Did you remember that it works by charging people different rates, according to the risk they present? Good. Then you see no problem in this.
And yet, that has very little to do with why people are actually fat.
Sterling? No, not sterling…healthy. Like eating 2000-2500 calories a day and staying moderately active. And not eating every time you’re hungry. You know, all those things that health professionals have been saying to you your entire life. It doesn’t take a sterling character. Just a disciplined one.
Fine then. Don’t reverse it. Just pay $10 and you don’t have to lift a pudgy little finger.
No, they won’t.
If you think the “tax” is unfair, then you should be able to provide a reason why fat people should be allowed to take a bigger piece of the insurance pie (:p) without paying more for it.
The BMI is a load of shit anyway. I’m 6’, 208 and according to it I am overweight. My body fat index is low and though I’ve lost thirty pounds in the last year I have trouble losing more as I keep putting on muscle mass.
Again, the BMI is an absolute load of shit and should never been used to determine obesity.
I disagree. Especially when the quoted figure is a BMI of 40. Forty! I would have to gain another 67% of my body weight in order to reach a BMI of 40.
How can the quotient of your weight and height not be an accurate predictor of obesity?
ETA: What other measures do you suggest? Shoe size divided by wrist circumference?
I’m pretty sure the insurance companies have already taken into account the diversity of the groups they insuring. Big, small, fat, tall, whatever, it’s already factored in to the rates tables.
You don’t need BMI to determine obesity. You only need eyes.
Well, I don’t really see any big problem with this. But insurance doesn’t necessarily work by charging people different rates according to the risk they present and what we are talking about here is an employer playing amateur actuary. Besides, If risk could be positively calculated then there would be no point in insurance at all. They would know I’m due a heart attack tomorrow, would raise my rates to cover the cost plus a tidy profit for themselves thus making themselves pointless.
*What other measures do you suggest? *
Body fat percentage.
Is a 6’ foot 240 boxer with a body fat percentage of 8% obese simply because the BMI says he is? According to the BMI Lance Armstrong is borderline overweight and Tom Brady is overweight.
Perhaps you might want to calculate the BMIs of the 1,600 athletic and very fit players of the National Football League. How many of them are honestly obese and unfit?
No, of course not. He also isn’t crying about it and looking for a sympathetic ear on a messageboard full of fat people.
Have you never purchased an insurance policy before? The very first thing they do is evaluate what level of risk you present. Then they decide how much to charge you based on that.
I’m making no judgement on the fat tax. Just saying that if you are going to go through with it the BMI is not the tool to use.
At first I wondered if you were kidding. Maybe if you are applying for a single policy they do this sort of thing, grouping people into broad catagories and charging accordingly, but I’ve had group health and life insurance through a few employers, as has my wife and kids, and that just isn’t how it works. I would be very interested to hear about an insurance company that used anything other than very broad groupings. Do they really use BMI or some other fat measure to decide on what to charge?
If you have a method for quitting smoking or losing weight that has a high success rate, I recommend publishing a book or otherwise marketing it. Most common methods for quitting smoking have a success rate under 50%. Nearly 95% of people who lose weight on diets gain it back within five years. If you can beat those success rates, you should make rather a lot of money.
If it’s something that is very simple in theory but hard for people to put into practice, or that would work if only human nature were different somehow- well, Communism had the same flaw.
How about blacks and gays? They too are more likely to have medical problems I’m sure, due to attacks by bigots. Should they have to pay a surcharge due to a higher risk for being beaten?
That boxer would still be at higher risk of health problems than a lighter boxer of the same height. Health consequences of being heavy are not solely related to percentage of body fat. There are a lot of other problems that high-BMI individuals will have even when they’re in excellent condition. That is leaving out the obvious health consequences of staying in shape by being a professional boxer.
Duckster’s example of NFL player BMIs also seems bad. NFL players are notoriously prone to long-term and debilitating health problems like arthritis, excessive weight gain, sleep apnea, cardiovascular disease, and more. Being the size of NFL players and staying in shape after you retire seems extremely uncommon. From what I can tell, most players that stay in shape after retirement have to lose weight, not just keep exercising. All other things equal, a lighter NFL player should statistically be more likely to be healthy than a heavier NFL player. Some of these links have information about the health of NFL players. http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_nfl.html
The way a person stays fit matters, not just that they stay fit.
The extra cost as indicated in the OP has nothing to do with health care costs. In addition, unless this company is a rare exception, the people of this country are subsidizing the insurance costs through preferential tax treatment. In the past, companies were allowed a ridiculous level of discretion in setting employee contributions. It was not uncommon for the highest paid employees in a company to pay a much lower contribution for their insurance, than the lowest paid. I don’t know if this has been addressed in the recent health care bill, but in itself it is an absurd system that allows companies to arbitrarily apply distributions for a subsidized activity. In the case here, the company is essentially being paid by an employee, for no consideration.
Health care costs have nothing to do with it. The company is paying the same amount for health insurance. Some employees are being required to contribute more to the health insurace shared by all employees for totally arbitrary reasons. And the company is profiting from it, whether they apply the additional fee to the insurance costs of not. They might as well be allowed to charge employees a fee for belonging to certain religions or political parties.
In addition to that basic unfairness, and abuse of my tax dollars, there is absolutely no relationship between a specific BMI figure and health, or annual health care costs. There is no relationship between a specific BMI figure, or smoking, and lifetime health care costs either.
I would want to sue the company. I don’t know if that would be fruitful, but if there was any chance of getting a lawyer to take this up on contingency, I’d sue as soon as I had didn’t have to rely on that job. If the cost were not too great, I’d sue anyway, just to harass the company.
Why is it bad? The OP is stating their business will determine their employee’s health based on a BMI and nothing more. My post has nothing to do with long-term health issues of a particular profession and training program for that profession.
Taking the OPs comments at face value, everyone at their business will probably be asked to step up to the scale where they will be weighed and measured. Each will be assessed whether their BMI is above or below the mark. Above pays the fine. Below the mark does not. No mention of the overall fitness or health condition of an employee by a competent and qualified person appears to be part of the assessment. A current NFL player could just as easily stand in the employee queue and be assessed as a failure, even though they are, at that moment, probably in better heath condition than anyone else in the same line.
Unless all the employees are wusses, I can see a lawsuit coming out of this. BMI is junk science.
Since many jobs require you to take a “whiz quiz” at some point, drug users generally are found out and fired.
But if you want to nitpick every possible situation feel free. I merely commented on the two already mentioned.
I like the idea of a flat tax.