cost

New Tool Helps Diagnose the Financial Pain of Cancer

June 20, 2014 By Jeffrey Strain 4 Comments

Simply getting a diagnosis of cancer would send the stress level of most people through the roof. It’s not news that anybody visiting a doctor wants to hear. The stress of the disease, however, is not the only stress which comes with a positive diagnosis. Another huge stress factor which comes with the disease is financial in nature.

To better help those diagnosed with cancer and their families, a group of University of Chicago cancer specialists have come up with a new tool which can help determine how much “financial toxicity” a cancer patient is able to tolerate. The new tool is called COST (COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity) and was published in the July issue of the journal Cancer.

Healthcare is expensive, but those dealing with cancer are hit even harder by the cost. Cancer care costs are rising at a faster clip than healthcare overall, and the cost of new cancer drugs is increasing even more quickly than the overall cost of cancer care. In other words, when it comes to getting a sickness, cancer ends up being an expensive disease to treat, and that cost is rising more quickly than other healthcare costs.

Financial hardships aren’t limited to those who have cancer. Even those who recover fully to become cancer-free continue to have to deal with financial issues of the disease. As many as 30% of those who survive cancer and become cancer-free, still aren’t able to work, or can only work in a decreased capacity after they recover, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Then there are the extra annual medical expenses survivors incur. Men who have had cancer will end up paying approximately $4,000 more a year in annual medical expenses than those who haven’t had the disease. It’s not much better for women, who can expect to pay an additional $3,300 a year as a cancer survivor.

The COST tool was developed to help doctors better discuss with their patients the financial burdens which come with being diagnosed with cancer, something few doctors do these days. By providing a tool which helps predict how a patient will react to the financial burdens that come with cancer, it’ll give doctors an initial step to allow them to begin the discussion. For example, knowing how patients are feeling about the financial aspects of the disease, doctors may be able to offer less expensive alternatives which still meet their treatment needs.

The tool consists of 11 statements to help elicit the information the doctors need to determine the financial risk the patient has. Those who score high for financial toxicity can be referred to support and counseling to better address the stress and their needs.

The initial study consisted of 155 patients. The researchers expected to find a correlation between income and financial hardship, but they didn’t. Instead, they found one between less education and financial stress. Since the first study was small, bigger studies need to be done to confirm these findings.

(Photo courtesy of 401k)

The Financial Challenge of Jury Duty

April 21, 2008 By Jennifer Derrick 17 Comments

This week I got sucked into jury duty. The last time I did it I was very young and didn’t really care about giving up a whole day to sit in a courtroom for just a few dollars. Heck, at that age they could have given me anything and I would have thought it a windfall. I actually enjoyed that first time. I thought it was great fun to sit in a courtroom and listen to the lawyers and watch the people. At the time I couldn’t see why so many people go to great lengths to get out of jury duty. Now that I’m older, however, I see the problem.

Jury service, while a responsibility that goes along with citizenship in this country, simply does not pay enough to make it tolerable for most people. Consider this an open letter to our state governments to increase the pay for jury duty.

Jury duty, in and of itself, is not a hardship. It’s not difficult to go sit in a courtroom for a couple of days, hear a case and render a verdict. It’s even pretty interesting to watch our court system in action. Unless you really adore your job, a day of jury duty is probably a welcome respite from the cube farm. The problem comes in when you need to be at your job in order to make money and jury duty takes you away from that.

The good news is that most states have laws that prohibit an employer from firing you because you are on jury duty. So at least you’re guaranteed to have a job to come back to. However, the bad news is that there are no laws that require an employer to pay you for the time you’re serving. For some salaried employees this is less of a problem as some companies will just pay their salaried employees for the days they serve. Or you can opt to take vacation or sick leave and still get paid for the time you serve. Inconvenient and annoying? Yes. But at least you can still make money. But most hourly jobs will only pay for hours worked. Jury duty means you aren’t working so you aren’t getting paid. The self employed are in the same boat. If you’re not working, you’re not bringing money in.

This wouldn’t be a problem if jury service paid a reasonable wage. However, it simply doesn’t. In my state, the going rate is $10 per day for an eight hour day. In many states it isn’t much better. The highest pay I found is in Arkansas, which pays $50 per day. Some fortunate few states also pay for mileage, but not mine. Where I live, $10 per day barely pays for my gas to get to the courthouse, as the courthouse is on the other side of the county. I don’t know when jury pay was last considered here, but clearly it hasn’t taken the increase in gas prices into account.

At $10 per day, is it any wonder that so many people are kicking and screaming and lying to get out of jury service? People that need to be at work to make money can’t afford to be on jury duty. Even if you’re lucky enough to live in Arkansas and get $50 per day, an eight hour day of service is netting you a whopping $6.25 per hour. Any job pays more than this. My teenage baby sitting gigs paid better than this. Even if you’re making minimum wage you’re raking it in compared to serving on a jury. Being self employed, all I could think the whole time I was sitting there was how much money I was losing by not being at my desk.

While I was waiting to be called, I saw people begging and almost crying to be released from service. Some had true hardships that had nothing to do with money (caring for a special needs child, for example) and some simply wanted to avoid the inconvenience and get back to their regularly scheduled daily lives, but most wanted out because they literally couldn’t afford to be there. While I was upset about the amount of money I was losing that day, only a very lengthy trial would be a true hardship for me because I can afford to miss one or two days. I have savings and, if need be, I can stay up late at night to make up the work I’m missing. Most don’t have that option. Those that couldn’t get out spent the day angry and surly.

Is this the way we really want our court system to function? Do we want our juries composed of people who are angry and resentful at having to serve? Do we want jury boxes full of people who can’t give the case their full attention because they’re wondering how they’re going to pay their bills now that they’re missing work? If you were on trial for something, would you be comforted by the fact that those twelve jurors in the box are looking at you as the reason they can’t be at work, making the money the need to feed their families? Would you want your case decided by people who are only there because they’ll be thrown in jail if they leave? By people who are exhausted because, after leaving the courthouse, they worked the late shift so they could be paid? I don’t think so. I’d much rather have a jury of engaged people who want to be there and who are rested and refreshed.

Jury duty is a huge responsibility and one we should all take seriously. The problem is that it doesn’t seem that the state values our contribution very much. For something that is such a large responsibility, literally life and death in some cases, you would think that the compensation would be commensurate. If you’re deciding someone’s fate, isn’t that worth at least the same amount as flipping a burger at McDonald’s? At the very least, just duty should pay minimum wage and (ideally) mileage. I would argue that it’s worth much more than that, though. However, minimum wage is at least a starting point and far better than what’s offered today.

Perhaps if jury duty paid a decent wage, people would be excited to serve. They would see it as the honor and responsibility it was intended to be, rather than an inconvenience that must be suffered. They would be engaged in the case rather than worrying about making ends meet. There might be less lying to get out of jury duty, and less abuse of court employees. Defendants could feel confident that their fate was in the hands of people who were really listening, rather than those who felt trapped.

I understand that states must work within limited budgets, but it seems to me that paying adequately for a responsibility of this magnitude justifies cutting down wasteful government spending in order to free up more money for the jury pool. (For example, did the DOT people who came to repair our road last week really have to leave their truck idling for an hour and a half while they did the work? The gas they wasted was ridiculous.) Jury duty is a responsibility and a jury that is engaged, awake and capable of rendering an informed verdict is our right as citizens. The current jury pay scale honors neither of these precepts.

Image courtesy of beavela

Is the Conversion to Digital TV an Economic Stimulus Package in Disguise?

April 14, 2008 By Jennifer Derrick 12 Comments

Even though I don’t watch a lot of television I, like everyone else, have had to look into converting my TV to digital so I can continue to receive my local networks after February 2009. While I don’t watch much, I do like to be able to see the news or PBS every now and then. Other than that, I make no secret of my dislike for television. The conversion to DTV hasn’t made me feel any warmer toward the medium. In the process of looking into this digital transition, I’ve come to the conclusion that the conversion to DTV just might be an economic stimulus package in disguise.

Why do I think this? Because it’s a program that is designed to get people to spend money. Not only that, but it’s a program to get people to spend money unnecessarily. Oh, I understand the rationale behind the conversion to DTV. Free up channels for emergency purposes, better picture, more channels available in each market, etc. I get that. But I’ve been asking myself over and over lately is it really necessary, or is this just something trumped up to get us all to go out and buy new televisions and equipment when our old stuff was functioning just fine?

We have three choices when it comes to DTV, and I’ve looked into them all. The first is to keep your old set but get a converter box. This is the most cost effective option and the one I chose to pursue. I signed up for the government’s coupon program and got a coupon for $40 off a $60 (the most basic) converter box. But I still had to pay $20 out of pocket that I wouldn’t have spent at all if this conversion weren’t happening.

In addition to the box, we’ve all been told that we also need a digital or HD antenna. This is where the word “rip off” goes screaming through my mind. All the electronics stores have “HD Antennas,” ranging in price from $15 to over $100 (or more if you want a swanky, huge roof mount contraption that can get signals from three states away). However, I talked to a good friend who is in charge of the DTV conversion at my local TV station and he told me that any antenna will receive digital signals. Even the old huge antennas from the 1950’s will work. He says that he sees the same antennas for sale now in the stores that he saw ten years ago except now they’re packaged as HD. In most cases, he says, the older ones work better than the new ones. To test him, I dragged out my twenty year old antenna from the attic and hooked it up. Sure enough, digital TV appeared. Back to the store went the $40 “HD Antenna.” (Don’t get me started on the aesthetics of antennas. Didn’t we spend years doing everything we could to get rid of the rabbit ears and roof mount antennas and here we are, sticking them back up?)

The second option is to get cable or satellite. If you have either, you don’t need to do anything as the cable and satellite signals will arrive in your home pre-converted to DTV. So unless you want to watch your local channels when the cable is out, you don’t have to do anything. For many people, this is the cheapest option since they already have cable or satellite. But for those who don’t and choose to go this route, subscribing adds another expense to their monthly budget just to receive what they were getting for free. And you still won’t be able to watch anything if the cable goes out unless you buy a converter box or a digital-ready TV and get an antenna, driving up the costs further.

The third option is to buy a digital-ready TV with the converter already built in. This can get expensive, especially if you already have a TV that was working fine that you didn’t need to replace. And you’ll still need to buy an antenna if you don’t have one (or drag your old one out and dust it off).

For those of us who do our research, are careful consumers, and are relatively tech savvy, we can get out of this for about $20 (use the coupon to get the converter box and use an old antenna). You’ll spend a bit more if you didn’t get the coupon and don’t have an antenna lying around somewhere. What disturbs me is that there are others who will spend way more than necessary because they don’t know any better, or because they see this as a sanctioned opportunity to spend a ton of money on television equipment and upgraded cable services, all in the name of “need.”

It doesn’t help that the stores are full of misinformation. Whether it’s intentional so they can sell more, I’m not certain and I don’t want to accuse. But, if a store can sell you on a new TV or sign you up for cable instead of pitching the converter box, isn’t that in their interest? At the store I went to, the converter boxes were high up on an out of the way display rack at the back of the TV section. You’d have to know about them and really hunt for them in order to find one. It seems that some unethical stores and salespeople are going to take advantage of the uninformed.

As an example, I spent Saturday trawling the television aisle at a major electronics retailer and eavesdropping on some sales tactics. An older couple was asking what they would need to transition to DTV. The converter box option was never mentioned. The sales guy tried to sell them a new TV, an antenna, and a subscription to satellite, claiming that all three were necessary. They said they didn’t want to subscribe to satellite because they didn’t need all the channels and he told them they had no choice. Fortunately, they didn’t buy anything. I only hope they went home and did some more research.

Another couple was bemoaning the fact that now that they had a digital-ready TV, they still needed an antenna. The husband said to the wife how sad it was that they couldn’t use their old antenna. This as they perused the racks and selected a $100 “HD Antenna.” Another couple was asking about satellite service. The salesman told them that to get digital programming, they not only had to subscribe, but also pay extra for the HD package. Which, of course, isn’t true. They would only need the basic service to receive digital TV. The HD package is only necessary if they want to watch HD programming. Two different animals, but they didn’t know that. So off they went to sign up. I hope they at least have an HD-capable television or they’re really stuck. For most it’s the confusion, whether intentional or not, that will lead to excess spending.

The other end of this spectrum are those that see this as their once in a lifetime opportunity to do some sanctioned blowing of money. One couple bought a 52″ HD-ready plasma TV, subscribed to satellite service and got the HD package, and bought a $400 antenna. The husband said to the wife, “Well, since we have to do this, we might as well go all the way.” Total bill: $6,000 (plus a new monthly charge for satellite), financed on their newly-approved store credit card. Yikes. If this is what you want, fine, but just to blow money because you’ve been told to do something about transitioning to DTV seems a bit extreme to me. Plenty of others were carting out new TV’s, new antennas, and new satellite receivers, all in the name of the DTV transition. The government has spoken, they seem to feel, and it’s time to answer the spending call. Skip the cheap converter box and go whole hog!

It’s hard not to feel manipulated and angered by the whole process. First, there is the government telling us that this will happen whether we want it or not and that we “have to” do something about it. Urgently. In fact, we should have done it yesterday. We must get out and spend to get something that has always been free. Then there are the salespeople who try to sell you anything in the store and, in many cases, are no more informed than the average consumer. Some don’t even have any idea of what’s really required to make this transition. Then there’s the differing terminology. HDTV. DTV. High def. HD capable. HD ready. And on it goes. It’s no wonder that some people buy everything in sight just to be safe.

(As a side note, what happens to the discarded TV’s? The landfills are going to explode with perfectly serviceable but unwanted TV’s. Sure, some people will recycle and others like me will go on using their olds sets until they die. But many, many people will take the easy road and dump their old sets. While not purely a financial concern, it’s an environmental nightmare that I wonder if anyone considered when they came up with this brilliant plan.)

Of course, the net result from all of this is great for the economy. People spend more than they would have if television had remained as-is. They’re out dropping hundreds (in some cases, thousands) on televisions, converter boxes, and antennas. Some are also rushing to subscribe to cable and satellite. This has to be a shot in the arm for the economy, just as the rebate checks are intended to be (and I’m sure a lot of rebate checks are going to be spent on DTV equipment, so double score for the government). And that doesn’t count the additional government jobs that were created to oversee this transition, the advertising, and the administrative expenses that are required to make the transition. I’d love to see the projected spending for this entire transition, both consumer and government, but I was unable to find any numbers. Maybe when the dust settles we’ll know exactly how much this whole thing stimulated the economy. I can’t see it being insignificant. A stimulus package disguised as a digital transition. Someone really has us snowed.

Of course there is a fourth option and it’s one I’m seriously considering. Just pull the plug and forget it entirely. Declare that you won’t be manipulated by the government and unethical stores who see this as a chance to talk you into buying more stuff you don’t need. Find something else to do with your time. Get the news from the Internet and then go outside. Refuse to participate in this “economic stimulus” plan disguised as a necessary transition. Spend your money on something more productive, like a good hobby or book. Ask yourself if any of it is really necessary, or if this is your chance to engage in a TV free life.

Image courtesy of .koltregaskes

Grocery Bags Should Be Free!

April 11, 2008 By Shannon Christman 40 Comments

The boxes were gone. My three-year-old was crestfallen. He had looked forward to his regular job of returning the plastic bags from last week’s grocery shopping trip to the recycling boxes just inside the store. But the boxes are no longer there; an employee told us that the store had discontinued its recycling.

“You know what that’s about,” my husband said cynically. “They want you to buy the reusable bags. The plastic bags won’t be available longer.” Racks of canvas bags for $1.00 apiece had recently appeared in front of the checkout counters. The signs above the bags proclaim the environmentally responsible aspect of using them, a statement that seems a bit hypocritical coming from a store that has just stopped recycling its plastic bags.

I confess that I am not particularly environmentally conscious. Many of the things I do are good for the environment (at least compared to my neighbors), but I do them because they save me money, not because they are good for the environment. Saving money and decreasing waste motivates me; an abstract call to save the environment does not. For this reason, I am willing to return bags to the store to recycle them, but I am not willing to buy grocery bags when I can get them for free. I suspect that most people are like me, though they are not as likely to admit it. (For all the talk I hear about saving the environment, I have not yet seen anyone actually using those canvas bags at the checkout.)

If stores really care about the environment, why don’t they give reusable bags to their customers? Yes, they are initially more expensive than paper or plastic, but if the canvas bags are as sturdy as they are advertised to be, they should be less expensive over time. If stores are concerned that customers won’t bring back “free” bags, perhaps they could consider giving canvas only to customers who have spent a certain amount over a period of time, as a loyalty reward. The cost of the bags could be taken out of the profit already made on those customers, and customers would be more likely to value (and use) something they believe they have earned.

Assuming my husband is right, as he usually is in such matters, we will soon have to bring our own bags to grocery stores. I, for one, will resist buying grocery bags for as long as possible. I would be more likely to bring my own canvas tote bags in awkward and assorted sizes (designed for carrying books and beach gear) or try some suggestions for getting a grip on shopping bags. Forcing me (and budget-minded customers like me) to buy bags would cause ill will toward stores and a potential loss of significant profit over a minor issue. Plus, charging customers for reusable bags may actually decrease public sympathy for environmental causes. Providing an opportunity to reuse grocery bags is a good thing; passing the costs on to customers is not.

Image courtesy of jek in the box

How Living an Uncluttered Life Can Cost You

February 9, 2008 By Ann Hartter 15 Comments

Mmm.. Organizational shows: watch and drool. Suddenly you find yourself grasped by the impulse to tidy your tiny world. Most of us realize that a a cluttered life can cost us money, but how can an uncluttered home put a hole in your purse?

Organization is a window into a world, a world where everything a person owns can be seen clearly. How many of us use something just because we have it, and replace that thing just because we’re used to having it? An uncluttered person can become a creature of habit, and this habit can sometimes lead into price ruts. How many of our routine shopping and spending habits are actually bad shopping and spending habits?

Something an extremely organized home has that others don’t (necessarily) is organizational solutions. I have noticed that in the tidy, picked-up offices I’ve been in have a remarkable abundance of decorative baskets, buckets, bins, and shelves. I’ve noticed most relatively cluttered people also have a pack-rat streak, and instead of beautiful, striking-white cookie-cutter baskets across their shelves, they have coffee cans, cigar boxes, oatmeal canisters, popcorn tins, and other impromptu storage stacked on the windowsill.

How much does organizational storage cost? Well, compared to the recycled options, too much. People who are remarkably uncluttered may also purge their closets twice a year, tossing out unworn clothes as the seasons change. Unfortunately, this makes space that can be filled by shopping. If you haven’t got the room to put a new shirt, you’re less likely to buy one. Similarly, a tidy home may have empty nooks to fill with collectibles or knick knacks. Will the desire to fill up a space for visual ascetic ever plateau? For many, it does not.

A clean home can be hazardous to your health, and is easy to get to from a tidy home. See dust? Take it down! The speed at which cleaners are gone through add up in dollars. Unfortunately, sometimes cleaners aren’t protecting you like you think they are: “over 75 different studies link chemicals ubiquitous in cleaning products to health problems” (reported 7/24/07 from NPR). Another negative consequence of a perpetually sanitized home is lowered immunity and allergy development. This is old news for some, as the NYT in 2000 reported “Common household germs and dust, it seems, play a vital role in the development of immune systems.” The medical costs of managing allergies, combating and preventing illness due to low immunity, and treatment for problems arising from chemical exposure is more than anyone is brave enough to tally.

Beyond costs for your mind or your body, living an uncluttered life can affect your psyche. Organization is a pressure. On TV, it is preferred, but in real life, organization can lead to obsession. Not all tidy people have obsessive tendencies, but if you are comfortable cluttered, you probably don’t. I’m not saying that people who tend to be tidy are obsessive-compulsive; no, that is a more serious illness. But if you grew up with adamantly tidy parents, you can understand where the quest to remain uncluttered is a power struggle.

Just as many function surrounded by clutter, others are at their optimum performance under routine that includes tidiness. If you’re paying someone else to ensure the harmony of your tidy home, or if you take full responsibility for it yourself, it is having an effect on your financial situation. It really pays off to research what it is you are subjecting yourself to for the sake of your health and finances. If nothing else fails, moderation is the key. Learn what you can live with for comfort, what you can deal with for health and safety, and what you really value for your budget. Being organized and uncluttered (words used in this article with synonymy) may seem like the most responsible thing, but remember to remain in a realistic sphere of who you are and what you need.

Image courtesy of Melilotus

There’s No Such Thing as Free Exercise

January 10, 2008 By Jennifer Derrick 13 Comments

Many years ago, I started walking, then running, for fitness. I needed to exercise more and everyone told me how walking/running was such great exercise and, best of all, it was free! All I had to do, I was told, was put on a pair of sneakers that I already had and go. It wouldn’t cost me anything to get out there. Unlike joining a gym or a pool, there were no fees to pay. Unlike certain sports, I didn’t need any special equipment. Great, I thought. Free suits me. Well, several years and many miles down the road, this supposedly free exercise has turned into a monster that could easily consume my budget if I let it.

It started with a little thing. I needed better shoes. Once I started walking more, my old ones quickly wore out and my feet were hurting. So, off to the shoe store I went. I quickly realized that an adequate pair of shoes would cost about $40 and a pair that made my feet feel really good cost $80 or more. Well, OK, I thought, since it’s only this one time and this is my feet we’re talking about. Right. A few months and many miles later, I needed new shoes again. It became a never ending cycle. Walk and run more, buy more shoes. It got to where I was shelling out about $240/year for good shoes.

Running more led to a need for new clothes. The longer I spent out there, the less my old shorts, sweats, and t-shirts were up to the job. They didn’t allow moisture to escape, so when I sweated, they stuck all over me. And chafed. Plus they weren’t up to the kind of wear I was putting on them so they wore out too fast. So, off to the store for better clothes I went. The choices were staggering. Sports bras were a must, as were moisture wicking shirts and shorts. Technical fabrics, they were called. I needed pants and long sleeves when it got cold, and gloves and earmuffs, too. Then there were technical hats to keep the sweat and sun out of my eyes. And don’t forget the moisture wicking socks to prevent blisters. Over those first few months I think I spent around $200 getting outfitted. It would have been more, but I hunted aggressively for sales and discounts.

I now realized that this so-called free sport was getting expensive, but I was having fun and getting in shape, so it was OK. But I was bored outside alone and wanted something to keep me company and set the beat. An iPod fit the bill. This was in the days before the cheaper Shuffle model, so I spent another $200 to keep me entertained while running.

As if running wasn’t becoming expensive enough, a friend invited me to enter a race. That first race wasn’t expensive, just $20 for the race fee and I got a free shirt! Finally, something about this sport that was free. I didn’t win (didn’t expect to) but I had so much fun I immediately wanted to sign up for more races. So I did. Charity races, fun runs, big events; if it was nearby I entered it. My times were getting better but I was spending more money on race fees. It had become a form of entertainment. Some people went to the movies, I went to races. Of course, all this racing meant more training, more shoes, and more clothes. And more music for the iPod. Since my times were improving, I wanted a way to keep track while I was training. Out went $50 for a decent stopwatch. This free sport was really racking it up now.

I was having fun, but I wanted to keep challenging myself, pushing myself to go further and faster. Then came the day when I discovered marathons, half marathons, and ultra events. Whoops. If I thought I was spending money before, that was nothing. My first marathon cost almost $100 to enter. There aren’t many endurance races where I live, so racing became an excuse to travel. We started planning vacations around races. So now I’m racing and traveling. My last ultra event cost $250 to enter and about $1000 in vacation costs. Yikes. And my other costs went up as well. The long distances meant I was going through shoes twice as fast. I needed more clothes, otherwise I was doing laundry every day. I needed guidance so I bought some books on marathoning (my library had none). I discovered I needed fuel to keep me going, thus I added energy bars and sports drinks to the budget. I also learned about anti-chafing gels and bought those to keep the blisters down. There were injuries and medical costs, lots of Band-Aids, ACE bandages, and athletic tape.

Then came the big mamma expense. To keep training through all sorts of weather, access to a treadmill was highly desirable. I had a choice: Pay $60/month to join the local gym, or just buy one of the darn things and be done with it. Fortunately, I was able to buy a great treadmill used from someone who had made a New Year’s resolution and not stuck to it. The treadmill had become his plant stand and he was happy to let me have it. For $350. Since it would have cost $1,000 new I was happy, but still. Free sport, my hind foot! At least I haven’t seen fit to invest in a GPS device to measure my distances and monitor my pace. Yet.

So that’s where I am today. Shelling out big bucks for a supposedly free sport. Admittedly the racing and traveling isn’t necessary to stay in shape, but it adds to the fun and camaraderie of the sport. It keeps me going when I might otherwise quit. Despite all the money I’ve shelled out, there have been some cost benefits, as well. Unless I get injured, my medical costs have dropped. I don’t get sick as often, so I have fewer doctor’s visits overall. And my better overall health should pay off as I get older. I’m cheaper to insure. I’ve made new friends so I’m more social and happy which pays off health wise, too. And the running lowers my stress level and is way cheaper than therapy for working through problems. I’m also more confident and willing to take on things I wouldn’t have before, including changing careers and asking for more money. If you factor in the intangibles running has given me, I may be close to breaking even.

The moral of this story is this: There is no free exercise. Everything, even walking and running, has some cost associated with it. The more you enjoy something and are good at it, the more you’re going to put into it, both physically and financially. But you’ll also get a lot of joy and other benefits from it. If you made a New Year’s resolution to exercise more, go ahead and brace yourself for higher expenses the further along the path you go.

Image courtesy of Stronghold