Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Employees starting to pay for poor health

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
kstewart33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 05:01 PM
Original message
Employees starting to pay for poor health

Are you obese or have high blood pressure? Your insurance may go up
The Associated Press

Updated: 11:22 a.m. MT Sept 10, 2007
CINCINNATI - First they tried nudging. Now companies are penalizing workers who have high health risks such as obesity and high blood pressure or cholesterol as insurance costs climb.

Lee Morrison, 51, doesn’t mind the push, which came in the form of added insurance charges from his employer, Western & Southern Financial Group.

“I knew if I wanted to be healthier and pay less, it was up to me to do something about it,” said Morrison, who has lost 54 pounds and lowered his body mass index enough to earn refunds the past two years.

A small number of companies have linked health factors to what employees pay for benefits, but the practice is expected to grow now that some federal rules have been finalized, spelling out what’s allowed by law. Employee advocates worry that other anti-discrimination laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act won’t cover the person who is 20 or http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20625381/30 pounds overweight.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20625381/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RavensChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thanks for the info
Thankfully my cholesterol is normal and my bp is doing better since I stopped smoking. All I gotta do is lose some weight and I'll be good to go!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. Compare this to England's approach, where they reward your doctor
for *helping* you get things under control (blood pressure, weight, etc).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wildewolfe Donating Member (470 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
3. Great....
... so everyone that's born with congenital high blood pressure, high cholesterol, has diebetes etc., will start out penalized until they get it under control as a new higher under plans like that. How can that NOT be discriminatory? Without health care and meds that stuff doesn't "control".

Yes I know it does not say that specifically, but the action is implied by the rest of the article and the known greed of the insurers.

Everytime I read about something like this it just makes me think of the movie the Incredibles a few years ago and the insurance supervisor. /sigh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scorpiogirl Donating Member (662 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Yep.
My husband, who's 33, has hereditary high blood pressure but is a normal weight. I wonder how they would approach that? He takes meds every day to keep it regulated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
5. Given that employees pay directly or indirectly for health insurance, should they pay for those who
intentionally increase their risk, e.g. smoking, drinking, drug use, failure to exercise, and other lifestyle choices?

Should home owners pay to subsidize the insurance cost of someone who builds a home on a California mountainside known for mud slides and brush firs?

I support the House's passing of H.R. 493, "Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2007", which prohibits discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment that passed with 420 Yeas, 3 Nays, and 9 Not Voting and the senate will consider the bill.

Genetic discrimination however, is different from risk caused by a person's choice of lifestyle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
devilgrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-12-07 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
6. Will rates go up if employee's health is adversely affected by the employers?
I'm serious. I swear it's the place of employment that makes people ill to begin with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 07:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC