Health care costs cooked up by overeating

In debates on health care reform, one that doesn't seem to come up too often, is why health care costs have become exceedingly expensive.

In a recent article from The New York Times cutting costs on health care is examined through food and habits of Americans -- one aspect of many that could potentially help reduce health care costs nationwide. According to a study from the journal Health Affairs: The Policy Journal of the Health Sphere, 75 percent of the United State's annual health care spending of $2.5 trillion is related to four chronic illnesses: heart disease, cancer, obesity and Type 2 diabetes. All of these are loosely related to diet, exercise and habits like smoking cigarettes. 

Health care costs directly due from obesity illnesses account for 9 percent of health care spending. The article speculates that this will increase to 20 percent by 2018 if Americans don't start re-evaluating the foods they buy and their lack of exercise.

One of the most overlooked pieces of advice for healthy eating habits, is acknowledging when you're full. Studies show that even Americans who eat healthy have a difficult time not stuffing themselves when eating a food that's most enjoyable to them. Changes in food availability in schools, the workplace and community markets are playing a role in keeping obesity from rising in some areas. For example, according to Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, in states like Arkansas obesity rates in children have been leveling out instead of increasing like they have been in the last few decades. 

Since the '80s, obesity rates have doubled in adults and tripled in children. A stagnant rate of obesity is the first sign to a healthier America, medically and maybe even financially. 

In looking at how much medical costs have increased between 1987 and 2001, 27 percent of the increases were directly related to disease associated with obesity. Also according to the CDC, employers spend anywhere between 29- to 117- percent more on obese workers in health care costs compared to employees with regular weight. While healthy eating and getting some exercise seems like an oversimplified argument in the economic world, when looking at the figures for employers, insurance agencies and government-run insurances, if less people were walking into doctor's offices for obesity-related health issues, these institutions could focus on better wages, more coverage, program investments, etc.

Below is the new food pyramid (graphic from The Washington Post) recommended by most doctors and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.


The CDC has listed the following as health consequences of obesity:

• Coronary heart disease
• Type 2 diabetes
• Cancer (endometrial, breast, and colon)
• Hypertension (high blood pressure)
• Dyslipidemia (high total cholesterol or high levels of triglycerides)
• Stroke
• Liver and gallbladder disease
• Sleep apnea and respiratory problems
• Osteoarthritis (degeneration of cartilage and underlying bone within a joint)
• Gynecological problems (abnormal menses, infertility)

The government Web site: Fruits and Veggies Matter serves as a great site for easy-to-follow tips and misconceptions about what's considered healthy for your body.

Here again: World overpopulation still an issue

In revisiting my blog from 2008, and breathing life back into this discussion on current issues related to the study of anthropology, I noticed my last post was on overpopulation. In a recent article from The Associated Press, the United Nations is contemplating a free condom and family planning global campaign. Their supposed goals, however, aren't for the sake of humans, but for the Earth.

Critics are arguing that global warming and overpopulation aren't connected, but industrialization is the real culprit. Critics have a good point. While the report states that "The linkages between population and climate change are in most cases complex and indirect," it doesn't make clear that some of the most highly populated areas make the least amount of pollution. It's also important to remember how much child bearing and rearing of large families, is pertinent to many cultures, where "overpopulation" exists. Some are even saying that the U.N. Population Fund, which released the report in an attempt to get policies made within global warming strategies in a couple of weeks at the Kyoto Protocol conference, may have ulterior motives -- white, elitist motives, in fact.

However, UNFPA's mission: "is an international development agency that promotes the right of every woman, man and child to enjoy a life of health and equal opportunity. UNFPA supports countries in using population data for policies and programmes to reduce poverty and to ensure that every pregnancy is wanted, every birth is safe, every young person is free of HIV/AIDS, and every girl and woman is treated with dignity and respect."

It's good to note that if these policies were to be implemented, it would be like Planned Parenthood here in the U.S. -- up to the user's discretion. You don't have to walk into Planned Parenthood to get a free condom if you don't want to; you don't have to get an abortion, pap smear, std testing, etc. It all comes down to the power of choice. But, maybe the UNFPA should stick to their mission statement and maybe shouldn't have used the warming climate as a ploy for family planning awareness ... though it was a good try.

Here's the dissuasive video. Notice there are no pictures of Hummer-driving Americans.