My Company HSA - Trimming The FAT(tys)
Event_Horizon975
Posts: 226 Member
in Chit-Chat
I'm sure I'm not alone in this but my company's health insurance, over the past two years, has moved to HSAs. This can be ideal depending on your circumstances (unless you're like me and have a child who needed surgery, meds, multiple doc visits, etc) ....but I digress.
This coming year, my company is WITHDRAWING their corporate contribution to our HSA if our waist circumference falls outside a certain parameter. So, even if an individual lives a healthy lifestyle, has lost a ton of weight, made awesome progress, and is working toward an ideal weight / waist circumference, they'll get nailed in the pocket. Nice. .
..All the while, utilized gym memberships don't count for anything, dieticians don't count, etc It's a broken system.
So, weight / BMI (despite someone's progress) is a pre-existing condition? This makes me mad.
This coming year, my company is WITHDRAWING their corporate contribution to our HSA if our waist circumference falls outside a certain parameter. So, even if an individual lives a healthy lifestyle, has lost a ton of weight, made awesome progress, and is working toward an ideal weight / waist circumference, they'll get nailed in the pocket. Nice. .
..All the while, utilized gym memberships don't count for anything, dieticians don't count, etc It's a broken system.
So, weight / BMI (despite someone's progress) is a pre-existing condition? This makes me mad.
0
Replies
-
Welcome to America. BMI is such a fail.0
-
A lot of companies offer extra benefits for those in shape. Just because someone says they're "on the right track" doesn't mean they are. So, it gives people a goal. Get here, and you get extras.
I don't see a problem with it.0 -
A lot of companies offer extra benefits for those in shape. Just because someone says they're "on the right track" doesn't mean they are. So, it gives people a goal. Get here, and you get extras.
I don't see a problem with it.
Negative. It's not an extra benefit. It's a previous benefit being taken away (and I should still receive it btw)..... I feel it to be discriminatory. If you had asthma, cancer, crohn's, gout....whatever......Should your contribution be withdrawn because you'd hit them in the pocket with extra medical expenses from a pre-exisiting condition???0 -
It's policies like this that make me grateful to work for a small family owned company.0
-
It's policies like this that make me grateful to work for a small family owned company.
Yes!! I miss working for smaller companies for a lot of reasons!!!0 -
I feel ya man.0
-
A lot of companies offer extra benefits for those in shape. Just because someone says they're "on the right track" doesn't mean they are. So, it gives people a goal. Get here, and you get extras.
I don't see a problem with it.
Negative. It's not an extra benefit. It's a previous benefit being taken away (and I should still receive it btw)..... I feel it to be discriminatory. If you had asthma, cancer, crohn's, gout....whatever......Should your contribution be withdrawn because you'd hit them in the pocket with extra medical expenses from a pre-exisiting condition???
It's more than what is mandatory, therefore it's still an extra. They have the right to take that extra away unless you change things to make yourself healthier.0 -
I'm a woman but thanks! :drinker:I feel ya man.0 -
The whole per-existing thing should be against the law0
-
Yeah, they're certainly exercising their right, which is legal. ......for now Since when are all policies right not to mention morally sound?A lot of companies offer extra benefits for those in shape. Just because someone says they're "on the right track" doesn't mean they are. So, it gives people a goal. Get here, and you get extras.
I don't see a problem with it.
Negative. It's not an extra benefit. It's a previous benefit being taken away (and I should still receive it btw)..... I feel it to be discriminatory. If you had asthma, cancer, crohn's, gout....whatever......Should your contribution be withdrawn because you'd hit them in the pocket with extra medical expenses from a pre-exisiting condition???
It's more than what is mandatory, therefore it's still an extra. They have the right to take that extra away unless you change things to make yourself healthier.0 -
Thank god I live in Canada :flowerforyou: our health care isn't perfect, neither is our insurance coverage, but it's better than this.0
-
I'm a woman but thanks! :drinker:I feel ya man.
Oh whoops!
Well, you should still have a health insurance plan outside of the HSA. HSAs require a high deductible insurance plan. All an HSA is is an investment vehicle for using pre-tax dollars for qualifying medical expenses.
My company recently came out with a two tiered system. Standard and Enhanced. The enhanced was the old standard. Now, we have to qualify for the enhanced levels, including being under a certain BMI.0 -
I feel sorry for any men who are muscular0
-
A lot of companies offer extra benefits for those in shape. Just because someone says they're "on the right track" doesn't mean they are. So, it gives people a goal. Get here, and you get extras.
I don't see a problem with it.
Negative. It's not an extra benefit. It's a previous benefit being taken away (and I should still receive it btw)..... I feel it to be discriminatory. If you had asthma, cancer, crohn's, gout....whatever......Should your contribution be withdrawn because you'd hit them in the pocket with extra medical expenses from a pre-exisiting condition???
It's more than what is mandatory, therefore it's still an extra. They have the right to take that extra away unless you change things to make yourself healthier.
My issue with this type of thing is it's arbitary. There are so many things that can make a person an insurance risk. Participation in extreme sports, smoking, drinking, genetic pre-dispositions, bad driving (as it relates to potential health impacts, I don't mean car insurance), etc. etc. Taking one factor and declaring it what makes a person unhealthy (or an insurance risk) is ridiculous. I also think we are a long way from determining a lot of the realities of health.0 -
I feel sorry for any men who are muscular
Oh wow!! I hadn't thought of that!!! Geez! It's such a crock.0 -
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.0
-
Thank god I live in Canada :flowerforyou: our health care isn't perfect, neither is our insurance coverage, but it's better than this.
Well that's the thing. In Canada attention is paid to what's RIGHT rather than just to what's cheapest.0 -
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.0 -
A lot of companies offer extra benefits for those in shape. Just because someone says they're "on the right track" doesn't mean they are. So, it gives people a goal. Get here, and you get extras.
I don't see a problem with it.
Negative. It's not an extra benefit. It's a previous benefit being taken away (and I should still receive it btw)..... I feel it to be discriminatory. If you had asthma, cancer, crohn's, gout....whatever......Should your contribution be withdrawn because you'd hit them in the pocket with extra medical expenses from a pre-exisiting condition???
It's more than what is mandatory, therefore it's still an extra. They have the right to take that extra away unless you change things to make yourself healthier.
My issue with this type of thing is it's arbitary. There are so many things that can make a person an insurance risk. Participation in extreme sports, smoking, drinking, genetic pre-dispositions, bad driving (as it relates to potential health impacts, I don't mean car insurance), etc. etc. Taking one factor and declaring it what makes a person unhealthy (or an insurance risk) is ridiculous. I also think we are a long way from determining a lot of the realities of health.
Yes! BMI, as well know is a HUGE problem in America (and other nations). BUT it's ONE piece of the puzzle. I could be the ideal weight & stature, be a non-smoker, and have other habits or conditions that put me a very high risk & they'd never know. It's discrimination & NOT the whole picture.0 -
Thank god I live in Canada :flowerforyou: our health care isn't perfect, neither is our insurance coverage, but it's better than this.
What wrong? You dont like the idea of having to be fearful your preexsisting condition will prevent you from having the ability to get healthcare, you dont like the idea that a company can base how much you pay on a ratio, you dont like the idea of having to be taxed for not having healthcare insurance, you dont like the idea of having big insurance lobbies getting to manipulate laws to provide health insurance, you dont want to live in a courntry that pays the most in health care then any other country despite not having the highest standard of care and continued high rates of infant and maternal mortality? What's wrong with you?0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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"..... LOL0 -
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).0
-
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.0 -
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?0 -
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?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.
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.0 -
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.0 -
ooOooOo serious topic is serious.0
-
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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions