Fat People...

[GarMan]

The mighty arm of gubmet is gonna get you!  They already got the smokers.  Now, it's a fat tax. 

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourHealth/AlabamaHitsObeseWorkersWithFee.aspx

Alabama hits obese workers with fee

State employees who don't try to lose weight will have to pay part of their health insurance premiums. It may sound heavy-handed, but the workers' lobbying group is not complaining.

By The Associated Press
The state of Alabama has given its 37,527 employees until 2010 to start getting fit -- or they'll pay $25 a month for insurance that otherwise is free.

Alabama will be the first state to charge its overweight workers who don't try to slim down, while a handful of other states reward employees who adopt healthful behaviors.

Alabama already charges workers who smoke -- and has seen some success in getting them to quit -- but now has turned its attention to a problem that plagues many people in the Deep South: obesity.

The State Employees' Insurance Board earlier this month approved a plan to charge state workers starting in January 2010 if they don't get free health screenings.

If the screenings turn up serious problems with blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose or obesity, employees will have a year to see a doctor at no cost, enroll in a wellness program or take steps on their own to improve their health. If they show progress in a follow-up screening, they won't be charged. But if they don't, they must pay starting in January 2011.

"We are trying to get individuals to become more aware of their health," said state worker Robert Wagstaff, who serves on the insurance board.

Not all state employees see it that way.

"It's terrible," said health department employee Chequla Motley. "Some people come into this world big."

Computer technician Tim Colley already pays $24 a month for being a smoker and doesn't like the idea of another charge.

"It's too Big Brotherish," he said.

The board will apply the obesity charge to anyone with a body mass index of 35 or higher who is not making progress. A person 5 feet 6 inches tall weighing 220 pounds, for example, would have a BMI of 35.5. A BMI of 30 is considered the threshold for obesity.

The board has not yet determined how much progress a person would have to show and is uncertain how many people might be affected, because everyone could avoid the charge by working to lose weight.

But that's unlikely. Government statistics show Alabamans have a big weight problem. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 30.3% are now obese, ranking the state behind only Mississippi.

E.K. Daufin of Montgomery, a college professor and founder of Love Your Body, Love Yourself, which holds body acceptance workshops, said the new policy will be stressful for people like her.

"I'm big and beautiful and doing my best to keep my stress levels down so I can stay healthy," Daufin said. "That's big, not lazy, not a glutton and certainly not deserving of the pompous, poisonous disrespect served up daily to those of us with more bounce to the ounce."

A recent study suggested that about half of overweight people and nearly a third of obese people have normal blood pressure and cholesterol levels, while about a quarter of people considered to be of normal weight suffer from the ills associated with obesity.

No intent to punish
Walter Lindstrom, founder of the Obesity Law and Advocacy Center in California, is concerned that all overweight Alabama employees will get is advice to walk more and to broil their chicken.

"The state will feel good about itself for offering something, and the person of size will end up paying $300 a year for the bad luck of having a chronic disease his/her state-sponsored insurance program failed to cover in an appropriate and meaningful fashion," he said.

William Ashmore, executive director of the State Employees' Insurance Board, said the state will spend an extra $1.6 million next year on screenings and wellness programs but should see significant long-term savings.

Ashmore said research shows someone with a body mass index of 35 to 39 generates $1,748 more in annual medical expenses than someone with a BMI of less than 25, which is considered normal.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, a few states offer one-time financial incentives for people pursuing healthy lifestyles. Ohio workers, for instance, get $50 for having health assessments and another $50 for following through with the advice.

Arkansas and Missouri go a step further, offering monthly discounts on premiums for employees who take health risk assessments and participate in wellness programs to reduce obesity, stress and other health problems.

Alabama's new policy is drawing no objection from the lobbying group representing state workers.

Mac McArthur, the executive director of the Alabama State Employees Association, said the plan is not designed to punish employees.

"It's a positive," he said.

[Jumbo]

Thats bullshit, I say power to the fat people!

[The Prowler]

Yeah, us fat people need to unite and squash this.

[Kaos]

Yeah, us fat people need to unite and squash this.

Maybe we should all get together for dinner somewhere to discuss.  Like Fire Mountain or Ryans?

[Jumbo]

Maybe we should all get together for dinner somewhere to discuss.  Like Fire Mountain or Ryans?

As long as we all  drive Suv's , screw the enviroment!

[CCTAU]

Get rid of that "hand-to-mouth" disease and nobody will have to pay extra. For those of us overweight for no reason, we should be pointed out. We are a fat ass nation and it's catching up to us medically. Our children do not exercise anymore and we feel like it's out right to take up 2 seats on a plane while only paying for 1. If this gets folks to lose weight, then great. I mean it's not like state workers do a whole helluva lot anyway.

If you have a medical reason for being over-weight, then that is a different story. But most of us just like to eat. That's our problem and should be a burden on us, not everyone else.

Sorry if I offended anyone......NOT.

[AUTailgatingRules]

Get rid of that "hand-to-mouth" disease and nobody will have to pay extra. For those of us overweight for no reason, we should be pointed out. We are a fat ass nation and it's catching up to us medically. Our children do not exercise anymore and we feel like it's out right to take up 2 seats on a plane while only paying for 1. If this gets folks to lose weight, then great. I mean it's not like state workers do a whole helluva lot anyway.

If you have a medical reason for being over-weight, then that is a different story. But most of us just like to eat. That's our problem and should be a burden on us, not everyone else.

Sorry if I offended anyone......NOT.

I just like to drink, is that a good enough reason to be fat?

[CCTAU]

I just like to drink, is that a good enough reason to be fat?

It is as long as we can afford the beer AND the $25 fat tax! :thumbsup:

[GarMan]

Get rid of that "hand-to-mouth" disease and nobody will have to pay extra. For those of us overweight for no reason, we should be pointed out. We are a fat ass nation and it's catching up to us medically. Our children do not exercise anymore and we feel like it's out right to take up 2 seats on a plane while only paying for 1. If this gets folks to lose weight, then great. I mean it's not like state workers do a whole helluva lot anyway.

If you have a medical reason for being over-weight, then that is a different story. But most of us just like to eat. That's our problem and should be a burden on us, not everyone else.

Sorry if I offended anyone......NOT.

Yeah...  I can see both sides to this, but that's the problem with the concept of entitlements.  Once you start hitting people for personal responsibility issues like this, where do you stop?  We can talk about the increased likelihood that overweight people will suffer from  problems associated with their weight, but what about other behaviors?  People who play a lot of sports are more likely to suffer from sports related injuries.  Runners frequently have increased issues associated with their knees, feet and hips.  I can honestly say that I know more people who have torn an ACL from a sports related injury than those who I would consider obese.  We already know about the witch hunt in progress on smokers.  Women who choose to have more children than others have increased health costs.  What about the recent fetish with tattoos and piercings?  What about homosexuals with their higher incidents of certain health related issues?  If the gubmet's going to pick and choose who they're going to surcharge for certain behaviors, where does reason and fairness play into this?  You could argue that they're going after the numbers right now, but it's only a matter of time before everyone gets pinched for something. 

[Buzz Killington]

As long as we all  drive Suv's , screw the enviroment!

I'm in, as long as we can go to Krispy Kreme after the dinner.

[Snaggletiger]

Yo' mama so fat, after sex she smokes turkeys.

[Jumbo]

I'm in, as long as we can go to Krispy Kreme after the dinner.

6 glazed donuts would cap off the heart attack!

[CCTAU]

Yeah...  I can see both sides to this, but that's the problem with the concept of entitlements.  Once you start hitting people for personal responsibility issues like this, where do you stop?  We can talk about the increased likelihood that overweight people will suffer from  problems associated with their weight, but what about other behaviors?  People who play a lot of sports are more likely to suffer from sports related injuries.  Runners frequently have increased issues associated with their knees, feet and hips.  I can honestly say that I know more people who have torn an ACL from a sports related injury than those who I would consider obese.  We already know about the witch hunt in progress on smokers.  Women who choose to have more children than others have increased health costs.  What about the recent fetish with tattoos and piercings?  What about homosexuals with their higher incidents of certain health related issues?  If the gubmet's going to pick and choose who they're going to surcharge for certain behaviors, where does reason and fairness play into this?  You could argue that they're going after the numbers right now, but it's only a matter of time before everyone gets pinched for something. 

Come on. When's the last time a person died from a heart attack from and ACL injury. When's the last time somebody contracted diabetes from tendinitis. Unforeseen injuries are not the same as continuing a bad habit that causes MANY things to go wrong with your body. A person with an ACL injury can cut off his leg and live healthily for a long time. A fat guy can cut off his leg and still die from an obesity related illness.

It's fair to say that if you can't fit in a normal chair, you need an incentive.

[GarMan]

Come on. When's the last time a person died from a heart attack from and ACL injury. When's the last time somebody contracted diabetes from tendinitis. Unforeseen injuries are not the same as continuing a bad habit that causes MANY things to go wrong with your body. A person with an ACL injury can cut off his leg and live healthily for a long time. A fat guy can cut off his leg and still die from an obesity related illness.

It's fair to say that if you can't fit in a normal chair, you need an incentive.

Your logic is flawed.  They're doing this to help cover the increased health costs brought by a condition that is associated with their behavior.  If they're going to surcharge one group for increased health costs associated with their behavior, why not go after others?

[Townhallsavoy]

I can has Cheeseburger? 

[Jumbo]

I can has Cheeseburger? 

that reminds me of my childhood.