Fit employees get a portion of their health insurance premiums refunded

[maurice]

First they tried nudging. Now companies are penalizing workers who have high health risks such as obesity and high blood pressure or cholesterol as insurance costs climb. Lee Morrison, 51, doesn’t mind the push, which came in the form of added insurance charges from his employer, Western & Southern Financial Group. "I knew if I wanted to be healthier and pay less, it was up to me to do something about it,” said Morrison, who has lost 54 pounds and lowered his body mass index enough to earn refunds the past two years. A small number of companies have linked health factors to what employees pay for benefits, but the practice is expected to grow now that some federal rules have been finalized, spelling out what’s allowed by law....
Cincinnati-based Western & Southern Financial Group adds between $15 and $75 monthly to the insurance cost of health plan participants according to their BMI scores. A fitness center, weight loss programs and health screenings are provided, and employees reducing their BMI receive refunds, said Noreen Hayes, senior vice president of human resources.

Linkage (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20625381/)

[StockdaleforVeep]

Smoking is banned from public buildings cuz of health hazards, then trans fat cuz it helps people be fat

With the first sentence in that quote, its a matter of time before red meat and anything they deem as "bad" be banned for health reasons

BMI is a crock system anyway

[Dan Mega]

Its about fucking time. Many companies were rightfully slapped with discrimination lawsuits to offer bonuses to fat people that lost weight. Guess what people got that were healthy in the first place? Nothing.


BMI is a crock system anyway

This is the only part of your post I agree with. By BMI determinations, more than 75% of NBA players are overweight and unhealthy.

[Dan Mega]

Chips is 1/2 the size of Dan Mega.

[samram]

Smoking is banned from public buildings cuz of health hazards, then trans fat cuz it helps people be fat

With the first sentence in that quote, its a matter of time before red meat and anything they deem as "bad" be banned for health reasons

These are private employers making these decisions. If they think it benefits the company to have healthy workers, that's their right. Don't equate these decisions to government imposed bans.

As has been said, BMI isn't a good way to measure whether people are healthy, but that's the company's problem.

Horse shit.

That's an exorbitant amount of money for something that's isn't remotely the end all be all of one's health. You can be fat and be totally healthy and conversely you can be thin and a ticking time bomb if you have bad genes. I don't think insurance companies want to fork over money to test for predispositions to ailments, though. Why should they when they can just charge you more for carrying some extra pounds?

BMI is also horse shit. Mine is over 26 and therefore I'm "overweight," but I'm fairly confident that I'm not fat. BMI doesn't account for added muscle mass and overall I think it's a pretty shortsighted measurement. It basically promotes anorexia. Case in point, 165 would be a "healthy" weight at my height.

Yeah, it was odd that the one company actually took more from paychecks for an unacceptable BMI instead of for unacceptable blood pressure, cholesterol, etc. You would think 10 minutes with a doctor would make them reverse that.

[samram]

It doesn't make any sense. For instance, my grandma's been fat her whole life and she doesn't have high anything, while Darryl Kile dropped dead at 33 or whatever and he was a world class athlete in good shape. The autopsy revealed that he had like 90% blockage in his aorta but the scale would've shown him to be much healthier than my grandma who's still plugging away without any problems at 77.

Of course these are private companies, etc., but I just wish that scientists would step in and revamp this BMI thing or explain that it's a bunch malarkey.

I don't disagree with that. Clearly, they don't want to pay for a more accurate examination of each person's health, so they use a commonly accepted bullshit metric. Bureaucracy at work.

[StockdaleforVeep]

These are private employers making these decisions. If they think it benefits the company to have healthy workers, that's their right. Don't equate these decisions to government imposed bans.

As has been said, BMI isn't a good way to measure whether people are healthy, but that's the company's problem.



Yeah, it was odd that the one company actually took more from paychecks for an unacceptable BMI instead of for unacceptable blood pressure, cholesterol, etc. You would think 10 minutes with a doctor would make them reverse that.

So a company can refuse to hire someone if theyre a fatty?

[samram]

Yes.

[fquaye14ten]

Its about fucking time. Many companies were rightfully slapped with discrimination lawsuits to offer bonuses to fat people that lost weight. Guess what people got that were healthy in the first place? Nothing.



This is the only part of your post I agree with. By BMI determinations, more than 75% of NBA players are overweight and unhealthy.

except there is an allowance for athletes

for regular people it's pretty useful

[StockdaleforVeep]

Yes.

:racist:

[fquaye14ten]

athlete is defined by someone who trains for more than 2 hours a day more than 3 days a week....

they can measure their BMI accurately, they just need a diff. setting

BMI has nothing to do with you weighing 175 pounds, so i'm not sure what you're talking about

i can't imagine any system that would advise a 6'5 dude to be 175 pounds

[StockdaleforVeep]

yeah, im listed as 32.5

It says i need to be 150 to be "normal"
so losing 70 lbs it says

[fquaye14ten]

Try BMI (http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/).

I'm 6'5" 222 (26.3 a.k.a. overweight). Now I'm not an athlete per se but I train like one so I have extra body mass that pushes me into the overweight zone. But I'm not considered an athlete working at a cubical, therefore I'm overweight and would have to pay more.

I don't know of any other system to measure athletes' BMI's. :shrug:

sounds pretty gay

i'm at 21% Bodyfat which means I could stand to lose some chub, but not too much

but i'm not in particularly great shape...just fuckin' solid, you know?

yeah dude that site's stupid.

it doesn't account for anything but height and weight

there's about 100,000 more variables than that

[Prope]

I'm 32.7 BMI - Obese, and bigger than Stocky....

I just read something today about 'Insurance Pools.' I'm going to do some research and report back later.

[1951Campbell]

http://users.telenet.be/CAPOKURT/bro%27s%20stuff.JPG
l-r: Zoso and fquaye.

[itsnotrequired]

My BMI is 21.7. Long to be me, all of you...

[fquaye14ten]

i've seen pictures of you w/ shirt off

we do not believe you innerpee

[fquaye14ten]

this bmi on this site, if that' what they use, it's bullshit

now, if it's a body fat index, that's different--pct bodyfat is something that is relevant

[Prope]

BMI is crap though.

[fquaye14ten]

or you need a $20 scale to get an approximate reading of bodyfat :rolleyes:

it's not perfect, but it's sure as shit better than this bmi scale this site's putting forward

BOOZE!

[Prope]

You need expensive equipment and a water displacement tank to calculate body fat percentage truly accurately. BMI requires just a calculator.
I used to work out at the Riviera Country Club in Orland Park, and they did a body fat calculation for me with that stuff. They hook something up to your foot, inside of your elbow, and on your waist.

I had it done on three separate occasions and never got higher than 22%. BMI says I'm a 32.

[itsnotrequired]

i've seen pictures of you w/ shirt off

we do not believe you innerpee

I'm 6'-0", 160 lbs.

Has your mind been thoroughly fucked yet?

[fquaye14ten]

muscle weighs more than blah blah blah

Yes, but those scaley ones and electrical impulse ones are only accurate within a few whole percentage points. That's not accurate enough to determine how much you're gonna pwn someone with insurance premiums.

sure is a lot better than a system that assumes everyone has the same frame and that doesn't consider the difference between 20 pounds of fat and 20 pounds of muscle

[itsnotrequired]

muscle weighs more than blah blah blah



sure is a lot better than a system that assumes everyone has the same frame and that doesn't consider the difference between 20 pounds of fat and 20 pounds of muscle

Awesomeness weighs less than both.

[fquaye14ten]

doubtful

otherwise i would be 25 ell bees

[fquaye14ten]

k

[Prope]

Scientists are cool.

[maurice]

I'm 24.3. That's within the normal range. I have a fair amount of muscle for a person my weight and could stand to lose a bit of fat.

:shrug:

[Iwritecode]

Pfft. They should follow what my company does. They pay me so little, I can't afford insurance. So it doesn't matter how fat I am.

[Prope]

I just read something today about 'Insurance Pools.' I'm going to do some research and report back later.
Ok, this may sound too progressive for some on this site (you know who you are) but essentially, this is similar to the health care plan that is given to members of Congress...

On a state-by-state basis of purchasing pools for health insurance. It is the state that provides the rules for these purchasing pools and the pools create the market. The market is set by health care options given by private insurance companies.

The employer would be responsible for offering all of those different types of insurance pools to each employee, and based on the private company, set how much they will cover. Now one person could pick a low coverage package, while another person could pick a high coverage package. The main point is though, everyone would have to be covered. Here is another key, the private employer would not have to do any negotiating on the package. They wouldn't have to worry about it because the market is already setting it's own packaging.

Can't afford it? Then the government will help you out there (I'll go ahead and just say they'll give you the low coverage).

I'll give you some reasons why I particularly like this...
1. It's portable. Much like you can move a 401k from job to job, you'll be able to move this from job to job.
2. You are still working with private insurance companies.
3. Insurance companies are not able to deny people.
4. Private businesses are not responsible for the actual health care.

Thoughts?

[maurice]

IMO, there are ways that you can structure a single-payer system and make it work in theory. I find the general concept of a single-payer system to be very attractive. However, the biggest problem is that, no matter how attractive it looks on paper, there is a large block of voters who never will be willing to accept that the government can execute the plan without messing it up. I'm probably among this group of skeptics.

Weren't we all (with the exception of soxwon) just complaining about incompetent government bureaucracy in a different thread? In the health context, look how badly special interests bollixed the prescription drug benefit. The rest of medicare and medicaid is no rosy picture either.

:shrug:

[samram]

Ok, this may sound too progressive for some on this site (you know who you are) but essentially, this is similar to the health care plan that is given to members of Congress...

On a state-by-state basis of purchasing pools for health insurance. It is the state that provides the rules for these purchasing pools and the pools create the market. The market is set by health care options given by private insurance companies.

The employer would be responsible for offering all of those different types of insurance pools to each employee, and based on the private company, set how much they will cover. Now one person could pick a low coverage package, while another person could pick a high coverage package. The main point is though, everyone would have to be covered. Here is another key, the private employer would not have to do any negotiating on the package. They wouldn't have to worry about it because the market is already setting it's own packaging.

Can't afford it? Then the government will help you out there (I'll go ahead and just say they'll give you the low coverage).

I'll give you some reasons why I particularly like this...
1. It's portable. Much like you can move a 401k from job to job, you'll be able to move this from job to job.
2. You are still working with private insurance companies.
3. Insurance companies are not able to deny people.
4. Private businesses are not responsible for the actual health care.

Thoughts?

I know I'm included in your first parenthetical, but a couple of questions anyway:

1. Can you clarify the state's role?
2. Just so I understand how it works, the employer offers the packages and then covers the same amount of the cost no matter which package is chosen with the employee responsible for the rest?
3. Is it that the employer doesn't have to negotiate or can't negotiate? I guess the answer to #2 has some bearing on how important this is.

Also, I don't like that an insurance company can't choose to deny to cover people.

I wouldn't mind getting health insurance out of the employment realm. Stop giving employers deductions for health coverage. I think if individuals had to actually shop around and pay a nonsubsidized cost for coverage, costs would come down. Individuals could then be the ones taking a deduction for their costs.

[maurice]

I think if individuals had to actually shop around and pay a nonsubsidized cost for coverage, costs would come down. Individuals could then be the ones taking a deduction for their costs.

I don't know. Employers get to buy in bulk. States could buy in super-bulk. Imagine how much cheaper the medicare prescription drug benefit would be if it didn't expressly prohibit this kind of bulk-rate negotiation. OTOH, using an intermediary results in administrative costs.

A lefty who understands insurance would argue that pooling risk makes insurance affordable for high-risk insureds who otherwise would not receive medical care for serious medical conditions. Then, a righty who understands insurance would argue that it's made affordable on the backs of young healthy people. Then somebody else would point out that everything these old, Baby Boomer MFers do is / will be made affordable on the backs of young healthy people, until they bankrupt the country.

:mad:

[samram]

I don't know. Employers get to buy in bulk. States could buy in super-bulk. Imagine how much cheaper the medicare prescription drug benefit would be if it didn't expressly prohibit this kind of bulk-rate negotiation. OTOH, using an intermediary results in administrative costs.

A lefty who understands insurance would argue that pooling risk makes insurance affordable for high-risk insureds who otherwise would not receive medical care for serious medical conditions. Then, a righty who understands insurance would argue that it's made affordable on the backs of young healthy people. Then somebody else would point out that everything these old, Baby Boomer MFers do is / will be made affordable on the backs of young healthy people, until they bankrupt the country.

:mad:

Yeah, I guess that's why I wanted to figure out a bit more about how it works. So, the state buys it and then the employer covers a portion of the cost on resale to the employee?

Boomers are a pain in the ass.

[1951Campbell]

Then somebody else would point out that everything these old, Baby Boomer MFers do is / will be made affordable on the backs of young healthy people, until they bankrupt the country.

:mad:

They stopped the war in Vietnam through a selfless campaign of fucking, doping, and getting exams cancelled, they deserve free Viagra!

[Prope]

I know I'm included in your first parenthetical, but a couple of questions anyway:
Yeah, that was a cheap shot. :D
1. Can you clarify the state's role? The state sets the rules about who would qualify for certain subsidies, also bringing in the private companies.
2. Just so I understand how it works, the employer offers the packages and then covers the same amount of the cost no matter which package is chosen with the employee responsible for the rest? How much the employer covers is completely at the discretion of the employer.
3. Is it that the employer doesn't have to negotiate or can't negotiate? I guess the answer to #2 has some bearing on how important this is.Everything I've read suggests that the employer doesn't have the upper-hand in negotiations with insurance companies.

Also, I don't like that an insurance company can't choose to deny to cover people.
I didn't say I went all the way over. :D
I wouldn't mind getting health insurance out of the employment realm. Stop giving employers deductions for health coverage. I think if individuals had to actually shop around and pay a nonsubsidized cost for coverage, costs would come down. Individuals could then be the ones taking a deduction for their costs.
I'm all for costs coming down and seeing that a lot of people are insured. I think this might be the best way.

[maurice]

everything these old, Baby Boomer MFers do is / will be made affordable on the backs of young healthy people, until they bankrupt the country.


http://www.theagitator.com/data9.jpg

[SFS04]

Do your country a favor, murder an old person. :shrug: