Big Mac attacks in Tokyo have caused expanding Japanese waistlines to spur the government into action. Statistics collected by Japan's government found on average, Japanese men are 10 percent heavier than they were only 10 years ago, and the women are catching up. The solution? The government is requiring employers to slim the number of overweight employees by 10 percent by 2012 and 25 percent by 2015. The belt-circumference limit is 34 inches for men, and 35 inches for the gals.
Earlier this year, the UK government started toying with the notions of healthy food vouchers and cash prizes for slimming down. Ministers said the Health Service said:
We will look at using financial incentives, such as payments, vouchers, and other rewards, to encourage individuals to lose weight and sustain that weight loss, to eat more healthily, or to be consistently more physically active.
Some employers in the US are side stepping the government and taking matters into their own hands — incentives for weight loss are common, with some up to as much as $50 per month for employees who achieve and maintain a loss of 30 percent of body weight. There's a whole program called IncentaHealth that advertises incentivizing health by paying employees to drop pounds, will "improve your bottom line." The idea might not be far off, as a new report shows obesity costs US employers $45 billion a year.
Is it the government's place to say what size pants you need? Are they right to get involved?
DKNY
Miss Sixty
Red Herring
Geez. Has it really come to this? We've become dependent on the government for our retirements, our educations and now to tell us we should be healthy?
People are more than welcome to live the lives they want, be healthy, obese, w/e. But accept the consequences.
1First the government will slim us all down, then Tim Gunn could be promoted to a Cabinet position and stop us from dressing like slobs.
2I don't mind the retirements and educations, but I agree melizzle, if I want to be obese that's my choice.
3make it work!
4survival of the fittest...If you can't be healthy on your own terms then you don't deserve to be doted on. I know this is going to cause a sh*t storm, but I think that gastric bypass is over diagnosed. I think of the people who get it 10% actually need it.
5I wonder about these company incentives... like what about people who are healthy? So we can't get $50 a month unless we lose 30% of our body weight which would make us grossly underweight?
6
Stephly. You never know with the way our Gov't is turning out right now. 
They can and should help educate Americans about dieting, obesity, and healthy eating but they
should NOT tell us or require that we need to lose weight. It is our GOD given right to make these choices ourselves. We are getting to that point where we can no longer think for
ourselves!!! I don't know about ya'll but the Gov't needs to stay out of it. It's upsetting to me to say the least.
7That's a good point, syako.
8I agree with melizzle.
However, I don't have a problem with companies offering incentives and education to keep their employees healthy and fit. it's beneficial to everyone, the company will have healthy employees and won't have to worry as much about people missing work due to illness, the employees will be happier because a) they work for a company who gives a darn, b)the endorphines that are created when they work out and eat right will keep them happier and they won't have to use up their sick days often cutting into their vacation days - they can actually use them for hey a vacation!
9Yeah, this strikes me as odd. I thought the same thing about the incentives to be healthy, syako. As for the restrictions, I also find those ridiculous. I know this isn't the norm, but I have a very overweight friend who regularly exercises and watches what she eats. She shouldn't be punished for genetics.
That being said, I do like it when companies offer gym memberships, on-site gyms, etc. for their employees.
10Oh, and I totally think we need Tim Gunn in our cabinet. Cine/syako, will you include him when you get elected in 2012?
11for sure!
12the world could use a little more "make it work" and "that's a lot of look"
13I definitely agree!
14The government has no right to tell people to be healthy - thats a personal liberty. Of course i also dont think my tax dollars should pay for the healthcare of people who choose to be stuff their face with fast food (well to be honest i dont think i should pay for anyone's healthcare but my own). I have no problem with employers voluntarily creating incentives to be healthy, esp if they are offering me health insurance.
15I'm always thrown on how to answer these questions because you site a socialist gov. action and then ask a capitalists society if it's right. Well of course it's not right for us, but it is with in the realm of appropriate actions for their society.
Our gov. and our advertisers are always telling us we're to big. The gov. with it's warnings and the advertisers with there flooding images of what we should look like.
16Obviously, obesity is an epidemic in the US, but I really don't think that the government can do much to stop it.
I think it's a good idea for companies to offer incentives to their employees who want to lose weight/stay healthy. It would be nice if they were willing to pay for part of a YMCA membership or something like that. In the end it would benefit the company. People would be healthier, and most likely happier.
17Hypnotic, Japan is a capitalist society, as well. Their traditions and customs are different than ours, but their government is run similarly, so I see a comparison.
The same goes for the UK, which has many more socialist programs than the U.S., but is still not a "socialist society." (I'm not saying that you said it is, just pointing it out.)
18you know what? maybe if my job depended on me finally losing these last 10 pounds, i'd actually find the motivation to get it done!
19I'd rather they put more pressure on the companies that make the food we eat than on the people who eat it.
20Really! Well I guess its worth a little investigating lilkimbo thanks for the heads up.
I can see how they would be considered a free market (capitalistic) society but in regards to the actual style of governing I do believe it to be socialist. I did a little google and Japan and most western European countries came up socialist.
21I have never believed present-day Japan or Western Europe to be socialist. I did some Googling and looked it up on Wikipedia myself, and they tend to agree. What about Japan and Western Europe do you find socialist?
Sorry to ask a question and run, but I do have finish some work, so I won't be able to respond right away. But, I am interested in what you have to say, so let me know and I'll get back to you later tonight or tomorrow morning.
22Financial incentives to lose weight? This makes less sense than the post a few days ago giving low-income students money for studying. Even that concept seems genius compared to this.
23I work for the state of florida, the department of health and let me tell you obesity is costing taxpayers some cash. The amount of time, money, resources spent on care directly linked to obesity is crazy.
24I wish we got pay increase for doing corporate 5k's...
25O.K....o.k. lilkimbo this is one where I think we're both right. After doing some research with your lead. Japan and Western Europe are what is known as Social Democracy’s.
In other words some people got together and decided that they would take what they deemed good out of Socialism and Capitalism leave what they thought sucked out of it and slapped them together creating Social Democracies.
So Japan is neither a Socialist nor a Capitalist government but a little of both
26I don't know how I feel about this. I mean in the military people are told they have to lose weight. They are put on exercise programs and diet regimes. It works pretty well for most. There are exceptions of course.
27No the government should not have a say in what someone's weight is UNLESS the government is going to provide free or low-cost nutritious whole healthy food, free housing to those who will lose their jobs as a result of being designated "unhealthy" by the government, free gym membership, medical care and the like to all citizens. Only if the federal, state and local government does these things at the highest possible level of service and commitment should they have any say in someone weight or health.
Furthermore since the government has never actively addressed other serious health care issues and demanded that the citizenry conform and abide then they cannot do so about a person's weight. The minute the government ends the use of all carcinogens, makes smoking illegal, stops approving prescription medications that do more harm than good, and bans the consumption of anything that can potential and knowing harm even one person's health, it cannot force such a policy against one segment of the population under the notion that only that population is unhealthy or at risk for illness.
Since all that will not happen - its a moot point. I always love when fat, rich, cigarette or alcohol addicted men in Washington try to dictate how the common man should live their lives.
28I think the government's role in the healthcare system is pertinent information in this discussion. My understanding is that they have a universal healthcare system, right? If that's the case, then it makes some sense for the government to be involved in preventative care as well.
What I think is really fascinating about this is that the government is leaning on employers rather than individuals. I wonder how the employers will accomplish these goals...? Incentive systems? Fire overweight employees?
29I agree colormesticky.
I think it's unfair for the healthy eating thin people. Where's our cash incentives?
I'm all for paid gym memberships though, I think that's an awesome idea, and a fair incentive for everyone.
30I read recently in BusinessWeek that healthy people cost more insurance wise because they live longer than obese people... I know thats a morbid way of thinking about it, but it does make me questions whether or not we should legislate these kinds of things and then blame it on health care costs.
31While it might help a little bit to put pressure on the people who make our food, the fact is that people choose what to put in their bodies. If you choose McDonald's for breakfast rather than fruit/cereal/whatever, you're at fault for your physique, and others shouldn't have to pay the price for it.
32if the government wants to pay me to get thin i'm all for it. but this is backwards.
what they should first do is get all junk food, sugary drinks, and other crap out of public schools NOW, and bring back the real physical fitness courses we all took when we were kids. we are raising a bunch of little lazy fatties who complain when they are pulled away from their x-boxes.
you can't feed people cheetos for 30 years, build cities based around car travel, develop suburbs that are miles from shopping and other public services, gut the public transportation system and then blame people for being fat.
33tlsgirl: i think that we are already paying for it. your taxes go to the county you live in... they pay for hospitals that care for people who are in low wage jobs who cant afford healthy food (or insurance) and who are going to the emergency room with diabetes, heart disease, and obesity-related cancers. the government didn't stop this junkfood/lazy culture when it started, so if they want to give an incentive to be healthy now, i see it as a positive... but as i posted before, unfortunately it's too little too late.
34oh, and they should rescind the anti-smoking laws. it's a proven dietary aide! look at me! i'm youthful, and beautiful. 2 packs a day, people!! that's all we ask.
35I find it hard to believe that gov't should be responsible for getting people thinner. Sure, it would be "better" if we were, right? But that doesn't mean it should be a gov't issue. It can be addressed in other ways.
I also think that there'd have to be crazy lawsuits if people who didn't drop the weight were fired. Wouldn't that be discrimination?
Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about this. The people who have the most impact on obesity (themselves, or in some cases, parents) have the responsibility to fix it. I'm tired of this being everyone else's responsibility. If you can't control stuffing food in your face, how is the gov't going to help you with that? It doesn't make sense.
36"look at me! i'm youthful, and beautiful. 2 packs a day, people!! that's all we ask."
yesteryear!
37hey cabaker, it's just a suggestion from me to you. let me tell you though - it's really cramping my style on the internet dating tip. i may have to quit if i'm ever going to find a man who can put up with sleeping with me in my pile of butts.
38This is ridiculus! Does the circumference have anything to do with the person's height? If a 6 foot mane has a 34 inch waist, he (or she) is going to be very skinny.
39you would think it would be more about motivation then demanding weight loss. Just because people would loose the weight doesn't mean they would do it in a healthy way and keep a healthy lifestyle.
40Interestingly enough, our government is called DIET in Japan, lol. On a serious note, I'm all for being healthy but it's not the government's role to dictate that lifestyle for everyone. I want to live a long life with the least health problems I can get away with. By default, I eat healthily and am physically active. That is a decision my family and I make. After all, most everyone has a responsibility for themselves. However, children who don't know any better, the responsibility of feeding nutritious options and getting them into a healthy physically active routine is up to their parent. It saddens me that obesity is hitting people at younger and younger ages.
41People have to get up off their you-know-what and keep themselves healthy; it is sad when it comes to a time when the government has to take over. I voted "NO" since I tend to be considered underweight and wouldn't want the government telling me to bulk up; I would be a hypocrite to vote yes. However something does have to happen.
Governments should pressure the food industry to give us healthy food; french fries with the additives and fats, cooked in good-for-you oil. Their are easy ways to make the food BK serves now healthy; just replace the s*** with natural ingredients. And show the people what being overweight does to their internal organs and the plague on the walls of their heart; show them the horrifing reality of what their doing to themselves.
42Isn't it every woman's fear to end up in a picture like the one in this post?
This is probably the third or fourth topic like this I've seen here (not saying it's a bad thing because it's a different policy each time) and I'm all talked out about it. Although I would like to point out something I saw on espn.com while I was jonesing for some NFL news: today an Alabama State sophomore basketball player dropped dead after playing a pickup game. Assuming some controlled substances weren't to blame, an extremely in-shape young man just keeled over and died in the middle of healthy exercise. Yeah, weight's a predictor of overall health, but it's not the only one, and there isn't always a direct correlation between one's BMI and their drain on the system, and I think to assume so is an offensive blanket statement, like a lot of blanket statements are.
43Being overweight has effects on the number of days employees miss because of health-related issues, and it's just a good idea for each individual to be healthy. If there are incentives, that's even better!
44Japan is a collectivist society culturally.
I hate this "nanny state" and fascist crap. Corporations and insurance companies are in charge of our health care, so therefore they have a say in our lifestyles. Sure, it seems okay to go after the heavy people now and the smokers, but soon it will be those with genetic diseases, older Americans, and any lifestyle deemed "risky" by some number cruncher. Discrimination based on health is just as bad as any other discrimination, maybe even worse.
People are entitled to so many sick/personal days at most jobs. Saying heavier people miss more than others is using the same logic as those who do not want to hire mothers of small children. As long as they do not miss more than they should, why care?
45Hypnotic, maybe I didn't state it well, but that's basically what I said a while back: That the U.K. has more socialist programs than the U.S., but is still not a socialist society.
46I don't think it's the government's job to dictate how to people should live their lives. However, they could always do what the government did to the smokers up in Canada (they eat up a ton of health care dollars) and tax the sh*t of junk food, plain and simple. Smokers are banned from smoking in public places...well perhaps it's time junk food products were banned from cafeterias etc. I understand how it's trickier territory though since ciggies are ciggies, while I bet food companies would argue tooth and nail that they aren't junk food to avoid getting that tax.
47Actually, it is not that ridiculous. In the U.S. Blue Cross Blue Shield gives $150.00 for people that have this insurance to join a gym. This is an incentive for people healthy or not to maintain adequate health.
There are businesses in the U.S. that have incentives for their employees to lose weight and maintain a healthy BMI.
In Japan, they see the rise of obesity and overweight as a health care cost. In the U.S., this issue is also a problem, but the federal government is not taking action in mitigating the rise of obesity. What is the incentive? To live longer and not pay more money in health care costs.
"Overweight and obesity and their associated health problems have a significant economic impact on the U.S. health care system. Medical costs associated with overweight and obesity may involve direct and indirect costs. Direct medical costs may include preventive, diagnostic, and treatment services related to obesity. Indirect costs relate to morbidity and mortality costs. Morbidity costs are defined as the value of income lost from decreased productivity, restricted activity, absenteeism, and bed days. Mortality costs are the value of future income lost by premature death." -CDC
I do not see this as "discrimination", it is a practical action to have all of their citizens maintain healthy weight.
With more health problems means health insurance companies need to pay more money, but it also means more people are buying health insurance. And it also promotes research in the field so that operations cost less...there are many other factors, if you are interested, you can read more at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
48yesteryear - we're definitely already paying for it. My comment was mostly a response to the posts saying that the government should spend more time regulating the food industry than individuals. The thing is, removing some of the bad food options doesn't get to the ultimate problem of a person's personal choices. The government can regulate all they want, but ultimately you're the one who's responsible for your body and your health. I just take issue with people blaming others for their situation.
Also, 2 packs a day comment = hilarious.
49Since I am not in my best shape I will say that it would be hard if someone told me I had to lose weight, however we should try to be healthy if not for our looks than for our families and our own well being. It is just completely crazy that just due to our obsession with food we have now brought on problems that never even occured in children such as clogged artires and high blood pressure.
50Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.