Fat employees taxed extra for health care

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.

robbienjill

I live in NC. Yes, I agree. People need to start moving more (if they are able to) and making better food choices and getting thier kids involved:)

havingitall

Thank God I am Canadian. My health care is covered through taxes. No citizen or permanent resident is turned down for medical care.

CasperO

And here we go,,, :bigsmile:

metalpalace

And here we go,,, :bigsmile:

LoL my thoughts exactly

MariSama44

Taxing fat pepole or smokers is un-American. We have the right to choose what we do with our bodies in this country and its not the states or the federal government's business what we do to ourselves in the privacy of our own homes. I am against a moral tax on anything.

You can tax pizza, soda, Mcdonalds, whatever you want. People will still eat it (or find other terrible things to eat) because it will still be cheaper and faster than eating the right food. People will still eat it because our country glorifieds quick ways out, fast and easy fixes that can only be attained through the drive thru. People will still eat it because in our completely out-of-control capitalist system, advertising is king and theres no way to get away from looking at atleast 10 pictures of a KFC double down a day in TV and other advertising. People will still eat it because unhealthy cuisine is ingrained in our society. We Identify with pizza and hot dogs, apple pie, pecan pie, coca cola, fried chicken, french fries...I mean, you cant argue that there's definently a sociological issue with how we identify ourselves as americans and how food is percieved in our society.

Putting a bandaid over a deep wound will not do any good. Just haphazardly taxing everything thats "bad" is not good for our country. People need to wake up and decide for themselves that they have to start being healthier on their own, the last thing they need is the G-Man telling them what they should and shouldn't eat. It just does not work that way. Think about your own weight loss...you couldnt lose the weight untill you made the right descision for yourself, and only on your own. The government cannot be responcible on any level for making sure we take care of ourselves, it has to be a value that's adopted into the social norm of our country.

Now what the government CAN do is STOP SUBSIDIZING CORN AND MEAT. Why not subsidize independant farms to help grow more healthy vegetables of ALL kinds, not just corn? The real problem behind obesity is processed foods, which stem from corn being in EVERYTHING because its so friggin cheap, and meat being at every meal when it really shouldnt be. Get rid of Sodexo and Monsanto and all these other huge companies that lobby to control what we eat.


As for raising the cost of health insurance, that's a private company/organization, and I feel that its alright for prices to go up if people chose to put themselves at risk. Just like someone brought up with car insurance and accidents...if you seem prone to costing alot of money, yes your premiums should go up. But good behavior should be rewarded too. Taxing food unnessicarily is a negative reinforcement. Our country needs positive reinforcement to move on and create a new identity, one without unwholesome foods and rampant obesity. Survival of the fittest.

epoeraven

I agree - BUT....I think those that are currently overweight should get a "grace period" and help/guidance in order to have some time to fall into the not overweight area.

LittleSpy

I agree - BUT....I think those that are currently overweight should get a "grace period" and help/guidance in order to have some time to fall into the not overweight area.

In my opinion, state employees are being given ample time to lose weight in a healthy manner. They knew about this premium change nearly a year ago and the premium increase doesn't take effect until July 2011. They have 2 years to lose weight. I'm assuming here, but I'm sure they're also given guidance and education on how to be healthier as well. From what I read, NC workers with a BMI of 40.0 or lower get the discount on their premiums (yep, they're raising all the premiums, but if you're not morbidly obese, you get a "discount." While I don't agree with BMI being used as the judge, 40.0 is a very high bmi. I'm a good 50 pounds overweight (obese, according to bmi) and I'm still far below 40.0 on the BMI chart!

My state's employee insurance company raised the premiums for tobacco users this January. Tobacco users were given 7 months notice to quit. They also had (and have) full access to a very generous and fully funded tobacco-cessation program.

I wish there were more incentives for things like gym memberships and healthy lifestyles Though I guess the incentive is that you don't get penalized.

CasperO

Ok, you seem to know what you're talking about. Clarify please - we're not talking about a "Tax" per se - right?

State employees make a contribution to the cost of their health plan, just like most of us in the private sector do (my total for Medical - Vision - Dental on wife & I and 1 kid in college is $145 a week),,, so they're raising the amount of the employee's contribution, but discounting those costs back off for the folks with a healthy BMI. Correct?

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Sports cars are involved in more accidents, so they cost more to insure. Don't like it, drive a Taurus. Big folks have higher healthcare costs, so they'll pay more for insurance. Don't like it, lose weight.,,,

lilmissy2

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."

Well obviously but we don't pay more tax than other countries to have it so it seems like we get a pretty good deal! Also we wouldn't be denied healthcare if we didn't work (and therefore didn't pay taxes).

LuckyLeprechaun

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.

If Aetna did this kind of thing to increase profits, I'd also disagree with that move. As another poster said, this seems to be a "moral tax", and I am against that sort of thing in general. I'd prefer the government to reduce spending, not increase revenue. This is based on my personal philosophies, most of which are based on a fiscally conservative platform. It's not propaganda, it's my opinion, which the OP asked for.

Generally, Mike decides to lock threads if they become rude or negative. The original poster asked for opinions, and I've given mine. If you disagree, that's cool- I'm not the kind of person who is mad if you disagree with me. I'm not going to sling an insult at anyone because they see things differently than I do. But I will explain my opinion if asked.