|
gblauer
Moderator
Jun 23, 2009, 12:53 PM
Post #26 of 40
(613 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2002
Posts: 2824
|
yeah, crazy stuff. I tried to argue, but it was not worth the energy or the ill will.
Our company gives us $500 each year towards fitness stuff (health club, equipment, nutritional counseling etc). They also cover our gym fees when we are on the road. I have climbed at a lot of gyms around the country.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Jun 23, 2009, 1:10 PM
Post #27 of 40
(607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
shoo wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: In reply to: Edited to note: I work 40-50 hours a week designing cost-effectiveness and budgetary impact models for private health insurance firms, large employers, and the government. Still want to debate this? i work in managed care finance (i.e. - contracting with insurance companies) for children's hospital boston. yes, please humor me. Ha! This just got a whole lot more interesting. Gmburns2000 wrote: - regular gym w/ cardio equipment = insurance pays - climbing gym w/ cardio equipment = insurance pays - climbing gym w/o cardio equipment = insurance doesn't pay - regular gym w/o cardio equipment = insurance doesn't pay explain how climbing gyms are different from regular gyms regarding insurance reimbursement again? How many "regular gyms" do you know of that don't offer some kind of cardio equipment or program? I'm pretty sure that is what defines a "regular gym." In any case, I'm pretty sure that just proved my point. It's the cardio / general fitness component that matters, not the facility.
You did see the first statement in my very first post, didn't you?
Also, I used to belong to a gym, about 10 years ago in Coolidge Corner, that had no cardio equipment. It wasn't much of a gym: dirty, old equipment, the air was stale because the tiny windows barely opened, and when they did they were at ground level and opened to a parking lot where fumes wafted in everytime a car started or pulled in. It was also cheap, just right for me. And I didn't need cardio equipment because I was outside. So yes, they do exist (although this gym has long since disappeared).
In reply to: Gmburns2000 wrote: ps - last i knew payors paid for all of the injuries that can happen at a climbing gym. last i knew climbing was exercise. last i knew i gained weight from not climbing due to a sprained ankle this winter. last i knew i lost all the weight when i started climbing again. last i knew losing that weight was a good thing for me, healthwise - and yeah, my doctor was happy about that. I have no disagreement with any of the above. However, there are other possible pathways of causality here that I can think of. 1) Broken ankle reduces ALL activity, not just climbing. 2) Frustration/anxiety/mild depression from not being able to do regular activities causes significant change in lifestyle 3) It's winter. People gain weight in the winter. Shit happens. 4) And of course, the ankle reduces your climbing, which is your mainstay activity, and thus weight gain. I won't count that out.
I rode the bike in the gym all winter while I was hurt.
In reply to: I don't believe that in general, climbing has significant enough health benefits to warrant coverage from major insurers. I say this without any hard data, and thus it is well-informed opinion.
And yet they still pay for it.
In reply to: Gregg, I would be more than happy to discuss this outside of the forum. I'm actually very interested in this, and would be happy to hear your opinion. You know where to get me.
I'm not that interested. I just disagree with your assessment that climbing isn't worth covering. My doctor did some studying up on it when I first came to him to see if climbing was a good enough regiment for me. He felt it was the same as any other kind of gym, as long as I mixed in other activities, which you'd do with any other kind of gym anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Jun 23, 2009, 1:11 PM
Post #28 of 40
(606 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
Alpinisto wrote: gblauer wrote: That said, when I expensed cross country skis, they didn't accept that charge. They only reimburse: bikes, kayaks, home gym equpment, down hill skis etc. There was NO discussion about the list of exclusions, it was simply EXCLUDED. Very frustrating. Much as I'm enjoying the debate between Greg and shoo, I wanted to go back to this earlier reply. Is this correct that the company's health insurance plan will reimburse downhill skis but not XC skis??? If so, that's fukked up!!  P.S. Greg, nice blog.
Yeah, that's pretty weird. Both are good exercise but one is clearly better than the other.
P.S. - thanks dude 
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Jun 23, 2009, 1:26 PM
Post #29 of 40
(600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: In reply to: I don't believe that in general, climbing has significant enough health benefits to warrant coverage from major insurers. I say this without any hard data, and thus it is well-informed opinion. And yet they still pay for it.
No, they don't. They pay for the token workout equipment in the gym. They don't and won't pay for the climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Jun 23, 2009, 1:33 PM
Post #30 of 40
(591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
Maybe approach from the angle of an interesting physical activity like rock climbing is likely to see you doing it more often thereby increasing the likelihood that you'll see improved health benefits from it.
Also enlighten HR about the competitive aspects of climbing (World Cup, USA Climbing comps, professional athletes, etc.) to show that it's a sport requiring fitness, strength, endurance, flexibility and all those other things that they're probably looking for.
Offer to take the HR boss to a climbing gym for first hand knowledge (have a good plan for a workout if you do).
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Jun 23, 2009, 1:38 PM
Post #31 of 40
(586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
And because that's the way the insurance company sees it, then it's right.
Idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
rainman0915
Jun 23, 2009, 1:51 PM
Post #32 of 40
(582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 11, 2008
Posts: 233
|
although i agree with you that you do not get more injuries from climbing then other sports, i would say that it has a MUCH higher death rate. there have only been a hand full of professional football players that have ever died from playing football, however climbers die all the time
|
|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
Jun 23, 2009, 2:01 PM
Post #33 of 40
(573 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
rainman0915 wrote: although i agree with you that you do not get more injuries from climbing then other sports, i would say that it has a MUCH higher death rate. there have only been a hand full of professional football players that have ever died from playing football, however climbers die all the time
Don't confuse rate with overall numbers. In terms of overall deaths fishing has more (source - Manswers). In terms of rate per hours there isn't much data. It is still riskier to drive to the crag than to be there.
|
|
|
|
|
SkierBrent55
Jun 23, 2009, 3:26 PM
Post #34 of 40
(553 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2009
Posts: 10
|
i agree it is more dangerous to drive there...
http://www.thonline.com/article.cfm?id=247526
they were going to go climb at devils lake
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Jun 23, 2009, 3:42 PM
Post #35 of 40
(546 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
shockabuku wrote: And because that's the way the insurance company sees it, then it's right.
No, but I just happen to agree with the insurance companies here. If I were an insurer, I would probably make the same decision, especially in absence of any good hard data.
Heh.
|
|
|
|
|
ncrockclimber
Jun 23, 2009, 4:09 PM
Post #36 of 40
(540 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2006
Posts: 286
|
Before I started my own company, my employer (a large corporation) offered a similar reimbursement. I assumed that I they might have an issue w/ a climbing gym, so I listed my gym as "Inner Peaks Fitness Center" as opposed to their real name, "Inner Peaks Climbing Center." No one asked questions and I got my money.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Jun 23, 2009, 4:41 PM
Post #37 of 40
(536 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
shoo wrote: shockabuku wrote: And because that's the way the insurance company sees it, then it's right. No, but I just happen to agree with the insurance companies here. If I were an insurer, I would probably make the same decision, especially in absence of any good hard data. Heh.
Okay, I apologize for the name calling.
That, above, is a more reasonable statement.
|
|
|
|
|
el_layclimber
Jun 23, 2009, 4:52 PM
Post #38 of 40
(530 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2006
Posts: 550
|
shoo wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: In reply to: I don't believe that in general, climbing has significant enough health benefits to warrant coverage from major insurers. I say this without any hard data, and thus it is well-informed opinion. And yet they still pay for it. No, they don't. They pay for the token workout equipment in the gym. They don't and won't pay for the climbing.
It's neither here nor there since the insurance companies don't care what I think, but what they should be looking at is the likelihood that someone will build a healthy lifestyle around a given activity. There are people who do X sport and every moment of their lives is constructed around improvement, from nutrition to supplemental workouts. There are also people that may participate in the same sport and spend the rest of the time eating doughnuts and smoking cigarettes.
I doubt that climbing on its own leads to significant gains in health and life expectancy, but I do think that climbing can become a motivation to construct a healthy lifestyle around.
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Jun 23, 2009, 5:01 PM
Post #39 of 40
(526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
That's an argument I have considered. However, of the people that would actually built their healthier lifestyle around climbing, how many of them would built a similarly healthy lifestyle around another activity if rock climbing was not available?
|
|
|
|
|
lostcause
Jun 23, 2009, 7:31 PM
Post #40 of 40
(498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 118
|
I sent a letter back and did use some of the points made by folks here including the number of calories burned per hour of climbing and examples of workouts that can be used in a rock gym. I’m not sure how to interpret the calories burned info though because it seems very high to me, but may impress someone unfamiliar with the activity anyway.
Examples taken from an internet site (www.caloriesperhour.com):
Rock Climbing 823 calories for 165 lb person (my weight) in 1 hour
Weight Lifting moderate pace 225 calories
Weight Lifting vigorous pace 445 calories
Jogging 5 mph 599 calories
Stationary bicycle vigorous 786 calories
Hatha yoga 187 calories
High impact aerobics 524 calories
The discussion on the insurance aspects are also interesting since my employer is large enough they are self insured. I'd guess they follow the mainstream insurance companies closely but might not.
Anyway they are reviewing it. We'll see. Even if they turn it down no big deal because I'd of joined the gym anyway and I'll just use the reimbursement on something else later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
