Posted on 10/11/2007 2:35:03 AM PDT by tlb
I have seen companies that were in layoff modes create all kinds of new rules, such as "No parking withing 500' of the building", etc. simply to lower morale and increase turnover and voluntary early retirements and resignations.
Chubbies will be next.
Somebody has to pay for all that 'free' health care so many people seem to want.
What about homosexual employees and promiscuous heterosexual employees who have lifestyles with higher health risk factors than chaste non married persons or faithful married persons?
How much more will they have to pay if they are gay?
The whole insurance game is based on risks. If I get auto insurance and have tickets for reckless driving on my driving record - I will pay higher premiums. If my home is old and has bad wiring - I will pay higher homeowners insurance.
It is all about risk. If I go out and buy health/major medical insurance on my own (outside of my employer’s plan), my weight DOES affect the premiums charged. No doubt that my excess weight makes am a bigger risk (no pun intended) to the insurance company.
Smoking (regardless of your beliefs on the subject) DOES present a high risk to your health. I have no problem with a surcharge if you smoke (just like there is for being overweight in private insurance).
And yes, I realize that part of the purpose of group health insurance is to help spread the risk. But how much should be carried by those who live a more healthy lifestyle?
If the employees who smoke don’t like the surcharge - they are free to obtain private insurance...
The entire goal of insurance is to insure the healthy, those that may never be diseased, and the those that may become diseased.....
The slippery slope begins by the slow segregation and demonetization of bad habits and will eventually envelop those that have a predisposition (family history) of disease.
LOL! Unfortunately, pointing out such facts can be risky, as in getting you fired for making a protected class of people feel uncomfortable.
I live in a state that requires insurance to drive legally, why do I have to pay for ' uninsured drivers insurance '?
Smoking (regardless of your beliefs on the subject) DOES present a high risk to your health.
(regardless of your beliefs on the subject) DOES present a high risk to your health; as if just living in smog congested city doesn't? I'm sorry, your sense of authority over me just don't cut it: (regardless of your beliefs on the subject), its hard to respect your belief when you stomp on mine right off.
see post #23
see post #23
was a referal to alot of other high risks, “(regardless of your beliefs on the subject)”
(s)
I would like to charge more if:
do you own guns? (guns are a health issue)
do you recycle? (the environment is a health issue)
do you listen to talk radio? (conservative radio is a stress health issue)
do you drive a car or use the bus? (driving a car is a health issue)
Are you married with children? (families are a health issue, employees with no life or distractions help the business.)
Did you submit your DNA test?
(/s)
“mamm you are under arrest for public obesity.”
what next? the fashion police with arrest powers?
(keep in mind this is nany state at work people will be arrested for looking too good)
How about the “illegal consumption” pushed by envirowackos? (that could be a health risk...)
perhaps the sun sentinal should have an alternative lifestyle tax. They were the ones attacking the mayor for his opposition to sexual activity in public bathrooms!
A lot of people who lead healthy lifestyles visit the doctor at least once a month. When they feel the slightest cold coming they're on the hot-line making an appointment. Then they are constantly eating $800 prescriptions of antibiotics as if they were vitamins. Stress disorders are a huge load on insurance.
Maybe costs should be based upon usage, many of the hypochondriac's out there are living "healthy lifestyles".
A slippery slope created by Lawyers, emptying the "Big Tobacco" deep pockets.
It's sorta like paying for Auto Insurance until you file a claim, and then you become un-insurable (not literally, but your rates go through the roof).
People do NOT realize where this is headed, and the cross-subsidization of others who choose not to pay for Medical Insurance, coupled with those who have been promised a "medical care right under the Constitution" (to be paid for by someone else via taxing the crap out of 'em), is furtherance of the socilaist agenda, pure and simple.
Sure they can, AND continue to pay the companys insurance also.
I am not allowed to get the money back from my company that is paid for health insurance, mine OR theirs.
So if I go out and buy private insurance I am now paying for two insurance policies.
Great!
If I paid for Medical Insurance my entire life, smoked all throughout that period, and now, as a baby boomer, I'm reaching the age where medical problems DO occur due to aging (not including the smoking), NOW, after all those DECADES of paying my way, I am denied coverage because the government says I am a RISK, and I am FORCED to pay for sex deviates (AIDS), women of child-bearing age (PRE-NATAL and NATAL care), fatasses (over-eaters annonymous/irresponsible lifestyle), risk takers (sky-divers, bungee jumpers, motorcyclists), alchohol abusers, drug abusers, etc., etc.?
Where is the fairness here? Sounds like ex-post facto (changes after-the-fact) to the rules, whereby when you become a "risk", you are now denied the benefits you have subsidized all along.
I'll pay my own way, take the risks I deem acceptable, and YOU do the same. Your Liberal-guilt is not something you should satisfy with MY money!
What insurance company is involved here?
Is this just the foot-in-the-door?
but wait there is more!...
it is a GUARANTEED funded program they seek!
just like schip, if the cigrattee tax is not enough, it will MANDATE cuts in other areas.
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.