Badin vs. Fredericktown
Miamisburg graduation 2012
Valley View vs. Greenville
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > November > 30
Monday, November 30, 2009
Guest column: Obesity rate taking toll on society
This column was written by Dr. Jeff Harwood. He practices in Norwalk and is president of the Ohio Academy of Family Physicians.
Flu season 2009 has injected words like “epidemic” and “pandemic” into the news. But a national report just released points to another health epidemic, with alarming results for Ohio.
The report, “The Future Cost of Obesity,” was written by Ken Thorpe, executive director of the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease. He paints a sobering picture of the economic impact obesity will have on national health care costs during the next 10 years.
If current trends continue, 103 million American adults — 43 percent of the population — will be obese by 2018. The news is even worse for Ohio.
Thorpe projects that Ohio will be one of six states nationwide where more than 50 percent of residents will be obese if obesity growth rates continue to grow at the current pace.
At present, the Centers for Disease Control estimates that one-third of Americans are overweight and another third are obese. Among children and teenagers, obesity rates have tripled in the last 20 years. Disturbingly, one in every four 5-year-olds is obese.
On a national scale, Thorpe’s report found that these trends in the obesity growth rate will add nearly $344 billion to the nation’s annual health care costs over the next 10 years and account for more than 21 percent of all health care spending.
If we are successful in holding obesity levels to their current rates, the U.S. could save $820 in health care spending per adult by 2018, generating total savings of nearly $200 billion.
In addition to its costs in health care terms, obesity places significant strain on governmental budgets. It adds additional costs to businesses and impedes the competitiveness of our work force due to illness and lost productivity.
In short, the financial toll of obesity ripples through society far beyond the health care system itself.
Obesity increases a person’s risk of developing serious and costly health conditions, many of them chronic. These include Type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer, stroke, high cholesterol, osteoarthritis, liver and gall bladder disease, sleep apnea and respiratory problems.
Underscoring this reality, the American Institute for Cancer Research found that obesity is responsible for more than 100,000 cases of cancer annually.
CDC studies also have shown that obesity is closely linked to the explosion of chronic disease rates in the U.S., and is directly responsible for 112,000 deaths annually. As daunting as all of our challenges with respect to obesity may seem, it’s within our power to bring the obesity epidemic under control.
We should, for example, make it easier for people to lead healthier, more active lives by such means as lowering co-pays on preventive care, providing more and better nutritional information on food packages and restaurant menus, and offering more effective programs to help overweight Americans.
Support and resources for healthy lifestyles literally should surround us at every turn — in the workplace, our communities and our schools. Above all else, prevention must be a part of any solution to the obesity crisis in America.
While the health reform legislation now being debated in Washington is generating much controversy and disagreement, it nevertheless contains some policy provisions aimed at reducing and controlling obesity that could make a genuine difference. These include programs aimed at preventing obesity among children, promoting workplace wellness and strengthening nutrition labeling requirements.
Contact your elected representatives and let them know that any attempt at meaningful health reform must include a robust obesity prevention and control component.
Permalink | Comments (21) | Post your comment |
Editorial: B-creek board in charge of school design
A debate in Beavercreek about where a new elementary school should go comes down to this: Who gets to call the shots at schools?
There’s only one right answer: the elected school board.
In this case, there would seem to be much overlap between the interests of the Beavercreek board and a developer, who has offered to sell and donate land in and near the 1,200-acre Stonehill Village along Dayton-Xenia Road for a new elementary school and middle school. There should be an opportunity to strike a deal that works for everyone.
Robert Nutter, the developer of the Stonehill planned community, and his attorney say they proposed restrictions on the property, but viewed them as a place to start discussion. They say they are willing to talk more about concerns that apparently have the school board ready to walk away.
But the board said the sorts of restrictions proposed — such as giving the village’s design review board veto power over building materials, colors, styles and landscaping — are deal-breakers; doing so would require the school board to give up too much authority.
A drawn-out debate is a problem because Beavercreek’s enrollment is growing fast, and the district needs more classroom space. With $84 million in hand from a recently passed bond issue, school officials had hoped to break ground in September. Now it may not be possible to have a new elementary school ready to open for the 2012-13 school year.
The school board has another option besides the Stonehill site. It already owns 89 acres on Indian Ripple Road. That parcel has enough space for both a middle and elementary school.
Stonehill Village does not have so many kids that building a school there is a must. Building in the village would, in fact, be a favor to the residents because an elementary school would be a nice amenity.
In short, the school board has leverage.
If developers want the schools on the land they’re offering Beavercreek, they should quickly propose looser rules that would preserve the school board’s authority. Perhaps Stonehill’s design review board could have a formal advisory role, and the school board could pledge to respect the needs of the community and the style and look of that neighborhood.
But no outside entity should have veto power over the elected board. If that’s really what developers want, then the board is right to move on to another site.
An unnecessary political fight, which this dispute has the potential to become, also must be avoided. Nutter family members gave $750 to two successful school board candidates who will go on the board in January. Those two donations amounted to more than the total amounts raised by either of the two incumbents, including one who lost.
Also Mr. Nutter’s lawyer, Tom O’Diam, has family connections to a group that was deeply critical of the school board for its removal of a teacher last year for her role directing the spring musical. That was an unnecessarily ugly controversy.
The two board members-elect who received money from the Nutter family — Robert Dotson and Kim Grant — have said they won’t let the contributions influence their votes and that they hope the debate will be settled before they join the board.
For the sake of appearances and because a decision is needed quickly, that would be best.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Education, Scott Elliott, Suburban Communities
