This is amazing…New study by Ken Thorpe of Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University comparing US and European rates of chronic disease (summary from Kaiser Daily Report):
Older U.S. adults are twice as likely as older European adults to have a number of chronic diseases, many of which are related to obesity and smoking, according to a study published Tuesday on the Web site of the journal Health Affairs… For the study, researchers from the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University examined information from 2004 on the treatment of chronic diseases among adults ages 50 and older in the U.S. and 10 European nations — Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland… The study found:
1. Older U.S. adults were twice as likely as older European adults to have heart disease.
2. Older U.S. adults were more than twice as likely as older European adults to have arthritis;
3. 12.2% of older U.S. adults had cancer, compared with 5.4% of older European adults;
4. 16% of older U.S. adults had diabetes, compared with 11% of older European adults;
5. 33.1% of older U.S. adults were classified as obese, compared with 17.1% of older European adults; and
6. 53% of older U.S. adults were active or former smokers, compared with 43% of older European adults.
Something’s really screwy with a society that produces results like these. Here’s Thorpe’s comment:
“We expected to see differences between disease prevalence in the United States and Europe, but the extent of the differences is surprising,” adding, “It is possible that we spend more on health care because we are, indeed, less healthy.” In addition, he said, “I think the big difference is the doubling of obesity rates,” adding, “If you look at the doctor-diagnosed rates of diabetes and other chronic diseases related to obesity, it’s just startling.”
“And anyone who believes in the primacy of personal responsibility is simply saying it’s all nurture, not nature and no room for random events.”
uh, no they’re not. how we live our lives from day to day and the choices we make are first and foremost our decisions and our responsponsibility… random events happen, environment AND genetics play a role, certainly…. but a blanket statement like the above makes little sense and contributes nothing to a debate.
I’m not as fan of tax policy. If chronic disease are rampant in the US, the association with obesity is a given as it appears to be a marker for an unhealthy lifestyle. The unhealthy lifestyle is an inevitable outcome of the current set of financial, social and other incentives.
To me, the question is how can we become a healthier society? Increase recreational opportunities in those areas without them, improve urban planning to decrease commute times, reduce media messages related to high fat food, investigate how changes to the built environment might facilitate a culture of healthy choices…
And anyone who believes in the primacy of personal responsibility is simply saying it’s all nurture, not nature and no room for random events. You can have the best genes, take the best care of yourself and get run over by a truck as you walk past MacDonald’s.
What is the objective proof that tax policy will make a difference for health status? Is that how the EU nations achieved better results? Somehow I doubt it?
Kate – Congratulations on your healthy lifestyle and good genes.
In my own case, my weight has always ranged from slightly underweight to, at most, 10 pounds overweight. I’ve probably eaten more than my share of candy, ice cream, soda, red meat, etc. over the years (until about eight years ago), and, as a non-athlete, I didn’t enough exercise except for a lot of walking. I needed heart bypass surgery in my early 50′s and a stent about six years later. I think if there were meaningful taxes on unhealthy foods, I would have consumed less of them. Whether that would have prevented heart disease or at least pushed it off for a considerable period, I’ll never know.
I also met a guy on vacation about a year or so back who was a very trim, 50 something tri-athlete. He said he always played sports and got plenty of exercise and maintained a very healthy diet and lifestyle. Yet, shortly after he returned from vacation he was going to have bypass surgery. Reason: bad genes. So, while eating right and getting plenty of exercise materially reduces your risk of contracting heart disease, it does not eliminate it altogether.
Bottom line: both lifestyle choices and incentives matter. Tax the junk food.
you quoted:
***
“Oh, that scares me!! I guess I can tolerate a smoking tax b/c I don’t smoke and smoking, even in moderation, is unhealthy for both the smoker and those around him/her…. but a hefty tax on ice cream and candy? ”
Uh huh The old “it is okay if it is not me” argument.
***
but you didn’t really take the time to process my argument and only responded to half of what i was saying. it isn’t the “it’s ok if it’s not me argument” rather more of a libertarian bent… i persnally think it’s ok to tax cigarettes b/c they are without a doubt dangerous in ALL cases even in moderate use to BOTH the user and those around him her. this is NOT the case for all “junk foods”. they are not dangerous in moderation, and certainly do not harm those around the user.
take a second to think before you rant.
“Oh, that scares me!! I guess I can tolerate a smoking tax b/c I don’t smoke and smoking, even in moderation, is unhealthy for both the smoker and those around him/her…. but a hefty tax on ice cream and candy? ”
Uh huh The old “it is okay if it is not me” argument.
Let’s see if you could keep up with me:
My no-gears bike is used for errands – about 5-10 miles a week
Walking on the beach (more difficult than non-beach) with the dogs – 15 to 20 miles a week. (We cover 1 1/2 miles in 30 minutes.)
Swimming – 2 to 3 times a week at 1 – 1 1/2 miles per time. Time for a 1/2 mile is 10-11 minutes (not bad for 50-something with an irreparabley damaged shoulder.)
Weight 100lbs and BMI = 18.5 (A size 0-2).
Genetics that say I will stay thin and make it to 90ish.
No greasy, fried or other junk foods as I don’t like the taste – and I loathe chips, pop, candy and the other garbage.
Only thing wrong with me is severe chronic pain from an irreparable sports injury (think sports at the level of the Pan Am Games.)
Oh yes – and I smoke (and so did ny 89 year old great-grandfather, and 90 year old grandmother and…..)
Tit for tat. Tax the junk food. I hate seeing the rolls of blubber on the beach. By the way, thin people can become diabetic too from eating candy, ice cream, drinking pop and energy drinks and scarfing down their chips
Health care advocates might want “community pricing” but I sure don’t. That is why I am against mandatory insurance. What’s next? A driver with a string of DWI’s pays the same for auto insurance that I do?
I don’t buy the “fat gene” theory. I happen to know someone who was chronically obese. He saw his friend die from an AMI, and was so scared, he gave up his overeating habit “cold turkey” and lost 90 of his 280 lbs in one year.
Instead of having junk food taxes, why not have mandatory annual health exams? A physician would weigh you, and if found overweight,and if smoking, one would pay more for insurance. Some employers are already considering doing this as a means of effecting lower health insurance rates.
Invasion of privacy? I don’t think so. “Mitt”
has already likened mandatory auto insurance to mandated health insurance. Protest mandatory seatbelt laws, and you will be told that these are not an “invasion of pricvacy”, inasmuch as one’s refusal to wear a seatbelt increases the costs to society through higher insurance costs and wasting medical resources. The same should hold true for health insurance, as our government moves to a socialist form of healthcare.
Like anon, I eat a lot of junk food. I also eat healthy food, run three miles four times/week, and bicycle ride as well. I have never been overweight at 6′ and 170 lbs. If I want my ice cream, I shouldn’t be taxed as the 240 lb individual down the street, who constantly complains about lack of affordable health care.
I think perhaps a good compromise would be a higher tax on junk food with no nutritional value (other than fat/calories/salt)- like, perhaps cheese curls!
It’s sad that our country has gotten to a state where we have to consider options like this. Americans have no sense of personal responsibility anymore.
While I’m not a fan of high taxes, I think finding a reasonable approach to tax unhealthy food is a better way to encourage healthier diet and lifestyle choices that will lead to lower healthcare costs (at least over the long term) than charging, say, overweight people higher insurance premiums.
Healthcare reform advocates all want community rating which means everyone pays the same for health insurance regardless of health status. Besides, plenty of overweight people got that way because of genetics and not from a lack of discipline, poor diet or other unwise lifestyle choices. Using taxation to encourage healthier eating habits also helps to make the price of unhealthy foods reflect the full social cost of producing and consuming them which, in turn, results in more efficient resource allocation.
“Stiff taxes on candy, ice cream, soda and other fun but unhealthy foods is an option our policymakers should evaluate carefully. ”
Oh, that scares me!! I guess I can tolerate a smoking tax b/c I don’t smoke and smoking, even in moderation, is unhealthy for both the smoker and those around him/her…. but a hefty tax on ice cream and candy? What about all of us who are healthy and thin and don’t cause the healthcare system any unnecessary burden… why should we have to pay higher prices for these treats simply because others abuse them?
I know I have to step back and take the population perspective here, but I think this kind of tax proposal is going too far. It is ridiculously paternalistic. Should we place high taxes on red meat? It has protein and iron in addition to cholesterol and fat…
Argh.
I think the data say a lot about differences in past and present lifestyle choices (including diet and exercise as well as smoking) among people in different countries but say little or nothing about differences in the quality and effectiveness of different healthcare systems. If anything, to the extent that a high quality healthcare system can keep patients with heart disease and cancer alive longer than a lower quality system, the treatment capabilities of the high quality system contribute to both higher healthcare costs and a larger percentage of the population with heart disease and cancer because they haven’t died yet.
The bottom line, I think, is that we need to do more to get people to make healthier lifestyle choices. One of the most effective ways to do that, I believe, is through the tax system which we have already done with smoking. Stiff taxes on candy, ice cream, soda and other fun but unhealthy foods is an option our policymakers should evaluate carefully.