Extra pounds mean insurance fees for Ala. workers

The Scotsman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
3,032
Location
South of the Haggis Munching Line
Extra pounds mean insurance fees for Ala. workers
By PHILLIP RAWLS
Associated Press Writer

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) -- 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.

Alabama already charges workers who smoke - and has seen some success in getting them to quit - but now has turned its attention to a problem that plagues many in the Deep South: obesity.
The State Employees' Insurance Board this week approved a plan to charge state workers starting in January 2010 if they don't have free health screenings.

If the screenings turn up serious problems with blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose or obesity, employees will have a year to see a doctor at no cost, enroll in a wellness program, or take steps on their own to improve their health. If they show progress in a follow-up screening, they won't be charged. But if they don't, they must pay starting in January 2011.

"We are trying to get individuals to become more aware of their health," said state worker Robert Wagstaff, who serves on the insurance board.
Not all state employees see it that way.
"It's terrible," said health department employee Chequla Motley. "Some people come into this world big."

Computer technician Tim Colley already pays $24 a month for being a smoker and doesn't like the idea of another charge.
"It's too Big Brotherish," he said.

The board will apply the obesity charge to anyone with a body mass index of 35 or higher who is not making progress. A person 5 feet 6 inches tall weighing 220 pounds, for example, would have a BMI of 35.5. A BMI of 30 is considered the threshold for obesity.

The board has not yet determined how much progress a person would have to show and is uncertain how many people might be affected because everyone could avoid the charge by working to lose weight.
But that's unlikely - government statistics show Alabamians have a big weight problem. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 30.3 percent are now obese, ranking the state behind only Mississippi.

E-K. Daufin of Montgomery, a college professor and founder of Love Your Body, Love Yourself, which holds body acceptance workshops, said the new policy will be stressful for people like her.

"I'm big and beautiful and doing my best to keep my stress levels down so I can stay healthy," Daufin said. "That's big, not lazy, not a glutton and certainly not deserving of the pompous, poisonous disrespect served up daily to those of us with more bounce to the ounce."

A recent study suggested that about half of overweight people and nearly a third of obese people have normal blood pressure and cholesterol levels, while about a quarter of people considered to be normal weight suffer from the ills associated with obesity.

Walter Lindstrom, founder of the Obesity Law and Advocacy Center in California, said he's concerned that all overweight Alabama employees will get is advice to walk more and broil their chicken.

"The state will feel good about itself for offering something and the person of size will end up paying $300 a year for the bad luck of having a chronic disease his/her state-sponsored insurance program failed to cover in an appropriate and meaningful fashion," he said.

William Ashmore, executive director of the State Employees' Insurance Board, said the state will spend an extra $1.6 million next year on screenings and wellness programs, but should see significant long-term savings.

Ashmore said research shows someone with a body mass index of 35 to 39 generates $1,748 more in annual medical expenses than someone with a BMI less than 25, considered normal.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, a few states offer one-time financial incentives for pursuing healthy lifestyles. Ohio workers, for instance, get $50 for having health assessments and another $50 for following through with the advice.

Arkansas and Missouri go a step further, offering monthly discounts on premiums for employees who take health risk assessments and participate in wellness programs to reduce obesity, stress and other health problems.
Alabama's new policy is drawing no objection from the lobbying group representing state workers.

Mac McArthur, executive director of Alabama State Employees Association, said the plan is not designed to punish employees.
"It's a positive," he said.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-08-22-00-19-21


Well since its tax payers paying their health care then sounds fair enough..........
 
Werbung:
Well since its tax payers paying their health care then sounds fair enough..........

Can't you people who advocate "National Healthcare" see the writing on the wall here?

Hello Healthcare... Goodbye freedom of choice.
picture.php
 
Hello Healthcare... Goodbye freedom of choice.


How does good health care for everyone interfere with freedom of choice.???? Which "freedom" is being curtailed?? Seems that those that object to health care......can always refuse it.


More important, what are some so afraid of?? Heck, they are losing their freedoms in the name of "security" and don't mind that at all. How is security more important than one's health?? If some one is ill , he could care less about "security"......... and justs wants the best health care available in order to regain their healthy status.


***********

actually , it makes sense that those with weight issues should pay more insurance. They are hi risk. It might , although unlikely, offer incentive for weight loss .
 
actually , it makes sense that those with weight issues should pay more insurance. They are hi risk. It might , although unlikely, offer incentive for weight loss .

You mean like other "Sin Taxes"?

People shouldn't smoke so we levy heavy taxes against tobacco products and the companies that produce those goods.

I thought Socialists only wanted to raise taxes on the rich... Taxes like those on Alcohol, Tobacco and now "being heavy" hit the poor first and the hardest.

Socialists hate the idea of a flat tax that impacts everyone, rich to poor, equally - saying the (e.g.10)% the poor have to pay is not fair because they earn so little and its a disproportionate burden...

Yet those same people are willing to abandon that argument when they have the ability to use taxes to change behavior and are more than happy to raise taxes on goods that primarily impact the poor.

The idea being, make the taxation (without representation) exorbitant enough and ONLY the rich can afford to act irresponsibly. This is how Socialist ALWAYS try to engage in Social Engineering within a Capitalist society. Taxation has become their preferred method for answering the question of how best to impose "personal responsibility", rather than letting people have the freedom to choose how best to live their life.

As it is with a play, so it is with life—what matters is not how long the acting lasts, but how good it is. -Seneca
What if the Right used this tactic of taxing behavior they disapprove of.... What if they had their very own Sin Tax.... What does everyone think about a tax on Abortions? We could also throw on a Windfall Profits Tax on the industry itself - "Big Abortion" - since they shouldn't be making a profit for performing these vital services, over a million times a year.

I bet the Left would scream bloody murder and complain about how the Right was imposing its will on others through taxation... I bet they'd say it was unconstitutional... I bet they would yell the loudest about how its a violation of their civil rights and a direct attack on their freedom of choice. Fat people, smokers, drinkers, the poor etc. get the Leftist "Double - Standard - Penetration" move put on them because the Left doesn't see the purpose in letting these people have freedom of choice - they make the wrong choices in the eyes of the left, so its ok to tax those "Sinners".
 
You mean like other "Sin Taxes"?

People shouldn't smoke so we levy heavy taxes against tobacco products and the companies that produce those goods.

I thought Socialists only wanted to raise taxes on the rich... Taxes like those on Alcohol, Tobacco and now "being heavy" hit the poor first and the hardest.

Socialists hate the idea of a flat tax that impacts everyone, rich to poor, equally - saying the (e.g.10)% the poor have to pay is not fair because they earn so little and its a disproportionate burden...

Yet those same people are willing to abandon that argument when they have the ability to use taxes to change behavior and are more than happy to raise taxes on goods that primarily impact the poor.

The idea being, make the taxation (without representation) exorbitant enough and ONLY the rich can afford to act irresponsibly. This is how Socialist ALWAYS try to engage in Social Engineering within a Capitalist society. Taxation has become their preferred method for answering the question of how best to impose "personal responsibility", rather than letting people have the freedom to choose how best to live their life.


What if the Right used this tactic of taxing behavior they disapprove of.... What if they had their very own Sin Tax.... What does everyone think about a tax on Abortions? We could also throw on a Windfall Profits Tax on the industry itself - "Big Abortion" - since they shouldn't be making a profit for performing these vital services, over a million times a year.

I bet the Left would scream bloody murder and complain about how the Right was imposing its will on others through taxation... I bet they'd say it was unconstitutional... I bet they would yell the loudest about how its a violation of their civil rights and a direct attack on their freedom of choice. Fat people, smokers, drinkers, the poor etc. get the Leftist "Double - Standard - Penetration" move put on them because the Left doesn't see the purpose in letting these people have freedom of choice - they make the wrong choices in the eyes of the left, so its ok to tax those "Sinners".

Well said.
 
Do not stop at overweight. If they have a pre-existing condition they should pay more or not be covered at all. Why should I have to pay more for insurance because some of my co-workers are genetically weak? Heart mummers (bad valves), diabetes, heat disease, Huntington's Corea, High Blood pressure, carrying the breast cancer gene, recovering alcoholics, Should be no coverage for child birth (they decides to have a baby, not me), Lew Gehrig's disease, etc., etc.
 
Werbung:
People have to realize that even insurance has its limits to how much expenses it can absorb. Sooner or later, those limits will be exceeded and people who abuse those limits will have to be denied treatment and DIE. DAHermit is solidly on-target, in that respect.

Let's make it possible for them to die cheaply, quickly, and painlessly, insomuch as feasible, within those same cost limits.

Personally, I love French food and wine, and rich food. I am unwilling to give those enjoyable things up for a few paltry and meaningless years of frail old age. I have no problems with being denied coverage. Just allow me to die as cheaply, quickly, and painlessly as possible, when that time comes. Hospices do quite well at that sort of thing.

Meanwhile, other people have other preferences and make other choices from my preferences. Let's enable those choices for as many people as possible. Let's not let anyone go without some sort of health insurance.
 
Back
Top