Obesity and Inactivity Costs California $41 Billion

He sent the T-1000 to a molten grave, he killed a terrorising predator, he took down the snake cult, and he dealt with having made "Jingle all the Way".
But, the "Governator" now faces a truly insurmountable foe in the lifestyle of Californians, who are burdening businesses and taxpayers to the tune of $41 Billion.
Before we proceed, let's try and wrap our heads around that figure for just a minute. A billion is a lot, no question. But, if we think of this number in terms of time, a million seconds is about 12 days. A billion seconds is about 32 years. Digest away...
What could be worse than $41 billion in health care costs? How about 52.7 billion - the estimated cost in 2011 if the trend continues.
Here are is the story on these astounding numbers:
- 59 percent of Californians are obese or overweight, and 48 percent are physically inactive.
- Half the costs were attributed to health care expenses, and half to lost productivity, such as absenteeism.
- California is already dealing with a devastating $26.3 billion budget shortfall this fiscal year.
- These costs have doubled over the course of 6 years.
- To measure the economic toll of excess weight and inactivity, researchers analyzed records such as government-compiled databases, tracking health insurance claims, industry drug-utilization reports, Medi-Cal claims, and state and national surveys on rates of physical activity.
- Health care expenses were tallied through direct costs as well as "indirect costs," such as lingering health problems, and a reduced quality of life that affects a persons earning capacity.
- Productivity costs were assessed by analyzing rates of job absenteeism, short-term disability, and "presenteeism," or the portion of work an employee can't perform because of compromised health.
What the Experts Say
Harold Goldstein, executive director of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, had the following to say about the crisis:
Every public health movement has shown that people can only be healthy if public policies are in place to support healthy choices, the national debate over health care reform needs to include prevention as a primary tactic for controlling costs... Make prevention and wellness the cornerstone of a new national health care system."
How Do We Fix This?
There is no easy answer to this one. Nothing short of a massive cultural shift, with everybody banding together to make healthy food more accessible, exercise more feasible, and educational programs to show people how to accomplish these things. Prevention is crucial. But, I think damage control is also necessary.
What do you think? Can Californians (and Americans, North Americans and other Westernized countries for that matter) reverse this trend? What will it take?
Why don't they trim down their government first.
ReplyOnly two possible choices:
1. Free people who have to support themselves and be responsible for their own lives and medical expenses and care.
2. Government enforcers literally or metaphorically standing behind you with weapons drawn, telling you when to eat, what to eat, what to drink, when to exercise, how much exercise to do, when to go to the doctor, which doctor to use, and telling you whether or not your life is worth the money it will cost them for your medical care. And you'll be forced to pay them an ever-expanding, astronomical amount for their "help". And you'd better show them the proper gratitude too if you want the good food or the good medicine next time.
Be free and take care of yourself and be responsible for the consequences of your actions, or be a slave to the government's need to control health-related costs. There are only two choices.
ReplyI agree, there is no easy fix. I live in CA. I think having things in place is good BUT people still need to WANT to do it & motivate themselves to do something & move. As for this whole healthcare debate, I hate to get into that BUT as a self employed household, it is impossible to afford healthcare... it is NOT affordable for people that have to buy it on their own vs. if you work for a company. Even catastrophic is expensive. I don't know what the answer is but we need to find a way to make health care affordable for all AND get rid of pre-existing conditions (I DON'T HAVE ANY pre-existing conditions so don't yell at me about this. I just thing people should not die because they have been sick before).
Reply"Not affordable" tends to mean:
"I'd rather have yearly vacations, and a nice house, and cable TV, and entertainment, and leisure time, and lots of other nice things and stick other people with the bills for my health care and many of my other bills. Oh yeah, I also want absolutely the best health care and refuse to go without it."
ReplyYOU ARE SO WRONG SO DON'T ASSUME! I don't even own a house so shut your mouth unless you know all the facts! You do tend to assume a lot!
ReplyThat's why I said "tends to mean". You may not have meant that. But that's what lots of people mean when they say "not affordable". "Affordable" is a code word.
Some things, for some people, are genuinely not affordable. Like a brand new car.
When absolute necessities are "not affordable", then folks need to understand that they are a charity case and they need to ask for charity. When you ask for charity, it's going to be hard to get folks to contribute if you have a better life than them.
But we don't ask for charity in America. We hire the government to steal from our neighbors and give us a "benefit" instead. Because we're all entitled to a perfect life, regardless of how much or how little we help anyone else or serve others or produce with our labors.
ReplyLike I said before, you don't know all the facts. My cars are older too so..... I am not saying people's spending priorities are off because they are in lots of cases BUT in many others, not.. I am saying that not all people can afford $800 month for health insurance.. and that is a HMO for older folks like us. I have never said that I am entitled to a perfect life.... I just think people are way off on this health insurance issue. There has to be something in between. Many of the uninsured are hard working, honest people that are self employed & working their butts off every day for long hours.
Now, saying that, I want off this subject. But, I do want to apologize to Diet Blog people & others for my harsh response to Ben. I should have found a better way to respond but it really irks me when people think they know other people's business & don't know anything about them, their past or anything else. Not everyone is looking to live off the state...
ReplyNo, unaffordable also means, "I have a medical condition not caused by my lifestyle that means insurance companies will either charge me an exorbitant amount, deny coverage, or only give me catastrophic coverage." I'm fortunate to be living at home while I get myself on my feet, but I know that when I am finally established, I will not have cable/satellite television, a fancy cell phone plan, a new car, the newest and latest gadget. That doesn't mean that I will suddenly be able to afford the premiums for an insurance company willing to cover my condition.
And Jody is correct, you assume things left and right.
ReplyI tend to agree with Ben...people's spending priorities are very skewed in this day and age. Good, healthy food is "way too expensive", yet we think nothing of spending $150+ a month on expensive cell phone plans. We want the government to pay for health care for us, yet we complain when the taxes go up. We have to rethink our priorities in life...buy good, healthy food, get decent health care coverage, and focus on the basics.
Reply"59 percent of Californians are obese or overweight, and 48 percent are physically inactive."
Pfft... Arnie's almost one of them! Pathetic for a man who is idolized for the perfect male physique.
[And yes I'm well aware of his steroid use... but he was still in prime shape before 'roids. And even while you're on them, the discipline you need is two-fold]
Reply