Ala. To Charge Obese Workers $25 Monthly – KXAS | Dallas — Talk about a money maker. Alabama? Obese? Cha-ching!
I know, I could have gone for the cheap joke, but…
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.
Risk is risk. The higher the risk the more you pay.
What is there to argue about? If you are fat eat less. Simple.
#4
People at higher risk due to being fat should be responsible for paying the added cost they cause to the pool of insured.
This isn’t about saying you have to live your life a certain way, you shouldn’t smoke, shouldn’t have that Big Mac… its saying if you do those things, you’re going to pay a bit more into the system to cover the added costs for insuring your bad habits.
My employer recently started a new thing along that line… we get a “discount” for not smoking and another “discount” for belonging to the (free) on-site gym. Same effect as jacking up the cost for the fatties but more politically correct, and probably more health-accurate since being in good physical shape isn’t just about weight.
#31 – O’Furniture
>>What is there to argue about? If you
>>are fat eat less. Simple.
Simple, or simpleton? Plenty of thin people eat like pigs, and never gain a pound. Plenty of fat people diet and excercise, and never lose a pound.
The whole point of insurance, as has been pointed out a thousand times, is to pool the risk. I’ve been paying health insurance premiums for 35 years, and other than a broken ankle I got ice skating and sporadic checkups, I’ve never used the insurance.
Do I mind paying? No. I know that at any moment I could be run over by a car, develop diabetes or high blood pressure, need a heart-lung transplant, or any of a million other things. All my life, I’ve been subsidizing sick people, but the time may come when it’s their turn to subsidize me.
>>Risk is risk. The higher the risk the
>>more you pay.
Why focus on fat people, then. Just because they’re easy to spot? Plenty of fat people are healthy, and plenty of thin people are not. And there are a million and one “high-risk” behaviors (unsafe sex, smoking, skydiving, rock climbing, bmx bike riding, sedentary lifestyle, ad infinitum). Why target just the fatties?
On the other hand, $25/month isn’t a whole lot of money, and their insurance is FREE?? Shit, I want to go to work for the state of Alabama.
#33 “Plenty of fat people diet and excercise, and never lose a pound.”
Turn over ANY fat person to me and control of what they can eat and in 10 weeks you’ll see major weight loss.
#34 – O’Furniture
Sure, you can give them pond water and a crust of stale bread and starve them to death.
I’m talking about a reasonable, sustainable diet. And plenty of fat people eat such a diet. Sure, there are the toothless wonders at Wal*Mart loading up on ice cream, potato chips, and 2-liter bottle of Coke, but they are in the minority.
Do a little research before you spout, huh?
#35 “Sure, you can give them pond water and a crust of stale bread and starve them to death.
I’m talking about a reasonable, sustainable diet.”
Again, you show your total lack of science education.
Simply eat 25% less calories than you burn everyday and you will lose weight 100% of the time.
The whole myth of (I’m dieting and exercising and still can’t lose weight) means the person isn’t eating less than they are burning. PERIOD.
#27, Bobbo, sorry, Bud. I’ve written several actuarial exams and have many years experience in the insurance industry. So don’t even think of telling me I don’t understand it. What you don’t seem to understand is the concept of rating, how it works, and how it’s now being used to maximize profits of the companies to the detriment of policy holders by dividing the risk pool into more and more “categories.” Sure smoking vs. non-smoking is valid, but proposals for allowing DNA analysis are not.
Since you don’t seem to understand the basic premise behind insurance, that is, pool the risk, I’ll stand behind my statement that once the premiums begin to approach the return (regardless of profit to the company) the insured is better off self-insuring.
#36 – O’Furniture
>>Again, you show your total lack of
>>science education.
Still blowing smoke out of your ass, O’Furniture? I’ll wager that I have 10 times the “science education” that you have.
Perhaps you’ve heard of “metabolism”? And adaptations that metabolism makes to changes in energy intake?
Sheesh.
#38 “Perhaps you’ve heard of “metabolism”? And adaptations that metabolism makes to changes in energy intake?”
Of course. Have you heard of eating even less? Or, exercise to compensate for that.
Face it. If you intake less than you burn, you’ll lose weight.
Please present the axiom that contradicts that.
Otherwise, return whatever diplomas you posses.
Amazingly enough I agree with Paddy-O on this topic given our divergent political views. Life is full of choices and demands a certain amount of responsibility. I am a Type 1 diabetic, I don’t have life choices available to negate my diabetes. Most (not all) Type 2 diabetics can eliminate their disease by making the right lifestyle changes. Keep eating that Big Mac or Snickers bar, pay for the consequences. Owners of Japanese power motorcycles pay a premium to insure them due to higher accident/death rates. Living an unhealthy lifestyle should demand the same consequences.
#39 – O’Furniture
Try this, for starters:
http://tinyurl.com/6pfxjt
Your ignorance about basic physiology is breathtaking.
If you think that fat people can slim down just by 86’ing the Big Macs and Snickers bars (which most of them don’t eat to begin with), then you’re a lost cause.
I think you’re spending too much time at Wal*Mart.
Mister Mustard, I usually agree with you on almost all fronts. However, claiming Paddy-O doesn’t know anything about physiology based on his precept that you need to burn more calories than you take in to lose weight, is clearly not inline with science. Type 2 diabetes is growing faster among poor populations exactly because of poor food choices usually based on affordability, which makes fast food and candy options topping the food pyramid. AS a Type 1 diabetic, I am putting an anabolic steroid into my body 24/7. If I didn’t commute by bike everyday my body would gain weight that would allow for more complications. I choose my lifestyle to stay healthy. Many (not all) people can do the same thing.
#37–Bubba==something is amiss. If you understand “risk pooling” then you really should understand premium calculation====it has to cover the risk plus more for other expenses. So==yes, in a perfect statistical model, if you can self insure you always should. Course, most people can not, so they buy insurance.
Now, smoker vs non-smoker is just a tool to guess at the risk and it averages out/is statistically meaningful only in a risk pool. Absolutely no different than dna testing with certain results being more definite than others and none of it meaning a thing until it is pooled and the premium calculated.
I wonder where I difference in understanding is other than where you are flat wrong and I assume you misspoke?
#41 – Yep, as I thought. If your intake falls below your cal burn rate you lose weight.
It’s the same mechanism that causes people to lose weight when they don’t eat.
Oh, yeah. Turn in your diploma’s. Not thet you posses any… LOL