Workers are told to shape up or pay up

[gopchick]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready You both are missing the point. Its the individuals job to get healthcare, not the employers. So, are you both in agreement that companies should be able to descriminate against unhealthy people, as they used to do to blacks? Just want this clarified.

I don't see how I have missed the point - I clearly stated that if an employer offers health care coverage that is a BENEFIT for the employee. Employers DON"T have to offer to pay for any portion of an employees health care coverage.

With that in mind Health Care compnaies will charge more for Health Care Coverage for smokers and high risk people - why should an employer pay more money out of his pocket to pay for the higher costs - keep in mind he doesn't have to pay anything at all.

[Osborn F Enready]

Healthcare is being used as a lever to hold wages down.

The sooner people demand employers stay out of healthcare, the better off the public will be, and the market for insurance.

[ZNFYRH]

Osborn

Ease up with the higher conspiracy stuff.

It's a benefit.

You either receive your pay from your employer or you receive $100 less and your employer pays the other $400 for your health coverage.

It's not being used to leverage prices down.

And as long as someone else is picking up the bill, they have the right to do what they want.

Your inclusion of blacks is underhanded and unnecessary. Being black isn't a conscious choice.

[shawmutt]

If someone develops a life-threatening condition due to their own lifestyle choices, I do not believe they should receive any financial assistance for their medical bills.

You are living, which is a life-threatening condition due to your own lifestyle choices. Should you not recieve health insurance?

People work in coal mines, nuclear power plants, etc. etc. Should these people not recieve health insurance?

Car accidents hurt or kill a significant portion of the population each year. Should car drivers not recieve health insurance?

Who gets to dictate what is a "life-threatening lifestyle choice". Sure, there's the easy pack-a-day or pint-a-day user, but what about the more difficult choices? What about the one drink a day folks? Like osbourne said, black people have proven higher rates of heart problems than whites, should black people be denied health care?

Its the individuals job to get healthcare, not the employers.

Show me one country where this is the case and it works.

[Osborn F Enready]

gopchick said: I don't see how I have missed the point - I clearly stated that if an employer offers health care coverage that is a BENEFIT for the employee. Employers DON"T have to offer to pay for any portion of an employees health care coverage.

How about requiring that the employee take the healthcare offered, or not work there? Should workers be able to opt out of employer coverage?

gopchick said: With that in mind Health Care compnaies will charge more for Health Care Coverage for smokers and high risk people

I agree, but there will be more issues resulting in more trade-off options, better prices for a given level of coverage.

gopchick said: - why should an employer pay more money out of his pocket to pay for the higher costs - keep in mind he doesn't have to pay anything at all.

If the individual worker is worth it to the employer, the employer should have the option to pay if they so choose, as well as the employee should have the option to opt out, or refuse.

ZNYFRH said: Ease up with the higher conspiracy stuff. It's a benefit.

Where is there a conspiracy, its common sense. Why do you think HMO's are doing so good?!? Surely not because of public demand.

ZNYFRH said: You either receive your pay from your employer or you receive $100 less and your employer pays the other $400 for your health coverage.

Maybe where you work, but where I worked it wasn't that way, and I am sure it isn't that way for many American workers.

ZNYFRH said: It's not being used to leverage prices down.

Really? Sure looks that way to a lot of people, because the level of care is going down as more and more big corporations control the "demand" for insurance, and dictate the levels of standard coverage, etc. I also know that every time wage talks come up, so does the cost of healthcare that the employer is paying, and usually people make or have forced upon them(assuming the goal is keeping the job) some level of trade-off between wages and healthcare.

ZNYFRH said: And as long as someone else is picking up the bill, they have the right to do what they want.

Really? So when you are injured, those paying the bill can decide if you live and keep your faculties, or just live without your faculties because one option is cheaper?

ZNYFRH said: Your inclusion of blacks is underhanded and unnecessary. Being black isn't a conscious choice.

I was making NO remark ABOUT blacks, other than pointing out that healthcare is the new descrimination, just as race was once before, and its being brought to you by big corporations, outsourcing and an overflow of illegal immigrants burdening the system.

[ZNFYRH]

shawmutt

You know very well that there is a difference between driving to and from work and being told by a doctor that you have a cholesterol problem and then going out for Surf and Turf that night for dinner.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: ZNFYRH shawmutt You know very well that there is a difference between driving to and from work and being told by a doctor that you have a cholesterol problem and then going out for Surf and Turf that night for dinner.

What's the difference?

In both situations, you have been put on notice that engaging in something is risky - The DMV or your doctor.

In both situations, you choose to engage in the risky behavior knowing the risks.

The only difference I see is that it is 100% proven that you must be using or within close proximity to a car in order to die from a car accident, it is not 100% sure that Surf & Turf causes cholesterol to be too high.

[ZNFYRH]

But that's also the reason why your insurance costs go up when you get points on your license or have an accident.

You've demonstrated that you are a risk factor, so the costs go up.

So you're right, there is no difference.

But along those same lines, I forgot that the costs of that insurance goes up as well.

So to use some of the arguments that have been suggested against my own:

Car insurance companies raise their rates when you demonstrate that you do not follow the recommended guidelines for how to drive. Defensive driving classes help because it's acknowledging that you might not have been at fault and that you are taking classes to ensure that you will avoid those situations before they start.

Similarly, if you show a disregard for medical recommendations for healthy living and continue to engage in "risky" behavior, then those paying for your insurance have the right to pay less.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Similarly, if you show a disregard for medical recommendations for healthy living and continue to engage in "risky" behavior, then those paying for your insurance have the right to pay less.

OK call me a pain because I have only skimmed the rest of the thread, but who is arguing against that?

I mean I would frame it a different way - people who disregard medical recommendations for healthy living and engage in risky behavior should be forced to pay more for health insurance.

That would frame the argument in the same light as car insurance - people with a track record of driving poorly or with additional risk pay higher rates.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: tivodan OK call me a pain because I have only skimmed the rest of the thread, but who is arguing against that?

That's the thing.

I've been saying what you quoted and instead of addressing their right to alter payment amounts, some have started in about price gouging, socialized medicine, etc. They've drifted off-topic.

Quote by: tivodan I mean I would frame it a different way - people who disregard medical recommendations for healthy living and engage in risky behavior should be forced to pay more for health insurance. That would frame the argument in the same light as car insurance - people with a track record of driving poorly or with additional risk pay higher rates.

I believe that as well.

From one of my earlier posts, I basically see it has health insurance raises the rates on the risky people and the employer can alter what they choose to pay.

[treme]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Sign Up What a sheeple..... I was mad when they were robbing me of $30, but since they decided to only rob me for $10, I feel much better. :rolleyes:

From what I've read, you're a libertarian right? Then wouldn't you consider this to be the person's choice to work at the company even after being asked to lose weight?

If this country had a libertarian government wouldn't you applaud a company for creating these kinds of business contracts with it's employees? If they don't like it, they can find employment elsewhere and if this stipulation was too much to take, the company would have to change or go out of business.

If one considers the loss of a loss of thirty dollars or, a gain of thirty dollars a reward, would this then be ok?

Just because this isn't something you'd do doesn't make it wrong for them to. Let them be libertarian. Let them do it the way they want to and let them fail if that's their ultimate fate.

[Mia]

Os, when insurance companies write to groups, everyone in the group pays higher rates if someone has an illness or something that raises the group rate. The way it's structured, they can't single people out.

[Osborn F Enready]

treme said: From what I've read, you're a libertarian right?

In most scenarios, and for most puposes, yes.

treme said: Then wouldn't you consider this to be the person's choice to work at the company even after being asked to lose weight?

Yes, I would. But, also as a Libertarian, I am concerned with monopoly of the market by corporations, as opposed to small businesses and individuals.

treme said: If this country had a libertarian government wouldn't you applaud a company for creating these kinds of business contracts with it's employees?

I would applaud responsible companies, but not all companies that offer health care are doing it for their employees beneficience, but for their own.

For example, if your company employs 5000 people, and 4500 of those people are over 50, while 500 of them are under 25, do you think the 500 are going to get reasonable health insurance rates when lumped in with all the higher, more risky and therefore more costly over 50 years olds? No, they wont.

I worked at a small business that was unionized, our company employed 16 people including management and office personnel and laborers. All of our rates were grossly exaggerated because we had one employee who has several health problems. The effect? All of us had to pay more for health insurance for less coverage, except the person warranting the extra costs, who paid the same amount we all paid. Right now, the health burden is on older employees, which make up the bulk of management and office positions, so laborers (who are paid less)are being forced to pay more to insure office personnell that incur more costs (but make much more than the laborers).

Its counter productive to laborers for their company to insure them, in most cases, I would argue, not to mention it allows corporations to monopolize the market, thereby, the bulk of market choices and pricing.

treme said: If they don't like it, they can find employment elsewhere and if this stipulation was too much to take, the company would have to change or go out of business.

It would only work in that manner, if corporations didn't monopolize the market, meaning, if you left your current job, you would have more options at the next job, which is not the case in corporate America which exists in almost all intermediate to large cities in this country.

treme said: If one considers the loss of a loss of thirty dollars or, a gain of thirty dollars a reward, would this then be ok?

I don't think so, since it still falsely monopolizes the market through corporate controlled buying power.

treme said: Just because this isn't something you'd do doesn't make it wrong for them to. Let them be libertarian. Let them do it the way they want to and let them fail if that's their ultimate fate.

I wouldn't mind this if the failure of this trend wouldn't mean the failure of the entire healthcare system in America, due to corporate monopoly of the market.

[Osborn F Enready]

Mia said: Os, when insurance companies write to groups, everyone in the group pays higher rates if someone has an illness or something that raises the group rate. The way it's structured, they can't single people out.

Exactly the problem.

For example, this specific thread is about obesity. Obesity could be replaced by smokers, or age and still be the same form of descrimination by employers.

All people have a necessity to earn money, even sick people, so should employers be allowed to discriminate on health issues whether based on risk factors or age?

Won't we then end up with a small very healthy, very young working class and a large elder and sickly class of non-workers, due to their high cost of insurability?

[Osborn F Enready]

By allowing corporations to dominate the market, you are allowing corporations to set the value sets of insurance choice as opposed to collective, or individual bargaining.

Who has the individuals intrests in mind most? Corporations, or unions and individuals?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Ok, so why is that the role of an employer AS OPPOSED to those in the risk calcluation industry, namely, INSURANCE?!?

Let me guess. Oh! Yeah! The employer is paying for the health care premium. I'm sure that's it.

Regards
S.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready For example, this specific thread is about obesity. Obesity could be replaced by smokers, or age and still be the same form of descrimination by employers. All people have a necessity to earn money, even sick people, so should employers be allowed to discriminate on health issues whether based on risk factors or age? Won't we then end up with a small very healthy, very young working class and a large elder and sickly class of non-workers, due to their high cost of insurability?

It's the employer's private company, their private property, why shouldn't he or she get to discriminate on any grounds he or she chooses. Isn't this the kind of freedom you champion? It's not any particular employer's problem that you have to work. Their problem is to exercise their personal freedom to serve their own needs. They don't have any responsibility for you do they?

It's your personal responsibility, is it not?, that you be in the proper physical shape and be healthy enough to work.

What right do you have to deprive an employer from conducting his or her business--enjoying their private property, in fact--in any way they choose, as long as they don't infringe on your rights? You don't have a right to a job, or even a meal for that matter.


Regards
S.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready By allowing corporations to dominate the market, you are allowing corporations to set the value sets of insurance choice as opposed to collective, or individual bargaining. Who has the individuals intrests in mind most? Corporations, or unions and individuals?

Are you proposing that we--whoever "we" are--stop corporations from dominating the market? They're merely exercising their property rights. And, all corporations are made up of people.

Regards
S.

[Osborn F Enready]

sdbest said: It's the employer's private company, their private property, why shouldn't he or she get to discriminate on any grounds he or she chooses.

Any way they choose that doesn't remove rights from the citizens. By allowing corporations to monopolize the market on healthcare, individuals are robbed of independent healthcare choices, and labor unions and individuals are robbed of being able to affect or be served by the market. You are confusing Libertarianism with Mercantilism or something.

sdbest said: Isn't this the kind of freedom you champion?

No, its a perverted concoction of the type of freedom I champion, and it isn't freedom, its actually a removal of individual freedom because it opens the door to illegitimately based descrimination.

sdbest said: It's not any particular employer's problem that you have to work. Their problem is to exercise their personal freedom to serve their own needs. They don't have any responsibility for you do they?

The only responsibility they have is to respect the rights of individuals. You seem to think libertarianism implies no regulation of the market, which is quite untrue. It means regulation of and only up to the defense of individual rights for all who partake in the market. When corporations hold more than half the market share of insurance policies, they dictate the market. Its called monopoly. Libertarians (usually) are split on views of monopoly for various reasons, but I and many others, are anti-monopoly.

sdbest said: Are you proposing that we--whoever "we" are--stop corporations from dominating the market? They're merely exercising their property rights. And, all corporations are made up of people.

Being made up of people, and being an individual with rights is two different things. Corporation is a tool for diluting, degrading and minimalizing individual responsibility.

The Fourteenth Amendment and the Incorporation Debate

My most recognized quote on this topic for expressing what I mean:

Corporation: An ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual responsibility.
Ambrose Bierce

Quote by: Osborn F Enready By allowing corporations to monopolize the market on healthcare, individuals are robbed of independent healthcare choices, and labor unions and individuals are robbed of being able to affect or be served by the market. You are confusing Libertarianism with Mercantilism or something.

So what mechanism do you propose for depriving corporations and their shareholders and managers and staffs of the free use of their property and rights so that the rights you've enumerated above will be protected?

Regards
S.