<p>I’m a bit surprised at the negative responses to an attempt to try to reign in healthcare costs.</p>
<p>I was concerned about my job marketability a few years ago and wanted to get in good physical shape so that appearance and fitness wouldn’t be a reason for not being considered. That and there are people at work and home depending in me being around and it would be nice to enjoy life more which is usually easy with fitness.</p>
<p>That has benefits for us, our families, our employers and society. But I see many arguing against a healthier society. Strange. This would be true with whatever healthcare system we had.</p>
<p>No…we aren’t arguing about improving health care. We are arguing about disclosing more and more personal information about ourselves to businesses. We are just property. </p>
<p>I am talking we in the community sense.
I go to CVS and the employees make very little. Now they are losing their privacy or 600 bucks. 600 bucks is a lot to these people. Hell. The managers don’t make much either.</p>
<p>Bceagle, I am a very healthy person. I exercise at least five days a week, eat a good diet, don’t smoke or drink alcohol to excess, and have low blood pressure, sugar and cholesterol. I don’t need anyone to mind my business, I am competent to do it myself. I embrace the opportunity to have gym services, nutrition counseling, a nurse available to answer questions because that would put me or my family member in charge of seeking what we need. That, to me, is the difference. My company has several offerings for wellness support. The most successful by far has been Weight Watchers in the office. It has been almost miraculous for the participants.</p>
<p>THATS the problem. We all get FORCED into a common risk pool and all of a sudden you have a Casus Belli to regulate my personal behavior. </p>
<p>Where does it stop? Well, logically nowhere if we accept the premise that I am “unfairly” influencing your costs. Very convenient for people who are champing at the bit for more and more power. </p>
<p>Lets put the shoe on the other foot- suppose that we accept the studies that show that BMI <30 is associated with increased mortality. We then add a surcharge on vegetarians, or require you to submit monthly receipts from The Melting Pot or face a $600 surcharge? Who can object to that?</p>
<p>I wasn’t talking about improving health care. I was talking about improving health. You’re retired anyways so this really doesn’t apply to you.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>We sign away a lot of things when we sign onto a company. We can’t behave in certain ways on or off the job or we’re subject to termination. If you’re overweight, you know it, your coworkers know it and your management knows it. And you know that they know it. Unless you work remotely and never see any of your coworkers. This CVS thing seems to be done through a third-party (doctor) and maybe or maybe not HR. Would you rather hear it from your manager or HR or just have a counselor call you every once in a while?</p>
<p>If an employee doesn’t utilize his company’s benefits then his weight or smoking habit is none of their business. I don’t know about you, but I have no idea which of my coworkers utilized the company’s benefits.</p>
<p>My company makes a lot of stuff available to employees with regard to fitness and health - typical of high-tech companies. We really care more about what you produce more than what you weigh. But we’re a very high-margin company. So we can afford it. It would be nice if every company could provide what Google or other high-tech firms provide for their employees, but, clearly that’s not the case. So some employers feel that they need to take other approaches.</p>
<p>The fact is that there are lots of organizations out there that mind your business, watch what you’re doing, and want to influence you in various ways. Some of them have the force of law. Some of them have the force of the employee-employer relationship. That’s where we are headed - we’re moving to a world of less privacy; not more.</p>
<p>How would you like a program that just records you walking for 20 yards that computes your weight, height and bodyfat percentage?</p>
<p>But it doesn’t matter to his coworkers if he smokes and doesn’t utilize the company’s health insurance.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t allow anyone to record my height, weight and bodyfat percentage unless it was completely my choice and as I said earlier, I would pay the higher fees. My doctor of decades and I do a little dance about my height. We both pretend with a straight face that I break the five feet mark. Also, my benefits person is famous for her lack of discretion, so I am extremely suspicious in that regard.</p>
<p>I am not a fan of coercion and intimidation. However, if I chose to go to Weight Watchers at work, that would be fine.</p>
<p>So I take it all of you who vehemently oppose your employer knowing anything about your health would also oppose legislation that would let them force you to reveal your medical records so they could see why you are using birth control? Or fire you just because they don’t believe in it?</p>
<p>I have insurance through DH plan at a public school system. for the last few years we have had to do health screenings or pay extra ($600 for a family plan) for our healthcare. At this point, they are not being punitive to those with unhealthy lifestyle. The next contract negotiations will see smokers paying more for their employee healthcare coverage. they are using the health data to show the insurance companies that they have a healthier than average enrollment pool. In the future they may give incentives for healthy behavior. </p>
<p>I can’t stand the idea that we are penalized in healthcare access as a result of profession. location, size of employer, etc. While I would prefer universal healthcare until it happens I am stuck with exchanging the results of an annual blood test for only slightly mediocre healthcare options.</p>
<p>I think our entire society could become a lot more entrepreneurial and economically healthy if people could affordably buy healthcare on the open market. It stinks to have to take a job “for the insurance,” but many of us do. Heck, there are people who even stay in bad marriages “for the insurance.” How unfortunate.</p>
<p>I am completely in agreement with romanigypsyeyes. I don’t think the two should be connected.</p>
<p>Sally, you bring up a good point, though. I guess I would say ( this is my personal opinion and I am not trying to change minds) that if some physical thing were a requirement for the position and it was communicated at the time of employment, then I would feel differently. Here is an example of what I find acceptable. My friend is a bus driver. She has type 1 diabetes and did before she took the job. Any diagnosis of diabetes must be disclosed to the MTA and the employee is required to have an assessment by the departmental physician every six months and is removed from service if her blood sugar is above x for y days. I think that is reasonable. I think if one has a communicable disease, a doctor’s note is reasonable, I think it is reasonable for police, firemen and emts to pass physical exams. I think it is reasonable for professional drivers to pass vision tests.</p>
<p>So as usual, I am a bundle of contradictions.</p>
<p>Which probably makes me one of the least popular posters on the site, you and kluge could duke it out over who I drive the most crazy, but I am honest!</p>