For Your Discussion

See:

http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/070802/aug2007db2007081804238.html?.v=1&.pf=insurance

FTA:

"n late June, the Indianapolis-based hospital system announced that starting in 2009, it will fine employees $10 per paycheck if their body mass index (BMI, a ratio of height to weight that measures body fat) is over 30."

It's all over the size acceptance wires today already too. My take? Mmkay. I'm fine with it, as long as you return cash to the dwarf population and Thalidomide babies since they're so much smaller. Oh wait-- but they use serious medical resources! That'd make no f*ing sense! Yeah? Ditto for charging larger people by the pound. As a matter of fact, obese people often actually use less medical resources than others (including well office visits and medical testing-- AHEM, Bert) because they do not want to endure their doctor's perpetual crap about their weight--(which might add to greater than average bills later, due to complications that might have been nipped in the bud  if prevention was justly practiced.) Also important to note : a BMI of over 30 (or 40, or 50)does not guarantee health OR illness. In fact, it tells you very little. At first blu****'s a patently asinine, arbitrary and capricious way to legislate social reform-- which really is not the business of a hospital system. They must believe their fat employees are costing them cash.  Unfortunately, the size acceptance world doesn't have its **** together yet, and has no lobby per se, so you'll probably see more of this. Were I an employee, I would sue the living **** out of them on this one-- it's not exclusively a health matter- it's a civil rights issue.

I cannot at this time formulate a response.  I'm too disgusted and angry and downright disappointed. Last night I forbid my son to turn the television on to that new show "Fat March".  I could not for the life of me see how exploiting obese people would be fun "entertainment". I think what frustrated me the most about the whole article was the ambivalence throughout.  Nobody seemed to know what to do about it, just commented that it was "aggressive." Wait, I thought I wasn't going to respond....damnit.

It is simply more evidence that there is still discrimination in our world - and when that discrimination is against fat people it is ok.  How on earth do you fight this when it is a hospital that is saying that people will be fined for not being well???  Do the good medical people in charge not realize that these are medical issues?  And what business is it of payroll if my cholesterol is high?  Can they really share that info?   this just ****** me off to no end.  really.  I almost feel like it is a way to push the fatties out the door.  $10 this year...  $100 the next...  soon the sick and fat wont be able to afford to work there and they will have a wonderful healthy staff.... sheesh! and on one last note - will they be charged for spouses that are too heavy???  I mean why should Mr and Mrs toothpick be expected to foot the bill when Nurse Skinny marries an Obese man?  Will Nurse Skinny be fined for him?  His healthcare costs will effect everyone... and we know that it is only a matter of time before Nurse Skinny catches the fatties from her new hubby - we read it in the news last week! ARRRRRGH!

I smell a big fat sweaty lawsuit all over this! Only wish i were the one doing the suit. Conversely , will they reward the thin ones with $10 monthly...even if they are smoking crack every night?  hmmm? This kind of thing is revolting to me.  I can only hope their workforce is the dumbest, shallowest bunch known to mankind. And working at a hospital...hey there's a treat for public service.

I guess I should start saving up cause I'll have to pay for my big behind, and oh ya, maybe they should charge the mentally retarded/disabled, they do take up space ya know! 

Read this last night but just couldn't formulate the words to reply w/o exploding.  Thankfully some of you have already said most of it!  Over 30?  OMG, people that we see and envy every single day has a BMI of 30 or greater.  Personally I think people are more attracrive if they have a little meat on their bones.  I can see giving a reward (lower deductible) for employees to participate in healthy activites like COMPANY sponsored fitness classes or smoking cessation programs but to fine employees who don't conform, that's just ridicilous! One more opportunity for Big Brother to mandate our life!  What's next?  

Sounds like skinny people saying , "Gah, just quit overeating! Quit being lazy and get out there and do something you fat slob! You're disgusting!!"   I think if fat people ran that hospital it'd be a WHOLE lot different.  I second everything that everyone else has said.  nothing more to comment on.

I can see where you all are coming from and I think it is the instinctive reaction to something like this. I buy the argument, however, that if you are a high health risk for whatever reason that you should be required to pay more for your insurance.  Regardless of the cause, we are all personally responsible for our weight and the consequences that come with it. Where they get into trouble, I think, is what seems to be singling out obesity in this case.  There are many high risk health factors and if a policy like this is going to be  implemented, then all health risks should would have to be covered.  Smokers, drinkers, drug users, etc, should all be subject to increased premiums.  And if you go to that extent, where do you draw the line?  Should older employees pay higher premiums because they are more likely to incur cost?  What about people who participate in dangerous activities?  If you like skydiving or scuba diving should your insurance premiums be raised?

I agree with you and would put stock in this 'approach'  on the condition that the medical benefit package covers everything they are penalizing these people for.  If they smoke, are overweight, high cholesterol, blood pressure, cancer, drink, etc then the medical coverage should offer services to help them overcome these things. The hospital has every right to inflict additional premiums on those people who cause the need for this increased coverage. In fact, it's considerably more 'fair' to do so.  If it's put like that then the charges are perfectly valid, however I'm not convinced that this hospital's coverage is this extensive.  Another thought to add... If the above is their reason for doing so then they should explain it this way. I think all the controversy is coming from them being so aggressive saying fat and sickly people are going to get penalized.  If the coverage does include the aforementioned then the statement should be "Because we are offering extensive coverage to those of you who are overweight, sickly, smoke, etc there will be an additional charge for you benefits at said prices... Should your health situation change then these additional premiums would be lifted." I also wonder if this article is being fair to the hospital and isn't just trying to stir up trouble...