Isn't this discrimination?

I've run into what seems to be a brick wall. Due to insurance exclusions nothing "obese related" is covered by my insurance. Now it could be because I'm on the receiving end of this unfair policy, but it just seems so discriminatory. What are your thoughts and experiences?

Yes, I do believe that it's discrimination. Employers are choosing which costs they want to cover in their medical benefits, and unfortunately, they most often choose to exclude treatment for obese people...banking on the fact that people don't care as much if they discriminate against fat people. They still hold to the idea that fat people are fat by their own fault. Even though most offer medical benefits that include treatment for other eating disorders like bulimia and anorexia. (Overeating is the exact same compulsive disorder as other eating disorders!)

 The frustrating thing is that FINALLY most insurance companies have "seen the light" and are covering weight loss surgery, but the ironic backlash is that MANY employers are now asking for exclusions in their policies that they purchase from the insurance companies. (If you're dealing with an exclusion, by the way, it's probably not your insurance company that refuses to cover weight loss surgery (most insurance companies DO now cover it)...it's the company that you work for. They choose what they want to exclude in the benefits packages and policies that they purchase for their employees--they get cheaper policies when they exclude certain items.) Let's face it though, companies don't HAVE to offer us any medical benefits at all. They do it because they know that their employees would all quit if they announced that they no longer have health benefits in favor of a company that does have medical benefits. So instead, they are finding ways to scale back their benefit packages as costs rise.  The argument which I truly believe could be made from a legal standpoint, however, is that IF a company decides to offer medical benefits to their employees, the "exclusions" for treatments (when approved by the insurance company) of certain conditions--like obesity--is discrimination. In other words, they can either offer treatment for all conditions, or just get rid of their medical benefits all together. But they shouldn't be allowed to "pick and choose" which people they will offer treatment coverage. THATS where the discrimination comes into play, IMO. It's tantamount to having an exclusion for gynecological procedures. Men might not care, but it would be specifically pinpointing a group of people (women) who essentially would not be receiving equal treatment in the benefits offered by their company.  I truly believe that if someone really wanted to fight it in the legal system, state laws could (and should) be enacted to prohibit this practice on the basis of exactly as you say: "discrimination".

Is it really discrimination by the employer or the insurance company for even offer an exclusion. They don't offer exclusions for Cancer coverage? Don't be so quick to jump on the employers, with Workers Comp, liability and all the other insurances they HAVE to buy they need to try and save someplace particularly if its a mom and pops company thats struggling to keep the doors open. I am not so sure its on the employers it be a change that needs to addressed by the insurance companies.

I agree that it's an annoyance that insurance companies are even willing to sell packages that exclude coverage for certain procedures. But it's much more difficult to argue that insurance companies, as private businesses, shouldn't be allowed to sell something that people are willing to buy. After all, people buy home insurance that excludes flood coverage all the time. There aren't really laws in place to argue what the insurance companies have to sell in the way of complete packages. (And besides, insurance companies want to sell more coverage. They have massive sales departments that are soley responsible for trying to get employers to buy more coverage for their employees. I'm sure they would love to convince employers to buy their most expensive plans that include everything.) It's the consumers job to decide if they want to pay more to protect themselves from all possible disasters...or save money by taking on more risk.  On the other hand, there are laws that protect people from being discriminated against in the salary and benefits that they are offered by the company that they work for. That's the only reason I pick on the employers...because I believe that it's more likely that fighting discrimination from that standpoint would be successful. Of course, the costs for employers to offer medical coverage is on the rise, and that's certainly another big problem in this nation as well. And some companies would go completely bankrupt if they bought the most expensive insurance policies.That's definitely the reason why many companies are scaling back their benefits. But it's the way that they're doing it that doesn't sit well with me. If they simply purchased less expensive plans that have higher copays or deductibles, then the people who need to use the benefits more end up paying more. (It still means that obese people will probably have to pay more--because they tend to need more doctor visits, medication, etc. But at least it doesn't specifically "pick on" one disease. Anybody who has to go to the doctor a lot has to pay the higher copays.) Or if they decrease the coverage of emergency or accident coverage, again, everyone basically has the same risk of ending up in an emergency room due to an accident. But instead, they choose to exclude treatment for one particular condition that targets a certain group of people who already face discrimination in society.

But I don't discount the fact that the cost of healthcare has truly become a burden on employers. I do totally understand why employers are making the decisions that they are making. I just disagree with the companies who are beginning to target certain people to act as the scapegoats of medical costs.

Okay my hubby had BCBS of TN which covers WLS.  BUT his company--which by the way is HUGE!! has excluded the WLS from their plan!!!  Now they have come up with a way to get all the family members off the plan if they do not show up on their income tax papers.  They will not accept a marriage certificate, a birth certificate or even a divorce degree stating that they mus provide coverage for their child!!!  Talk about SORRY!!!!  And then TN wants to advertise about all the children without insurance in their state!!!!!  NAIL THE COMPANIES THAT DISCRIMINATE!!!!!!!!!