Posted on 09/10/2007 5:46:53 AM PDT by Hydroshock
I’m sure there will be lawsuits.
The problem is, the medical community keeps lowering the bar for blood pressure and cholesterol numbers, so that more and more people fall into the *high* category, who were OK before.
They’ll eventually just set the standard so low that NO ONE will be able to comply, we’ll all be *needing* medication to get the numbers down, and penalized if they don’t comply.
Nice gravy train for the pharm companies.
You got it. There are multitudes of behaviors and habits that could be considered “health risks”.
This is the danger of this idea. Even those not participating in supposed health risks can become ill too.
How about cell phone risks, riding motorcycles, climbing rocks, vegetarianism, dieters that take pills etc.
Coffee has many healthful anti-oxidents in it and may reduce the risk of cancer.
When they go after homosexuals....get back with me.
Considering how universal coffee drinking is, I’m sure that will trump any negative effects. Besides, rob coffee drinkers of their coffee in the morning and things get ugly. I’ve seen what friends go through without their morning fix.
“Try proposing that sex deviates or drug users paying more and you’ll be charged with a “hate crime” !”
A large percentage of these companies already test for drugs. I you’re using illegal drugs they don’t raise your premium, they fire you.
And if that caffeine is having detrimental health effects then it would make some sense as in the context of this thread. But keep in mind, the insurance companies aren’t “going after” cigarettes, they are going after people unhealthy because of cigarettes. Those people can continue to smoke if they so choose.
If your recreational habits extend farther than time in the gym (Mandatory time in the gym) or sedate walking and bird watching (in approved safe areas), look out, that list will get longer...
LOL! Let's not hold our breaths.
Carolyn
I can see lawsuits demanding what the justification for these seemingly arbitrary surcharges is. If they can’t substantiate it then its discrimination.
“Skiers, Rock Climbers, Off-Roaders, Shooters, and all the rest: Get ready.”
If you try to buy medical or life insurance privately, items like this (not sure about these exact ones) are already taken into account. Why shouldn’t they be when it’s employer provided?
How do they test for AIDS or sex deviancy?
You posted:Skiers, Rock Climbers, Off-Roaders, Shooters, and all the rest: Get ready.
If your recreational habits extend farther than time in the gym (Mandatory time in the gym) or sedate walking and bird watching (in approved safe areas), look out, that list will get longer...
***
Insurance of all kinds should be de-linked to employment. What started out as a benefit offered by some employers has come to be considered a right by employees. That should never have happened. Stop the group plans, give the employee the money employers now pay for insurance and let them decide whether and how much insurance to buy for themselves. Perhaps even consider requiring the purchase of insurance as we do for car insurance.
As for the amount of premiums, insurance companies use actuarial tables to determine risk and length of life applying various factors. Let the market control premiums based upon these factors. Perhaps there are insurance companies who do not feel as though smoking or obesity creates any additional risk. Smokers and the obese should get their insurance through those companies.
I am sure you are right.
Consider that employers are not allowed to use any screening test for employment that has a "disparate impact" on women and minorities [adversely affecting their chance of being hired] unless they can demonstrate that it is absolutely necessary to do so.
It's not exactly a secret that more women and minorities (Asians excepted) have problems with weight control. So this penalty for excess weight has a disparate impact on them. Far more blacks have blood pressure problems than other groups. Again, disparate impact. And some minority groups smoke more than whites.
Once the lawyers figure this out, they are going to have a field day. Even if the courts won't extend the disparate impact concept to health insurance, lawyers will embarrass companies into stopping a program that they will claim targets the lowest paid workers.
I’ve read plenty of literature that demonstrates that most non-white people groups do NOT deal with the white flour white sugar Western diet very well. They tend to have real problems like obesity and diabetes when going on they typical American diet. For some American Indian tribes,the diabetes rate is about 40%.
What is not mandatory is prohibited.
Well, all I have to say is that if they pull this with my health insurance it’s time to talk to a lawyer regarding health threats of homosexuality versus smoking.
You’re not paying for anyone’s unhealthy habits any more than you are paying for their hangnails or their missed day of work because the electricity went out.
The greatest burden on the health care system is the fascination with all their marvelous toys, their burdensome layers of bureaucracy and the overbuiding of facilities in the most desirable places to die.
Building, my “l” key eludes me.
The solution is to sever the link between employment and benefits.
Pay me my whole salary in cash and let me buy my healthcare and fund my retirement on pre-tax dollars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.