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

[4826monongahela]

I get the line of reasoning that we should encourage activity (programs to lose weight, stop smoking, etc) that imposes lower healthcare costs for society.

But one thing I don’t get is whether or not smokers & fat-asses really do incur greater overall costs? Sure, they die sooner and after prolonged medical treatment. But everyone dies of something sooner or later. I honestly wonder if the total healthcare tally for these people really is greater than someone who doesn’t smoke/obese and lives much longer and dies of something else, which may also include protracted healthcare costs. Additionally, if they die young, then we as a society don’t carry their retirement costs as long.

I don’t have an opinion on this, I’ve just never seen numbers showing one group actually is more costly than another, “tout compte fait”. Does anyone know?

[UCGal]

I like Brian’s idea of giving rebates to folks who don’t use the services.

As a fatty – who doesn’t go to the doctor… I’d get a rebate. Seriously… Insurance, IMO, is overused by most – and you’re around sick people when you go to the doctors… so why go willingly.

FWIW – Kaiser Permanente nags you till you do the maintenance stuff. I just did all the female related checks because they kept calling until I cried uncle and made the appointment. Not fun but it had been several years. Despite my high BMI, I still have low cholesterol, blood pressure, glucose levels. I guess I defy the fatty statistics. Yay me.

So under one model proposed here – I’d be required to pay more (because of my weight) and by another model proposed here – I’d be rebated money because I’m profitable – pay the insurance and don’t use it.

[scaredyclassic]

I’m starting to get a bit stronger From extremely regular and intense weightlifting a couple months now and I’m starting to feel that the strong should pay less than the weak.

In fact, only the strong should survive.

[all]

[quote=4826monongahela]I get the line of reasoning that we should encourage activity (programs to lose weight, stop smoking, etc) that imposes lower healthcare costs for society.

But one thing I don’t get is whether or not smokers & fat-asses really do incur greater overall costs? Sure, they die sooner and after prolonged medical treatment. But everyone dies of something sooner or later. I honestly wonder if the total healthcare tally for these people really is greater than someone who doesn’t smoke/obese and lives much longer and dies of something else, which may also include protracted healthcare costs. Additionally, if they die young, then we as a society don’t carry their retirement costs as long.

I don’t have an opinion on this, I’ve just never seen numbers showing one group actually is more costly than another, “tout compte fait”. Does anyone know?[/quote]

Non-smokers and slender people are more likely to have their terminal cost covered by Medicare at no cost for the insurance companies?

[Anonymous]

[quote=UCGal]So under one model proposed here – I’d be required to pay more (because of my weight) and by another model proposed here – I’d be rebated money because I’m profitable – pay the insurance and don’t use it.[/quote]

Unfortunately you cannot declare yourself “profitable” until you are dead.

Insurance, by definition, is something you don’t need until you do.

[Anonymous]

Charging different rates for personal characteristics is standard for life insurance. For example, if you have high cholesterol, you pay more. Doesn’t matter if the cause is genetic or behavior.

BTW, eugenics is basically selective breeding. I’m fortunate to have naturally low cholesterol, so perhaps I’ll be chosen as a candidate for the master race.

[briansd1]

There is a fat gene. But the genetic predisposition can be countered with a little of exercise and discipline.

[sd_matt]

[quote=briansd1]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.[/quote]
I often disagree with you. Not today. I too do not want to pay for the consequences of other people’s irresponsible behavior.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sd_matt][quote=briansd1]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.[/quote]
I often disagree with you. Not today. I too do not want to pay for the consequences of other people’s irresponsible behavior.[/quote]

brian, I agree as well, and will take it one step further in that I consider good management of one’s own health (within the parameters of non-inheritable disease) a matter of personal responsibility. By the time one is moving thru their sixth decade, nearly all the previous decisions they and/or their peers made in the past (wrt their future health) have come home to roost. A person who is in good health (for the most part due to their prudent decisions they made through the years wrt to their everyday existence) should NOT be penalized for the transgressions of others in their “age group.” However, the way individual-plan pricing is set up is “usage by age group.”

Individual premium-pricing is actually based upon two factors:

1. state of health at time of application … as evidenced by medical record, physical examination and answers on application, and…

2. avg $ amt of health care usage by other policyholders in the same age group;

I think “2.” should be done away with. It isn’t fair to the fit and well to lump them in with the current and/or former drug user, tobacco user, junk food junkie and/or “non exerciser” for healthcare pricing purposes.

[CardiffBaseball]

How is fat defined? This chick at work, isn’t bad looking for her age, very pretty colored eyes, with the three-tone hair, yet sort of looks deathly. Sunken face, dark circles etc. Legs so skinny it’s a bit gross. Yet she has this little belly on her and hips sort of jut out much more than her skinny frame would indicate. Clear case of skinny-fat which is typical of someone likely born to be skinny, but doesn’t engage in vigorous weight-born exercise, and probably does nothing or just something aerobic/yoga/pilates etc. On their otherwise tiny frame, there is clearly some fat. (anecdotally speaking I see this odd-shape more in poor rural areas, than I do a pretty-classy lady like this)

Brian if you saw her at one of your cultural events (she seems the type) you’d probably approve, but I hear the skinny-fat types have just as many health issues as the mildly obese, and that they are at just as much of a risk for heart disease. I realize you do not frequent sites where trainers who like clients to move iron around bitch about skinny-fat, but it seems to be a trending term these days.

Under Brian’s suggestion it wouldn’t matter if she was a healthy skinny-fat and didn’t use services she’d get a rebate. Under the typical plan some bureaucrat with a dumb-ass formula for BMI gets to pick and choose and even if she were an un-healthy skinny-fat, she’d pass the BMI eye test.

[scaredyclassic]

That’s why we should all be groped and massaged to adjudge our general tone before anyone insures us. this will provide pleasant work for many new people, thereby boosting the economy. We wil call them the tonemasters.

Side note. I was reading about back pain somewhere and its relation to the state of your ass. I have been neglecting the musculature of my ass for an entire lifetime and I regret that. but i am mending my ways. The squat is definitely addressing my ass weakness and having a strong muscular ass is more important than I thought. Indeed it may be critical. that’s why a strong ass is right at the top of my resolutions for 2012, and a gradual progression to a 250 lb squat –or perhaps even 300 lbs — is what i want for christmas next year.

I urge others to consider the squat to work among other things their ass. I am very excited about this iimportant discovery.

so, as you sit there reading this, reach back. feel your buttocks. whata re you experiencing? are they thick hard meaty chunks of backsupporting power? or is there a sad sagginess or thinness to them? don’t despair! your butt will respond to training.

ok, now, release your buttock.

stop envying the buttocks of NFL football players and go get one (or preferably two) for yourself!

the squat!

[briansd1]

[quote=walterwhite]

Side note. I was reading about back pain somewhere and its relation to the state of your ass. [/quote]

Any links relating to this?

I got a buddy who complains of back pain and he’s tried remedies such chiropractic, stretching machine, etc… Weight loss has not been tried yet.

[scaredyclassic]

No idea where I read that. Somewhere on the Internet.

[Author]

Posts