Should health clubs be free?

[Narz]

Free (govt. sponsored) health clubs (perhaps including martial arts clubs & biking clubs & other groups that support engagement in health improving exercise) would certainly make a difference in the overall health of Americas (or any nationals). As would free support groups (IIRC having support as well as job satisfaction are a couple of the top factors in whether those who've suffered a heart attack will make a full recovery). While we're at it why not give people access to a nutritional counseling, marriage counseling (unhappy marriages are deadly) free massage per month, etc?

Seeing as most diseases people die of today in the modern world have some degree of preventability why is the health care system so focused on treatment & not so much on prevention (besides lip service, "exercise, eat right, get along with people, find work you like etc." while doing little to actually encourage such behavior)? It seems the answer is profit.

 

[amadeus]

And where does it end, Narz?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

No, it goes too far and is ineffective if people still don't use them.
If you force people to use health clubs it might be effective but that's a bit too totalitarian for my taste.

 

[warpus]

Nah, cause then you'd have overcrowded health clubs everywhere.

 

[History_Buff]

Nah, cause then you'd have overcrowded health clubs everywhere.

This. To prevent administrative nightmares in running the place, you want to avoid free. I could get behind heavily subsidized though.

 

[TheAlamo]

Short answer: no.

Long answer: no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no.

 

[Mise]

For children, I think it's a great idea. I'd hope that the good habits children learn when they're young will follow them throughout life, so that they can live long, healthy lives. Parents would probably use them as cheap after-school care, meaning they'd be "forced" to attend.

Not for adults; those that would actually participate would have paid for it anyway, and the ones that really need it the most won't bother. For most people, it's not about cost, it's about motivation.

More generally, I am 100% behind preventative efforts to combat unhealthy lifestyles, paid for by the NHS / general taxes. Much better to convince people to live healthier than to fix them up and send them back to McDonalds.

 

[Narz]

Nah, cause then you'd have overcrowded health clubs everywhere.

Which is worse than overcrowded hospitals?

And where does it end, Narz?

I figure if the govt. spends $50-$100 per individual per month early on on preventative medicine they may be able to save perhaps tens or even hundreds of thousands (per individual) between the ages of 50-80. Also you're creating a healthier populace which is what "health care" should be. Inevitably people will still have heart attacks, still require expensive surgery & whatnot but the quality of their life in the intrum will be better & I imagine recovery will be quicker & far less expensive.

Like you, I question the govt's ability to put the well being of the public above the interests of lobbyiests. However, unlike most right-wingers I don't believe the answer is simply to shrink govt. down to next to nothing & let people fend for themselves. People don't have the time or mental energy to think about all their social, physical & economic choices, especially when corporate sharks do their best to manipulate their understand of reality all day (thru advertisements/media). The govt. should help people make wise choices by making it easier to do so and making it harder to make poor choices. It's hard to argue with this, especially considering stuff like smoking bans have saved probably hundreds of thousands of lives by now.

 

[TheAlamo]

Or you could just pay the dues. If you're too lazy to exercise regularly, having to spend less on it won't make you any more motivated, and if you seriously can't afford $30-$50 per month then you have far bigger problems to worry about than your health.

 

[bhsup]

I can show you a free health club. Walk outside your door and look at the street. Go jogging. Have fun, it's free.

 

[TheAlamo]

I can show you a free health club. Walk outside your door and look at the street. Go jogging. Have fun, it's free.

This. To get adequate exercise, you don't need to spend a dime.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

No, it goes too far and is ineffective if people still don't use them.

If you force people to use health clubs it might be effective but that's a bit too totalitarian for my taste.

You nailed it.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I can show you a free health club. Walk outside your door and look at the street. Go jogging. Have fun, it's free.

V's point is very good, however there are still benefits offered by gyms, such as having everything in one place.

Gym membership should be subsidised by tax credits, based on how often you use them. I think some will decry this an invasion of privacyrun, but I just don't see it. It's better than just giving a general tax credit that everybody can spam and then not hold up to their end of the bargain. Alternatively, if you're so afraid of privacy violations, you can just choose not to claim the credit. Your choice.

Healthy food, on the other paw, can either be subsidised(or rather, reverse subsidies so unhealthy food's price goes up; Karalysia already submitted the distortion our market suffers from subsidies of unhealthy junk... we can also just get rid of subsidies altogether gradually) in the hopes people buy it, or you can also try to give tax credits based on consumption.

My parents get all jumpy about this topic, saying it equates to the government controlling our lives. HOW?! They're not saying you have to follow lifestyle x, they're simply saying lifestyle x is more advantageous. I've never been one for government control, however, I don't see anything wrong with government advising and leading people, like a parent... or rather, a grandparent. A relative who you don't see often, and despite their bouts of ineptitude, serves as a well of wisdom to try and guide their family.

To me, this is just the government's way of being the old grandmother who says to her grandchildren that they should eat more healthy food, or exercise more, just like in the good old days.

We should reward people who actually care for themselves and thus take strain off the system.

 

[Zelig]

You can tax deduct gym memberships and other health-related expenses here, up to ~$500 per year. Most real jobs also tend to give some health related benefits. I'm quite happy with this system.

 

[emzie]

I can show you a free health club. Walk outside your door and look at the street. Go jogging. Have fun, it's free.

I was going to chime in saying what Narz proposed already existed in the form of "parks"

 

[Tani Coyote]

You can tax deduct gym memberships and other health-related expenses here, up to ~$500 per year.

Does it require you to regularly show up? Or, on the other side, do the gyms require you to regularly show up? Otherwise, it can result in a lot of deductions-spam, with people claiming but not doing. (Unless a gym membership is more expensive than the deduction of course, in which case there's no profit in it) It may not seem like much, but across millions of people, that 500 dollars is a LOT of tax revenue.

Most real jobs also tend to give some health related benefits. I'm quite happy with this system.

Welfare capitalism is easily argued against, as it can put small businesses at a disadvantage. I don't know if say, a company-owned gym is really a bad thing, but in-company benefits nonetheless need to be watched carefully lest they force the little guys out of business.

 

[Zelig]

Does it require you to regularly show up? Or, on the other side, do the gyms require you to regularly show up? Otherwise, it can result in a lot of deductions-spam, with people claiming but not doing. (Unless a gym membership is more expensive than the deduction of course, in which case there's no profit in it) It may not seem like much, but across millions of people, that 500 dollars is a LOT of tax revenue.

Well, even without tax deductions, most people who buy gym memberships end up not showing up.

In any case, I don't do my own taxes, but I'm sure the government set it up in a way so that they're aren't getting too exploited.

 

[BCLG100]

Nah, cause then you'd have overcrowded health clubs everywhere.

And this means (I assume Health Club=Gym also) that those of us that regularly use Gyms as it is would have to put up with an endless stream of questions from people who are using it for the first time and will never come back!

 

[Gustave5436]

"Free" is closer to proper voluntary association, which is the proper means of administration for all social activities (e.g. "clubs").

 

[Brighteye]

I can show you a free health club. Walk outside your door and look at the street. Go jogging. Have fun, it's free.

This.

A lot of the healthy options are lifestyle choices. You should make each choice available, but counselling sessions, subsidised activities like rock-climbing and fat taxes all suffer the same problem:
they penalise people who are responsible.
If I make the right choices, with good information, I can eat fatty foods, do exercise and not need exercise counselling.
When I am charged, through tax, for things that help encourage idiots who can't make the right choices despite having good information to choose the healthy option then I am paying for their idiocy.
I believe in the state providing everyone with the chance to make what they can of their lives. I do not believe in the state trying to take into account people's subjective responses to the options they get in order to 'force' a 'better' outcome. If you have the information and the ability, you have the choice.
Information is free and available, as are streets for running. Choice is all you need.