Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?
Replies
-
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Copper_Boom wrote: »What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?
Or prevent obesity?
Lunch breaks must be 1 hour and 15 minutes ... so that employees can change, go exercise for an hour, and return.
All organisations must provide exercise options: walking groups, yoga classes, gym in the basement, free gym memberships, or whatever.
All organisations must provide good, secure bicycle parking.
People who commute actively get a $10/day bonus in their pay packets.
Or how about shortening lunch breaks to 20 minutes so you can get out of work earlier and exercise when and where YOU want to?
Lunch and break times are set by labor law. Not only are employers required to give them to you, you are also required to take them. The laws and regulations of course vary by state and occupation. In addition to this, many jobs require actual rest time, so they can perform whatever they are doing safely. Packing gym time into this is not the idea of occupational safety.
Understand the laws regarding lunch and break times vary among type of work, state/locality and country. I've been on a management payroll for most of my worklife, so there really isn't anything as a specific lunch or especially a break.
My original point was not to make the time at work longer (i.e, forced longer break middle of day), to allow for midday exercise. If anything let people get out so they can do the exercise of their choice. or offer flex hours. I've never seen a workplace gym with a lifting platform or a squat rack (I'm sure as you mention worker's comp issues) and those are things I need to train. I could personally give a rat's behind about yoga classes, walking groups etc.
Oh yes, I got your point right away! The rest of my post was just supporting my previous post, and yours fit right in there.
All things considered, my experience always was and is, that employers will never do anything costly to support the overall wellbeing of their workforce, unless it will lower their portion of health insurance premiums. They need you capable to do the job, the rest is between the employees and their doctors.
1 -
Recess at sedentary workplaces! Dodgeball breaks.4
-
Copper_Boom wrote: »What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?
Or prevent obesity?
Lunch breaks must be 1 hour and 15 minutes ... so that employees can change, go exercise for an hour, and return.
All organisations must provide exercise options: walking groups, yoga classes, gym in the basement, free gym memberships, or whatever.
All organisations must provide good, secure bicycle parking.
People who commute actively get a $10/day bonus in their pay packets.
Sounds nice... In reality, however...
Most of us don't get paid lunch time. Those who are unabe to workout for some reasons will be stuck for 1.5 hrs, playing with their thumbs, as many employers don't have flexible lunch hours. That sucks... You can't force anyone to be active aside from set job requirements on the clock, as this would be a field day for their worker's compensation insurance...
Really????
I've always had paid lunches. I've got an hour, which I can take any time I want ... this would give me one hour and 15 minutes.
An hour to exercise and 15 minutes to freshen up.
Or if I have errands to run at lunch, it would give me an hour and 15 minutes to do that.
Or if I don't want to take lunch one day, I could come in an hour and 15 minutes late or leave an hour and 15 minutes early.
Sounds good to me! It's just an extra 15 minutes a day ... but it provides that extra little buffer to come in and freshen up.
2 -
Copper_Boom wrote: »What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?
Or prevent obesity?
Lunch breaks must be 1 hour and 15 minutes ... so that employees can change, go exercise for an hour, and return.
All organisations must provide exercise options: walking groups, yoga classes, gym in the basement, free gym memberships, or whatever.
All organisations must provide good, secure bicycle parking.
People who commute actively get a $10/day bonus in their pay packets.
Sounds nice... In reality, however...
Aside from walking, the suggested activities require space. Many companies will lease their business, extra space is expensive, if it isn't used to create profit. Besides, this has the potential to turn into mandatory group activites, and I always hated to be bullied into activities by some co-workers that don't have a life outside of the office... And again, there is the issue of worker's comp...
Free gym memberships don't require space. Many places do offer free gym memberships or some sort of discount. I think I've got a 10% or 15% discount if I wanted to take advantage of it. It's not mandatory ... it's just one of those extra little perks.
My work also has ad hoc walking groups ... we've got the freedom to arrange things like that if we want. There's some talk that someone might use one of the board rooms for yoga, but that hasn't materialised yet. One place I worked had yoga classes for a while ... no one was bullied to take them, it was entirely voluntary. And the building we were in before did have a gym in the basement ... many do. Unfortunately the building we're in now doesn't. But we were never bullied to use the gym, it was just one of the things we were introduced to when we started ... "Oh, BTW, there's a gym in the basement you can use if you want."
It's not nearly as imposing as you want to make it out to be.
2 -
Theoretically I get 3hrs a week for admin leave/PT time....the last time I got to take that...never because there is a perception of slacking off and not working if you take the PT time (regardless that I routinely exceed my 80hrs in a 2 week pay period for normal work hours)1
-
Copper_Boom wrote: »What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?
Or prevent obesity?
Lunch breaks must be 1 hour and 15 minutes ... so that employees can change, go exercise for an hour, and return.
All organisations must provide exercise options: walking groups, yoga classes, gym in the basement, free gym memberships, or whatever.
All organisations must provide good, secure bicycle parking.
People who commute actively get a $10/day bonus in their pay packets.
Sounds nice... In reality, however...
Aside from walking, the suggested activities require space. Many companies will lease their business, extra space is expensive, if it isn't used to create profit. Besides, this has the potential to turn into mandatory group activites, and I always hated to be bullied into activities by some co-workers that don't have a life outside of the office... And again, there is the issue of worker's comp...
Free gym memberships don't require space. Many places do offer free gym memberships or some sort of discount. I think I've got a 10% or 15% discount if I wanted to take advantage of it. It's not mandatory ... it's just one of those extra little perks.
My work also has ad hoc walking groups ... we've got the freedom to arrange things like that if we want. There's some talk that someone might use one of the board rooms for yoga, but that hasn't materialised yet. One place I worked had yoga classes for a while ... no one was bullied to take them, it was entirely voluntary. And the building we were in before did have a gym in the basement ... many do. Unfortunately the building we're in now doesn't. But we were never bullied to use the gym, it was just one of the things we were introduced to when we started ... "Oh, BTW, there's a gym in the basement you can use if you want."
It's not nearly as imposing as you want to make it out to be.
I imagine that the discounts don't originate in the employer's pocket book, but might be an offer by the gym, to take advantage of a large number of potential clients in one space? Which is definitely nice, too!
Sure, there are employers who offer fitness related perks. My husband's company sent out hundreds of fitbits, and encourages people to participate in fitness challenges. Shortly after they had all gotten excited, there was an email, stating 'btw...if you have opened the box, you're agreed to the fine print...' which was an implied consent of being tracked... Say what...? Always a catch... My husband sent it right back. The company provided health insurance is great, though.
If participation remains voluntary, there won't be a law or policy change on the planet, that can make us get off our hind end and move... Right down to your empty yoga board room and dusty barbells in your company's building... And if there were, I want to see the law enforcement, that will tick off the laps that I'm running around my house each day...
1 -
Copper_Boom wrote: »What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?
Or prevent obesity?
Lunch breaks must be 1 hour and 15 minutes ... so that employees can change, go exercise for an hour, and return.
All organisations must provide exercise options: walking groups, yoga classes, gym in the basement, free gym memberships, or whatever.
All organisations must provide good, secure bicycle parking.
People who commute actively get a $10/day bonus in their pay packets.
This makes zero sense to me. It is not employers' responsibility to pay for your gym membership or pay you extra to commute actively. Take personal responsibility.10 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »Japan's lesser obesity rate than other developed nation's probably has less to do with shaming and more to do with their amount of NEAT. The country is very urban with most people living in one of several population dense cities that are navigated by walking and mass transit.
For comparison, I'm sure being a chikan (groper) is treated as more shameful than being obese, yet they have a major problem with that - explainable in part also by their reliance on mass transit.
I don't believe population density or urban life has anything to do it. I have lived in Philadelphia. New York City, and DC. Huge numbers of obese people in all three of those cities...including NY in which the VAST majority of people don't own cars. Even in Philly and DC you don't need a car and many people don't have cars. They are still obese.4 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »Copper_Boom wrote: »What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?
Or prevent obesity?
Lunch breaks must be 1 hour and 15 minutes ... so that employees can change, go exercise for an hour, and return.
All organisations must provide exercise options: walking groups, yoga classes, gym in the basement, free gym memberships, or whatever.
All organisations must provide good, secure bicycle parking.
People who commute actively get a $10/day bonus in their pay packets.
This makes zero sense to me. It is not employers' responsibility to pay for your gym membership or pay you extra to commute actively. Take personal responsibility.
Oh well ... there are laws that make zero sense to me too. Can't please everyone.
Happily this thread is for those of us who have ideas we feel would help make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight ... like me and my ideas.
Fortunately/unfortunately (depending which post you read) this thread is all wishful thinking and imagination.
IMO there should be more of a focus on fitness than details about food. "They" have already addressed most of the food issues. Labels are pretty good now ... much better than they were even just 10 years ago, and definitely better than they were 20 or 30 or 40 years ago. So now ... onward to fitness issues.
And my ideas are not way out there either ...
https://www.bike-eu.com/industry-retail-organizations/nieuws/2017/04/tax-breaks-bike-commuters-european-trend-10129672?vakmedianet-approve-cookies=1&_ga=2.179518690.713157954.1555301050-1312501378.1555301050
"Four European countries have introduced tax breaks for cycling to work or extended existing ones during the last months: France, Belgium, Luxembourg and Italy. This shows that the idea of rewarding sustainable commuting behavior through fiscal incentives is gaining ground throughout the continent."
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/feb/29/cash-cycling-polluted-milan-italy-pay-commuters-bike-to-work
"“Reimburse those who go to work by bike; a project similar to the one in France,” Maran said. Under the French system trialled in 2014, employees were paid 25 cents per kilometre they pedalled to work. A pilot on the same principle is currently being rolled out in Massarosa, a small Tuscan town where 50 people are said to be taking part."
If Europe's doing it ... maybe Australia might follow suit. 1 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »Japan's lesser obesity rate than other developed nation's probably has less to do with shaming and more to do with their amount of NEAT. The country is very urban with most people living in one of several population dense cities that are navigated by walking and mass transit.
For comparison, I'm sure being a chikan (groper) is treated as more shameful than being obese, yet they have a major problem with that - explainable in part also by their reliance on mass transit.
I don't believe population density or urban life has anything to do it. I have lived in Philadelphia. New York City, and DC. Huge numbers of obese people in all three of those cities...including NY in which the VAST majority of people don't own cars. Even in Philly and DC you don't need a car and many people don't have cars. They are still obese.
Well, you'd believe incorrectly. There's obese people even in Japan, but the point is that the difference in them. NY as a state which includes less dense areas is near the bottom of obesity rates. If Washington DC was a state, it would be the second lowest, just slightly worse than Colorado (which besides have a dense population for Denver, has the built in physical activity of breathing in thin air).
https://www.stateofobesity.org/adult-obesity/
I think it is pretty well correlated that major cities tend towards lower BMIs than rural areas. At least part of it might be explained by socio-economic factors, but I think there's fair reason to believe foot traffic versus car traffic is part of it.0 -
Copper_Boom wrote: »What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?
Or prevent obesity?
Lunch breaks must be 1 hour and 15 minutes ... so that employees can change, go exercise for an hour, and return.
All organisations must provide exercise options: walking groups, yoga classes, gym in the basement, free gym memberships, or whatever.
All organisations must provide good, secure bicycle parking.
People who commute actively get a $10/day bonus in their pay packets.
Sounds nice... In reality, however...
Most of us don't get paid lunch time. Those who are unabe to workout for some reasons will be stuck for 1.5 hrs, playing with their thumbs, as many employers don't have flexible lunch hours. That sucks... You can't force anyone to be active aside from set job requirements on the clock, as this would be a field day for their worker's compensation insurance...
Really????
I've always had paid lunches. I've got an hour, which I can take any time I want ... this would give me one hour and 15 minutes. An hour to exercise and 15 minutes to freshen up.
Or if I have errands to run at lunch, it would give me an hour and 15 minutes to do that.
Or if I don't want to take lunch one day, I could come in an hour and 15 minutes late or leave an hour and 15 minutes early.
Sounds good to me! It's just an extra 15 minutes a day ... but it provides that extra little buffer to come in and freshen up.
Paid lunch is uncommon in the US. Nice for you, but not the norm.2 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Copper_Boom wrote: »What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?
Or prevent obesity?
Lunch breaks must be 1 hour and 15 minutes ... so that employees can change, go exercise for an hour, and return.
All organisations must provide exercise options: walking groups, yoga classes, gym in the basement, free gym memberships, or whatever.
All organisations must provide good, secure bicycle parking.
People who commute actively get a $10/day bonus in their pay packets.
Sounds nice... In reality, however...
Most of us don't get paid lunch time. Those who are unabe to workout for some reasons will be stuck for 1.5 hrs, playing with their thumbs, as many employers don't have flexible lunch hours. That sucks... You can't force anyone to be active aside from set job requirements on the clock, as this would be a field day for their worker's compensation insurance...
Really????
I've always had paid lunches. I've got an hour, which I can take any time I want ... this would give me one hour and 15 minutes. An hour to exercise and 15 minutes to freshen up.
Or if I have errands to run at lunch, it would give me an hour and 15 minutes to do that.
Or if I don't want to take lunch one day, I could come in an hour and 15 minutes late or leave an hour and 15 minutes early.
Sounds good to me! It's just an extra 15 minutes a day ... but it provides that extra little buffer to come in and freshen up.
Paid lunch is uncommon in the US. Nice for you, but not the norm.
The norm in Canada and Australia ... and Europe too, I think.
(I've never lived in the US)
4 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Copper_Boom wrote: »What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?
Or prevent obesity?
Lunch breaks must be 1 hour and 15 minutes ... so that employees can change, go exercise for an hour, and return.
All organisations must provide exercise options: walking groups, yoga classes, gym in the basement, free gym memberships, or whatever.
All organisations must provide good, secure bicycle parking.
People who commute actively get a $10/day bonus in their pay packets.
Sounds nice... In reality, however...
Most of us don't get paid lunch time. Those who are unabe to workout for some reasons will be stuck for 1.5 hrs, playing with their thumbs, as many employers don't have flexible lunch hours. That sucks... You can't force anyone to be active aside from set job requirements on the clock, as this would be a field day for their worker's compensation insurance...
Really????
I've always had paid lunches. I've got an hour, which I can take any time I want ... this would give me one hour and 15 minutes. An hour to exercise and 15 minutes to freshen up.
Or if I have errands to run at lunch, it would give me an hour and 15 minutes to do that.
Or if I don't want to take lunch one day, I could come in an hour and 15 minutes late or leave an hour and 15 minutes early.
Sounds good to me! It's just an extra 15 minutes a day ... but it provides that extra little buffer to come in and freshen up.
Paid lunch is uncommon in the US. Nice for you, but not the norm.
41% of workers are salaried. Of hourly workers, 70% are under 30.
Paid vs. unpaid lunch seems to me to make sense really just for hourly workers.1 -
There are 168 hours in a week.
It is not your employer's responsibility to manage 2% of your time to exercise.6 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Copper_Boom wrote: »What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?
Or prevent obesity?
Lunch breaks must be 1 hour and 15 minutes ... so that employees can change, go exercise for an hour, and return.
All organisations must provide exercise options: walking groups, yoga classes, gym in the basement, free gym memberships, or whatever.
All organisations must provide good, secure bicycle parking.
People who commute actively get a $10/day bonus in their pay packets.
Sounds nice... In reality, however...
Most of us don't get paid lunch time. Those who are unabe to workout for some reasons will be stuck for 1.5 hrs, playing with their thumbs, as many employers don't have flexible lunch hours. That sucks... You can't force anyone to be active aside from set job requirements on the clock, as this would be a field day for their worker's compensation insurance...
Really????
I've always had paid lunches. I've got an hour, which I can take any time I want ... this would give me one hour and 15 minutes. An hour to exercise and 15 minutes to freshen up.
Or if I have errands to run at lunch, it would give me an hour and 15 minutes to do that.
Or if I don't want to take lunch one day, I could come in an hour and 15 minutes late or leave an hour and 15 minutes early.
Sounds good to me! It's just an extra 15 minutes a day ... but it provides that extra little buffer to come in and freshen up.
Paid lunch is uncommon in the US. Nice for you, but not the norm.
41% of workers are salaried. Of hourly workers, 70% are under 30.
Paid vs. unpaid lunch seems to me to make sense really just for hourly workers.
Yeah I'm salaried based on a certain number of hours in a day ... if I really wanted the extra 15 min at lunch I mentioned earlier I would just come in 15 min earlier or stay 15 min later.
Anyway our Bicycle Network is making a push for people who cycle to work to be paid an extra $5 per day ... it's an election lobby I think. That would be nice ... might be just the incentive I need to start commuting by bicycle again.3 -
There are 168 hours in a week.
It is not your employer's responsibility to manage 2% of your time to exercise.
Along that vein, it shouldn't be our employer's responsibility to manage our health care. Yet they do. I'm all for replacing what we have with a single payer system.
My husband doesn't like his job and he's really tempted to move to another employer. But it would potentially cause such a disruption to our son's medical care and he can't lose his providers. Changing ABA therapists is such a bigger deal then finding a new family doctor or even a specialist like cardiologist.
7 -
FireOpalCO wrote: »There are 168 hours in a week.
It is not your employer's responsibility to manage 2% of your time to exercise.
Along that vein, it shouldn't be our employer's responsibility to manage our health care. Yet they do. I'm all for replacing what we have with a single payer system.
My husband doesn't like his job and he's really tempted to move to another employer. But it would potentially cause such a disruption to our son's medical care and he can't lose his providers. Changing ABA therapists is such a bigger deal then finding a new family doctor or even a specialist like cardiologist.
Your employer doesn't see it this way. Part of your compensation is provided in sponsored healthcare. Are you aware of the cost?
You can choose to outsource responsibility, but this comes at a great cost.6 -
FireOpalCO wrote: »There are 168 hours in a week.
It is not your employer's responsibility to manage 2% of your time to exercise.
Along that vein, it shouldn't be our employer's responsibility to manage our health care. Yet they do. I'm all for replacing what we have with a single payer system.
My husband doesn't like his job and he's really tempted to move to another employer. But it would potentially cause such a disruption to our son's medical care and he can't lose his providers. Changing ABA therapists is such a bigger deal then finding a new family doctor or even a specialist like cardiologist.
Your employer doesn't see it this way. Part of your compensation is provided in sponsored healthcare. Are you aware of the cost?
You can choose to outsource responsibility, but this comes at a great cost.
I'm very aware of the cost. I'm an HR manager for an employer of approximately 14,000 people. I have my SPHR (Senior Professional in Human Resources). Many employers would LOVE to get out of the business of providing health care for their employees. It would be much easier for us to take that employer cost and pay it as a payroll tax towards single payer and not have to deal with all the headache of shopping and managing health insurance plans.6 -
FireOpalCO wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »There are 168 hours in a week.
It is not your employer's responsibility to manage 2% of your time to exercise.
Along that vein, it shouldn't be our employer's responsibility to manage our health care. Yet they do. I'm all for replacing what we have with a single payer system.
My husband doesn't like his job and he's really tempted to move to another employer. But it would potentially cause such a disruption to our son's medical care and he can't lose his providers. Changing ABA therapists is such a bigger deal then finding a new family doctor or even a specialist like cardiologist.
Your employer doesn't see it this way. Part of your compensation is provided in sponsored healthcare. Are you aware of the cost?
You can choose to outsource responsibility, but this comes at a great cost.
I'm very aware of the cost. I'm an HR manager for an employer of approximately 14,000 people. I have my SPHR (Senior Professional in Human Resources). Many employers would LOVE to get out of the business of providing health care for their employees. It would be much easier for us to take that employer cost and pay it as a payroll tax towards single payer and not have to deal with all the headache of shopping and managing health insurance plans.
So being aware that rejection of responsibility ended up with greater problems and your solution is to double down? At least there is some level of accountability with a corporate enterprise. There is none within government other than collapse.
No one wants responsibility, but expects greatness. Greatness requires ownership and investment.8 -
FireOpalCO wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »There are 168 hours in a week.
It is not your employer's responsibility to manage 2% of your time to exercise.
Along that vein, it shouldn't be our employer's responsibility to manage our health care. Yet they do. I'm all for replacing what we have with a single payer system.
My husband doesn't like his job and he's really tempted to move to another employer. But it would potentially cause such a disruption to our son's medical care and he can't lose his providers. Changing ABA therapists is such a bigger deal then finding a new family doctor or even a specialist like cardiologist.
Your employer doesn't see it this way. Part of your compensation is provided in sponsored healthcare. Are you aware of the cost?
You can choose to outsource responsibility, but this comes at a great cost.
I'm very aware of the cost. I'm an HR manager for an employer of approximately 14,000 people. I have my SPHR (Senior Professional in Human Resources). Many employers would LOVE to get out of the business of providing health care for their employees. It would be much easier for us to take that employer cost and pay it as a payroll tax towards single payer and not have to deal with all the headache of shopping and managing health insurance plans.
So being aware that rejection of responsibility ended up with greater problems and your solution is to double down? At least there is some level of accountability with a corporate enterprise. There is none within government other than collapse.
No one wants responsibility, but expects greatness. Greatness requires ownership and investment.
To be honest I'm having a hard time responding to your post. I'm not "doubling down" on anything, you're making clearly factually inaccurate statements about government accountability, and some vague bumper sticker-ish statements about greatness.
But to attempt to respond:
a) the government already provides healthcare and does a decent job at it. I was a military dependent my entire childhood and had some medical issues. I had government provided healthcare from birth to college graduation. Note this is not government provided health insurance, actual healthcare. My doctors & nurses were military personnel and the services were being provided at military hospitals & clinics.
b) the following countries have universal health care and have yet to collapse: Canada, Norway, Netherlands, Switzerland, Ireland, Great Britain, Singapore, New Zealand, Germany, Japan, Iceland, Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, Israel. That's a sampling, not an exhaustive list. So "none within government other than collapse" makes no sense either logically or historically. We are the outlier.
c) companies provide health care because it's an expected benefit that grew out of wage freezes in WWII. But that benefit varies widely from employer to employer, not just based on what the employer wants to provide, but what the employer can afford to provide. The rates & package a health insurance provider gives an employer of 50,000 is very different from an employer of 15,000 and an employer of 150. So the cost of your health care varies depending on the size and pockets of your employer. It's even worse for self-employed people and people who live in rural areas. And to be clear here, the corporate enterprise doesn't run the health care, they aren't "accountable" for the quality of the healthcare or the transparency or reasonability of the hospital or doctor fees. That's several levels removed between the health insurance company and the provider.
15 -
FireOpalCO wrote: »There are 168 hours in a week.
It is not your employer's responsibility to manage 2% of your time to exercise.
Along that vein, it shouldn't be our employer's responsibility to manage our health care. Yet they do. I'm all for replacing what we have with a single payer system.
My husband doesn't like his job and he's really tempted to move to another employer. But it would potentially cause such a disruption to our son's medical care and he can't lose his providers. Changing ABA therapists is such a bigger deal then finding a new family doctor or even a specialist like cardiologist.
Your employer doesn't see it this way. Part of your compensation is provided in sponsored healthcare. Are you aware of the cost?
You can choose to outsource responsibility, but this comes at a great cost.
The dirty little secret not talked about is the tax impact of changing employee compensation from a paid (or partially paid) healthcare plan to more wages (i.e., the compensation cost to the employer stays the same).
Right wrong or indifferent with this switch the value of the health insurance is now taxed at the taxpayer's marginal rate.1 -
FireOpalCO wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »There are 168 hours in a week.
It is not your employer's responsibility to manage 2% of your time to exercise.
Along that vein, it shouldn't be our employer's responsibility to manage our health care. Yet they do. I'm all for replacing what we have with a single payer system.
My husband doesn't like his job and he's really tempted to move to another employer. But it would potentially cause such a disruption to our son's medical care and he can't lose his providers. Changing ABA therapists is such a bigger deal then finding a new family doctor or even a specialist like cardiologist.
Your employer doesn't see it this way. Part of your compensation is provided in sponsored healthcare. Are you aware of the cost?
You can choose to outsource responsibility, but this comes at a great cost.
I'm very aware of the cost. I'm an HR manager for an employer of approximately 14,000 people. I have my SPHR (Senior Professional in Human Resources). Many employers would LOVE to get out of the business of providing health care for their employees. It would be much easier for us to take that employer cost and pay it as a payroll tax towards single payer and not have to deal with all the headache of shopping and managing health insurance plans.
So being aware that rejection of responsibility ended up with greater problems and your solution is to double down? At least there is some level of accountability with a corporate enterprise. There is none within government other than collapse.
No one wants responsibility, but expects greatness. Greatness requires ownership and investment.
To be honest I'm having a hard time responding to your post. I'm not "doubling down" on anything, you're making clearly factually inaccurate statements about government accountability, and some vague bumper sticker-ish statements about greatness.
But to attempt to respond:
a) the government already provides healthcare and does a decent job at it. I was a military dependent my entire childhood and had some medical issues. I had government provided healthcare from birth to college graduation. Note this is not government provided health insurance, actual healthcare. My doctors & nurses were military personnel and the services were being provided at military hospitals & clinics.
b) the following countries have universal health care and have yet to collapse: Canada, Norway, Netherlands, Switzerland, Ireland, Great Britain, Singapore, New Zealand, Germany, Japan, Iceland, Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, Israel. That's a sampling, not an exhaustive list. So "none within government other than collapse" makes no sense either logically or historically. We are the outlier.
c) companies provide health care because it's an expected benefit that grew out of wage freezes in WWII. But that benefit varies widely from employer to employer, not just based on what the employer wants to provide, but what the employer can afford to provide. The rates & package a health insurance provider gives an employer of 50,000 is very different from an employer of 15,000 and an employer of 150. So the cost of your health care varies depending on the size and pockets of your employer. It's even worse for self-employed people and people who live in rural areas. And to be clear here, the corporate enterprise doesn't run the health care, they aren't "accountable" for the quality of the healthcare or the transparency or reasonability of the hospital or doctor fees. That's several levels removed between the health insurance company and the provider.
You gotta get your facts straight before jumping into those statements... (bolded above..).
I lived and worked in Germany for half of my life, and not only is it the oldest healthcare system in the world, it is in my opinion also the best so far.
Let me elaborate on the perks....
Universal, mandatory, multi-payer...government, doctors, employers, insured...they all suck up part of the costs to make it affordable...
It's not employer-based, and if you're happy with it, you can change employers, but take the insurance with you.
The premiums are calculated by percentage of your income with a cap for high earners. That makes it more affordable, than having to cope fix an enormous chunk taken out of a measly paycheck every other week..
NO BALANCE BILLING! You pay your premiums, but after that, it's free at point of service.. You won't need to save money for months to be able to afford treatment...
Oh, and before I forget...the short and longterm disability is embedded, so when you actually get sick, there will be someone making payments, so you can affort to get better....
Tell me that the above list and the peace of mind that it brings with it isn't contributing to everybody's mental and physical health... => One answer to the OP's original question...
This list is certainly not complete, and there might be a few things requiring co-pay...like better gold for your teeth... The longer I have to look at the garbage that they call Affordable Care Whatever, the more I miss Germany... But they just had to try reinventing the wheel on that.... (end of vent)...
1 -
FireOpalCO wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »There are 168 hours in a week.
It is not your employer's responsibility to manage 2% of your time to exercise.
Along that vein, it shouldn't be our employer's responsibility to manage our health care. Yet they do. I'm all for replacing what we have with a single payer system.
My husband doesn't like his job and he's really tempted to move to another employer. But it would potentially cause such a disruption to our son's medical care and he can't lose his providers. Changing ABA therapists is such a bigger deal then finding a new family doctor or even a specialist like cardiologist.
Your employer doesn't see it this way. Part of your compensation is provided in sponsored healthcare. Are you aware of the cost?
You can choose to outsource responsibility, but this comes at a great cost.
I'm very aware of the cost. I'm an HR manager for an employer of approximately 14,000 people. I have my SPHR (Senior Professional in Human Resources). Many employers would LOVE to get out of the business of providing health care for their employees. It would be much easier for us to take that employer cost and pay it as a payroll tax towards single payer and not have to deal with all the headache of shopping and managing health insurance plans.
So being aware that rejection of responsibility ended up with greater problems and your solution is to double down? At least there is some level of accountability with a corporate enterprise. There is none within government other than collapse.
No one wants responsibility, but expects greatness. Greatness requires ownership and investment.
To be honest I'm having a hard time responding to your post. I'm not "doubling down" on anything, you're making clearly factually inaccurate statements about government accountability, and some vague bumper sticker-ish statements about greatness.
But to attempt to respond:
a) the government already provides healthcare and does a decent job at it. I was a military dependent my entire childhood and had some medical issues. I had government provided healthcare from birth to college graduation. Note this is not government provided health insurance, actual healthcare. My doctors & nurses were military personnel and the services were being provided at military hospitals & clinics.
b) the following countries have universal health care and have yet to collapse: Canada, Norway, Netherlands, Switzerland, Ireland, Great Britain, Singapore, New Zealand, Germany, Japan, Iceland, Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, Israel. That's a sampling, not an exhaustive list. So "none within government other than collapse" makes no sense either logically or historically. We are the outlier.
c) companies provide health care because it's an expected benefit that grew out of wage freezes in WWII. But that benefit varies widely from employer to employer, not just based on what the employer wants to provide, but what the employer can afford to provide. The rates & package a health insurance provider gives an employer of 50,000 is very different from an employer of 15,000 and an employer of 150. So the cost of your health care varies depending on the size and pockets of your employer. It's even worse for self-employed people and people who live in rural areas. And to be clear here, the corporate enterprise doesn't run the health care, they aren't "accountable" for the quality of the healthcare or the transparency or reasonability of the hospital or doctor fees. That's several levels removed between the health insurance company and the provider.
A number of countries you list are on an unsustainable path. Check out the debt to GDP ratios (for 2015 the US was 104.2%)
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/debtgdpratio.asp
Can the US improve the way it does healthcare, sure. Holding up a number of broke countries with universal healthcare isn't a real good way to sell the concept IMO.9 -
FireOpalCO wrote: »There are 168 hours in a week.
It is not your employer's responsibility to manage 2% of your time to exercise.
Along that vein, it shouldn't be our employer's responsibility to manage our health care. Yet they do. I'm all for replacing what we have with a single payer system.
My husband doesn't like his job and he's really tempted to move to another employer. But it would potentially cause such a disruption to our son's medical care and he can't lose his providers. Changing ABA therapists is such a bigger deal then finding a new family doctor or even a specialist like cardiologist.
In Australia, employers don't manage health care. It would be nice if they did to some extent.0 -
FireOpalCO wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »There are 168 hours in a week.
It is not your employer's responsibility to manage 2% of your time to exercise.
Along that vein, it shouldn't be our employer's responsibility to manage our health care. Yet they do. I'm all for replacing what we have with a single payer system.
My husband doesn't like his job and he's really tempted to move to another employer. But it would potentially cause such a disruption to our son's medical care and he can't lose his providers. Changing ABA therapists is such a bigger deal then finding a new family doctor or even a specialist like cardiologist.
Your employer doesn't see it this way. Part of your compensation is provided in sponsored healthcare. Are you aware of the cost?
You can choose to outsource responsibility, but this comes at a great cost.
I'm very aware of the cost. I'm an HR manager for an employer of approximately 14,000 people. I have my SPHR (Senior Professional in Human Resources). Many employers would LOVE to get out of the business of providing health care for their employees. It would be much easier for us to take that employer cost and pay it as a payroll tax towards single payer and not have to deal with all the headache of shopping and managing health insurance plans.
So being aware that rejection of responsibility ended up with greater problems and your solution is to double down? At least there is some level of accountability with a corporate enterprise. There is none within government other than collapse.
No one wants responsibility, but expects greatness. Greatness requires ownership and investment.
To be honest I'm having a hard time responding to your post. I'm not "doubling down" on anything, you're making clearly factually inaccurate statements about government accountability, and some vague bumper sticker-ish statements about greatness.
But to attempt to respond:
a) the government already provides healthcare and does a decent job at it. I was a military dependent my entire childhood and had some medical issues. I had government provided healthcare from birth to college graduation. Note this is not government provided health insurance, actual healthcare. My doctors & nurses were military personnel and the services were being provided at military hospitals & clinics.
b) the following countries have universal health care and have yet to collapse: Canada, Norway, Netherlands, Switzerland, Ireland, Great Britain, Singapore, New Zealand, Germany, Japan, Iceland, Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, Israel. That's a sampling, not an exhaustive list. So "none within government other than collapse" makes no sense either logically or historically. We are the outlier.
c) companies provide health care because it's an expected benefit that grew out of wage freezes in WWII. But that benefit varies widely from employer to employer, not just based on what the employer wants to provide, but what the employer can afford to provide. The rates & package a health insurance provider gives an employer of 50,000 is very different from an employer of 15,000 and an employer of 150. So the cost of your health care varies depending on the size and pockets of your employer. It's even worse for self-employed people and people who live in rural areas. And to be clear here, the corporate enterprise doesn't run the health care, they aren't "accountable" for the quality of the healthcare or the transparency or reasonability of the hospital or doctor fees. That's several levels removed between the health insurance company and the provider.
I'm confused by your original response. If you are aware of the cost paid for by the employer then why would you make your initial assessment?
The government provides medical care to service members - this is part of the compensation for exchanged services. During my service I witnessed top notch care and received the same, but this is due to a mutual respect among people working towards a common goal, fostering respect. Single payer offers no such exchange, resulting in contempt.
None of the countries have resolved the issue of solvency. All face increasing demand and decreasing supply. These exist due to the subsidies afforded through the US development process. Note this is dramatically trending downward and will continue for another 30 years. Are you waiting for the collapse to occur? The current US system has assumed the worst of all available options.
Companies provide health care currently largely due to tax incentives and insurance incentives established in the early 1960s. Cost is established through Medicare/Medicaid with congressional approval. There is a continual bargaining process going on between insurance, distributors, government, and production. The concept of "free healthcare" should be better termed "willful ignorance of the cost".
If the end goal is to provide higher quality product, increase availability, and lower cost then the only rational course is to decrease unnecessary steps from the process.
There are an increasing number of medical providers going "off grid" so to speak. They are rejecting all forms of insurance and operate by cash only. This is allowing practitioners to actually practice medicine and dramatically lowering costs.4 -
I would like nutrition labelling to be more clear on microwave popcorn. Tell me how many calories are in the whole snack size bag of popcorn AFTER it's been popped! Who the :kitten: eats it unpopped! Same goes for other foods, and if something like rice or pasta swells after cooking, then tell me calorie info for AFTER it's cooked! What is the serving size then? What is the calorie count then? Other than that, then I also want full calorie disclosure on foods EVERYWHERE, including restaurants and prepared hot and cold foods at grocery stores!4
-
Honestly, the hardest part about working out is picking a workout or turning the damn DVD player on and inserting a video. Back in the late 90s to early naughts, there was a station named FitTV, which I think was part of basic television (although I could be wrong since I grew up with cable), and it played nothing but workout shows, healthy cooking shows, and an occasional medical show thrown in. I would do the yoga program before school and at around 7 pm when nothing else was on, I would do the Gilad workouts.
Just by channel surfing and being constantly exposed to these vids made me want to get up and workout. I don't know why that station was canceled, but I always thought that bringing it back would go a long way in helping people get healthy.
Monkey see, monkey do.0 -
I would like nutrition labelling to be more clear on microwave popcorn. Tell me how many calories are in the whole snack size bag of popcorn AFTER it's been popped! Who the :kitten: eats it unpopped! Same goes for other foods, and if something like rice or pasta swells after cooking, then tell me calorie info for AFTER it's cooked! What is the serving size then? What is the calorie count then? Other than that, then I also want full calorie disclosure on foods EVERYWHERE, including restaurants and prepared hot and cold foods at grocery stores!
Are you going to cook that pasta the same time as someone else to cause the same amount of water weight to be absorbed - adding greatly to the weight but nothing to calories?
Hence the reason why dry weight is needed, not after water weight added.
Same with frozen foods usually - frozen weight, with manufacturers known amount of water weight.
Not you have cooking with who knows how much evaporation compared to someone else.
Nope - they are doing it correctly.
Regarding some prepared food (probably not grocery stores) - the calorie counts could easily be 50% off - which is useless at that point for purposes of calorie counting. An estimate would be good - just be known here's the potential range it could be.
Grocery store - ya - they should know, used measured weights of ingredients.7 -
I would like nutrition labelling to be more clear on microwave popcorn. Tell me how many calories are in the whole snack size bag of popcorn AFTER it's been popped! Who the :kitten: eats it unpopped! Same goes for other foods, and if something like rice or pasta swells after cooking, then tell me calorie info for AFTER it's cooked! What is the serving size then? What is the calorie count then? Other than that, then I also want full calorie disclosure on foods EVERYWHERE, including restaurants and prepared hot and cold foods at grocery stores!
Before it's cooked is more accurate. I agree with giving the after-cooked weights/calories for something in a closed bag where no one weighs or measures it before cooking (the microwave popcorn), but for something like pasta it's easier to weigh or measure before cooking (and more accurate). The calories don't change when you cook it, just the weight.5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions