Docking Pay For Overweight Workers

[betsy]

Socialists/Liberals would want to make sure everyone was taken care of equally.

That's being naive. That's what they want us to think....but they're the most controlling.

Frankly speaking, I'd rather people are more concerned about making money, than my behaviour/lifestyle.

If it wasn't for the liberal drivel that made employers hire whoever comes along, whether they're qualified or not....these employers wouldn't feel the need to manipulate the behaviour of their employees. They would've hired only those they wanted in the first place without worrying that some fat people will scream discrimination.

I predict that this type of behaviour by employers will be found discriminatory, unless of course the "HEALTH FASCISTS" trump the human rights tribunal fascists.

Edited August 12, 2007 by betsy

[Guest American Woman]

That's being naive. That's what they want us to think....but they're the most controlling.

Frankly speaking, I'd rather people are more concerned about making money, than my behaviour/lifestyle.

Thinking the company cares about their lifestyle is what's naive. If they cared about the people, they'd be providing services that would help them: Weight Watchers, a gym, councelling, etc. They care about their profit. That's as obvious as the nose on one's face. To take money away from them only limits their ability to join a gym, a weight watcher program, buy some exercise equipment, buy more costly 'health food.'

As for socialists being most controlling: so it's socialists who want to ban abortion, ban gay marriage, provide health care to only those who can afford it, etc?

How one can twist such obvious corporate greed for wanting to control the empoyees' behavior is mind boggling.

[betsy]

Thinking the company cares about their lifestyle is what's naive. If they cared about the people, they'd be providing services that would help them: Weight Watchers, a gym, councelling, etc. They care about their profit. That's as obvious as the nose on one's face. To take money away from them only limits their ability to join a gym, a weight watcher program, buy some exercise equipment, buy more costly 'health food.'

I didn't say they care about the people. In fact I don't want them to care about me. I don't need another mother! And I certainly don't need another mother who care so much about me they want to take my money.

When I say they are concerned about your lifestyle, I mean they want to interfere with your lifestyle.

So they'll come checking on your fridge to see what you've got stocked in there?

All I said was, I would rather they were doing it for their own monetary gain than to interfere with my private life.

But whatever, I don't want them taking money out of my pocket. That's obvious.

If they win and get away doing this, believe me this is just the start!

As for socialists being most controlling: so it's socialists who want to ban abortion, ban gay marriage, provide health care to only those who can afford it, etc?

How one can twist such obvious corporate greed for wanting to control the empoyees' behavior is mind boggling.

No, I'm talking about those who know WHAT'S BEST FOR YOU. Like the ones who wants to ban all fatty foods...who want to pick your daycare for you....who censor school curricula....etc..,

As for abortion, I find it morally repugnant. But if you're going to do it make sure it's done to only potential liberals.

Edited August 12, 2007 by betsy

[Guest American Woman]

As for abortion, I find it morally repugnant. But if you're going to do it make sure it's done to only potential liberals.

Yes, I can see by your "make sure it's done to only to potential liberals" comment that you have high morals. Sorry, but that comment has made me lose interest in discussing this issue any further with you.

[betsy]

Yes, I can see by your "make sure it's done to only to potential liberals" comment that you have high morals. Sorry, but that comment has made me lose interest in discussing this issue any further with you.

Thank you. I have no wish to get in an abortion discussion either. It's out of topic.

[Moxie]

wikipedia is obviously not the greatest source for reference, but I just wanted to quote the second sentence on the page referring to BMI:

So, this Body Mass Index is what some 19th century MATHEMATICIAN (who tried to make a math problem out of sociology) thought was the ideal weight to height ratio. It has remained largely unchanged since then and it is laughable that it is used today for such things as health insurance and now as a way to garnish employees wages.

There is little to no scientific evidence to suggest that the BMI can indicate a person's health, or likelihood of becoming unhealthy, nor is it shown anywhere that reducing your BMI can IMPROVE your health or make you less susceptible to health problems.

This is pseudo-science at its worst and it's a shame that people buy into it.

LOL I agree, according the BMI I should be half dead and starving. My husband falls under obese but he has no body fat at all. It's another scam to control who can be allowed into Federal Programs like the Military and RCMP. Yep they use the BMI system.

I see many women that are big boned with a little extra weight who are as fit as I am. Genetics plays a large factor in our size, as we age we naturally develope fat pockets no matter what we eat and the type of exercise we partake of. What is fat or obese to one group might be natural to another, frankly I'm sick of a society that demonizes people who carry extra weight. A binge drinking smoker is more of a danger to our health care system than a person with a little extra weight.

[Bonam]

While BMI may be a flawed measure, that doesn't mean that obesity doesn't exist or doesn't pose severe health risks and other disadvantages. There are other measures that are significantly more accurate. Insurance rates for a car vary greatly depending on age, gender, etc, because they have been shown to be correlated with driving accidents to some extent. Health costs are also different between obese individuals and non-obese ones, and this obviously reflects in the cost of insuring them. Why can costs for being an 18 year old male be passed on to the user in the case of car insurance, but costs for weighing 500 pounds not be passed on to the user in the case of medical insurance? Either both are valid or neither is.

[cybercoma]

While BMI may be a flawed measure, that doesn't mean that obesity doesn't exist or doesn't pose severe health risks and other disadvantages. There are other measures that are significantly more accurate. Insurance rates for a car vary greatly depending on age, gender, etc, because they have been shown to be correlated with driving accidents to some extent. Health costs are also different between obese individuals and non-obese ones, and this obviously reflects in the cost of insuring them. Why can costs for being an 18 year old male be passed on to the user in the case of car insurance, but costs for weighing 500 pounds not be passed on to the user in the case of medical insurance? Either both are valid or neither is.

Because there are plenty of non-obese people that use more of their medical insurance than obese ones, due to partaking in risky physical or sporting activities or other unhealthy lifestyle choices.

[Guest American Woman]

Because there are plenty of non-obese people that use more of their medical insurance than obese ones, due to partaking in risky physical or sporting activities or other unhealthy lifestyle choices.

Exactly. Should people who have several kids be penalized because they use the healthcare system more? What about people with disabilities. Should they pay more? What if one race is more prone to certain diseases than others; should they be singled out too?

Higher insurance for 16 year olds (and females pay the same premium as boys) isn't discriminatory because all 16 year olds pay on the same scale. By the same token, life insurance for an older person is more expensive than a young person.

Singling out smokers and overweight people on the other hand, is discriminatory. If they can do their job, then that's all that should matter. As a side note, some people are thin because they have an unhealthy life style, too. Not eating enough isn't healthy and either is being bulimic. I would say a person suffering from bulimia, while they may be at an 'appropriate' weight, would be more prone to health problems than someone who is overweight.

[Bonam]

Exactly. Should people who have several kids be penalized because they use the healthcare system more?

Well it costs more to provide insurance for more individuals. However many organizations and governments take it upon themselves to financially reward people for having children, especially in the face of an aging population.

What about people with disabilities. Should they pay more?

What if one race is more prone to certain diseases than others; should they be singled out too?

If a particular individual has a higher risk of expensive medical procedures, then, on average, more money will be spent providing medical care for them. It doesn't matter whether this increased risk originates as a result of obesity, disability, race, or any other factor. Why is it unfair to ask an individual that is going to require more expensive medical care to contribute some portion of that extra cost?

Higher insurance for 16 year olds (and females pay the same premium as boys) isn't discriminatory because all 16 year olds pay on the same scale. By the same token, life insurance for an older person is more expensive than a young person.

How is charging different age groups different rates not discriminatory, but charging different weight groups different rates is? Saying charging 16 year olds more isn't discriminatory because all 16 year olds pay the same is like saying charging 500 pound people more isn't discriminatory because all 500 pound people pay the same. And yes, life insurance for an older person is more expensive, because that's only realistic. An older person has a higher risk of collecting that life insurance, and so the operating cost is more. The exact same is true of an obese person, an alchoholic, a smoker, etc. They should all contribute at least a portion of the increased healthcare costs that they incur.

Singling out smokers and overweight people on the other hand, is discriminatory. If they can do their job, then that's all that should matter.

Singling out 16 year olds for car insurance is discriminatory. If they can drive (have passed their test), then that's all that should matter. Singling out old people for higher life insurance rates is discriminatory. If they can breath and their heart is beating, and they aren't diagnosed with a terminal illness, then their alive and healthy, and that's all that should matter. Exact same argument. You either buy it or you don't, you can't just arbitrarily apply it to cases you personally support and ignore it in cases you personally disapprove of.

As a side note, some people are thin because they have an unhealthy life style, too. Not eating enough isn't healthy and either is being bulimic. I would say a person suffering from bulimia, while they may be at an 'appropriate' weight, would be more prone to health problems than someone who is overweight.

If these conditions also result in higher healthcare costs, then they too can be charged extra.

Anyway, I don't see why a healthy person that maybe might visit the doctor for 15 minutes once in a year as their entire medical expenditure should have to pay the same health costs as someone that is morbidly obese, chain smokes 5 packs a day, and costs the company 100k+/year. Now, I can see the argument when it comes to disabilities and disorders, which are involuntary, and the person has no choice, but is trying to be productive, how society and their fellow employees should help them out and pay for their extra costs.

But smoking is voluntary, and while some may disagree, obesity is most often voluntary as well. Why do I have to pay more health insurance because some other guy at my workplace smokes, or goes for 3 double quarter pounders at McDonalds every day? It's their lifestyle, their choice, their health, and it should be their money that pays for it, not mine.