Eat Up, Red Staters

I came across this a few minutes ago from the AP again (made it to today's Inquirer after all)...

U.S. puts on more weight, mainly in the South

Of all states surveyed, only Oregon didn't get fatter between 2002-04. All fell well short of federal goals.

By Kevin Freking
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Like a lot of people, the nation's weight problem is settling below its waistline. The states with the highest percentages of obese adults are mostly in the South: Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Louisiana and Tennessee.

Kickin' back too many "Little Debbie's" while watching those tractor pulls on "Spike" TV in between country music videos, ah reckon...

In the entire nation, only Oregon isn't getting fatter.

Over the 2002-04 period, 22.7 percent of U.S. adults were obese, up slightly from 22 percent for 2001-03, the advocacy group Trust for America's Health reported yesterday, citing data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Yes, I'm aware that this is a legitimate issue pertaining to diet and lifestyle, and I'm really not trying to trivialize it. It's just that this article poses the problem and then presents a "solution" that...well, let me put it this way; calling it "simplistic" is being kind.

Alabama had the biggest increase. Its obesity rate rose 1.5 percentage points to 27.7 percent.

Pennsylvania ranked 15th among the states in obesity, at 24 percent, and New Jersey ranked 40th at 20.3 percent.

Oregon held steady at 21 percent, and Hawaii was not included in the group's report, "F as in Fat: How Obesity Policies are Failing in America, 2005."

Catchy title - sounds like Bushco putting our tax dollars to work for us again.

While certain regions of the country fared worse than others, particularly the Southeast, the organization said no state met the federal government's goal of a 15 percent obesity rate for adults by 2010.

"2010," huh? Wasn't Roy Scheider in that one? Well, you know what they say - the sequel usually isn't as good as the original anyway.

An adult with a body mass index - body weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared - of 30 or more is considered obese. The measurement is not a good indicator of obesity for muscular people who exercise a lot.

"Bulging waistlines are growing and it's going to cost taxpayers more dollars regardless of where you live," said Shelley Hearne, executive director of Trust for America's Health.

Families and children are hungry, and that's going to cost taxpayers more dollars also, though filling that need is a genuinely worthy cause. However, it's easier to produce a scare headline with a dramatic-sounding quote like this, so there you are.

Why the geographic patterns? Experts don't have any one clear answer. Some suggest urban sprawl plays a role. Others say it is easier to find a burger and fries than apples and asparagus in poor communities.

Assuming that's true (and it very well may be), how about doing some genuine reporting and try to find out why?

Delia West, a professor of public health in Arkansas, said demographics play a part. The South has a larger percentage of minorities, who have shown an increased risk for obesity, West said. She said Southerners also tend to lead a more sedentary lifestyle than their counterparts in states such as Colorado or Oregon. People will find fewer jogging trails in Little Rock than in Denver, she said.

Also, the Southern diet probably plays a role, said West, a professor at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences.

"We know the difference between purple hulled peas and speckled butter beans," she said. "But we make them with bacon fat or salt pork, so even though we're getting the micronutrients, it often comes laden with these extra calories."

The left hand defeating the purpose of the right again, I see. That's what I like about the South.

Hearne said the United States is stuck in a "debate limbo" about how to confront obesity. She urged government action on several fronts, such as ensuring that land-use plans promote physical activity, that school lunch programs serve more healthful meals, and that Medicaid recipients have access to subsidized fitness programs, such as aerobics classes at the local YMCA.

All good ideas.

OK, now here is where it gets interesting (and this is why I bothered to post this). I don't know where they drug up this character from, but I can guarantee you that if he came from The Cato Institute, then he's another one of these professional know-it-alls who probably read "Atlas Shrugged" at some point or went to a Dale Carnegie course and considered one or both to be life-altering experiences, became a Republican if he wasn't already, and then decided that anyone in the world who wasn't just like him was automatically wrong.

Radley Balko, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute, said he was wary of the call for more government action on obesity. The institute is a think tank that prefers free-market approaches to problems.

Oh yes, it's all that bad, bad government's fault, isn't it? I mean, the free market has produced such wonders, hasn't it, such as mass airline bankruptcies, lax adherence to safety regulations in every industry you can name, massive offshoring of jobs, fouling of the environment, and consolidation and concentration of media monopolies. Sure, the free market; that's the ticket!

"I think obesity is a very personal issue," Balko said. "What you eat and how often you exercise, if that comes within the government's purview, it's difficult to think of what's left that isn't."

No it isn't, but you're saying that to try and scare people, like this Freaking guy did earlier in the story. Nice try.

Health policy analysts say obesity increases the burden on taxpayers, because it requires the Medicare and Medicaid programs to cover the treatment of diseases caused by obesity. The report issued yesterday said taxpayers spent $39 billion in 2003 to treat conditions attributable to obesity.

Do these "health policy analysts" have names or affiliations? Or are they one-eyed, incandescent microbes from the planet Zorblatt spewing love spores into the ionosphere?

(Sorry, too much coffee...time for a fistful of Xanax again.)

It is not clear that the government really knows how to persuade people to make better decisions, Balko said. He said open-ended entitlement programs, such as Medicaid and Medicare, don't provide much of a financial incentive for people to watch their weight.

No, but they do provide a safety net (growing smaller all the time) for patients dealing with severe or life-threatening illness or physical pain (oh, I forgot...have to let the free market do everything again, right. Drat that burdensome instinct of compassion again!).

The government just picks up the cost of treating diseases for those patients, regardless of the amounts, he (Balko) said.

He said he preferred that the government give Medicaid and Medicare recipients an incentive to open medical savings accounts, which would allow them to save money when they do not access the health-care system.

"If they knew they only had so much to spend, or what they did not spend could be saved," Balko said, "then maybe you could instill a certain sense of responsibility and ownership."

Oh mah god...typical Repug boilerplate again. Savings accounts, savings accounts...WHAT THE HELL GOOD DO THEY DO WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO PUT INTO THE ACCOUNT! And people who don't eat right don't have "a certain sense of responsibility and ownership"? You sanctimonious jackoff!

If you're interesting in hearing a serious answer, here it is. People don't eat or exercise right because of the stress of juggling jobs and family lives in some cases. In others, it's because bad eating habits are highly desired by the fast food and pharma industries, since the profitability of both are enhanced. In still other situations, people just make "dumb as meatloaf" decisions about diet and exercise.

I know, as a parent, juggling time to eat, among other things, comes with the territory. But here is what I remember growing up...my dad worked, my mom stopped working for a few years to take care of my brothers and I until we got older, then she went back to work, my dad worked pretty regular hours, we went to school at regular hours, and WE ATE AT REGULAR HOURS. We were blessed and lucky to be sure, but we were also typical in this regard.

Give people good jobs so they don't have to work two, three or more jobs in a household to make ends meet (assuming you can even do THAT as things are now), and one of the ripple effects, if you will, will be more family time around the dinner table because everyone will be together. That will have all kinds of good consequences, and eating better is one of them.

But no, you Cato Institute puke, you can create better sound bites and media moments by making it sound like John Q. and Jane American are at fault across the board, right?

Spare me.