Fat employees taxed extra for health care

NikkiDerrig386

Woman's Helath magazine stated that Alabama and North Carolina will add an extra tax fee (to the health insurance) for fat state employees. Do you agree?

Hermit4Hire

They also are trying to add a health tax to fast food. I would be in the "agree" column for that anyways. I have to provide my own health insurance and I had to pass a physical to prove I wasn't "high risk" or I would have to pay more. If I was a smoker, I would have to pay more for insurance. Much like car insurance, if you crash alot or get many tickets, it shold cost you more than the person who doesn't. It's an industry that turns billions of dollars every year.

Serenifly

I agree ...

cymills

I agree.

Elokyn

They also are trying to add a health tax to fast food. I would be in the "agree" column for that anyways. I have to provide my own health insurance and I had to pass a physical to prove I wasn't "high risk" or I would have to pay more. If I was a smoker, I would have to pay more for insurance. Much like car insurance, if you crash alot or get many tickets, it shold cost you more than the person who doesn't. It's an industry that turns billions of dollars every year.

You said what I was thinking but couldn't put to words. I would have to say agree.

imarlett

I don't agree. If you are obese, a smoker, etc, your medical insurance will go up anyway. This extra tax is not the right way to motivate people to be healthier. Give them a deduction if they lose weight, quit smoking etc.

TheMaidOfAstolat

I don't agree. If you are obese, a smoker, etc, your medical insurance will go up anyway. This extra tax is not the right way to motivate people to be healthier. Give them a deduction if they lose weight, quit smoking etc.

First of all I agree with the OP...they should be taxed.

But as to this...should people who have never smoked, don't drink, are not overweight not receive deductions? Or should their insurance be lowered?

Lparault

I absolutely agree! I woud be a hypocryte if I didn't. For years I said that smoker's should pay more for healthcare than I did (back when I was thin and smoke free) Now that I'm heavy (and smoke free), I've been turned down, twice for life insurance, even when all my blood work was normal. When people put themselves in higher risk catergories, they should pay more. It is different if a person has a condition they didn't create.

I agree with the tax on fast food as well. In part because one of the reasons people eat so much of it is because it's quick, easy and really doesn't cost that much more to eat it. If the cost goes up, people will think twice about consuming so many meals that are already calorie laden, fat-saturated and health-deficient,much less "Super-Sizing" them.

aippolito1

I agree. Eating right in this day and age is not foreign. We have tv shows dedicated just to fitness (hello, Biggest Loser?) and being healthy so it's not ignorance. So I think it's safe to say we all "know better" and should receive consequences for bad behavior - that's life.

mommared53

I disagree. Who's standards are going to be used to decide who's fat and who's not?

jerren

Yes and no.

I'll try to keep this short and simple.

There are many people who take advantage of the company provided health insurance to get gastric bypass/lap band surgeries. And then they continue to be out up to 6 weeks and sometimes longer. Their absence makes their fellow employees have to pick up their slack and sometimes they are forced to do mandatory overtime. And we aren't even talking about the other ailments associated with being over weight.

My boss didn't want to extend my lunch so i could attend an exercise class twice a week. My response to her hesitant attitude was that I could be out on FMLA due to my high blood pressure, diabetes, and high cholestorol. I also could go and cost the company thousands in medical bills for getting the gastric/lap band surgery.

She quickly approved my request.

Not to mention, I've seen a lot of these same people go out of long periods of time and then not fulfill their end of keeping up with the lap band refills. So not only did the go out for a long time, and cost the company thousands, but they also still aren't living a healthier lifestyle.

Some sort of fat tax or fat penalty would make people think twice before muching down 2 whoppers for lunch.

And on the other hand...

I think rather than penalize these people, how about the company spend some money to bring in exercise facilities? I'd even be willing to pay for access. my company actually does have a yoga class that I pay to attend. I beleive in the long run, it would not only save the company money, but it would also make their employees healthier, thus lowering all of the insurance claim payouts.

Another problem with imposing a "fat tax" would have to be violating some sort of civil/constitutional right. First it would be fat people, then it be minorities because "they all have diabetes" and so on...

So much for keeping it short.

Hermit4Hire

I don't agree. If you are obese, a smoker, etc, your medical insurance will go up anyway. This extra tax is not the right way to motivate people to be healthier. Give them a deduction if they lose weight, quit smoking etc.

This is not always true. Being self employed, insurance is dictated through a massive "group plan" for all self employed in the area, thus giving all those enrolled a "decent" rate. My insurance goes up every year because the cost of health care rises, where a large portion of the cost is associated with obesity. Using this logic, shouldn't I get a greater deduction? (I've been to the doctor once over the last 12 years but since inception of the plan my cost has gone up over $130 month from the original cost).

LittleSpy

I tend to agree.

I'm currently a benefits specialist for a state agency in South Carolina and our insurance company has imposed a fee for tobacco users (not just smokers) this year. Health insurance companies are going to cover costs & increase profits somehow. And I'd rather it be by increasing the rates for people who choose to do something blatantly unhealthy than for the rates to increase across the board. That being said, I think it's perfectly fine for people to choose to smoke or dip or whatever. But it IS a choice. And if you don't want to pay more for your health insurance, you really *can* quit (I quit 2.5 years ago).

The problem I have with it, though, is I don't understand where a line can/should be drawn. Tobacco users and very overweight people are easy targets. But what about illegal drug users? Heavy drinkers? Folks who don't wear seat belts in moving vehicles? Such a grey area.

lessertess

Most insurance already has a higher premium for smokers. They pay a higher premium because smoking has been linked to significant health issues and to a higher rate of health issues.

At some point, I've speculated that companies will also begin charging higher premiums for participants who are obese. Same issue--obesity is linked to a higher risk of health issues. This is the first I've heard of a higher tax but I've been expecting a lot of these kinds of things in response to the health bill. The government is going to have to come up with some way to manage costs......

Not sure how I feel about this yet. On one hand, it seems fair as a HUGE majority of obesity is preventable or can corrected with proper diet and exercise. In other words, it is controllable or a choice. However, there are cases where it has nothing to do with choice and for many it's lack of knowledge.

I think before I can completely support it there would need to be better education and public programs to teach proper nutrition and healthy lifestyle options.

And I agree with others it will be difficult to determine where we will draw the line. Who determines the definition of obese. what about other "risk" categories? Genetic testing? Racial profiling?

It's a very complicated issue......

NikkiDerrig386

I am in the yes and no category:

If these so called (state) eyployers contributed something and made changes then yes they should. If they provide (mandatory) nutrition and health education, programs, discounts on gyms or provid their own gym, and added more foods to a cafe than "salad bar", then yes. In addition, it change the BMI to 40 rather than 30. I am a size 4 and my waist is 26-17 inches, 30 seems way too thin to be "obese". If they agreed to all of this than yes. Why should I work my butt off and have to pay for the lifestyle of others? When it comes to money people begin to think twice about their choices!!

NikkiDerrig386

I am in the yes and no category:

If these so called (state) eyployers contributed something and made changes then yes they should. If they provide (mandatory) nutrition and health education, programs, discounts on gyms or provid their own gym, and added more foods to a cafe than "salad bar", then yes. In addition, it change the BMI to 40 rather than 30. I am a size 4 and my waist is 26-17 inches, 30 seems way too thin to be "obese". If they agreed to all of this than yes. Why should I work my butt off and have to pay for the lifestyle of others? When it comes to money people begin to think twice about their choices!!

*26-27

MTGirl

I disagree. Who's standards are going to be used to decide who's fat and who's not?

I have to side with Mamared. I was initially for the "fat tax" on insurance, but who determines what standard to use? Do you use BMI where a super fit person with a high muscle mass is considered obese? Plus, what about those of us with thyroid conditions - medically verified. Are we exempt from the fat tax? For some of us, it's out of our control if it's caused by a medical condition. I would definately be on the side of taxing fast food, sugary sodas, candy bars, and alcohol. If you want to indulge in unhealthy stuff - then you pay a tax that goes toward health care funding. On the other hand, if it gets out of control then beef could be taxed. Or cheese or peanutbutter - if sugary things should be taxed then high fat foods should also, but what if it is heart healthy fat - olive oil?? This could get out of control really quick!

LittleSpy

I am in the yes and no category:

If these so called (state) eyployers contributed something and made changes then yes they should. If they provide (mandatory) nutrition and health education, programs, discounts on gyms or provid their own gym, and added more foods to a cafe than "salad bar", then yes. In addition, it change the BMI to 40 rather than 30. I am a size 4 and my waist is 26-17 inches, 30 seems way too thin to be "obese". If they agreed to all of this than yes. Why should I work my butt off and have to pay for the lifestyle of others? When it comes to money people begin to think twice about their choices!!

If all they're using to determine "obesity" is a BMI chart then I can't agree. :noway: The BMI is widely accepted as BS because of so much variation in muscle mass from person to person.

For example, I'm 5'4" and weigh 202 pounds. That sounds incredibly obese according to a BMI chart... but I have a 32 inch waist which is smaller than many women my height who are 40 pounds lighter than me and are not obese according to the BMI.

leavinglasvegas

I'm going to agree with this. Especially for state workers!

The whole thing just makes sense to me, but I see the concern with where do you draw the line. As long as there is adequate info and resources for people to make the choice to lose weight, this would be a good idea for everyone.

As far as how do you determine who is overweight, I think health should be looked at overall, not just weight. I think weightloss has become synonymous for healthy lately. Just because someone loses weight doesn't mean they are healthy. Especially depending on how they go about losing the weight! So to start with, doctors need to educate their patients better, people need to be able to trust and respect and depend on their doctors, and dieticians need to be in high demand as well as fitness professionals. (And that stuff should be covered.) O, and if the government would stop letting big business run our food market, this wouldn't be a problem to begin with. If our nation begins to value the lives of its people, its people will thrive and be of value to its nation. JMHO

sandara

If they are going to tax obesity because it is a condition that can be controlled are they going to tax anyone with a condition that can be controlled? To name a few, high chloresterol, high blood pressure, alcoholism, diabetes all can be controlled to some degree but that doesn't mean that people with these conditions are doing all they can to control it. If your going to tax one then you have to be fair across the board in my opinion. It's just not always cut and dry. How can you decide who has made the proper effort and who hasn't? And who gets to make those guidelines? Are you going to tax the person with Osteoperosis because they didn't take calcium and do prevention in their younger years?

LuckyLeprechaun

disagree. The government has too much control in my life already. Legislating morality is such a slippery slope. Government needs to be reduced, much more so than my waistline. My obesity is my business. I'll die sooner, so I am the one experiencing the consequences of my choices.

If the government is so intent on reducing costs, we could start by arresting and then removing all the criminals who are walking our streets and using government-paid resources illegally. The pressure put on our government funded resources by illegal immigration makes health care costs for obesity pale in comparison.

NikkiDerrig386

disagree. The government has too much control in my life already. Legislating morality is such a slippery slope. Government needs to be reduced, much more so than my waistline. My obesity is my business. I'll die sooner, so I am the one experiencing the consequences of my choices.

If the government is so intent on reducing costs, we could start by arresting and then removing all the criminals who are walking our streets and using government-paid resources illegally. The pressure put on our government funded resources by illegal immigration makes health care costs for obesity pale in comparison.

One, it is actually proven that people who are obese live longer. So that is using much more resources to keep obese people alive (not sure why but medications might have something to do with it bc they are on so many). It is not just about the lbs. There are so many medical conditions that goes with obesity that can prevented, if not taken away completely, with a healthy diet and exercise alone.

Two, criminals walking our streets doesn't cost us nearly as much as incarcerated criminals. Our taxes pay for their food, clothes, INTERNET, rehabilitation programs etc.

LittleSpy

disagree. The government has too much control in my life already. Legislating morality is such a slippery slope. Government needs to be reduced, much more so than my waistline. My obesity is my business. I'll die sooner, so I am the one experiencing the consequences of my choices.

Stop the bus.
Let it be clear the government is NOT making this decision.
The PRIVATE health insurance companies are increasing the premiums for their overweight/obese customers. The way you're talking I would've pegged you to be more in favor of the free market doing what it does.

lilmissy2

I'm lucky enough to have never lived somewhere where I had to pay for my own healthcare!

That said, I think it depends entirely on how they are measuring it. If they are saying BMI > 35 pays more then fine, because it's unlikely to be healthy for anyone to be above this. But if it's that everyone that is overweight pays it then I don't think it's fair. There are a lot of people out there that have healthy habits and are genetically predisposed to be a bit on the heavier side. For them, eating the small amount they would need to eat to shed the kilos is actually not healthy. Why should people who eat healthily and exercise (regardless of weight) pay more than skinny people who don't do these things. You don't have to be thin to be healthy. I guess my point is that there isn't really a fair way to measure how unhealthy someone is by their weight.

SimonLondon

Wouldn't something like this also encourage very poor eating habits?

I have spent the last few months reading a ton of information about what to eat etc etc. If someone is faced with big hikes in the insurance I am sure there would be a surge of people who then diet or eat almost nothing to get back under.

For low income families it isn't a choice because they can't afford the choice. They have one option only and that is to lose weight fast. Can it be anything but a bad thing?

LuckyLeprechaun

disagree. The government has too much control in my life already. Legislating morality is such a slippery slope. Government needs to be reduced, much more so than my waistline. My obesity is my business. I'll die sooner, so I am the one experiencing the consequences of my choices.

Stop the bus.
Let it be clear the government is NOT making this decision.
The PRIVATE health insurance companies are increasing the premiums for their overweight/obese customers. The way you're talking I would've pegged you to be more in favor of the free market doing what it does.

I'm very much in favor of the free market doing what it will... I do think that is the best way for our capitalistic society to thrive. The OP indicated this was being enacted by two different states to affect their employees. I disagree with that idea because I predict it would spread like wildfire. In the beginning, Social Security was supposed to be: 1. voluntary, and 2. controlled by the private individuals that chose to participate in it. You see how it is now, there is nothing voluntary about it. I foresee the same happening if an insurance company could charge for obesity.

LittleSpy

I'm very much in favor of the free market doing what it will... I do think that is the best way for our capitalistic society to thrive. The OP indicated this was being enacted by two different states to affect their employees. I disagree with that idea because I predict it would spread like wildfire. In the beginning, Social Security was supposed to be: 1. voluntary, and 2. controlled by the private individuals that chose to participate in it. You see how it is now, there is nothing voluntary about it. I foresee the same happening if an insurance company could charge for obesity.

I'm afraid you misunderstand.
It affects state employees because their employee insurance programs are enacting the premium increase. This is the same as a private insurance company increasing their customer rates.

I'm a benefits specialist for a state agency.

LuckyLeprechaun

I'm lucky enough to have never lived somewhere where I had to pay for my own healthcare!

well of course you have. It's just not billed separately from your other taxation. But the costs for all the healthcare that is given are embedded in the taxation levels of each country. There is no free lunch....anything provided to a country's citizens is paid for by the taxation that the citizens contribute.


a favorite quote of mine comes from one Ms. Thatcher:

"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money."

KatWood

I do think we need to be accountable for our own health, but that being said I would question what guidelines would be used to categorize someone as fat?

I live in Canada where in general we don't pay for our health care (well I guess we do in a sense through our taxes).
What I think might work better is making people pay for the conequences of their poor decisions when those consequences occur. For instance, if someone chooses not to wear a helmet and gets into an accident should tax payers really foot the bill for his/her medical expenses? Similarly, what if a smoker is diagnosed with lung cancer or an obese person has a heart attack? For me to support this though there would have to be strong evidence of cause and effect which I know can be difficult in some cases.

CasperO

So if a state does it to reduce their healthcare costs to help them balance the budget, then it's bad. But if a corporation does it so they increase profits, then it's good. Right now I have Aetna, and if they want to charge me more for riding a motorcycle that'll be cool. But if I get a job working for the state and they do the same thing, then that's Socialism, and it's bad. Hmmm,,,,,,,

What if the state's health insurance carrier is Aetna, would if be Ok for them to do it then? :huh:

There are other boards for the spewing of "conservative" propaganda. If this gets political the thread will get locked, thank god.


I agree with it with one caveat - it should be based on assumed health risks, not just "obesity" and certainly not on BMI. I'm 5'8" tall and weight 205 pounds. My BMI is well over 30 and I am "obese". I have a little waist & defined abs, my bodyfat is at 13%. My BP is 110/60 and my resting pulse 55. Obviously I'm quite healthy, and I'm heavy because of a heavy build and a lot of time in the weightroom. But according to the chart,,,

If you smoke, you're choosing to assume more health risk and we can expect you have higher health care costs - so let the marketplace work and let the buyer pay for what they get - whether they're on a state employees program or on a private plan. My $.o2.

metalpalace

I don't know what road is the best road to take but in general people who do not care about their health who are in fact bankrupting our entire economy, not just health care, should compensate the rest of us some how. We are not sustainable economically the way we are now and I think everyone knows that. A HUGE chunk of that is due to general poor health by life style CHOICES most of us are making.