ThinkProgress Logo

Health

How Much Does Obesity Contribute To Health Spending?

The Congressional Budget Office has released a new issue brief estimating how much obesity-related diseases contribute to health care costs and what policymakers will face in the future if they don’t address the epidemic. According to the CBO, “health care spending per adult grew substantially in all weight categories between 1987 and 2007, but the rate of growth was much more rapid among the obese. Spending per capita for obese adults exceeded spending for adults of normal weight by about 8 percent in 1987 and by about 38 percent in 2007″:

As one might expect, spending on the obesity-related conditions CBO identified is generally higher for heavier adults, but normal-weight adults also develop those conditions reflecting the fact that obesity is only one of the risk factors associated with those conditions. For example, spending in 2007 on obesity-related diseases averaged $2,030 for obese adults and $1,090 for normal-weight adults, a difference of $940. Therefore, spending on the obesity-related diseases CBO considered accounts for about 60 percent of the $1,530 difference in total spending on health care per capita between normal- weight and obese adults in that year.

Look:

PreviewScreenSnapz004

PreviewScreenSnapz005

The office estimates that if the obesity trend remained unchanged, costs would increase somewhere between $7,550 and $7,760 per adult in 2020 (from $4,550 in 2007). Should the distribution of body weight revert back to 1987 levels, however “projected spending per capita would be $7,230 per capita” — stil higher than today, but increasing slower.

Politics

California Public Schools Invited BP To Help Develop Environmental Curriculum

BPWhen students in California return to school this fall, they will have a brand new environmental curriculum — developed, in part, by oil giant BP. The Sacramento Bee reported today that BP helped California’s public schools form an environmental curriculum to be used by over 6 million public school students (kindergarten through 12th grade) in 1,000 districts. The Bee reports that state officials included BP on a technical team that “was responsible for developing the program’s guiding principles.”

Even before the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe, which BP officials admit was the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history, the company had a terrible environmental record: over the past five years, BP paid $373 million in fines to avoid prosecution after admitting to breaking U.S. environmental and safety laws.

The same company involved in forming California’s environmental curriculum also has a long record of dishonest greenwashing. As Lisa Graves, executive director for the Center for Media and Democracy, which monitors “greenwashing” techniques, told the Bee: “I’d hate to see how a section in future textbooks mentioning the BP oil spill will look. … I think it’s very worrisome because their fundamental goal is to profit from energy and not to teach children.”

BP’s dishonesty was on full display during the Gulf disaster, as the company tried to spin the environmental catastrophe that unleashed 206 million gallons of oil into the ocean. Just today, BP released a report deflecting blame for the oil spill onto various other companies. The Wonk Room‘s Brad Johnson has been tracking some of BP’s most egregious statements:

– Five months and one day before its Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, BP’s top Gulf of Mexico official testified its practices were “both safe and protective of the environment.”

– In the immediate aftermath of the explosion, BP officials called the disaster “inconceivable,” “unprecedented,” and completely unforeseeable: “I don’t think anybody foresaw the circumstance that we’re faced with now,” said one spokesman. This was despite the fact that blowouts are unfortunately common in offshore oil drilling.

– Then-CEO Tony Hayward said on May 19 that “the environmental impact of this disaster is likely to be very, very modest.”

– On June 9, Hayward said that a new fund the company set up “will have a significant positive impact on the environment in this region.”

– BP’s new CEO, Robert Dudley, has repeatedly said dispersants the company used in the Gulf were “like dish soap.” The dispersant used, Corexit, is a combination of petroleum distillates, propylene glycol, and dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate which is banned in the United Kingdom.

Nevertheless, California officials defended BP’s involvement in interviews with the Bee, saying that the company’s involvement was “minor” and that it was “important to get all sides of the environmental debate involved in developing the classroom materials.” The problem is that the side BP generally represents is not based in fact.

Security

Energy Company Claims ‘No Responsibility’ For Hiring And Abuse Of Undocumented Oil Spill Cleanup Workers

Michigan River Oil SpillBack in July, a state of emergency was declared in southwest Michigan’s Kalamazoo County following an 800,000 gallon oil spill. At the time, Enbridge Energy, a subsidiary of Enbridge Inc., took complete responsibility, stating “[t]his is our mess. We’re going to clean it up.”

However, the company doesn’t want to take any responsibility for the illegal hiring and abuse of the undocumented cleanup employees who were hired by an Enbridge Energy subcontractor to work up to 100 hours a week in unsafe conditions. According to Enbridge, the company conveniently has nothing to do with the controversy since its contractor (Garner Environmental Services) hired another contractor (Hallmark Industrial) which in turn hired and abused the undocumented workers:

In the wake of the Messenger investigation, the firing of Hallmark and the detention of its workers, Enbridge Energy — the company repsonsible for the spill — has claimed no responsibility for the workers cleaning it up.

Last week, Enbridge officials said there was no official proof that the undocumented workers were in any way connected to the spill cleanup in Michigan. “This is an issue between law enforcement, Hallmark, and Garner,” said Terri Larson, Enbridge spokesperson. “There is no direct connection between Enbridge and Hallmark.”

While it’s true that Enbridge probably wasn’t directly involved in the hiring or managing of undocumented workers, that won’t necessarily exonerate the company. There is an abundance of businesses that have been caught knowingly employing the services of a subcontractors that hire and abuse cheap, undocumented labor. In fact, for many of these companies it’s simply part of a business model that allows them to maximize their profits by skirting immigration and labor laws. However, under the Obama administration, an increasing number of these companies are being held liable for the unlawful hiring practices of their subcontractors.

It doesn’t help that the Michigan Messenger — which broke the story — has also found that Enbridge’s own labor record “reveals a pattern of problems with worker safety including multiple worker deaths in recent years.” Earlier this year, the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) charged Enbridge with failing to develop and implement safe work practices for workers exposed to hydrogen sulfide and a failure to provide required personal protection equipment. According to OSHA, these violations were committed “with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the law’s requirements, or with plain indifference to employee safety and health.”

Rep. Mark Schauer (D-MI) has come out blasting Enbridge, stating, “It’s outrageous and disgusting that our local workers — including many who have hazmat training and certifications — have been cheated out of these opportunities to do this work.”

Meanwhile, those unauthorized workers who spent 12 to 14 hours a day, seven days a week, cleaning up Enbridge’s “mess” in unsafe conditions may never see the fruits of their labor. Last week, a bus full of Hallmark workers on their way back to Texas to collect their pay was stopped by police. While some workers ran away, the majority of those detained were sent to a detention facility in Houston and will likely be deported.

Politics

Two Colorado Republicans File Suit To Throw Tancredo Off November Gubernatorial Ballot

tancredo3In July, former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) lambasted then-Republican gubernatorial primary candidate Dan Maes as an “unelectable” disaster in the making. Unwilling to watch the GOP blow an opportunity to defeat Democratic nominee John Hickenlooper, Tancredo jumped in as a third-party candidate, believing he presented the best opportunity for a conservative victory.

But Tancredo’s third-party candidacy is garnering him anything but love from the conservative base. Immediately after announcing his entry, Colorado Republican Party Chair Dick Wadhams and 21 state Tea Party leaders pummeled Tancredo for siphoning votes away from a potential GOP victory. Constitutional conservatives of the Vail Valley 9.12 Project in Colorado later joined in decrying Tancredo for pursuing the type of candidacy that “guarantees the re-election of liberals” and demanded that he “drop out of the race and come back to the conservative party.”

Fed up with his obstinacy, two Colorado Republican voters upped the ante yesterday by filing suit in Denver District court to prevent Tancredo from being placed on the November ballot. The lawsuit, filed by Colorado Republican Party treasurer Richard Westfall on their behalf, states that both Tancredo and his running-mate Pat Miller switched their party affiliation from the GOP to the American Constitution Party too late, violating state and party bylaws and rules:

“The goal is to make sure the American Constitution Party follows its own rules when it comes to ballot selection,” said Richard Westfall, attorney for the plaintiffs. “This is an important precedent to be set. You can’t allow a particular member of any political party be affiliated with a major political party and then at the eleventh hour just switch over and be the governor candidate for another party.

“Under their bylaws it says you have to be a member of the party, the ACP, for at least six months prior to being nominated, but they [] can waive that,” said Richard Kaufman, the attorney for Tancredo’s campaign.

But the party’s vacancy committee, made up of five members, cannot validate a candidate on its own, as it did with Tancredo’s candidacy — only the party’s state assembly has that ability, the suit alleges.

“Tancredo and Miller’s last-minute nominations are the result of, in the Tancredo campaign’s own words, ‘inter-party squabling’,” the lawsuit states. “Tancredo’s ACP nomination is nothing more or less than a failed gambit to force the duly nominated Republican candidate for Governor, Dan Maes, to withdraw his candidacy.

Colorado law says that a nominee cannot be “registered as a member of a major political party for at least twelve months prior to the date of the nomination” unless the ACP bylaws indicate otherwise. Tancredo switched in July and Miller switched in August and nothing in the ACP bylaws supersede Colorado law, according to the lawsuit.

Tancredo’s campaign manager Bay Buchanan pointed out that the Secretary of State Bernie Buescher (D) already certified the general election ballot last Friday. In a statement to the Denver Daily News, Buchanan said, “Our attorneys have reviewed the recent complaint by a disgruntled Maes voter related to this certification and are confident that the courts will find no grounds on which to overturn the decision by the one individual with authority to make such decisions.”

While both plaintiffs emphasized that they were taking action “in their individual capacity only, and not on behalf of any candidate,” both voters “have contributed to Maes’ campaign.” The case is set to be heard Monday. Despite the lawsuit, Buescher’s office “continues to print ballots with Tancredo’s name on it.” Wadhams said that while “he does not believe Tancredo’s name will be removed from the ballot because of the lawsuit,” he will certainly “watch with interest.”

Despite the backlash from the Colorado GOP, Tancredo has outraised Maes 4 to 1, pulling in almost as much funding in August as Maes has raised in total. And in a further blow to the state GOP, Chairman of the Republican Governors Association Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS) said today that RGA will no longer “throw good money” to “badly damaged nominee” Dan Maes, adding that “we don’t give to sure losers.”

As conservative blog Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey points out, “the RGA move appears to send an official Amityville Horror message [to Maes] … get out.” If Maes heeds calls to pull out of the race and the state GOP replaces him with former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton, that move “might convince Tom Tancredo to withdraw his independent bid.”

LGBT

STUDY: ‘Gay Marriage Mecca Of Iowa’ Still As Traditional As Apple Pie

A new study from IowaWatch finds that the “Gay Marriage Mecca” of Iowa — to use Rep. Steve King’s (R-IA) colorful description — is in many way the same as it was just 18 months ago, before the state Supreme Court ruled it legal in April 2009. Rest easy conservative activists, it turns out that gay couples want to be as traditional as you are:

Iowa’s 18-month experience with the newly legalized institution has revealed striking similarities to traditional marriage and no discernible harm to it, according to an IowaWatch study. [...]

The IowaWatch study found that similarities range from the way men and women often view marriage to the more mundane tasks of married life, such as doing yard work. Like people in traditional marriages, same-sex couples also talk about raising children and shielding them from the verbal slings of peers, the stability and unit-strength of a family and the value of loving relationships among parents and children, as well as legal necessities and financial security. [...]

Seventy-two percent of couples said they felt more committed to their partners after marriage, and around 70 percent felt more accepted by their community. Acceptance from others legitimated their relationship in their eyes, more so than even the legal rights, she said.

“I heard a lot of stories about people who have been together for 18 years, and their parents didn’t see them as a couple until they were married,” Richman said.
Because marriage has never been available to gay people, many did not pursue long-lasting relationships. Stereotypes of promiscuity harden, because same-sex-couples can’t legitimize their relationship in the most socially acceptable way – marriage.

“The fact that they were excluded from normalized monogamy [marriage] reinforced the idea that they don’t need the monogamy,” she said.

In other words, expanding marriage to gay couples only strengthens the institution and even spreads so-called “traditional values” to “alternative” populations. A year since the ruling, Iowa is already posting the lowest number of divorces since 1970 and the more than 2,000 same-sex weddings are undoubtedly aiding the state’s economy. It’s this reality that makes it so difficult for opponents of marriage to demonstrate any harm from same-sex unions and exposes their campaigns for the reactionary, self-serving, money machines that they are. After all, conservatives are fighting against the very same unit they’re trying to protect.

Yglesias

Endgame

Explosions off in the distance:

— In my experience it’s true; it’s easier to achieve goals by keeping them secret.

— The long shock.

— Combining Ann Friedman‘s suggestion with mine from this morning, maybe after the election Michelle Rhee can persuade her husband to move to Washington and run for mayor here.

— In defense of propping up housing prices.

— I’m not sure we really ever did conduct proper stress tests of the banks.

— I’ll be on Virtually Speaking tomorrow evening.

For the Chosen People, Death Cab for Cutie, “The New Year”.

Yglesias

History’s Greatest Monster

I’ve been reading some Jimmy Carter material lately, and from the perspective of someone who didn’t live through the 1970s personally there’s something really remarkable about the extent to which history has let off the hook the man with the primary job responsibility of not letting inflation get out of control, to wit Arthur Burns.

Burns, a veteran Republican economic policymaker was exactly the sort of guy you’d think would be very concerned with inflation. And yet across his two terms as Fed chair, he consistently failed to act to stop it from spiraling out of control. Both at the time and in retrospect, he argued that his own failure to act was somehow the fault of congressional Democrats who would have hypothetically responded to hypothetical disinflation with hypothetical action to remove him from office at which point his hypothetical successor would bring back inflation. We’ll obviously never be able to tell if that’s true or not, but we do know that the actual action taken once a Democrat (to wit, Carter) was able to replace him was to replace him with Paul Volcker who took decisive disinflationary action.

I bring this up not so much to condemn a dead guy, but simply because it highlights a number of today’s problems. One is that both historically and currently there’s a tendency among people who like to write about politics to underrate the importance of monetary issues—FOMC deliberations lack the drama of presidential campaigns or congressional debates, but their impact can be decisive. The other is that while the country seems to have learned the lesson “inflation can be really bad” from the 1970s, the real lesson seems to me to be something more like “monetary policy can go oddly awry even when the guy in charge gives every appearance of being well-qualified.”

Politics

Quran Burning Pastor Was Expelled From German Church He Founded After His Radicalism Alienated Congregation

TerryJones2Before Rev. Terry Jones was being condemned by the White House and military commanders in Afghanistan for his planned “International Burn a Quran Day,” he was a pastor at an evangelical church he founded in the 1980s in Cologne, Germany. Jones grew the congregation of the Christian Community of Cologne to as many as 1,000 members, but his radical, hate-filled preachings eventually got him expelled from the church. According to the German magazine Der Spiegel, Jones ruled the church like a tyrant, even as his sermons became increasingly Islamaphobic and hateful, prompting his congregation to kick Jones and his wife out of the church last year:

Various witnesses gave SPIEGEL ONLINE consistent accounts of the Jones’ behavior. The pastor and his wife apparently regarded themselves as having been appointed by God, meaning opposition was a crime against the Lord. Terry and Sylvia Jones allegedly used these methods to ask for money in an increasingly insistent manner, as well as making members of the congregation carry out work. [...]

Jones became increasingly radical as the years went by, former associates say. At one point he wanted to help a homosexual member to “pray away his sins.” Later he began to increasingly target Islam in his sermons. A congregation member reported that some members were afraid to attend services because they expected to be attacked by Muslims. “Terry Jones has a talent for finding topical social issues and seizing on them for his own cause,” says Schäfer.

Former members of Jones’ German church described a “climate of fear and control” and said Jones insisted on “blind obedience.” Some former congregants are even “still undergoing therapy as a result of ‘spiritual abuse.’” A German Protestant Church official familiar with Jones even said the pastor has a “delusional personality.”

In a heated interview on Thom Hartmann’s radio show, Jones confirmed that he had been the head of the Christian Community of Cologne, but refused to respond to Der Spiegel’s allegations, telling Hartman, “If you want to discuss 9/11, that will be fine, if not, I guess we will have to end this conversation”:

In response to his plan to burn Qurans, Jones’ old church, said, “We want to distance ourselves fully from this plan and from Jones.” “We are as shocked as the rest of the world,” said Jones’ successor Stephan Baar, adding, “This has nothing to do with us and nothing to do with our beliefs.”

Economy

Boozman Says He Won’t Privatize Social Security, While Supporting Plans That Privatize Social Security

Rep. John Boozman (R-AR), who has his party’s nomination for the Senate, has been taking some flack from Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) for being an enthusiastic supporter of privatizing Social Security. The Boozman camp is pushing back, claiming that Boozman does not support privatizing Social Security, but merely the creation of private Social Security accounts, according to Arkansas Republican Party spokeswoman Alice Stewart:

He supports a plan to allow young workers to divert a portion of their payroll taxes into personal investment accounts, these would be safe investments.

If that sounds a lot like privatization, that’s because it is. Like former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-PA), Boozeman is trying to relabel privatization with something that sounds more appealing: “personal investment.” But make no mistake: proponents of privatization didn’t change their plan, they just stopped calling it privatization when they realized that the word freaks people out. “The right discovered that ‘privatization’ polled badly. And suddenly, the term was a liberal plot,” Paul Krugman noted.

And Boozman has been an unabashed supporter of privatization. In 2001, he said that “the future of Social Security is dependent on creating a vehicle for private investment.” “I believe we must implement President Bush’s proposal to provide younger workers with the opportunity to invest part of their Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts,” he added. Boozman has also at least entertained the notion of supporting Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) Roadmap for America’s Future, which would create privatized Social Security accounts.

Perhaps the most insidious part of Boozman’s plan is the assertion that only “safe investments” will be part of privatized accounts. As the Cunning Realist pointed out, proponents of privatization held up companies like Lehman Brothers, AIG, and Citigroup — the poster-children of the economic collapse — as fail-safe bets for retirement accounts:

Would the government have allowed the Bear Stearns and Lehman outcomes had the Social Security system been chock full of those stocks? Remember, both were former blue chips, the sort of companies that proponents of private accounts insisted any new system would be limited to. The same for Citi, AIG, Fannie Mae, and others. How much pressure would the Fed and Treasury have felt — and what more would have been done — to keep those afloat and/or out of penny stock land?

Remember, even if we do nothing to Social Security at all, it can pay full benefits until 2037 and 75 percent of benefits for decades after that, which is very close to current benefit levels when adjusted for inflation. There is no Social Security crisis, and those pushing for privatization are using the public’s fear of deficits to push for a policy prescription they’ve desired for years.

Yglesias

Blast From the Past

Here’s Milton Friedman on Japan in 1998:

Japan’s recent experience of three years of near zero economic growth is an eerie, if less dramatic, replay of the great contraction in the United States. The Fed permitted the quantity of money to decline by one-third from 1929 to 1933, just as the Bank of Japan permitted monetary growth to be low or negative in recent years. The monetary collapse was far greater in the United States than in Japan, which is why the economic collapse was far more severe. The United States revived when monetary growth resumed, as Japan will.

The Fed pointed to low interest rates as evidence that it was following an easy money policy and never mentioned the quantity of money. The governor of the Bank of Japan, in a speech on June 27, 1997, referred to the “drastic monetary measures” that the bank took in 1995 as evidence of “the easy stance of monetary policy.” He too did not mention the quantity of money. Judged by the discount rate, which was reduced from 1.75 percent to 0.5 percent, the measures were drastic. Judged by monetary growth, they were too little too late, raising monetary growth from 1.5 percent a year in the prior three and a half years to only 3.25 percent in the next two and a half.

And here’s the M2 growth rate recently:

FRED Graph 1

After a big spike during the high crisis period the Fed did, indeed, let the monetary growth rate slip to an unusually low rate as if the economy were growing rapidly and inflation risked getting out of control. Instead we have low inflation with falling inflation expectations, and anemic growth.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up