“This is going to be young, really young. But I will say this – we really like the kids that we recruited last year. We like the guys that we’re bringing in this year that aren’t even here. They’re going to be good players. And we have some good players that are young (that were recruited) before we got here that maybe haven’t done a whole lot. We are a young team, but we’ll get there.”
I would love to read the casting call for that kid.
"We need a hideously ugly 10-14 year old male. The more grotesque the better. If you think that is you, call Jeffrey at 1-888-casting or visit lacasting.com
Dirty Opie. I believe Spade even calls him that in the film.
Disagree. The level of confounding and assumptions in that study are profound.
I'm not sure data from the Netherlands in 2003 is an appropriate surrogate for the US population, especially since outcomes in African Americans is will have worse outcomes in the US than a normal Dutch person. And, FWIW, the obese people and smokers who die off younger are producing less than the healthier people, especially since they have more dying off in the working age. They might cost less overall, but the fact they miss 5-10 years or so of producing means lost wages. It fails to compensate the differences in how much these people produced in their lifetimes. If the median US income is $52,000 and these people are dying off 5 years earlier, they're missing out on $260,000.
I'd have to look at the paper in more detail, but I don't think the study can be directly applied to an American population, especially since there will be differences in health care costs, health outcomes, indirect costs, non-medical costs, and other factors.
“This is going to be young, really young. But I will say this – we really like the kids that we recruited last year. We like the guys that we’re bringing in this year that aren’t even here. They’re going to be good players. And we have some good players that are young (that were recruited) before we got here that maybe haven’t done a whole lot. We are a young team, but we’ll get there.”
I would love to read the casting call for that kid.
"We need a hideously ugly 10-14 year old male. The more grotesque the better. If you think that is you, call Jeffrey at 1-888-casting or visit lacasting.com
it may have seemed like a good career move at the time but, now... clearly... Connor Halliday should have picked movies>>>football
“This is going to be young, really young. But I will say this – we really like the kids that we recruited last year. We like the guys that we’re bringing in this year that aren’t even here. They’re going to be good players. And we have some good players that are young (that were recruited) before we got here that maybe haven’t done a whole lot. We are a young team, but we’ll get there.”
I would love to read the casting call for that kid.
"We need a hideously ugly 10-14 year old male. The more grotesque the better. If you think that is you, call Jeffrey at 1-888-casting or visit lacasting.com
Disagree. The level of confounding and assumptions in that study are profound.
I'm not sure data from the Netherlands in 2003 is an appropriate surrogate for the US population, especially since outcomes in African Americans is will have worse outcomes in the US than a normal Dutch person. And, FWIW, the obese people and smokers who die off younger are producing less than the healthier people, especially since they have more dying off in the working age. They might cost less overall, but the fact they miss 5-10 years or so of producing means lost wages. It fails to compensate the differences in how much these people produced in their lifetimes. If the median US income is $52,000 and these people are dying off 5 years earlier, they're missing out on $260,000.
I'd have to look at the paper in more detail, but I don't think the study can be directly applied to an American population, especially since there will be differences in health care costs, health outcomes, indirect costs, non-medical costs, and other factors.
We are talking about direct health care costs.
You can point out possible shortcomings of the study but what other study looked at costs per lifetime? I would like to see them.
Every study I've seen looking at the costs of obesity made comparisons on a yearly basis without considering fatties' shorter lifespans.
Disagree. The level of confounding and assumptions in that study are profound.
I'm not sure data from the Netherlands in 2003 is an appropriate surrogate for the US population, especially since outcomes in African Americans is will have worse outcomes in the US than a normal Dutch person. And, FWIW, the obese people and smokers who die off younger are producing less than the healthier people, especially since they have more dying off in the working age. They might cost less overall, but the fact they miss 5-10 years or so of producing means lost wages. It fails to compensate the differences in how much these people produced in their lifetimes. If the median US income is $52,000 and these people are dying off 5 years earlier, they're missing out on $260,000.
I'd have to look at the paper in more detail, but I don't think the study can be directly applied to an American population, especially since there will be differences in health care costs, health outcomes, indirect costs, non-medical costs, and other factors.
We are talking about direct health care costs.
You can point out possible shortcomings of the study but what other study looked at costs per lifetime? I would like to see them.
Every study I've seen looking at the costs of obesity made comparisons on a yearly basis without considering fatties' shorter lifespans.
Disagree. The level of confounding and assumptions in that study are profound.
I'm not sure data from the Netherlands in 2003 is an appropriate surrogate for the US population, especially since outcomes in African Americans is will have worse outcomes in the US than a normal Dutch person. And, FWIW, the obese people and smokers who die off younger are producing less than the healthier people, especially since they have more dying off in the working age. They might cost less overall, but the fact they miss 5-10 years or so of producing means lost wages. It fails to compensate the differences in how much these people produced in their lifetimes. If the median US income is $52,000 and these people are dying off 5 years earlier, they're missing out on $260,000.
I'd have to look at the paper in more detail, but I don't think the study can be directly applied to an American population, especially since there will be differences in health care costs, health outcomes, indirect costs, non-medical costs, and other factors.
We are talking about direct health care costs.
You can point out possible shortcomings of the study but what other study looked at costs per lifetime? I would like to see them.
Every study I've seen looking at the costs of obesity made comparisons on a yearly basis without considering fatties' shorter lifespans.
Could you 3 fags please take this to the whogivesaflyingfuck bored?
Seriously, football is upon us - go fuck off with that shit
Comments
Pac12 Dreck > Big10 Dreck
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html?referrer=&_r=0
I'm not sure data from the Netherlands in 2003 is an appropriate surrogate for the US population, especially since outcomes in African Americans is will have worse outcomes in the US than a normal Dutch person. And, FWIW, the obese people and smokers who die off younger are producing less than the healthier people, especially since they have more dying off in the working age. They might cost less overall, but the fact they miss 5-10 years or so of producing means lost wages. It fails to compensate the differences in how much these people produced in their lifetimes. If the median US income is $52,000 and these people are dying off 5 years earlier, they're missing out on $260,000.
I'd have to look at the paper in more detail, but I don't think the study can be directly applied to an American population, especially since there will be differences in health care costs, health outcomes, indirect costs, non-medical costs, and other factors.
You can point out possible shortcomings of the study but what other study looked at costs per lifetime? I would like to see them.
Every study I've seen looking at the costs of obesity made comparisons on a yearly basis without considering fatties' shorter lifespans.
Seriously, football is upon us - go fuck off with that shit