CAMPOS: Yet another excuse

By Paul Campos, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

This weekend I dipped a toe into the sewers of right-wing talk radio, and listened to a rant by Michael Savage, during which the nationally syndicated commentator suggested that America's health-care problems could be solved by relocating fat people to "work camps."

In the course of what began as an attack on Hillary Clinton's support for universal health care, he vented his disgust toward "fat women," and claimed that nonthin Americans didn't deserve access to health care.

That a shameless demagogue like Savage advocates concentration camps for people with what he considers inappropriate bodies is bad enough (Savage's parents, it's worth noting in this context, were Jewish).

What's worse is that the same sort of ignorant hysteria that fuels Savage's foaming at the mouth also inspires more respectable, but potentially much more dangerous, suggestions from our political elite.

For instance, at last week's Democratic debate in Des Moines, Barack Obama noted that certain unnamed experts claim we could save Medicare $1 trillion if obesity rates were reduced to 1980 levels. He embraced this assertion for the purpose of illustrating how we can pay for universal health care relatively easily.

The theory, it seems, is that an ounce of weight loss is worth a pound of Medicare spending.

There's so much wrong with this that it's difficult to know where to begin. First, it remains very unclear to what extent, if at all, higher-than-average weight is an independent cause of health problems and their associated costs.

Second, even it turns out to be true that, in the abstract, "obese" people would be healthier if they lost weight (a theory which, it bears repeating, remains almost completely untested), it certainly doesn't follow that attempting to lose weight improves health.

Plenty of evidence suggests that losing weight and then regaining it has a negative overall effect on health. Furthermore, many of the things people do when pursuing weight loss, such as using diet drugs, are clearly unhealthy in and of themselves.

All this merely underlines a third point, which is that at present we don't have the faintest idea how to reduce "obesity" rates to what they were 30 years ago, even assuming this would be worth doing. There is no known method for producing long-term weight loss in statistically significant numbers of people, let alone in a nation of 300 million, one-third of whose adults are currently categorized as "obese."

Fourth, even if it were true that we knew how to make people thinner, and that doing so would improve their health, this hardly means such interventions would reduce health-care costs, especially for a program like Medicare.

After all, almost all Medicare expenses go toward health care for the elderly. If making fat people thinner extended life expectancy significantly, then putting America on a successful diet would in all likelihood actually increase Medicare costs.

Obama's claim is just one example of the dubious assumption that improving public health will produce a net reduction in health-care spending. The reason Medicare costs are skyrocketing is because Americans are living longer and longer lives, and very old people almost always eventually become very sick people, who are very expensive to care for.

Indeed, those who wish to do their patriotic duty, in fiscal terms, ought to aim to die of massive heart attacks at the precise end of their economically useful lives.

The reality is that a significant portion of the anti-fat hysteria that has gripped the culture over the past decade is driven by a desire to find any plausible excuse for not doing what every other developed nation in the world does: provide basic health care for all citizens.

It's too bad that a progressive politician like Obama is being drawn into this cynical game.

Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado. He can be reached at paul.campos@colorado.edu.

• December 19, 2007

  7:53 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  kathyM writes:

  Move to Canada and enjoy universal health care--that is, until you have a heart attack or get cancer. Then you'll come trotting over to the U.S. to get the treatment you have to wait 12+ months for in Canada. The haves live, the have-nots die. So much for "universal" health care.

• December 19, 2007

  7:58 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  vudumom writes:

  What is basic health care? A yearly physical?Everytime someone gets a sniffle they run to the Dr.?How much is basic? I think that needs to be defined.Is basic healthcare for people who need expensive treatments for Diabetes,heart disease,strokes,waiting for transplants,cancer etc...
  What part does the patient play in their health care,or should I say pay?
  I agree we need something but if I keep hearing everyone is supposed to have basic health care provided by the government, aka, the tax payers shouldn't we be getting a actual plan rather than a broad based statement from all the candidates that all Americans need basic health care?

  No one has defined their health care plan or defined basic.

• December 19, 2007

  8:02 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Gene writes:

  You do know, I assume, that Savage is an act. He actually is an entertainer, not a serious commentator. Think back to when you liberal (sorry, I mean "progressive") guys have a beef with something Rush said on the radio, and your retort is usually, . . he is not a real journalist. Now, you use an actual entertainer and act as if he is a serious journalist. And by the way, great subtle attack on Obama. The Clinton kneecap machine must have already threatened you!

• December 19, 2007

  9:29 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Spencer writes:

  http://www.photius.com/rankings/healt...

  It's embarrassing for the richest country to rate so low. It really says a lot about our ideas about morality.

• December 19, 2007

  9:30 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  DivaJean writes:

  Great article as always. But you are also forgetting that in between the timelines indicated, BMI terminology for what is overweight & obese also changed. I am of the understanding that if we had kept the same definitions in place, we would have some level of societal weight increase, but nothing that anyone could call epidemic-- probably more of a function of the boomers hitting that time in life where the bodies pad themselves.

  Its detestable that someone of Jewish heritage could even for one moment consider anything this heinous to be repeated. But that's par on course for people who want to buy into the priviledged society of monied, white men. Deny all that might not fit into the status quo of what is perceived as right.

  Heaven help those of us with the mathematical unfortune of a BMI greater than 30 should Huckabee win. I have a sinking feeling the reformed eater (and alledged elsewhere on the internet- status post gastric bypass)Huckabee would be all too happy to have the camps built and have me and my peers shipped in for "wellness training." Savage could just as easily be a CHief Minister of Health- he has qualifications as good as any of Bush's cronies.

  I live close to the Canadian border- hopefully I could get away.

• December 19, 2007

  4:03 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Houstongolfnut writes:

  The "sewers of right-wing talk radio"? How about the over the top rants of Randi Rhoads? I suppose that you think that she and the other nut bags over at Air America are just fine since their leftist bias matches yours.

• December 19, 2007

  10:48 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Rangerjoe1 writes:

  Today I dipped my toe in the sewer of a Left-wing newspaper columnist and read the garbage of Paul Compost. Yea enough said!

• December 20, 2007

  11:41 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  gary writes:

  Americans not fat!! Are you blind Campos...or just dumb? Evidently Dumb, because it is plain to see all of the fat people waddling around. All Americans survived for hundreds of years with out health insurance and things worked just fine. Health costs have gone sky high due to the Insurance companies. Also, let us not forget the billions spent and lost on "emergency health care" for all of the illegals bankrupting our hospitals and raising costs for everyone. Now Campos and the rest of you can call me a racists.

• December 20, 2007

  3:07 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  ItsJustme writes:

  OK, PC, I'll say it again: We know you have a problem with any mention of the word "fat." And we know that fat people are people, too. But save yourself some time next time. Just write "See my column of 12/19/07." Oh, by the way, just how honest are you? Would you apply the same logic to the concept of "global warming" that you do to reducing obesity? No?? I didn't think so.

• December 20, 2007

  4:57 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Dan2 writes:

  This from the man that advocates limiting guns because of the vast number of deaths caused by guns.

  NEWS FLASH CAMPOS - more people die from being fat than from guns by a factor of 4 (according to NIH health statistics).

  But maybe instead of trying to "fix" things after the fact, we should focus attention and demand responsibility PRIOR to an issue becoming a problem? A better question in regards to obesity would be how to we address the growing problem of over-weight children prior to their 12th birthday (maybe banning dodgeball isn't the answer)? Maybe lazy parents should learn how to cook again, instead of taking their 3 year olds to McDonalds? Maybe owning a video game unit before teenage years, really ISN'T all that great of an idea? And maybe 'Baby Einsteins' are not the best idea when it involves plopping a 13 month old in front of the television?

  A mildly veiled attempt at just another reason of why "elitists" like Campos must not get their way and have their cronies running the health care of Americans on a Federal level.

  You have to admit though, the comedic value Mr. Campos adds to the RMN is priceless...

• December 20, 2007

  5:35 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Gene writes:

  You guys are missing the point. 1) The Savage proposal was a bogus entertainment B. S. proposal. 2) Campos has been on this fat thing for a long time. 3) He is dismissing Obama as a lightweight - one of his only valid points, and 4) setting Mrs. Clinton up as a health care savior.

• December 21, 2007

  6:51 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  DivaJean writes:

  Dan2- might I suggest you read more of Campos' writing and consider reading from a blog called Junkfood Science? You'd see just about every "fact" you quote is total bunk.

  Grow up, don't believe the hype.

• December 21, 2007

  12:41 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Michael writes:

  Not related to this blog, but as Campos is a staunch lefty and comes down on the side of undisputed man-made global warming, I thought posting this here was most appropriate. Paul's supporters should like this too. Enjoy.

  http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cf...

• December 22, 2007

  5:22 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  webviking0579 writes:

  Insurance is a stupid way to pay for routine health care. You don't use insurance to pay for maintenance on your car, you use it to pay expenses incurred in an unexpected event, like an accident.

  Not everyone has an accident every year, and insurance spreads the cost of accidents over the entire population of drivers.

  You should have low cost health insurance for to cover expenses for serious illnesses or accidents. Not everyone has those every year, and insurance would spread the cost of treating them over the entire population.

  Routine expenses should come out of your pocket or a tax free health savings account, or in the case of people below the poverty line, a yearly grant of a set amount of money from the government.

  That puts people in control of their health care, and they would demand good care at a reasonable cost and the market would do it's best to provide. They would also have more incentive to lead healthier lives.

  A big part of the reason that health care costs increase so fast, is that no one really pays directly for health care.

• December 24, 2007

  10:21 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Spencer writes:

  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/0...

  I guess Arnold hasn't received the GOP talking points where you are supposed to deny global warming.