And it is not so much that the study’s findings that male jurors are more likely to find overweight women guilty is accurate, but that dudes will give a good looking female a lot more leeway.
New Haven, Conn. (CBS CONNECTICUT) – Male members of a jury are more likely to find a defendant guilty if the accused person is an overweight female.
According to a recent study by Yale University psychologists, male – and not female – jurors are also more inclined to believe that a fat woman is a repeat offender who had malicious intent.
The researchers gathered a group of 471 pretend peers of varying body sizes and described to them a case of check fraud. They also presented them with one of four images—either a large man, a lean man, a large woman, or a lean woman—and identified the person in the photograph as the defendant.
I think I woukld like a closer look a data, but I would not be surprised that there is visual bias. Or maybe every guy has a big-boned chick – is that PC or what? – that wronged them, and they just know better? I don’t know, bI am not inclined to think a female is guilty just because she isn’t attractive unless she also is tatooed up & down with gang symbols, is smoking a fat stogie, cnstantly cracks her knuckles, and has a hoarser voice than James Earl Jones. Or maybe if they are me they just see the costs to Obamacare they will have to pay. But then they should also be pissed at overweight dudes. Or is it about the fact females outlive dudes and will cost more?
Yeah, what a dilema. It does look like big girls are not going to get much love in progressive CT.
As the Western world gets fatter and fatter, the solutions to slimming it down get ever more draconian. In Britain yesterday, the government issued guidelines saying “children under the age of 5, including babies who can’t walk yet, should exercise every day.” Today, in the States, a pair of Harvard scholars writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association advocate stripping away the custody rights of parents of super obese children. They’re for real!
“Despite the discomfort posed by state intervention, it may sometimes be necessary to protect a child,” said Lindsey Murtagh, a lawyer and researcher at Harvard’s School of Public Health. The study’s co-author, David Ludwig, says taking away peoples’ children “ideally will support not just the child but the whole family, with the goal of reuniting child and family as soon as possible.”
They site the case of a 400-lb 12 y/o girl who was placed in foster care and lost 130 pounds.
Look, I have nothing but rage for parents who let their kids balloon up to 400 pounds. But our foster care system is already overburdened with kids whose parents beat the shit out of them, molest them, are high on drugs all the time or expose them to dangerous criminal elements. Obesity is something we can treat without ripping kids out of homes. Let’s some fucking perspective, please? Thank you.
Sullivan has posted this infographic on why our healthcare cost so much. I have rarely seen such a huge a stack of healthcare lies collected in one place.
- They claim that America’s obesity rate is not driving our healthcare costs, only accounting for $25 billion in spending. If that’s the case, someone needs to tell the CDC, which has estimated obesity to be responsible or at least 10% of our healthcare spending and projects it to eventually cause 20% of our spending. Obesity is a primary risk factor for heart disease, something we spend a lot of money on. Lipitor alone is a $7 billion expense.
- They claim malpractice isn’t driving healthcare costs, only being responsible for 2% of spending. This ignores defensive medicine. Now I’m aware that Haav-vud has estimated defensive medicine to be a tiny expense. But their lawyer-friendly study is far far too conservative. The Kessler study estimates 10% and I would even say that’s conservative. A huge amount of our healthcare spending is for end of life care and a huge driver of that is the fear of lawsuits. Many procedures and tests that are considered “routine” would not be without lawsuit threats. Additionally, the effect of malpractice is not linear. For hospitals, it’s a small part of the budget. For practicing physicians — especially OB/Gyn’s — it can cost more than the rent on their office.
- They then say that providers charge more because they can — true enough — because the US government is not involved in price regulation. So Americans have “less power” over healthcare costs. I’m not going to re-open the price control debate again. It’s too complicated for a group this stupid. But I will note that there are other ways for consumers — not “the people” to have power over healthcare costs.
- They complain that admin costs are 21% of our healthcare bill — twice what other countries spend and that 85% of this is due to private insurance. This tells me that they are buying the lie — and it is a lie — that Medicare’s costs are only a tiny fraction of the private sector. Keep in mind, this is the Medicare that is currently spending 20 cents on the dollar on fraud — a problem that they perversely try to blame on the private sector.
- They complain that 41% of healthcare costs are for outpatient procedures. But outpatient procedure usually save money. They specifically site the example that 60% of UK hernias are treated inpatient, but only 11% of US hernias are treated inpatient. What?! Treating a hernia — usually not really an optional procedure — is MUCH cheaper done as an outpatient. Outpatient procedures save money. And lots of it.
- Finally, they say are doctors are overpaid. I’ll leave that talking point for the class.
Sullivan should embarrassed to have posted this on his site. It’s quite clear that the people who put this together have an agenda and have resorted to distortions of fact that would make Michael Moore blush. This isn’t adding to the debate. It’s setting it back twenty years.