Vaughan Spa

Fatties to Pay Increased Health Insurance Premiums

Keebler Elf

The Original Elf
Aug 31, 2001
14,704
357
83
The Keebler Factory
From PerezHilton.com...

If you're overweight in Alabama, you better start getting in shape or the government is going to start charging you fees!

That's the case for their over 37,500 state employees. The state government is giving all of their employees one year to start getting fit.

If not, they're going to be charged $25 a month, basically to pay for insurance which is otherwise free.

It's similar to the legislation they already have where they charge employees that smoke a fee of $24 a month. Though that resulted in some success in getting people to quit smoking.

But it's going to suck if Alabama thinks you're too fat and smoke too much. Double the fees!

This will be the first state ever to charge overweight state workers who don't try and slim down.

Why can't Alabama be proactive like other states and just reward those employees that "adopt healthy behaviors"?

Alabama is the currently the second most obese state in the country. And according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 30.3% are now obese. But is this the right way to go about things?

Just this week, the State Employees' Insurance Board approved a plan to charge state workers if they don't have free health screenings starting in January 2010.

And if those screenings show that there are any serious problems with obesity, cholesterol, blood pressure and the sort, employees will have one year to see a free doctor and enroll in a wellness program.

If not they can take their own measures to improve their health. But if they don't show any progress in a follow-up screening, they'll have to start paying the fee starting the following year.

Anyone found with a body mass index of 35% or hight, or who is not making progress, will be considered obese and be required to pay up. A BMI of 30% is what's considered "the threshold for obesity."

Robert Wagstaff, a state employee that serves on the insurance board, says" We are trying to get individuals to become more aware of their health."

Many employees are not too thrilled with the decision.

Duh!

College professor and founder of a body acceptance workshop, E-K. Daufin, says "I'm big and beautiful and doing my best to keep my stress levels down so I can stay healthy. 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."
 

Keebler Elf

The Original Elf
Aug 31, 2001
14,704
357
83
The Keebler Factory
When I first started reading this I immediately thought, discrimination. But you know what, the discrimination is so minor and the benefits of encouraging people to lose weight are so enormous that I think I'm kind of in favour of it.

Now if they were to start cutting people off or charging astronomical rate increases, that's a different story. But that's not what I think is happening here.

I think Alabama is taking a leadership stand with its own employees and trying to encourage them to lose weight. And if it works, it's a great idea.

The whole idea of "it's none of anyone's business what I weigh" is clearly not working in North American society. Obesity is truly an epidemic. And that requires drastic action. If we were overrun with pestilence carrying rats, we wouldn't tolerate people saying, "what vermin I choose to keep in my own home is none of your business". We'd just start exterminating and tough shit if that infringes on your "rights."

There's a tipping point and we're over it...
 

syn

"tlc"
Aug 31, 2001
917
0
0
downtown toronto
Keebler Elf said:
From PerezHilton.com...
Anyone found with a body mass index of 35% or hight, or who is not making progress, will be considered obese and be required to pay up. A BMI of 30% is what's considered "the threshold for obesity."
um. article suggests it affects people with BMI of greater than 35%. i hope that is a relatively small percentage of the workforce.

[they also did the same measures for smokers a few years back.]

syn
 

tboy

resident smartass
Aug 18, 2001
15,971
2
0
64
way out in left field
syn said:
um. article suggests it affects people with BMI of greater than 35%. i hope that is a relatively small percentage of the workforce.

[they also did the same measures for smokers a few years back.]

syn
Exactly......

I mean, this reminds me of that old saying:
When they came for the jews, I didn't care cuz I'm catholic
When they came for the blacks, I didn't care cuz I'm white
When they came for the hispanics, I didn't care cuz I'm not hispanic
When they came for me there was no one left to say anything....

All these years of them dumping on smokers and everyone jumping on the bandwagon to be anti-smoking forgot one thing: once the smokers are gone, they're coming for YOU.......

(if you think I'm joking just remember that the federal government has already been advertising that obesity and especially childhood obesity is a major health concern for years.....it will only be a matter of time before you chubbies are going to get attention).
 

Moraff

Active member
Nov 14, 2003
3,648
0
36
So they've taken aim at the smokers, now they're working on the weight-challenged, where next? Drinkers, extreme sport-players......
basically the way is open to levy the extra fees against anyone who does anything that may increase their chances of getting sick/injured.
 

shakenbake

Senior Turgid Member
Nov 13, 2003
8,131
2,580
113
Durham Region, Den of Iniquity
www.vafanculo.it
Moraff said:
So they've taken aim at the smokers, now they're working on the weight-challenged, where next? Drinkers, extreme sport-players......
basically the way is open to levy the extra fees against anyone who does anything that may increase their chances of getting sick/injured.
Shhhhh!!!!

Big Brother is listening.
 

r_s426

New member
Oct 27, 2006
305
0
0
Drawing a parallel to this measure and concentration camps and slavery is a bit of a stretch. It's not quite the same slippery slope. It's more akin to auto insurance providers charging higher premiums for males under 25, or basing premiums according to risk factors.

The carrot may be better than the stick, but there's no doubt that smokers and overweight people put a disproportionate burden on the public health care system.

I'm in shape and I don't smoke. Why should I pay higher premiums to cover the expenses of those that don't look after themselves? Personally, I don't think that anyone has the right to eat themselves into obesity and all of the medical ailments that it can trigger or worsen, and then expect the rest of the population to pay a disproportionate share of their medical costs.

By the way, BMI isn't a percentage. BMI= Weight (in kilograms) divided by height (in metres) squared.

A BMI of 35 is the equivalent of someone who's 5'11" weighing 250 lbs. Hopefully they make exceptions for athletes!

tboy said:
Exactly......

I mean, this reminds me of that old saying:
When they came for the jews, I didn't care cuz I'm catholic
When they came for the blacks, I didn't care cuz I'm white
When they came for the hispanics, I didn't care cuz I'm not hispanic
When they came for me there was no one left to say anything....

All these years of them dumping on smokers and everyone jumping on the bandwagon to be anti-smoking forgot one thing: once the smokers are gone, they're coming for YOU.......

(if you think I'm joking just remember that the federal government has already been advertising that obesity and especially childhood obesity is a major health concern for years.....it will only be a matter of time before you chubbies are going to get attention).
 

tboy

resident smartass
Aug 18, 2001
15,971
2
0
64
way out in left field
Well, the same could be said to be true of those athletes who mountain bike, rock climb, base jump, parachute, do extreme sports, or even joggers for that matter. The more extreme your activities the more prone you are to get injured. (I'm not saying jogging is extreme.....thought I'd mention it before the a holes jump all over me again, rubberhead included).

As for you not smoking or overeating, you're probably NOT paying as much in premiums for coverage as someone who smokes etc.

I could really see the Feds jumping all over this because of the subsidized healthcare we have here......
 

r_s426

New member
Oct 27, 2006
305
0
0
tboy said:
Well, the same could be said to be true of those athletes who mountain bike, rock climb, base jump, parachute, do extreme sports, or even joggers for that matter. The more extreme your activities the more prone you are to get injured. (I'm not saying jogging is extreme.....thought I'd mention it before the a holes jump all over me again, rubberhead included).

As for you not smoking or overeating, you're probably NOT paying as much in premiums for coverage as someone who smokes etc.

I could really see the Feds jumping all over this because of the subsidized healthcare we have here......
OBESITY: major risk factor for serious non-communicable diseases, such as
cardiovascular disease, hypertension, stroke, diabetes mellitus and various forms of cancer;

JOGGING: Shin splints?

Yes, that was a bit of an asshole remark, I know. No offense intended though. :D I know it makes the news every year when some jogger drops dead during the Boston Marathon or whatever, but I don't think you can really classify joggers as a burden on the health care system. In fact, dropping dead is actually pretty inexpensive in terms of health care. Hell, when I die they can even stuff me in the green bin if they like to dispose of the remains.

As for the extreme sports guys, I'd be shocked if the medical insurance companies in the US didn't have clauses to make people pay more if they engage in those activities... or refuse to pay premiums if someone was injured doing something like base jumping. In any event, I think that base jumpers, sky divers, etc represent a much smaller percentage of the population than the obese. I'd assume that most would either be killed outright in accidents, or only suffer relatively short term injuries that are less of a burden on the system than treating a diabetic, or cancer patient.

Also, I think a lot of American medical insurance companies have been on the hook to pay for things like motorized scooters for the obese.

The interesting implication here would come in the future with genetic based testing. If they test you and find out you are genetically predisposed to develop Alzheimer's, cancer, or whatever... might a company refuse to cover you?
 

Moraff

Active member
Nov 14, 2003
3,648
0
36
r_s426 said:
JOGGING: Shin splints?
I imagine it's also pretty hard on your knees, ankles.... When I was in univ. one of my roommates ran x-country. Every time he'd come back from a run he'd spend a bit of time icing down his joints to (as he put it) 'minimize the damage he was doing to them'.
 

ig-88

New member
Oct 28, 2006
4,729
4
0
I have to say that I reluctantly agree with this, for the same reason that certain drivers pay more for insurance, and because it's only $25 per month. Auto insurance costs more than that. If I were to determined to be fat enough to be charged, I would have no problem with paying it.

However, I've never been one for fat-bashing. Too many factors can cause someone to be overweight, and I simply don't think that plain laziness or intentional gluttony is the cause in many cases.

Now, that doesn't mean I'm attracted to BBW, and I don't think it's discrimination if Hooters doesn't hire fat chicks. But I remember seeing hidden video from a news show, showing a less skilled skinny chick getting hired for an office job, while a more qualified fat chick was rejected.
 

r_s426

New member
Oct 27, 2006
305
0
0
ig-88 said:
I have to say that I reluctantly agree with this, for the same reason that certain drivers pay more for insurance, and because it's only $25 per month. Auto insurance costs more than that. If I were to determined to be fat enough to be charged, I would have no problem with paying it.

However, I've never been one for fat-bashing. Too many factors can cause someone to be overweight, and I simply don't think that plain laziness or intentional gluttony is the cause in many cases.
I'm not into fat bashing either. I've been overweight, and hauled my ass back into shape... so I know what it feels like.

It's like if TERB wanted to charge a subscription fee, and the fee you were charge was determined by the number of reviews you posted. I haven't contributed much to the reviews, so I'd have no problem paying more than someone that was a regular reviewer. The TOFTT guys save me a fortune anyway! LOL
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,631
7,074
113
BMI sucks. At 18 and swimming competitively, I was still in the overweight category despite being somewhere around 6% body fat.

Smoking, unlike being fat is a choice, even if it is difficult to quit, while body type and some of the factors controlling obesity are not a choice. For the people who are fat purely because of lifestyle choices, anything that encourages them to get healthier can't be all bad.

Insurance companies are a business and they have data to show on average, overweight people cost them more money. Of course they are a parasitic business and will try and find any reason to charge people more for less.
 
Feb 21, 2007
1,398
1
0
If the government of Alabama is going to help these people lose the weight by diverting the money to weight loss counselling, nutritionists, exercise instructors, or, to help fund weight loss surgery, it would be good use of the money. If they just piss it away on some expense account for some politician, no way.

I'd like to point out that OHIP has been very slow to fund weight loss surgery costs here in Ontario. Although, the logical argument would be that the weight loss surgery cost would be a one time only expense(hopefully), rather than paying for all the long term medical costs associated with diabetes, heart disease, stroke, joint problems, etc.
 

someone

Active member
Jun 7, 2003
4,307
1
38
Earth
As I’m going to be spending the fall in the UK, I was using the internet to check out fitness clubs (I only joined one in Canada a few months ago in an effort to get into better shape). One thing I was impressed at is that many local councils in the UK have a program, whereby if you have a medical condition (e.g. high blood pressure), you can get a doctor’s referral for a discount (often ½ priced) for fitness clubs. It seems like an excellent program to me and better than just penalizing overweigh people, who as Basketcase states, may not be completely responsible for their problem.
 

ig-88

New member
Oct 28, 2006
4,729
4
0
I was thinking of this way of looking at it.

The "You Have to Go Out of Your Way" Theory.

You have to go out of your way to smoke. You need to go out, show ID, and buy cigarettes, and pay top dollar plus taxes for them. No one is shoving cigarettes in your mouth. Same for alcohol. Since you went out of your way to indulge in these, then, imo, you bear the responsibility.

I don't necessarily see the same with obesity.

You actually have to go out of your way to stay in shape. Fruit and vegetables are really only available at the grocery store, and they're often not cheap. You have to pay a pretty penny to join a gym, and drive there every day, if you stick to your workout regimen.

OTOH, many parents stuff their kids with food from day one. Then, as an adult, you get bombarded with fast food, restaurants, vending machines, cheap, convenient junk food. Plus work and school. All the while, your metabolism is dropping fast.

And we're hoping that in this fast food, instant result society with many people working multiple jobs, people are going to get in shape? Fat chance. :p

I still agree with this, but really, it's just a band-aid on a much larger scale problem that's more societal than individual, imo.
 

captainc

Member
Jun 28, 2007
60
0
6
Obesity causes a lot of long term illness that is a finanacial burden for years to come.

By raising the insurance by $25 is not much and probably would not cover a night in a semi-privite.

This is a good idea to raise public attention to deal with obesity. If I fall in that category, it will give me some incentive so I can see one more S.P every year.
 

Tarkus

New member
Mar 14, 2007
396
0
0
tboy said:
(if you think I'm joking just remember that the federal government has already been advertising that obesity and especially childhood obesity is a major health concern for years.....it will only be a matter of time before you chubbies are going to get attention).
Fat people are the last 'unpolitically correct' group out there. I mean let's be honest here you can call an obese person FAT without any fear of retribution. To some extent it makes sense to target a generic factor and if we work it right maybe we can get some mileage out of it; ie: he isn't an Islamic who performed an Honour Killing but rather he is a FATTY who killed his daughter. It may turn out to be our only response.

However on the reality side what is fat? What is obese, (I'm not talking morbidly here)? I've been seeing some studies that suggest that high blood pressure etc. are not necessarily endemic to people who are 30% overweight. Could it be that our body image is currently distorted?

just wondering.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts