Something to think about...

[Gmoney4WW]

I’m not sure what the answer is in fighting obesity. Maybe give financial incentives to poor people who meet a certain body mass index level. Would likely be less expensive to financially encourage poor people to live more healthy than pay their health care bills which gets back to your rising insurance costs. We all currently pay more for health care because of obese people. Maybe shift some of that money to encourage a healthy behavior? If we’re really concerned about saving lives one would think there would be an effort on this front.

Without a doubt, you are on the right track. You would have to incentivize good behavior, rather than fine bad behavior. Discounting gym memberships and things like fitbits would be another route to go. Especially if someone's BMI, pulse, blood pressure, etc. was into the unhealthy range for a doctor's visit or two.

Then you could heavily incentivize good behavior more.(The first couple of months free on a gym membership, and then a discount for subsequent months/free fitbits and/or monetary incentive's for body mass improvements and or fitbit regulated improvements. That would focus the money to people below a certain income level, who were in the negative range for a couple of doctor visits, instead of just paying money out to everybody that was poor, even if they were constantly in the healthy range just because of genetics. And make a Dr.'s visit or two, mandatory and free after their first negative report on those items aforementioned.

 

[astonmartin708]

Of all the personal data being collected by the Fed’s and private companies my weight is far down on my list of concerns. Restricting or eliminating certain foods from one group because another group lacks the will power to not over eat the same is silly. Provide incentives to eat them in moderation instead of eliminating them.

I'm telling you that you've already failed. It's not just moderation... it's also WHAT you're eating. You have to encourage healthier options and it can't just be from the consumer side. It has to be from the supply side as well. If you're talking about a tax incentive for low BMI, then you're basically talking about a tax incentive that only people making a certain amount of money can really afford unless the supply changes. There just aren't a lot of cheap, healthy options in foodstuffs unless you're talking about eating chicken and rice everyday... and the American people might revolt if you make them do that.

I can tell you as a poor person you're pretty much living on starch because it's the only thing that doesn't go bad and is cheap. Pizza, Spaghetti, Hamburger Helper, Macaroni and Cheese. Not only that, but those items are sold in sizes that don't promote moderation and buying them in smaller sizes is cost prohibitive. It's harder than you think to maintain a healthy lifestyle if you're poor and it's not just moderation that's the problem.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I'm really not sure I like giving the government data on if you're overweight or not. Seems like to easy a datapoint to punish instead of reward in a nightmare scenario. I think a better way would be to (by law) discourage less healthy options from grocers / restaurants while simultaneously promoting healthier food buying by poor people by limiting the junkfood items they were allowed to buy with foodstamps.

I would also think about stipends or tax breaks for gym memberships, although those often go unused.

Was writing mine while you posted this. You could not give data to the government. Just incentivize good behavior by the doctor's negative and positive reports, rather than giving the data of just how negative their body mass was. The only body mass reporting as far as actual figures went, would be anonymous reporting to health studies.

 

[TUMe]

[QUOTE="astonmartin708, post: 301674, member: 852 If you've ever worked for a company that's safety conscientious, that's exactly how they operate. They put sensors in your company vehicles so you can't speed. They have safety meetings even when you've done the operation 1,000,000 times before. [/QUOTE]

Only for over 40 years. You left out fire training, gas mask fit training. Drug screening to some of the same people because they know that they will pass. Document the smallest of injuries. Side pieces on safety glasses. Simulated disasters training but which are not followed when there is an event. My favorite is freaking out when someone puts a coat over a fire extinguisher even though there are 20 in the room...

But the pay and benefits are good.

 

[astonmartin708]

[QUOTE="astonmartin708, post: 301674, member: 852 If you've ever worked for a company that's safety conscientious, that's exactly how they operate. They put sensors in your company vehicles so you can't speed. They have safety meetings even when you've done the operation 1,000,000 times before.

Only for over 40 years. You left out fire training, gas mask fit training. Drug screening to some of the same people because they know that they will pass. Document the smallest of injuries. Side pieces on safety glasses. Simulated disasters training but which are not followed when there is an event. My favorite is freaking out when someone puts a coat over a fire extinguisher even though there are 20 in the room...

But the pay and benefits are good.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I know these companies follow a ton of overkill safety rules, but it's because it saves them money on injuries. (Via lawsuits or fines)

 

[astonmartin708]

Was writing mine while you posted this. You could not give data to the government. Just incentivize good behavior by the doctor's negative and positive reports, rather than giving the data of just how negative their body mass was. The only body mass reporting as far as actual figures went, would be anonymous reporting to health studies.

Yeah.... but then the poor and young people actually need to be able to go to the doctor for reasons unrelated to major illness.... and we've already decided we won't pay for that.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I'm really not sure I like giving the government data on if you're overweight or not. Seems like to easy a datapoint to punish instead of reward in a nightmare scenario. I think a better way would be to (by law) discourage less healthy options from grocers / restaurants while simultaneously promoting healthier food buying by poor people by limiting the junkfood items they were allowed to buy with foodstamps.

I would also think about stipends or tax breaks for gym memberships, although those often go unused.

And limiting junk food bought on foodstamps is a perfect idea, since the government would be well within it's bounds. Seeing as how it would be stipulations on aid they were giving you.

 

[astonmartin708]

On a related note, I've just quit drinking soda and I'm on week 2 of mainly water for the first time since I was probably a toddler.

I'm still having some things with zero calorie sucralose (splenda) in them occasionally just to give me something with some taste (I don't really like cold tea or coffee), but I've read mixed opinions on how bad it is for you.

 

[astonmartin708]

And limiting junk food bought on foodstamps is a perfect idea, since the government would be well within it's bounds. Seeing as how it would be stipulations on aid they were giving you.

I think there is certainly a compromise to be had here. I see what you and Poke are saying about positive encouragement / reinforcement, but I'm not sure you'll succeed unless you fix the supply side of the equation a bit too.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Yeah.... but then the poor and young people actually need to be able to go to the doctor for reasons unrelated to major illness.... and we've already decided we won't pay for that.

Yes, it would take a sea change of at least paying for an annual visit to the doctor, and enacting preventitive health care. That is exactly the point.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

On a related note, I've just quit drinking soda and I'm on week 2 of mainly water for the first time since I was probably a toddler.

I'm still having some things with zero calorie sucralose (splenda) in them occasionally just to give me something with some taste (I don't really like cold tea or coffee), but I've read mixed opinions on how bad it is for you.

Good for you. I was in the same place you are five years ago.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I think there is certainly a compromise to be had here. I see what you and Poke are saying about positive encouragement / reinforcement, but I'm not sure you'll succeed unless you fix the supply side of the equation a bit too.

Yep, you have to attack it from all sides, to have any chance at success.

 

[astonmartin708]

I'd like to say, I might have been wrong on my premise in authoring this thread. I just saw a CNBC article that notes some US health insurers doubled their profits when comparing Q2 2019 to Q2 2020. The article chalked it up to people delaying elective surgeries like knee replacements and people staying home. That also means that obesity wasn't a substantial factor in the cost to these insurance companies (as related to Covid) though.

 

[lawpoke87]

I'd like to say, I might have been wrong on my premise in authoring this thread. I just saw a CNBC article that notes some US health insurers doubled their profits when comparing Q2 2019 to Q2 2020. The article chalked it up to people delaying elective surgeries like knee replacements and people staying home. That also means that obesity wasn't a substantial factor in the cost to these insurance companies (as related to Covid) though.

Have to wonder since a vast majority of the covid deaths come from people in nursing homes or with pre-existing medical conditions do their deaths actually save the insurance companies money as they are no longer paying for their reoccurring medical bills? Not sure what the payout time is but long term I would have to say...yes.

 

[astonmartin708]

Have to wonder since a vast majority of the covid deaths come from people in nursing homes or with pre-existing medical conditions do their deaths actually save the insurance companies money as they are no longer paying for their reoccurring medical bills? Not sure what the payout time is but long term I would have to say...yes.

You also have to look at the medical facilities that are struggling though. Apparently the insurance companies have record profits but I've heard of quite a few hospitals that have been struggling financially due to the loss of those elective surgeries and other sources of income to the point they were furloughing. Does that lost revenue spell price increases on the real rates that insurance companies and consumers will be paying in the future as hospitals try to play catch up with their balance sheets?

Again.... something to think about.

As to the deaths of the elderly, I don't think it would save the insurance companies much money, but it might save medicare a boatload in the near future. (Assuming the cost of these folks dying wasn't substantially more than it normally would be from things like heart attacks, cancer, etc...)

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Have to wonder since a vast majority of the covid deaths come from people in nursing homes or with pre-existing medical conditions do their deaths actually save the insurance companies money as they are no longer paying for their reoccurring medical bills? Not sure what the payout time is but long term I would have to say...yes.

According to Shon46, culling the herd. But most definitely less expensive.

 

[TUMe]

I'm sorry, I'm not quite dead yet. (Monty Python)

 

[astonmartin708]

I'm sorry, I'm not quite dead yet. (Monty Python)

Dead Collector: What?
Guy: Nothing. [hands the collector his money] There’s your nine pence.
TUMe: I’m not dead!
Dead Collector: ‘Ere, he says he’s not dead.
Guy: Yes he is.
TUMe: I’m not.
Dead Collector: He isn’t.
Guy: Well, he will be soon, he’s very ill.
TUMe: I’m getting better.
Guy: No you’re not, you’ll be stone dead in a moment.
TUMe: I don’t want to go on the cart.
Guy: Oh, don’t be such a baby.
TUMe: I feel fine.
TUMe: I think I’ll go for a walk.