Alabama hits Obese Workers with Fees

http://finance.sympatico.msn.ca/investing/insight/article.aspx?cp-documentid=9733388

Is this democracy? Whatever happened to freedom of choice? If I want to be fat I should have that right, shouldn't I?

I think in an earlier thread Japan was mentioned for doing something along these lines.

Something like this should also examine the source of foods. (restaurants, processed food industry and regulate them as well).

I agree with this kind of approach, especially for a state agency that is charged with being a good steward of public funds. this bit that explains the high level approach seems pretty level-headed:

[Alabama will charge people that dont submit to a health screening.] If the screenings turn up serious problems with blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose or obesity, employees will have a year to see a doctor at no cost, enrol in a wellness program or take steps on their own to improve their health. If they show progress in a follow-up screening, they won't be charged. But if they don't, they must pay starting in January 2011.

Sure, you are free to be fat, you are free to smoke... you arent free to engage in a lifestyle that unduly affects others...

I know we are talking working for the state here as opposed to a private company, bu this isn't anything new. I worked for a company 10 years ago that had a doctor come onsite every 6 months and give an examination to employees receiving insurance. The cost of premiums was based in part on weight compared to body structure. Problem is it's not completely fair because food and exercise are not the sole contributors to weight. They are a large part of it, but not all. It would be like assuming everyone with emphysema got it from smoking.

Is it really any different than smokers being hit with a higher premium than non smokers? I actually agree with this. The state of Indiana gives a $500 discount to it's employees on its medical insurance if they don't smoke. Alabama is just going the other way, $25 a month isn't that much of an increase when the original cost to their employees was free.

Plus I think Alabama is being extremely generous on starting this. You have till 01/2010 to get down to a BMI of 35 which is still way over weight. Plus if you are showing improvements you don't have to pay. Also noticed you said nothing about them charging smokers $25 more per month. Hmmmm.

I hope they don't base the decision strictly on weight. There are numerous studies that concluded people that are overweight can be MUCH healthier than those who are not. Weight is not the factor, it's the food and exercise.

Something like this should also promote education regarding health and wellness, and not only education in adulthood, I think it should be from early childhood.

So since this a government institution and it is acceptable, wouldn't it be beneficial if private companies implemented it as well?

I agree Jugo, it shouldn't be strictly based on a weight. It is a combination of factors.

Don't get me wrong pez, I am fine with this approach. My questions were tongue in cheek in that second line of the original post.

Markwes wrote:I know we are talking working for the state here as opposed to a private company, bu this isn't anything new. I worked for a company 10 years ago that had a doctor come onsite every 6 months and give an examination to employees receiving insurance. The cost of premiums was based in part on weight compared to body structure. Problem is it's not completely fair because food and exercise are not the sole contributors to weight. They are a large part of it, but not all. It would be like assuming everyone with emphysema got it from smoking.

what are the contributors other than quantity and often kind of food consumption versus amount of energy burning off calories=excercise?

dna? its my understanding dna seems to prove a genetic link just as it does an alcoholism/chemical dependency link. doesnt guarantee you will become a drunken sot or a crackhead tho..it indicates a predisposition to become addicted if one opts use and abuse..which is the same with comfort foods, right? doesnt each provide adrenaline and serotonin rushes related to addiction?

thyroid gland malfunctions? chicken or egg..did a malfunction cause the weight gain, or is it malfunctioning because of the weight gain? i know with my sister who has an under-active thyroid her doctor said if she would lose excess weight by eating healthy and get some daily exercise her thyroid would normalize, as would most of her other medical problems.

floridafun wrote:

Markwes wrote:I know we are talking working for the state here as opposed to a private company, bu this isn't anything new. I worked for a company 10 years ago that had a doctor come onsite every 6 months and give an examination to employees receiving insurance. The cost of premiums was based in part on weight compared to body structure. Problem is it's not completely fair because food and exercise are not the sole contributors to weight. They are a large part of it, but not all. It would be like assuming everyone with emphysema got it from smoking.

what are the contributors other than quantity and often kind of food consumption versus amount of energy burning off calories=excercise?

dna? its my understanding dna seems to prove a genetic link just as it does an alcoholism/chemical dependency link. doesnt guarantee you will become a drunken sot or a crackhead tho..it indicates a predisposition to become addicted if one opts use and abuse..which is the same with comfort foods, right? doesnt each provide adrenaline and serotonin rushes related to addiction?

thyroid gland malfunctions? chicken or egg..did a malfunction cause the weight gain, or is it malfunctioning because of the weight gain? i know with my sister who has an under-active thyroid her doctor said if she would lose excess weight by eating healthy and get some daily exercise her thyroid would normalize, as would most of her other medical problems.

I guess that's just it, we don't know what all contributes to weight gain. In my opinion there has to be DNA link other than just dependency. I look at the health problems on my mother's side of the family compared to my father's side, and the difference is quite pronounced. My dad has been able to eat as much as he wants his whole life without worrying about weight gain and in fact has to drink those high calorie shakes lately to get his weight up. I have a real hard time believing it's all about lifestyle. With smoking and drinking, at least it's an obvious measurable, either you do it or you don't.

Jugomugo wrote:I hope they don't base the decision strictly on weight. There are numerous studies that concluded people that are overweight can be MUCH healthier than those who are not. Weight is not the factor, it's the food and exercise.

I have heard this too. But people (including the medical field) have a hard time accepting it.