Govt promises strategy to tackle obesity

[costargh]

Govt promises strategy to tackle obesity

The federal government has promised a national strategy to tackle Australia's obesity crisis will be in place next year.

The pledge follows a damning report showing Australia has a greater proportion of overweight people than the United States.

Statistics showing 26 per cent of adult Australians - almost four million - are obese, were "staggering", Health Minister Nicola Roxon said.

America has a 25 per cent obesity rate.

Ms Roxon said the report, Australia's Future Fat Bomb, would come as a shock to the community and highlighted the need for urgent action.

"These are obviously pretty staggering statistics to show that we are the fattest, or one of the fattest countries in the world," Ms Roxon told reporters in Canberra.

Obesity was a national priority and the government hoped to have an effective nation-wide strategy implemented in the next 12 months, Ms Roxon said.

A government-initiated inquiry into obesity would consider a range of measures, including gym membership rebates, Ms Roxon said.

"We expect to have a full comprehensive strategy in place by the middle of next year ... obviously this (report) increases the urgency for that work to be undertaken."

But Tasmanian Liberal Senator Guy Barnett said the government needed to move faster to develop a strategy because the statistics would have worsened by this time next year.

The report presents the results of height and weight checks carried out on 14,000 adult Australians nationwide in 2005.

It reveals nine million adults have a body mass index (BMI) over 25, making them overweight or obese, an increase from seven million.

Middle-aged people are leading the way with seven in 10 men and six in 10 women aged 45 to 64 now registering a BMI of 25 or more.

An analysis of the data shows there will be an extra 700,000 heart-related hospital admissions in the next 20 years because of obesity alone.

The report's author, Professor Simon Stewart at the Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute, outlined a range of measures to tackle obesity at the federal government's public inquiry into obesity in Melbourne.

He said a Healthy Towns initiative, based on the success of Tidy Towns which motivated Australians to tidy their local patch, could inspire communities to lose weight.

Prof Stewart said such a program would reward communities that collectively lose weight with, for example, new sporting facilities.

Wait lists for surgery could be prioritised on the basis of weightloss.

Australian Unity Wellness Program Manager Cate Grindlay told the inquiry obesity-related conditions such as diabetes were already translating to the health system.

Hospital admissions for diabetes-related illnesses had increased by 17 per cent annually over the past five years, while joint replacements are now the insurer's single largest hospital claims expense.

A Deakin University academic told the inquiry a tax on junk food and reducing junk food advertising targeting children was essential.

Professor Boyd Swinburne, the director of the World Health Organisation Collaborating Centre for Obesity Prevention, said a junk food tax could be offset by subsidies on healthy foods.

Taxing junk food first emerged earlier this year at the Rudd Labor government's 2020 idea summit.

Three points for discussion

1) Taxpayers paying for people to pump some iron
2) Surgery prioritised on the basis of weight loss
3) A junk food tax

[brendan]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23903949-27197,00.html

"The bad news for those people intelligent enough to limit their calorie intake is that they will pay a price for their neighbours' gluttony.

As Stewart writes: "The healthcare system is going to be overwhelmed by weight-related hospitalisations from knee replacements through to heart attacks and strokes."

Therefore it is possible that if you maintain a reasonable weight and due to no fault of your own require hospitalisation, the bed you need may well be occupied by a fat, lazy Australian arse which has been feasting on cholesterol for the past 30 years."

If people want to get fat that's fine with me, but they ought to foot the bill for their own healthcare not the taxpayer.

[excal]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23903949-27197,00.html

"The bad news for those people intelligent enough to limit their calorie intake is that they will pay a price for their neighbours' gluttony.

As Stewart writes: "The healthcare system is going to be overwhelmed by weight-related hospitalisations from knee replacements through to heart attacks and strokes."

Therefore it is possible that if you maintain a reasonable weight and due to no fault of your own require hospitalisation, the bed you need may well be occupied by a fat, lazy Australian arse which has been feasting on cholesterol for the past 30 years."

If people want to get fat that's fine with me, but they ought to foot the bill for their own healthcare not the taxpayer.

Some people are unable to lose weight by normal means due to medical conditions or genetic predispositions.

Mind you, I agree with you on the count of lazy-arsed people. I know I pay to go to the gym, not having to rely on the government.

[costargh]

But if excessive weight gain as a result of lifestyle choices causes you to become ill or require medical attention, then would it be reasonable to treat other people who become ill as a result of lifestyle choices in the same way?

Eg.
Smokers
Drug addicts
Alcoholics
etc

[excal]

People who abuse their bodies ought to pay for their abuses.

My concern purely falls on those who get caught in the crossfire. This is why I'm in support of a public smoking ban (because a smoker is causing harm to others). Drugs and alcohol are a different issue as the 'damage' caused is due to actions caused by drug, rather than the drug itself in which case there are means to protect others (the police).

Going back to the topic, I cannot support government funding for those who've messed their own bodies up. In the context of obesity, however, there will be many people with various disorders that have no arising through any fault of their own. Perhaps they were born with it, or serious illness has rendered them incapable on normal weight control without medical intervention. It happens.

From here, we can go back to the perils of being in the disadvantaged / low SES section of the population.

[costargh]

It would be interesting to see the percentage of hospitalisations/surgery/medical assistance required as a result of lifestyle related choices. I have a feeling it would be a VERY large percentage

[brendan]

Going back to the topic, I cannot support government funding for those who've messed their own bodies up. In the context of obesity, however, there will be many people with various disorders that have no arising through any fault of their own. Perhaps they were born with it, or serious illness has rendered them incapable on normal weight control without medical intervention. It happens.

From here, we can go back to the perils of being in the disadvantaged / low SES section of the population.

The question of who ought to pay shouldn't turn on whether it was your own "fault". Is it my fault that my neighbor is fat and will have huge medical bills? In the end someone somewhere has to pay, and I see no reason why the cost should be shifted onto someone else.

Even if you accept the idea of using government to take from one person and then to give to another to reduce poverty, then all that would justify is giving people cash so they can then use it how they wish, rather than giving blanket healthcare subsidies which distorts people's incentives (in a perverse manner) to take care for their own health.

[excal]

Then what shall happen to the ill who cannot pay for it due to circumstances out of their control? Rot and die?

[brendan]

Then what shall happen to the ill who cannot pay for it due to circumstances out of their control? Rot and die?

Even if you accept the idea of using government to take from one person and then to give to another to reduce poverty, then all that would justify is giving people cash so they can then use it how they wish, rather than giving blanket healthcare subsidies which distorts people's incentives (in a perverse manner) to take care for their own health. If they then choose not to spend it on healthcare or health insurance, then that is their own choice, and they must face the consequences.

[excal]

Then what shall happen to the ill who cannot pay for it due to circumstances out of their control? Rot and die?

Even if you accept the idea of using government to take from one person and then to give to another to reduce poverty, then all that would justify is giving people cash so they can then use it how they wish, rather than giving blanket healthcare subsidies which distorts people's incentives (in a perverse manner) to take care for their own health. If they then choose not to spend it on healthcare or health insurance, then that is their own choice, and they must face the consequences.

Who said that the provision of government-supported health care leaves any room for these people to spend said money on what they wish?

I might add that the typical libertarian argument that the government, now not paying for universal health care through taxes, will not have to charge as much tax meaning more money in pocket for the general population generally does not hold true for this segment of the population as they're not typically paying much (if any) tax at all.

[Collin Li]

He didn't accuse you of it, what he said in bold was a suggestion that would have been better than allocation into healthcare subsidies. The fact that you flinch from the idea is a reflection of the misunderstanding that Brendan (and economics in general) faces when speaking to the general public.

[brendan]

I might add that the typical libertarian argument that the government, now not paying for universal health care through taxes, will not have to charge as much tax meaning more money in pocket for the general population generally does not hold true for this segment of the population as they're not typically paying much (if any) tax at all.

Where does the resources come from? Tooth fairy?