I'd DEFINITELY prefer this to any gov't-mandated option.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061204/ap_ ... th_at_work

Bosses push staff to eat right, exercise

By ELLEN SIMON, AP Business Writer 2 hours, 6 minutes ago

NEW YORK - Many companies are starting to sound like moms: They're pushing employees to eat their vegetables and go outside and play. And they're not being gentle about it.
ADVERTISEMENT

Outdoor clothing company L.L. Bean, Inc. shuts down its manufacturing line three times a day for mandatory five-minute stretches, designed to prevent the most common injuries the workers suffer.

"It's a safety measure, just as we would ask someone to wear safety glasses if there's a danger of hurting their eyes," said Susan Tufts, the company's employee wellness program manager.

At retailer Replacements Ltd., 250 employees take part in a walking program organized by the company nurse. T-shirt manufacturer American Apparal has 80 loaner bikes, locks and helmets for employees and hosted an employee screening of "Fast Food Nation," a film where the villain is the meat industry.

Insurance company The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. is among those using price manipulation in its cafeteria to encourage employees to eat right. It's increasing the prices on fatty foods and using the extra money to fund a subsidy for healthy sandwiches, cut fruit and salads.

Such "Twinkie taxes" are now in place at 7 to 10 percent of corporate cafeterias run by food service company Sodexho, up from almost none three years ago, according to the company.

Mounting healthcare costs are driving the changes. Employee assistance company ComPsych Corp. runs what it calls "trainwreck exercises," in which companies compute how long they can absorb healthcare cost increases before they become unprofitable. The first client that did the exercise realized it only had 18 months. Health insurance premiums for 2006 rose 7.7 percent — twice the rate of inflation.

While some companies are responding to the higher healthcare cost by cutting employees' coverage and shifting more costs to the employees, others are doing everything they can to convince employees to adopt healthier habits in the hopes they will avoid diseases caused or complicated by eating poorly and being overweight or inactive.

After L.L. Bean increased the price for burgers and lowered the price for salads in its cafeteria fruit and salad bar purchases doubled while French fry and burger sales fell by half.

When railroad company Union Pacific Corp. opened a new headquarters in Omaha two years ago it ordered its cafeteria operator to hire a full-time dietitian for the site and cut the fat and calories on every item by 10 percent.

The company runs a "Know Your Numbers" program that drills into employees' heads figures such as the 30 minutes of exercise they should be getting a day and the 3,500 calories in a pound.

"The biggest thing the guys come back and say they learned the most about is portion size," said Marcy Zauha, the company's director of health and safety. "They didn't understand how much they were eating."

Besides cost cutting, another factor behind the programs is the amount of time employees spend at work.

If workers don't have access to fruits and vegetables on the job, they will need to consume between one and two servings every waking hour after work to meet the goal of eating 5 to 9 servings a day, according to the California Department of Human Services. To reach the recommended 10,000 steps a day, sedentary workers would have to spend most of their evenings in motion, the department said.

Even a little daily excercise can boost health, said Dr. Antronette (Toni) Yancey, associate professor at the UCLA School of Public Health.

Yancey collaborated with the Ministry of Health in Mexico, where everyone gathers at 11 a.m. each morning for 10 minutes of exercise to music. The result, after a year, was an average .45 pound weight loss — an improvement from the one pound a year, on average, people gain as they age.

"Especially as it relates to physical activity, people have demonstrated that they're not going to make a lot of changes on their own," Dr. Yancey said. "If we're going to make a big dent — lower healthcare costs, improve productivity and morale — you have to make it easier to do than not do."

Yancey and others say that work gyms are used primarily by people who would exercise anyway. For everyone else, a little manipulation goes a long way. Her suggestions include incorporating exercise breaks in to the work day, restricting parking close to the building, limiting elevator access to people with disabilities, widening and brightening stairwells and hosting walking meetings. (People seldom refer to the notes they take during seated meetings, she says.)

Price manipulation worked for senior business analyst Kathy Blaszczyk at The Hartford, who started buying a flank steak salad with grilled corn when the price dropped from $6 to $4.70.

"I love it, but I never used to get it," she said. "I have in my head a $5 threshold."

Having the company's top leaders embrace the program also helps.

Dan T. Cathy, president and chief operating officer of Chick-fil-A, Inc. restaurants and a runner, has cajoled 265 company employees to run the January Walt Disney World marathon or half-marathon with him. Most of the runners joining him "have never done anything like that distance-wise," Cathy said of his group. "There's a lot of first timers."

Cathy said he's motivated by his religious belief that the body is a temple and a more practical thought.

"We live in a time when there really is a healthcare crisis," said Cathy. "Every segment of society needs to make a contribution."

I'm sure I will further cement my place in hell by saying this, but I don't think employer-provided healthcare should cover obesity related illness. They don't give you money if you are irresponsible with your funds and go into huge debt, so why should they pay for your healthcare if you are irresponsible with your body and let yourself eat into oblivion.

I have been through hell and back dealing with my weight, and I have absolutely no sympathy for it. There are many problems contributing to obesity, and many of them can and should be addressed, but none are signifcant or powerful enough to remove blame from the individual.

PS - I feel the same way about smoking related illness.

How could you, or the insurance companies, determine what is an "obesity related illness"? And where exactly, do you draw the line with being irresponsible? How irresponsible, ill and obese should someone be before you think the insurance companies should stop paying?
Obesity is often the symptom of psychological or emotional problems. Should that not be covered or supported by insurance?

You bring up a good point. I don't claim to have exact answers such as what would be considered obesity related, but if someone were able to fairly determine such a thing I would be for it - that was my point. Irresponsible was more of my feeling on what obesity is about, I don't think there should be any line regarding it and health care.

I wouldn't deny coverage for say a life-threatening heart attack, even if it was clearly helped by obesity. However, things like liposuction and gastric bypass surgery at the very least should not be covered. Just like smoking, I'm sure a multitude of illnesses might be related to it, but obvious things such as lung cancer or mouth cancer shouldn't be covered.

If this is unreasonable I would love to hear why so that I can consider my position.

Psychological or emotional problems are often the result of chemical imbalances, but anyway I don't think seeing a mental health professional is necessarily covered in by many health care providers? But assuming that it is, it is reasonable for therapy to be paid for, but I don't think that should extend all the way to having to pay for a gastric bypass. I believe in personal responsibility very strongly, and I realize that most mental disorders are not the result of a person's poor choices. Obesity, however, is.

I'm not sure it's unreasonable, I'm just not sure the totality of what you're suggesting is fully understood. You want to allow coverage for a life threatening heart attack, but disallow other potential procedures that might have prevented the heart attack in the first place.

I mean, I'm overwhelmingly for people taking more personal responsibility, and lessening the burden on everyone. But I'm not sure what you're suggesting is really any kind of answer to that.

That's the whole thing, I don't really know what would work and what wouldn't. I'm sure extensive studies would have to be done.

All I know is that in my opinion people do not deserve free treatment, from their employer, for obesity related illness just as I do not believe people should get a free pass for anything else in this world that they are responsible for.

Would restricting gastric bypass and liposuction surgery save the companies money in the long term? Who knows. If you want to know my full opinion on the matter, it is even worse, I guess. I think that if someone gets obese to the point where they can't do their job correctly they should be able to be released, and similarly that if it is believed their health condition is critical because of obesity that should be considered a legitimate factor for hiring or promotion. Just like you don't have to hire someone if they fail a drug test, because that has negative implications for the future due to a poor choice on the part of the individual.

This is off topic, but you bringing up chemical imbalances reminded me of one of my brother's old college roommates. He was a real cool guy, very personable and witty. He was the type of guy who was ready with a joke. Suddenly though, he started acting like he was god, referring to himself as god, and saying that he could see into the future. Apparently he had a serious chemical imbalance. It was one of the strangest things I have ever seen.

Who are you to say he wasn't god and that he couldn't see into the future?

He didn't say he wasn't god or couldn't see into the future. For all we know, jwfocker thinks it was so strange because he believed him.

I mean, can you PROVE he isn’t God, and that he can’t see the future? For all we know, he might be a flying spaghetti monster in his free time.

Why would I want to prove that? It is pretty clear that he is indeed God and frequently takes the form of a flying spaghetti monster, albeit a purple one.

Well, it depends on how you look at it, I suppose. Someone who is obese is just paying for it in another way. With their health, and possibly their life. There is no free ride there. The broader question is, do we aid our fellow man with their problems? And if so, is this the right way to be helping them, or is it just enabling them? Perhaps a little of both.




I kind of agree, however, I also don't like where that line of thinking is heading, because where does one draw the line? We all make stupid decisions that could affect us at work negatively. Where is the line? Do we not let Jonny take the police officer job because his parents were alcoholics and statistically he's a higher risk? You see what I'm saying here.

Wouldn't we all, but you can probably count on 1 hand the number of companies who give a shit.

Yeah, I see what you are saying throughout. It is pretty frustrating. Everything has extremes and it is hard to find a middle ground that can't be budged. I realize you are playing the devil's advocate in a way, and with this topic I have no answer to that. They are all touchy and need to be analyzed carefully. Even though I know it is possible for people to take anything out of context or twist intentions, I still believe in what I have said, while not forgetting that slippery slopes exist and they are easy to fall into. If one could draw a specific line and say "this is how it will be" without the risk of anyone trying to stretch that, then all of these would be simple issues and there would be no discussion. Obviously what you are bringing up is that none of them are simple.

Count on 1 hand the number of companies who give a shit about saving themselves money through lower health coverage costs? Maybe if you are some kind of genetic super-freak.

Alright, that wasn't a fair statement. Let's try companies implementing these type of measures. There ... that fits better.

Awww, I was hoping you were some kind of genetic super-freak.

so how come none of you wacked out liberals arent bitching about what we can and cant put in our bodies and the unjust penalties for doing so