NRR: Japan Imposes Monetary Penalties for Obesity

Carroll Louis wrote:

4runner wrote:

Maybe-- but there certainly is genetic variation as well. In my teens, running 80 miles a week with 140 lbs on my 6 foot frame, my waist size was 33...

Wow, Pear-man, I guess you didn't wear compression shorts to ensure no one could see your gunt. In HS and College my waist was 30" and I was 6'1" and 155.

You must have your mother's hips.

I didn't have a gut--- just broad hips. At the time, I was so thin that I couldn't even sit in a wooden desk for a hour long class without my ass falling asleep.

Age has, of course, cured that problem.

I'm a 5'10", 158 lbs. African American man with a 30" waist, but have to buy 32's and 33's because of my "shape". Seriously. Most pants (made for men) I've noticed have been stitched to shape a man's body who has little-to-no butt; not helpful for the brothers at all.

Is everyone talking about their "waist" I know when you buy pants it says waist size, but it really means hipsize. When one talks about a girls measurements, they say 36,24,34 or whatever, and the 24! is the waist, the 34 is the hips/butt. I know my hips are 30.5, but my actual waist is 27... So if they are measuring the Belly Button circumference part, then I see no problem with 33.5.

True Stereotype wrote:

I'm a 5'10", 158 lbs. African American man with a 30" waist, but have to buy 32's and 33's because of my "shape". Seriously. Most pants (made for men) I've noticed have been stitched to shape a man's body who has little-to-no butt; not helpful for the brothers at all.

The same for me but I'm not afro american.

I've always had this issue with pants that are too tight in the butt, and then they cut off circulation to the legs.

Most American men have small butts and fat guts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

bays wrote:

I have a 34 inch waist. I am 6'3, 185, and ran 1:49.08 in the 800 a few weeks ago.

With this said, I have only raced an decent 800 runner my size once in college. I would imagine there are very few people who are fit with 34+ waists, but it does happen!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

___________________________________________________________

Toyota pious wrote

I call BS.

I'm 6'1" and 170 with a 29 waste. a 34 is disgustingly large for someone who 'claims' to have run 1:49. And on top of that, I'm outta shape.

___________________________________________________________

Flash Results, Inc.

Arkansas Twilight - 5/2/2008

John McDonnell Field

University of Arkansas --Fayetteville, AR

Event 24 Men 800 Meter Run

===============================================================

NCAA Reg: 1:50.40

Name Year School Finals

===============================================================

Section 1

1 James Hatch Unattached 1:46.27

2 Jeremy Mims Unattached 1:46.79

3 James Galvan Iowa St 1:48.11

4 Matt Baysinger Kansas 1:49.08

Toyota Pious, you just got pwned hard.

Wow, penalizing people for waist size - politicians on a power trip. The One State from We, 1984, Brave New World, etc. would be proud of this development.

Sake Bomber wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html?no_interstitial

Can you imagine the PR backlash if the American government were to implement a similar policy? Of course, that would never happen seeing as most of our politicians are overweight themselves. I was pretty shocked at the statistic, though, that the average Caucasian male waist line is 39 inches... that is disgusting.

Why on earth would being overweight themselves stop our politicians from passing such a law? They don't apply any of the other laws they pass to themselves . . . they are the 'ruling' class, we are the minions.

...and why on Earth did you decide to bump a thread more than a year old? Did you just search on "Japan obese" or something?

If the US did this the country would go broke. Thank's alot, savior Obama.

I have never witnessed as much stupidity in this thread in my entire life. No fit person has a 34 inch waist? Whoever said this deserves to drawn and quartered for emanating such utter unabashed retardation.

no japs are over 5 ft though

The Betrayed wrote:

If the US did this the country would go broke. Thank's alot, savior Obama.

The people would be broke, but the government would be sitting fat and happy in a big pile of money! And the middle and lower classes would be hit hardest by this bill for sure...

troll alert wrote:

I have never witnessed as much stupidity in this thread in my entire life. No fit person has a 34 inch waist? Whoever said this deserves to drawn and quartered for emanating such utter unabashed retardation.

It would be practical if there exemptions for people achieving certain health performances, ie. 6 minute mile for men, 25 pushups in a minute, etc. kind of like HS, but more stringent.

Good for Japan. The reason health "care" consumes 1/6 of GDP in the US boils down to three things:

1.) Americans are fat, gluttinous, complacent slobs relative to their industrialized neighbors and eat a lot of processed, junk, chemicalized food.

2.) Many elective procedures are considered mandatory in the US, and, despite the fact that the "co-pay" was 50% of the bill four decades ago, now nobody knows what procedures cost since the liability has been shifted to a "lottery" of ticket purchasers. No accountability and no price transparency = rising costs.

3.) Competition is lacking in the industry, amongst insurers and providers.

The current bill, though watered down and soon to be more so, is estimated to cost anywhere from $1.2-3 trillion over a decade to cover a mere 1/3 of those devoid of coverage (many willingly). Nevermind that medicare was 9x over budget 20 years ago and is currently 35x over budget. Nevermind that structurally high unemployment is going to negate proper food choices and "wellness" initiatives.

We have misplaced priorities, hence the fact that the Perfect Storm is still AHEAD of us.

http://www.investorsinsight.com/blogs/thoughts_from_the_frontline/archive/2009/11/13/if-this-is-recovery.aspx

Sagarin wrote:

Good for Japan.

So you like what Japan does on healthcare? (actually, if you read the article, the law is NOT about fining individuals who are too fat. No, it is about forcing them into PAID counseling and preventive care. And then fining local gov'ts and companies who fail to get their population healthier. Sounds like socialism to me. Still say "good for Japan?")

And do you like this too about Japan and the way their gov't is involved in healthcare?

(the whole article is at the link above. Yes, my below highlights leave out parts about lifestyle, and some problems with japanese system. I am not saying the Japanese system is perfect, really just asking, since you said "good for Japan",do you like how their gov't has a huge hand in healthcare as demonstrated below ??)

--------------------------------------------------------

"Half a world away from the U.S. health-care debate, Japan has a system that costs half as much and often achieves better medical outcomes than its American counterpart. It does so by banning insurance company profits, limiting doctor fees and accepting shortcomings in care that many well-insured Americans would find intolerable. "

The Japanese visit a doctor nearly 14 times a year, more than four times as often as Americans. They can choose any primary care physician or specialist they want, and surveys show they are almost always seen on the day they want. All that medical care helps keep the Japanese alive longer than any other people on Earth while fostering one of the world's lowest infant mortality rates.

Health care in Japan -- a hybrid system funded by job-based insurance premiums and taxes --is universal and mandatory, and consumes about 8 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, half as much as in the United States. Unlike in the U.S. system, no one is denied coverage because of a preexisting condition or goes bankrupt because a family member gets sick.

For generations, Japan has achieved its successes by maintaining a vise-like grip on costs. After hard bargaining with medical providers every two years, the government sets a price for treatment and drugs -- and tolerates no fudging.

As a result, most Japanese doctors make far less money than their U.S. counterparts. Administrative costs are four times lower than they are in the United States, in part because insurance companies do not set rates for treatment or deny claims. By law, they cannot make profits or advertise to attract low-risk, high-profit clients. "........

ana Mukai, a fashion merchandiser in Tokyo, said she cannot think of anything wrong with health care in Japan.

She takes her son Yugo, 4, to an ear, nose and throat specialist nearly every week during the cold and flu season. They go about 12 times a year, often when her son has a runny nose. She does not need to make an appointment, but has to wait about 75 minutes to see the doctor.

The doctor checks his ears, irrigates his nose and prescribes medicine. The visit usually lasts a few minutes, and it is free. There is supposed to be a co-payment, but Mukai's local ward government covers all medical costs for children, which is common in much of Japan. Mukai says she never buys over-the-counter drugs for Yugo, because prescribed drugs for children are also free.

As for her own health-care costs, she says they are either invisible or negligible. She has never checked to see how much she pays through payroll deductions for health-care premiums. The co-payment for doctor visits is insignificant, she says, since the total bill for most visits comes to less than $30, including drugs.

"I know my medical fee is going to be cheap, so I have never, ever thought about how much it will cost me to go to the doctor," said Mukai, 39.

The health of Mukai, her husband and her son -- and of nearly everyone in Japan -- also benefits from free annual checkups. Japan requires companies to pay for annual physicals for employees.

Local and national governments also push preventative care. Since Mukai is nearly 40, her local ward government has notified her that she can sign up for a comprehensive, and free, battery of tests. Doctors will examine her eyes and teeth, and they will test for colon, stomach and cervical cancer. She will also receive a free gynecological workup.

For her son, an internal medicine specialist and a dentist visit his public day-care center twice a year to conduct free examinations. Once a year at day care, he is examined at no cost by two other doctors for potential eye, nose and ear problems......

It puzzles Mukai that the United States does not imitate the best parts of her country's health-care system, particularly preventive care, universal coverage and free treatment for children.

"If the Japanese can do it, why can't the Americans?" she said.

Admittedly, I didn't read the article this time, just the subject thread, and I agree with it wholeheartedly. And if Obama wants to tax cigarettes and junk foods to the high heavens I'm all for it (man, what kind of conservative am I?). If he wants to get rid of subsidies for farmers that encourage cheap, processed, HFCS-laden foods, than I'm all for it, as long as he also opens up competition amongst insurance companies.

What your poignantly long and indignant post misses is the fact that we are NOT Japan, and we don't eat a lot of fish, rice, and seaweed, and drink green and white tea. HUGE difference. So all of your highlights are really rather worthless, particularly when you consider that structurally high unemployment is here to stay and will encourage even worse eating habits in our country, putting the ULTIMATE price tag on this boondoggle that doesn't even accomplish its intended goal of providing coverage for EVERYONE much higher than CBO estimates. And that will be the final nail in the coffin, IF it gets passed (against the volition of the majority of Americans and lacking strong Congressional support).

By the way, as far as Japan's system "working," I can post commentary too that suggests the opposite. Isn't this fun? Your vitriolic and ultra-partisan preoccupation with me is amazing. I am going to need to consult my wife, who is published in the Harvard Women's Law Journal on anti-stalking statutes, on this one.

http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/661-a-side-effect-of-universal-healthcare-in-japan

BTW, I worked in a cardiology clinic focused on subsidized, "preventative" care, with nothing but a line of slovenly Michael Moore types coming through the door all day to get their echos, and blood checks, and consults with the endocrinologist for diabetes, and angioplasties and stents from the cardiologists, and exercise and eating regimen from the resident exercise physiologist. And this was in one of the FITTEST states in the nation, a state that is now bankrupt. Maybe 1 in 20 stuck with the program and actually received a benefit. Since they had no skin in the game, only extra stretched skin on the body, they had no incentive to change. I witnessed this and it made ME sick.

i lived in nagoya for 2 years, 6 years ago. my daddy, mommy, little brothers and sisters went back to nagoya this march for another 2 years. my daddy does research (physics). japan has to fix all dents before re-registering a car. there is 100% literacy, not just recently, for like 100 years that far back. by national law, public schools have identical facilities and funding is the same throughout the nation. teacher are paid more than police. zero neglected public schools, and i mean zero, absolutely zero. my sisters, girlfriends, everyone go out at all hours safely to the combini for snaks at 2 a.m. anytime. japan is a nice place to be a kid.

Sagarin wrote:

Admittedly, I didn't read the article this time, just the subject thread, and I agree with it wholeheartedly. And if Obama wants to tax cigarettes and junk foods to the high heavens I'm all for it (man, what kind of conservative am I?). If he wants to get rid of subsidies for farmers that encourage cheap, processed, HFCS-laden foods, than I'm all for it, as long as he also opens up competition amongst insurance companies.

I disagree. I hate smoking as much as anyone, having watched it slowly kill my father, but taxing it is not the answer. Certainly let the insurance companies charge what they need to for smokers. And yes, open the market up for the evil insurance industry no matter what.

Wait until they tax running shoes for the use of rubber and the fact that runners exhale too much CO2.

Some studies indicate that activity regardless of weight cuts risk factors.