Published
These folks will be charged five dollars per paycheck. In 2009 employees will submit to cholesterol, weight, and b/p checks, if they have "issues" in these areas they will pay as well.
I read it as docking $5 per paycheck to put toward the premium. My first thought was that there's nothing wrong with this, life insurance companies raise rates for smokers. But then I got to thinking about other lifestyle problems, like weight, etc. If they only target smokers, it's discrimination. If they broaden the criteria, they will be able to find something to penalize nearly everyone for.
I read it as docking $5 per paycheck to put toward the premium. My first thought was that there's nothing wrong with this, life insurance companies raise rates for smokers. But then I got to thinking about other lifestyle problems, like weight, etc. If they only target smokers, it's discrimination. If they broaden the criteria, they will be able to find something to penalize nearly everyone for.
That's the way I read it, first its this, then it will be weight, cholesterol, HTN, those of us who have dogs, etc etc etc. It is not an increase in the premium, it is docking pay for those that smoke.
Hmmm, The Man gives it to us again. Now I don't smoke, but even I can see the craziness of this plan. What about alcohol damage, prescription drug abuse, non-compliant diabetics, people who speed and don't wear seatbelts, have unprotected sex, etc. What about being exposed to second hand smoke from a spouse?
Can't see how this will ever be inforced without laws being broken. Lawyers, do your job and enjoy!
I am a smoker, and paid a hefty premium for my health insurance when I was working for the government. We were told from the getgo not to even THINK about lying about it when we filled out our enrollment forms. To do so and getting caught afterwards would have brought stiff penalties, including termination and possible imprisonment for fraud.
On the other hand, I don't hear my State's government complaining, as they rake in all this revenue from taxes collected on the sale of tobacco products. Kind of hypocritical in my way of thinking.
Grab 100 smokers and 100 non-smokers off the street. Focusing solely on smoking as a discriminator, the smokers are more expensive because they lose productivity attributed to missing work due to a host smoking related illnesses. Treating those illnesses incurs additional expenses absent in non-smokers. Someone pays for lost work and treatments.
Insurance companies are gamblers. They make money based upon statistical likelihood of paying out money versus money received. Smokers are gonna cost more, all other factors equal. Insurance companies’ rates reflect those realities which are passed to coverage buyers like employers. If an individual insists on engaging in a well documented deleterious activity like smoking, is it wrong to charge him/her more for that choice? Medical coverage is a headache and drag for businesses. I suggest the only reason most companies offer subsidized insurance is to remain competitive with others doing the same. If they all stop providing coverage… Altruism and compassion is waning as companies shoulder heavier financial burdens providing coverage.
Fat people and those with high cholesterol aren’t quite the same as smokers. There are diseases and genetic influences that can cause being overweight and elevated cholesterol levels. Tests can mostly identify things like hormone deficiency, water retention, etc. After factoring out influences of which people have no control, is it wrong to charge fat/overweight people more for medial coverage who are in the condition they are because they loiter at never-ending buffets? Here too, for most overweight people, they make a free choice to be the way they are. There are costs to their choices.
Who should pay for these choices? Hypertensive? Is that person fat? Who should pay for treatment after tests rule out liver, kidney, adrenal, pituitary, etc. disorders? The fat person is fat because of overeating which causes HPTN and diabetes, which cause congestive heart failure and lower extremity edema, which causes decreased ADLs, which causes premature death.
Dogs—to my knowledge, there is no statistically significant cause and effect or direct relationship between owning pets and increase medical costs, not yet at least. If one is discovered in forthcoming years and owning pets increases likelihood of diseases like asthma, bronchitis, etc., who should bear the increased costs because people insist on engaging in another deleterious activity by choice?
Look, I’m not trying to pick fights, but trying to heighten awareness that some free choices have definite consequences. Who should pay for our decisions? Smokers and most fat people aren’t the same as non-smokers and those of normal weight by choice. Why should their choices be subsidized? Remember this, companies to my knowledge aside from union labor concessions, recent legislative advances, and the sort don’t have to offer medical insurance.
Medical insurance and pension plans cost companies plenty making them less competitive, especially on the world stage. American cars are made over seas, same for fabrics. Phone calls are routed to India for answering. Most offshore companies don’t provide medical and pension plans lowering costs driving US companies out of business and leaving US workers increasingly jobless.
So, the smoker insists on smoking and pays more than I for medical coverage. I suggest he/she shuts up, stands back, takes a serious look at “the big picture,” and hopefully realizes how much worse the picture could be. Only five measly dollars more per paycheck or whatever? Complaints???? Just more examples of “people picking on me” syndrome and failing to accept/recognize personal responsibility… Sadly, so common today.
This reminds me, I have an interview next week with Clarian. I'm going to have to remember to cancel.
I'm a nonsmoker, normal BP, weight, slightly elevated cholesterol (due to genetics). I take meds for cholesterol, diet and exercise but the bloody thing won't go below 200. I work my butt off but I have to pay the price d/t genetics? I don't think so.
Now they're saying their charging for smoking but I have chronic diseases(MVP, crohn's) and I'm not risking being charged extra for something I cannot control.
OK, how about this pay table:
Crystal Meth. smokers $15.00
Cocaine smokers, all forms $10.00
Marijuana cigarette/pipe smokers $5.00
Non-filtered tobacco $4.00
Pipe tobacco $3.00
Menthol cigarette $2.00
Non-menthol $1.00
Geez.............I can just see a new "white coat" occupational nurse position being posted as we speak.
OK, how about this pay table:Crystal Meth. smokers $15.00
Cocaine smokers, all forms $10.00
Marijuana cigarette/pipe smokers $5.00
Non-filtered tobacco $4.00
Pipe tobacco $3.00
Menthol cigarette $2.00
Non-menthol $1.00
Geez.............I can just see a new "white coat" occupational nurse position being posted as we speak.
Skydiving: $500 per occurrence
Skiing: $40
Travel to area with crime rate higher than yours: $10
Owning 4 Wheeler: $20
Wow, this could be fun.
Where would this stop? Who's going to set these standards?
More than 2 fast-food meals a week: $10
Less than 4 church services a month: $10
Driving vehicle with poor crash ratings: $15
Thank god I don't smoke, have never smoked, hate smoke in general. I am not fat. I do not have HTN or high choles, however, I think it is not right to charge people money for falling into that criteria. People fall into that criteria for different reasons, so it will not be fair to do what they are planning:down:.
fergus51
6,620 Posts
They are just increasing medical premiums, no? It isn't like they are taking their hourly wage down a few bucks. I see no problem with it. Don't insurance companies do this? If the nurses don't like it, they can always opt out of the employer plan and get private insurance.