Employer “wellness” programs have not been shown to do one single thing to improve employee health
No benefit, even to the 'wear a fitbit, prove you don’t mash your butt as a hobby"? Don’t believe it, Fang.
No, if I carry the fitbit till I’ve walked a few million steps, I’ve punched some of the metrics that an insurer (the nosy ones, anyway) consider a plus.
I’m missing the distinction, since 3 MM steps is a passing grade for the employee wellness program I participate in.
I do agree that watching a video of “back stretches/safe lifting postures” doesn’t do anyone other than the producer any good.
Employee wellness programs don’t make employees as a group any healthier than they would have been if there was no program. Yes, exercise is good for people ,but employee wellness programs don’t lead to more exercising. Yes, weight loss in obese and very overweight people would promote health, but employee wellness programs don’t lead to more weight loss. This has been studied. They don’t work.
CF: one of the few posts in which I totally agree with you, at least for total population. In other words, that one person in the company who finally goes to get a wellness exam and is found to have [xx] disease. That one person can benefit. However, the total expenses paid for the wellness programs far exceed the benefit to that one anecdote. Of course, the same is true for annual physicals.
Nope. Those that are active, will be active anyway, regardless of whether they wear a fit bit. Those that are 12 ounce couch potatoes will remain that way. At least over the total population. It takes generations to make significant changes in behavior, e.g., smoking, one of the biggest causes of disease. (Who doesn’t know with near certainty that smoking is bad for you?)
Regardless, the timing is such that it will help the current employer’s costs. Wellness programs are really just inexpensvie "feel good benefits.’
(And epidemiological science backs it up.)
Relax and do not think about it as there is nothing you can change with worry. Enough sleep lost this election season already. DO bug your senator and representative about the need for access to affordable health insurance- get everyone you know to also. If enough people make a noise it will be heard.
I am on a plan from my H’s retirement plan that can only last until 2 months before I turn 65- I’m 38 months younger than he is and his plan ended when he hit Medicare. Given the uncertainties I guess I’m glad I stuck with it instead of testing out the marketplace (once I quit it I can’t go back). It isn’t the cost it is being uninsurable for preexisting conditions for me. All a person has to have is diabetes they control with diet and they can be denied under old rules. Wealthy people and healthy young people want insurance for the unexpected high cost things- like a broken bone or appendix or… Next year I’ll see what is available et al. And hope I do not have problems for 2 months…
Nope. Looking forward to more competition and lower rates as compared to the 300 - 400% increase for less healthcare that many people I know have experienced.
The only people happy with ACA are people who are not paying full price with max deductibles. I am concerned about the middle class families who work their buns off, but whose families’ discretionary income and lifestyle have decreased because they pay full price - they should not be forced into that position; it should be a choice they want to make.
DH is self employed, I am not a full time employee anywhere. For the second year in a row, our private insurer has informed us that they will no longer be offering health insurance in our area. We are scrambling to find coverage. As it is, we pay 2K a month for 3 of us. Have no idea what happens now as a result of recent events. It may be a positive for us, but I have no idea.
“The only people happy with ACA are people who are not paying full price with max deductibles.”
It’s much more than that if you had read others’ posts. It’s people being denied coverage at all and uninsurable. For those fortunate enough to work where there is good employer coverage, you don’t have to deal with that nor do you have to deal with higher costs due to genetic or other health issues. Employers don’t discriminate amongst there employees. They don’t charge their older employees or their women (think childbirth) more for health insurance.
Yes, I am concerned for husband and myself.
Yes, I am VERY worried about D2 who no longer qualifies under H’s employer plan, as she is 27; she also has pre-existing conditions.
Anyone with a pre-existing condition should be worried. And we should all care about those who have them and now may lose coverage. And the caps on coverage will be lowered–look to medical-based bankrkuptcy to once again skyrocket.
So untrue that only those getting subsidies are happy with the ACA. My kid is on an individual plan, and I love these things about it:
- They have to insure her regardless of pre-existing conditions, and can’t up the price due to that.
- They can’t just cancel her policy if she gets sick.
- There are basic minimum standards for the policies. Much easier to shop and have confidence that the coverage is solid.
- I saved over $4,000 per year on her premiums per year since the ACA was instituted - before that to be assured of the protections above (which I am unwilling to give up), I would have had to pay COBRA costs for her.
Starting to shop for her for next year. I think it is going to cause a lot of flak from insurance companies If Congress changes the rules partway through a calendar year outside the open enrollment windows. I may have to shutter my small business and take a “real job” with a big company if the ACA is repealed for health coverage reasons.
I’m concerned for my D who is 29. Pre ACA she would not have been insurable. I’m wondering if I should be concern for the rest of our family. H is self employed and we have always bought insurance privately. None of us get a subsidy. My S is the only family member who has an employer sponsored health plan.
From what I’ve read, Congress can’t scrap the whole thing at once anyway. Coverage for pre-existing conditions is something they can’t repeal. They can eliminate subsidies and the penalty for not having insurance. They could create a worse mess than what the system is now, which doesn’t mean they won’t anyway.
DH is self-employed, so we’ve been getting individual insurance for several years. I don’t like the enormous increase in premiums, and am concerned about what we’ll be able to get until we’re eligible for Medicare, in 3 years for DH, 3.5 years for me.
Yes.
Currently on Obamacare.
Physicians also like it when their patients have a means to pay for care because otherwise prescriptions go unfilled and other useful treatments get ignored- not because the physicians get the money. I know I am facing the consequences of not going to the dentist often enough as a child because my parents could not afford it. Those large fillings meant teeth needing crowns after so many years. There are a lot of people out there too rich for Medicaid (and each state can determine eligibility- Florida is disgusting) and too poor to pay full price for visits to doctors much less all the other needs.
No system is perfect- it would take thousands of pages to tailor things. btw- those who choose high deductibles or other lesser cost plans are gambling that their overall expenses will be least. Dealing with probabilities here. Do I spend more so more is covered or hope I don’t need it? Do I figure I can afford the out of pocket costs with a high deductible since I likely won’t need to use it up and that money saved will be used elsewhere…
We can keep it simple with one size covers all or so complex people can’t figure out the best plan. People with group health insurance really have no clue as to how much it costs individuals (if they can get insurance) to buy single policies or pay costs without them.
Insurance is all about sharing the risk/costs. Everyone pays some so no one has to pay it all. Young, healthy people usually can get by without insurance but do not have the savings to dip into if they break a leg or need their appendix out…
It all comes down to what we want for our society. Do we want to subsidize those who can’t afford things. How do we decide if someone is not doing what they can. Do we decide having a chronic health condition, or a cancer or other problem due to no fault of the person’s is their own problem/expense or do we try to level the playing field so they can live as comfortably as the mainly healthy population?
Those who face increased expenses because of being forced to provide coverage do not like it. Who wants to become marginally successful financially because the government changed the rules? But were those rules fair in the past? Unfortunately the rich who are in control of large companies or own stocks in them usually have no consideration about the “other half” (three quarters or more in today’s inequality of top management and workers) and are unaffected by increased expenses.
I could easily get my post removed by letting it become political.
I’m hoping I can soon buy a plan that fits MY needs. That there will be more competition in health plans with resulting lower costs. My Anthem plan went way up and converted from a good PPO to a terrible EPO.
Count me in. My mother has needed more and more care each year so earlier this year I retired 2 1/2 years before being eligible for Medicare on the assumption I could get insurance through the exchange and I have been satisfied with my policy even though it is going up a lot next year. I’m hoping I don’t have to go back to work because of this only. The exchange might not be perfect, but I’ve got reams of paperwork and letters of denial from previous applications for individual health insurance that would make you weep. You people who don’t need coverage outside of employment have no idea… Try staying home to care for a loved one or start a business or retire early while having a preexisting condition and see how much flexibility you have without the new rules in place. Obamacare is not just the exchange - it’s a set of rules for all health insurance.
If the ACA or parts of it are repealed soon after Jan 20, can that go into effect immediately?
Oh, please. Of course you can tell her that it won’t. You know how American government works, right? Congress develops legislation, gets it approved by both houses (and there’s only a slim majority in the senate, not nearly cloture-proof), and then the president signs it. Won’t happen January 20, or any time soon. Won’t be retroactive.
Will the insurance market change? Of course, and it would have no matter who was elected because the system put in place in 2010 is broken. It fixed some things, but broke others. Good to have coverage for those who previously couldn’t get it, but there are many problems that would have to be addressed anyway.