A billion dollars isn't cool. You know what's cool? A trillion dollars. That's the point this NY Times article is making about a relatively easy way for the U.S. to save over a trillion dollars in costs (as much as saving a trillion dollars is ever easy).
Interesting.
"Lifestyle diseases" are diseases that are caused by controllable factors in your daily life: diabetes, heart disease, some cancer, etc. In some cases these are more than "lifestyle" and you simply have bad genetic luck; in others, you are getting these diseases only because of your (bad) individual choices in terms of athletic activity, good diet, and mental health. Treating these diseases now takes up more than 1/7 of our national GDP. And that's TREATING, as in dealing with symptoms and not the underlying cause. The point, of course, is that by changing our basic eating habits to be even a bit more healthy and exercising a little more as a nation, we could be saving ourselves amounts of $$ that would be counted in terms of hundreds of billions.
How does this relate to urban econ? To me, it ties very closely into at least two articles we've already looked at, about new urban grocery stores and about health conditions in urban settings. One way the government could be saving money on a massive scale would be through funding smaller, healthier food options, especially in urban settings (e.g. more organic type sections in markets, generous grants to small businesses who sell food that meets a certain health standard, more attention to creating healthy meals and eating patterns in public schools). This would have pretty immediate and tangible financial results.
Thoughts? Other ways the government could try and influence the conditions that cause these lifestyle diseases? Would it be better for efforts towards that to come from local, state, or federal government?
I think that this is a good idea. It is important for people to eat healthy to live long healthy lives and it would be great for the government to help with making that more possible. I think that some of the ideas that Alex suggested are good, and would be helpful.
ReplyDeleteHowever, my one issue is when good intentions are used to reduce freedom of choice. For instance, a Chicago school as banned homemade lunches from the cafeteria. (I put the link to that article below) In my opinion, that is overstepping the boundaries. We have to accept that certain people just don't want to eat the healthy food, and the government has not right to force them.
Having said that, that is not generally the case. I think that it is a good idea for our government to promote healthy eating and lifestyle choices because that is an issue in Our country, specifically urban settings.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110411/us_yblog_thelookout/chicago-school-bans-homemade-lunches-the-latest-in-national-food-fight
Alex, I totally agree that overall preventative procedures to help address are nation's health care issues are WAY more effective - both cost-wise and towards the overall "consumer" benefit - than simply focusing on treatments.
ReplyDeleteMy only difference of opinion is on over-emphasizing healthy food options in urban areas, particularly focusing on organic-type sections in markets. This is an awesome idea for urban areas that already have functioning grocery stores, but for some food deserts (like Detroit), simply having a grocery store to access at all is a huge deal. My biggest qualm with the movement to restore Detroit right now is that many business owners are opening up upscale and hyper-organic stores, like Whole Foods. While this is great, I don't know how many people who actually live in Detroit are going to be able to afford their products. I think that making sure all urban areas have easily accesible and afforable grocery stores is the first step, and then grants for healthy food should come next.
Liz and Bridgett both make good points here. I think the hardest part will be finding a balance between affordability and healthy food choices. I think that school in Chicago has the right idea in trying to get parents to be more aware of their kids' diets, but I just don't think it's a practical solution unless the school system and/or the government is going to cover the additional cost of providing a healthy lunch to students.
ReplyDeleteAlex, I think you're touching on something very important.. the irony that increasing "standards of living" has had a harmful effect on American health.
ReplyDeleteSomething else to acknowledge: Americans spend an average of 9.3 percent of disposable income on food. That leaves more than 90 percent to be spent on homes, automobiles, recreation, etc.
In, China (the country with all of our money, right?) an average of 28.3 percent of income is spent on food. Americans haven't spent that much since.. hm... 1933. Correlation? I think so. http://familyfarmalliance.clubwizard.com/IMupload/SalemReport.pdf
This led me to a little research on what the healthiest countries are and what their food cultures are like... I found that Iceland was the healthiest country as of 2008, so I looked into more about their food culture and the first site I found (iceland.is) said:
ReplyDelete"Iceland offers a fine variety of all kinds of foods produced locally. The quality is excellent, in part because of a very clean environment.... Iceland has strict regulations relating to meat production and the use of hormones is strictly forbidden."
Nowhere did it mention processed foods, fast foods, or anything untraditional to Iceland. Instead it talked about the fishing industry and that they are able to grow a surprising number of crops despite the latitude.
I also found that Iceland is not lacking in technology and in fact is a leader in number of high speed internet connections per capita. Somehow, Iceland is able to balance its food culture with its lifestyle in a way that doesn't lead to lifestyle disease. Perhaps the US could learn from them.