Workers are told to shape up or pay up

[Osborn F Enready]

Sign Up

Looking for new ways to trim the fat and boost workers' health, some employers are starting to make overweight employees pay if they don't slim down. Others, citing growing medical costs tied to obesity, are offering fit workers lucrative incentives that shave thousands of dollars a year off healthcare premiums. In one of the boldest moves yet, an Indiana-based hospital chain last month said it decided on the stick rather than the carrot. Starting in 2009, Clarian Health Partners will charge employees as much as $30 every two weeks unless they meet weight, cholesterol and blood-pressure guidelines that the company deems healthy. "At first, I was mad when I thought I would be charged $30 for being overweight," said Courtney Jackson, 28, a customer service representative at Clarian. "But when I found out it was going to be broken into segments — like just $10 for being overweight — it sounded better."

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:

As the number of obese Americans continues to soar — it's now 1 in 3 — employer healthcare premiums are growing twice as fast as inflation to nearly double their cost at the beginning of the decade. Employers have been struggling with how to hold down costs without offending or pushing away workers. Sixty-two percent of 135 executives responding to a PricewaterhouseCoopers survey this spring said unhealthy workers such as those who smoke or are obese should pay higher benefit costs, compared with 48% in 2005.

[shawmutt]

A fat tax? I see a looming lawsuit for sure.

I liked what my old company did--part of the health benefits included a membership at a local gym.

[thx1138]

It's shocking whenever I see a travel show from the U.S. since moving to Japan. I knew people were getting fat but it didn't really strike me until living in a country were most people don't have their gut hanging out.

I'm not for a Fat Tax, but something is going wrong.

[Osborn F Enready]

thx1138 said: I'm not for a Fat Tax, but something is going wrong.

Why is something going wrong?

Americans are spoiled with one of the most diverse markets on the planet, if not THE most diverse market on the planet. Americans on average have less to worry about, make more money, and overall have no reason NOT to eat well, and this leads to complacency and large bottoms.

The only thing wrong is people are losing their responsibility, because the nanny state is seeking more and more of their obligations and the naieve who think there is nothing to worry about with that are placating the fed and states urges, because they are forgetting the lessons of history.

[ZNFYRH]

But this isn't being initiated by any government.

This is private entities charging their own employees for being unhealthy. They can do what they want. I like the idea of people paying more because they live unhealthy lifestyles.

It represents the fact that they will be using more insurance benefits, so they should have to pay more for their own risk factors. That's what I like about private industry.

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: But this isn't being initiated by any government.

Really? What is the reason most of the democratic canidates are talking about socialist, err, I mean, Universal Healthcare?

ZNYFRH said: This is private entities charging their own employees for being unhealthy. They can do what they want. I like the idea of people paying more because they live unhealthy lifestyles.

I am sure you do, with that authoritarian streak you have.

ZNYFRH said: It represents the fact that they will be using more insurance benefits, so they should have to pay more for their own risk factors. That's what I like about private industry.

People should pay more if insurance charges them more based on their risk factors, but that shouldn't be done via the employers.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Osborn Really? What is the reason most of the democratic canidates are talking about socialist, err, I mean, Universal Healthcare?

If you wanted to create this topic in order to debate Universal Healthcare and socialized medicine, you should have done so.

I'm reading the topic to be debating whether private companies should be altering prices on healthcare for employees with high risk factors.

Quote by: Osborn I am sure you do, with that authoritarian streak you have.

Could you not make the ignorant mistake of thinking that the stance a person takes in one thread indicates their own personal preference?

Nor take up the annoying habit, exhibited by Zhavric, where what you say in one thread is dragged into another to attack you personally instead of address your point?

Summarily speaking, I don't have an authoritarian streak. I chose a side in that other thread that I don't 100% agree with.

Quote by: Osborn People should pay more if insurance charges them more based on their risk factors, but that shouldn't be done via the employers.

Obviously, but medical insurance is provided to you through your employer.

Coverage for a single person might cost $500 a month. Some employers pay $400 of that and require that you pay $100. Some pay more, or less, depending on unions and other negotiations, but the base cost of coverage to subscribe a person is the same.

What these employers are doing is telling people that as long as they have higher risk factors and unhealthy lifestyle choices (obesity, smoking) then the employer will pay less of the cost of the insurance and turn more of the cost onto the employee.

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: I'm reading the topic to be debating whether private companies should be altering prices on healthcare for employees with high risk factors.

Ok, so why is that the role of an employer AS OPPOSED to those in the risk calcluation industry, namely, INSURANCE?!?

[ZNFYRH]

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

It isn't always.

Some insurance plans place those requirements first and set variable rates to the employers initially.

It isn't a blanket policy... it depends on the insurance company and the employer.

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: It isn't always.

It shouldn't ever be a reason for discrimination by an employer, which is what its being used as against smokers, and now obese people.

ZNYFRH said: Some insurance plans place those requirements first and set variable rates to the employers initially. It isn't a blanket policy... it depends on the insurance company and the employer.

I am just saying this isn't the job of the employer, its the job of the insurance companies.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: shawmutt A fat tax? I see a looming lawsuit for sure.

But this isn't a tax. It's initiated by a private company. And what would the lawsuit be? I'm sure these people are employed at will. Assuming they are, they have no contract and their employer can change the terms of their employment at any time. Conversely, they are free to quit and find employment elsewhere if they choose.

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?!?

The role of an employer - meaning business - is to maximize earnings. Each employee costs a certain amount for X amount of production. If some employees are doing X amount of production but due to other factors cost the employer much more, the employer has a right - a responsibility in the case of publicly held companies - to mitigate those costs.

[Osborn F Enready]

Tivo said: The role of an employer - meaning business - is to maximize earnings.

No dispute.

Tivo said: Each employee costs a certain amount for X amount of production. If some employees are doing X amount of production but due to other factors cost the employer much more, the employer has a right - a responsibility in the case of publicly held companies - to mitigate those costs.

I agree, which is why healthcare shouldn't be a part of the corporate structure for the business to bear. Insurance is an individual issue, and should be dealt with by individuals. If employers want their employees to stay in shape, they can always offer discounted gym memberships as part of a company promotion for fitness.

Mandating employers provide healthcare is a mistake I think. Employees should be able to make enough to provide their own insurance for themselves, from the company and providers they choose that best suit their needs.

Wages can, and should be used as production motivation factor for individual employees.

[Maryjane]

The role of an employer - meaning business - is to maximize earnings. Each employee costs a certain amount for X amount of production. If some employees are doing X amount of production but due to other factors cost the employer much more, the employer has a right - a responsibility in the case of publicly held companies - to mitigate those costs.

I agree with you on the above but let's not forget that an employee chooses one employer over the other as to what best benefits them as well, so you have two parties to satisfy.

If an employee does not like the stipulations an employer imposes upon them, they can vote with their feet and go through all the trouble of finding another job. The employer then has to rehire and go thru the training process all over again until they find a suitable applicant. Lose / Lose situation.

Perhaps it would benefit both parties for the employer to pay the employee a suitable wage increase and let them negotiate an individual policy with the insurance companies themselves?. That way the employer doesn't look like the bad guy for enforcing a police state and therefore productivity isn't lost. The employee gets a better understanding how it is from the employer's perspective who is trying to provide benefits for them in a world of ever increasing costs. (sometimes 30% a year)

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Osborn I am just saying this isn't the job of the employer, its the job of the insurance companies.

I would disagree only on this:

Medical insurance costs are quite high. As long as people expect their employer to pick up part of the costs of medical insurance, those employers can set any standards they choose.

It is not necessarily illegal for a company to discriminate for any reason... and obesity is definitely up there and justifiable for reasons of representation of the company.

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: I would disagree only on this: Medical insurance costs are quite high. As long as people expect their employer to pick up part of the costs of medical insurance, those employers can set any standards they choose. It is not necessarily illegal for a company to discriminate for any reason... and obesity is definitely up there and justifiable for reasons of representation of the company.

This is why I think employees across the country should be telling their employers to stop providing their healthcare, and instead pay them in cash on their check what they WERE paying for healthcare added on to their salary or hourly work.

Insurance companies will start providing cheaper individual insurance if the market starts to re-emerge. Right now corporations are dictating the market, monopolizing not only jobs and production in the U.S., but also the medical insurance industry through buying power and market share.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Mandating employers provide healthcare is a mistake I think. Employees should be able to make enough to provide their own insurance for themselves, from the company and providers they choose that best suit their needs. Wages can, and should be used as production motivation factor for individual employees.

But wages in many industries aren't keeping pace with cost of living in America, making larger insurance pools set up through employers the only economical private means of delivering affordable health insurance. Even with employer insurance coverage, about 40 million Americans remain uninsured, and millions more are underinsured.

Therefore, while employers currently must bear some of the insurance burden in our medical system, they have a vested interest in employing the healthiest people. Alcoholics, for example, can and do lose their jobs. Obese and overweight people have statistically higher chances of getting diabetes and other expensive health problems, which affect everyone's health insurance premiums.

Of course, firing the overweight and obese doesn't solve the underlying problem. That's why HMOs and employer insurance schemes, while better than nothing, are failing. At some point our nation will extend some version of Medicare to the entire population, and the current national polls (including a majority of US physicians) reflect that trend.

Most Support U.S. Guarantee Of Health Care - New York Times
Support for national health insurance among U.S. p...[Ann Intern Med. 2003] - PubMed Result
Momentum Grows On Health Care - January 9, 2007 - The New York Sun
Universal Health Coverage Attracts New Support - washingtonpost.com

[ZNFYRH]

I definitely agree with that.

Employers are determining the market instead of the employees.

The problem, though, is that many people would have to take that extra $400 a month and use it to pay their health insurance anyway.

What would happen would be a serious change in medical costs and probably fewer doctors as they felt the pinch of lower salaries for all those years of hard work.

Doctors are one of the few professions where I think their high pay is justified, and I think that our current system has stabilized that pay for them. Hurt the system and doctors will feel it first.

[The Decider]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Doctors are one of the few professions where I think their high pay is justified, and I think that our current system has stabilized that pay for them. Hurt the system and doctors will feel it first.

And yet a majority of US physicians support national health insurance, which almost guarantees a lower income but also relief from the high cost of private practice and malpractice insurance.

Support for national health insurance among U.S. p...[Ann Intern Med. 2003] - PubMed Result

[Osborn F Enready]

The Decider said: But wages in many industries aren't keeping pace with cost of living in America, making larger insurance pools set up through employers the only economical private means of delivering affordable health insurance. Even with employer insurance coverage, about 40 million Americans remain uninsured, and millions more are underinsured.

This is a complex problem you are attempting to over-simplify, which makes it harder to understand, and easier to justify bad legislation.

Wages aren't keeping pace because the type of work is changing drasticly as manufacturing moves offshore, and service industry becomes the norm. This is a problem caused by many things, but mainly the devaluing of the dollar, the creation of laws that allow manufacturers in third world countries that abuse their workers to enter our trade market with their goods, illegal aliens flooding the labor workforce and lowering wages on low-skilled jobs, and overall, over-taxation while simulataneously borrowing from foreign nations to spend much more than we are making.

The Decider said: Therefore, while employers currently must bear some of the insurance burden in our medical system,

There is no reason for corporations to offer healthcare coverage anymore.

The Decider said: they have a vested interest in employing the healthiest people. Alcoholics, for example, can and do lose their jobs. Obese and overweight people have statistically higher chances of getting diabetes and other expensive health problems, which affect everyone's health insurance premiums.

Exactly, which is why corporations are now using this as an EXCUSE to create new hiring descrimination policies, attempting to FORCE society to conform to "their prescribed vision" of what America should be. This is yet another blatant step towards authoritarian control.

The Decider said: Of course, firing the overweight and obese doesn't solve the underlying problem. That's why HMOs and employer insurance schemes, while better than nothing, are failing. At some point our nation will extend some version of Medicare to the entire population, and the current national polls (including a majority of US physicians) reflect that trend.

Which is exactly what the corporations and big government want.... Total control over you, your finances, your medical access and your life.

Good sheeple. (pet pet pet pet)

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: I definitely agree with that. Employers are determining the market instead of the employees. The problem, though, is that many people would have to take that extra $400 a month and use it to pay their health insurance anyway.

That would be the intention, and purpose, would it not? People have to take responsibility for their own care, and this will be the first step in the right direction, which will expand the market for individual insurance leading to lower costs and more overall levels of care more tailored to individual wants.

ZNYFRH said: What would happen would be a serious change in medical costs and probably fewer doctors as they felt the pinch of lower salaries for all those years of hard work.

Exactly, which would cause doctors to have to compete again, bringing prices down for everyone, and keeping doctors wages in check with the rest of the markets.

ZNYFRH said: Doctors are one of the few professions where I think their high pay is justified, and I think that our current system has stabilized that pay for them. Hurt the system and doctors will feel it first.

Good doctors would still be able to demand high pay, but what is considered "good" would be honed more accurately to skill AND service as opposed to just degrees on the wall.

Rich people will still demand the "best" and be willing to pay for it, but many more choices will exist for every level of the market, especially the lower ends of the spectrum.