Fat employees taxed extra for health care

And here we go,,, :bigsmile:

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.

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.,,,

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.

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.

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:

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.

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?

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:

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!