Corporate Control? (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/20212332/)


Packing a few extra pounds? Still smoking like a chimney, despite all the evidence it can kill you?

Well, if a new practice an Indiana company is putting in place catches on, one day soon your employer could demand you pay a price for your unhealthy lifestyle.
...

To combat the problem, beginning in 2009 Clarian employees will be charged up to $30 every two weeks for failing to meet standards set by the company in a number of areas. That breaks down to $10 for a body mass index that’s too high, and $5 each for smoking, high cholesterol, high blood sugar and high blood pressure.
...

Other companies with such policies include Dell, Pitney Bowes, IBM, Kellogg’s and Time-Warner.

*****

The legal community should have a field day with policies like these.


:rant:

An age based variation of this has been occuring in corporate health insurance for quite a while.

If you have a company with 100 employees, the insurance companies quote you based on age and sex of your work force (and a participation level).

Lets say you have 25 women over 45 (the highest cost to insure), 20 men over 45 , 30 men and women between 30 and 45, and 20 employees under 30.

The quote is based on this "mix" at let's say a 80% participation level.

You offer the insurance to your employees at 1/3 of the cost (company pays 67%, employees pay 33%). The total cost is $300.00 per month (based on the ages of the employees) so this would mean the employee pays $100 per month.

You perform "sign-ups" and get 80% participation. Guess which 20% do not participate? Yep, the under 30 group (which also will usually have the lower pay, and could actually most likely insure themselves individually for that amount or less (of course many of these are still think they are "immortal" and won't need it anyway - I think we all kind of felt that way when we were young).

The insurance company will revise the rates the following year based on who is actually participating (making premiums go up because the under 30 crowd does not take the coverage) so they are covered. This sometimes leads to older employees that are not as highly compensated as others to drop coverage for financial reasons also.

The system is screwed up... and this is also where the "47 million without insurance" gets a large percentage of the uninsured.

The system is screwed up... and this is also where the "47 million without insurance" gets a large percentage of the uninsured.There are people who can afford insurance but choose not to purchase it. A single-payer system financed (in part) by employer/employee contributions would bring these people into the fold and they would no longer receive the free ride they're getting now.

Then there are the people who can't afford insurance, and people the insurance companies consider too risky to insure -- they also comprise a large percentage of the uninsured. Part of the overhead that makes private insurance so expensive is spent determining who not to insure (and adjusting your premiums upwards, of course).

Here is a pretty good analysis of the small business aspect of health insurance.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/bg1769.cfm


(yeah, I know it's from a conservative think tank, but there is some very good points here on solutions to some of the uninsured small business employess issues)

Here is a pretty good analysis of the small business aspect of health insurance.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/bg1769.cfm


(yeah, I know it's from a conservative think tank, but there is some very good points here on solutions to some of the uninsured small business employess issues)Tax credits look like a good idea on the surface because a lot of people could really use the help to make private health insurance affordable. But what is it really doing? Those on the right can point out that it's just another subsidy for the poor while those on the left can point out that it's another giveaway to the insurance industry. If 10 million people sign up for coverage that's 10 million new customers for the insurance companies, while the public at large foots much of the bill. It's similar to how Part D was designed to be a cash cow for the pharmaceuticals -- the industry lobbies virtually write the legislation behind these programs because they know how the fix it to their benefit.

I don't think the problem with health care in this country is that the insurance industry makes too little money. On the contrary, I think they make far too much for what little they do. The net effect of tax credits is to line their pockets even more.

I agree with the idea of forming larger groups to negotiate better coverage, but I think the idea should be taken to it's most logical extent -- that is, have one group, namely all of us, and we can start to put a lid on the rising costs of health care.

I agree with the idea of forming larger groups to negotiate better coverage, but I think the idea should be taken to it's most logical extent -- that is, have one group, namely all of us, and we can start to put a lid on the rising costs of health care.
I'm not a fan of the one group idea (bet you aren't surprised there), but a larger group "portable" plan could go a long ways towards insuring those who want it.

A compromise solution is the only way anything is going to get enacted on this issue.

I think the answer may lie in a modified system that could be partially overseen/regulated by the government. I don't want them moderating the sevices or be fiscally responsible for distribution and application. They should offer a controlled insurance plan for businesses (small business/self employed) that is portable and reasonably priced.

Also businesses of a certain size, maybe with 50+ full time employees, should have to offer a health insurance plan to it's employees at maybe a 50% offset of cost to the employee. By the same token, an eligible employee at these companies should be required to take the insurance. This would also down premiums by forcing the ones who want to "just gamble that they don't need insurance" to ante up also.

We already have in place a low/no income system with Medicaid/Medicare. While it needs some work, it is already in place.

And back on the original thread topic for a second. If we really want to drop health care costs and health insurance rates (and lots of other insurance and services costs), we need to have some sort of tort reform that does away with many of these frivolous lawsuits that fill our courts and drains our wallets.

My two cents (actually only one cent... I give the other one to the government).

They're going to have a big problem with high cholesterol, high blood pressure and high blood sugar since those three things can be caused by genetics and not life style. I see major lawsuits in the future.

I don't think the problem with health care in this country is that the insurance industry makes too little money. On the contrary, I think they make far too much for what little they do. The net effect of tax credits is to line their pockets even more.


I agree. The health insurance industry provides no service whatsoever.

All they do is act as a middleman for an obscene profit, having bureaucrats telling millions of Americans what procedures and medicines we can and cannot have based upon how it will effect their profits and stock prices instead of how it effects our health.

I do not see that as a positive for our health care at all.


I agree with the idea of forming larger groups to negotiate better coverage, but I think the idea should be taken to it's most logical extent -- that is, have one group, namely all of us, and we can start to put a lid on the rising costs of health care.

And we need to do it as a non-profit venture.

.

I agree. The health insurance industry provides no service whatsoever.

All they do is act as a middleman for an obscene profit, having bureaucrats telling millions of Americans what procedures and medicines we can and cannot have based upon how it will effect their profits and stock prices instead of how it effects our health.

I do not see that as a positive for our health care at all.



And we need to do it as a non-profit venture.

.

VOTE KUCINICH! :thumbs:

VOTE KUCINICH! :thumbs:
And the odds of him winning the election are about the same as th U.S. going to a pure socialized medicine program.

The only changes that will take place (if either side of the aisle will get off their lazy asses - that is) will be a compromise deal that modifies the current method of offering health insurance to employees and a reasonable modification to medicare/medicaid.

And the odds of him winning the election are about the same as th U.S. going to a pure socialized medicine program.


That's why things are the way the are now, you know. Folks like you say to themselves, "Aw, THAT guy'll never win," and cast their votes for "the one most likely to." By doing that, you do nothing more than participate and perpetuate the big-money political game that our democracy/government has become. You're a part of the problem.

If people voted for the person that best represented their position on various political issues, if they voted for the person they thought was actually best for the job, one of those people might someday get elected (instead of some rich megalomaniac with a dangerous global agenda).

Instead we have a populace voting for the politician with the most money.

How messed up is that? :confused:

That's why things are the way the are now, you know. Folks like you say to themselves, "Aw, THAT guy'll never win," and cast their votes for "the one most likely to." By doing that, you do nothing more than participate and perpetuate the big-money political game that our democracy/government has become. You're a part of the problem.

If people voted for the person that best represented their position on various political issues, if they voted for the person they thought was actually best for the job, one of those people might someday get elected (instead of some rich megalomaniac with a dangerous global agenda).

Instead we have a populace voting for the politician with the most money.

How messed up is that? :confused:

Yeah, I've heard that before. Last time I was convinced to 'throw away' my vote, I went for Perot and Clinton got elected. Although Perot got more of the popular votes (18.9%) than any third party candidate since 1912, he never got ONE electoral vote.

While I like the premise of a viable third party, I just don't think we're there yet. Voting for someone the majority of the population hasn't even heard of is the same as staying at home on election day. While you may THINK you're expressing your opinion, all you're doing is throwing away your vote.

IMHO, the reality is... we're stuck with the 'lesser of two evils,' folks.

That's why I think getting involved in the choosing of those who will appear on each parties' ballot is the key. By the time we get to the polls, it's really too late to do much more than rubber-stamp our parties' choice.

SMW