Eye Nosh: Is This the Best Pastrami in America?
Zenyatta Makes "Her"Story
Pixies 'Doolittle' @ The Palladium 11/4/09
-thumb-110x110-455795.jpg)
Build Your Own BBQ for Under 10 Bucks!
The Bravery @ the Wiltern 11/05/09
A trend is finally catching on that holds employees personally responsible for their health care premiums. Basically, the healthier you are, the less you’ll pay. Car insurance has worked this way for decades. Get a speeding ticket and points are added to your record, and insurance carriers can justify a premium increase. An increase that’s not absorbed by everyone else who drives.
There’s always been a lingering question about health care. Why should a healthy person pay more to subsidize someone who smokes, who’s obese or who’s an alcoholic? Is health care really an equal, universal right? Does anyone need to bear personal accountability for anything anymore? The fundamental problem is that the bad habits of one group creates significant financial consequences for others.
The National Coalition on Health Care states that health care spending will climb to over $2 trillion this year. That’s more than the gross domestic product of many countries (for example, almost 8 times that of Switzerland). Over 60% of Americans are overweight or obese, and fast food restaurants dwell at every corner. LA Councilwoman Jan Perry is even trying to stop new fast food restaurants from opening in South LA for two years to address related health problems. The reality of American life is that fatty foods are cheap, easy and convenient and exercise can be hard to come by between our longer work schedules and increasingly busier personal lives. Is that the reality or just an excuse?
With anything controversial, and believe me, this reeks of controversy, lawsuits won’t be far behind. However, they might not be as easy to file as you think. The National Workrights Institute feels that employers are taking an unfair approach to “eliminate” expensive employees. But this is a capitalistic society, after all. Why should an employer suffer exorbitant costs as a result of their employees’ unhealthy lifestyles? Our trusty federal government passed regulations in July to address employers’ legal concerns, detailing how these “wellness programs” differentiate themselves from illegal discrimination based on the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. One stipulation is that penalties and rewards cannot exceed 20% of an employee’s health care cost. Another takes into account pre-existing health factors that sometimes lead to obesity or high blood pressure, etc. (“no fault of their own” factors).
The one thing a lot people overlook about this is the bottom line, but not for financial departments. I’m talking about a person’s bottom line…The state of their health. Whether you think it’s a good idea or unfair or bordering on tyranny, the ultimate drive is to make people healthier. Employers would much rather have healthy workers than unhealthy workers paying surcharges. And when you’re healthier, you feel better, you live longer, you’re more productive and you won’t require multiple bypasses. Isn’t that a good thing?
photo by una cierta mirada via Flickr
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
while i feel that this is a good thing; something also must be done for those who need health care and can't afford it. it's one thing to knowingly put yourself in danger, but it's another to face a problem you have no control over and not be able to find any help. i'm younger, in moderately good health, and i don't put myself into any kind of danger... but what if something goes wrong, an accident, or something else unforseen? what am i to do? i don't make enough money to seek the health care i need, nor can i afford insurance...
health-care is always a touchy issue. it's just hard to find what we can and cannot do that pleases everyone. and believe me, if i could afford it, i wouldn't be happy about paying for everyone else all the same. but subsidized care must come in somewhere. universal healthcare, not so much. we've seen in other countries (canada, france, etc..) where healthcare from the top down can leave full hospitals and long waiting lists.
is there an in-between?
One of the few examples of socialism in America lies in taxation. People who choose not to have children because of overpopulation are still forced to pay for the education of other people's children. People who choose to bike to work instead of driving still have to pay for highways.
"Healthy" people skiing, mountain biking, and participating in other "extreme sports" also end up in the hospital, after being airlifted out at taxpayer expense. Some people might even consider having eight kids or driving a sports car an "unhealthy habit".
It all comes down to the greater good. We are all responsible for keeping this society running, whether it be by keeping people educated, driving on safe roads, or keeping them healthy through preventative care.
And we are not even talking about taxpayers here. We are talking about corporations who are doing anything they can to reduce their bottom line. They don't exacly have our best interests at heart. It is just one more excuse for them to screw us over. If you have not seen the movie "Sicko" I suggest you check it out.
smoking/drugs/obesity yes.... age/genetic disorders/disabilities? questionable ---- there is just that fine line where something that might qualify someone as more expensive falls under discrimination-- i say anyone who does the things they can control -- eat sausage sandwiches 3 times a day and smoking -- make them pay!!!
smoking, drugs, alcoholism, obesity -- these are related to addiction, often genetically linked, i.e., not simply a matter of "self control" or "will power." raising premiums for the economically disadvantaged, who are disproportionately represented among smokers, drug addicts, alcoholics and the obese -- is just one more way to keep them from getting the help they need from doctors -- medical & psychological -- in treatment programs and with preventative intervention and care. the *real* bottom line is that we *all* benefit when our nation's citizens are healthy. employers trying to cut costs don't take this into account, nor are they encouraged to do so by the gov't, say, subsidizing companies for absorbing the rising costs of premiums for their employees.
ps -- great comment elise.
Not only that, but who got us "hooked" on cigarettes in the first place? Who is putting fast food franchises on every corner? How big are the tobacco and liquor lobbies? Then "big business" wants to put the onus back on the individual? Who is not taking responsibility here?
Not to mention the fact it is not fat, smoking, whiskey-guzzling workers who are overtaxing the system, it is people who cannot afford health care. So the answer is to make health care even less affordable for them, making even more people uninsured?