From a Wall Street Journal article by Betsy McKay come these tantalizing facts (emphasis added):
The medical costs of treating obesity-related diseases may have soared as high as $147 billion in 2008, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Monday, as its new director set a fresh tone in favor of more aggressively attacking obesity.
The cost of treating obesity doubled over a decade, signaling the rising prevalence of excess weight and the toll it is taking on the health-care system. The medical costs of obesity were estimated to be $74 billion in 1998, according to a study by federal government researchers and RTI International, a nonprofit research institute in Research Triangle Park, N.C.
The findings were released at a conference on obesity held by the CDC in Washington, D.C. The prevalence of obesity rose 37 percent between 1998 and 2006, and medical costs climbed to about 9.1 percent of all U.S. medical costs, the researchers said.
Obese people spent 42 percent more than people of normal weight on medical costs in 2006, a difference of $1,429, the study found. Prescription drugs accounted for much of the increase.
We’ve blogged here variously in the past about the many possible contributing factors that have made it so much easier to get obese these days. That said, it is a self-inflicted condition any way you look at it.
When you read that 9.1 percent of all health-care costs are the result of eating and drinking too much, doesn’t it make you wonder if we should be more seriously talking about a fat tax rather than simply a fat-cat tax? The first dollars in fact could come from the six senators who are trying to reform health care:
On the agenda is the revamping of the American health care system, possibly the most complex legislation in modern history. But on the table, in a conference room where the bill is being hashed out by six senators, the snacks are anything but healthy.
Last week, there were chippers — chocolate-covered potato chips — described on a sign as “North Dakota Diet Food.” More often, there are Doritos, pretzels, Oreo cookies, and beef jerky: fuel to get through hours of talks on topics like the actuarial values of private insurance plans or the cost-sharing provisions of Medicare.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Walk-on,
I’m guessing you didn’t read the linked to article about fat-tax. It does not suggest taxing people for being fat, it suggests taxing unhealthy, fattening foods.
7 is right. Subsidizing healthy food would be imperative as most unhealthy food is extremely cheap (because of corn subsidies) which makes it the only option for poor people. This is a large reason why obesity disproportionately affects people of lower socioeconomic status.
How many health-clubs get built in poor neighborhoods? We’re not talking anymore about preaching diet and exercise, disclosing calorie counts, or restricting sodas in schools. We’re talking about treating French fries like cigarettes or liquor.
FACT: Health food is more expensive than the crap.
Low income people suffer more from unhealthy diets. If you’re on a limited income trying to feed a family, in a distorted sense you’re behaving rationally by choosing heavily sweetened and fat-laden foods. Access to healthy food is one of those issues that anyone – no matter their racial, ethnic, geographic or political stripes – can agree upon. A recent USDA report also says that while “supermarkets and large grocery stores have lower prices than smaller stores,” “easy access to all food, rather than lack of access to specific healthy foods, may be a more important factor in explaining increases in obesity. In short, the problem isn’t the good food you can’t get, but really the bad food you can. This trend has hit low-income groups particularly hard. The obesity rates for “poor” and “near-poor” people stand at 36 percent and 35.4 percent, respectively, against an overall average of 29.2 percent for “non-poor, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports.
The price gap between the two food categories is growing.The overall cost of food consumed at home, when adjusted for inflation, has been essentially unchanged since 1980. But over the same time, the price of soft drinks plunged 30 percent, and the price of candy and other sweets fell 20 percent. Meanwhile, the price of fresh fruits and vegetables rose 50 percent.
FACT: Our food system is shot through with corn.
Corn feeds the animals that feed us: more than 50 percent of the harvest goes into domestic animal operations. About 5 percent flows into high-fructose corn syrup, adding a sweet jolt to soft drinks, confections, and breakfast cereal. All told, it’s a cheap source of calories and taste. Yet all this convenience comes with a price — and not just an environmental one. The first step to truly ending obesity (and hunger) is to define what causes and perpetuates poverty and address that.
http://www.thegrio.com/2009/06/access-to-healthy-food-is.php
re comment #1: When you mention bodybuilders, those with thyroid disorders, etc, you are talking about maybe 0.5% of the population.
It is not difficult at all to determine who is obese and who is not. Americans are eating themselves to death and the only way to stem the tide is to hit them in the wallet. Money is (unfortunately) the only thing that really speaks to people.
People on welfare that are issued food stamps should be limited to purchasing staple food supplies such as milk, various meats, fruits, vegetables, etc. Snack foods like cookies, chips, twinkies, soda (et al) should be off the list of gov subsidized foods.
Face it: Americans are not just fat, they are morbidly obese. Something must be done, and fast.
Why not create a formula for fat/unhealthy content in food and create a tax accordingly.
$X dollars per gram of transfat over a certain threshold. In other words, tax consumption (eating the food) vs. income (getting fat from the food).
While this would be seen as a “regressive” tax unfairly affecting the poor, I think it should be noted that the notion that “healthy foods” are more expensive than “crap foods” is only true when you’re at the grocery store looking for 3 dollar pizzas.
It doesn’t extend to fast food.
As an example, there was a “homeless” man panhandling on the bus for $6.50 to buy a burrito and a soda. I felt that if this person can not figure out a better way to spend 6.50 than on a burrito and a soda, he deserves to go hungry.
Likewise, if the poor are being encouraged to eat fast food because of it’s price, that should be fixed.
French fries SHOULD be treated like cigarettes and alcohol, because like cigarettes and alcohol, they contribute to a significant negative externality. A pigovian tax would be the ideal solution in this case.
P.S. the new show “more to love” is not only a startling smack in the face to what typical America is their commercials provide an interesting statistic. The average woman is a size 13-14? wow.
The Nazis hated socialism.
A few points:
#1 food stamps may only go toward staples and can not buy junk food. I have seen clerks tell this to people and force them to put items back when they try and use food stamps for them.
#2: Why not tax high fat/Junk food the way tobacco products are taxed. Seems to make sense. How we determine what is healthy and what is not is another story. Whole milk and cheese might be determined to be unhealthy based on the %of fat in them.
#3: Let’s pay people who are at a healthy weight and live a healthy life style by giving them discounts on things like health insurance.
#4: It is time we realize that portion size in the US is out of control. SUPERSIZE is everywhere. I went out to eat at a local Italian joint and 3 out of 4 diners took food home with them because a plate of pasta was enough for three meals not one.