>>>>>>>>>I see no actual harm in such a law, only stupidity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Cambridge, MA is stepping up to the plate to demonstrate the harm.
>>>>>>>>MAYOR DAVIS
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>WHEREAS: High intake of soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages increases the risk of obesity and diabetes; and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>WHEREAS:
>>>>>>>> New York City has a plan to limit the serving size of soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages sold in restaurants; now therefore be it
>>>>>>>>ORDERED:
>>>>>>>> That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to refer the matter of a ban on soda and sugar-sweetened beverages in restaurants to the Cambridge Public Health Department for a recommendation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/PolicyOrder.cfm?item_id=35515
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Behavior control laws are harmful because they empower the stupid to further impose their vision of life on everyone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Health is different because the cost is shared by all. Either we have to allow people to die that can't afford even basic health care or we have to be proactive in leveraging healthier consumption choices to lower the overall cost burden.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If controlling costs is your concern then you should encourage "unhealthy" behavior, not the other way around.
>>>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html?_r=3
>>>>>>Update : http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/
>>>>>
>>>>>That has to be one of the dumbest analysis I've ever seen. What should of been done is to compare the yearly health care costs - not the lifetime costs.
>>>>
>>>>Please explain why yearly costs are more valid than lifetime cost.
>>>
>>>Well I would think that would be obvious. If someone is costing $5,000 a year in medical costs for 50 years because they're fat and smoke a lot - then die, that's a lot of expense. If someone is costing $2,000 a year in medical costs for 80 years they've also contributed to society and such for an additional 30 years. If they're healthy then their costs are more offset by their contribution...etc etc etc.
>>
>>$5k * 50 = $250,000
>>$2k * 80 = $160,000
>>
>>Your example is the exact opposite of what the research shows.
>>
>>Here's a link to the research article.
>>http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029
>>
>>You should note the life expectancy from age 20 for smokers (57.4), obese (59.9) and "healthy living" (64.4).
>
>Lifetime costs in Euros:
>Healthy: 281,000
>Obese: 250,000
>Smokers: 220,000
>
>I think this summed it up pretty well:
>"...There’s an obvious mistake here (how could you have missed it??). While your immediate conclusion may be true (i.e. that unhealthy behavior does not cost more than healthy behavior over the lifetime of a single individual), your final conclusion (i.e. that there is no added cost to society because of unhealthy behavior) is totally false.
>
>To enable your comprehension and to assist you in the realization of how retarded this article is consider the following two extreme cases:
>
>1) Society 1: Each individual in this society lives to be 100 and over his lifetime costs society $200,000. For every YEAR of each individual’s life in this society, he is costing an average of $2000/YEAR.
>
>2) Society 2: Each individual in this society lives to be 50 and over his lifetime costs society $150,000 (YES – AS YOU SAY THESE INDIVIDUALS COST LESS). For every year of each individual’s life in this society they are costing an average of $3000/YEAR.

>Did you get that?

>Even though, individually, they might cost less, they are costing society more.

>And to think that you wrote an entire article and missed this one SUPER SIMPLE point is rather baffling...."

To make this "point" you've gone to "two extreme cases" which do not reflect the real world. Neither of those societies exist. What does exist are actual average life expectancies and real world costs.

To determine the health care costs of "society" we must use numbers in line with reality, which is why I provided the lifetime costs and then the life expectancy numbers from the study itself.

So from age 20 on the life expectancies are :
Healthy: 64.4
Obese: 59.9
Smokers: 57.4

Using the Euro's you provided the costs are :
Healthy: 281,000
Obese: 250,000
Smokers: 220,000

Thus the average annual health costs are:
Healthy: 4363.35
Obese: 4173.62
Smokers: 3832.75

What you are trying to demonstrate is not valid, which is what the study is pointing out.

Mind you, there are legitimate issues with the study, including what I think you're trying to suggest about societal costs:

Fourth, it is important to stress that we have focused solely on health-care costs related to smoking and obesity, ignoring broader cost categories and consequences of these risk factors to society. It is likely, however, that these impacts will be substantial. For instance, reduced morbidity in people of working age may improve productivity and thus result in sizeable productivity gains in society (e.g., [44]). In the case of smoking and obesity, these indirect costs could well be higher than the direct medical costs [8,18]. Moreover, from a societal perspective, other potentially substantial costs and consequences need to be considered, such as those related to informal care, the damage due to fires caused by smoking, or the reduced well-being of family members due to morbidity and premature death. These different cost categories emphasize the influence the perspective taken in economic analyses has on the conclusions. From a welfare economic perspective the societal perspective is, in fact, the most relevant [45], although in practice many evaluations take a narrower perspective, which more closely conforms to the perspective most relevant to the decision-maker they are trying to inform [46].

While there may be an argument to be made for overall contribution to society, that is certainly not a given and to suggest that smokers and/or obese are less productive overall in society than the "healthy-living" in the extra years gained by their lifestyle will require proof that those "healthy living" individuals actually contribute more to society in those extra years than they consume. Given the nature of government benefits given by society to the elderly I am skeptical, but nevertheless open to the reasearch.

>>>>>Duh all the smoking obese drunks are all dead by 50.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.forces.org/static_page/oldest.php
>>>>Enjoy! ;)