Fat employees taxed extra for health care

LuckyLeprechaun

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.,,,

This sounds like a reasonable argument. In the past, though, this tactic hasn't worked. Many different items have been taxed and regulated in order to attempt reducing their use. When I was a kid, my Dad was a smoker and he paid $1.25 for a pack of cigs. Nowadays, the taxes on cigs have skyrocketed, a pack of cigs is $7.00+ around here. But even with the drastic increase in cost, smokers continue to buy them. The only thing this has done is increased revenue for the govt., and I mentioned earlier I'd prefer the govt to reduce spending rather than increase revenue.

LittleSpy

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.,,,

Yes!! No TAX involved, just premium increases or premium discounts. The word "tax" is always used to create a bunch of ridiculous buzz. It's exactly like how my car insurance company gives me a discount for being a safe driver. It's just that the parameters for determining what a "safe driver" is are a little less controversial.

LittleSpy

I think what CasperO was pointing out, LuckyLeprechaun, is that the subject at hand is not political in nature, though you seem to have interpreted it that way. Whether or not a health insurance company offers discounts to certain people they deem as less of a risk (in the business sense of the word) has nothing to do with taxes or socialism or politics at all.

LuckyLeprechaun

Merriam-Webster.com
Main Entry: tax
Function: noun
1 a : a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes b : a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses
2 : a heavy demand


this is how I'm using the word, not to "create a bunch of ridiculous buzz" but to describe the proposal that was being discussed.

LittleSpy

Merriam-Webster.com
Main Entry: tax
Function: noun
1 a : a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes b : a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses
2 : a heavy demand


this is how I'm using the word, not to "create a bunch of ridiculous buzz" but to describe the proposal that was being discussed.

Yet still, the government has nothing to do with it.

Also, you only inferred I was insinuating you were the one creating the ridiculous buzz. I was not insinuating that at all.

LuckyLeprechaun

I think what CasperO was pointing out, LuckyLeprechaun, is that the subject at hand is not political in nature. Whether or not a health insurance company offers discounts to certain people they deem as less of a risk (in the business sense of the word) has nothing to do with taxes or socialism or politics at all.

I understand what you mean. However, I do think it has a lot to do with taxes and socialism. The concept of taxing those who cost us extra so that all the other members can be taken care of is very socialist in it's origins. The OP wasn't talking about discounts for those who are healthy, the proposal was to impose higher premiums on the obese. I'd be in favor all the way of discounts that encourage healthy behavior. I am against monetary penalties for the opposite.

LittleSpy

I think what CasperO was pointing out, LuckyLeprechaun, is that the subject at hand is not political in nature. Whether or not a health insurance company offers discounts to certain people they deem as less of a risk (in the business sense of the word) has nothing to do with taxes or socialism or politics at all.

I understand what you mean. However, I do think it has a lot to do with taxes and socialism. The concept of taxing those who cost us extra so that all the other members can be taken care of is very socialist in it's origins. The OP wasn't talking about discounts for those who are healthy, the proposal was to impose higher premiums on the obese. I'd be in favor all the way of discounts that encourage healthy behavior. I am against monetary penalties for the opposite.

Again, this is a problem with interpretation. They can impose pentalties on the morbidly obese, or they can increase the rates across the board & then give discounts to the "healthy." Either way you word it, it is ***exactly*** the same thing.

CasperO

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.,,,

This sounds like a reasonable argument. In the past, though, this tactic hasn't worked. Many different items have been taxed and regulated in order to attempt reducing their use. When I was a kid, my Dad was a smoker and he paid $1.25 for a pack of cigs. Nowadays, the taxes on cigs have skyrocketed, a pack of cigs is $7.00+ around here. But even with the drastic increase in cost, smokers continue to buy them. The only thing this has done is increased revenue for the govt., and I mentioned earlier I'd prefer the govt to reduce spending rather than increase revenue.

Well I was a young man my car insurance was very high, now it's lower. State Farm is socialist,,, well I'll be damned. That's it, I'm calling that lizard on TV... :huh:

LuckyLeprechaun

I think what CasperO was pointing out, LuckyLeprechaun, is that the subject at hand is not political in nature. Whether or not a health insurance company offers discounts to certain people they deem as less of a risk (in the business sense of the word) has nothing to do with taxes or socialism or politics at all.

I understand what you mean. However, I do think it has a lot to do with taxes and socialism. The concept of taxing those who cost us extra so that all the other members can be taken care of is very socialist in it's origins. The OP wasn't talking about discounts for those who are healthy, the proposal was to impose higher premiums on the obese. I'd be in favor all the way of discounts that encourage healthy behavior. I am against monetary penalties for the opposite.

Again, this is a problem with interpretation. They can impose pentalties on the morbidly obese, or they can increase the rates across the board & then give discounts to the "healthy." Either way you word it, it is ***exactly*** the same thing.

What if they didn't increase rates on everyone, but JUST gave the discounts to those who pass their "healthy" requirements?

LuckyLeprechaun

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.,,,

This sounds like a reasonable argument. In the past, though, this tactic hasn't worked. Many different items have been taxed and regulated in order to attempt reducing their use. When I was a kid, my Dad was a smoker and he paid $1.25 for a pack of cigs. Nowadays, the taxes on cigs have skyrocketed, a pack of cigs is $7.00+ around here. But even with the drastic increase in cost, smokers continue to buy them. The only thing this has done is increased revenue for the govt., and I mentioned earlier I'd prefer the govt to reduce spending rather than increase revenue.

Well I was a young man my car insurance was very high, now it's lower. State Farm is socialist,,, well I'll be damned. That's it, I'm calling that lizard on TV... :huh:

LOL the lizard charges too much! Call E-surance

LittleSpy

I think what CasperO was pointing out, LuckyLeprechaun, is that the subject at hand is not political in nature. Whether or not a health insurance company offers discounts to certain people they deem as less of a risk (in the business sense of the word) has nothing to do with taxes or socialism or politics at all.

I understand what you mean. However, I do think it has a lot to do with taxes and socialism. The concept of taxing those who cost us extra so that all the other members can be taken care of is very socialist in it's origins. The OP wasn't talking about discounts for those who are healthy, the proposal was to impose higher premiums on the obese. I'd be in favor all the way of discounts that encourage healthy behavior. I am against monetary penalties for the opposite.

Again, this is a problem with interpretation. They can impose pentalties on the morbidly obese, or they can increase the rates across the board & then give discounts to the "healthy." Either way you word it, it is ***exactly*** the same thing.

What if they didn't increase rates on everyone, but JUST gave the discounts to those who pass their "healthy" requirements?

These insurance companies are self-funded just like private insurance companies. That means they need to take in at least as much money as they pay out to exist (because they DON'T receive government or any other external funding). As a business, if the money you're paying out is increasing, cutting the amount of money you're taking in isn't possible.

Where exactly is the money to cover all of the customers' health expenses supposed to come from if not from the premiums?

Maybe they should ask the doctors and hospitals to charge less money.

CasperO

The insurance business is applied, for-profit professional socialism. Everybody pays into the "Heart attack" fund,,, most people don't have heart attacks, so they got screwed on the deal, a few folks do have heart attacks, and they get taken care of,,, and everybody gets to sleep at night knowing they're covered. It's what insurance is,,, it's how it works. The company just brokers the deals and handles the money and skims a little for costs/salaries/profits etc.

That's not an indictment of the system, it's not a value judgment, it's just the truth, it's what it is.

So - if you can reasonably predict that some people will have higher costs, you can reasonably charge them higher premiums,,, it's how the system works, whether you're insuring cars or fireworks factories or people.

LuckyLeprechaun

The part not included in that equation is the profit margin. If the insurance companies were non-profits, then their intake would match their output. But insurance companies are run for profit, of course. There is a lot of variability in the difference between premiums and costs. The amount of profit margin dictates how much the companies are keeping above and beyond what their operating expenses are. By offering a discount for achieving "healthy" endorsement, the insurance cos would be cutting into their profit margin, in the short term. However, over the course of time, the reduction in costs because of the healthy customers would pay back (in the form of saved costs) the ins cos, much more than they lost in the short term.

LittleSpy

The part not included in that equation is the profit margin. If the insurance companies were non-profits, then their intake would match their output. But insurance companies are run for profit, of course. There is a lot of variability in the difference between premiums and costs. The amount of profit margin dictates how much the companies are keeping above and beyond what their operating expenses are. By offering a discount for achieving "healthy" endorsement, the insurance cos would be cutting into their profit margin, in the short term. However, over the course of time, the reduction in costs because of the healthy customers would pay back (in the form of saved costs) the ins cos, much more than they lost in the short term.

1. Nonprofit businesses are regulated by the government.
2. Who should be the judge of what's to be considered excessive profit?
3. State insurance companies are not rolling in it. They have neither CEOs nor CFOs to make rich. (I would say mismanaging funds, however, is a valid possibility. That's just my personal opinion though)

A self-funded business is really no different than a self-funded individual. For example, if you converted your house to a solar powered system (vs using electricity/gas from the utility company), you'd save money in the long run. You'd be doing something great for the environment, too. Why haven't you done that yet?
I know I personally haven't done it because I don't have enough money, even if it would save me money in the long run.

Nich0le

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.

You would pay more if you were self insured for these items. What employers are saying is, if you CHOOSE to be fat you have to pay the additional cost to insure you. Having been under group plans and self insured in the past I completely agree. When you join a group there is no physical or anything to determine if you are insurable BUT if you go to buy your own the process is long and they always find a way to put a rider on something, previously broken bones, sinus problems, smoking etc so why not obesity.

This is one of many signs to come that our society is getting fatter and sicker, if you don't want to pay more then you need to take care of yourself!!!!!

cynthiaj777

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?

I agree. What about the healthy people? Should everyone CLAIM they did all these unhealthy things and get fat just to lose weight and say they quick smoking to get a credit? That's almost absurd.

CasperO

That's what I did. The 20 years I spent as an obese smoker? All a ruse,,, my way of 'sticking it to the man',,, I'm in better shape now, and any day I'm gonna cash in.

All part of my evil scheme,,, :devil:

Barneystinson

That's what I did. The 20 years I spent as an obese smoker? All a ruse,,, my way of 'sticking it to the man',,, I'm in better shape now, and any day I'm gonna cash in.

All part of my evil scheme,,, :devil:

Hahahahaha Best quote of the thread :laugh:

cynthiaj777

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.

I have to comment on this because it is ridiculous.

So, taxing high risk people is Un-American? What about when that person gets sick or goes to the hospital and probably 9 out of 10 times doesn't have health insurance WE, ME, YOU...taxpayers are paying for it! SCREW THAT....pay more if you want to be fat! Scarifice the movies and the REALLY nice car for cable tv and a moderate car and buy healthy!

You should get taxed extra if you want a double cheeseburger than a salad. The high cost of HEALTHY food in this country is ridiculous. Ask a family of four that lives off of $30,000 a year why they are constantly eating horrible food. BECAUSE IT IS CHEAPER THAN BUYING HEALTHY FOOD, which makes NO sense!

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.

I have to comment on this because it is ridiculous.

So, taxing high risk people is Un-American? What about when that person gets sick or goes to the hospital and probably 9 out of 10 times doesn't have health insurance WE, ME, YOU...taxpayers are paying for it! SCREW THAT....pay more if you want to be fat! Scarifice the movies and the REALLY nice car for cable tv and a moderate car and buy healthy!

You should get taxed extra if you want a double cheeseburger than a salad. The high cost of HEALTHY food in this country is ridiculous. Ask a family of four that lives off of $30,000 a year why they are constantly eating horrible food. BECAUSE IT IS CHEAPER THAN BUYING HEALTHY FOOD, which makes NO sense!

It makes perfect sence why this unhealthy crap is so cheap. If you'd read the rest of my post I go on to say that the government is subsidizing the ingredients to unhealthy processed foods like fast foods which drives the cost down and makes it an cheap alternative to healthy food. I dont think the skinny guy who wants to have a Big Mac every now and then should be unfairly taxed. Its not the government's job to shake it's finger at is when we indulge in foods (or other things) that are bad for us. Its our right to. But it IS the government's job to regulate the food industry and to stop allowing them to lobby and monopolize the market with chemically altered foods just so they can make a higher paycheck at the end of the week.