BlogBreak

By Janie

September 15, 2008 8:22 AM | Link to this

The motive is understandable- ask those who cost more to insure to pay more of their share. However, where does it end? Will the state charge a higher premium for motorcycle drivers, smokers, or mothers of childbearing age?

It is much better to provide a “discount reward” to those who avail themselves of a healthy lifestyle: e.g. healthy body mass index, non-smoker, etc., than it is to charge an “premium fee punishment” to those who do not take care of their bodies.

By Yolanda Fanning

September 15, 2008 8:28 AM | Link to this

I see that the U.S. has now become a dictatorship instead of a democracy. People who smoke won’t stop until they are ready; people who don’t eat right and exercise, won’t do it until they are ready. Since when is it my employers’ job to get into my lifestyle choices, as long as the job gets done? I don’t agree with this.

By Sdesouza

September 15, 2008 8:39 AM | Link to this

Yes I do think Georgia should start imposing a fat fee, its high time people take responsibility for there action, there is a choice when eating junk food vs fresh healthy food. The rest of the population pays a heavy price for fat people specially when these folks end up on state funded health care with major heart and respitory issues. If this is not imposed its a matter of time before which employers will stop hiring fat people infact many small businesses already have started avoiding people with visible health issues. America wake up nad loose the fat.

By Road Scholar

September 15, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this

Only if they start charging more fees and taxes for stupid people. Remember, stupidity should be painful to those who are, not those who receive!

By ms. hoo

September 15, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this

No. Right after a souther state increased rates for insurance for “obese” Wal-Mart employees, an article relating obesity in children to stress level of the mother came out. It is a type of discrimination. Food that is bad for you is cheaper! and there is an emotional factor in weight issues. Some is related to childhood sexual abuse.

By Betheroo

September 15, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this

Just because someone is thin doesn’t mean that they are also healthy. And amen to Road Scholar!

By Thinking About It

September 15, 2008 9:18 AM | Link to this

I feel that an employer is well within their rights to try and keep their workforce as healthy as possible.It only makes sense to have the unhealthy risks(obese,smokers,etc)pay a premium for their insurance or not be employed..If they were to attempt to get insurance in the market place,on their own,you better believe that they would be paying a premium!!!!

By WOW

September 15, 2008 9:28 AM | Link to this

Boy, I bet this topic will bring the fatties out of the woodwork! It’s simple, certain behaviours are more prone to cause health problems. Those health problems are more expensive to insure. If you are more expensive to insure because you choose to participate in one of these behaviors (mainly smoking and over-eating), you get to pay the overage. Health insurance is a benefit. So why should your behavior merit you more of a “benefit” than I get?

By scrappy

September 15, 2008 9:36 AM | Link to this

I’m more afraid of where this will lead…. Will they start determining that I am more prone to cancer and therefore have to pay per month…. Will I, as a woman of childbearing age, have to pay more because I might have a child…. Where is the end?

By Thyroid problem

September 15, 2008 9:37 AM | Link to this

** Most of the obese people that you see in Georgia have a thyroid or glandular issue.

It’s not their fault!! **

By Stupidity Rules

September 15, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this

I think people who are sexually promiscuous should pay more too. I work in an office with a couple of skanks and have had MORE than their fair share of STD’s that they’ve had to go clear up.

Also, balding men should pay more. They either wind up getting hair plugs or suffer from low self esteem.

Women should pay more because they have to get monthly periods. If I have to see another broad run to the ladies room because she’s leaking, I’m going to puke.

Hopefully you’ll understand I being sarcastic. This is the stupidest steaming pile of dung ever suggested.

By the way, before you accuse me of being a fatty, I’m 6’2”, 210, cholesterol is normal, blood pressure is normal, no heart trouble, I don’t need Viagra, Zoloft, Zyrtec or any other drug, and I run 3 miles every other day.

By Becky

September 15, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this

Amen to Road Scholar..I would rather they tax people that smoke..Of course if my company taxed overweight people,over half of our work force would be gone..Of course if they taxed stupid people, it would be the same way..

People can do something about their weight a lot easier than they can stop smoking..IMO..

By MANGLER

September 15, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

As much as I understand the reasoning behind this (which is money - as in it will cost the State less to insure healthier people than less healthy people), and as much as I wished that everyone lived as healthily as possible, it falls into the realm of lifestyle and personal choices/freedoms. The last time I checked, employers couldn’t hire/fire/penalize/advance based on race, gender, or lifestyle. So, while I think Alabama is within their rights to charge a healthcare premium for certain employees, I don’t think they can threaten to sanction or fire them because of their lifestyle.

By Lexol

September 15, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this

They have been charging more for women of childbearing age.

By ms. hoo

September 15, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this

People with anexoria/bulimia, underweight, etc. also pose higher insurance risks, so isn’t “turnabout fair play” there too?

By mystery poster

September 15, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this

What next, charge people who have accidents or tickets more for car insurance (LOL)?

On the surface, this appears to be a good idea, However, if only it were as easy as weighing someone to measure their health.

I know some skinny people who stay that way by drinking and not eating.

Skinny does not equal healthy. It would be far more equitable to make everyone have an annual physical and base premiums on the results.

Is that even feasible?

By Rick

September 15, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this

it is far to simple, do not hire fat people or smokers. I never did. I never hired people with bad teeth, bad hygiene, overweight or who smoked. If you cannot take care of yourself, you cannot take care of my equipment. I used to own a trucking company and hired drivers and office types.

By Cman

September 15, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this

DISCRIMINATION!

By reservoirDAWG

September 15, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this

Rick, I couldn’t agree more, but this is the state and you know how many lawsuits would be made if they told a potential employee they were not hired because they were fat.

By Rick

September 15, 2008 11:14 AM | Link to this

It is up to the employer if the applicant is qualified. And no it is not discrimination. It is called making choices. My butt is on the line for a 60k truck & trailer, a $100k load and the safety of the public, I am not going to entrust someone who cannot even maintain themselves

By RetiredStateEmployee

September 15, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this

I am not over-weight and I quit smoking several years ago. I was a Supervisor for 29 years. The State should implement random drug testing for all active employees prior to addressing the fat issue. However, a lot more employees may be fat if they are not on drugs. My former state agency had a very complicated policy on drug testing which bascially meant that we could never request it (even when supervisors thought that bad performance or disciplinary problems were caused by drugs). Cigarette smokers already pay a higher state insurance premium; however, marijuana, crack, meth, etc. smokers do not pay a higher premium as alcoholics don’t either. Seems to me the priorities are all messed up.

By fisHERMAN

September 15, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this

Charge the older employees more too.

By Sanjeev

September 15, 2008 12:05 PM | Link to this

The BMI is not a good measure of ones health. I am 6’4” and 240 lbs but I work out and have a 6 pack. But under the BMI I am considered obese.

By Lee

September 15, 2008 12:28 PM | Link to this

Some people are fat. Some people are fat heads. In Alabama, the fat people will be penalized, and the fatheads will be elected to lucrative state offices where they can then micro-manage other people’s lives with stupid, fatheaded decisions.

Alabama has always been this way. It is only putting this situation into law, so everyone from outside the state can laugh at ‘em.

It always makes my day when I can laugh at all the fatheads from Alabama.

By RCH

September 15, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this

* Sanjeev*

I am in the same shoes you are. I am 5’10’ 265lbs,work out six days a week including splits on the weekend. I lead a very active life besides and under the BMI guidelines would be considered fat.Besides,as previously mentioned,thin does not mean healthy. I agree with the yearly physical to determine a category for the determination of “healthy”.

By LeglEgl

September 15, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this

Seriously. What pre-printed formula are they going to use, anyway. For most of my adult life, I was considered to be 20 pounds overweight for my height. I was active and in excellent health (even as a smoker). I rarely took a sick day, and you had to force me into vacation.

And, Rick, I was entrusted with far more valuable equipment and the WHOLE general public’s safety than any truck driver.

You can’t paint everybody with the same broad brush. It is in fact discriminatory no matter how you look at it. Sometimes weight, bad teeth, and acne has other causes, rather than poor personal maintenance (personal bad hygiene is another matter). Although legally, a discrimination claim could not be made, it is unfair to judge the person’s capabilities, trustworthiness, and skill on their outward appearance.

If you’re doing that (or did that) you’re a petty, selfish, inconsiderate and superficial moron.

By Prootwadl

September 15, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this

General policies like this are bogus.

I’m currently 6’2” and over 300 lbs, and yet I still eat a fairly healthy diet, my cardiovascular health is good, all of my blood numbers are good, and my overall health has been excellent according to my doctor. I have a physical and dental checkup once a year and I don’t use any other health services (I don’t get sick), I’m just as able to be active as anyone I know, and I’m stronger than most. :-)

Who says I cost more to insure?

I work a desk job now, but even when I was much more physically active in college 25 years ago I weighed 240 lbs, and I was in pretty good shape back then. While I am working to cut my weight down (30 pounds so far and counting), the end result will still be far above the so-called guidelines that are in use.

I can see increasing rates for people who are actually not healthy, but not on some sort of simply formula. That’s no better than charging TALL people more just because they fall outside of normal parameters…

By Jane

September 15, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this

I see my physician annually - Due to a medication my weight ballooned from 130 to 253. I ate less, exercised more and got nowhere. The Dr. acknowledges that the medication is why I have the weight gain and that I should just deal with it! I am currently trying a new diet (paying $313 for the meals monthly plus the real food allowed each day) this is EXPENSIVE!!! My Dr. has approved me to try to get the weight off this way (i.e., my money and no skin of his nose-LOL) but there are no guarentees. A fee for health insurance for being overweight - I think not!

By Stephanie

September 15, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this

I think that charging a ‘fat fee’ is a short-sited reactive solution to the over-arching problem of how to go about promoting healthier lifestyles. Being ‘thin’ does equate to being healthy.

A much better approach would be to add incentives that educate and encourage healthier choices such as gym membership subsidies, access to a nutritionist, building walking trails, offering healthier choices in the bldg cafeterias, etc.

By Stephanie

September 15, 2008 1:42 PM | Link to this

I think that charging a ‘fat fee’ is a short-sighted reactive solution to the bigger problem of how to go about promoting healthier lifestyles. Being ‘thin’ does not equate to being healthy.

A much better approach would be to add incentives that educate and encourage healthier choices such as gym membership subsidies, access to a nutritionist, building walking trails, offering healthier choices in the bldg cafeterias, etc.

By david

September 15, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this

This is so crazy, I’m 6’ 4” 240 and I’m a ex world class athlete, by there standards I’m considered fat, and I’m healthy as can be!! fat people of the world unite!!

By Morrigan

September 15, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this

David, you may be healthy but you’re stupid! Post ONCE!

By peg

September 15, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this

The whole concept behind group insurance policies is (ahem) the weighted average. In the group there will also be people whose other life and recreational choices increase health care costs: sports injuries for example. I was silent when they came for the smokers, silent when they came for the porkers, silent when they came for the bungee jumpers, silent when they came for the ski bunnies, silent when they came for the deaf by rappers so who was left when they came for the carpal tunnel from video gamers?

Get serious, guys!

By tcoach

September 15, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this

This is nothing more than a choice. It is a choice to eat unhealthy foods, it is also a choice to not exercise. If you smoke you pay higher premiums so why shouldn’t you if you are fat. Unless it is a glandular issue thenit is self imposed fatness. If they do not want to pay then do something about it. More people die of fat than smoking and drinking each year in this country.

By SHANIKA

September 15, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this

DATS WHUT I SAY CHARGE DEM FATTIES MO FO DA INSHURENTS CAUSE I BE TIRD OB BE PAYIN FO EM MAYBE DEN DEY JUST QUIT AN GWAN AN WORK SUMWHURE WHAT DONT MAKE UM PAY XTRA DEN DEY WONT BE ALL IN MY WAY BUNCH OB FATTIES

By HelKat

September 15, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this

I know there are a plethora of reasons out there for overweight/underweight but here’s a friggin thought: how about making the healthier foods, i.e., fruits, grains and vegetables as cheap as the “cheap, fatty crap.” Most people can barely afford the cheap junk, much less decent food.

By TuteSwete

September 15, 2008 3:27 PM | Link to this

There is no such thing as a “glandular issue” or becoming fat due to “medication”. The only thing fat people have a problem with is their hands - their hands keep putting too much food into their mouths! Since it is a voluntary problem, yes, they should be charged an upcharge for insurance.

By 2BFREE

September 15, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this

A little known fact, Georgia state employees will pay one of the highest amounts for health care coverage once the new rates go into effect of any other state. But there are other factors that need to be considered if fat is to be used. The insurance co-pay is the same male or female where the actual cost to insure a female is much higher. Family care is the same whether you have 1 child or 7 children (spouses that work with available insurance are not covered). At one time where you lived effected your rates as well. If I have to pay more for being over-weight, then I want credit for being male and the fact that I have less than $1,000 of insurance claims in over 15 years at the State.

By Running Fool

September 15, 2008 3:47 PM | Link to this

As someone who was weighing in at 305lbs 9and a 50” waist)just about 5 years ago and who made a decision to lose weight and get down to 170lbs (and a 32” waist) I can see the issue from both sides. But I can tell you I am in much better shape than many other 51 year old men (I run marathons, do triathlons, and ride my bike to work 3 times a week) so when I see my medical rates go up, even when I am healthier than I have ever been in my life, I start to look at the reasons. Because I have a group policy at work, I am “lumped” into the same group as those that are out of shape and not healthy. I think that I should recieve a discount for my heatlhy lifestyle. But folks, a fat tax is just a start.. airlines are looking at such a fee for overweight passengers. It is inevitable.

By healthy

September 15, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this

To TuteSwete . There are certain medications and glandular issues that put weight on a person. Medications such as prednisone and other prescriptions will add weight to a person. Also,thyroid problems such as hypothroidism has been known to cause weight gain. So, therefore, before you open your mouth and insert thy foot you might want to research this. By the way, I have taken prednisone and have thyroid problems and are considered fat. But, I only consume about 1000 calories (less that 15% fat) a day and work out 4 times a week for 1 1/2 hours. Before anybody opens their mouth about a person being so called fat check to see what the circumstances are before you open up your mouth.

By Morrigan

September 15, 2008 3:54 PM | Link to this

Or here’s a thought: allow cafeteria-style plans regarding coverage. I will never have children; it would be good if I could buy a policy that does not automatically assume that because I’m a woman I will reproduce.

I don’t really know what you could do for overweight people though, because the health problems can manifest in so many different ways. Then you’d have to prove or disprove that, say, the stroke was a direct result of being overweight.

By TuteSwete

September 15, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this

Sorry, “healthy” - the only thing that puts weight on a person is CALORIES. If you consume more calories than you burn off, you gain weight. Simple equation. End of story. The medications you mentioned may make it easier to retain fat, but they do not create fat or add weight. It’s the calories, stupid.

By Denise

September 15, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this

The fat tax seems like a good idea on the surface but it will cause more confusion than good. We know that obesity is a cause of many health issues and that as a society (statistically anyway) we are a very sedentary society. However…

How about this: You smoke? Tax! You drink alcohol? Tax! You have sex? Tax! Your cousin had cancer? Tax! Your grandfather had diabetes? Tax! You have bad feet? Tax! Your cholesterol is 202? Tax! You haven’t been to the gym since 1998? Tax! I bet if everything got taxed and the insurance folks got hit as hard as us “regular” people, this would not be an issue.

By EG_CA_KO

September 24, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this

Let’s see what’s next… penalty for people who are to skinny, have acne, don’t drink enough milk… Alabama, hmmm they like signs too – “fat things bench”, “fat retards water fountain”, “blimpos bus”… Private companies have and should continue to have the right to decide how to save money; government should set the example… O! Sorry it’s the government, not possible! In the military, as a civil servant and now working for a private company, incentives for everyone seem to have the best results. My current employer provides reimbursement for health club membership. It’s not easy being heavier, a smoker, or getting older; I know people who smoke, are heavy, and in their eighties who rarely see a physician. The point to all this is, * Government stay out of my personal life!!! *

By Kristi Gilleland

September 25, 2008 8:32 PM | Link to this

NO. I would rather everyone wake up and realize that everyone has short comings, and keep it fair across the board.

I knew a mom that worked for the state that had 3 kids that played football, and they all ended up in the hospital with broken bones at once - true. Existentially then, I’d think that sports moms are high risk for insurance.

It is a slippery slope - let’s not start.

By Kati

September 30, 2008 8:05 PM | Link to this

Why don’t people start reading things before they blog or make comments. It’s not a fee on teh fat. They are charging ALL state employees $25 for insurance and offered a wellness discount for employees who take action to live a healthy lifestyle.

STATE OF ALABAMA Wellness Premium Discount Program

I. Premium Discount in Initial Year of Implementation

Effective January 1, 2010, all active employees will be eligible for a $25 per month wellness premium discount off the single coverage provided the employee has submitted baseline readings for the following

health risk factors: • Blood pressure, • Cholesterol, • Glucose, • Body mass index.

These health risk factors may be provided to the SEIB through participation in the SEIB’s worksite wellness program or submission of a physician certification form no later than November 30, 2009.

II. Premium Discount in Subsequent Years Effective January 1, 2011, employees can receive the wellness premium discount under one of the following conditions:

a. submitted a statement from a physician* stating that:

i. employee has been counseled regarding the health risk factor(s), or

ii. employee has a medical condition that prevents him or her from improving the health risk factor(s), or

b. participated and completed one of the SEIB approved wellness programs, or

c. reported improvement in the health risk factor(s) through self-management.

• At risk employees are eligible for a physician referral waiving the copay.

By Katie

September 30, 2008 8:12 PM | Link to this

and Becky, No doctor would said that “most” of the obese peopel you see in Georgia have a thyroid or glandular issue. Most people are obese because they eat crap food and don’t exercise. Plus, we are talking about Alabama here. For all those people who used the word “thin” in their comments, remember that doctor’s define obese as a BMI of 30+, this is defining it as 35+. That’s pretty forgiving. No one said you have to be thing, you can be overweight and still not pay this fee.