Health Care: What do you think about Walmart’s(etc) smokers and fat tax for workers

This topic has 27 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 5 months ago by scaredyclassic.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 28 total)

1 2 →

Author

Posts
November 20, 2011 at 7:20 PM #19307

equalizer
Participant

Since smoking surcharge for health care is causing some people to quit smoking, you could say that corporations and government agencies(likely illegal under union contract) could improve overall health of the system (and employees) if they all charged substantial premiums for smokers and skinny challenged people unless they participate in weight/smoking programs or get medical exemption.

Current system does not penalize or reward people for their behavior. Yes, this could be a slippery slope, but legal framework is not in doubt for limited surcharge. This policy could yield far more benefits than anyone inside the beltway could ever devise.

Of course this will be seen by some as nothing but more nanny state proposals by the likes of UofC behavioral economist Thaler. But it is proposed by the private job creators, so nanny clichés don’t apply.

Best cliché advice is to exercise, not smoke, and hope you don’t get sick.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/health/policy/smokers-penalized-with-health-insurance-premiums.html?pagewanted=all

November 20, 2011 at 8:12 PM #733290

GH
Participant

Or a brown TAX OR a black tax or an old tax or a young tax. No doubt there are a lot or contributing factors to health care costs. Apparently blacks are more likely to get sickle cell anemia. That ALONE justifies a higher premium right?

November 20, 2011 at 9:19 PM #733291

equalizer
Participant

[quote=GH]Or a brown TAX OR a black tax or an old tax or a young tax. No doubt there are a lot or contributing factors to health care costs. Apparently blacks are more likely to get sickle cell anemia. That ALONE justifies a higher premium right?[/quote]
For now companies are targeting “recreational” behavior, not genetic markers that could be interpreted as a (disgraced) William Shockley experiment to weed out dysgenic effects among certain populations.

November 21, 2011 at 8:22 AM #733297

UCGal
Participant

The state of North Carolina has charged a premium to smokers and obese employees for almost 2 years now. Actually – they charge the same for everyone – then refund back to non-smokers and folks with a BMI below a certain level. They phased it in and offered smoking cessation programs and weight reduction programs.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/6025882/

November 21, 2011 at 8:41 AM #733300

Allan from Fallbrook
Participant

[quote=equalizer][quote=GH]Or a brown TAX OR a black tax or an old tax or a young tax. No doubt there are a lot or contributing factors to health care costs. Apparently blacks are more likely to get sickle cell anemia. That ALONE justifies a higher premium right?[/quote]
For now companies are targeting “recreational” behavior, not genetic markers that could be interpreted as a (disgraced) William Shockley experiment to weed out dysgenic effects among certain populations.[/quote]

I knew this argument (eugenics) would pop up almost immediately. Good response, since its specious and has really nothing to do with your point.

I think if this is approached as a truly “dollars and cents” type issue, then you can make a strong case for it. Personally, I think its patently unfair for those who engage in healthy behavior to carry the costs for those who do not.

Kind of like bailing out all those dipshits who apparently weren’t capable of even basic math and bought homes they didn’t have a hope of affording.

November 21, 2011 at 10:31 AM #733307

sdduuuude
Participant

[quote=GH]Or a brown TAX OR a black tax or an old tax or a young tax. No doubt there are a lot or contributing factors to health care costs. Apparently blacks are more likely to get sickle cell anemia. That ALONE justifies a higher premium right?[/quote]

I think the distinction is that one can choose to not smoke. One cannot choose to be not black.

From a dollars and cents point-of-view, yes it justifies it, but it creates no incentive to change the thing that is causing the increased risk.

November 21, 2011 at 10:51 AM #733305

briansd1
Guest

We need to incentivize people to develop healthy habits. I would like to see substantial cash rebates ($2,000 or more each year) to people who use very little health insurance.

People would scrutinize their medical bills more; and they would be more mindful of not using medical services frivolously.

November 21, 2011 at 11:15 AM #733308

DataAgent
Participant

How about a gay tax? If you go straight you get a rebate!

November 21, 2011 at 11:57 AM #733309

briansd1
Guest

[quote=DataAgent]How about a gay tax? If you go straight you get a rebate![/quote]

I don’t get it.

I’m talking about insurance companies paying out rebates to insured who use very little medical services.

If an insurance company is earning $10,000 from an insured per year, and that customer never goes to the doctor, then a $2,000 spiff seems quite reasonable to me.

Are you saying straights are healthier than gays?

November 21, 2011 at 12:10 PM #733310

DataAgent
Participant

[quote=briansd1][quote=DataAgent]How about a gay tax? If you go straight you get a rebate![/quote]

Are you saying straights are healthier than gays?[/quote]

I remember reading that gays have more medical problems and as a result pay more for medical care. Not true?

November 21, 2011 at 12:37 PM #733311

XBoxBoy
Participant

[quote=GH]Or a brown TAX OR a black tax or an old tax or a young tax. [/quote]

There is already a significant difference in the rates paid by young vs old. So, half of your statement is already there.

November 21, 2011 at 12:40 PM #733313

XBoxBoy
Participant

[quote=DataAgent]I remember reading that gays have more medical problems and as a result pay more for medical care. Not true?[/quote]

Gay’s (and intravenous drug users) are still way more likely to be HIV positive and there is a strong correlation between HIV and high medical costs. I don’t know if any companies actually charge gay’s higher rates though.

November 21, 2011 at 1:23 PM #733314

treehugger
Participant

Something I have never understood and maybe somebody here could help me understand. Why isn’t health insurance treated more like car or home insurance? I understand that I have to do the basic maintenance and it is up to me to take care of it. I have insurance (and deductable) in the “unlikely” event I need it. If I do get in some type of issue I would then need to consider whether it is worth the deductable and potential increase in my insurance or if I should just cover it and move on.

Incentives for currently having healthy habits and lifestyle would get my vote! I used to work for a company that would give staff $200 to quit smoking, I said prove I never smoked, cause now I stopped and I want $200…..they refused. How come that is not discrimination against me, the non-smoker? Plus smokers take breaks all day long to smoke, plus take a lunch break. I go for a run at lunch (instead of lunch) sometimes 1 hour sometimes longer and those smokers say stuff to me about abusing the system. grr, give me a rebate calculated on my BMI!

November 21, 2011 at 1:27 PM #733315

briansd1
Guest

Forget gay or fat or old or female.
The least medical services you use, the higher your annual rebate should be.

If you’re the kind that runs to the doctor when you have a cold then you should pay more.

November 21, 2011 at 1:36 PM #733317

briansd1
Guest

Treehugger, I understand your frustration.

I think our society coddles the majority. When the majority of people are fat-asses we all pay for their irresponsible behavior. Same thing goes in the real estate businesses.

I believe social attitude must change. As a society, we look down upon those are not educationally or financially responsible. There should be similar stigma against unhealthy behavior.
Author

Posts