Against the law to be fat in Japan and soon the US?

[NewIdentity]

TOKYO, Japan — In Japan, being thin isn’t just the price you pay for fashion or social acceptance. It’s the law.

So before the fat police could throw her in pudgy purgatory, Miki Yabe, 39, a manager at a major transportation corporation, went on a crash diet last month. In the week before her company’s annual health check-up, Yabe ate 21 consecutive meals of vegetable soup and hit the gym for 30 minutes a day of running and swimming.

“It’s scary,” said Yabe, who is 5 feet 3 inches and 133 pounds. “I gained 2 kilos [4.5 pounds] this year.”

In Japan, already the slimmest industrialized nation, people are fighting fat to ward off dreaded metabolic syndrome and comply with a government-imposed waistline standard. Metabolic syndrome, known here simply as “metabo,” is a combination of health risks, including stomach flab, high blood pressure and high cholesterol, that can lead to cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

Concerned about rising rates of both in a graying nation, Japanese lawmakers last year set a maximum waistline size for anyone age 40 and older: 85 centimeters (33.5 inches) for men and 90 centimeters (35.4 inches) for women.

In the United States, the Senate and House health care reform bills have included the so-called “Safeway Amendment,” which would offer reductions in insurance premiums to people who lead fitter lives. The experience of the Japanese offers lessons in how complicated it is to legislate good health.

Though Japan’s “metabo law” aims to save money by heading off health risks related to obesity, there is no consensus that it will. Doctors and health experts have said the waistline limits conflict with the International Diabetes Federation’s recommended guidelines for Japan. Meantime, ordinary residents have been buying fitness equipment, joining gyms and popping herbal pills in an effort to lose weight, even though some doctors warn that they are already too thin to begin with.

The amount of “food calories which the Japanese intake is decreasing from 10 years ago,” said Yoichi Ogushi, professor of medicine at Tokai University and one of the leading critics of the law. “So there is no obesity problem as in the USA. To the contrary, there is a problem of leanness in young females.”

One thing’s certain: Most Japanese aren’t taking any chances.

Companies are offering discounted gym memberships and developing special diet plans for employees. Residents are buying new products touted as fighting metabo, including a $1,400 machine called the Joba that imitates a bucking bronco. The convenience store chain Lawson has opened healthier food stores called Natural Lawson, featuring fresh fruits and vegetables.

Under Japan’s health care coverage, companies administer check-ups to employees once a year. Those who fail to meet the waistline requirement must undergo counseling. If companies do not reduce the number of overweight employees by 10 percent by 2012 and 25 percent by 2015, they could be required to pay more money into a health care program for the elderly. An estimated 56 million Japanese will have their waists measured this year.

Though Japan has some of the world’s lowest rates of obesity — less than 5 percent, compared to nearly 35 percent for the United States — people here on average have gotten heavier in the past three decades, according to government statistics. More worrisome, in a nation that is aging faster than any other because of long life spans and low birth rates, the number of people with diabetes has risen from 6.9 million in 1997 to 8.9 million last year.

Health care costs here are projected to double by 2020 and represent 11.5 percent of gross domestic product. That’s why some health experts support the metabo law.

“Due to the check up, there is increased public awareness on the issue of obesity and metabolic syndrome,” said James Kondo, president of the Health Policy Institute Japan, an independent think tank. “Since fighting obesity is a habit underlined by heightened awareness, this is a good thing. The program is also revolutionary in that incentivizes [companies] to reduce obesity.”



Though the health exams for metabolic syndrome factor in blood pressure, cholesterol, blood sugar, weight and smoking, waist size is the most critical element in the Japanese law — and perhaps the most humiliating.

The hesitancy of some Japanese to expose their bare stomachs to the tape measure has led the government to allow the tape measures to be administered to clothed patients. Those who elect not to strip down are permitted to deduct 1.5 centimeters from their results.

The crudeness of the system has alarmed some doctors. Satoru Yamada, a doctor at Kitasato Institute Hospital in Tokyo, published a study two years ago in which several doctors measured the waist of the same person. Their results varied by as much as 7.8 centimeters.

“I cannot agree with waist size being the essential element,” Yamada said.

Perhaps more astounding, even before Japanese lawmakers set the waistline limits last year, the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) amended its recommended guidelines for the Japanese. The new IDF standard is 90 centimeters (35.4 inches) for men and 80 centimeters (31.5 inches) for women. But the Japanese government has yet to modify its limits.

On the day of her exam, Yabe arrived at the clinic at 8:30 in the morning. The battery of tests lasted an hour. The result: her waist was 84 centimeters — safely under the limit. She had shed 6.5 pounds thanks to her diet and exercise.

A week later, however, Yabe was back to eating pasta and other favorite foods.

“I want to keep healthy now, but I don’t know,” she said. “Maybe in December, I will have many bonenkai [year-end parties]. And next summer I will drink beer, almost every day.”

I don't understand why women get to have a bigger waistline then men? I thought fat people were protected under the ADA?

Did you catch the “Safeway Amendment,” for the US. For me this is funnier than all get out, because my biggest problem on my diets are my cravings for Safeway Donuts.

[JediKooter]

Oh those crazy Japanese. All they have to do is show their citizens one of their most famous exports and no one there will want to eat...tub girl.

[Abe Sargent]

What happens to the Sumo wrestlers!?!?!?!?!?

[Jon]

The title of this thread is misleading. There's a difference between giving an incentive in the form of a discount in health insurance for meeting certain health standards and making it against the law to weigh a certain amount.

I mean, most auto insurance providers give you a discount for owning a house, but I certainly wouldn't suggest that the law requires you to own a home if you want to drive a car.

[MrBug708]

Free health care baby!

[EagleFan]

Wow, a misleading thread title from NewID, there's something new....

[Flasch186]

What's the OldIdentity?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Jon

The title of this thread is misleading. There's a difference between giving an incentive in the form of a discount in health insurance for meeting certain health standards and making it against the law to weigh a certain amount.

If you think that's an overly broad leap, you're being awfully naive about our government.

The thread title says "soon the US?". The question mark makes the thread title awfully valid, as it raises the question of whether the so-called Safeway Amendment is but the first step toward more draconian measures.

[Flasch186]

:Rolleyes:

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

:Rolleyes:

Roll 'em all the fuck you want but it doesn't change the fact that we've seen this sort of thing from the government on more than one occasion.

If there's votes in it, an agenda to be fulfilled in it, or if there's a way to fuck the citizens out of more of their money in order to put that cash in the hands of the government in it, anything is conceivable.

And only a damned fool could possibly believe otherwise, the evidence is simply too strong to the contrary.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

:Rolleyes:

+1

[molson]

I'm confused by the rollesyes too. If the goal is single-payer, universal healthcare, how can you possibly be against restrictions/incentives like this? Do you rollesye people also believe that bad drivers, people living in hurricane-prone areas paying more than share of insurance is ridiculous?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm confused by the rollesyes too.

You shouldn't be.

[JPhillips]

So according to the NYT if you're over the limit you have to have counseling and if that doesn't help you are recommended to have more counseling. How does that equal against the law to be fat?

Under a national law that came into effect two months ago, companies and local governments must now measure the waistlines of Japanese people between the ages of 40 and 74 as part of their annual checkups. That represents more than 56 million waistlines, or about 44 percent of the entire population.

Those exceeding government limits — 33.5 inches for men and 35.4 inches for women, which are identical to thresholds established in 2005 for Japan by the International Diabetes Federation as an easy guideline for identifying health risks — and having a weight-related ailment will be given dieting guidance if after three months they do not lose weight. If necessary, those people will be steered toward further re-education after six more months.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If you think that's an overly broad leap, you're being awfully naive about our government.

The thread title says "soon the US?". The question mark makes the thread title awfully valid, as it raises the question of whether the so-called Safeway Amendment is but the first step toward more draconian measures.

Well, it says that it's against the law to be fat in Japan and since it isn't, it doesn't take one bit of naivete to say the thread title was misleading, anti government paranoia aside.

[NewIdentity]

Wow, nobody seemed to pick up on the fact that this law is only for people over 40 years old!

The law, to me, would be to get companies to fire fat people over 40 years old.

Under Japan’s health care coverage, companies administer check-ups to employees once a year. Those who fail to meet the waistline requirement must undergo counseling. If companies do not reduce the number of overweight employees by 10 percent by 2012 and 25 percent by 2015, they could be required to pay more money into a health care program for the elderly. An estimated 56 million Japanese will have their waists measured this year.

Doesn't this mean that companies under the law would be fined for having too many fat people in their employment?

[JPhillips]

could be required does not equal would be fined

[panerd]

JIMG: Why wouldn't you trust the government? If they start a program and it ends up being a colossal failure (i.e. Loses a shitload of money every year) they always end it. Obama is in charge now, this is a new kind of government...

Faster trains lead Amtrak's list of needs - STLtoday.com

[ISiddiqui]

In the United States, the Senate and House health care reform bills have included the so-called “Safeway Amendment,” which would offer reductions in insurance premiums to people who lead fitter lives.

And this is a bad thing?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

JIMG: Why wouldn't you trust the government? If they start a program and it ends up being a colossal failure (i.e. Loses a shitload of money every year) they always end it. Obama is in charge now, this is a new kind of government...

Faster trains lead Amtrak's list of needs - STLtoday.com

Are roads also a failure?

[NewIdentity]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

could be required does not equal would be fined

I am pretty sure the "re-education" classes are required by law for fat people to attend.

Japan outlaws fat people
Posted: November 13, 2009, 4:48 PM by Mitch Kowalski Criminal, Legal News, Mitch Kowalski, Law and Order, news

Kompas.com reports on Japan's "metabo law" which limits the waist-size of its citizens. Since last year, Japanese men over the age of 40 have been limited to a waist size of 33.5 inches, while women over 40 are allowed a more generous 35.4 inches.
The purpose of the legislation is to prevent health costs associated with overweight citizens. For those of you who think that this is a hoax, The New York Times did a piece on this new legislation last year.
Those who do not comply with the new law will be given dieting guidance. If the guidance does not work, then further "re-education" will be necessary.
Mitch Kowalski

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...#ixzz0bUKMlABe
The Financial Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Are roads also a failure?

I love the pro-state arguement that the success of roads and the internet justifies government run health care, endless wars and policeing of the world, the war on drugs, the department of education, the space program, jobs programs, the TSA, endless bailouts, TARP, ...

LOL. Roads work!!!!! Yeah government! More please! More!!!!

The problem that you have with me is that I don't back the Republican ideas either so you can't set-up your normal "I guess it was allright when Bush did it" that both sides like to use to attack each other and continue to argue in favor of the out of control spending nonsense in Washington DC. Instead you try strawmans like roads or (in a post or two) take a real radical Libertarian idea like reinstating the gold standard and show that proves why we need to run deficits of trillions a year.

Wife: "I want to go to Paris again"
Husband: "We are $50,000 in debt!!!"
Wife: "You spent $5 on McDonalds the other day!"

[Jon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If you think that's an overly broad leap, you're being awfully naive about our government.

The thread title says "soon the US?". The question mark makes the thread title awfully valid, as it raises the question of whether the so-called Safeway Amendment is but the first step toward more draconian measures.

Yes, because if government does one thing the next step is always the most extreme thing.

No, the question mark does not make it a valid thread title when the article does not say that it is about to become illegal to be overweight in the United States . I could post an article too and draw the most absurd conclusion from it, but that doesn't make it valid.

I understand healthy skepticism about government, but paranoia on the mere fact that it's government taking action is a little bit extreme. X-Files was a great show, but it's not a way I would choose to live my life.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by panerd

I love the pro-state arguement that the success of roads and the internet justifies government run health care, endless wars and policeing of the world, the war on drugs, the department of education, the space program, jobs programs, the TSA, endless bailouts, TARP, ...

LOL. Roads work!!!!! Yeah government! More please! More!!!!

The problem that you have with me is that I don't back the Republican ideas either so you can't set-up your normal "I guess it was allright when Bush did it" that both sides like to use to attack each other and continue to argue in favor of the out of control spending nonsense in Washington DC. Instead you try strawmans like roads or (in a post or two) take a real radical Libertarian idea like reinstating the gold standard and show that proves why we need to run deficits of trillions a year.

Wife: "I want to go to Paris again"
Husband: "We are $50,000 in debt!!!"
Wife: "You spent $5 on McDonalds the other day!"

The problem is that we have a program, the ideological opponents of the party cut the program to it's bare bones, and then use the fact the program stopped working due to the extreme underfunding as the argument that it doesn't work and should be scrapped.

Amtrak is a good example of that problem. Amtrak hasn't been properly supported in decades. In the northeast, Amtrak is very important not just for Amtrak. They own most of the tracks that most commercial and commuter rail carriers use--should they shut down, then a huge amount of rail traffic in this country would be adversely impaired. When Bush threatened to shut down Amtrak a few years ago, there was a huge concern of how the commuter lines in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticutt would operate.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

JIMG: Why wouldn't you trust the government? If they start a program and it ends up being a colossal failure (i.e. Loses a shitload of money every year) they always end it. Obama is in charge now, this is a new kind of government...

Silly me, what was I thinking. I forgot Saint Obama (and his merry band of minions) is gonna save us all.

So, just out of curiosity, when do we receive our pot for every chicken? It's gotta be soon, I mean most of the stuff coming out of DC is definitely "shovel ready". Problem is, I don't think anyone has made a big enough shovel for most of it.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Silly me, what was I thinking. I forgot Saint Obama (and his merry band of minions) is gonna save us all.

Who said that? Someone can find your position absurd regardless of whether or not they're an Obama supporter. I never saw your posting that stated that the only way you can criticize your viewpoint is if you take a vow that you oppose Obama. That's as ridiculous as hysteria that anything government does is inherently suspect and part of a massive conspiracy.

It's not either/or. Most rational people can agree with Obama on some things and disagree with him on others. Your argument is just as bad as some of the left on daily kos.

[Karlifornia]

You gotta remember, Jon said when Obama was elected was "the biggest mistake in American history." or something. He'll give anything to be proven right, because being right is more important than the welfare of everyone else.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

I love the pro-state arguement that the success of roads and the internet justifies government run health care, endless wars and policeing of the world, the war on drugs, the department of education, the space program, jobs programs, the TSA, endless bailouts, TARP, ...

LOL. Roads work!!!!! Yeah government! More please! More!!!!

The problem that you have with me is that I don't back the Republican ideas either so you can't set-up your normal "I guess it was allright when Bush did it" that both sides like to use to attack each other and continue to argue in favor of the out of control spending nonsense in Washington DC. Instead you try strawmans like roads or (in a post or two) take a real radical Libertarian idea like reinstating the gold standard and show that proves why we need to run deficits of trillions a year.

Wife: "I want to go to Paris again"
Husband: "We are $50,000 in debt!!!"
Wife: "You spent $5 on McDonalds the other day!"

It sure is easy to set you off.

Without engaging most of your rant, I'll stick to the transportation argument. The government subsidizes transportation on highways, in the air, on water, and on train tracks. It may or may not be wise to invest more, but it makes no sense to complain about Amtrack subsidies unless you're also going to complain about other government transportation subsidies.

[digamma]

Musashimaru might as well book a private room in the psychiatric ward.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Jon

Who said that? Someone can find your position absurd regardless of whether or not they're an Obama supporter.

My Obama reference was specifically to panerd's comment.

Anyone is welcome to find my observation on the original thread title absurd. I'm also welcome to chalk that up as evidence that the objecting individual is largely a fucking idiot that's contributing to several of our current major problems.

[Logan]

Hahaha...love the reason for edit.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I love people who bitch about the federal government as they drive on federally-funded roads, eat meat that is guaranteed safe by a federal agency, drink water made cleaner due to the actions of a federal agency, and have the ability to post on the Internet due to federal action. It amuses me so. People like Jon would be screwed in a pretty short amount of time if the federal government simply stopped existing and they hate to admit that fact.

This is a favorite point at FOFC and it's completely ridiculous.

Who's arguing for the complete abolition of the government? So if I think the government should exist, I have to necessarily think it shouldn't have ANY limits?

I mean don't even you think there's a limit somewhere? Wouldn't your silly point then apply to you also? How can you bitch about a totalitarian regime if you're using government roads?

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Many of the libertarians on this board and plain ole' nutballs like Jon sounds like they would be perfectly happy in a world where the federal government was nothing more than the Pentagon. Oh, and in a totaliarian regime, you'd like have no choice what you were doing, so your travel on government-funded roads wouldn't be your decision.

Do I have a choice to travel on non-government roads now? And yet, according to your logic, I'm not allowed to criticize any government spending (even if it has nothing to do with roads).

What if they decide to increase government spending a billion times? When am I allowed to criticize it if I continue to leech of the governments roads?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

This is a favorite point at FOFC and it's completely ridiculous.

Who's arguing for the complete abolition of the government? So if I think the government should exist, I have to necessarily think it shouldn't have ANY limits?

I mean don't even you think there's a limit somewhere? Wouldn't your silly point then apply to you also? How can you bitch about a totalitarian regime if you're using government roads?

Obama : "We will continue our wars and meddling, this time in Yemen"
Protestor: "Do we really need to police the world and bankrupt our country?'
Obama: "Roads"
Protestor: "Shit. Got me again!"

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Many of the libertarians on this board and plain ole' nutballs like Jon sounds like they would be perfectly happy in a world where the federal government was nothing more than the Pentagon. Oh, and in a totaliarian regime, you'd like have no choice what you were doing, so your travel on government-funded roads wouldn't be your decision.

Not true.

How would you like it if someone said that you would be perfectly happy if all of our incomes and productions go to the federal govt. so they can provide every bit of our needs?

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

You have feet, don't you? Hell, buy some gravel and a shovel and get to work. Obviously, my point is more against people who are against pretty much all government spending and love to talk about how much they hate the government, not just those who are general fiscal conservatives. Even if most of those fiscal conservatives end up being hypocrites in the long-run.

And as for Bucc's question, in a zero-sum game between libertarian dreamworld and your world that you've set u there, I'll pick option b every time.

If the JIMGA admits that he's against the government building roads, maybe you have a point, but I don't think he's done that.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

You have feet, don't you? Hell, buy some gravel and a shovel and get to work. Obviously, my point is more against people who are against pretty much all government spending and love to talk about how much they hate the government, not just those who are general fiscal conservatives. Even if most of those fiscal conservatives end up being hypocrites in the long-run.

And as for Bucc's question, in a zero-sum game between libertarian dreamworld and your world that you've set u there, I'll pick option b every time.

I love how people like Molson, Bucc, and I that are agianst wasteful government spending all of a sudden become Republican lawmaker hypocrites just because lovers of the nanny state have no good arguement against people who don't play the demolican/republicrat game.

[panerd]

Build the roads, clean the water, keep high meat standards and use my income taxes to do it. But when you want to try one of your "save the world" initiatives (whether it's Democrats and health care or Republican war mongoring) have the balls to fucking raise the taxes to pay for it. Oh wait, then people won't vote for you if they can't have their cake and eat it too.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Well, it's just that you cateorgize wasteful government spending as pretty much everything, so there's no use to it. But yes, I am a lover of the "nanny state." Without programs you'd probably eliminate if you had the power, I wouldn't have had food, shelter, or much of anything else when I was growing up.

The health care bill is being paid for. Hell, it's deficit-neutral. Unless the CBO is part of a secret socialist conspiracy.

How about the war in Afganistan? How about the jobs program that Obama will be proposing within the next month. Give me a fucking break that the trillions of dollars of spending are all deficit neutral. You seem like a smart guy, you can't be that gullible can you?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I've never said Obama was perfect. He's far too conservative for me personally. I wish he would push for a war tax to pay for the War in Afghanistan. I wish he would push for a full repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the top 5%. Those two things would move things toward a much better financial position in the long-term than anything else that could be done.

I was simply pointing out that due to the weird way the political winds have shifted is that when it comes to major domestic programs (health care), the Democrats have to be somewhat fiscally responsible. The Republicans on the other hand (massive tax cuts and Medicare Part D for one) don't.

Heh heh, if Obama's too conservative for you, you and I would NOT get along.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I think I should change my name to "NewAttitude."

I mean, I'm feeling good from my head to my shoes. I know where I'm going, and I know what to do. And I have tidied up my point of view. I got a new attitude!

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I've never said Obama was perfect. He's far too conservative for me personally.

My head just exploded...

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Heh heh, if Obama's too conservative for you, you and I would NOT get along.

yep yep
+1

[panerd]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I've never said Obama was perfect. He's far too conservative for me personally. I wish he would push for a war tax to pay for the War in Afghanistan. I wish he would push for a full repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the top 5%. Those two things would move things toward a much better financial position in the long-term than anything else that could be done.

I was simply pointing out that due to the weird way the political winds have shifted is that when it comes to major domestic programs (health care), the Democrats have to be somewhat fiscally responsible. The Republicans on the other hand (massive tax cuts and Medicare Part D for one) don't.

You see I can respect your viewpoint. I obviously disagree on the government's role on just about every economic issue (though we probably see eye to eye on a whole lot of non-economic social issues that Obama is too scared to tackle) but I believe these are your views. I don't get why you can't fathom that my views could be very fiscally conservative. Just because "fiscally conservative" politicians rarely ever do what they claim doesn't mean that individual voters can't. I am the type of guy that has a nest egg for just about every conceivable thing that can happen in my life and don't believe in supporting those who don't. It's obvious that we will probably never convince each other to “switch sides” but I don't see why your viewpoint can be so accepted by the general public while mine is just wacky.

Of course the government should enforce contracts, provide a national defense, and be a watchdog over entities that would run wild without it. I just feel like there should be money in the till to pay for the pet programs each side wants to do. (Or at least an equally costing program should be eliminated) Want a bank bailout? End corporate welfare. Want national health care? End extended welfare benefits. Want a “jobs” program? Fine, eliminate the inept (and racist) war on drugs. You want an escalated war in Afghanistan (and soon in Yemen)? Fine, don’t just talk about ending the war in Iraq, end the war in Iraq. Or if you don’t have the political capital to do these things, raise taxes to pay for it. Doesn’t seem that radical does it? It's not just Obama, its almost everyone in DC. And that is sad and IMO un-American.