So what’s the message? Don’t hire fat people? Since they drive the WC,Med, and disability severities as well as loss of productivity, why shouldn’t they pay their proportionate (no pun) share of premiums?
That would be discrimination. Rather, reward the employees who maintain a healthy lifestyle and keep costs low. It’s a choice to eat well, not smoke, keep a health body fat percentage.
It doesn’t sound like discrimination. Even if you give incentives to those who maintain good health and reasonable weight, they’re still subsidizing the costs of the obese as there is no differentiation on out of pocket costs.
What about obese people and air travel? If you’re so big you can’t fit into a coach seat why should other passengers subsidize putting you in first class where you can have a bigger seat? Same thing with buying clothes. If it takes more material and labor to manufacture XXXXXLarge, why should the cost be spread?
@ Chin – the airlines I fly require that you purchase two seats if you don’t fit in one coach seat. I suppose you could also pay the price for the first class ticket, if that’s what you prefer. Either way, the individual is paying extra. Many of the companies I buy clothing from actually do charge more when you get to size 2X and above. I’m glad to see that happening more. I never cared about “subsidizing” the cost of larger people’s clothing but it just makes sense. Even though the cost may not be that much greater, I hope it serves as at least a slight reminder that there is a direct and tangible cost to being obese.
By all means, let’s look at all factors that may increase medical costs. Dont just pick on one factor. Family history of heart disease, cancer, warts, nose hair and any other factor that may lead to increase costs. That covers everyone you say, well how about that. I guess pooling of risk works then.
that’s why those who choose to follow a healthy lifestyle should be rewarded with better rates / lower premiums. I live a very healthly lifestyle, don’t smoke, eat well, cost insurance companies much less, but still pay the same premium as my morbidly obese coworker. Maybe if there was a rate adjustment for being healthy, more people would follow that path.
A study recently suggested a statistically significant correlation between finger length and cancer rates – men with index fingers longer than ring fingers had a markedly lower rate for certain cancers. Many people would not agree with making hiring or insurance plan premium decisions based on finger length.
On a semi-related note, companies used to use (and not that long ago) handwriting analysis — most consider it to be “junk science” — to make hiring decisions.
So what’s the message? Don’t hire fat people? Since they drive the WC,Med, and disability severities as well as loss of productivity, why shouldn’t they pay their proportionate (no pun) share of premiums?
That would be discrimination. Rather, reward the employees who maintain a healthy lifestyle and keep costs low. It’s a choice to eat well, not smoke, keep a health body fat percentage.
It doesn’t sound like discrimination. Even if you give incentives to those who maintain good health and reasonable weight, they’re still subsidizing the costs of the obese as there is no differentiation on out of pocket costs.
What about obese people and air travel? If you’re so big you can’t fit into a coach seat why should other passengers subsidize putting you in first class where you can have a bigger seat? Same thing with buying clothes. If it takes more material and labor to manufacture XXXXXLarge, why should the cost be spread?
Not hiring overweight people would be considered discrimination.
Surcharging their health insurance premiums is a different story.
@ Chin – the airlines I fly require that you purchase two seats if you don’t fit in one coach seat. I suppose you could also pay the price for the first class ticket, if that’s what you prefer. Either way, the individual is paying extra. Many of the companies I buy clothing from actually do charge more when you get to size 2X and above. I’m glad to see that happening more. I never cared about “subsidizing” the cost of larger people’s clothing but it just makes sense. Even though the cost may not be that much greater, I hope it serves as at least a slight reminder that there is a direct and tangible cost to being obese.
Sure, because obese people sometimes forget and need to be reminded of their condition.
I’m not saying that it’s a reminder that a person is obese – just a reminder of the costs associated with it.
By all means, let’s look at all factors that may increase medical costs. Dont just pick on one factor. Family history of heart disease, cancer, warts, nose hair and any other factor that may lead to increase costs. That covers everyone you say, well how about that. I guess pooling of risk works then.
that’s why those who choose to follow a healthy lifestyle should be rewarded with better rates / lower premiums. I live a very healthly lifestyle, don’t smoke, eat well, cost insurance companies much less, but still pay the same premium as my morbidly obese coworker. Maybe if there was a rate adjustment for being healthy, more people would follow that path.
I see both sides of the argument here.
A study recently suggested a statistically significant correlation between finger length and cancer rates – men with index fingers longer than ring fingers had a markedly lower rate for certain cancers. Many people would not agree with making hiring or insurance plan premium decisions based on finger length.
On a semi-related note, companies used to use (and not that long ago) handwriting analysis — most consider it to be “junk science” — to make hiring decisions.