Japan Imposes "Fine On Fat" 1271
An anonymous reader writes "A recently-introduced law in Japan requires all businesses to have mandatory obesity checks (video link) for all their employees and employees' family members over the age of 40, CNN reports. If the employee or family member is deemed obese, and does not lose the extra fat soon, their employer faces large fines. The legislated upper limit for the waistline is 33.5" for men, and 35.5" for women. Should America adopt universal health insurance, could we live to see the same kind of individual health regulations imposed on us by the government? By comparison, the average waistline in America in 2005 was 39 inches for men, 37 inches for women."
frosty piss. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:frosty piss. (Score:5, Interesting)
You'd have to send him to Japan first, which would be prohibitively expensive.
I'm more interested in what this does for Sumo wrestlers. Will they now be fired unless they go on a diet?
Re:frosty piss. (Score:5, Funny)
already here (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you smoke?
Do you drink?
Drug tests?
Any of this sound familiar in a survey from your insurance application or work orientation pack?
Re:already here (Score:5, Insightful)
Your fat costs me money (Score:5, Insightful)
The insurance companies maintain profitability by selecting price points that set them ahead, given all of the expenses they are likely to incur. The more fat people they have on their plans, the more likely they are to spend money on all the fat-related medical issues that arise, so the more they must charge.
While it may be unfair to target fat people (or smokers or drinkers or what-have-you), isn't it equally unfair to make healthy people pay a lot of extra money to support the unhealthy lifestyles of their neighbors?
As usual, this door swings both ways, and it doesn't matter whether the health care is universal or privatized...any kind of medical insurance raises these issues.
And your bad genetics cost ME... (Score:5, Insightful)
While it may be unfair to target fat people (or smokers or drinkers or what-have-you), isn't it equally unfair to make healthy people pay a lot of extra money to support the unhealthy lifestyles of their neighbors?
So, what if I have good genes.... and you have bad? If we are willing to open up the can of worms of risk assignment, then why should we ignore science and not surcharge those people who have doomed genetics? What, exactly, entitles people with weaker genes to a health discount at the expense of someone else?
Re:And your bad genetics cost ME... (Score:4, Insightful)
Or even better, statistically there is a correlation between being poor (or being born to poor parents) and having diabetes/heart disease/etc later in life. Since those folks are a higher risk shouldn't we charge them more for their coverage as well?
Re:And your bad genetics cost ME... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And your bad genetics cost ME... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And your bad genetics cost ME... (Score:5, Insightful)
America's farm policy is ass-backwards. The heavily subsidized grains push out the fruits and vegetables from the market, pushing the price up and/or forcing us to import them from outer Elbonia.
Re:And your bad genetics cost ME... (Score:5, Insightful)
"In fact, until recently, the cheapest diet you could get was strictly fast-food."
Do you have any kind of source to back this up? I find this little nugget very very hard to swallow. A VERY CHEAP combo meal from any fast food place will cost you $4 U.S. per person while I've been feeding a family of 7 for about $10 a meal. That $10 can cover a wide variety of meals, and it feeds the whole family every time.
I think the Dollar Menu mentality has made people forget that the pack of pasta that costs $2, mixed with a can of sauce that costs $4 produces the same amount of food as 10 - 15 Dollar Menu items at any fast food place.
(sorry about bad formatting, slashdot seems to be being silly)
Re:And your bad genetics cost ME... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And your bad genetics cost ME... (Score:4, Interesting)
"...one thing I noticed and found rather interesting was that overweight or otherwise unhealthy looking people usually bought the more expensive pre-made food while healthier people purchased instead a whole lot more of the items required to make their own food like flour and produce."
I've noticed the same thing. And it applies to meat as well. Butcher-cut meat that you actually have to cook yourself is bought by the lean and healthy; pre-packed pre-cooked meat-and-prepared-meal products are bought by the overweight.
I have friends who live almost entirely off "Lean Cuisine" and similar frozen diet meals. They don't eat a great deal (usually a small breakfast and one of these frozen diet meals per day) yet they are both overweight, and losing that battle. One of 'em also suffers from "chronic fatigue syndrome". Funny thing, whenever I stay at their house and eat what they do, I wake up the next day feeling tired and with no energy at all. Hmm...
Re:And your bad genetics cost ME... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And your bad genetics cost ME... (Score:5, Informative)
People who actually can't lose the weight are statistical outliers. I agree with you that these people will be punished by the Japanese system, but you can't say it's common, because it's not.
I know that hormonal issues can cause you to gain and retain weight, but I have a hard time believing someone when they tell me they can't lose the weight. I know it gets harder as you get older, and under differing circumstances, but here's what you do:
1. Exercise daily. At LEAST 15 minutes of moderate cardiovascular activity daily. If you're fit enough to do yoga, do the sun salutation (while focusing on proper breathing) 12 times in a row (or work up to that). That takes 15 minutes, and about 1 x 2 meters of floorspace. Also, a rowing machine or an elliptical crosstrainer is a good way to simulate running-style cardio without blowing your knees.
2. Shift your diet toward proteins. Shift simple carbs to complex carbs. Shift towards eating more insoluble fiber. If you're willing to pick up exercise, a generalized Zone-style diet of 40% calories from protein, 30% carbs and 30% fats will do wonders.
3. Build muscle. Muscle increases your metabolism, gives you energy, and makes you stronger so you can exert yourself more often without injuring yourself.
4. Eat 5 times a day. Eat right when you wake up, and space it evenly until 6pm or so (this is assuming a "normal" schedule). And don't eat for 3 hours before you go to sleep. So if you're eating 1500 calories, you get 300 calories/meal. You get stuff like 2 cans of tuna fish, a tablespoon of olive oil and 1 slice of whole grain bread. Eating that meal is goddamn rough when you're not hungry, let me tell you.
And then tell me you can't lose the weight. I lost 65 lbs (that's putting on maybe 10-20lbs muscle), and completely changed my metabolism from one where I couldn't lose weight to one where I could eat anything I wanted and not gain weight. Admittedly, I was young.
I don't want to sound like I'm on your case, because I realize you're sensitive about it. I just can't believe you, based on what I know. I also wanted to put this here as much for anybody who comes along and reads your post so there's decent information for them. And of course, I could be wrong about you. I've been wrong once before. :-)
Cheers,
Nathan
Re:And your bad genetics cost ME... (Score:5, Insightful)
I was thin when I had plenty of free time to eat slowly and exercise right in college. Now that I'm juggling a long commute, housework, yardwork, a career, trying to pick up additional work skills to protect myself from being outsourced in my spare time, being a parent to three kids and a husband... the pounds just keep coming.
I have several relatives and friends who slimmed down quite a bit when they retired. The kids left the house, and they didn't have to waste time commuting or at the office, and it became easy to eat right and find time to exercise. No extra willpower involved.
I genuinely like basketball and lifting weights. I'm just too fucking tired.
Re:And your bad genetics cost ME... (Score:4, Insightful)
Cut out High Fructose corn Syrup and processed wheat.
I lost over 12 pounds and 2 inches doing that.
Re:And your bad genetics cost ME... (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is time.
When you eat slowly, you tend to eat less.
When you're well rested, you tend to eat less.
When you cook meals to eat when you are hungry, instead of waiting until you are very hungry, you tend to eat less.
Cooking food takes time.
Cleaning up your dishes between meals takes time.
Cheap fresh produce doesn't stay edible as long as processed goods, so you have to shop more often. That takes time.
And of course, there's physical activity. An exercise routine (with a shower after each workout) takes time too. It's also harder to motivate yourself to exercise when you're dead tired.
Welcome to modern suburban America, where you work 55 hours a week, commute 12 hours a week, and then try to keep up with your yard work, your bills, your relationship with your spouse/significant other and children, and everything else in what time you have left. Home cooked meals with fresh healthy foods go out the window, and you're whipping up processed crap left and right and eating 900 calorie fast food meals.
I say all this as a guy who moved to the suburbs seven years ago, got fat, and now can't sell his house.
More seriously, the working poor with much longer work hours and often two or even three jobs have it much harder.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, what if I have good genes.... and you have bad? If we are willing to open up the can of worms of risk assignment, then why should we ignore science and not surcharge those people who have doomed genetics? What, exactly, entitles people with weaker genes to a health discount at the expense of someone else?
Isn't additional surcharges for every tiny little genetic defect exactly what the insurance industry has been dreaming about for decades? From their point of view the profit potential must be mouthwatering. And profit is what the insurance industry is all about. Paying out insurance to customers who are entitled to it seems to be regarded as an annoying profit leak they will do anything to plug.
Re:And your bad genetics cost ME... (Score:4, Interesting)
You say "good genes". I say: "bad math". Body fat is subject to the universal laws of thermodynamics. If you decrease your calorie consumption, you will have less energy left over to store as fat. The overall trend in the USA (or probably all of the western world) is towards unhealthy diets. I have what might be called a "superfood" diet and hover at a trim 30-32" waist size, even with what I must admit is too little exercise. I sport a six-pack and ripped muscles--its all diet. I'm down from about a 36" waist from when I realized I was getting too old for a 20-something diet full of pizza and cheeseburgers. Since beginning my superfood diet (approximately 50% of calories by fruit, 30% by legumes and nuts, 10% by grain, 10% by dairy), I have noticed that the healthy foods I choose have been systematically replaced in the grocery store by less healthy alternatives. For example, at my local Albertson's, whole grain cereals have been replaced by boxes of sugar-coated junk. "Regular" juice is replaced by "pulp free". Etc. Etc. Start a healthy diet and track the availability of the healthy foods you eat in the grocery store. You will see that your choices deteriorate over time. Soon you have to switch to "healthy" stores with elevated prices. Rather than tax employers, the state should tax unhealthy food alternatives. The cost of the unhealthy diet will be passed to the directly to the consumer where it belongs. To save money, people will switch to healthier alternatives that cost less. Right now, the most expensive foods in terms of cost per calorie, are the most healthy foods.
Re:And your bad genetics cost ME... (Score:5, Informative)
And I say, "you don't seem to know much about biology". Your biggest error is claiming that you have muscle mass that is "all diet". More important, though, you don't seem to recognize the significance that metabolism -- including very significant genetic factors -- plays in the system.
By "thermodynamics" you probably mean "energy conservation". All mass and energy conservation tells you, on first glance, is that you can't possibly gain more weight than your total intake (minus your total excretion -- including respiration). Reducing your consumption reduces available energy -- your body can respond by reducing metabolism rather than consuming stored fat.
Re:And your bad genetics cost ME... (Score:4, Funny)
B-b-b-b-b-but THAT would mean interfering with the magically perfect free market, and those paragons of competition and transparency: our wonderful All American Corporations! It would EVIL, you pinko commie bastard, if we were to regulate any industry with intentions as noble and honest as those of the food industry.
Why you gotta hate on the high-fructose cornsyrup and yellow dye #5, yo?
Re:And your bad genetics cost ME... (Score:5, Insightful)
I seem to feel the need to post a counterpoint to just about everything you said, because I've noticed the complete opposite of your entire post. Think of this as an antipost to your post.
I did decrease my calorie consumption after university. Most of my diet consists of fresh vegetables, fruits, whole grains, beans, nuts, tofu, and low fat seafoods. I get most of my protein from non-animal sources, I avoid white/bleached grains, and eat primarily vegetables, in sensible portion sizes. I made this shift in my diet probably two years ago. While I haven't been getting bigger, or fatter, I have been hovering around a 38" waist. I'm not pear-shaped or round, but you definitely can't see my abs. In addition to diet, for the last two years or so I have been going to the gym 3 times per week, playing four hours of soccer per week, baseball twice per week, and biking everywhere (I don't have a car, so 100% of my transit is by bicycle). I consider my lifestyle apart from my computer desk job to be very healthy - I eat right and I exercise. But it's just not in my genes to have the six pack and lean body. My father is the same way - he works construction for a living, goes to the gym every single day and runs for 45 minutes, and while he's not fat by any stretch of the imagination, he's definitely not lean and skinny. At the same time, I know people who are beanstalk-thin and eat whatever they want. Entire pizzas to themselves, entire pots of pasta with cream sauce, basically throwing dietary caution to the wind. Your diet plays a role in your body shape, but genetics does as well. And that's where I see this proposed "fat tax" as really inappropriate. In order for me to get to a 33" waist, I would pretty much have to starve myself to dangerous levels. It simply wouldn't be a safe thing for me to do with my body type.
As for sugary foods appearing at the supermarkets, I have always seen sugary foods in the supermarkets. Pulp-free juice has been around as long as I can remember, and we were begging our mom for sugary cereals since we were old enough to walk and talk and eat cereal. What I have noticed lately is the growth of that remote corner of the grocery store dedicated to organic food and healthy eating. What once was two or three shelves hidden away at the back of the store has expanded to be a good 15% of the place. Whole grain pastas, natural peanut butters, wild/brown rice, etc etc. Not only that, but I've been seeing "certified organic" alternatives to just about every product on the shelf, even outside of the organic section. This includes produce and preserves. It seems people are honestly more interested in putting better things in their bodies these days, and grocery stores all over the region have changed to reflect this in the last five years or so. This could however just be a difference between where you and I live (I'm north of the border in Canada).
Re:And your bad genetics cost ME... (Score:5, Insightful)
You say "good genes". I say: "bad math". Body fat is subject to the universal laws of thermodynamics. If you decrease your calorie consumption, you will have less energy left over to store as fat. The overall trend in the USA (or probably all of the western world) is towards unhealthy diets. I have what might be called a "superfood" diet and hover at a trim 30-32" waist size, even with what I must admit is too little exercise.
Wow! Your anecdotally reported study with a sample size of one has convinced me! Diet must be the only factor in body fat composition!
Re:And your bad genetics cost ME... (Score:4, Insightful)
How about the state simply stop subsidizing high-fructose corn syrup first?
Re:And your bad genetics cost ME... (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll also notice that trying to eat healthy (fresh food, etc) will push your food bill up sharply unless you are willing to eat nothing but oatmeal and beans. I call Whole Foods "Whole Paycheck".
Re:And your bad genetics cost ME... (Score:5, Insightful)
.
> Oh, Whole Foods is steep, there is absolutely no question of that. It's not just that what you're buying is more expensive than regular stuff, it's also that you've gone to a rather expensive place to buy it....
Am I the only fool who shops at Whole Foods to save money? Sure, I don't buy expensive fresh produce there (which is generally higher-quality compared to your average supermarket), but their bulk food section (selection varies by location) and store brand products [wholefoodsmarket.com] offer a lot of low-cost healthy food.
.
Bulk rolled oats are 69 cents per pound and cheaper than any packaged oats I've seen. 365 Organic whole wheat pasta is the cheapest I've tried that doesn't have the texture of cardboard. 18oz jars of 365 natural peanut butter for less than $2, 365 whole wheat flour, bulk beans, bulk cocoa powder, etc.
Re:And your bad genetics cost ME... (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. Losing weight is a combination of genes (body metabolism, body chemistry, etc), food intake, and exercise.
I lost 60 pounds a couple of years back and it was all because of diet change. However, simply eating less isn't going to always help. If you try to starve yourself (which, according to the GP poster's logic, should be a great way to lose weight) your body will assume that the food supply is low and reduce metabolism to conserve resources and survive. It's a basic survival mechanism.
Losing weight isn't as easy as eating less. However, eating healthier definitely is a great way to begin a weight loss plan.
No, not at all (Score:4, Insightful)
"If fat people could control their weight merely by exerting a reasonably amount of conscious control over their diets (i.e., will power), they would"
Yet they can do exactly that and choose not to. Why are you saying "they would" when it's obvious to everyone that they don't?
"Being fat is a miserable fucking experience, and no one would put up with it if they didn't have to."
And yet THEY DO PUT UP WITH IT, despite your vacuous assertion otherwise. Why are you claiming "no one would put up with it" when it's obvious to everyone that they do, in total opposition to your point.
You seem to be claiming fat people can't control their weight through dietary choices and exercise and that were someone fat, they wouldn't choose to remain that way if they didn't have to.
To quote YOU "do you realize how incredibly fucking stupid that steaming pile you splattered on my screen sounds"?
I know this one! Choice! (Score:4, Interesting)
You choose to have an unhealthy lifestyle, and thus there are incentives to encourage you to change.
Last I checked, I have very little control over my genetic code (still trying to invent that time machine so I can kill my father before I was born...)
That said, I'm rather unhappy that as a moderate consumer of alcohol, my insurance could group me with binge drinkers and charge me more money, even though there's evidence that moderate drinkers are healthier than non-drinkers [nih.gov]. Who gets to decide what's science and what's not?
Apples and Oranges (Score:4, Insightful)
You CAN control your obesity, alcoholism, and smoking.
Re:And your bad genetics cost ME... (Score:4, Insightful)
I've heard mixed opinions about stomach-reduction surgery in the long term. I guess it's effective for a lot of people but it's so drastic that it still worries me.
My observation has been mainly that overweight people tend to eat large portions, not necessarily of unhealthy foods, repeatedly, and that's #1 cause. Their eyes are bigger than their stomachs, until their stomachs stretch to accommodate their eyes. I have some overweight/obese friends and relatives who constantly fall into this trap.
- One of my friends eats mainly beans, rice, and vegetables... but he eats easily 4-5x what I would eat. Predictably, he weighs about 400 pounds, almost 3x my weight, despite being fairly active and only 5 inches taller than me. I asked him once why he didn't just cook less food. He blamed lack of "willpower." How much willpower does it really take to dump half a cup less rice in the pot in the first place? Less than it does to get to the gym, I'm sure.
- Another obsesses constantly about health and vitamins, and makes a fair amount of money. But she eats out daily and consumes massive meals. She's very overweight and has bad knees as a result.
- My sister, who shares my genetics (a literally "big-boned" build and a predisposition to put on weight easily), and was built similarly to me when she about 20, eats large meals, junky snacks and sugary sodas. She's 5' tall and weighs probably over 200 pounds.
- My brother in law shares her appetite, but also doesn't exercise at all. He's the kind of guy who goes out of his way to avoid parking more than 10 feet from an entrance. He probably weighs 350-400 pounds and has almost no muscle (in contrast to friend #1).
Healthy food is better, yes, but portion control is vital. There are, IIRC, 3 monitors for "fullness" in the body. One monitors glucose in the blood, and takes a while to activate. It mainly signals hunger. The second, I can't remember, but it also signals hunger. The most important, though, is like an elastic around the stomach that, when it stretches, says, "that's enough food, I'm full now." If you eat large meals it takes longer to trigger it -- if it triggers at all before the food runs out.
The best bet to lose weight is to start closely, mindfully monitoring caloric intake and cutting back on portion sizes. Planning is necessary because you can't count on your body's signals -- its sensors are miscalibrated. On the plus side, it only takes a few months for a stomach to shrink on its own. Even cutting back you shouldn't get the "hunger" signals until you're actually low on glucose... but it's hard to avoid eating because you don't get the "full" signal from the stomach-stretch detector either.
That kind of sustained mindfulness is really difficult, though.
Re:Your fat costs me money (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Your fat costs me money (Score:5, Insightful)
In most states and in most insurance categories, the maximum profitability margins of the insurance companies are regulated, as they should be. In all such states you can rest assured that the price of buying insurance is within ~15% of the cost of providing said insurance.
That price may not be distributed with maximum fairness, but that's essentially the subject of the discussion: how to improve fairness of the cost distribution.
Re:Your fat costs me money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Your fat costs me money (Score:5, Insightful)
and what if people who are extremely healthy engage in outdoor activities which tend to cause injuries and death.
For example, I am an amateur motorcycle road and motocross racer.
I am on a company insurance program, so my involvement with these sports has no bearing on our total health care costs since it is based upon demographics of age and sex.
since i routinely have small accidents and small injuries (hence my amateur and not pro status), should i also be penalized?
what if a i was a fat bastard on the couch who didn't get injured, because i didn't do anything?
should i be targeted then?
this is not a good plan.
next we should have different insurance rates for someone who uses a seat belt and someone who doesn't, and fines if you are caught saying you do but don't.
then we should have different places for people of one type of health from another, after all, we wouldn't want to possibly infect someone.
then we should have a master race which is the ideal of all of this and anybody who doesn't fit this master race we can just get rid of...............
Re:Your fat costs me money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:already here (Score:5, Informative)
I was thinking the same thing until I looked it up [wikipedia.org]. On average men in the US are 1.5 inches taller and women are 1.2 inches taller. That's not a big enough difference to expect our waist sizes to be so much larger (all else being equal).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:already here (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I bet the standard deviation is much higher in the US, though, since our population is much more diverse. I'm guessing that there are a lot more Japanese in America than the reverse.
I'm 6'0", and in my part of the country that makes me just a little taller than average. When I lived in San Diego, I could see over most of the crowd in night clubs.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
At 6'2" you're about 5 inches taller than the average American or Brit. Remember that with averages everyone could be very close to the average or there could be very wide variance. My guess is that in Japan more people fall close to the average, while in the west there is far more variance. Therefore you won't experience the sea of heads all around the same height in the west even though our averages are close.
Re:already here (Score:4, Insightful)
assume a round chicken (Score:3, Interesting)
Just some back of the napkin figures to ponder...
I know its Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] but the difference is not that great. About 172.8 cm average adult male for and 175.8 average adult male for US. This wikipedia article seems to be pretty well annotated.
Japan's diet is much improved since the post WWII days where the stereotype of Japanese being short was spread through US culture. They were shorter due to worse diet.
I have visited castles in Ireland, where my parents were born. Armor there looks like it was made
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
AFAIK, drug testing has no impact on your medical insurance rates. If your piss comes back positive you may lose your job or suffer some form of disciplinary action depending on your employers policies but I don't think it has any direct relationship to your medical insurance. Ditto for drinking -- why they even bother to ask is beyond me -- I just lie and put down that I don't.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. What kind of draconian company do you work at?
I don't use drugs, but I'd definitely view it as a major red flag if a company was so un-trusting of its companies as to require them to pee in a cup on a regular basis. Maybe if it's a heavy security-clearance position I could see it (though I certainly know people who have admitted to occasional marijuana use and still gott
Re:already here (Score:5, Interesting)
Most countries with national health programs (mine included) don't have any restrictions on what you can do, eat, smoke, shoot up, jump off of or have sex with. As you point out, one country where the system does generally involve penalties for certain behaviour or conditions is the private system in the US.
One does not follow the other... (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is specious: there are dozens of countries with public health care, but they don't have such crazy restrictions (including your neighbour, Canada). I chalk it up to a Japanese culture that accepts such a standard. And don't give me the fat-people-will-cost-me-more in a public system argument, because they are costing you more in a private system, unless fatter people at your work pay more for their insurance plan...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's only specious by your definition of "crazy", which conveniently excludes the extensive property and privacy rights violations that come with government-run healthcare (or government-run anything). You have no choice not to be part of the system. Don't want healthcare? Would rather keep your productivity and use it elsewhere? Don't want to pay for others' healthcare or have a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I was going to point out the same specious comment... an attempt to falsely tie the two together.
That said, an arbitrary number on wasit-line is a silly way to determine "obesity". It would allow for small, fat people to be in spec, while large not-fat people (what is Lou Farigno's waist? Michael Jordan?) to be out.
Hard to translate to America (Score:3, Interesting)
Americans are taller than the Japanese, and thus even relatively thinner people can have a larger waistline, and be considered fat. A better measurement, or goal might be percentage body fat or BMI (Cue the BMI holy wars of body builders).
Yes, obese people (and smokers) take more sick time, have more health expenses, lower productivity, etc. I'm a physician, and public health is one of the courses we take, so obesity and smoking related problems a are HUGE percentage of health dollars spent.
Now as far as B
Re:One does not follow the other... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are those who say smokers cost society money and the same busybodies will talk about how fat people, too, cost money because of the health risks, but it's bunk. It's based on the stupidly false premise that one can live forever. The reason it's stupid is illustrated by my late granmother and her late son, my uncle.
Uncle Bill smoked four packs of Kools every day since he was about twelve. He contracted emphysema and died in his early sixties.
Uncle Bill, a WWII veteran, worked all his life and paid into Social Security from its inception until his death, and never collected a single SS benefit. He never went to a doctor on Mediacre's dime either - he didn't live long enough. He went to the hospital and died expensively, like everybody else.
Grandma, a healthy nonsmoker, collected Social Security for almost forty years, going to the doctor almost every week, paid for by medicare. At age 99 she fell down in the nursinng home and broke her hip, spent a week in the hospital and died expensively, like everybody else.
Smokers and fat people don't cost the medical system money; it's only the living that go to doctors.
The way to solve Social Security is to get all the geezers to start smoking and going to Burger King again. Dead men don't collect Social Security.
To say that smokers and fat people cost society is a big fat stinking baldfaced lie. Being a fat smoker doesn't send you to the doctor more often than thin nonsmokers, it kills you.
Re:One does not follow the other... (Score:5, Insightful)
That may apply in the last ten years of life, but it's certainly not true earlier. I'm 41. I have a friend who is the same age as me who is perhaps 70 to 100 pounds overweight. He is constantly at the doctor for this ailment and that, this ache and pain, he's always sick on it goes. If he gets an owie in his knee he's at the massage therapist, the chiropractor etc. etc. I'd say 95% of these issues would go away if he ate better and exercised.
When I was a doctor... (Score:4, Informative)
When I was working on the vascular surgery ward, the beds were crammed with two kinds of people ; smokers, and type-2 diabetics. Many of them were both kinds. Most type-2 diabetes is self-inflicted and can be avoided through managing your weight and diet properly. Combining smoking with type-2 diabetes is basically asking to have your legs amputated.
When I was working on the pulmonary ward, the beds were crammed with 2 kinds of people - smokers, and asthmatics.
When I was working the infectious diseases ward, the patients were predominately junkies, with conditions brought on as a result of their habit.
When I was on ENT, the patients were of three types ; young children needing routine surgery like tonsillectomies and ear grommets, persistent nosebleeds, and really nasty mouth and throat cancers. The cancer patients were, you guessed it, all smokers.
So the vast majority of patients with chronic, manageable, expensive conditions, some requiring multiple surgeries just to get back a fraction of the function they should have had, were smokers, and fatties, and the worst of them were fat smokers.
Smoking and obesity cost the health service huge sweaty wads of money and I find your assertion to the contrary to be baseless.
Re:One does not follow the other... (Score:5, Interesting)
I never understood why this was so unpopular. We tax the beejebus out of cigarretes because it is an easy way for politicians to raise taxes without making everyone mad. Eating tons of junk food over the course of your life isnt much better than smoking a pack a day.
I'm not saying I support a tax on junk food, but I cant see how people can support taxing lower income folks who go through a pack a day but not this.
Re:One does not follow the other... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You talking about eating junk food or smoking? Because I certainly don't agree to inhale second-hand smoking just because I happened to be in a public area.
So no, smoking isn't something someone is doing to their own body.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One does not follow the other... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:One does not follow the other... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what happens when you buy "insurance" to cover every little thing.
Insurance should cover catastrophic, unforseeable events. You buy car insurance so that you have coverage if you get t-boned by a semi. You don't buy insurance to cover your oil changes. It would be absurd, and if everybody bought oil-change insurance it would drive the cost through the roof. Yet this is what everybody expects from health "insurance", and guess what happened, the costs got driven through the roof.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Once again, a car analogy doesn't quite fit the situation. To be of any use, health "insurance" must cover *any* expensive condition, not just accidents. In the car analogy, that would mean that the auto insurance would also cover things like a new motor in case you throw a piston rod.
That's where the interaction with oil changes comes about. If people are too cheap to change the oil on a regular basis, far more expensive problems
Junk food tax? That's a GREAT idea. (Score:3, Interesting)
Increasing the cost of obesity reduces obesity. We don't know how much it would, but studies from cigarette taxes show that increases costs decrease consumption of even highly desirable things.
Obesity increases fuel consumption -- the obese eat more (more food transport and production fuel use) and weigh more (more transport costs in themselves). They eat 18% more, according the Lancet. The Lancet goes on to suggest that reducing obesity would reduc
Re:Junk food tax? That's a GREAT idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
So fewer and fewer people are getting what they desire, because other anonymous people don't desire it and would like to force them into a position where they can't afford their desires! What an idiotic and indefensible notion.
"Obesity increases fuel consumption -- the obese eat more (more food transport and production fuel use) and weigh more (more transport costs in themselves)."
If they can afford the food, who's to tell them they should be allowed to eat it. What happened to "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness"?
"And yes, their health care costs us -- we should be getting some of that back."
Only if you choose to be part of the system. The difference between that and a publicly-funded system is that you have no choice.
"A small tax..."
It is not the size that matters. Forcibly taking away someone's productivity (in the form of money) is no different from theft.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And who gets to decide what is junk food?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Increasing the cost of obesity reduces obesity. "
Either that or the government invades another country that has more food. :p
Re: (Score:3)
go to hell
seriously
I eat a double bacon cheeseburger every single day
I'm 5'7, weigh 127lbs, have low blood pressure, and good cholesterol levels. I need to eat like this just to MAINTAIN my weight.
the last thing I need is to have it made even harder
Hmmm... (Score:3, Funny)
Definitely sounds like a big problem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wooo hooo, there we go, solve the problem of government not getting enough money out of people's pockets by finding new and VERY inventive ways to tax the shit out of them! There you go, central planning brilliance at work!
Just deserts. Worship governments and authoritarian thugs, and they will reach into your mind and body after they're done cleaning out your pockets and home.
Sumo Wrestlers? (Score:4, Funny)
wow.. seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:wow.. seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, too much in this country is made about BMI [nhlbisupport.com]. If you're 6 feet tall and weigh 200 pounds you can be a chubby guy or a really fit guy or somewhere in between, but regardless the government classifies you as "overweight". You need to set a standard for health that doesn't deal with weird metrics like "waist size" or "body mass index".
Re: (Score:3)
If you're 6 feet tall and weigh 200 pounds you can be a chubby guy or a really fit guy or somewhere in between, but regardless the government classifies you as "overweight". You need to set a standard for health that doesn't deal with weird metrics like "waist size" or "body mass index".
When I hit the gym more vigorously, I had several body Fat tests run using a variety of methods, All were in rough agreement, that at 0% body fat (ie dead, 15% is normal, with marathon runners typically in the 7-9% range) I was still "overweight" by those insurance company charts, even rounding my height up. As I recall, the military has also run into similar problems, with body builders hitting the "obese" mark despite body fat ranges in the 5% area
Problem is body fat measures aren't accurate enough to
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As I recall, the military has also run into similar problems, with body builders hitting the "obese" mark despite body fat ranges in the 5% area.
Absolutely. When I was in the Navy in the early '90s, we had semi-annual fitness tests. One of the requirements was a BMI lower than a certain value. There was a guy in my group (no, not me!), who had been extremely obese earlier in his life but who'd lost almost all the weight and was really fit by the time he joined the Navy. However, he still had all the extra skin and stuff around his waist from his heavy days.
Every six months, we'd go through the same ordeal: "Bob" would get measured for BMI, h
BMI (Score:5, Interesting)
Shaquille O'Neil is not exactly fat at 7'1" and 325, but he has a BMI of 31.6 -- well into the "obese" range. A 5'2" woman would have to weigh 173 pounds to have the same BMI as Shaq -- and I know damn well that 173 and 5'2 is rolling fat.
So tell us how useful the BMI is as a gauge of obesity again.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, my spot on the BMI says I'm obese, I'm 6' & 250lbs. Except for the fact I go to the gym 3-5 times weekly, run 2-4 miles several times a week, and my actual body fat is around 14%, which is normal/slightly above average for those who are unfamiliar with the metric.
However, there are some really out of shape skinny people. It hardly seems fair that someone who starves themselves and does not exercise is considered to be in better shape than people who eat healthy and weigh more.
The only way to fai
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Correlation != Causation. Most people in this country with big waists are fat and unhealthy, but that doesn't mean that having a big waist means you are fat and unhealthy.
Health is not something that can be measured by waist size alone.
Someone has been reading F.Paul Wilson (Score:5, Informative)
Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Well wow, that's just dumb. Didn't they read that smokers and fat people cost the government less thank skinny people? [iht.com]. The study was done by the Dutch, and their healthcare is mandatory private (like people are talking about for the US) supplemented by socialized healthcare for people who are elderly or unable to otherwise function, so I'd think they'd have a pretty good idea of what the costs are. //Sorry about the stupid dashes. Goddamn system isn't taking my paragraph breaks.
_
Sure, the smokers and fat people have more health problems, but they have the decency to drop dead and not linger on the government dime, senile and incontinent, for a few extra decades.
_
I try to keep healthy, but when I hit the point where I'm not enjoying life much any more, I'm eating whatever the hell I want, taking up heroin. I'll be mainlining viagra II, and having sex with the kind of scary women that'd have sex with me! You see these articles coming out of Florida about old guys getting arrested for trying to buy drugs, just for the hell of it, and I don't understand what the problem is. This society is so fricking weird; god forbid you threaten your own ability to live to 110.
_
Life is one of those things where it's really about quality, not quantity.
Minimum Female Bust Line (Score:5, Funny)
So, when do they extend this to a minimum female bust line?
If you don't have at least a 34C, your employer provided insurance will mandate a boob job.
I'm thinking the gov't inspector position on that law will be a highly coveted spot.
Re:Minimum Female Bust Line (Score:4, Funny)
Of course (Score:3, Insightful)
Foreign workers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does this apply to foreign workers? For instance, if I were to go work in Japan for a year or two after I'm 40, would my employer be fined if I didn't shrink my 37 to a 33.5?
What about sumo wrestling? (Score:5, Insightful)
Weird if it's true. (Score:5, Interesting)
How can you have a single upper-limit on waist sizes? Are all people in Japan the same height or are short people allowed to be fatter than tall ones?
And how is the employer really responsible for their employees' weight? OK sure, there's going to be a bit of correllation between the general health attitude at your job and your own weight and from what I understand there's more of a culture for this thing in Japan but it still seems like a big leap to make in what a company is responsible for and subsequently what an employee has to answer to his employer about. Can constantly fat people be fired for costing their company too much in fines?
actually (Score:5, Funny)
Yes they are. Deviants are stretched or squashed as needed, and beaten for their insolence.
Oh please... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Fine on fat" has nothing to do with universal health coverage. It has everything to do with bad policy and even worse laws (not to mention stupid lawmakers).
There are tons of countries in the world today with universal health coverage who don't engage in that kind of stupid law making.
Then again, it is mostly accepted these days that being overweight is bad for you, in all kind of different ways, so maybe a tax on fat is not such a bad idea, especially if human fat is recycled into bio-fuel [dailymail.co.uk]. Fight Club, anyone?
Besides, wait until they apply this law to the sumotori [scgroup.com]... and the howls of outrage from the sumo-loving japanese public... :-)
Dammit! (Score:3, Funny)
Face Value (Score:4, Insightful)
A more darwinist approach (Score:5, Funny)
How about some kind of mandatory test (every couple years or so) in which people are placed in various life-threatening situations involving wild animals, obstacle courses, etc.?
Those who exhibit a reasonable level of fitness would have a reasonable chance of evading death, while those who "let themselves go" are much more likely to end up as food for some kind of large carnivore or as feedstock for an industrial wood chipper.
Have the whole thing take place in some kind of a large controlled environment with lots of cameras and audio pickups, then sell advertising rights to the 24/7 broadcast of all the mayhem.
All upside. No downside
Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
I was in japan about 9 years ago and I went back just a few months ago. I was amazed at the difference. There were far more people that I would categorize as overweight. No where near as many as in America and nobody that appeared to be obese, but it was quite a shift in a decade.
To go along with that I noticed that there were far more fast food places and unlike my first trip, restaurants did not list the calories on items the way they had in the past.
On the other hand I noticed that smoking was down and there were more non smoking areas (including on the streets of Tokyo) but those regulations were often ignored.
Actually in centimeters... (Score:3, Informative)
The real waist requirements for men: 85 cm (33.4645669 inches)
The real waist requirements for women: 90 cm (35.4330709 inches)
Japan doesn't use inches.
Athletes??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Already see this with insurance companies (Score:3, Insightful)
Many insurance companies give people physicals and tend to cherry pick the best and most healthy individuals. With a universal system this would be reduced a great bit so we would probably see less regulations on peoples life style. I support universal health care but not these kinds of regulations. Education is a part of the solution, helping people understand how to eat a health diet. Ironically, it is americans workaholic busy lifestyle that leaves little time for exercise. If we gave people better pay, shorter work days and more vacation time, that would lead to a healthier population. The better pay would also mean better food. Many people eat a largely carbohydrate diet because that is the cheapest but that can lead to obesity. I think there is a lot of opposition to higher pay shorter work weeks and universal health care since it deconsolidates wealth and increases the overall well being of the general population but gets in the way of a few rich elites hoarding vast wealth.
Fine. But you cannot limit it to fat people only. (Score:4, Interesting)
If we are going to take this route, let's at least do it right.
The point is to penalize unhealthy people, correct? There are studies which show pretty conclusively that the healthiest people are the ones which are slightly over the 'ideal' weight. Folks carrying a bit of extra weight (read: normal) live longer than folks who maintain that beautiful body that TV insists you should have.
So, let's penalize the thin people too. If their lifestyle is as unhealthy as the fat folks, why exempt them?
Things Not So Easy Anymore... (Score:5, Funny)
...when you're big in Japan.
Insurance vs Reproduction (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't take care of your body, and you become an expensive data point in your insurance system, you raise the premiums for everyone else. We all seem to generally agree on that. We disagree on what, if anything, should be done to make the system more "fair."
Likewise, if you don't raise your kid right and he becomes a murdering thug, you lower the quality of life for everyone else. Should your performance as a parent be judged, fined, taxed, regulated too? The societal impact of poor parenting is at least as great as that of too many cheeseburgers.
Personally, I will grudgingly pay for Mr. Unhealthy's insurance, and I will sadly let the person next door loose a brood of poorly socialized amoral goons on the world, because I think the alternative--trying to fix things--will end up being worse.
Japan, like Styx, Show's Me The Way (Score:5, Funny)
The biggest crime that fat people commit is the stealing of time from us normal folks.
As you may or may not know, gravity slows down time. Gravity is the product of mass. Their larger than average masses steals a larger than average portion of time from you as you pass through their (considerable) area of influence.
I'm walking and gravity is constant; normal; time is passing. Then I attempt to squeeze around this fat person because they're too slow. To the fat person, they're walking at a normal speed, but their time operates slowers than ours so relative to us and the natural, they're in fact walking slower.
So as I pass them, the grip of their massive gravity slows down the space-time I have to walk through to pass them. Even though it seems like it only took me 1 second to walk past them, 1.x seconds elapsed in the real world outside the gravity of the fat person.
In affect, the fat person STOLE X amount of time from me!!!
You can't get that back.
This phenomenon also accounts for fat people having lower IQs (just google it). There answers always take longer to formulate because their time is slowed down relative to ours. (assuming you're not fat)
The time-differential between obese and non-obese people is accountable for countless things.
You also might notice that the Japanese appear to be smarter than Americans. And potentially more efficient and harder workings. You'll also notice that per capita they're skinnier. Giving them more relative-time in a day to accomplish the same tasks.
It wouldn't surprise if the American day is actually 23.5 hours compared to the 24 hour day the rest of the world enjoys.