Should the government Subsidize healthy lifestyles insteed?

here's an idea... insteed of a massive healthcare reform costing trillions of dollars... why don't we have the government subsidize health in the form of tax credits? if a person(male) can run a mile in 7minutes they get X dollars off their taxes, if they can do it in 6 minutes, they get XX dollars off and for 5 minutes they get XXX dollars off... if a person can bench their own weight 10 times they get X dollars off, if they can bench 125% of their weight they get XX dollars off... if a person can do so many pullups they get x dollars off... etc.

the government. the costs to run such a program shouldn't be too high, just have biannual meetings over the course of a day and have groups of people checked at once.it's not hard for 50 people to run around a track and to have people grouped by when they finish, they can even add in a 5 second margin of error to avoid issues...

same goes for the lifts.

Urm, I'm not so sure about this, because it disadvantages those people who, for some reason or other, are actually incapable of performing such exercises.

Shouldn't this be in the SD forum?

Anyway, I like the the idea, but as Astarael said we need to make exceptions for the disabled. I don't think it's gonna replace the health care bill, but if we add it on at some point down the road I'd be pleased.

I reported myself on it and I couldn't figure out how to delete the thread, so I'll just let a mod move it.

and another point, why make exceptions for the disabled? they're the ones we typically spend the most on. and hack, let's say you're a paraplegic... you can still do pullups and you can still bench. you can still get most of it. heck they can even add in wheel chair racing...

the idea here is that we create a health conscious culture. the money itself shouldn't be that much. this is one of those things which should be underdone. The hope here is that by giving someone say $50 a year to go run a mile, and 50 to bench and 50 to do pullups, we can save 500 on health related expenses which we'd otherwise do. As it stands we're PAYING people to be unhealthy which is bass ackwards.

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

and another point, why make exceptions for the disabled? they're the ones we typically spend the most on. and hack, let's say you're a paraplegic... you can still do pullups and you can still bench. you can still get most of it. heck they can even add in wheel chair racing...

But if you don't make exceptions for people who physically cannot complete these exercises, then you're essentially taxing them just for being disabled.

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

I reported myself on it and I couldn't figure out how to delete the thread, so I'll just let a mod move it.

and another point, why make exceptions for the disabled? they're the ones we typically spend the most on. and hack, let's say you're a paraplegic... you can still do pullups and you can still bench. you can still get most of it. heck they can even add in wheel chair racing...

I was going to mention quadriplegics, and people like Stephen Hawking, but from what I understand most of these people don't work, so getting money off your taxes wouldn't really benefit them anyway.

So, yeah, I think this is a wonderful idea. If I were you I'd start pushing for this in your city's government to give it a bit of a foothold.

I think this is fine for people that can ALREADY run a 6-minute mile, but if you're 200kg, a measly $50 a year isn't going to motivate you to lose weight, get in shape, and train. Even $500 wouldn't get most people off their asses, considering things like exercise equipment, weights, and running shoes are hundreds of dollars.

Originally Posted by Jodd

I think this is fine for people that can ALREADY run a 6-minute mile, but if you're 200kg, a measly $50 a year isn't going to motivate you to lose weight, get in shape, and train. Even $500 wouldn't get most people off their asses, considering things like exercise equipment, weights, and running shoes are hundreds of dollars.

You don't actually need a bunch of expensive exercise equipment to get in shape though. A cheep set of dumbbells and your body are all you really need. A Bowflex would be nice to have, but you don't need it to be physically fit. You could also add a stick to the carrot and increase a person's taxes by 50$ if they've made no effort to get in shape. I'm sure everyone will froth at the mouth at this idea, but when the US has 60% of it's population overweight, then it's time to take drastic measures.

Originally Posted by Jodd

I think this is fine for people that can ALREADY run a 6-minute mile, but if you're 200kg, a measly $50 a year isn't going to motivate you to lose weight, get in shape, and train. Even $500 wouldn't get most people off their asses, considering things like exercise equipment, weights, and running shoes are hundreds of dollars.

A 7 minute mile isn't THAT hard to do. I hadn't run a mile(at least not seriously) and was in, by my standards horrible cardiovascular shape, since the 8th grade and ran a 6:10 the first time I'd run it in around 4 years come my senior year of high school.

an entry level set of weights costs $100-200
you can use tenis shoes, the same shoes you'd otherwise run. I've never owns a single pair of running shoes in my life.

And on that note, maybe it is "unfair" in that it makes physically fit people pay less. Aren't they the ones who are propping up the ill though? shouldn't they get something?

Originally Posted by John Henry Eden

You don't actually need a bunch of expensive exercise equipment to get in shape though. A cheep set of dumbbells and your body are all you really need. A Bowflex would be nice to have, but you don't need it to be physically fit. You could also add a stick to the carrot and increase a person's taxes by 50$ if they've made no effort to get in shape. I'm sure everyone will froth at the mouth at this idea, but when the US has 60% of it's population overweight, then it's time to take drastic measures.

If you're 200kg and want to get in shape (properly), you're going to AT LEAST need new shoes that will support your legs correctly. That's $200 right off the bat.

you can use tenis shoes, the same shoes you'd otherwise run. I've never owns a single pair of running shoes in my life.

Not always. That's what I did, I now have fairly severe tibial medial syndrome, which would cost me more money on orthotics and physiotherapy, which completely goes against the idea of encouraging preventative medical therapy.

Originally Posted by Jodd

If you're 200kg and want to get in shape (properly), you're going to AT LEAST need new shoes that will support your legs correctly. That's $200 right off the bat.

wouldn't you "need" these shoes to begin with? also $10 set of arch supports... they last me around 2-3 years a set

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

wouldn't you "need" these shoes to begin with? also $10 set of arch supports... they last me around 2-3 years a set

No. I had a cheap pair of running shoes, decided to get fit using those to run, and have since bought a $90 pair of indoor sports shoes, $40 orthotic inserts, and $120 running shoes to help fix my shin splints. Physiotherapy would cost me around $50 a session, and about 6 sessions. I've also bought a weight set at $50.

So far, I would've saved myself $550 by just staying out of shape. It'd take me 11 years of getting $50 off my taxes to make up for it.

Originally Posted by Jodd

No. I had a cheap pair of running shoes, decided to get fit using those to run, and have since bought a $90 pair of indoor sports shoes, $40 orthotic inserts, and $120 running shoes to help fix my shin splints. Physiotherapy would cost me around $50 a session, and about 6 sessions. I've also bought a weight set at $50.

So far, I would've saved myself $550 by just staying out of shape. It'd take me 11 years of getting $50 off my taxes to make up for it.

Well would you get in shape if you saw your taxes increase if you refused?

Originally Posted by John Henry Eden

Well would you get in shape if you saw your taxes increase if you refused?

I don't pay taxes, and am already in shape. Question doesn't apply.

And on that note, maybe it is "unfair" in that it makes physically fit people pay less. Aren't they the ones who are propping up the ill though? shouldn't they get something?

Your proposal: Let's penalize those who already face demoralizing struggles in their day-to-day lives, and meanwhile, let's heap free money onto those who are blessed with the luxury of good health.

What?

Sure, we spend money on the sick, but they deserve it, because that money doesn't even begin to compensate for the terrible lives some of them lead.

Originally Posted by Fluorescence

Your proposal: Let's penalize those who already face demoralizing struggles in their day-to-day lives, and meanwhile, let's heap free money onto those who are blessed with the luxury of good health.

What?

Sure, we spend money on the sick, but they deserve it, because that money doesn't even begin to compensate for the terrible lives some of them lead.

For those who can't do any physical activity what-so-ever there should be an exception, but if you're simply wheelchair bound and the rest of your body is in working condition you should be burdened with the same expectations.

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

A 7 minute mile isn't THAT hard to do. I hadn't run a mile(at least not seriously) and was in, by my standards horrible cardiovascular shape, since the 8th grade and ran a 6:10 the first time I'd run it in around 4 years come my senior year of high school.

What about people with asthma, like myself, who would quite possibly keel over if they tried to run a 7 minute mile?

Also, some people are simply not as physically strong as others, no matter how hard they try. It's not fair that they be taxed extra because they cannot perform at the same level.

Originally Posted by Astarael

What about people with asthma, like myself, who would quite possibly keel over if they tried to run a 7 minute mile?

Also, some people are simply not as physically strong as others, no matter how hard they try. It's not fair that they be taxed extra because they cannot perform at the same level.

Well how about instead of a set level that everyone adheres to, we use a system based on improvement? If you double the maximum amount of weight you can bench press in a year you get X amount of money off your taxes, or if you triple it you XX off.

Originally Posted by John Henry Eden

Well how about instead of a set level that everyone adheres to, we use a system based on improvement? If you double the maximum amount of weight you can bench press in a year you get X amount of money off your taxes, or if you triple it you XX off.

Hmmm...but there's only so much improving you can do, really. If you triple your maximum amount of weight you can bench press in a year, how can you really stand to triple or double that the next? And the next? If I could continue at that rate, I'd be an Olympian athlete before too long! Eventually, you'd reach a point where no improvements can be made, so you'll just be taxed the same amount as if you haven't exercised at all. The whole system just seems quite unnecessary to me.

And alas, when it comes to long distance exercises, I'm afraid my lungs simply will not let me improve. Also, there are loads of other physical or situational disadvantages that people may have that prevent them from being able to improve their strength and fitness.

I think it's possible to be healthy without being manic about fitness and exercise. I think just a moderate amount of walking each day is quite sufficient. This scheme, on the other hand, is just too competitive.

How about we have a system where you have to have a healthy BMI, or you have to prove that you've signed on to some sort of program that involves physical activity? Like joining a Minor League baseball team or taking martial arts lessons. A program like this would be absolutely vital to any country in Western World. The US, UK, and Australia all have disturbingly high obesity rates.