has negligible impacts, whereas Obeses does have more significant impacts. At least, that's what you see when you look at the graphs, it's not until you're bordering on or into Obese that you get the uptick in costs. This probably has more to do with the fact that what the BMI reflects as "overweight" is probably not "overweight" at all rather it's well within the range of someone who's well nourished.
Also, those likely to be obese tend to have the least regular access to medical care (and Medicare is definitely substandard medical care).
They actually corrected for that in the study pretty well. It's a worthy read.
Upon rereading the study (which I did because it is a good read), I'm not sure they corrected for it. They seem to recognize it as one of the study limitations. That doesn't undermine the point of the study, or your point, at all.
Of coarse, since evidence from an abstract science like economics is not a feasible concept, this study shouldn't be taken seriously by medical science.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
Turdacious wrote:Of coarse, since evidence from an abstract science like economics is not a feasible concept, this study shouldn't be taken seriously by medical science.
Now you're just goading me to post again.
Economics is the only discipline equipped to examine the costs of treating obesity-related diseases. You might not trust the causal estimates from that paper (I have doubts about the validity of their instrument), but the authors think about problems of causality and measurement error in ways that "medical science" never would.
"The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all."
Isn't it pretty common practice to use these sorts of analytical instruments in public health research? (not that Public Health isn't a sewer of different color)
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
Turdacious wrote:Of coarse, since evidence from an abstract science like economics is not a feasible concept, this study shouldn't be taken seriously by medical science.
Now you're just goading me to post again.
Economics is the only discipline equipped to examine the costs of treating obesity-related diseases. You might not trust the causal estimates from that paper (I have doubts about the validity of their instrument), but the authors think about problems of causality and measurement error in ways that "medical science" never would.
The only worthwhile measurements are found in the works of George Orwell or in epidural related research.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
