Too Heavy? It will Cost you in Alabama

[Lisa Newton]

Alabama , with a 30.0% adult obesity rate, is the third fattest state according to a new report entitled, F as in Fat: How Obesity Policies are Failing in America 2008.

Why did I mention Alabama specifically?

“Alabama is now telling its overweight state workers that they should get healthier. If the workers choose not to, it will cost them $25/month for insurance.”

Iowa Avenue and Healthy Lifestyle Blogger member, Blake Hagen, just wrote about this issue:

Too Heavy? It Will Cost You in Alabama

“The workers have until January 2010 to get free health screenings. If the screenings uncover serious issues with blood pressure, cholesterol, obesity, or glucose, the workers will have 1 year to see a doctor at no cost, enroll in a wellness program, or do their own thing to improve their health. If they show progress, they won’t be charged the fee. If they don’t show any progress, it will cost them.”

What do you think? Is this a good thing or is it “too Big Brotherish?”

Let’s discuss this important topic………… Could this action be coming to a Fortune 500 company near you?

[Chef Kevin E. Harris]

Good Morning To All;

I feel it is the employers right to charge the employee the extra cost. It should not be incumbant upon the employer to take the responsibility that all too few Americans do. Hence the hypocracy of our legal system, and the plethora of lawsuits in our country. One of the highest expenses a company has are the benifits it is compeled to offer it's employees. The costs continue to rise and are astronomical.

I have several clients for which I do Healthy Cooking Demonstrations for, at Health Fairs. My clients sole objective, and what has become quite profitable, is to integrate a Health Program into the work place. The program in itself reduces the insurance premiums, but if the employees show results, then it reduces them even further. For the employee to remain obese, and not expect to pay the cost, is an un -fair and selfish expectation of the employer, as it would be for that of a smoking employee, who self inflicts this premium raising habit.

People need to take responsibility for themselves and not continue to point the finger outward, and in order to stay in busness and remain profitable, the employer must do what it can to reduce it's costs.

I would also love to hear some feed back on this one.

Take Care All, and have a great day!!!

[David]

Corporations have been raiding the coffers of their pension plans to pay for executive bonus' and pay-outs.

I think that, all things being equal, the fairness of the corporate largess toward its employees is gone. I think that the issue of charging additional for a weight penalty, is a slippery slope. Are they going to charge extra in the future for employees that have other ailments?

As to your comparison of this to rising litigation and our legal system, I'm not sure I follow you--the Alabama initiative has been signed and sealed.

Take care

[Chef Kevin E. Harris]

I see your point comletely, in terms of how this law can set precedent for other legislation to follow and open the doors to other ailments. The specific issues we are talking about are obesity and also smoking. These are usually issues of choice, but in obesity, I do understand sometimes it is certainly more challanging to control, but it has been proven that with diet and excercise it can be controled.

The refrence to our legal system was a paralell in that we hold our responsiblity to others, in this case the employer to bear the cost of an addiction to food or tobacco.

[Metroknow]

I think on a personal level, this might encourage some to improve their health. But on a philosophical level I have a hard time with it. I rarely agree with the "slippery slope" concept, but in this case, I think this is a definite win for corporations who love nothing more than to erode the civil liberties of employees for the sake of squeezing out another dime from their already overworked workers. Here are a few hypothetical questions that come to mind when we start letting a corporation rule the personal lives of workers, for the sake of making more money:

- Will smokers be fined if nicotine is detected?
- Will workers be fined if it is discovered that they partake of alcohol at home?
- Will workers be fined if they get a traffic ticket for speeding?
- Will workers be fined if they decide, while on vacation, to try bungee jumping or skydiving?
- And what if your children are discovered to be obese? Or have a higher than usual blood pressure or sugar level? Should you be punished for the behavior and choices of your family?
- According to this study, people who are unmarried have double the risk for Alzheimer's disease. Should you be fined if you're unmarried?

All of these things increase risk that costs will rise. But should a corporation have the power to police these things out of a worker's life, or punish them based on personal practices? I don't think it should be within the power of a corporation to dictate the personal lives of their employees. I think it should be up to each person to do so.

[Chef Kevin E. Harris]

Hello Metro;

I do not see where the corporation is dictating to anyone. All still have the choice to be obese, or smoke tobacco. The corp. just does not want to bear the cost of these choices. As to what is obese, well here is a grey area. I am not sure how they determine this.

[Metroknow]

I think the danger is the precedent. It gives corporations a huge foothold on continuing to erode personal rights that they deem to be not in the best interest of the corporation.

In our current broken health care system, I think the health insurance company may have the right to determine premium based on risk factors. But for corporations to punish employees monetarily for things that occur in off work hours is wrong if it does not inhibit a reasonable ability to perform their job.

[Chef Kevin E. Harris]

I see your point. I do not see it as a punishment. The smoking or obese employee is being covered equally to the one who does not. The only difference is that the increased premium based on these choices is on the burden of the employee.

If I want to be a sky diver, the insurance is certainly going to go up. Do I ask the employer to cover me on this?

[Metroknow]

So it is ok to discriminate (monetarily) based on a corporation's perception of health - that grey area (which Lisa pointed out in a recent article here is a very ambiguous world, considering an obese person can be considered healthy)? I think it is the territory of the health insurance company, since that is their business, but not the territory of a corporation who's chief concern is making money. If the corp. doesn't like the rise in rates, negotiate a lower rate, or change providers for a better rate.

Better yet, help elect officials who will fix the broken health care system, period.

The big spin here is in my experience, corporations are all motivated by one thing: Profit.

I'll give you an example of why I don't trust a for-profit corporation to make decisions that benefit workers: I have worked for two major corporations (2 of the top 3 in my industry) with excellent health benefits. What has happened over time? The benefits eroded significantly, my costs/contributions increased dramatically, and the corporation continuing to pay astronomical rates to insurance companies solely because of a "mutually beneficial relationship" with the Ins. company. When I left my recent job, my CORBA payment to maintain my health plan was $1600/mo. - - I shopped around, and got private insurance (even with my higher risk of being obese) for the same rate as my employee contribution - almost $1200 less, per month. In other words, the corporation is overpaying significantly for business reasons, not because it is the actual cost. In my old corp., they overpaid because a) it was a huge tax break to overpay, and b) they get to sell a LOT of product to the insurance company as part of the "deal".

Nope, I don't trust for-profit corporations one inch to put the worker's interests first. Give them an inch...They are not going to use that $25x30 percent of their employees (since 30 percent are obese), per month, to cushion rates for employees - and more importantly, it's only the beginning. When insurance rates go up, they pass those rate increases on in the form of employee contributions. And then, since they've established the precedent of charging employees for their personal choices, they can start tacking on more penalties for other choices, and gradually raising existing penalties over time. Single? Check - another $25. Smoke occasionally? Check. another $25. Drive more than 10 miles? Check. Another $25. Consume alcohol, ever? Check. $25. And so forth.

[Chef Kevin E. Harris]

I have to tell you, Metro this is fun. I really like ur prospective. I have remained narrowed on the simple issue of the individual taking responsible for their obesity or tobacco addiction. But the essence of life is here in ur responses. They get my heart pumping and I love the discussion.

I will adamantly concurr with ur prospective on Health Care in the US and equally with the corporate tactics that only continue to get worse, especially with the current administration. I HATE OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM!!! .......ok now I feel better. I also agree that the corp. should not be the ones to decide if the employee is obese or addicted to tobacco. It should be someone who is certified in the medical field. I do not trust the corp. world all that much either.

I stick to my position that the corp. or the employer should not have to pay for the increase in premiums. On the other hand I can certainly see your point that the "System" is not developed for the employee, as it should be or is promoted to be. I had not heard of your experience that insurance companies and employers are in bed together, and yes that truly scares me.

[Metroknow]

I'm so glad that you're enjoying the discussion too. I sometimes get a little worked up over this stuff (and apparently a little paranoid!), so thank you for being so gracious, and engaged! :) I agree as well on employers footing the bill. I just think that allowing corporations to tax employees based on their agenda is the wrong approach. But I do see what you're saying, without question.

[Chef Kevin E. Harris]

I am appauled at our current health care system. Sooooo many people are in it for profit, INSTEAD of Health Care. All to often I see the rising costs too out of reach for alot of people. When I add up as u have the amount we spend a year, and compare it to what we actually use, it really makes me angry. In addition to the bills we recieve after we actually do use it. There is no control over this in our captialist society, and well I suppose that is a double edged sword. Unfortunately good health care, a decent home, and even an auto with gas to run it are becoming luxeries only for the wealthy.

[David]

Hi Chef Kevin,

I think that on the one hand, it's a good thing if people embrace change vis-a-vis preventative health. To suggest that corporations are somehow malevolent or benevolent, with respect to their employees, is increasingly becoming a stretch.

There is marked and increased pressures for even the shareholder to override the officer to wrest ultimate control over the corporation and its assets.

Point being is that the profit motive of those that don't even have ownership is higher than ever in history. So how can we entrust those same people to do the right thing for their employees?

We cannot.

Therefore, I think employees should be rewarded, if they do well; but as a red line, they certainly shouldn't have their rights eroded by penalty.

Collective bargaining, and unions, were developed to protect workers rights and they are smaller and weaker then ever.

To further erode workers rights, in my opinion, would be a fatal error.