Alabama to Charge Fatties More for Health Insurance
Well...
Alabama, pushed to second in national obesity rankings by deep-fried Southern favorites, is cracking down on state workers who are too fat.
The state has given its 37,527 employees a year to start getting fit — or they’ll pay $25 a month for insurance that otherwise is free.
Alabama will be the first state to charge overweight state workers who don’t work on slimming down, while a handful of other states reward employees who adopt healthy behaviors.
It sounds like if the affected employees enroll in a wellness program, see a doctor (which as a state employee is presumably subsidized heavily), and show some signs of progress, they won’t be charged.
So if you make an effort to improve your health, you won’t be charged. If you don’t, you will. That seems entirely reasonable to me. Better the individual pay for their choice than the taxpayer.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 21, 2008 at 2331 hrs
What about the employees’ family members? Why not charge extra for people who don’t wear seat belts? Who drive motor cycles? Who smoke? Who have stressful jobs (whoops, that might be the employer’s fault!)? Eat too much grilled meat? Maybe we should require couples to get pre-marriage genetic testing to be sure they don’t pass on expensive inherited conditions or bad teeth (who you marry is even more of a choice than your weight—which might be partly due to a bad combination of your parents’ genes).
The medical profession and the insurance companies can’t even get together on what is an ideal weight!
Being overweight is a risk factor, though not as much of a “chosen” risk factor as many people believe. But it’s not the only “chosen” risk factor. A lot of thin people do not live healthy livestyles and have high blood pressure and other issues often associated with weight.
The idea of imposing an insurance penalty for bad lifestyle “choices” sounds good in theory, but eventually the only people who can be sure of being covered would never leave the house and only eat vegetables (and then slip in the bathtub)!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2008 at 0507 hrs
Has Steve Kagen been informed of this idea yet? For all we know, he views this as ‘discrimination for a pre-existing condition’ and will want it struck down.
We are all aware that’s his backdoor way to universal health care, right class?
In all seriousness, good for the State of Alabama and good for any insurance company that jumps on board with this idea. Insurance is about risk aversion and loss prevention, and if you can’t control your weight and other health habits (including smoking, high blood pressure, etc), why the hell should the rest of us pay on our policies for your behavior?
And purrfect mamma, a lot of what you mentioned is already calculated into insurance policy payment calculations. If you drive a motorcycle, you’re paying more. If you smoke, you’re probably paying more. If you’re a NASCAR driver, you’re probably paying more. If you’re a crab fisherman seen regularly on “The Deadliest Catch,” you’tr probably paying more.
Let me repeat: INSURANCE IS ABOUT RISK AVERSION AND LOSS PREVENTION. THE LESS RISKY BEHAVIOR YOU ARE IN, THE LESS YOU ARE TO PAY WHEN TRAGEDY HAPPENS.
As for genetic anomalies and disorders, Congress - by a near unanimous vote - this session passed a law that makes it illegal for insurance companies to penalize you for genetic and familial traits. It’s reasoned that these are things you can’t control, so why should you be punished for them?
It’s all the other stuff that you should paying for; especially when you don’t take care of yourself.
Posted by Kevin Binversie on August 22, 2008 at 0635 hrs
Except I’d be willing to bet that the actual HMO policies the state provides don’t COST anymore for overweight people than for thin people.
Yay for big brother, right libtards?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2008 at 0656 hrs
What I don’t understand is, if you’re fat you probably won’t live as long, and will likely cost less to insure over your lifetime. I think insurance companies should charge less for fatties!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2008 at 0736 hrs
This all seems a little “Big Brother-ish” to me, and I’m rather surprised that the “conservatives” on this board would hop blindly on board.
The whole idea behind group health insurance, which is what governmental agencies and most private sector firms provide to employees, is that every similarly-situated person in the group pays the same premium. That’s the very definition of “group insurance.” So it has traditionally been OK to say that someone with the family plan will pay more than the person who’s insuring just himself. But employers have not traditionally started pulling out individual people, examing their lifestyle choices, and charging them differential rates based on some arbitrary standard about what consitutes a healthy lifestyle. What Alabama is doing is really ending the whole notion of group health insurance.
I’m not sure about you, Kevin, but I’ve *never* had an employer ask me if I smoke, or ride a motorcycle, or skydive on the weekends, or any of that before telling me how much my health insurance would cost. Private life insurance companies ask these questions, but that’s not group insurance. Even my group life insurance through the state doesn’t ask questions like these. And I pay no more and no less for my health insurance than the guy in the next cube who is rail-thin but exists on a diet made up almost exclusively of Red Bull and the free food he scoops up at his second job at a local bar.
Which brings me to my next point. Where does this stop? Who’s to say that a person who the medical community would say is “obese” poses any greater a risk to the employer’s health insirance pool than my thin, Red Bull-adicted co-worker? Or the guy down the hall who goes skydiving on the weekends? How about the young person who appears healthy, but has a raging venereal disease he didn’t tell the employer about? What about the guy with a conservation hunting license that allows him to shoot anything that moves? Any idea how dangerous hunting is? Between heart attacks in the field and people inadvertently shooting each other, that’s a dangerous business. So, should HUNTERS pay more for their health insurance? You all ready to advocate for that?
Today, they’re coming for the “fatties” (thanks, Owen!). Heck - they’re an easy target—easy to identify by sight. Tomorrow, the fun and games may seem a lot less fun when it’s your HR director prying into the specifics of your personal habits, hobbies, and, maybe, your sex life, to decide how much of a premium YOU should pay.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2008 at 0738 hrs
This all seems a little “Big Brother-ish” to me, and I’m rather surprised that the “conservatives” on this board would hop blindly on board.
Well clearly you don’t have a good grasp of the concept of “big brother” as it is used by “conservatives” or others who fear the heavy hand of government.
Big Brother is used to refer to the actions of a government against citizens.
Private companies (insurance companies) don’t fall under the realm of “big brother” because they are private companies. You choose individually as a consumer who you do business with and who you don’t.
And in this case, the state of Alabama is in the role of employer, not the role of government to its employees regarding the healthcare issue and how they deal with healthcare costs.
Let me clarify for you further. I am against government smoking bans. That is big government/big brother oppression. I support businesses voluntarily choosing to go smoke free so I can go have a drink without second handsmoking all night long. See the difference? Private companies voluntarily choosing to ban something isn’t big brother-ish at all.
I’m not sure about you, Kevin, but I’ve *never* had an employer ask me if I smoke, or ride a motorcycle, or skydive on the weekends, or any of that before telling me how much my health insurance would cost
Fine, but thats just and anecdote… Surely you aren’t suggesting that just because YOU’ve never been asked that it doesn’t happen? I can tell you that when our firm goes out to bid for our company health insurance the insurance companies ALL give us helath questionaires for our employees fill out and they ALL ask if you smoke.
And I pay no more and no less for my health insurance than the guy in the next cube who is rail-thin but exists on a diet made up almost exclusively of Red Bull and the free food he scoops up at his second job at a local bar
Well thats the whole point of the Alabama situation. Historically a companies group policy premium is based on the aggregated risk. Now companies are stratifying their coverage based on these large risk factors and charging different premiums in an effort to introduce some accountability and awareness to the employees.
Who’s to say that a person who the medical community would say is “obese” poses any greater a risk to the employer’s health insirance pool than my thin, Red Bull-adicted co-worker?
Insurance companies have underwriters and actuaries who specialize in the statistical analysis and calculations of probabilities etc. Those are the ones that have determined who poses the greater risk. And based upon what underwriters and actuaries are compensated, its not spin-the-bottle.
How about the young person who appears healthy, but has a raging venereal disease he didn’t tell the employer about?
rotf… Are you for real? “raging venereal disease” could you be any more aggrandizing. You crack me up.
What about the guy with a conservation hunting license that allows him to shoot anything that moves?
Shoot anything that moves? Are you for real?
Any idea how dangerous hunting is?
Yes, and I’m sure the actuaries and underwriters know how dangerous it ISN’T even better than I do.
Between heart attacks in the field and people inadvertently shooting each other, that’s a dangerous business. So, should HUNTERS pay more for their health insurance?
You’re so off base and blinded by your irritation that you aren’t even making sense. People have heart attacks every day. Its just that the news media loves to report the ones that happen while someone is hunting cause they can add it to the sensationalized story.
I can assure you more guys die shoveling snow in their driveway every year than hunting. As for accidental shooting. Very very very few. As a percentage it pales in comparison to the odds of dying in a car accident, or any number of other outcomes.
Again, the actuaries and underwriters have figures this out. I guess they should have asked your for your “statistical input” first. They surely would have come to different conclusions
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2008 at 0925 hrs
Everyone needs to look at the first comment to this thread. If someone is overweight, but is taking steps to address it, enroll in a wellness program (a gym membership), see a doctor, and show some signs of improvement then they are not charged. A lot of insurance companies will subsidize gym memberships, if not pay for them outright, so this is not costing anyone who is halfway motivated to not be charged more.
Kevin- This is not a preexisting condition since people can take the minimal steps to prevent the higher costs.
Where is the personal responsibility?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2008 at 0948 hrs
illegal for insurance companies to penalize you for genetic and familial traits
All of my mother’s brothers, both my father’s sisters, and a good 75% of their cousins are in the 250-300-lb range. But no, people are never over “acceptable weight” because of genetic or familial traits, they’re fat because they’re lazy and/or stupid, and need a government remediation program to teach them why they should want to be thin (as if the social discrimination hasn’t already, hah!).
It doesn’t matter what I eat or how much exercise I get, I will never be an “acceptable” weight. When I exercise, I don’t “show progress” in weight loss. The only time in my life I have ever lost weight was when I had mono—oooh, the health!—and it hurt to even drink water. *heh*
“Where’s the personal responsibility?” Well, let’s see. I can kill myself and decay down to a “normal weight”, I can undergo an expensive procedure with a 5% chance of dying on the table and a 75% chance of life-long complications that will shorten my life expectancy and ultimately fail, I might have some luck with an extreme diet that will destroy my organs (and gain all the weight back the second I start eating food again)....so the rest of you can feel good about “fighting obesity”?? Does any of this sound like being responsible??
And if I was a skinny guy who spends my weekends trolling for anonymous/bareback sex—they never have any health complications from voluntary behaviors, I’m sure—that would be OK?
This is the sort of “logic” I expect from “progressive” collectivists and other sorts who hate individualism…but I don’t understand it from conservatives.
[...and in the UK, the fatties have to pay the tax to support the NHS, but they’re not allowed treatment. That’s the next step to punish the fat people who don’t allow their meals to be monitored, isn’t it?]
Posted by HeatherRadish on August 22, 2008 at 1025 hrs
Now companies are stratifying their coverage based on these large risk factors and charging different premiums in an effort to introduce some accountability and awareness to the employees.
Read: Now companies are stratifying their coverage in another attempt to fatten their coffers, and they’re doing it at the expense of an easily identifiable subset of the population.
Insurance companies have underwriters and actuaries who specialize in the statistical analysis and calculations of probabilities etc.
in order to continue to fatten the coffers of their employers.
I get profit motive. I fight back against unwarranted discrimination. Especially when it is practiced by a government body.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2008 at 1111 hrs
from the article:
“We are trying to get individuals to become more aware of their health,” said state worker Robert Wagstaff, who serves on the insurance board.
Shit…condescend much?
I can just imagine the 300 lb state worker in Alabama who hears this and suddenly realizes that toting around that extra 150 might not be good for him. Way to go Mr. Wagstaff! I’m sure old Tubby McTubberpants ( I stole the name from Wendy who called John Edwards Scummy McScummerpants—crack me up!)will set up that trust fund for your kids the minute he gets back from the doctor’s office after being told that if he eats right and exercises more, he’ll be healthier!
Who’da thunk it?!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2008 at 1129 hrs
Read: Now companies are stratifying their coverage in another attempt to fatten their coffers, and they’re doing it at the expense of an easily identifiable subset of the population.
Mike, nothing in the article supports your assertion that companies are out lining their pockets with these now policies regarding health insurance.
I know the “corporate greed” programmed knee-jerk response to everything seems to make a pretty good comeback, and lots of people will just go ‘yup… mmm hmmm..’ the reality is that companies have been eating healthcare premium increases for years, and some companies have been passing them along to their employees. You should hear our staff cry and complain if their health coverage deduction from their paycheck goes up (we pay 75% they pay 25%)
At some point if you put your “evil company” mindset to the side and take an objective look at the realities you’ll find that the notion of “the man” always lining his pockets at the expense of the average Joe isn’t true.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2008 at 1218 hrs
It would be great if employers could just do this with carrots. But the fact is, without sticks, the only people who really benefit from wellness programs are people who are already well. When an employer/insurance company decides to subsidize gym memberships, for example, the biggest beneficiaries are those who already have gym memberships. Those people are generally among the healthiest people in the employee pool. And cost is generally not the deterrent to exercise for people who are grossly out of shape. There are a million ways to exercise that are all free.
In a day and age where insurance costs are being overwhelmingly driven not by genetic factors but behavioral factors, it only makes sense that employers focus on those behaviors as they try to control the cost of health care. This especially makes sense for employers who are paying for everything with tax dollars!
Again, it’d be one thing if the employer was simply trying to levy additional charges based on weight. But as Kevin has noted, the federal government has dealt with the issue of genetic and familial disposition. Alabama isn’t demanding that its overweight employees succeed. It’s asking that they try. It’s asking that they show some progress. And if they don’t want to try, Alabama is asking them to pay $300 a year.
Considering that poor behavioral choices are the largest driver of health insurance increases, are there really people reading this blog that think that employers shouldn’t be able to focus on those bad behavioral choices as they attempt to control costs? Sure, some people can eat 5 Big Macs and not move an ounce on the scale. Other people would gain five pounds. Is that fair? Maybe not, but neither is life. Deal with it.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 22, 2008 at 1248 hrs
You may be right xxpilot, and I admit to some bias in this respect. People I trust in the industry tell me that it isn’t the health insurance companies that are the reason for the escalating costs. But the fact remains: My employer has to pay an ever increasing cost to insure me (my group). The product we receive has not gotten any better.
So someone somewhere is escalating these costs.
I am going to think of great big insurance companies with highly paid actuaries and finely manicured lawns on the corporate headquarters before I blame it on fat people. I’m going to look to pharmaceutical companies who spend millions of dollars on ad campaigns for drugs that I can’t get without a doctor’s script before I blame the health care consumers. I am wondering about health care providers (especially in this region) who are constantly putting up expensive new facilities in areas already serviced by functioning hospitals before I look at the common bloke trying to pay for his arthritis medication.
Any chance I get to stick up for the folks in the second half of those sentences and hold the folks in the first half accountable, I’ll take.
Posted by Mike on August 22, 2008 at 1309 hrs
Total Entries: 19997
Total Comments: 134020
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 06:25 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 11:57 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 152
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 11:57 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).