HRGuru

I am all for something that would make employees start taking some action regarding their healthcare rather than draining an already strained system because of what they have a "right" to do.  They have every right to consume deep-fried foods until they explode, but no one else should have to pay for it but them.  They also have every right to smoke themselves into a stroke, but at no one's expense but their own.  I think this comes under our other topics regarding self-responsibility.  Too many people want to do whatever they like and force others to take responsibility for it, and it's costing everyone.  It wouldn't be fair for someone who does all the right things and is fit and healthy to pay for those who refuse to.  Now, here's the other side of the weight coin.  I don't think that a person who can prove that their weight problem is not due to their diet or exercise, but is glandular or in some other way unavoidable should be punished for something that they can't help.  I have known a man who was as round as a ball and had to have special clothes made.  It was glandular, and the cruel remarks he endured did as much for his depression as having to look in the mirror did.  These cases are rare, but should be given due consideration.  I would say that unless they can get a medical endorsement, they should have to pay. 

Wow, did anyone see Gatica? If not everyone should watch it, kind of deals with these issues. However, this is not a new trend to reduce healthcare, just an up front initiative. A certain organization (who happens to be the largest retailer in the world *cough*) Actually devised a plan to get overweight employees to quit. Ever see the high cost of a low price? I have actually completed some research on this and have a copy of an internal document from this company devising this plan.

It's like this, unhealthy=more insurance cost. Which in turn means more "individual" healthcare plans. I'm sure lots of ethical and legal issues are on the horizon for this topic. If anyone is interested in that particular document let me know and I'd be happy to email it.

But isn't "insurance" supposed to be taking a risk?    Here in the U.S. you can be denied insurance if your health record is poor.   How will we handle the uninsured.  And if you happen to be full of bad genes you won't likely be able to afford the insurance.  Could you sue your parents and the government for allowing you to be born with bad genes?   Would the government then step in and neuter you to prevent you from breeding and continuing the bad genes?   I think we've had that social experiment before,  hmmm, let me think, oh, yeah, wasn't it in Germany?

I'm not trying to be flip, but there is designed to be an element of risk in insurance.  When is too much information taking away that risk and it no longer becomes insurance?

You're correct, Todd, there is supposed to be a certain amount of risk in insurance, which makes it a bit bizarre in a way that they want so badly to only insure those who pose no risk.  Insurance is supposed to help you when you need it, not just be there for wall decoration.  I agree with you completely that they get carried away on how much information they want.  I do think that people shouldn't be unduly punished for something that they can do nothing about.  Having said that, I guess it's easy for me to say because I happen to be very fit and trim, and I have lived in a very low-risk zone for most of my life due to my lifestyle.  I once had a whole life policy that was worth $500,000 because of that.  (cancelled after my brake lines were cut by my husband) As you bring out, there seems to be a problem with who is going to pay when the people can't afford to pay it for themselves and they're high-risk through no fault of their own.  It seems to have been the case since there has been insurance that those of us who are healthier pay for those of us who are not.  My particular view of that is that, whereas it is unfair for that to be the case in cases of fault, where would those who couldn't help their situation be if the cost wasn't picked up somehow?  So, it comes through our tax money.  I suppose that if the insurers were able to make people take some measure of self-responsibility so that they would pay for their own bad habits it would make it easier for the rest of us to help bear the burdens of those who couldn't help themselves.  That's the way the social reforms were supposed to work, but there are always those who will abuse things.  How do you stop it?  Well, that's a good question.  But I'll give you this much for free, if anyone can solve this dilemma, we'll be calling on them next to stop all kinds of gross governmental waste of our tax money, and that occurs on both sides of the pond!  ;-)

Your right Todd, it happened in Germany, and before that wasn't it common practice in Sparta?

Weight is jus the recent insurance cost burden, before weight wasnt smoking the hot button to raise insurance costs? All insurance I've ever applied for asks on the application of previous tobacco use, thus returning a higher premium. Now smoking isn't a genetic problems, however I'm sure some would try to argue the matter, but it is a drug addiction like alcoholism or any other drug dependency. I'm sure this is leading to another topic, however some may argue obesity is a choice just like smoking and not genetic.