My Company HSA - Trimming The FAT(tys)
Options
Replies
-
I feel sorry for any men who are muscular
Oh wow!! I hadn't thought of that!!! Geez! It's such a crock.
Yep. 6'2", 202, 10% body fat, 32 inch waist. I'm "overweight" by BMI. And I'm not big, just a normal looking guy in street clothes, wear a medium or a large depending on cut. That system is SERIOUSLY flawed.
Eventually somebody like me will take good enough care of themselves to get high muscle content and be considered "obese" and thus lose benefits.
In cases such as yours, body fat % accompanied by a doctors test results showing said % and fat/muscle ratio can be used to keep lower benefits, if BMI is too high.
I also think OP is leaving out the BMI requirements for the new rule because it is very high (I am guessing over 40). If someone has a low body fat % and a 40+ BMI I'd like them to post here and tell me how common someone of their stature is.0 -
I feel sorry for any men who are muscular
Oh wow!! I hadn't thought of that!!! Geez! It's such a crock.
Yep. 6'2", 202, 10% body fat, 32 inch waist. I'm "overweight" by BMI. And I'm not big, just a normal looking guy in street clothes, wear a medium or a large depending on cut. That system is SERIOUSLY flawed.
Eventually somebody like me will take good enough care of themselves to get high muscle content and be considered "obese" and thus lose benefits.
In cases such as yours, body fat % accompanied by a doctors test results showing said % and fat/muscle ratio can be used to keep lower benefits, if BMI is too high.
I also think OP is leaving out the BMI requirements for the new rule because it is very high (I am guessing over 40). If someone has a low body fat % and a 40+ BMI I'd like them to post here and tell me how common someone of their stature is.
Dealing in theoreticals, if I were 234 pounds at my height, I'd be at a BMI of 30.0. That would push me out of overweight and into obese. I haven't seen the BMI requirement, was only responding to the portion of the thread about BMI being stupid. To get a BMI over 40, I'd have to be fat rather than muscular.
In any case, it's not only health insurance that is affected. Life insurance also often uses BMI. I'll likely change my life insurance next year, and when I do, I'll go on a cut for a couple of months beforehand to make sure I'm not classified at overweight. Premiums are lower if I'm not.0 -
Can it? Are you sure???? It's all about how the numbers play out not how the doc can tweak them to benefit their patient so they fit into the company's required guidelines.I feel sorry for any men who are muscular
Oh wow!! I hadn't thought of that!!! Geez! It's such a crock.
Yep. 6'2", 202, 10% body fat, 32 inch waist. I'm "overweight" by BMI. And I'm not big, just a normal looking guy in street clothes, wear a medium or a large depending on cut. That system is SERIOUSLY flawed.
Eventually somebody like me will take good enough care of themselves to get high muscle content and be considered "obese" and thus lose benefits.
In cases such as yours, body fat % accompanied by a doctors test results showing said % and fat/muscle ratio can be used to keep lower benefits, if BMI is too high.0 -
Can it? Are you sure???? It's all about how the numbers play out not how the doc can tweak them to benefit their patient so they fit into the company's required guidelines.I feel sorry for any men who are muscular
Oh wow!! I hadn't thought of that!!! Geez! It's such a crock.
Yep. 6'2", 202, 10% body fat, 32 inch waist. I'm "overweight" by BMI. And I'm not big, just a normal looking guy in street clothes, wear a medium or a large depending on cut. That system is SERIOUSLY flawed.
Eventually somebody like me will take good enough care of themselves to get high muscle content and be considered "obese" and thus lose benefits.
In cases such as yours, body fat % accompanied by a doctors test results showing said % and fat/muscle ratio can be used to keep lower benefits, if BMI is too high.
If you have a high BMI and are in shape with a lower body fat %, then there's nothing to tweak. It's all going to be on the doctors report, so... I'm not sure what you're getting at.
And yes, it can. In every case I've seen, anyway. I would ask about your company specifics, but they're apparently too private for you to justify how wrong they are.0 -
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).
I get tired of people thinking healthcare is a right. Since when do you have to right to someone elses time and talent? Healthcare is not just a magical box that you step into and BOOM, you are healthy. Doctors work their *kitten* off to get where they are, and they deserve to get paid. Nobody has a right to that persons hard work.
Likewise, it is the responsibility of the person utilizing the service to pay for it. Who else should pay? Me? No thanks, Jeff. I already have myself and my kids to take care of.
What? Who said I didn't think doctors should get paid? I won't get too far into politics here, but I was thinking more along the lines that the government should pay the doctors instead of maybe financing a new war every couple years. I have no idea where you got that I think doctors should work for free.
The government does not have money. The government only takes money. So either the doctors work for free, or I pay for it. Along with other tax payers. It is not my, nor anyone elses, repsonsibility to fund your medical care.
I never understand this argument. I don't get how out of all the things the government pays for, financing a fat person's medical care would somehow be the worst.
They can pay for their own damn medical care. It is never ok to add more spending that shouldn't happen.0 -
I feel sorry for any men who are muscular
Oh wow!! I hadn't thought of that!!! Geez! It's such a crock.
Yep. 6'2", 202, 10% body fat, 32 inch waist. I'm "overweight" by BMI. And I'm not big, just a normal looking guy in street clothes, wear a medium or a large depending on cut. That system is SERIOUSLY flawed.
Eventually somebody like me will take good enough care of themselves to get high muscle content and be considered "obese" and thus lose benefits.
In cases such as yours, body fat % accompanied by a doctors test results showing said % and fat/muscle ratio can be used to keep lower benefits, if BMI is too high.
I also think OP is leaving out the BMI requirements for the new rule because it is very high (I am guessing over 40). If someone has a low body fat % and a 40+ BMI I'd like them to post here and tell me how common someone of their stature is.
That's speculative (and it's not over 40 - not even close). AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED....I am leaving it out because I could say it's "40" and someone would argue that's justifiable. I could say it's "10" and someone else would argue that's justifiable. Further more, the number is at the company's discretion. They could change their mind, require a different number for 2014-15 before the new year occurs. They could change the number for next year and the year after. Up the ante every time.
IT'S THE PRINCIPLE THAT THEY ARE REQUIRING IT ALL.0 -
I feel sorry for any men who are muscular
Oh wow!! I hadn't thought of that!!! Geez! It's such a crock.
Yep. 6'2", 202, 10% body fat, 32 inch waist. I'm "overweight" by BMI. And I'm not big, just a normal looking guy in street clothes, wear a medium or a large depending on cut. That system is SERIOUSLY flawed.
Eventually somebody like me will take good enough care of themselves to get high muscle content and be considered "obese" and thus lose benefits.
In cases such as yours, body fat % accompanied by a doctors test results showing said % and fat/muscle ratio can be used to keep lower benefits, if BMI is too high.
I also think OP is leaving out the BMI requirements for the new rule because it is very high (I am guessing over 40). If someone has a low body fat % and a 40+ BMI I'd like them to post here and tell me how common someone of their stature is.
That's speculative (and it's not over 40 - not even close). AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED....I am leaving it out because I could say it's "40" and someone would argue that's justifiable. I could say it's "10" and someone else would argue that's justifiable. Further more, the number is at the company's discretion. They could change their mind, require a different number for 2014-15 before the new year occurs. They could change the number for next year and the year after. Up the ante every time.
IT'S THE PRINCIPLE THAT THEY ARE REQUIRING IT ALL.
You leaving it out completely negates your argument that it's wrong, because you can't prove it.
And the principle that they require people that are a strain on everyone else's health care premiums to pay higher so everyone else doesn't have to? I'm guessing you also see nothing wrong with welfare, food stamps to people that don't want to work, ect.0 -
Wrong again (you're on a roll!!!) Please re-read my original post - especially the part about people making progress, working hard, being incentivized for their EFFORTS, etc.I feel sorry for any men who are muscular
Oh wow!! I hadn't thought of that!!! Geez! It's such a crock.
Yep. 6'2", 202, 10% body fat, 32 inch waist. I'm "overweight" by BMI. And I'm not big, just a normal looking guy in street clothes, wear a medium or a large depending on cut. That system is SERIOUSLY flawed.
Eventually somebody like me will take good enough care of themselves to get high muscle content and be considered "obese" and thus lose benefits.
In cases such as yours, body fat % accompanied by a doctors test results showing said % and fat/muscle ratio can be used to keep lower benefits, if BMI is too high.
I also think OP is leaving out the BMI requirements for the new rule because it is very high (I am guessing over 40). If someone has a low body fat % and a 40+ BMI I'd like them to post here and tell me how common someone of their stature is.
That's speculative (and it's not over 40 - not even close). AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED....I am leaving it out because I could say it's "40" and someone would argue that's justifiable. I could say it's "10" and someone else would argue that's justifiable. Further more, the number is at the company's discretion. They could change their mind, require a different number for 2014-15 before the new year occurs. They could change the number for next year and the year after. Up the ante every time.
IT'S THE PRINCIPLE THAT THEY ARE REQUIRING IT ALL.
You leaving it out completely negates your argument that it's wrong, because you can't prove it.
And the principle that they require people that are a strain on everyone else's health care premiums to pay higher so everyone else doesn't have to? I'm guessing you also see nothing wrong with welfare, food stamps to people that don't want to work, ect.0 -
Wrong again (you're on a roll!!!) Please re-read my original post - especially the part about people making progress, working hard, being incentivized for their EFFORTS, etc.I feel sorry for any men who are muscular
Oh wow!! I hadn't thought of that!!! Geez! It's such a crock.
Yep. 6'2", 202, 10% body fat, 32 inch waist. I'm "overweight" by BMI. And I'm not big, just a normal looking guy in street clothes, wear a medium or a large depending on cut. That system is SERIOUSLY flawed.
Eventually somebody like me will take good enough care of themselves to get high muscle content and be considered "obese" and thus lose benefits.
In cases such as yours, body fat % accompanied by a doctors test results showing said % and fat/muscle ratio can be used to keep lower benefits, if BMI is too high.
I also think OP is leaving out the BMI requirements for the new rule because it is very high (I am guessing over 40). If someone has a low body fat % and a 40+ BMI I'd like them to post here and tell me how common someone of their stature is.
That's speculative (and it's not over 40 - not even close). AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED....I am leaving it out because I could say it's "40" and someone would argue that's justifiable. I could say it's "10" and someone else would argue that's justifiable. Further more, the number is at the company's discretion. They could change their mind, require a different number for 2014-15 before the new year occurs. They could change the number for next year and the year after. Up the ante every time.
IT'S THE PRINCIPLE THAT THEY ARE REQUIRING IT ALL.
You leaving it out completely negates your argument that it's wrong, because you can't prove it.
And the principle that they require people that are a strain on everyone else's health care premiums to pay higher so everyone else doesn't have to? I'm guessing you also see nothing wrong with welfare, food stamps to people that don't want to work, ect.
Ok, so say I'm fat.
I go get a gym membership and someone to tell me what to eat, and still make no change to my life. Don't actually go to the gym. Don't actually eat better. I'm still fat and out of shape, but cheating the system and getting lower health care.
or
I get no extras until I reach a goal. I reach the goal, and get benefits.
Yea, I'll go with number two.0 -
The study you referenced about elderly overweight individuals living longest had several methodological flaws - primarily in determining which individuals to include or exclude in the study. For example, elderly people who pass away after a long period of fighting a disease will likely be thinner than they might have been had they died unexpectedly. That wasn't accounted for and that alone could significantly skew the results. The study also didn't take into account blood pressure, blood sugar, cholesterol, or even happiness/mobility, etc.. Sadly with obesity, the number of years spent living in poor health are increasing as well.
Which study are you referring too the Japanese, Stockholm, or American one? Several I've seen in a long term care setting indicate protective evidence of BMI0 -
The system is flawed on both sides. The ideas I suggested as solutions would obviously require a physician follow up. ....My suggestion in a later post also included discounts on the tools that can help people make necessary improvements on their health or provide them an HSA to strictly help them get there as opposed to just cutting them off - ie: free gym memberships, discounts on home exercise equipment, discounts on local harvest groups (or the like - produce / fresh foods), etc - these are suggested solutions. Ideas, ya know......options.....for everyone who struggles so they can come to the light.....that shiny, perfect place where you apparently live.
Wrong again (you're on a roll!!!) Please re-read my original post - especially the part about people making progress, working hard, being incentivized for their EFFORTS, etc.I feel sorry for any men who are muscular
Oh wow!! I hadn't thought of that!!! Geez! It's such a crock.
Yep. 6'2", 202, 10% body fat, 32 inch waist. I'm "overweight" by BMI. And I'm not big, just a normal looking guy in street clothes, wear a medium or a large depending on cut. That system is SERIOUSLY flawed.
Eventually somebody like me will take good enough care of themselves to get high muscle content and be considered "obese" and thus lose benefits.
In cases such as yours, body fat % accompanied by a doctors test results showing said % and fat/muscle ratio can be used to keep lower benefits, if BMI is too high.
I also think OP is leaving out the BMI requirements for the new rule because it is very high (I am guessing over 40). If someone has a low body fat % and a 40+ BMI I'd like them to post here and tell me how common someone of their stature is.
That's speculative (and it's not over 40 - not even close). AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED....I am leaving it out because I could say it's "40" and someone would argue that's justifiable. I could say it's "10" and someone else would argue that's justifiable. Further more, the number is at the company's discretion. They could change their mind, require a different number for 2014-15 before the new year occurs. They could change the number for next year and the year after. Up the ante every time.
IT'S THE PRINCIPLE THAT THEY ARE REQUIRING IT ALL.
You leaving it out completely negates your argument that it's wrong, because you can't prove it.
And the principle that they require people that are a strain on everyone else's health care premiums to pay higher so everyone else doesn't have to? I'm guessing you also see nothing wrong with welfare, food stamps to people that don't want to work, ect.
Ok, so say I'm fat.
I go get a gym membership and someone to tell me what to eat, and still make no change to my life. Don't actually go to the gym. Don't actually eat better. I'm still fat and out of shape, but cheating the system and getting lower health care.
or
I get no extras until I reach a goal. I reach the goal, and get benefits.
Yea, I'll go with number two.0 -
Can it? Are you sure???? It's all about how the numbers play out not how the doc can tweak them to benefit their patient so they fit into the company's required guidelines.I feel sorry for any men who are muscular
Oh wow!! I hadn't thought of that!!! Geez! It's such a crock.
Yep. 6'2", 202, 10% body fat, 32 inch waist. I'm "overweight" by BMI. And I'm not big, just a normal looking guy in street clothes, wear a medium or a large depending on cut. That system is SERIOUSLY flawed.
Eventually somebody like me will take good enough care of themselves to get high muscle content and be considered "obese" and thus lose benefits.
In cases such as yours, body fat % accompanied by a doctors test results showing said % and fat/muscle ratio can be used to keep lower benefits, if BMI is too high.
If you have a high BMI and are in shape with a lower body fat %, then there's nothing to tweak. It's all going to be on the doctors report, so... I'm not sure what you're getting at.
And yes, it can. In every case I've seen, anyway. I would ask about your company specifics, but they're apparently too private for you to justify how wrong they are.
Why should he have to give his private medical records to his employers and/or the insurance companies to just prove that he deserves to pay a lower premium.
The ownness is on him he will have to prove in this scenario that despite a BMI that indicates he is in a high risk group he is within a prescribed body fat.0 -
The system is flawed on both sides. The ideas I suggested as solutions would obviously require a physician follow up. ....My suggestion in a later post also included discounts on the tools that can help people make necessary improvements on their health or provide them an HSA to strictly help them get there as opposed to just cutting them off - ie: free gym memberships, discounts on home exercise equipment, discounts on local harvest groups (or the like - produce / fresh foods), etc - these are suggested solutions. Ideas, ya know......options.....for everyone who struggles so they can come to the light.....that shiny, perfect place where you apparently live.
Wrong again (you're on a roll!!!) Please re-read my original post - especially the part about people making progress, working hard, being incentivized for their EFFORTS, etc.I feel sorry for any men who are muscular
Oh wow!! I hadn't thought of that!!! Geez! It's such a crock.
Yep. 6'2", 202, 10% body fat, 32 inch waist. I'm "overweight" by BMI. And I'm not big, just a normal looking guy in street clothes, wear a medium or a large depending on cut. That system is SERIOUSLY flawed.
Eventually somebody like me will take good enough care of themselves to get high muscle content and be considered "obese" and thus lose benefits.
In cases such as yours, body fat % accompanied by a doctors test results showing said % and fat/muscle ratio can be used to keep lower benefits, if BMI is too high.
I also think OP is leaving out the BMI requirements for the new rule because it is very high (I am guessing over 40). If someone has a low body fat % and a 40+ BMI I'd like them to post here and tell me how common someone of their stature is.
That's speculative (and it's not over 40 - not even close). AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED....I am leaving it out because I could say it's "40" and someone would argue that's justifiable. I could say it's "10" and someone else would argue that's justifiable. Further more, the number is at the company's discretion. They could change their mind, require a different number for 2014-15 before the new year occurs. They could change the number for next year and the year after. Up the ante every time.
IT'S THE PRINCIPLE THAT THEY ARE REQUIRING IT ALL.
You leaving it out completely negates your argument that it's wrong, because you can't prove it.
And the principle that they require people that are a strain on everyone else's health care premiums to pay higher so everyone else doesn't have to? I'm guessing you also see nothing wrong with welfare, food stamps to people that don't want to work, ect.
Ok, so say I'm fat.
I go get a gym membership and someone to tell me what to eat, and still make no change to my life. Don't actually go to the gym. Don't actually eat better. I'm still fat and out of shape, but cheating the system and getting lower health care.
or
I get no extras until I reach a goal. I reach the goal, and get benefits.
Yea, I'll go with number two.
What sounds cheaper?
1. Making unhealthy people pay more to cover themselves?
2. Dishing out extra money for discounted gym memberships, home equipment, and deals on other stuff?
And if they did that extra, it'd still probably fall onto the rest of us to pay extra. Gym memberships aren't expensive. Do people really have so much against being healthy that they need people to be GIVEN extra stuff to do it?0 -
There is a real disease where the body stores food as fat right away instead of burning it. These people need help to control the weight their bodies put on. They can't lose fat as easily as some of us can and would need insurance to help pay for their medical needs. The new system would screw over anyone with this rare condition
Do you have this condition? I believe it's called eating too much food.
The above poster maybe referring to prader willis0 -
Can it? Are you sure???? It's all about how the numbers play out not how the doc can tweak them to benefit their patient so they fit into the company's required guidelines.I feel sorry for any men who are muscular
Oh wow!! I hadn't thought of that!!! Geez! It's such a crock.
Yep. 6'2", 202, 10% body fat, 32 inch waist. I'm "overweight" by BMI. And I'm not big, just a normal looking guy in street clothes, wear a medium or a large depending on cut. That system is SERIOUSLY flawed.
Eventually somebody like me will take good enough care of themselves to get high muscle content and be considered "obese" and thus lose benefits.
In cases such as yours, body fat % accompanied by a doctors test results showing said % and fat/muscle ratio can be used to keep lower benefits, if BMI is too high.
If you have a high BMI and are in shape with a lower body fat %, then there's nothing to tweak. It's all going to be on the doctors report, so... I'm not sure what you're getting at.
And yes, it can. In every case I've seen, anyway. I would ask about your company specifics, but they're apparently too private for you to justify how wrong they are.
Why should he have to give his private medical records to his employers and/or the insurance companies to just prove that he deserves to pay a lower premium.
The ownness is on him he will have to prove in this scenario that despite a BMI that indicates he is in a high risk group he is within a prescribed body fat.
They pay for your health if you need it.
They damn well do need to know your medical history and well being. Seriously, logic.0 -
There is a real disease where the body stores food as fat right away instead of burning it. These people need help to control the weight their bodies put on. They can't lose fat as easily as some of us can and would need insurance to help pay for their medical needs. The new system would screw over anyone with this rare condition
Do you have this condition? I believe it's called eating too much food.
The above poster maybe referring to prader willis
And last time I heard about it, it was what? .005% of people were born with this disease? Also, obesity is far from the only symptom of it. So, it's not in the same catagory at all.0 -
What sounds cheaper?
1. Making unhealthy people pay more to cover themselves?
This idea is why the most common reason for bankruptcy is medical debt. God forbid anyone ever become unhealthy. I just pray that we all never have to experience such a catastrophic injury and disease that we can no longer pay for the medical bills and are disqualified or have to pay astronomical premiums for insurance.
And despite the thinking that "they should pay more" you actually end up paying more. Look up the cost of any procedure in the states vs. the world tell me what you find?0 -
They damn well do need to know your medical history and well being. Seriously, logic.
No they dont0 -
What sounds cheaper?
1. Making unhealthy people pay more to cover themselves?
This idea is why the most common reason for bankruptcy is medical debt. God forbid anyone ever become unhealthy. I just pray that we all never have to experience such a catastrophic injury and disease that we can no longer pay for the medical bills and are disqualified or have to pay astronomical premiums for insurance.
And despite the thinking that "they should pay more" you actually end up paying more. Look up the cost of any procedure in the states vs. the world tell me what you find?
If you keep yourself in shape, you pay less. If not, you pay more. Both still have you keeping health care.
So, yea. Your point hasn't been made.0 -
They damn well do need to know your medical history and well being. Seriously, logic.
No they dont
So say I'm responsible for covering your medical bills if you get sick. You think I seriously don't need to know your medical history or current well being?
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions