Posted on 07/29/2007 10:08:11 AM PDT by BGHater
To hold down medical costs, some firms are penalizing workers who are overweight or don't meet health guidelines.
Looking for new ways to trim the fat and boost workers' health, some employers are starting to make overweight employees pay if they don't slim down.
Others, citing growing medical costs tied to obesity, are offering fit workers lucrative incentives that shave thousands of dollars a year off healthcare premiums.
In one of the boldest moves yet, an Indiana-based hospital chain last month said it decided on the stick rather than the carrot. Starting in 2009, Clarian Health Partners will charge employees as much as $30 every two weeks unless they meet weight, cholesterol and blood-pressure guidelines that the company deems healthy.
"At first, I was mad when I thought I would be charged $30 for being overweight," said Courtney Jackson, 28, a customer service representative at Clarian. "But when I found out it was going to be broken into segments — like just $10 for being overweight — it sounded better."
Jackson said she was going to try to slim down before the plan took effect. "If I still have weight to lose when it starts," she said, "I'll deserve to pay the $10."
Employers are getting serious about penalizing workers "because they've run out of other options" said Joe Marlowe, senior vice president at Aon Consulting, a national benefits consulting firm.
Locally, the Los Angeles Unified School District, which has 90,000 employees, is researching financial incentives and disincentives to help bring down healthcare costs.
UnitedHealthcare, a nationwide insurer, introduced a plan this month that, for a typical family, includes a $5,000 yearly deductible that can be reduced to $1,000 if an employee isn't obese and doesn't smoke.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Yes, yes they will ask for DNA if they have not done so already.
Is that chart for men or women?
Well put. It seems like the level of the nanny state control with punishment for those who won't or just cannot comply is upon us.
Employers and insurance companies working together to destroy this country. Many lawsuits for fat cat attorneys. I wonder if the fatties in the halls of Congress will be forced to comply?
Maybe someday people will push back. Doubtful though.
“I wonder if the fatties in the halls of Congress will be forced to comply?”
I wonder if Teddy will support policy like this?
A short legged man of 6’ height will weigh much more than a long legged man of 6’ height. This throws things off alot. Also, a man with very large hands and feet and head will weigh much more than one with small hands and feet and head. These things need to be considered.
Most of the time though, when someone claims they are overwheight because of muscle, they are wrong. It’s merely rationalizing and lying to one’s self.
Actually part of happened before then with the removal of alcohol from company ‘after hours’ events and functions.
Of course Teddy will support this policy. After all, laws are for the little people. Duh!
Most fudgepackers with AIDS probably meet those guidelines.
I know what you mean... I'm 5' 10"... I could probably stand to lose a few pounds these days, but during my freshman year I used to box in the 152 pound weight class. Back in those days there wasn't much fat on me, and it took a lot of time in the steam room to sweat off the weight. Now, I look at that chart and see that the weight I struggled to get to is on the top side of the "healthy" weight. We're being overrun by idiots and do-gooders.
Yeah, he will support it. The rules don't apply to the elite. He has lifetime healthcare off of the US citizens, fat and thin ones.
We would have to find a way to force them to comply or we quit paying for their healthcare.
We should anyway, they should have to buy their own.
However, any of the “universal health care” schemes will likely make such practices illegal.
Thus private health care, regardless of how exemplary it may be, will be proclaimed to be -- under the color of law -- organized crime. When in fact government is the mastery of organized crime.
So many things that are illegal for JOHN SMITH to do are not illegal for John Smith to do.
This insult to privacy and personal rights is only made possible because of the socialist setup we have right now. If private sexual practices are outside the bounds of what an employer can control of an employee’s behavior, so is what he eats or how much, what exercise he does and when. If we want to allow employers to sanction obese employees, because the employer pays the health insurance costs, then we must allow the employer to have a say in any other behavior that affects health insurance costs: diet, exercise, hobbies, driving practices, where he lives, etc.
The only solution is to insist that employees carry their own insurance, paid for out of their own pocket, and that the employers just pay the worker their full gross pay, that is the pay plus the existing insurance subsidy. That takes health care out of the realm of the employer, where it never belonged and restores it to the person who is insured and the person who submits the claims.
We must never allow anyone, government or employer, to provide a function that we need and should pay for ourselves. This is just as true for health insurance as it is for saving for retirement.
Here’s a test for all of you: If you think fining prople for their weight and living habits is ok, raise your hand. Now, everyone who raised their hand is, at heart, a big government loving liberal and can’t deny it, although I am sure the ones who think this way will send me many comments screaming their denial.
Oops, post 53 prople=people.
Like... you didn’t see this coming...?
Beat me to it. I'll go ya' one better:
What about your 'hobbies'?
Do you skydive on weekends? Ski? Pilot a private plane?
More 'high risk' behavior.
Maybe someday people will push back. Doubtful though.
Any system that contains an irrational element will eventually compound itself until the system collapses.
It stops functioning altogether or hobbles along in varying states of chaos.
In either case the system can no longer produce the anywhere near the intended result set at the outset.
Kind of makes you wonder what the intended result or outcome was intended at the outset.
I mean, I know what the founding fathers meant when they put it into the words of the constitution.
What the politicians and bureaucrats are doing today is not at all what the authors of the constitution meant.
Begging the question: what is the intent of more recent and present-day politicians and bureaucrats?
To control people and business via oppression and enslavement.
So many things that are illegal for JOHN SMITH to do are not illegal for John Smith to do.
Most recent and present-day politicians and bureaucrats in their official capacities do what they do with JOHN SMITH the fiction in mind... Not John Smith their constituent/employer in mind, as the founders meant it to be.
Here’s a test for all of you: If you think fining prople for their weight and living habits is ok, raise your hand.
I don't know what you mean by "ok". In all honesty, a business can fire a person for any reason or no reason given at all which would hinge on the terms originally set forth in the employer-employee contract/agreement regarding firing. Freedom to disassociate as per their agreement.
If you bring government into it mandating something of the employer or employee then a person that advocated that is a supporter of big government -- regardless of what political party they affiliate with, IMO.
I don’t know about shorter people, but the BMI chart for tall people is absolutely idiotic and clearly wrong: 6’2 163# is NOT “Healthy”.
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.