Hacker News Reader

Comment by groby_b | Hacker News Reader

That 90% number is plain not true. Please cite any source for that.

The costs for obese folk are on average 90%-100% higher than for non-obese folk, but that's not 90% of total spending. (See e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33470881/)

Total cost approaches 20% of spending: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesi...

View on HN

I was using obesity as a standin for metabolic syndrome to compare populations. Not sure if measure how many ppl have 'metabolic syndrome.

https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/metabolic-syndrome

metabolic disease = all things that can be fixed by lifestyle modifications ( unless you are too far gone, ie).

see my reply here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32744868

Metabolic syndrome is often a side effect of medication or symptom of other diseases that can't be fixed with lifestyle modifications alone.

For example, there are a lot of people on psychiatric medications that can cause metabolic syndrome as a primary side effect.

> is often

Would be interesting to know how often.

Tens of millions of people in the US take atypical antipsychotics and antidepressants that cause metabolic syndrome as a very common side effect.

I wonder though how much this drives up the cost.

Because obesity also drives down lifespan, and age has a huge impact on healthcare expenditures.

Obesity, like smoking, is one of those morbidities that lower lifetime healthcare costs significantly, as most costs are incurred in old age, as you saisd. Obesity, smoking, etc can kill before reaching an age where people start incurring high costs.

There is a lovely tale from Czech Republic in 2001 where Philip Morris was distributing analysis showing the economic benefits of smoking to their shared healthcare pool.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB995230746855683470

Don’t get so hung up on precise numbers. We all know Americans are obese and that greatly adds to healthcare costs.

I can’t imagine any downside of trying to prioritize lowering obesity.

Thank god we aren't discussing your imagination, then.

"Don't get so hung up on precise numbers", uh, 90% isn't just imprecise, it's so catastrophically wrong that it undermines your entire argument

This is a topic that’s always going to have wildly different numbers. Who cares? It doesn’t change what we all know to be true. Nothing has been undermined whatsoever

What we all know to be true is your troll status.

Do you know the right number by any chance?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com