Fat tax in AL

[chaoskitty 0]

Quote

I think its discrimination. Simple as that.

The only thing that should matter is how the person does the job. The best person for the job should get that job no matter what color, what size, or whatever.

That would be true if this had anything to do with hiring/firing people. What theyre actually trying to do is recoup some of the cost of the insurance premium paid by employers.

I've seen some employers go about it the other way by paying for gym memberships (based on usage), which is a benefit for those who use them.

Bottom line is, there are people who don't care about being healthy. They don't excercise, and they won't excercise. There is a prescription drug to treat every obesity-related health issue, and thats the road they choose. Unfortunately, that road costs their employer more money to insure ALL employees. Not just the individual premiums of the obese employees.

IMO, a better indication of health (rather than BMI) would be the number of prescriptions you're taking and how many different diagnosis you carry around at once. Of course, that information is protected under HIPAA.

[downwardspiral 0]

so will the premium decrease as the employees lose weight? OR will it remain the same?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[chaoskitty 0]

Quote

so will the premium decrease as the employees lose weight? OR will it remain the same?

The premium doesn't have anything to do with numbers on a scale, it has to do with the $$ amount your insurance company has to pay your health care provider. Its not a suprise that obesity is the cause for a large number of other health issues. Think of the cost of treating a type 2 diabetic alone.

So to answer your question in a round about way, yes, if a company's employees are healthier, they generally spend less on health care, and their company will have access to insurance plans with lower premiums.

But it seems what is happening in AL, people are becoming more unhealthy rather than healthier. Ins. premiums are going up. Instead of passing the cost on to all employees, they're trying to recoup that cost from the obese employees. Fair or unfair?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

they're trying to recoup that cost from the obese employees. Fair or unfair?

well, it depends

If I'm fit - then it's really very fair

If I'm obese - then it's a travesty of unfairitudedness

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[chaoskitty 0]

Exactly. Here's a different perspective that (I think) works..

You have 2 teenage kids driving the same car. They split the cost of the insurance out of their pockets. One kid gets 2 tickets in a year. The other kid doesn't get any tickets. Policy comes up for renewal and its $300 more. Should they continue to split the insurance bill evenly? Or should the one who got the tickets and caused the increase pay more?

[rehmwa 2]

The ticketed kid doesn't get to drive, AND she makes up any difference in cost that the other kid will pay for not sharing the policy.

Ticket kid has negatively impacted the good kid with her irresponsibility, so she pays for her impact on the good kid AND looses driving privileges because she's demonstrated lack of responsibility in that area. Probably for at least a 6 month insurance cycle.

We try to teach right from wrong AND personal responsibility and the consequences of one's actions on themselves and how it affects others. The kid NEVER gets to drive is she can't honestly own that too.


example -

started at $600 per cycle for 2 kids (each kid pays $300)

after tickets, it goes to $900 per cycle (therefore ticket kids looses driving privelege)

so the insurance for one kid goes to $450 per cycle for example.

therefore, ticket kid now pays $150 per cycle and still doesn't get to drive - that's what a couple tickets REALLY costs her

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[chaoskitty 0]

So to parallel back to the other situation, you (as an employer) would not provide health care coverage to the employees that caused the premiums to go up?
Thats not really an option.

[downwardspiral 0]

Well it's great for the skinny guy with a shitload of health problems but really sucky for the obese guy who is as healthy as a horse. Why use weight as a criteria rather than hospital visits?

So eventually you wouldn't mind being charged an additionall fee for health coverage because you are a skydiver and display a disregard for your physical well being?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So to parallel back to the other situation, you (as an employer) would not provide health care coverage to the employees that caused the premiums to go up?
Thats not really an option.

nope - parallel back means I fire the fat employee and they still pay something to the employees that suffered for their fat habits. but asked about my family, not some company I'd hypothetically run

no, I think fitness tables for premium coverage should be allowed for people that choose that type of coverage. (in other words, insurance companies should be allowed to offer ANY type of package they can sell - and the insurance company and the insurance customer should deal with whatever they agreed to). If you don't like your employer's policy arrangements? work elsewhere until they change their policy.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[chaoskitty 0]

I think you're focusing on the exception, not the norm. But you're right, and thats why I said in an earlier post that a better indicator would be the number of prescriptions or diagnosis a person carries.

I don't think there is a good and fair solution, but it seems Alabama has a significant enough unhealthy population to try and do something about it.

[Darius11 12]

I don't think there is any way to determine who is going to use there insurance more. Hobbies can be the biggest factor when you consider chance of injury, and not just skydiving.

What about women? considering women are more likely to have a baby then men then should employee discriminate against them for fear of hospital costs? what if having twins runs in your family that could cost in the millions.

I view that as discrimination, i think people are looking for an escape goat and what better then the fatties.

How many people do we, all of us know who have goon to the hospital? think how many of the visits were from being too fat?

I can't rally think of category or demographic to list because they are from all over doing all sort of things. just MHO

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[leroydb 0]

so another question...

Based on higher medical costs, do to unhealthy obese people, AL wants to recoup these by charging the very people, that are the cause of the higher cost, money...

Seems fair. If I smoke I should have to for medical cares due to smoking. right?

Leroy


..I knew I was an unwanted baby when I saw my bath toys were a toaster and a radio...

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I think its discrimination. Simple as that.

The only thing that should matter is how the person does the job. The best person for the job should get that job no matter what color, what size, or whatever.

We don't agree often (if ever), but you nailed it right there.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Shotgun 1]

Hey, I've got a better idea. Let's just execute anyone who doesn't live a 100% healthy, risk-free life. That'll get rid of...... well, just about everyone.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Hey, I've got a better idea. Let's just execute anyone who doesn't live a 100% healthy, risk-free life. That'll get rid of...... well, just about everyone.

Those with a wingloading over.......1.3 will be the first against the wall.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

I think you're focusing on the exception, not the norm. But you're right, and thats why I said in an earlier post that a better indicator would be the number of prescriptions or diagnosis a person carries.

I don't think there is a good and fair solution, but it seems Alabama has a significant enough unhealthy population to try and do something about it.

I am deliberately focusing on the exception. My main concern, other than discrimination, is the the opportunities a policy like this will push us towards when it comes to forwarding the cost of healthcare to the employee. Seems a bit slippery to me.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[lawrocket 3]

Folks:

Welcome to socialism.

We hear about helmet laws for motorcyclists. "Well, when they get in an accident, their medical bills cost so much." The problem isn't motorcyclists. The problem is socialism.

Now, we've got people considered unhealthy because they are fat. This causes a cost to society. Their medical costs are eaten by the state. This is a problem, eh?

The problem is not people being fat. The problem is socialism. Alabama is planning on taxing them to recoup costs. They are basing it on a formula.

Now, this is only starting with state employees. Imagine a socialized healthcare system where everyone will pay based on their burden to society.

The problem is not fat people. The problem is not diabetes or BMI. The problem is socialism.

You want that In & Out 4x4 with double fries and a double chocolate shake. Go for it. But don't make us cover your ass...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

We hear about helmet laws for motorcyclists. "Well, when they get in an accident, their medical bills cost so much." The problem isn't motorcyclists. The problem is socialism.

The problem there is ignorance - unhelmeted riders are cheaper in the hospital. But they're a small minority, so easy to legislate orders to.

But fat people are the majority, so they'll have to walk a fine line. If not careful, the thin will be getting the tax because they'll live longer and collect more SS.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

But fat people are the majority, so they'll have to walk a fine line. If not careful, the thin will be getting the tax because they'll live longer and collect more SS.

Nope. That's far too many elections in the future to matter.

Fat people like me cost more money this term.

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Fat people like me cost more money this term.

Hey at least we can swoop like a mofo

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Icon134 0]

Quote

Quote

but probably couldn't run more then a mile (nevermind the fact that he smokes)

I don't think you can say the first part while 'neverminding' the second part

I know a few military types (not very many) that can run a mile and a half despite the fact that they smoke.

but my brother probably can't... and yet he's not considered overweight... now if he stopped smoking he would probably gain weight and might just have a higher BMI as me...

Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife...

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Being skinny does not guaranty being healthy just as being fat does not guaranty being unhealthy.

I agree with the first part but the second part is simply not correct. If one is fat then one has a health problem. Just because you can't see the damage that is occuring on the outside doesn't mean itts not occuring.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca