The debate "Goverment should pay for houses to have an indoor gym as part as a health living law" was started by
April 30, 2015, 12:19 am.
11 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 23 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
PsychDave posted 1 argument, Getmurked posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
raz, project_mayhem, PsychDave, Getmurked, ibrahim, transfanboy, scooter6381, denno27 and 3 visitors agree.
pretty_twin, Sosocratese, mdavis1309, Shahmir, jonatron5, ufufugh, Zach_Hill, skyfrancois_97, sdiop, jj_jaim, SalonY and 12 visitors disagree.
it wouldnt work, as not everyone lives in an apartment complex, or a complex where a gym can just be built
an alternative could be enforcing lower membership pricings, and backing more gyms to be fundes across the U.S.
An alternative would be subsidized gyms with lower membership, or membership that gets cheaper the more you use it, averaged monthly. If you signed up annually, and use it once a month or less, it is $30-50 per month. If you use it weekly, it gets cut in half. If you use it 2 or more times a week, you get your membership back. This way it encourages people to visit the gym and get healthier. If they aren't using it, the gym bureaus even from the membership fees and it doesn't cost the taxpayers anything. If they are, the cost of refunding the membership fees could come from the health care savings that would come from people getting in better shape.