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, enroll 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.
I think if the state is already charging for smoking, then this was bound to happen. I don't know how it would affect a person like I am today: low cholesterol, triglycerides in order, BP perfect to low, and already exercising.
Mixed feelings. There may seem to be some validity to it at first blush, but once again, obesity is just an easy target. What about the people who are "normal" weight but eat crap. There's no way to identify them. There are so many ways, not just food, that people impact their health, that can't be objectively identified and proven at the office visit.
What about the people who are "normal" weight but eat crap. There's no way to identify them. There are so many ways, not just food, that people impact their health, that can't be objectively identified and proven at the office visit.
Awesome point. A very slippery slope, if you ask me.
I live in Alabama, and yes, I'm still 70lbs overweight (already lost 30). If they would reimburse me for my ~$200wk food bill for diet meal delivery that I am currently spending to take this weight off, I would be be more than happy to give them their $25.
I think the catch will be how much help they give people.
- help with a meal plan (not just tossing a US food guide at them)
- cooking lessons, as low-cal and/or low-fat cooking can be tricky at first
- discounted gym memberships with at least a few free training sessions thrown in
Not just someone ticking a box off 'BMI over 35', come back in a year. Wellness programs and/or doctors can be of varying help depending on how they're set up.
Oh, and klc, the food delivery is a choice you made to make your weight loss potentially easier. I wouldn't expect them to reimburse you for that.
The state (if serious) should start supporting their new ideals. Junk food vending machines shouldn't be left in their buildings. Any cafeterias should provide good, healthy food. Calorie counts would be a must of course, so those working towards change can make informed decisions. Those would be a good start to positive changes.
I agree with the comment about "slim/normal" people who eat crap. They have cholesterol/ HBP issues etc. You can be thin and much more unhealthy than an overweight person! I think this is a very slippery slope as well. What next...charge me if I have Fibro or arthritis etc because I will be a cost to the system because I need a rheumatologist etc. Geez..this thinking scares me and I have heard rumours of it here too!
Oh, and klc, the food delivery is a choice you made to make your weight loss potentially easier. I wouldn't expect them to reimburse you for that.
.
I agree...sorry, that was very tongue in cheek. However, I do think that they should give every overweight person a Wii and Wii Fit Seriously, it would make all the sense in the world (from a financial standpoint) for insurance companies to give incentives for losing weight, rather than just penalties. It's the same principle as covering breast exams.
My slim, young doctor thought I was ill because I'm fat. I took the tests just to prove him wrong and did just that. He wasn't too thrilled to be proven wrong. I told him that just because I'm fat doesn't mean I'm not healthy. I have another family member who goes to him and is very slim and has constant health issues.
I do agree with the idea that workplaces should have vending machines with healthy choices. This should be mandated by any insurance company which is covering the workers. I work in a call centre and am surrounded by other fat people, many are truly obese, and the vending machines are all candy and chips - and they're not cheap. We sit for hours on end when we're on the phones and no exercise. The biggest exercise I get is when I run for the door at the end of my working day. Actually I can walk to and from work in 20 min each direction so I am the rarity among us who actually gets regular exercise.
We used to have an excellent take away in our Mall with all healthy food which didn't have it's rent renewed when they moved the food court. Now it's all fast junk sort of food. Not to say I don't like that sort of thing but now there is no alternative. I'm starting to take my lunch instead.
i think its probably done with relatively good intentions (saving peoples lives, increasing length and quality of life, saving health care money etc), but i also think there will have to be something that stops people from losing weight in an unhealthy way. I can see people hitting plateaus where they are trying hard but not losing weight, and trying drastic measures so they dont have to pay the fee
but i havent read the whole article, they might already have thought about that
Wow, this jus sounds like a ridiculous way of the U.S Government getting more money from people - I'm Canadian, and I'm sure if they did that here, overweight people would definitely have something to say... I mean come on, like some other people have said, we're already highly judged for being overweight.. What really is this going to do by charging people, who are overweight? "Force" them to lose weight? I highly doubt it... I think Governments USA, even Canada - Anywhere for that matter, will try and find any way to make people pay more money, whether it be on taxes, or as ridiculous as making fat people pay... Ugh. What is this world coming to? Besides money hungry in every aspect of those 2 words.
In principle, on paper, it's a good idea. The UK Health Service is already severely over-stretched, financial choices have to be made by the health authorities all the time, and I'm sure there have been cases where someone has been denied treatment because the funds have run out, funds that have been spent treating people who caused their own ill-health, one way or another. (BTW, I think the the issue with anaesthetics and obesity is that it's a huge health risk for super-obese people).
However, as has already been posted, it depends how much help is given to the person to reduce their weight (I presume you've just got to show progress in the year, not necessarily have become healthy-weighted?). If our respective governments were really serious about this, they'd invest millions in training real dietitians/counsellors to tackle obesity seriously - but I bet they don't.
and I think they should start supplementing the incomes of those who are poor so that they can afford to buy fresh fruits and veggies and eat healthier things.... because lets be honest we all know that eating right and well is more expensive than eating carbs and high calorie foods.....
When I was a kid my mother used to make rice and beans..... mac and cheese..... all sorts of high carb high cal foods because we couldn't afford anything else....
Seriously, it would make all the sense in the world (from a financial standpoint) for insurance companies to give incentives for losing weight, rather than just penalties. It's the same principle as covering breast exams.
Sorta. For many illnesses, the payback for weight loss is years or decades down the road - when you may be insured by some other company. With breast cancer, they can't shuck it off because it's political and harder to blame the victim. Good diet, exercise, and weight control *should* be a higher priority in the insurance industry, and it's moving more and more in that direction, but ain't there yet.
(Oops, I should have quoted since I was slow in my response. This was a reply to 36Paws.)
I agree with that to some extent. If you're talking about helping people buy better food, I agree. However, I wonder what percentage gained weight eating rice and beans / mac and cheese... and how many gain weight eating drive through meals, soda pop, bakery items, ice cream, prepared frozen meals, breaded and deep fried meals, take-out pizza, etc. Few of those second set of items are cheap.
We were discussing this the other night. I took $10 worth of pork tenderloin with a few ingredients, 8oz of pasta, and some fresh vegetables and a salad. Perhaps $20 worth of dinner ingredients. I served 6 people on this. Adding in a homemade fruit sorbet as a dessert and I doubt I went over $5 per person. I seriously doubt I could have done take-out that cheaply. It's been years since my fast food days but aren't even the value meals in that price range?
I drink a lot of water, and it all comes from the tap. Some of it passes through a Brita filter, but not all of it. I think the biggest joke is people out for a short walk carrying their bottled water with them. Yes, I know keeping hydrated is important, however, I don't need to carry water for a leisurely walk around the block.
Location: Lyin' in a puddle of sweat on the floor.
Posts: 2,296
S/C/G: 235/201/175
Height: 5'7"
Reading that article, I think the state just saw an easy way to make money. We all know what the success rate is for people trying to lose weight, so the state of AL will make some big money off this setup, just like I'm sure they do with the smokers. I was raised in the south, and they know folks are not going to give up their traditional foods. I doubt it's so much out of "concern" for their workers' health, as it is just an easy way to bring in some easy money. I can't believe there's no protest from the workers' union...what's that about?
Alabama says "Lose weight or pay $25 a month"
Seriously, it would make all the sense in the world (from a financial standpoint) for insurance companies to give incentives for losing weight, rather than just penalties. It's the same principle as covering breast exams.
