Our business is planning on charging employees and extra $10 per month for health insurance if they have a BMI over 40. They are also talking about an additional $10 for smokers. I find this both personally invasive and unfair. A major point is that the group health plan that they now have charges the same for everyone. They are not passing along an expense, they are simply hoping that their action will eventually result in globally diminished health care costs for all. This is an attempt at social coercion that has no direct benefit to the company itself. In addition, their are a myriad of health problems that incur increased costs that are being ignored. These could include diabetes, a family history of cancer, epilepsy, being wheelchair bound, etc. What would they say if I suggested that all health information should be made public and charges for health insurance adjusted based on the findings? I honestly don’t see any difference between the two classes of employees.
Smoking and being fat are CHOICES, and are easily reversable.
Diabetes and cancer are generaly NOT. Subtle difference
I don’t really have a problem with it. Some companies want their employees to volunteer so many hours toward charities each year, others want to encourage a healthy workforce. I’d put this squarely in the category of, the rules are not obviously abusive or discriminatory, so if you don’t like them, work elsewhere.
I had to look up what a BMI of 40 really means. For a 6’ tall man, that’s 295 pounds. Wow.
I see the difference between the life style choices and heredity. But where does it stop? Charge more for sedentary employees than active ones. A tax on beef eaters? Extra fees for talking on a cell phone while driving? We cannot be made perfect. What would you say if they decided to stop employing diabetics? Clearly unfair, but it seems to me economically defensible.
What about folks with eating disorders who are seriously UNDERweight? Or people who are known/suspected to be alcoholics or drug users? Just tossing some other things out there and wondering where/how to draw the line.
Car insurance providers use statistically valid data to charge more to policy holders at increased risk. Why shouldn’t heath providers be able to do the same?
I disagree with it - but I also don’t like employers thinking they have a right to my urine. What they are doing is legal, so I vote with my feet where necessary and possible.
Exactly. I get charged more car insurance for things i have absolutely no control over like being male so even if you didn’t have a choice in being fat it doesn’t change the fact that you still cost more on average.
Yes, there is a difference in car insurance costs if you are a bad driver. And certain health problems causes life insurance to either cost more or be unavailable. And I agree that individual health insurance policies cost more for pre-existing conditions. That is not the case here. The company provides group health insurance that costs the same for everyone. There is no discussion that these costs will decrease because of their policy change. Rather, HR says the hope is that making America healthier as a whole will decrease health care costs and eventually be passed on.
I agree with Shakespeare. First kill all the lawyers. That way defensive medicine will decrease, doctors will not order as many needless tests thinking they are practicing defensive medicine and the health insurance costs will then similarly decrease.
If a vegan restaurant announced a policy of meat-eating employees having a $20 surcharge (maybe which would be used to buy carbon offsets to make a point about the environmental costs of raising cattle), as a meat-eater, I’d say, “Huh. How about that?” Then suggest any meat-eating waiters I know that work at that restaurant apply their talents elsewhere.
Charge on sedentary employees? Well, if the boss tells you to stay at your desk 8 hours a day, and then penalizes you for doing what you’re told, that’s not fair at all.
Fees on talking on a cell phone? I have a hard time seeing that this could be enforced – how is the employer to know? – but if someone like a delivery truck driver is found to talk on the phone while driving his route, I can see an employer firing that person and being on reasonable grounds.
Diabetes? Absolutely not justified. And I imagine it would be illegal to charge to fire or penalize that person simply for being sick.
We all metabolize foods at different rates, and this is not a choice. I love how skinny people attribute their BMI to their sterling characters. And no, Mozart1220, obesity is not “easily reversible.” They’ll come for the bald next, and the left-handed.
So your business will be able to document that BMI is a scientifically accurate measure of health when they are sued? BMI is junk science. How will your business fight a claim that “being fat” might be a protected class under ADA?
Hey, don’t get me wrong here. I’m actually in favor of people with high risk behaviors should pay more, but base all of it on sound and justifiable principles, standards and accurate scientific information, and not hocus pocus.
There is a difference in car insurance costs if you’re a male.
There is a difference in car insurance costs if you’re young.
There is a difference in car insurance costs if you’re married.
There is a difference in car insurance costs depending upon where you live.
There is a difference in car insurance costs depending upon which type of vehicle you drive.
I’m pretty sure we could find statistical reasons why fat smokers should pay more for health coverage.
If there are statistics that show that it costs more to insure them then they damn well should.
I fall right at the border of “normal” and “overweight” on the BMI scale. I would have to gain one hundred pounds, or nearly 60% of my body weight, to reach a BMI of 40.
That’s a hell of a spare tire, and something that’s unlikely to just sneak up on you one day.
I was thinking the same thing. Discounts for anorexics? The next logical class would be “married” women of breeding age.
I seem to recall there was a big fuss in the fashion community a couple years ago about some particular waif-like model being rejected from some fashion week event because she was too damn skinny.
I say, good.
Would anyone like to stand up against the injustice done to that poor little model? Was she oppressed or discriminated against simply because of her super-fast metabolism?
Simple solution: Your company just needs to raise premiums on everyone, but then offer discounts to non-smokers and those with BMI <40. 
I’m a fatty and they can do this to me if they like. I’ll just do $10 worth of work less, you know, since I will have already paid the fat and lazy tax.
Then maybe they can finally start charging that skinny woman in the next cube what she really owes. I know for a fact she has cancer and that shit ain’t cheap. Why should I contribute to her health care costs … Oh, wait, I just remembered how insurance works. Nevermind.
Wait, are you implying that obesity is caused solely by having a slow metabolism?