*Sigh* you're still talking about financial costs related to the last years of people's lives.

That article is about the last years of their lives. It openly admits that it does not evaluate the worth of their increased productivity.

"The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs."

Related to your bold text, why was my statement assumed to be aimed to help insurance companies? Of course I'm talking about what matters to us as individuals. It is not a good investment for me to buy food from cheaper fast food restaurants. It is a good investment, financially and in every other way, to eat fruits, vegetables, yogurt, lean meats, organic, etc.

IBM signed on to do an incentive health education program with Weight Watchers. They gave $150 to every one of their (tons) of employees to everyone that would take online tests to learn how to take care of themselves. They're self insured, and as a result of the investment, they saved 26% of their health care costs.

http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=784355

Americans spend $42 billion on "health products" each year, and health care costs corporations $60 billion. By 2050, it is expected that the costs will go up seven-fold ($420 billion), specifically as a result of American's upward swing towards obesity. It is a social epidemic, and a lifelong major cost.

Screw saving other people's money by dying sooner...

Nice touch?



The following quote seems to contradict that. Where did you get this impression?



The costs associates are from age 20 on (one might consider that to be approximately the lifetime of when you are personally responsible for the cost of your health insurance).



Did you, perhaps (again?), miss the intention of pointing out this story? I just thought it was interesting, especially pertaining to your previous comment about the cost of doctor's visits. I think my participation in this site is a reasonable indication that I do not encourage "...saving other peoples' money by dying sooner," and take issue with the assertion that I might.

Interesting note on IBM as well - my company provides a lot of incentives for living a healthy lifestyle, with programs that add up to $625 to your pre-tax Health Savings Accounts. While it's not in any a reason for me to be healthy, it's a nice additional benefit.

Ah, you're right. Misunderstood, and I'm new here so I don't really know what your forum behavior would indicate just yet.

The internet does funny things to people.

No worries, it was fun

Not to mention, a lot of interesting info all around!

Agree about the cost of healthy eating.
A great problem is organic and unorganic food which has a difference in price, of coarse.

I went to a local restaurant last night as a belated treat to the family. We normally eat at home, but it was Friday and we were all feeling (we're all eating very healthy and exercising), well...devious.

We went to the restaurant and I had some fish instead of the usual chicken or beef that I would have ordered. I went in knowing that I was the decision maker in this deal and I wouldn't have it any other way.

It was hard not to eat the bread. I caved in and had 1.5 rolls and was fine with that. I ordered water with lemon. THEN, came dessert. I test myself. I ordered a slice of chocolate ecstasy cake for the table with three forks. I had ONE bite, ate deliberately slowly and MAN WAS THAT SWEET ICING. REALLY FRIGGIN SWEET. I really wasn't craving any more. My tast buds changed. I went for the plain cake on the inside and hade two forks of that. Downed some water and I was fine. AMAZING. Slow eating is my trick with a positive intent...always positive. Now, it's off to the gym.

Later everybody. Have a great day!