A Nation In Fat Kid Denial: Health Care, Obesity, And Obama's Task Force

Today President Obama signed a memorandum establishing a new federal task force tackling the growing problem of childhood obesity. I have, admittedly, been absent of the health care debate that has been the rage in Washington over the last few months. What I have noticed however, is the complete lack of acknowledgement of one of the most significant causes of our rising health care costs. I have heard that competition will bring costs down, that a paperless records system is the answer, that beating up on the evil insurance companies is the cause of our troubles, but not once have I heard a prominent political figure state that we as a nation have a weight problem.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention research has shown that as weight increases to reach the levels referred to as "overweight" and "obesity," the risks for the following conditions also increases:

· Coronary heart disease
· Type 2 diabetes
· Cancers (endometrial, breast, and colon)
· Hypertension (high blood pressure)
· Dyslipidemia (for example, high total cholesterol or high levels of triglycerides)
· Stroke
· Liver and Gallbladder disease
· Sleep apnea and respiratory problems
· Osteoarthritis (a degeneration of cartilage and its underlying bone within a joint)
· Gynecological problems (abnormal menses, infertility)

Interestingly enough the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention research has also shown that the leading causes of death in the United States are:

· Heart disease: 631,636
· Cancer: 559,888
· Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119
· Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583
· Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599
· Diabetes: 72,449
· Alzheimer's disease: 72,432
· Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,326
· Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,344
· Septicemia: 34,234

Any coincidence that they share many of the same titles? I just found those statistics in 31.6 seconds with two Google searches. Are we really going to ignore these statistics completely when talking about health care?

That is why I was so happy to read this article today regarding the formation of the children’s obesity task force. Although I think this should have been accomplished prior to tackling health care, the fact it is getting any attention at all is great. My wife has a strong interest in this challenging issue. She was a PE and Health teacher and is now a personal trainer. She was literally amazed at how many kids were overweight in her first year teaching. Yet every year school district after school district cuts funding for both PE and Health. With the statistics listed above it is blatantly obvious that weight is an issue in this country, and if people are handicapped by obesity at a very young age it makes it all the more difficult to break the behaviors as you get older. Unfortunately in many ways it is a parental lottery on whether or not a kid has a chance at dodging the obesity bullet. Luckily for me my parents instilled in me the importance of an active lifestyle. There are many other kids who don't have that support, or worse are the recipients of bad influence.

The task force, according to the memorandum, will have 90 days to craft a plan encouraging "optimal coordination" between the federal government and both the private and non-profit sectors, according to Obama.

Several Cabinet members, including the secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, and Health and Human Services, will serve on the task force. Its work will complement an aggressive public relations effort led by first lady Michelle Obama to raise public awareness of the issue.
Childhood obesity is "one of the most urgent health issues that we face in this country," the president said at the White House.

"We think that this has enormous promise in improving the health of our children, in giving support to parents to make the kinds of healthy choices that oftentimes are very difficult."

The results of the task force remain to be seen, and I am always skeptical of “new” government programs. However, the more attention paid to this issue the better. We have been avoiding the problem as a country for a while which is bad enough, but the problem is getting worse which makes dealing with the issue all the more critical.

The memo notes that almost one-third of American children are overweight or obese -- a rate that has tripled among adolescents and more than doubled in younger children since 1980.

About one-third of Americans born in the year 2000 or later will suffer from diabetes at some point in their lifetime, according to the memo.

"We've seen the surge in obesity in this country is nothing short of a public health crisis, and it's threatening our children, it's threatening our families, and more importantly it's threatening the future of this nation," she said. "Higher rates of obesity are directly linked, as you've heard, to higher rates of chronic illnesses like heart disease and cancer and diabetes."

I am hopeful that the task force can come up with something substantial to tackle this mounting challenge. Perhaps some greater insight into what we are actually putting into our bodies would be good, although knowledge doesn't always stimulate prudent choices (cigarettes anyone?). Maybe legislating more stringent food additive laws and disclosure requirements would be a better use of time than playing congressional football with a polarizing issue like health care?

Strategy, Afghanistan and Obama's Speech

I am going to list a few words and I want you to read them as fast as you can and tell me what they have in common. Afghanistan, Obama, Speech, Pakistan, Bush, War, 30,000 Troops, Timeline. Besides dominating the headlines alongside Tiger Woods, these words represent key elements of one of our country's great challenges; The Afghanistan Conflict. Not only is the situation complicated, it is extremely polarizing. A fact that the media and political pundits exploit and exaggerate at all costs, much to the detriment of our nation's unity and any political progress on the topic at large. That is why I love reading Andrew Sullivan. He has his views but tries to express them based purely on the facts as he sees them. There is minimal exaggeration and a common recognition of the opposing view, even if he strongly disagrees. If I had to boil it down I would say he is grounded in reality, not theatrics. Here is the post he wrote regarding President Obama's speech on our nation's way forward in Afghanistan as well as some excerpts and comments below.

I think this strategy is doomed. But then I think any strategy that does not pledge to colonize Afghanistan, pour trillions of dollars into it and stay for a century is doomed. So why do I end up this morning feeling rather similar to my colleague, Jim Fallows, who simply sighs: 'Well, I hope he's right"?

Here's why. The sanest option - leave now - would leave allies high and dry, prompt domestic cries of surrender, demoralize the military, break a clear campaign pledge, and signal to Pakistan that the Taliban is their problem now. Everything but the latter are worth avoiding.

This war is already eight years' old and will soon have lasted longer than Vietnam. Its rationale today is very different than what it was in 2001 - 2002. Al Qaeda is based in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. The US, thanks to Bush and the recession, is bankrupt and facing a long and brutal period of high unemployment and soon huge cuts in entitlements or big tax hikes.

Our enemy already knows that the US cannot sustain neo-imperial control of a vast inhospitable country on the other side of the planet for more than a decade. And if the US were to do so, it would be becoming the imperial power the neocons and the Islamists truly want. What Obama was saying last night is that he is determined to return America to normal, to unplug this vast attempt at global control in Muslim countries that Bush and Cheney unleashed. He is trying to unwind the empire, not expand it.

How best to unwind the empire? By giving McChrystal what he wants and giving him a couple of years to deliver tangible results. If McChrystal delivers, fantastic. I will do a ritual self-flagellation and bow down to the man with no body-fat and a close relationship with 33 Kagans of various generations and genders. If McChrystal does his best and we still get nowhere, Obama will have demonstrated - not argued, demonstrated - that withdrawal is the least worst option.

I possess many of the same feelings as Andrew Sullivan. One area where I digress from his view is with regards to strategy. I have read/heard many comments whether or not people agree with sending more troops. But one thing I have not heard addressed is that lack of detail regarding a new, or as I have said numerous times, the creation of a strategy to end our involvement in this war on a grand scale. I did like increased emphasis on Pakistan's involvement and responsibility as well as the actual mobilization of troops to combat the Taliban. Both are good signs in my view. However the lack of a legitimate and capable government coupled with a fuzzy strategy at best have me worried. One thing I will say is that the military leaders and members did not choose to go to Afghanistan. It is not their place to question the decisions of our elected officials when they are lawful orders. So our military leaders are requesting the troops and resources they feel are necessary to do the job they are told to do. In general I feel that we should listen to leaders on the ground, I would just feel a lot more comfortable if the strategy was so clearly defined that the average person on the street could give a brief overview of what it is. I worry because there are many military members who could not provide a brief overview of our strategy let alone the average American.

Obama, Veterans Benefits, and Combat Related PTSD

Veterans have served and sacrificed in defense of our Nation. When they complete their service, we must do everything in our power to assist them in re-entering civilian life and finding employment. Government as well as private employers should play a prominent role in helping veterans who may be struggling to find jobs. As one of the Nation's leading employers, the Federal Government is in need of highly skilled individuals to meet agency staffing needs and to support mission objectives. Our veterans, who have benefited from training and development during their military service, possess a wide variety of skills and experiences, as well as the motivation for public service, that will help fulfill Federal agencies' staffing needs. It is therefore the policy of my Administration to enhance recruitment of and promote employment opportunities for veterans within the executive branch, consistent with merit system principles and veterans' preferences prescribed by law. The Federal Government will thereby help lead by example in promoting veterans' employment.

Not sure how enforceable any of these policies are as I am not well versed in reading through government legislature, but I am happy to see the president making strides in this direction. Not just because I am currently serving. It is just the right thing to do. Trust me there are many in our Armed Forces that have sacrificed much more than I ever will and I think it is a shame if those who have put forth tremendous sacrifice defending the country aren’t able to reap the rewards upon their return. I am still a firm believer in the meritocracy, however I think often times people both in and outside the service fail to recognize the parallels between military service and many other seemingly unrelated careers. There are many lessons learned that transcend job experience that are valuable in any life situation, job, or team scenario. Here is the full executive order.

Employment is one thing, but I would love to see greater strides made towards mental health and wellness of soldiers returning from combat. One of the most rewarding acquisitions I ever made in the military was purchasing Combat Related Post Traumatic Stress Disorder training for medical practitioners treating returning veterans. Given the expeditionary nature of our services, the decreased size of our force, and the extended and intensified operations tempo there are a lot of our defenders returning with combat related PTSD. Not only are many of these veterans not being treated when they return home, many are being sent back over again.

More than 600,000 Americans have served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Psychological trauma is cumulative," explained Dr. Paul Ragan, a former Navy psychiatrist who is an associate professor of psychiatry at Vanderbilt University. More deployments can mean more mental stress, and for some, more mental illnesses, he said.

Army surveys show that for those soldiers deployed once, the rate of anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder is 12 percent. For those deployed three or more times, the rate is 27 percent.

"People who have psychiatric symptoms, actively symptomatic with PTSD or depression, are being sent back to the very situation that caused their PTSD and depression," Ragan said.

The Army's chief psychiatrist, Dr. Elspeth Ritchie, agrees with the Rand Corp.'s estimate that 300,000 service members have demonstrated post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms. Some are returning to the battlefront, although the Army is not keeping track of how many.