If you're carrying extra weight, beware

[z31maniac]

Our company for next year is increasing the insurance rate for tobacco users, by quite a substantial amount.

Word 'round the campfire is for 2014, they will start basing our premiums off of our body fat %.

[325ix]

I wonder how they plan on measuring body fat.

[mrsleeve]

Ummm wow, thats just a little bit invasive into your privacy isnt it???

thank 0 care. Umm yeah better hope they are not going to use "the how many people can you fit on a train care method".

[BraveUlysses]

Ummm wow, thats just a little bit invasive into your privacy isnt it???

thank 0 care. Umm yeah better hope they are not going to use "the how many people can you fit on a train care method".

What part of the ACA would have created this impact?

[tjts1]

What part of the ACA would have created this impact?

The section written by his over active imagination of course.

[randomtask37]

smokers and overweight people do typically have more health problems which costs more money. how do they define overweight and what is the extra cost?

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

[z31maniac]

Ummm wow, thats just a little bit invasive into your privacy isnt it???

thank 0 care. Umm yeah better hope they are not going to use "the how many people can you fit on a train care method".

Wait, so now you aren't in favor of paying based on use?

Overweight, smokers, alcoholics.........all use more healthcare services, so they should pay higher premiums.

[Swanny]

They've been trying to implement clauses like this for a while. My insurance has "increased overall costs" and by being a non smoker you get a break. They have biometric screenings that, for the moment, do not count against you but can give you points in a wellness program. Gain enough points and you then become eligible for another reduction.

A great way to beat around penalizing its members for unhealthy habits. I'm not exactly against this happening as it gives you the choice of caring about your health orrrrr paying more to not.

[mrsleeve]

What part of the ACA would have created this impact?

Unintended consequences..............................


They have been laid at your feet many times over, in the recent past, in many different threads on here. If you fail to see the implications of this BS law when they arise then that your own issue.



manic: sure I am in favor or paying for what you use, this kinda thing should be based on your average usage of your plan (for chronic conditions), not based on arbitrary observations and your personal choices. This becomes a slippery slope of what your employer or service provider can base on your personal life. Surely you do see that as well.

[future rs]

Only problem is, what about individuals that are overweight due to health issues to begin with? Diabetes, Thyroid problems, etc. What about individuals that are severely under weight? What about those that eat fast food for every meal but aren't overweight? Are they going to monitor your nutrition as well?

I am sure that the implementation would be more in depth and have certain guidelines. But I don't see how they could include all the different aspects without severely intruding on our personal rights. Unless you don't view health insurance as a right.

The cost to implement something like this seems astronomical. Monthly doctors visits? Can you imagine having to submit a signed document showing you went to the gym? Or that you bought a certain amount of veggies and fruits and not potato chips? Who can say "Higher premiums for all!!!"

[BraveUlysses]

Unintended consequences..............................


They have been laid at your feet many times over, in the recent past, in many different threads on here. If you fail to see the implications of this BS law when they arise then that your own issue.

Oh, you see, I thought you had an actual point to make...not a generalization based on your bias against ACA.

I keep making the same mistake when I ask you questions--that you actually have a meaningful, considerate opinion based on reality and knowledge.

[z31maniac]

I had to sign a statement saying that I don't use and don't intend to use tobacco next year.

[mrsleeve]

Oh, you see, I thought you had an actual point to make...not a generalization based on your bias against ACA.

I keep making the same mistake when I ask you questions--that you actually have a meaningful, considerate opinion based on reality and knowledge.

Working 7 / 14+ Posting from my phone, means I am not going to write a 1000 words to make arguments that have been have been made 100 times before.

[Vedubin01]

The decision upholding the Affordable Care Act has cleared the way for a planned increase in the penalties that employers can impose on workers who don't participate in company wellness programs and, in some cases, who don't meet certain health targets such as an appropriate body mass index. In other words, the obese may wind up paying penalties for being overweight. Smokers, too, may get hit.
The language of the penalties under corporate health plans is often written in terms of "incentives," where the "absence of a surcharge" on health care premiums is an "incentive" for employees to agree to take part in a wellness program. Read another way, that means workers who don't agree to participate have to pay a fine. President Barack Obama's health care law raises the limit on how high a penalty employers can set to "incentivize" participation in the programs, which typically consist of health risk assessments (often including blood tests), fitness classes, disease management plans and nutrition education.
Those most likely to be affected by the increase are cigarette smokers and obese people, two groups who studies show account for a disproportionally high percentage of health care spending.

[tjts1]

When did the right wing nut jobs become such dirty socialists? What happened to personal responsability? Get your lazy good for nothing fat fucking ass on a mother fucking tread mill you disgusting fuck.