Short on Money, Large on Tummy

A couple of weeks back the country learned the Gross Domestic Product had fallen 0.3 percent, indicating the country’s work productivity has declined due to the dour economic times at present. The news officially paved the way for what many economists believe we’re already in: a recession.   
With a recession comes less money to buy things, of course, but what makes matters worse is when food prices and other goods continue to rise despite the decrease in demand. This is what economists call “stagflation.”

This isn’t an economic lesson, but it does portend to be a time in which more people turn to cheaply priced foods, which may be easy on the wallet, but hard on the waistline.

Logic says that with less money come fewer purchases. But purchasing less food isn’t always a tenable option, especially when mothers and fathers have growing families to feed. As a result, moms and dads pinch pennies by buying foods lower in price: opting for traditional vegetables over organic ones, choosing refined flour pastas and breads over whole grain flour varieties, or hitting fast food drive thru lines more frequently as their rock bottom prices hardly ever increase (McDonalds was one of few businesses that increased sales this past financial quarter, almost 5 percent, in fact).

But what may seem like financially-sound decisions are really financially-discordant decisions. Because according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, rising obesity rates make for serious harm on the country’s bottom line, both in terms of direct and indirect medical costs.

For example, in 1998, $93 billion was spent on medical care costs associated with obesity (in 2002 dollars). That number represented 9 percent of all medical costs at the time! What’s more, according to National Health Accounts, $ 13 billion of that figure was doled out in out-of-pocket cash and an additional $37 billion in combined Medicare and Medicaid costs!

As has been the case for many years now, the number of people treated for obesity-linked diseases has only increased. In fact, by 2002, 11 percent of all medical costs were linked to obesity-related diseases. By comparison, in 1987, medical costs linked to obesity represented only 2 percent of the total bill.

It’s become a well-established fact that added weight brings added risk of diseases (a 2002 study out of Emory University in Atlanta found that 25 percent of severely obese people were being treated for at least six health conditions). When insurance companies have to pay more to treat these diseases, the cost of coverage goes up so insurance companies can offset their costs. In short, you wind up getting the bill one way or the other.

Few believe they’ll wind up getting overweight as a result of their “cutting back” as a result of food prices, but don’t underestimate creeping obesity: it’s a very real thing. You may think you’re not putting on much weight, but before you know it, you’ve gained two dress or waist sizes.

If you really need to cut back on your food bill, don’t sacrifice your health in the process. Buy vegetables in bulk and make them last by making larger meals and saving the rest for leftovers. Or, just don’t buy quite as many vegetables and whole grain products; minor portion size changes can make a dollar go farther. The alternative is significantly higher health care costs later due to the diminished food quality you’re “saving” on now.