Go Back   Professional Soldiers ® > At Ease > General Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-02-2008, 09:25   #1
sg1987
Guerrilla Chief
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Columbus
Posts: 793
Fat Tax....

I love it...long overdue....

Alabama Plans to Tax Fat Employees to Recoup Insurance Costs
Tuesday , September 02, 2008

By Jana Winter
Fox News


Alabama is rolling out a creative but controversial program that will subject its 37,527 state employees to possibly humiliating at-work weigh-ins and fat tests. If they tip the scales, they'll be given a choice: slim down or pay up.

The state is trying to solve two of its biggest problems — health insurance costs and obesity — in one fell swoop.

Beginning in 2010, Alabama, which has the second highest obesity rate in the country, will start charging all of its employees an extra $25 per month for health insurance. (Currently, single workers pay nothing; family plans cost $180 a month.)

But there's a way to avoid the fee: Get a check-up at an in-office "wellness center," where nurses will check for diabetes and hypertension and measure blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose levels and Body Mass Index (BMI).

The idea is to encourage employees to act responsibly, lose weight and lower their health care needs. But critics say it will humiliate and stigmatize obese employees and amounts to nothing short of a "fat tax."

A BMI test uses height and weigh measurements to calculate the percentage of body fat in adult males and females. Alabama is using a BMI threshold of 35 — 30 is considered obese, by most medical standards — to determine who doesn't have to pay the automatic $25 deduction.

Health practitioners often factor in skinfold (fat) and waist circumference measurements while calculating a patient's BMI.

Does Alabama think you're fat? Take this humiliation-free BMI test online.

If you're deemed fit, you're exempt. But if you flunk the BMI exam, it's shape up or pay up. Obese workers will be required to see a doctor and will have to show proof of their attempt to lose weight.

The program is optional ... sort of. If you don't take the tests, you'll have to pay the $25 charge.

The $25-per-month fee is not the only way Alabama hopes to discourage bad health decisions by state employees, said the program's creator, William Ashmore, executive director of the Alabama State Employees' Insurance Board. Alabama already charges smokers a monthly $25 insurance fee.

"There are folks walking around with diabetes and hypertension that don't even know it, and it's just a matter of time before something catastrophic happens to them," Ashmore said. "If we can get people to manage their health, we'll have healthier employees and less healthcare costs."

He said employees with a BMI of 35 or higher cost the state 40 percent more than those with a BMI under 35, and the program will help in many ways. "This is not a fat tax," Ashmore said. "It's not punitive."

But that's exactly what critics are calling it: a punitive "fat tax" designed to stigmatize the obese by inappropriately — and possibly illegally — bringing weight into the workplace.

"This is a dreadful, dreadful policy," said Judith S. Stern, an obesity expert and nutrition professor at University of California at Davis. "Overweight and obese people, especially women, feel that their weight is private, and being weighed at work is like having a prostate exam in the hall. It's not appropriate."

Critics also say Alabama's program borders on discrimination by using obesity, which is medically categorized as a disease, as its benchmark.

"I think it discriminates against people with a disease — obesity is a disease," Stern said. "Would you charge more money if they had breast cancer?"

Alabama's program is a dangerous step on a very slippery slope, says Mark V. Pauly, professor of health care systems at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business. "The unanswered question is, 'How much you want to do this?'" he said. "If you got lung cancer because you smoked, do we charge you a penalty there? What about couch potatoes? Do we put all the employees on treadmills?"

Medical and social considerations aside, other critics say it's just not going to work. "There's the thought that obese people are weak-willed, and if we charge them more they won't be as fat," Stern said. "This assumes they have control over what's involved, and often they don't."

And there's the cost factor. In its efforts to reduce heath care costs Alabama will spend an extra $1.6 million for health screenings and programs next year.

"From the viewpoint of the employer who provides health care and pension, this kind of cancels out," Pauly said. "What you lost on health care you get back in pension plan, because now these people are living longer."

Whatever the plan, a company's success in lowering health care costs and curbing obesity could depend entirely on how it's framed. Rewards tend to work better than punishment.

"It's possible to set these things up to look like more like carrots than sticks," Pauly said. "And people tend to respond better to carrots."

Alabama isn't alone in its struggle to cut costs and curb obesity. Two-thirds of American adults are overweight or obese, according to a recent report from Trust for America's Health, a nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C.

Clarian Health Partners, a hospital chain in Indiana, has taken a different approach. In 2009, they will start deducting money from the paychecks of workers who do not meet — and don't show efforts to meet — various health criteria. Smoking without trying to quit will cost $5; high glucose, high blood pressure and high cholesterol levels will cost $5 each; a high Body Mass Index will cost $10.

This is also happening abroad. Japan is monitoring the waist measurements of its policyholders, according to official government websites. Citizens receive jury duty-like summonses to appear for measurements — and if they're too fat, their employer will be slapped with a hefty fine. The maximum waist size allowed for men is 33.5 inches and 35.4 inches for women.

It's unlikely that Japan's program will catch on stateside, but that doesn't mean Americans are off the hook. Alabama's so-called "fat tax" could just be the beginning of a trend.

"A lot of employers are talking about this," Pauly said. "There's the feeling that you have to do something. What you do then is a matter of design and discretion."

As for Alabama, Ashmore is sure that those who have their doubts will soon come around. He encourages workers to swing by his Montgomery office to pick up pamphlets about the program and to learn more about reducing their Body Mass Index.

But to get to his second-floor office they'll first have to make it past the Chick-Fil-A downstairs (average meal: 1,000 calories).
__________________
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams
sg1987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2008, 09:32   #2
Team Sergeant
Quiet Professional
 
Team Sergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 20,929
Where's the aclu?

I'm sure we're about to hear from them and the AAFP (American Association of FAT People).......
__________________
"The Spartans do not ask how many are the enemy, but where they are."
Team Sergeant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2008, 09:47   #3
The Reaper
Quiet Professional
 
The Reaper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,813
Then why is it not legal to charge gay men a higher rate as well, since they are tremendously more likely to acquire HIV/AIDS, and cost the system much more money over the many years that they will require expensive meds and care?

At least the fatties will probably die quickly from coronary disease.

TR
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
The Reaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2008, 09:51   #4
rubberneck
Area Commander
 
rubberneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Buckingham, Pa.
Posts: 1,746
Playing devils advocate here for a second but not every fat (clinically obese) person is that way through personal choice. There have been a number of studies that have identified a genetic causes for obesity beyond lifet style choices. Is it far to tax them for being obese but not tax someone who has cancer? In both cases there is a genetic condition beyond the individuals control and both place an undue burden on the health care system. Why is it fair to tax one and not the other, outside of the perception that the cancer patient is a victim and the obese person is a fat lazy slob?

I'd be willing to bet next months mortgage that there are a number of exceptionally fit people, including some Quiet Professionals on this board, who would have to pay extra under this proposed system. The system uses your BMI to judge if you are obese or not. The main failing with the BMI is that it doesn't take into account your muscle mass. Lets take for example a 5'11" 225 pound male with less than 10% body fat, runs daily, lifts weights, has normal blood pressure. This person has a BMI of 31 and would be considered "obese".

Don't get me wrong, there is a real serious issue at play here and it needs to be addressed, but their approach has to be far more nuanced than it is. It seems to me that they didn't give this plan much thought.
rubberneck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2008, 10:03   #5
Team Sergeant
Quiet Professional
 
Team Sergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 20,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubberneck View Post
Playing devils advocate here for a second but not every fat (clinically obese) person is that way through personal choice. There have been a number of studies that have identified a genetic causes for obesity beyond lifet style choices.
I read those studies, they were all done by fat doctors.

Morbid Obesity is the same as smoking, you choose to do it.

There is NO genetic predisposition forcing one to eat three Big Mac's, two Biggie Fires and a diet Coke.

One out of one million might have a TRUE medical problem relating to overeating, the rest are just pigs.

But don't take my word on it, just do some traveling and visit some countries where people work hard and don't over eat.

TS
__________________
"The Spartans do not ask how many are the enemy, but where they are."
Team Sergeant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2008, 10:12   #6
rubberneck
Area Commander
 
rubberneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Buckingham, Pa.
Posts: 1,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Sergeant View Post
Morbid Obesity is the same as smoking, you choose to do it.

TS
Perhaps you are correct but that brings up another question. Why go after obese employee's while ignoring the ones that smoke? Smoking causes a similar strain on health care resources much in the same way obesity does.
rubberneck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2008, 10:16   #7
The Reaper
Quiet Professional
 
The Reaper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubberneck View Post
Perhaps you are correct but that brings up another question. Why go after obese employee's while ignoring the ones that smoke? Smoking causes a similar strain on health care resources much in the same way obesity does.
Did you even read the article?

TR
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
The Reaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2008, 10:25   #8
sg1987
Guerrilla Chief
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Columbus
Posts: 793
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubberneck View Post
Smoking causes a similar strain on health care resources much in the same way obesity does.
I'm thinking smoking, HIV (lifestyle choices), etc. are no different than the various hazards we tack on to homeowner policies.

Also, if a monetary fee will help cause the improvement in the overall health of citizens I say put it on ‘em!
__________________
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams
sg1987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2008, 10:27   #9
rubberneck
Area Commander
 
rubberneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Buckingham, Pa.
Posts: 1,746
I did, in between taking several phone calls and sending out several e-mails. I missed the one line that said that smokers were charged $25 a month.
rubberneck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2008, 10:29   #10
Razor
Quiet Professional
 
Razor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 4,530
Quote:
"I think it discriminates against people with a disease — obesity is a disease," Stern said. "Would you charge more money if they had breast cancer?"
Actually, yes. Almost all health/life insurance companies conduct some type of health history pre-screening, and many will charge higher premiums to those with a family history of certain diseases, including cancer. This holds even if the insured doesn't currently show any signs of having the disease. How's that for "not fair", or "not their fault"?

The very interesting future of health/life insurance is enmeshed in the advances in genetic testing. Are you genetically predisposed to contract coronary disease, or cancer, or diabetes? Not only will the insurance companies find out through testing, but they may even deny you coverage based off the tests.
Razor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2008, 10:37   #11
rubberneck
Area Commander
 
rubberneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Buckingham, Pa.
Posts: 1,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor View Post
Actually, yes. Almost all health/life insurance companies conduct some type of health history pre-screening, and many will charge higher premiums to those with a family history of certain diseases, including cancer. This holds even if the insured doesn't currently show any signs of having the disease. How's that for "not fair", or "not their fault"?
Not here in the people's socialist republic where no one can be turned down for health care insurance and the companies are forbidden by law from charging unhealthy people more for their premiums. As a result I pay $911.23 a month for my families health care insurance the same exact amount that someone who has cancer, heart disease and diabities pays. Wonderful, ain't it?
rubberneck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2008, 10:44   #12
ZonieDiver
Quiet Professional
 
ZonieDiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Georgetown, SC
Posts: 4,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubberneck View Post
<snip> There have been a number of studies that have identified a genetic causes for obesity beyond lifet style choices. Is it far to tax them for being obese but not tax someone who has cancer? In both cases there is a genetic condition beyond the individuals control and both place an undue burden on the health care system. <snip>
I have heard this argument repeatedly - genetics or "gland problems" - but they fly in the face of reason. IF there is some genetic component or some gland problem that can cause this, then scientists need to be isolating and replicating it and "poof" - world hunger is solved!
__________________
"I took a different route from most and came into Special Forces..." - Col. Nick Rowe
ZonieDiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2008, 10:45   #13
MVS2
FTFSI!!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubberneck View Post
Not here in the people's socialist republic where no one can be turned down for health care insurance and the companies are forbidden by law from charging unhealthy people more for their premiums. As a result I pay $911.23 a month for my families health care insurance the same exact amount that someone who has cancer, heart disease and diabities pays. Wonderful, ain't it?


Good point - how about taking $/month from each paycheck and hiring a runner to buy lunches at Subway or the local grocery store. Put the Mickey Dee's addicts out of commission for one meal a day.
MVS2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2008, 13:35   #14
Jack Moroney (RIP)
Quiet Professional
 
Jack Moroney (RIP)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vermont
Posts: 3,093
BMI is a bunch of bullshit-especially for those of us that are not short but just wound up tight. Cut loose those internal bunji cords that are compressing my skeleton and I would be 6'2" I love it when some pencil necked medical professional at the VA gets upset with me because I have reached the potential of exceeding my bursting radius and they cannot find a friggin' blood pressure cuff large enough to go around my arm. I'll agree that other indicators such as blood pressure, cholesterol, etc are good indicators but BMI is some statiticians invention so they can look at the figures on a damn bar graph without otherwise measuring physical performance to determine if someone is fit to perform required tasks. Time for a snack
__________________
Wenn einer von uns fallen sollt, der Andere steht für zwei.
Jack Moroney (RIP) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2008, 14:04   #15
Pete
Quiet Professional
 
Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Fayetteville
Posts: 13,080
I read to the end but...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubberneck View Post
Playing devils advocate here for a second but not every fat (clinically obese) person is that way through personal choice.......
I read to the end but came back. I did see the other comments about this.

I'd like to add - cross off movies - look at the documentary films from the 40s and 50s. I like those time fillers on TMC. The little travelogs where the countryside was seen at 45 to 55 mph and you stopped every couple of hours at a tourist trap. Notice the lack of Fat people? In fact dig up just about any public film up through the early 80s and fat people are almost never seen.

Go to any Mall today and take a look around. Wall to wall lardos. Some may be predisposed to gain but buying a Diet Coke with the two double meat & cheese whoppers, large fries and an apple pie ain't the way to cut back.


Edited to add - And Lord, Lord, Lord, spandex should not be made in XXXX.

Last edited by Pete; 09-02-2008 at 14:05. Reason: Added
Pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 18:29.



Copyright 2004-2022 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies