Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
UW ranked in the preseason Coach's poll
Comments
-
Shit. Unleashed. Belongs.FremontTroll said:
We are talking about direct health care costs.whatshouldicareabout said:
Disagree. The level of confounding and assumptions in that study are profound.FremontTroll said:
I like to double down on 16 against dealer showing a 10 that's what I like to do.PurpleJ said:
I like to ignore the costs of care while they are still alive. I do that. That's like saying more people should smoke, because they die earlier.FremontTroll said:
It's those skinny vegan health nuts that hang onto their last wisps of life for an extra 10 years that up healthcare costs.PurpleJ said:Fuck fat people for upping healthcare costs.
Cholesterol and the diabetes are the only things saving our healthcare and social security systems.
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. -
Could you 3 fags please take this to the whogivesaflyingfuck bored?FremontTroll said:
We are talking about direct health care costs.whatshouldicareabout said:
Disagree. The level of confounding and assumptions in that study are profound.FremontTroll said:
I like to double down on 16 against dealer showing a 10 that's what I like to do.PurpleJ said:
I like to ignore the costs of care while they are still alive. I do that. That's like saying more people should smoke, because they die earlier.FremontTroll said:
It's those skinny vegan health nuts that hang onto their last wisps of life for an extra 10 years that up healthcare costs.PurpleJ said:Fuck fat people for upping healthcare costs.
Cholesterol and the diabetes are the only things saving our healthcare and social security systems.
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
