Ala. To Charge Obese Workers $25 Monthly

I am not familiar with the relevant Alabama legislation, but there is currently no Federal legislation that would consider this illegal discrimination.

Weyco started by charging smokers $50 in 2004, and announced that unless their employees quit smoking they would be terminated.

Why is it discriminating? Think of it from the insurance company's point of view. The more unhealthy you are, the more at risk they are to have to pay a medical claim, which they try to avoid at all costs. They don't make any money that way.

Cigarette smokers have to pay higher premiums, so why shouldn't overweight people? Their lifestyle is just as unhealthy as a smoker's.

If it's discrimination against overweight people, then people who smoke have been discriminated against too.

Sure it's discrimination, but I don't think it's actionable, at least right now. Not all forms of discrimination are lawsuit-friendly.

In the grand scheme of things I think that the bottom line is what is important to the insurance companies, and I think Rottlady is right that this will open the doors for insurance companies to start charging more for whatever reasons they see fit.

I don't buy the whole "we all pay higher premiums because you are overweight, a smoker, a redhead etc" We pay higher rates because insurance companies are a business and they want higher profits. It is an excuse in my book.

Another problem that is affecting our premiums is the multi-million dollar business of lawsuits over every hangnail and stubbed toe out there. You can't watch the TV anymore without at least 2 or 3 commercials at every break of some ambulance chaser telling you they can get you big money for your claim. I have started a rant so I will stop now.

This is the most blatant form of cherry picking by an insurance company I have ever heard of. That it is one funded by a State government is even more criminal. Why stop at
obesity? Why not enter the houses of diabetics to search for candy bars? And finding candy slap them with a fine? Why not charge people extra for having carpal tunnel disease because they hold two jobs, both of them requiring non-stop work with their hands? Why don't you test every fetus so you can abort every genetic mistake? That way only the healthy will need health insurance.

This is the right way to go. Why should I, as a non-smoker and normal sized person, have to pay higher premiums for someone else. Smoking and getting fat are a choice. Live with the consequences. A teenager pays more for car insurance because...they are more likely to be in an accident. Life insurance costs more if you are a smoker. No different here. If you want insurance, riskier behavior should result in higher costs.

Smoking and getting fat are a choice

Wrong-o.

Smoking is a choice. Getting fat can be a result of laziness, but can also be caused by genetics.

PsiCorps Mother- PsiCorps Father.

Trust Big Brother.

(Or if you prefer someone real)

"Those that would trade their freedom for safety neither deserve nor receive either."
-Ben Franklin

This is just sick in my book regardless of the causes- regardless of the reasoning- regardless of the various arguments I've seen so far. It's just flat out wrong because before you can get to any of those, you have got to accept that it is alright for a government to CONTROL SOMEONES LIFE!

There may be some cases where an obese person has no control over their size. OK, then they are exempt. But you all know that most fat people are that way because they eat too much and exercise too little.

But you all know that most fat people are that way because they eat too much and exercise too little.

So you're saying that they want to be fat?

PsiCorps Mother- PsiCorps Father.

Trust Big Brother.

(Or if you prefer someone real)

"Those that would trade their freedom for safety neither deserve nor receive either."
-Ben Franklin

"So you're saying that they want to be fat? "

Want is a bad word. Choose is better. I want to run a marathon, but I haven't. Feel bad for me.

So obesity is a choice? Surely you know better than that.

For some it is. In fact, probably most. There are legitimate reasons for being fat, but there is an exception to every rule.

Magz R.E. 2.8
You hit a home run as far as I am concerned with your comment.

Not very long ago I was on a trip and got an ear infection, so I went to a walk in clinic to get it treated. I had to call my insurance company to get prior authorization so they could see me, and was promptly told-- I'm sorry but your plan doesn't cover you outside of your home state!!

We're talking about BC/BS here and my hubby is a state employee. I raised Holy he!! with them on the phone until I finally got someone who was not an idiot, that got it straight and faxed the needed authorizations. If I had just let it go they would have skated right out of paying for it. I think they try to make things as difficult as possible so most will just give up.

It frosts my cookies every 6 months when I kick out my premiums for my car too and haven't had an accident or ticket etc. in years. I think they should have to repay you a portion of your premiums every year if you have no claims.

I am a hater of insurance companies for sure, I think they are nearly as bad as politicians who are continually looking for new ways to get your money from your pocket into theirs.

Why should I, as a non-smoker and normal sized person, have to pay higher premiums for someone else.

Why should I have to pay for your bad genes, if you have a history of Alzheimer's or cancer? How far should we take this? Not all larger people are unhealthy, and some skinny people have health issues--like anorexics.

But you all know that most fat people are that way because they eat too much and exercise too little.

Oh really? We know that? For every study you can produce that says that is proven, I can produce one that says it's not.

Not only that, but almost every one of my so-called "fat and 40" nursing assistants could and would work circles around their slender 18-28 year old counterparts, with very few exceptions. So much for the lazy theory.

That doesn't usually stop the state of Alabama from doing what it does.

This is just my personal opinion, but, I think this is a great idea and I wish more states would adopt it. There are too many overweight individuals in this country and not only is it not healthy for them, but it's not easy on the rest of us either who aren't overweight.

Wow. So it's your problem that other people are overweight? Too bad everyone isn't as perfect and healthy as you are.

These health Nazis like to act as if fat people revel in the fact that they are fat. Most fat people are miserable, and can't help it due to habits or medical conditions. And what's to say that skinny is healthy? Are we going to ridicule and charge skinny people for the health risk they put on America?

Get over yourself, Selena. Nobody's weight has anything to do with you. And if you're so healthy, standing on a subway should be the least of your concerns. Those fat people are helping you burn calories, so you should thank them and buy them a cheeseburger. Without them you'd be a fat, nasty cancer to your society.

Most fat people are miserable, and can't help it due to habits or medical conditions.

Source?

Here's one

Sorry jamie, but nothing in that study says that most fat people are miserable, and can't help it due to habits or medical conditions.

Oh, I see.. your point is a semantic one, not a scientific one. I get it. You win.

Oh, so you don't think there is a big difference between most and these disorders only account for 7% of patients in the GOOS cohort?

What point, I was asking for a source. Your scientific point has no relevance to the claim you were attempting to support.

rottlady, when I said they don't care, I was referring to the fact that they don't care that they may be sitting on someone or that they are squeezing you in the seat. I know that there are people who have medical conditions or who take medications which make it hard to control their weight. I'm talking about the people who get on the train eating fried egg sandwiches with bacon like they can't wait to get to work or wherever they may be going before they stuff their faces.

Mars313, you get over YOURSELF and don't hate on me because you have bad habits and no discipline. I never said that I was better than anyone else, so I don't see why you are so offended, like I was speaking to your personally. I don't even know you and you definitely don't know me, so if anybody needs to get over themself, its YOU.

I don't think it's accurate to say some people have no control over their size. There are conditions that make it more painful to lose weight than it is for others however intake - outtake = weight for all humans. You can't gain weight while starving. For some people trying to get the nutrients needed without generating fat is very difficult due to a medical condition but they are few and far between. Most people it just sucks to lose weight because if your calorie intake is lower than your burn you feel bad but it's necessary if you are going to change.

I don't care what weight somebody wants to be. I only care when it starts affecting others. It's the similar concept to second hand smoke and pollution or any other externality - a cost imposed on others. In this case an artificial subway seat shortage. Even so it's a minor problem in the grand scale of all problems around. Not worth the effort it would take to force people to correct their behavior or themselves. They already pay more in health issues than they impose cost on me.

What about those with extreme muscle mass? In competition form, my BMI is high - but I have an extremely low body fat level. DO I get charged?

What about those with thyroid disease?

It's $25... I wish my health care cost that little!

My employer offered us a weight loss program to get into shape. So now a lot more people here at work are looking good and feeling so much better healthwise and better about themselves. I believe people should take responsibility for their own health. I quit smoking because I didn't want someone else to have to pay for my serious health consequences (and because I didn't want to die yet).

I live in NY and ride the subway every morning and I get so sick of people who KNOW that they're "big boned" trying to squeeze into a seat that's too small for their "big bones",

Hmmm, funny, I've noticed on transit that it is the slimmer people who invade my space more often with their elbows and reading the newspaper at full size, rather than folding it. I've also sat next to larger persons whom I barely notice.

thejonesgirl, if you weren't sitting so close to the slimmer person, you probably wouldn't feel their elbows. Why is it necessary to sit in a space that's so tight, you can't help touching the person sitting next to you? The larger person that you barely noticed was probably because they're the only person who could sit next to you in the space permitted?

thejonesgirl, if you weren't sitting so close to the slimmer person, you probably wouldn't feel their elbows. Why is it necessary to sit in a space that's so tight, you can't help touching the person sitting next to you? The larger person that you barely noticed was probably because they're the only person who could sit next to you in the space permitted?

Nope, I was within the boundaries of my own seat, it was them violating my space and taking up more than their fair share of space. Why is it necessary for that person to read the paper, or at least not fold it? To jab into my space with their limbs, searching a bag while seated on the bus?

As for your second question, it contradicts itself. If the person is larger, then how could he/she be the only person who could sit in the space permitted without touching me?

And are you making some sort of snarky unspoken comment about my weight, which I discuss here? How low of you.

Some great ideas, lilorphant. Another idea: do away with the crap food most vending machines are full of and put in fresh fruit/vegetable vending machines (I've seen those! They're a brilliant idea.)

Don't they say that eating only one meal a day can cause weight problems? I know that skipping breakfast is supposed to increase the liklihood of weight gain. I think it has something to do with blood sugar levels causing the body to store more fat (I could be wrong). Is there a reason your son eats only one meal a day?

Yes, it is because he believes in sending a significant portion of his paycheck to his children for their support - and he has no court order to do that yet but hasn't missed mailing that check off in 18 months. Then he'd prefer to buy musical equipment instead of additional food. He also plays in a band as a sideline to his full time job and if anyone could see him rocking out on stage, they would wonder why he isn't thin as a rail. He is by far the most physically active member of the band on stage. (Those lead guitar solos)

He was even chunky as a child and I made sure he got those three meals a day and severely limited sweets and snacks because he would bounce off the walls with sugar. I'm a nurse and know that missing meals will slow metabolism. Exercise will increase it. With the amount of exercise he gets, it is unfathomable to me that any slowing of missing meals would not be more than compensated for by his activity level. His little brother, who is his sous chef so works side by side with him, says that Mikey busts his tail at work. High praise when it comes from your 20 year old brother.

MyChem that is not a true statement. The BMI charts the insurance companies will use most likely will be based on the American Medical Association BMI chart. The article says individuals will be charged if they exceed 35 which is in the obese category. With your height and weight you only come in at 23.3 which falls in the normal category. You would have to weigh 200 lbs. or more for over one year in order to be charged. We have a serious obesity issue in this country and it stems from a variety of poor economic decisions. The only way to turn things around is for us to be honest with ourselves and moreover come up with comprehensive solutions that fix all the situations that have lead to our unhealthy society. I don't believe this charge will make much of an impact and therefore the argument could be made that it is useless, however insurance companies are the business and we are the consumers. Therefore they make choices based on financial gains and that is it.

According to most BMI's and other tools that calculate weight versus height, I'm overweight and I'm 5'6" and weight 138 lbs.

My BMI would give most doctors a heart attack, but I have low/normal blood pressure, a heartrate some athletes would desire and am active (walk 3-4 miles a day, 20 minutes on a rowing machine every other day) and I eat healthfully. I'm 5'2-1/2" and weigh about 180 I have a bit of a tummy, but other than that, no one would look at me and shout "OBESE!" In fact, those who know my weight are always surprised it is so high. Even when I swam on the varsity team in high school, I weighed in at 140, and I was in terrific shape.

What should I do, starve myself to be the 115 lbs the charts tell me I should be? Maybe if I ate lettuce and water and exercised 3 hours a day, I'd be there, but how is that healthy?

Interesting, setpoint theory would describe me, then (see above) :)

exactly - are they going to have the daily weigh in?

What if you have a "bad" weekend? If you gain holiday pounds? Do you get the 'fattie' fine?

"exactly - are they going to have the daily weigh in? "

I suppose if you are teetering on the edge. It really is a simple plan. Have qualified health professional analyze obese people and come up with a plan that will get them to lose weight. If these people choose not to follow the plan, then they are required to pay for the extra risk they put on the system.

Here's a simple plan:
If your BMI is less than or equal to 26, you weigh in once a year. If it's between 27-30, you weigh in every 6 months. 30-33, every other month. 34+, monthly. If you are above 35, you are not required to weigh in at all, you just have to accept the fee. If you want the fee waived, you have to weigh in and prove you are less than the 35.

jppager - that is the stupidest set of "rules" I have seen.

BMI is a very imperfect indicator of health and even fitness.

One of my best friends is 6'-5" and 225 lbs. Probably has about 8% body fat. Football and basketball star in high school, 4 year varsity athelete at a D-1 school. National champion. One of the fittest people I know.

His BMI is 26.7, which says that he is overweight.

Don't try to tell me that BMI is an even remotely good indicator of health.

"jppager - that is the stupidest set of "rules" I have seen. "

Why?

Here is what I'm going at here with them. You don't need to weigh in every day. I'm not saying that it is the solution. However, it goes to show that it can be implemented easily with very little extra cost. And, in the end, if you don't want to be embarrassed about what your weight is, you don't have to be. Just accept the fee.

But with the cost of health care why shouldn't an employer try to make the employee more responsible for their own health. Or at least more aware of what they can do to be healthier. Obviously the employer will be able to provide more affordable health care if they reduce their claim history.

the employer will be able to provide more affordable health care if they reduce their claim history.

Maybe in the land of OZ. They will put all the extra money in their already oversize coffers. :o)

But with the cost of health care why shouldn't an employer try to make the employee more responsible for their own health.

Because it's none of my employer's business how many oreos I eat. That's why.

An employee is not a slave to be dictated to, and people are entitled to choose for themselves how their lives shall be led. An employer is free to terminate an employee who cannot function according to terms.

It's not about the employer controlling what you eat. They are trying to control what you cost them (in this case health insurance). If you showed up hung over to work every day, you would expect to be fired. While its not your company's business to tell you not to drink, they do lose money when you are not functional at work. In this case, they are losing money because you are at a higher health risk, a preventable one at that.

While its not your company's business to tell you not to drink, they do lose money when you are not functional at work. In this case, they are losing money because you are at a higher health risk, a preventable one at that.

I'm glad I'll never have this problem. My health insurance is private, and my employer doesn't offer alternatives. $25 is not too much to pay for good health insurance, and the people who aren't happy about it have the option of finding a new job.

I don't know if it's right. That's kind of why I don't think health insurance should be mandatory. For those of us who are healthy and want to risk it, especially while young, we have the right. I feel very comfortable not getting health insurance for the next 10 years or so, but after that I probably will. But then again, what if I find a pre-existing condition in those 10 years that I don't know about now? Boom, I ran my risk and killed myself, so to speak.

"But what happens when it does, maybe they want to eliminate people that chew gum? (for instance)"

Maybe I didn't word it right. The lifestyle of the obese people hurt me financially. Insurance companies are in it to make money (duh). However, when they insure higher risk people, they hurt themselves. So, if they charge the higher risk people more, than those of us not higher risk save. The other alternative would be to even it out for everyone.

So, in short, I want to get the most bang for my buck. I want, hopefully, to pay about as much for insurance as I receive in benefits. To do that now, I would have to live a lot unhealthier life. I'm, in essence, being screwed for being healthy.

I have a BMI of about 21. I would have to weigh about 130 to 140 to be underweight. But, I would have to weigh about 1.7 times more to qualify for the Alabama fee.

I think it's important to notice that they are not charging for being overweight in the BMI. It's about being fairly obese. (Obese starts at 30, they want to set it at 35)

Yeesh, I'd think a 6'1" person weighing 140 would be too slender (in a general sense).

Bingo, this is their reason for the whole thing. A+ comment :o)

State employees who smoke have been paying $24 per month for their insurance for some time now. That will go up to $25 when the premium for other state employees goes into effect.

It's not government interference. The government is not extending it beyond anyone besides those they employ. It's not a mandated thing that extends into the private sector. In this case, you have to look at the government as acting as a stand-alone company, dictating how they are spending money on their expenses. They say it costs too much to insure their employees, so they came up with a way to offset that cost.

In fact, using the term government in this case is probably a misnomer. It should be termed the bureaucracy. It's the business form of the government acting, not the legislative form.

I totally agree. Bad things continue to happen when good people say nothing, and the more we say nothing, the more bullcrap will happen

If I drive too erratically or dangerously and accumulate citations my auto insurance costs more.

If I pack my home with expensive items I want covered by my homeowners insurance, my cost go up.

If I smoke cigarettes and want life insurance, my premiums are higher.

If I purchase life insurance later in life my premiums are higher.

So, why is it wrong to ask those who don't maintain their health to pay more for their medical insurance? Why should I pay for the personal excesses of others?

My specialization is food politics and this is one of the major problems afflicting American society today.

The foods that are the most inexpensive tend NOT to be foods that are healthy.

Examples:

Fast food is cheap and a lot of the lower-income families I know live on the stuff. There's a pretty logical reason for this--most of them are working multiple jobs just to pay the bills and fast food is, obviously, fast, and relatively inexpensive. Not only are the parents eating the crap, they're feeding it to their kids who are thus developing bad eating habits as well as unhealthy bodies. (It irritated the hell out of me when my little cousin looked at the pot of chilli my husband had been cooking from scratch for four hours, turned up his nose, and asked for "Easy Mac.")

It's a lot cheaper to throw together a box of mac-n-cheese from the discount aisle (which includes white pasta and usually some kind of processed cheese powder that doesn't look like cheese to me and is primarily salt, fat, and artificial flavoring) than it is to buy a brick of cheddar, a pint of 1/2 and 1/2 and a box of whole grain pasta to make it yourself. Similarly, it's cheaper to buy a can of pre-made chilli than it is to buy the beef, tomatoes, onions, garlic, stock, beans, peppers, spices, etc. and make it yourself. The latter also take more time and since most Americans are wholly strapped for time as well as cash, the cheap, quick alternative wins out.

Produce rots and, as Romney mentions, is comparatively very expensive. Americans are notorious for wasting food and with the rising costs of gas, food in general, and produce in particular, they're less likely to stock things in the house they've become accustomed to throwing out.

My husband and I have a food budget that's higher than the American average (of course, we also feed between 3 and 8 people most nights) but we do nearly all of our own cooking. We're not on the organic craze or the local food craze (though everything does have to be gluten free for me) but we're really into cooking healthy meals and we're fortunate enough at the moment to have the money and time to put into it.

Most Americans aren't.

And until we address that, we're going to continue to have a problem.

But it's not just a weight problem. It's a whole-health problem.

That's my concern with this proposal--it's not about health. It's about weight.

Employers could go a long way to helping their employees eat better if they'd provide healthy breakfasts or lunches as part of the compensation package. Subsidize cooking classes. Or simply make sure that your employees leave the office early enough to prepare a meal with their families.

But don't fixate on weight as a "magic number." It's unrealistic and short sighted.

Courts,

I will respectfully disagree that it is cheaper to eat fast or processed food. It is certainly faster or more convienient; but not necessarily cheaper.

I'm also not sure that I agree that most Americans do not have the time or money to cook healthy meals. I think most don't have the will or inclination. While I am certain we can all think of a situation where it becomes untenable to spend an hour or 2 a day cooking (single mother working 2 jobs); I think that most Americans spend more time in front of the TV or computer than they spend cooking.

I certainly agree that it is a whole-health problem. Body weight is only one factor in many that can be used as an indicator of general well-being. Never mind the fact that the BMI is a statistical measurement that is not really suited to making a general health-type diagnosis for individuals.

It is certainly faster or more convienient; but not necessarily cheaper.

There are certainly some processed food that are more expensive but, in many case, processed foods are a cheap source of calories.

Again, compare the cost between a box of Kraft(TM) mac-n-cheese and a homemade equivalent that contains milk, unprocessed cheese, and a whole grain pasta. Look at the difference between a can of Hormel(TM) chilli and a homemade equivalent.

And then look at the price of fresh produce. It's outrageous.

I'm also not sure that I agree that most Americans do not have the time or money to cook healthy meals. I think most don't have the will or inclination. While I am certain we can all think of a situation where it becomes untenable to spend an hour or 2 a day cooking (single mother working 2 jobs); I think that most Americans spend more time in front of the TV or computer than they spend cooking.

While this may be true of your acquaintances, the idea of having an hour or two a day to cook is utterly laughable in my situation and many of my friends struggle with finding the time and/or the money to avoid the "easy trap" of unhealthy eating.

Ultimately, food prices are increasing and we're working more hours than ever. I think the situation is getting worse long before it gets better.

If you want to compare like to like then I agree, more often than not, the processed food will be cheaper.

However, compare the quality and amount of calories you can get from rice, beans, oats etc., and you will find that processed and fast food is not cheaper. A 18oz container of Oats can be found for less than $5 and you can get 60 servings. Add in the small cost for salt, tap water, and sugar and you have 60 meals for ~10c each. Where can you find a processed or fast food meal that gives you that kind of value?

What is laughable about cooking for an hour or 2 a day for you and your friends?

What is laughable about cooking for an hour or 2 a day for you and your friends?

Imagine the usual "soccer mom," who rises at 6AM, dresses, gets the kids ready, drops them at school, heads to her job after at least a 30 minute commute, then reverses it at night, only with driving the kids to various extra-curricular activities. Where is the 1-2 hours to cook?

Then imagine the poorer class family, perhaps a single parent working 2 jobs just to make ends meet. Where is the time to cook coming from?

Having time to cook is a luxury these days and requires cutting back from other activities, which may not be possible (a second job or time to cook?) Sure, there are work-arounds, like cooking on the weekend and freezing foods, but with weekends packed, that can be just as tough.

I'm a single person who works the usual 9-5 and even I have a tough time finding time to cook (and space, my urban kitchen is minuscule)

Gretchen,

I have a 45 minute commute, work on average 60 hours a week, take my children to BJJ and gymnastics, work out at least 90 minutes every day; and yet I can still find the time to shop and cook for a family of four.

As I said earlier, I bet the people who claim not to have the time to cook, spend more time in front of the TV or computer than they spend cooking. That's a choice, not a lack of time.

Although I own a T.V. I do not get reception to local channels, I choose to spend my money on things that are more important than cable. Where I live you have to pay to receive just the basic cable programs.
For most single Mothers that are low income ( I work for a homeless program) the problem isn't not having time... it's not knowing how to cook healthy. Now factor into that the fact that they receive food stamps (1 child family averages $186.00)..... Now go to the Grocery store. An Avocado is $1.46 a pc.
Milk is $5.38 a gallon, Hamburger is $2.99 a lb. Apples run from $1.99 to $2.39.... and they grow less than 200 miles away from here. They have to decide what's not only healthiest for their children but what they can afford.
Oh and by the way... most of the women I work with not only are working (minimum wage) but going to school part time, taking their children to daycare, school activities, while using the Public Transport. Most are gone from 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 or 8: p.m.

It's not just the low income people either.... We've had to open more food banks because the people that are not on State Aid or working minimum wage jobs are going to food banks now too.
For them it's a choice between paying for the gas to go to work or buying groceries...

Regardless of our financial standing we should all be outraged that these people are being monetarily punished based on their weight alone. Health issues are one thing... weight is a completely different story.

I am a 5'11" woman that weighs 245 lbs. according to my Doctor I should weigh around 155 or 165.
My cholesterol is below the average (by a lot), I eat healthy, take proper care of myself, and exercise. I don't do drugs, rarely drink, and quit smoking years ago (hence the weight gain).
I am healthier today than I was 10 years ago at 160 lbs. Because at that time I smoked, drank, and was a fast food junkie.... lol.
So where's the logic in the assessment being by weight alone?

However, compare the quality and amount of calories you can get from rice, beans, oats etc., and you will find that processed and fast food is not cheaper. A 18oz container of Oats can be found for less than $5 and you can get 60 servings. Add in the small cost for salt, tap water, and sugar and you have 60 meals for ~10c each. Where can you find a processed or fast food meal that gives you that kind of value?

Yes, but we're talking about healthy eating. Rice, oats, and beans (even with salt and sugar), though they are inexpensive, do not constitute a healthy diet.

What is laughable about cooking for an hour or 2 a day for you and your friends?

I teach full time at a research university in a class with more than 300 students and I manage a 10-member teaching staff AND I co-teach a senior seminar, I'm in the middle of not one but two book projects, I'm a doctoral candidate preparing for prelims and working on a dissertation, I read at least a book a day, and I'm in the middle of preparing my application packet for several tenure track positions.

I'm on the Board of Directors for a community theater, I volunteer with a group for children with cancer, and I teach hunter education.

I'm married and am the proud aunt of 14 children, all of whom have a right to my time and attention. I have family and friends and a life on top of work.

And I'm hardly the busiest of my friends. Many of my friends have children and the time commitments (from carpooling to homework to little league...) that requires on top of holding down jobs, volunteer work, and other responsibilities. Some of my friends are working multiple jobs while raising children as single parents. Some are full time students AND full time teachers as well as parents.

I, by far, do the most cooking of any of my friends or acquaintances. My husband (who is as busy as I am) and I split the cooking responsibilities. We make the vast majority of our meals from scratch but the idea of having an hour or two to cook each day is so outside the realm of possibility that it's preposterous.

As I said earlier, I bet the people who claim not to have the time to cook, spend more time in front of the TV or computer than they spend cooking. That's a choice, not a lack of time.

You can repeat that assumption but it doesn't make you right. I resent the fact that you automatically assume that because you have hours each day to dedicate to cooking everyone must have the same opportunities and simply choose not to take advantage of them.

Yes, but we're talking about healthy eating. Rice, oats, and beans (even with salt and sugar), though they are inexpensive, do not constitute a healthy diet.

Oh really? But Mac-n-Cheese and Hormel Chili do constitute a healthy diet?

Hormel Chili works out to over $2/lb; Mac-n-Cheese is over $5/lb.

Looking at my grocery bill from 4 days ago:

Kefir: $3.29/32oz
Eggs: $3.49/dozen
Quinoa: $2.19/lb
Navel Oranges: $1.00/lb
Pink Lady Apples: $1.49/lb
Nectarines: $1.99/lb

Once again, I'll ask the question you appeared to miss: Where can you find a processed or fast food meal that gives you that kind of value? Hell, I'll even answer it for you Courts: You can't.

In other words it is not cheaper to eat processed or fact foods. It is merely more convienient.

And I'm hardly the busiest of my friends.

No doubt, but looking at you choice of activities, I see several that are voluntary. In other words your choices are preventing you from having the time to cook like you would.

You can repeat that assumption but it doesn't make you right.

No, it does not. However if we take a quick look at the 2007 BLS statistics on time spent in primary activities, you will see that the average US resident spends:

Watching television.................. 2.01
Food preparation and cleanup......... .68

That is 3 times more time in front of a television than preparing food.

I resent the fact that you automatically assume that because you have hours each day to dedicate to cooking everyone must have the same opportunities and simply choose not to take advantage of them.

Resent all you want Courts, it will not change the facts presented above.

I think the problem is that you're reading what you think I'm writing rather than what is actually on the page. All I said was that processed and fast food was cheap, especially when you compare making common American meals from scratch or out of a box/can. And a diet based on these cheap, convenient, and calorie-laden foods isn't healthy.

At no time did I say that fast or processed foods were cheaper. Please note:

Fast food is cheap...fast food is, obviously, fast, and relatively inexpensive.

There are certainly some processed food that are more expensive but, in many case, processed foods are a cheap source of calories.

You've missed my point because you're so fixated on making your own.

As for time management, obviously, you're right. I mean, I don't have to volunteer; I'm sure that cooking for more hours each day (despite the fact that I'm already preparing my own meals) is far more important than working with children with cancer or keeping a community theater afloat.

In other words your choices are preventing you from having the time to cook like you would.

No. My "choices," as you call them, prevent me from having the 1-2 hours every day that you think I should have. Again, you're reading what you want to read and not what I'm writing. I'm not complaining about the amount of time I have to cook. You landed on the 1-2 hours concept. I simply find that ridiculous.

Ok, as a long time bachelor I'm going to tell you my secret. The crock pot! Those things are great. A few minutes preparation time in the evening, set crock in fridge, next morning, put it on low and go to work. Come home to a meal that just needs bread and beverage.

I don't use the crock pot as much as I should but my aunt does almost all of her cooking that way and she loves it.

I also know a few people (mostly students who are living off campus) swear by the GT XPress 101 and others who have found incredibly innovative ways to use their toaster ovens. I'm impressed at how creative they can be.

I used to have 2 crock pots but my son 'adopted' one of them when he moved out on his own. It's handy having 2, I wish I could buy another crock without the htr part.

Wheel, I love my crockpot. And not just for stews and meats, I've made a wonderful bread pudding and even chocolate chip cakes in mine :)

I think the problem is that you're reading what you think I'm writing rather than what is actually on the page. All I said was that processed and fast food was cheap, especially when you compare making common American meals from scratch or out of a box/can.

I wonder why you attempted to argue the point then, if that is not what you meant? Pray tell what the point is of pointing out that processed and fast food are relatively cheap, when healthy whole foods are a lot cheaper?

And a diet based on these cheap, convenient, and calorie-laden foods isn't healthy.

Nor is a diet based on their less convienient made-from-scratch counter-parts. Chili and macaroni and cheese are not as healthy as whole oats, beans, or fresh fruit.

You've missed my point because you're so fixated on making your own.

Then why did you miss your own point? Which is what by the way?

Is it that, [t]he foods that are the most inexpensive tend NOT to be foods that are healthy? Because as I have shown, that is an incorrect assumption/claim?

Or, is it that a diet based on these cheap, convenient, and calorie-laden foods isn't healthy? Because that is so painfully obviously I don't think it qualifies as a point. Besides, the more costly, time-consuming, just-as-calorie-laden equivalents of the examples you used are hardly more healthy.

As for time management, obviously, you're right. I mean, I don't have to volunteer; I'm sure that cooking for more hours each day (despite the fact that I'm already preparing my own meals) is far more important than working with children with cancer or keeping a community theater afloat.

If you make your own healthy foods with your hectic schedule, then thanks for helping me prove my initial point. You know that one that you thought was laughable?

No. My "choices," as you call them, prevent me from having the 1-2 hours every day that you think I should have.

They are choices, aren't they? Or are you being forced? If you can cook healthy meals for your family in less than an hour or 2 a day, then please give us some tips on how you accomplish that.

I'm not complaining about the amount of time I have to cook. You landed on the 1-2 hours concept. I simply find that ridiculous.

I never said you were complaining, although I'm not sure then why you choose to highlight your impressive sounding schedule, unless you were just trying to impress us? (I'll pretend to be impressed if that makes you feel a little better) You claim to prepare healthy meals for 3-8 people, yet you find 1-2 hours a day ridiculous? So I'll ask again, what is laughable about cooking for an hour or 2 a day?

Good grief.

As I have said, my point was simply that processed and fast food were a cheap source of calories, especially when you compare making common American meals from scratch or out of a box/can.

You'll note that you agreed with me on that point. In response to your follow-up example of rice, beans, and oats, I was merely observing that a diet consisting solely of those staples was inexpensive but not healthy. I was obviously not arguing that processed mac-n-cheese or chilli WERE healthy (please review comment 22.4).

I'm sorry that you found my comment so painfully obvious that it did not, in your estimation, constitute a point.

I provided you with an overview of that busy schedule simply to give you an idea of the many time commitments someone who doesn't fit your stereotype may have that would prevent him or her from dedicating an hour or two each day to cooking. You asked a question and I answered it. You recounted your schedule above--were you doing that in order to impress Gretchen or were you merely responding to her post?

There's nothing difficult about cooking for eight in about half an hour--Rachael Ray and others have made a fortune by providing a plethora of tips. Were you making a request for recipes or did you have something else in mind? As Wheel pointed out, preparing healthy meals in a crock pot can be a quick and convenient way to cook. I do a lot of "one pot meals" that include whole grains, fresh veggies, and lean meats as well as a lot of homemade soups. And I do make equivalents to processed mac-n-cheese and chilli for eight to ten people in about half an hour that are balanced and healthy.

But I still find the idea of having an hour or two to cook each day laughable, not because I'm a single mother holding down two jobs or because I'm too busy watching television but because I, like many Americans, can't imagine having or needing that much time each day to prepare healthy meals. It's a personal observation, much like yours in comment 22.7. You say 1-2 hours a day and my first though is "who has that much time???" My second is "who needs that much time???"

That being said, by your own admission "we can all think of a situation where it becomes untenable to spend an hour or 2 a day cooking (single mother working 2 jobs)." I know many families who have far less than those two hours, far less even than the time I spend cooking. And I think that when we're discussing policy changes, like that affecting Alabama's state workers, it's important to remember that not everyone is as fortunate as I (or you) happen to be.

In some cases, the problem does not come down to will or inclination but other dynamics entirely. I'm sure that observation is too obvious to constitute a point but it's one I think it's important to keep in mind.

As I have said, my point was simply that processed and fast food were a cheap source of calories, especially when you compare making common American meals from scratch or out of a box/can.

That appears to be your point now, but that still does not explain why you choose to argue my point until you were conclusively shown to be wrong, or why you said in your initial post that [t]he foods that are the most inexpensive tend NOT to be foods that are healthy?

I was merely observing that a diet consisting solely of those staples was inexpensive but not healthy.

Whole oats, rice, and beans are not healthy? Please explain why?

You asked a question and I answered it.

No, I did not ask your schedule, I asked why you though 1-2 hours of cooking a day was laughable. Recounting your schedule did not answer the question.

There's nothing difficult about cooking for eight in about half an hour

You cook 3 healthy meals a day for 8 people in about half an hour? Now that I found laughable. Why type of meals are you cooking that take 10 minutes each to prepare?

You responded to my initial post, debating the first line. Realizing that was an oversimplification and had, obviously been interpreted on its own rather than in the context in which I had intended, I clarified saying "there are certainly some processed food that are more expensive but, in many case, processed foods are a cheap source of calories," to which, you will please note, you agreed.

If you will also note, I did not say that whole oats, rice, and beans were unhealthy. I simply said that a diet consisting SOLELY of those staples is inexpensive but not healthy because should a person eat only oats, rice, and beans he or she would not be getting essential vitamins and nutrients. As you yourself have recognized when recounting your grocery list, fresh produce is part of a healthy diet.

I am deeply sorry that my explanation as to why I could not find an hour or two each day to cook did not satisfy your inquiry. Next time simply ask for more information.

You'll note that no one asked for your schedule or your grocery bill. Since you used your schedule as part of your reasoning (see comment 22.7), I merely assumed that you wanted the same information from me. Since I was obviously incorrect, pray tell, what WOULD have answered your question "What is laughable about cooking for an hour or 2 a day for you and your friends?"

I never said that I cook 3 meals a day for 8 people. Again, please read what I'm writing. When mentioning that my food budget for the month was higher than the American average, I noted that "we also feed between 3 and 8 people most nights." I later pointed out that "there's nothing difficult about cooking for eight in about half an hour" and that I can "make equivalents to processed mac-n-cheese and chilli for eight to ten people in about half an hour that are balanced and healthy."

As for the meals I prepare--and please feel free to stop reading if a detailed account was not what you had in mind when you asked the question--this morning I fixed a breakfast of whole grain toast, fresh fruit, and yogurt AND packed a lunch including a sandwich on whole grain bread with lean meat and natural cheese as well as a raw veggie medley in about five minutes. Tonight I'm making a stir fry with white meat chicken and veggies to serve over a bed of brown rice (a recipe that takes about 25 minutes) for five people.

You responded to my initial post, debating the first line

I said that? Or are you reading what you think I'm writing rather than what is actually on the page? My first comment to you began with, I will respectfully disagree that it is cheaper to eat fast or processed food. It is certainly faster or more convienient; but not necessarily cheaper. If that is not what you initially thought, then you would not have unsuccessfully attempted to argue against it. Unless you were reading what you think I'm writing rather than what is actually on the page?

I simply said that a diet consisting SOLELY of those staples is inexpensive but not healthy because should a person eat only oats, rice, and beans he or she would not be getting essential vitamins and nutrients.

Did someone suggest that a person should attempt to exist on a diet consisting solely on oats, rice, and beans? Not that I recall.

As you yourself have recognized when recounting your grocery list, fresh produce is part of a healthy diet.

Correct, and as I showed, they are often also less expensive that fast and processed foods. Contrary, if I may add, to your claim that the price of fresh produce is outrageous.

I never said that I cook 3 meals a day for 8 people.

Correct, you did not.

Let me be clear then, how long does it take you a day to make health meals for a family of at least 3 individuals? Including preparation and cleanup. I can certainly see a single person making 3 healthy meals a day in 30 - 45 minutes, but I believe making 3 meals from scratch for a family is going to take at least an hour, with up to 2 hours depending on the day and the type of meals.

However, if you will remember, I never said you or anyone should have the 1 - 2 hours a day to cook. I merely disagreed with your claim that most Americans do not have the time or money to cook healthy meals. I believe we have established that healthy food is actually cheaper than many fast and processed foods. As I have shown the average American adult spends 40 minutes in food preparation and cleanup, and 2 hours in front of the television. You claim to be able to spend 30 minutes in the kitchen to prepare yourself 3 healthy meals.

So, how do you justify your claim that most Americans do not have the time or money to cook healthy meals?

So, how do you justify your claim that most Americans do not have the time or money to cook healthy meals?

I guess you can not?

Desperately sorry. Seeing as classes started yesterday...oh, wait...I'd hate to be accused to trying to impress you with my busy schedule.

Every question you ask has already been answered in my earlier responses. To answer them again would simply be a waste of time.

Not at all.

You claimed that that most Americans do not have the time or money to cook healthy meals.

As I have shown, healthy foods are cheaper than fast and processed foods.
As you have claimed, it is possible to cook health meals in less time than the average adult American spends preparing meals.

So, since both directly contradict you, how do you justify your claim?

Actually, that's not true.

The only time the phrase "Americans do not have the time or money to cook healthy meals" has appeared in this entire discussion is when YOU yourself have written it. Go look for yourself. It's in comments 22.3, 22.2, and 22.5 Your comments. Your claim. Not mine.

You haven't contradicted me. You've merely talked yourself in circles.

Courts wrote:

we're really into cooking healthy meals and we're fortunate enough at the moment to have the money and time to put into it.

Most Americans aren't.

According to you, most American are not fortunate enough to have the time or money to put into cooking healthy meals. Your words. I merely paraphrased you, but the meaning is the same.

Looks like you have contradicted yourself Courts.

Roan, I have watched you badger and prod on my column long enough. While some of this conversation has been educational I feel it has gone on long enough on this thread. If you feel you must continue this, please do it else where.

Thank you Courts for enlightening us and being so patient in dealing with this barrage of questioning.

Sure, it is your column.

If I have badgered Courts, it is only because she talks in circles. As I have shown above, in her first post she quite clearly implided that unlike her, most Americans do not have the time or money to cook health meals.

Now, she would like to claim that she never said that most Americans do not have the time or money to cook healthy meals, which is the way I paraphrased her own words.

RL, ever wake up to find you had been "ravished" in your sleep :o) Good thing he made breakfast or I might have been miffed. I have been telling him he needs a username too. :o)

Ok rottlady you two talked me into it. So here I am. Thank you for the invitation.

thanks