Should you be required to provide your BMI

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Salty, Mar 21, 2013.

  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,093
    Likes Received:
    218
    CVS will require "personal info".

    The article states that employees will be fined $50 a month for not providing info.

    I see it as an employee receiving a $50 discount for doing so.

    And I don't have a problem with it. The company provides health care benefits. Why should they be required to pay for bad health decisions of employees.
     
  2. Oldtimer

    Oldtimer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,934
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting concept.

    If they are too fat don't hire them.

    We have to hire them. If we don't we're "discriminating" and outrage will be voiced.

    Better idea, hire em and make them pay. No one can fault us for offering a discount to those with the physical attributes we deem to be most appropriate. After all we want everyone to be more healthy. Nothing wrong with that.

    While we're at it, our employees can't drink 24 oz Cokes during their work breaks.

    SALE!!! LIMITED TIME OFFER!
    24 oz Cokes - Buy One, Get One FREE!

    Hurry! Hurry! Quantities at this HALF-PRICE are limited.

    Edit: Part of this is said with tongue firmly planted in cheek. I'm from an at-will state.
     
  3. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,653
    Likes Received:
    188
    Of course this makes the assumption that the BMI is a valid, scientific measure of health and/or obesity.

    The BMI does not take into consideration persons with above average muscle mass, people with large frames (think large skeletons, not fat), and persons who are above average height.

    Persons who share one or more of the above characteristics are often declare overweight or even obese by the BMI formula.

    As someone who has a large frame and is above average height, I would be very unhealthy at the "correct" BMI of average weight.

    When I was 6' 05" and 215 pounds, the doctor told me I was underweight (I had been dieting) and told me to gain about 10 pounds. That would give me a BMI of 26.7. which is considered "overweight."

    So if I maintain a healthy weight, I will be penalized for the mindless use of the BMI as a standard.

    Top 10 Reasons Why the BMI is Bogus
     
  4. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    This could be a very interesting thread. The first idea that comes to my mind is how did health insurance ever become connected to a job benefit? Since it did, it seems to me, that companies, since most are privately owned, have the right to set what standards they want for employees they hire. If the health insurance they provide is cheaper for those who make healthier life styles, then, IMO, that is their right. If one disagrees, they can go work somewhere else, or refuse the health insurance and purchase it on the private market.

    I do not know what year in our history the connection was made between working and health insurance, or how the government got their paws into the pot, but it must have evolved over time. For example, I doubt ranch hands in the Wild West took out insurance with the person who owned the ranch. If they got sick, they went to the local doctor in town and paid the bill the best they could.

    Since we now have a system where the government is involved in some fashion of everyone's health care, choices are very limited. Most all older folks use Medicare to some degree.

    Yes, I agree with your general premise. Why should I have to pay a higher premium for those who choose to eat like a 400 pound pig or smoke like a chimney top?
     
  5. Oldtimer

    Oldtimer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,934
    Likes Received:
    0
    If I understand correctly it was during WWII. Govt got involved to provide an incentive to get more people into the workforce, since so many men were fighting the war.

    Govt gave tax breaks to business who could offer a health insurance benefit to workers. Prior to then, health insurance was a private transaction, just as auto insurance is today.

    Gradually, over time, health/life/shortterm disability insurance through an employer replaced, for the most part private insurance. After the war, the tax incentive continued to be in effect. The public grew accustomed to insurance as an employment perk.

    If the govt had stayed out of the picture, we'd have little green reptiles hawking health insurance on TV. When was the last time you saw a health insurance ad? Why compete for individual policies, when a business with hundreds or thousands of employees can be the middle man with 1 contract?

    I used to work as a health insurance administrator. Meaning I put the insurance contracts out for bid for my company. Content of the contract was determined by the employer and options available from each potential insurer. Individual employees didn't have any say in their coverage. Few realized that I with management approval could set payment percentages, deductible, out of pocket expense, and inclusion/exclusion of certain types of coverage. Dental, vision, prescriptions, etc.

    If, after the war, government had taken their fingers out of health insurance coverage, we wouldn't be in this mess today. If in 1965 (if memory serves) the govt hadn't started putting their whole hand in by starting Medicare, we wouldn't be in this mess today. I'd be buying both health and auto insurance from a competive market place. Instead we're facing goverment control of the rest of the health insurance market.
     

Share This Page

Loading...