My Company HSA - Trimming The FAT(tys)

Event_Horizon975

i am a bit ambivalent about this one. The stark reality is overweight individuals cost employers more to insure so it could be argued that those employees should contribute more to the cost of their care. I view obesity a bit differently than say Multiple Sclerosis or Crohn's Disease as obesity is within our control (albeit controlling it isn't easy or fun). My preference would be to do what my employer did which was to not penalize those that lowered their BMI by a certain # of points in the last year... to allow people to correct their behavior and lose weight over time.

Ok....so incentives for things like: Gym memberships, dieticians, chiropractic visits, eating organic (how, I don't really know), eating raw foods, purchasing exercise equipment should somehow come into play to incentivize people. Offer discounts? HSA these items only? ??? Again, I don't have answers - but if healthy living is the topic at hand. They should perhaps promote it.

sixout

You've failed to state the "actual" terms of this new stuff. I'd be willing to bet they're not as bad as you're saying.

And it's not discrimination. It's a known fact that obese people cost everyone on a whole more in insurance, so why not have people that are out of shape pay more?

Event_Horizon975

I feel sorry for any men who are muscular

Oh wow!! I hadn't thought of that!!! Geez! It's such a crock.

Well that's kinda my point too, which is why I said BMI is such a fail. I know plenty of HUGE lifters who would actually show up as morbidly obese on some chart somewhere. It's pretty sad.

Slip the doc a C Note on the side to make the paperwork "right"..... LOL

TheSlorax

this is really ****ed up, but unfortunately, health care is a privilege and not a right in the US so they are completely legal in their decision to do this. it just goes to show what a broken system we have. god, that's depressing. sorry to hear this, hopefully it either won't go through or you can find a better company to work for (easier said than done, I know).

ldrosophila

i am a bit ambivalent about this one. The stark reality is overweight individuals cost employers more to insure so it could be argued that those employees should contribute more to the cost of their care. I view obesity a bit differently than say Multiple Sclerosis or Crohn's Disease as obesity is within our control (albeit controlling it isn't easy or fun). My preference would be to do what my employer did which was to not penalize those that lowered their BMI by a certain # of points in the last year... to allow people to correct their behavior and lose weight over time.

Just my own anecdotal evidence at 365lbs I was probably sick once or twice in two years of work. It was the older ones, the ones with children, or the ones who smoked who were always at the doctor. So how did I cost the company more?

If obesity is so "controllable" then why is there a 95% failure rate with general methods and an +75% failure rate with weight loss surgery? So if one knows that the rate of failure is so high then why should those be penalized when there is no real help?

Where is the evidence that BMI corresponds to overall health? In fact, in the elderly the ones with a lowered mortality are actually those in the overweight category compared to normal, obese, or underweight.

TheSlorax

You've failed to state the "actual" terms of this new stuff. I'd be willing to bet they're not as bad as you're saying.

And it's not discrimination. It's a known fact that obese people cost everyone on a whole more in insurance, so why not have people that are out of shape pay more?

I'm going to consider it discrimination until they apply the same rule to smokers, unless they have done so already. Smoking is a direct comparison because, like obesity, you are also putting yourself at a very high risk for health problems because of your habits. As for the argument that people with, say, cancer or cystic fibrosis should also pay a higher premium, for the most part they would not have caused these conditions by their lifestyles.

OP, what is the BMI cutoff for the new policy?

sixout

i am a bit ambivalent about this one. The stark reality is overweight individuals cost employers more to insure so it could be argued that those employees should contribute more to the cost of their care. I view obesity a bit differently than say Multiple Sclerosis or Crohn's Disease as obesity is within our control (albeit controlling it isn't easy or fun). My preference would be to do what my employer did which was to not penalize those that lowered their BMI by a certain # of points in the last year... to allow people to correct their behavior and lose weight over time.

If obesity is so "controllable" then why is there a 95% failure rate with general methods and an +75% failure rate with weight loss surgery? So if one knows that the rate of failure is so high then why should those be penalized when there is no real help?

Because people give up, that's why the failure rate is high. Tons of people lose weight consistently.

I'm going to consider it discrimination until they apply the same rule to smokers, unless they have done so already. Smoking is a direct comparison because, like obesity, you are also putting yourself at a very high risk for health problems because of your habits. As for the argument that people with, say, cancer or cystic fibrosis should also pay a higher premium, for the most part they would not have caused these conditions by their lifestyles.

OP, what is the BMI cutoff for the new policy?

Every insurance I've ever signed up for has had a higher premium for smokers than non-smokers.

madtownjeremy

You've failed to state the "actual" terms of this new stuff. I'd be willing to bet they're not as bad as you're saying.

And it's not discrimination. It's a known fact that obese people cost everyone on a whole more in insurance, so why not have people that are out of shape pay more?

Because basing obesity on BMI is a fundamentally flawed method. If they're going to play this game, they should at least use data other than BMI, like a bodyfat caliper reading or something.

Drunken_WarHero

ooOooOo serious topic is serious.

sixout

You've failed to state the "actual" terms of this new stuff. I'd be willing to bet they're not as bad as you're saying.

And it's not discrimination. It's a known fact that obese people cost everyone on a whole more in insurance, so why not have people that are out of shape pay more?

Because basing obesity on BMI is a fundamentally flawed method. If they're going to play this game, they should at least use data other than BMI, like a bodyfat caliper reading or something.

Most insurance companies recognize doctor analysis, and you can have a muscle/fat ratio done, and have your body fat % calculated to argue (and most likely get, if all is right in the reports) the lower rates, without having a lower BMI.

djeffreys10

this is really ****ed up, but unfortunately, health care is a privilege and not a right in the US so they are completely legal in their decision to do this. it just goes to show what a broken system we have. god, that's depressing. sorry to hear this, hopefully it either won't go through or you can find a better company to work for (easier said than done, I know).

I get tired of people thinking healthcare is a right. Since when do you have to right to someone elses time and talent? Healthcare is not just a magical box that you step into and BOOM, you are healthy. Doctors work their *kitten* off to get where they are, and they deserve to get paid. Nobody has a right to that persons hard work.

Likewise, it is the responsibility of the person utilizing the service to pay for it. Who else should pay? Me? No thanks, Jeff. I already have myself and my kids to take care of.

TheSlorax

i am a bit ambivalent about this one. The stark reality is overweight individuals cost employers more to insure so it could be argued that those employees should contribute more to the cost of their care. I view obesity a bit differently than say Multiple Sclerosis or Crohn's Disease as obesity is within our control (albeit controlling it isn't easy or fun). My preference would be to do what my employer did which was to not penalize those that lowered their BMI by a certain # of points in the last year... to allow people to correct their behavior and lose weight over time.

If obesity is so "controllable" then why is there a 95% failure rate with general methods and an +75% failure rate with weight loss surgery? So if one knows that the rate of failure is so high then why should those be penalized when there is no real help?

Because people give up, that's why the failure rate is high. Tons of people lose weight consistently.

I'm going to consider it discrimination until they apply the same rule to smokers, unless they have done so already. Smoking is a direct comparison because, like obesity, you are also putting yourself at a very high risk for health problems because of your habits. As for the argument that people with, say, cancer or cystic fibrosis should also pay a higher premium, for the most part they would not have caused these conditions by their lifestyles.

OP, what is the BMI cutoff for the new policy?

Every insurance I've ever signed up for has had a higher premium for smokers than non-smokers.

As it should be. I also don't disagree with the premium for an obese individual being higher (and this is coming from someone who is not quite out of the "obese" category of BMI). If the company is also revoking their contributions towards smoker's policies then I would not feel they were in the wrong. I completely understand that they may need to cut costs somewhere and this is the way they can do it thanks to our healthcare system. However, if they are still contributing to smokers' policies, then I feel there is a big ethical problem with the new rule.

TheSlorax

this is really ****ed up, but unfortunately, health care is a privilege and not a right in the US so they are completely legal in their decision to do this. it just goes to show what a broken system we have. god, that's depressing. sorry to hear this, hopefully it either won't go through or you can find a better company to work for (easier said than done, I know).

I get tired of people thinking healthcare is a right. Since when do you have to right to someone elses time and talent? Healthcare is not just a magical box that you step into and BOOM, you are healthy. Doctors work their *kitten* off to get where they are, and they deserve to get paid. Nobody has a right to that persons hard work.

Likewise, it is the responsibility of the person utilizing the service to pay for it. Who else should pay? Me? No thanks, Jeff. I already have myself and my kids to take care of.

What? Who said I didn't think doctors should get paid? I won't get too far into politics here, but I was thinking more along the lines that the government should pay the doctors instead of maybe financing a new war every couple years. I have no idea where you got that I think doctors should work for free.

Event_Horizon975

You've failed to state the "actual" terms of this new stuff. I'd be willing to bet they're not as bad as you're saying.

And it's not discrimination. It's a known fact that obese people cost everyone on a whole more in insurance, so why not have people that are out of shape pay more?

I'm going to consider it discrimination until they apply the same rule to smokers, unless they have done so already. Smoking is a direct comparison because, like obesity, you are also putting yourself at a very high risk for health problems because of your habits. As for the argument that people with, say, cancer or cystic fibrosis should also pay a higher premium, for the most part they would not have caused these conditions by their lifestyles.

OP, what is the BMI cutoff for the new policy?

Smokers almost always get hit on company HSA policies. They get docked $600 on our policy.

If I do not meet the health BMI requirements, I get docked $1500.

I have the details of what my company requires but do not feel I need to justify them to everyone here (not offending your response above).

The principle is my point. Not my company's BMI requirement which some may or may not feel is obtainable, etc.

madtownjeremy

I get tired of people thinking healthcare is a right. Since when do you have to right to someone elses time and talent? Healthcare is not just a magical box that you step into and BOOM, you are healthy. Doctors work their *kitten* off to get where they are, and they deserve to get paid. Nobody has a right to that persons hard work.

Likewise, it is the responsibility of the person utilizing the service to pay for it. Who else should pay? Me? No thanks, Jeff. I already have myself and my kids to take care of.

ldrosophila

This is why our system doesnt work for most (unless you can afford it) too many penalization.

The reality of it is the ones who cost us the most are the elderly, women of child bearing age, and the very young.

I dont blame companies though if you look at the amount the are paying in premiums you would be flabbergasted. Of course, they will find ways to cut costs and with the new Obummercare coming out companies can expect astronomical premiums.

I dont think it's right, but it is what it is until America figures out that universal is our only route to provide care to all her citizens or we continue down the same route companies drop insurance, hospitals go bankrupt, physicians are forced to sale their private practice, and you get to claim bankruptcy after your medical costs get out of control.

sixout

You've failed to state the "actual" terms of this new stuff. I'd be willing to bet they're not as bad as you're saying.

And it's not discrimination. It's a known fact that obese people cost everyone on a whole more in insurance, so why not have people that are out of shape pay more?

I'm going to consider it discrimination until they apply the same rule to smokers, unless they have done so already. Smoking is a direct comparison because, like obesity, you are also putting yourself at a very high risk for health problems because of your habits. As for the argument that people with, say, cancer or cystic fibrosis should also pay a higher premium, for the most part they would not have caused these conditions by their lifestyles.

OP, what is the BMI cutoff for the new policy?

Smokers almost always get hit on company HSA policies. They get docked $600 on our policy.

If I do not meet the health BMI requirements, I get docked $1500.

I have the details of what my company requires but do not feel I need to justify them to everyone here (not offending your response above).

The principle is my point. Not my company's BMI requirement which some may or may not feel is obtainable, etc.

So, I can only be left to believe that your company's requirements aren't that bad, and you're leaving out a lot because you want people on your side about hte principle.

What it comes down to is, obese people are less healthy. A healthy person shouldn't have to pay as much as an unhealthy person. Period.

And yes, there are ways around BMI being used.

Event_Horizon975

this is really ****ed up, but unfortunately, health care is a privilege and not a right in the US so they are completely legal in their decision to do this. it just goes to show what a broken system we have. god, that's depressing. sorry to hear this, hopefully it either won't go through or you can find a better company to work for (easier said than done, I know).

I get tired of people thinking healthcare is a right. Since when do you have to right to someone elses time and talent? Healthcare is not just a magical box that you step into and BOOM, you are healthy. Doctors work their *kitten* off to get where they are, and they deserve to get paid. Nobody has a right to that persons hard work.

Likewise, it is the responsibility of the person utilizing the service to pay for it. Who else should pay? Me? No thanks, Jeff. I already have myself and my kids to take care of.

OH, I pay! Trust me sir, I pay....to the tune of $8k this year (not including what I pay into my insurance plan pre-tax every month)

sixout

This is why our system doesnt work for most (unless you can afford it) too many penalization.

The reality of it is the ones who cost us the most are the elderly, women of child bearing age, and the very young.

I dont blame companies though if you look at the amount the are paying in premiums you would be flabbergasted. Of course, they will find ways to cut costs and with the new Obummercare coming out companies can expect astronomical premiums.

I dont think it's right, but it is what it is until America figures out that universal is our only route to provide care to all her citizens or we continue down the same route companies drop insurance, hospitals go bankrupt, physicians are forced to sale their private practice, and you get to claim bankruptcy after your medical costs get out of control.

I'd rather pay for my own healthcare than have universal. It shouldn't be my responsibiltiy to pay extra taxes to cover someone else that won't help themselves.

jlcrph

There is an ABUNDANCE of scientific evidence that obesity impacts blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol - high levels of which are DIRECTLY associated with a variety of chronic conditions and diseases. In the long term (over a period of years (not simply your three years) obese individuals drive up heath care costs. There is no way around that and it is a scary reality for this country.

The study you referenced about elderly overweight individuals living longest had several methodological flaws - primarily in determining which individuals to include or exclude in the study. For example, elderly people who pass away after a long period of fighting a disease will likely be thinner than they might have been had they died unexpectedly. That wasn't accounted for and that alone could significantly skew the results. The study also didn't take into account blood pressure, blood sugar, cholesterol, or even happiness/mobility, etc.. Sadly with obesity, the number of years spent living in poor health are increasing as well.