Alabama Plans to Tax Fat Employees to Recoup Insurance Costs

[Taem]

Is it legal? Well I guess so since it became law, but is it ethical? I kind of like the idea personally, because I like to exercise a lot, but others might find the new bill offensive.

LINK

Alabama is rolling out a creative but controversial program that will subject its 37,527 state employees to possibly humiliating at-work weigh-ins and fat tests. If they tip the scales, they'll be given a choice: slim down or pay up.

The state is trying to solve two of its biggest problems — health insurance costs and obesity — in one fell swoop.

Beginning in 2010, Alabama, which has the second highest obesity rate in the country, will start charging all of its employees an extra $25 per month for health insurance. (Currently, single workers pay nothing; family plans cost $180 a month.)

But there's a way to avoid the fee: Get a check-up at an in-office "wellness center," where nurses will check for diabetes and hypertension and measure blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose levels and Body Mass Index (BMI).

The idea is to encourage employees to act responsibly, lose weight and lower their health care needs. But critics say it will humiliate and stigmatize obese employees and amounts to nothing short of a "fat tax."

A BMI test uses height and weight measurements to calculate the percentage of body fat in adult males and females. Alabama is using a BMI threshold of 35 — 30 is considered obese, by most medical standards — to determine who doesn't have to pay the automatic $25 deduction.

Health practitioners often factor in skinfold (fat) and waist circumference measurements while calculating a patient's BMI.

Does Alabama think you're fat? Take this humiliation-free BMI test online.

If you're deemed fit, you're exempt. But if you flunk the BMI exam, it's shape up or pay up. Obese workers will be required to see a doctor and will have to show proof of their attempt to lose weight.

The program is optional ... sort of. If you don't take the tests, you'll have to pay the $25 charge.

The $25-per-month fee is not the only way Alabama hopes to discourage bad health decisions by state employees, said the program's creator, William Ashmore, executive director of the Alabama State Employees' Insurance Board. Alabama already charges smokers a monthly $25 insurance fee.

"There are folks walking around with diabetes and hypertension that don't even know it, and it's just a matter of time before something catastrophic happens to them," Ashmore said. "If we can get people to manage their health, we'll have healthier employees and less healthcare costs."

He said employees with a BMI of 35 or higher cost the state 40 percent more than those with a BMI under 35, and the program will help in many ways. "This is not a fat tax," Ashmore said. "It's not punitive."

But that's exactly what critics are calling it: a punitive "fat tax" designed to stigmatize the obese by inappropriately — and possibly illegally — bringing weight into the workplace.

"This is a dreadful, dreadful policy," said Judith S. Stern, an obesity expert and nutrition professor at University of California at Davis. "Overweight and obese people, especially women, feel that their weight is private, and being weighed at work is like having a prostate exam in the hall. It's not appropriate."

Critics also say Alabama's program borders on discrimination by using obesity, which is medically categorized as a disease, as its benchmark.

"I think it discriminates against people with a disease — obesity is a disease," Stern said. "Would you charge more money if they had breast cancer?"

Alabama's program is a dangerous step on a very slippery slope, says Mark V. Pauly, professor of health care systems at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business. "The unanswered question is, 'How much you want to do this?'" he said. "If you got lung cancer because you smoked, do we charge you a penalty there? What about couch potatoes? Do we put all the employees on treadmills?"

Medical and social considerations aside, other critics say it's just not going to work. "There's the thought that obese people are weak-willed, and if we charge them more they won't be as fat," Stern said. "This assumes they have control over what's involved, and often they don't."

And there's the cost factor. In its efforts to reduce heath care costs Alabama will spend an extra $1.6 million for health screenings and programs next year.

"From the viewpoint of the employer who provides health care and pension, this kind of cancels out," Pauly said. "What you lost on health care you get back in pension plan, because now these people are living longer."

Whatever the plan, a company's success in lowering health care costs and curbing obesity could depend entirely on how it's framed. Rewards tend to work better than punishment.

"It's possible to set these things up to look like more like carrots than sticks," Pauly said. "And people tend to respond better to carrots."

Alabama isn't alone in its struggle to cut costs and curb obesity. Two-thirds of American adults are overweight or obese, according to a recent report from Trust for America's Health, a nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C.

Clarian Health Partners, a hospital chain in Indiana, has taken a different approach. In 2009, they will start deducting money from the paychecks of workers who do not meet — and don't show efforts to meet — various health criteria. Smoking without trying to quit will cost $5; high glucose, high blood pressure and high cholesterol levels will cost $5 each; a high Body Mass Index will cost $10.

This is also happening abroad. Japan is monitoring the waist measurements of its policyholders, according to official government websites. Citizens receive jury duty-like summonses to appear for measurements — and if they're too fat, their employer will be slapped with a hefty fine. The maximum waist size allowed for men is 33.5 inches and 35.4 inches for women.

It's unlikely that Japan's program will catch on stateside, but that doesn't mean Americans are off the hook. Alabama's so-called "fat tax" could just be the beginning of a trend.

"A lot of employers are talking about this," Pauly said. "There's the feeling that you have to do something. What you do then is a matter of design and discretion."

As for Alabama, Ashmore is sure that those who have their doubts will soon come around. He encourages workers to swing by his Montgomery office to pick up pamphlets about the program and to learn more about reducing their Body Mass Index.

But to get to his second-floor office they'll first have to make it past the Chick-Fil-A downstairs (average meal: 1,000 calories).

[Phyloxerra]

Wow, I'm glad I'm slender.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Is it legal? Well I guess so since it became law, but is it ethical?

Actually, it is fair to ask if it is legal. Just because a law is passed does not mean it will not be overthrown when challenged. However, in this case, given the persecution of smokers as a precedent, they'll probably make it stick. You're free to choose how to live your life as long as all the other monkeys agree.

Jefferson was right. A revolution every few years to remind the assholes that they are public servants, not masters.

--Pete

[Nystul]

I suppose if people don't like it, they can try to find a better job in the private sector. It does seem like they need to be careful here that they aren't discriminating against the handicapped, but I'd guess that they have such issues covered in the details if they don't want a massive lawsuit.

[ShadowHM]

Hi,
Actually, it is fair to ask if it is legal. Just because a law is passed does not mean it will not be overthrown when challenged. However, in this case, given the persecution of smokers as a precedent, they'll probably make it stick. You're free to choose how to live your life as long as all the other monkeys agree.

Jefferson was right. A revolution every few years to remind the assholes that they are public servants, not masters.

--Pete

The legality of Alabama's law will doubtless be determined sooner rather than later. :)

However, I think you miss the point in your reference to Jefferson. Frankly, he who pays the piper should be permitted to call the tune, IMO. If those state employees won't find a way to live healthy, why should the taxpayer who shells out the taxes to pay for those salaries and health insurance be on the hook for their bad decisions?

A BMI of 35 is the stated threshold. :rolleyes: And that, my friend, is not just fat, it is dangerously so! You are free to live your life as you choose as long as you don't expect me to pay for your bad decisions.

[--Pete]

Hi,

However, I think you miss the point in your reference to Jefferson. Frankly, he who pays the piper should be permitted to call the tune, IMO. If those state employees won't find a way to live healthy, why should the taxpayer who shells out the taxes to pay for those salaries and health insurance be on the hook for their bad decisions?

So, if you get hired at 20, you should not pay for your health insurance at work, but if you get hired at 50 you should? If neither of your parents had heart trouble, you get a free ride, but no insurance for you if you didn't pick the right parents? What if you don't exercise (it is much healthier to be fat and fit than lean and out of shape)? And note, it isn't just a $25 fat tax they are speaking about -- that I could accept. "Obese workers will be required to see a doctor and will have to show proof of their attempt to lose weight." That goes beyond the "you take the risk, you pay the price". That goes to "Big Brother wants you lean."

A BMI of 35 is the stated threshold. :rolleyes: And that, my friend, is not just fat, it is dangerously so!

The BMI is a poor measurement designed by mathematically and physically ignorant medical professionals. The human body is three dimensional, so dividing the weight by the height *squared* makes no sense at all. If you look at individuals from 1.2 m to 2.2 m of height, all of whom are in the same proportions and thus the same percent body fat and density, you'll get the following asinine result from the BMI:

Code:

(m)    (kg)    BMI    Classification
1.20     23    15.9    Severely underweight
1.25     26    16.5    Severely underweight
1.30     29    17.2    Underweight
1.35     33    17.9    Underweight
1.40     36    18.5    Underweight
1.45     40    19.2    Normal
1.50     45    19.8    Normal
1.55     49    20.5    Normal
1.60     54    21.2    Normal
1.65     59    21.8    Normal
1.70     65    22.5    Normal
1.75     71    23.2    Normal
1.80     77    23.8    Normal
1.85     84    24.5    Normal
1.90     91    25.1    Overweight
1.95     98    25.8    Overweight
2.00    106    26.5    Overweight
2.05    114    27.1    Overweight
2.10    123    27.8    Overweight
2.15    131    28.4    Overweight
2.20    141    29.1    Overweight

1.82    110    33.2    Obese

Yep. the BMI is really a use<strike>ful</strike>less metric. And a bodybuilder at 182 cm and 110 kg has a BMI of 33, classifying him as 'obese' in spite of his 7% body fat. :lol:

"In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and practicable methods for measuring some quality connected with it. I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be." -- Lord Kelvin, PLA, vol. 1, "Electrical Units of Measurement", 1883-05-03

But if the units you are using to measure are meaningless, then do you have knowledge or ignorance. I vote for GIGO. Especially in light of the :wacko: nutritionists I've met.

You are free to live your life as you choose as long as you don't expect me to pay for your bad decisions.

Not asking you to. Wouldn't dream of it; I pull my own damned weight:). But if *my* weight bothers you, that doesn't give you the right to send *me* to a doctor. And if you were to try, *you* might just be the one going to the emergency room for blunt force trauma. :P

--Pete

[ShadowHM]

Hi,
So, if you get hired at 20, you should not pay for your health insurance at work, but if you get hired at 50 you should?

Non sequitur. We are, I thought, discussing a measure that will apply to all state employees.

If neither of your parents had heart trouble, you get a free ride, but no insurance for you if you didn't pick the right parents?

If you are working your way into the slippery slope argument, just say so. :P

If you don't like the measuring device used to define obese, fine. :) But the fact remains that obesity, by and large, is preventable and is a product of poor decisions made by the individual.

And, I reiterate, I damn well don't want to pay for the costs of your bad decisions. You, personally, are not asking. But, collectively, the employees of the state of Alabama are asking for that. The are expecting health insurance to go along with their pay cheques. You may not like that the medical profession is, once again, being asked to be the gate-keeper to validate good health. Heck, I don't like it either. But what measure would you choose?

[Taem]

And, I reiterate, I damn well don't want to pay for the costs of your bad decisions.

I don't know the health regulations in Alabama, however I'm sure the state could simply make all their workers get private insurance, thus negating any *tax* on the middle-man for medical coverage issues like this one. I know you folks up in Canada get full coverage for your medical expenses, but suffer a tax rate of near 50% if I remember correctly. If you are correct about the citizens of Alabama paying a tax for state-workers insurance, then I hardly consider it fair for the "middle-man" in Alabama to be paying a tax for state-workers medical insurance in the first place; I wonder what the ratio of state-workers :to: common workers is in Alabama.

[LochnarITB]

But the fact remains that obesity, by and large, is preventable and is a product of poor decisions made by the individual.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Those are some very wide strokes you are painting, and the color is very ugly. Fact is, you don't have any understanding of all the facts. The truth is that obesity is far too complex an issue to just say "eat less exercise more". An alcoholic does not have to drink to live. A smoker does not have to smoke to live. An obese person does have to eat to live. People are able to exercise, and have otherwise fit measures of health, in the presence of obesity. The only "truth" I can derive from your statement is that you have never had to struggle with it nor be the target of the only remaining socially acceptable discrimination.

[Taem]

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Those are some very wide strokes you are painting, and the color is very ugly. Fact is, you don't have any understanding of all the facts. The truth is that obesity is far too complex an issue to just say "eat less exercise more". An alcoholic does not have to drink to live. A smoker does not have to smoke to live. An obese person does have to eat to live. People are able to exercise, and have otherwise fit measures of health, in the presence of obesity. The only "truth" I can derive from your statement is that you have never had to struggle with it nor be the target of the only remaining socially acceptable discrimination.

I was going to comment on this also Shadow, that Obesity is often looked upon as a disease, but this opens up a whole other can of worms:

"Isn't Bulimia a 'real' disease?" asked one person. "How about Anorexia? These diseases revolve around bad food choices or lack thereof and distortions of self image. Both of these factors seem to be very involved with obesity. People die from Anorexia, from Bulimia AND Obesity - often helplessly. They are just as "real" as cancer. Ask anyone who's had a relative or friend die from an eating disorder."

LINK

The Campaign To Make Obesity A 'Disease'

According to recent statements by a top official at the CDC, the governmental institutions responsible for our nation's health are currently debating whether obesity is somehow its own disease, just like cancer or tuberculosis. This development is due in large part to the corrupting influence of pharmaceutical companies, which see their revenues swelling along with growing panic over the so-called "obesity epidemic." If obesity is a disease, government and private insurance will cover their products. At the same time, if obesity is a disease, Draconian policies restricting our food choices are just over the horizon.

At a congressional briefing last week, George Mensah, acting director of CDC's National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, was asked what efforts the federal government is taking to deem "obesity as a disease so that it can then be looked at in terms of reimbursement and payment." His troubling response:

This is being considered this very minute by several health and human services agencies. As you might know, the CDC has requested that this issue be revisited and it's definitely being discussed between CDC and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, but certainly NIH [the National Institutes of Health] and several HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] agencies.

The issue of obesity-as-disease also came up at an annual American Medical Association (AMA) meeting yesterday. Delegates voted to table for one year a resolution that would have urged the government "to recognize that obesity is a disease unto itself." The AMA's decision to postpone its resolution on the obesity-as-disease question shouldn't confuse anyone about the power of food cops in doctor smocks. Blame-the-food themes infest the AMA's guidelines to help doctors treat obese patients. They pin weight gain on "an overabundance of energy-dense food choices," "easy access to an abundance of calorie-dense, high-fat foods," and "societal pressures that expose individuals to high-calorie convenience foods." Not surprisingly, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), an eight-billion-dollar food cop, funded the AMA's obesity guidelines. RWJF, which recently announced that obesity "is our highest priority as a foundation and will be [our] highest priority for the next ten years," has given more than $50 million to the AMA.

Interestingly, the woman who asked the CDC's Mensah about government programs reimbursing for obesity treatment works at Johnson & Johnson in "Federal Affairs." And Johnson & Johnson has a huge stake in seeing obesity classified as a disease. The company has invested significant resources in multiple attempts to develop an anti-obesity drug (see here, here, and here). One of its subsidiaries "markets lines of medical instruments for use in bariatric, or weight reduction, surgery for the morbidly obese." And the company reports that "a number of other affiliate companies offer products to help promote weight management and the treatment of weight-related conditions such as diabetes."

Two Johnson & Johnson's subsidiaries are "Sponsors" of the American Obesity Association (AOA). Funded primarily by pharmaceutical companies, the mission of the Washington, DC-based AOA is to push for "reimbursement for obesity treatment and prevention." Along the way, AOA hypes obesity fears at every opportunity. It even called for new "fat taxes" to support anti-obesity programs.

To achieve this goal of classifying obesity as a disease, Johnson & Johnson may also be working through the food cops at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The chairman of RWJF is the former vice president and general counsel of J&J. Of the remaining 15 board members, three more are retired executives of J&J, and one is the heir of the Johnson & Johnson fortune. RWJF hyping obesity could certainly contribute to their bottom line. And since about 60 percent of RWJF's assets are in Johnson & Johnson stock, having obesity classified as a disease would only grow the foundation's assets.

The potential conflicts of interest reviewed above are just the beginning. Stay tuned for more about the troubling connections between the pharmaceutical industry and research that exaggerates the health risks of being overweight.

So are they - Alabama - treating Obesity as a disease or an epidemic, because if it is being considered a disease, then these individuals with a high BMI should also get "treatment" for their disease? However if it is an epidemic, is this the best way to deal with the situation, to tax all of their overweight employees?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Non sequitur. We are, I thought, discussing a measure that will apply to all state employees.

I think it follows very closely. Next year, why not use the exact same argument -- they will cost more, so they should pay more -- to target the older employees or those whose family history includes any of the problems that are subject to genetic predisposition. And it's no 'slippery slope'. They're already off the bank and into the cesspool.

If you don't like the measuring device used to define obese, fine. :) But the fact remains that obesity, by and large, is preventable and is a product of poor decisions made by the individual.

EDIT: Removed info that the Lurkers don't really need.

Until a few years ago, in my ignorance, I thought as you do. Since then nature has given me a graduate course in nutrition, and believe me, it is nowhere as simple as you think.

And, I reiterate, I damn well don't want to pay for the costs of your bad decisions. You, personally, are not asking. But, collectively, the employees of the state of Alabama are asking for that. The are expecting health insurance to go along with their pay cheques. You may not like that the medical profession is, once again, being asked to be the gate-keeper to validate good health. Heck, I don't like it either. But what measure would you choose?

And I reiterate that what bothers me most of the Alabama plan is that the 'obese' are being forced to 'do something about their obesity'. Whether it is a health condition or a lifestyle choice, the state does not -- or at least should not -- have that right. If they want those people to pay more, that may (just barely may) be justified. However, that same justification should apply even more to those who don't exercise, since inactivity is, as I've said before, a greater health issue than obesity. And I'll not even go to the issue of unprotected sex.

--Pete

[ShadowHM]

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Those are some very wide strokes you are painting, and the color is very ugly. Fact is, you don't have any understanding of all the facts. The truth is that obesity is far too complex an issue to just say "eat less exercise more". An alcoholic does not have to drink to live. A smoker does not have to smoke to live. An obese person does have to eat to live. People are able to exercise, and have otherwise fit measures of health, in the presence of obesity. The only "truth" I can derive from your statement is that you have never had to struggle with it nor be the target of the only remaining socially acceptable discrimination.

Hi

The colour of bad health is always ugly. :(

Obesity is certainly the result of a series of complex decisions. And, I do hope, you noted that I did not say it was easy to fix. But the fact remains that it is generally preventable and it is, generally speaking, the precursor of many an expensive health problem. Prevention is always cheaper than repairs and/or emergency care.

If you have had to struggle with it, you have my sympathy. One of my dear friends has struggled for years (yes, years - at least 25 years) with it, and has only recently found the combination of diet and exercise that is taking the stress off his heart and other organs. He has lost 75 pounds now and has another 75 to go. I am cheering wildly for him, because I want him to be around in another 25 years. I need his caustic wit and trenchant observations about the world around us to help keep me sane.

No health issue is easy to fix. My point is that if you wish to have your health care subsidized by the taxpayer, you have to accept that they have a stake in ensuring that the costs of that care are minimized.

And, to MEAT, yes, we do have subsidized health care here. And we do have higher taxes than many States. We all make our choices.

[eppie]

And I reiterate that what bothers me most of the Alabama plan is that the 'obese' are being forced to 'do something about their obesity'. Whether it is a health condition or a lifestyle choice, the state does not -- or at least should not -- have that right. If they want those people to pay more, that may (just barely may) be justified. However, that same justification should apply even more to those who don't exercise, since inactivity is, as I've said before, a greater health issue than obesity. And I'll not even go to the issue of unprotected sex.

--Pete

In Holland where everybody is obliged to take a private insurance all these things play or will play a role. And I am surprised this is the first notice of it coming from the US. It is the most capitalistic and 'don't let the state tell me what to do thing' that you can get.
What I see in this thread (and of course I don't know all of your political believes) is that it is fine for the state to not bother you too much (so, low taxes yeeee) but once a decision made by free market thought is made there is complaining going on.

Obesity is mainly caused by eating too much and exercising too little (and I say mainly of course there are some cases that disease plays a role), age is not caused by lifestyle and also a history of hart disease is not.

Here in Sweden I see far less obese people than in the US, and we could afford it because our insurance covers everything.......but we pay 50 % tax.....
Anyway, you know I am kind of a socialist so it might be strange getting this opinion from me but the point is that I got tired of right wing and liberal people complaining about paying too much taxes....and of course then the immigrants are blamed for everything, but at the same time these people profit from our security system (like it was 10 years ago) and are a bigger burden because of an unhealthy lifestyle.



I think we can hold people responsible for their lifestyle with small negative incentives but should make sure that facts you can't influence are not taking into account (although a true market economy insurer in a country with no government regulation could if it wants only insure people with small risks).
Less regulation of insurers will for sure lead to far worse examples of differences in payment for an insurance policy depending on your health situation.

[Taem]

I think we can hold people responsible for their lifestyle with small negative incentives but should make sure that facts you can't influence are not taking into account (although a true market economy insurer in a country with no government regulation could if it wants only insure people with small risks).
Less regulation of insurers will for sure lead to far worse examples of differences in payment for an insurance policy depending on your health situation.

Individuals or the free market? Facts you can influence?

In New York and recently in California they passed a law making Trans-Fat illegal in the restaurant industry. I'm sure this had a negative, if not devastating effect on more than one type of cooking-oil producer. While it does not directly effect my business - we already used zero-trans-fat cooking oils - here you have an example of government "holding businesses responsible", whole corporations instead of the individual. I'd say this possibly had an influential effect on some cooking oil-makers.

Also in California, and more specifically in Santa Barbara county, there is a number of smoking laws targeting the business owner. The state runs anti-smoking ads here and has banned most type of smoking commercials. Does this count as influencing the free-market? I have no doubt cigarette sales are down because of this influential trend.

Secondhand Smoke

* Enacted in 1995, the statewide workplace law (AB 13) changed clean indoor air laws in California.
* AB 13 mandates that almost all enclosed places of employment in the state of California are to be smoke-free.
* In 1997, an amendment (AB 3037) also made bars, bingo parlors, and gaming clubs smoke-free.
* State law prohibits the smoking of any tobacco product within 25 feet of a playground or tot lot sandbox area, and also prohibits the disposal of tobacco-related waste in these areas.
* State law (AB 846) also prohibits smoking within 20 feet of main entrances and exits at all government buildings, including community colleges and state universities.
o Locally, both Allan Hancock Community College and Santa Barbara City College have designated a limited number of spaces where smoking is allowed on campus.
* Some local communities in Santa Barbara have stricter laws that regulate smoking. These include: the unincorporated areas of Santa Barbara County, and the cities of Carpinteria, Santa Barbara, Goleta, and Buellton.
o For example, 75% of the outdoor seating areas in restaurants in the county areas and the cities of Carpinteria, Santa Barbara, Goleta, and Buellton are to be smoke-free.
o Local laws in Santa Barbara County and in the City of Goleta prohibit smoking within 20 feet of any building or area where smoking is prohibited. Ashtrays are also banned within a 20-foot smoke-free area.
o The City of Carpinteria banned smoking at all of its parks and beaches in 1994.

In the case of trans-fat, smoking, and even obesity, health is obviously the issue at hand. As consumers, we have the right to put in our bodies what we want (for the most part), so those laws above aim to protect the individual by targeting the problem/distributers of an unhealthy lifestyle. We don't always know what's in our food, so the state has taken to liberty to make something that could potentially harm us (trans-fat) illegal, or to protect us (smoking) from it, but the blame falls on the business, not the individual. I guess before we continue with this line of thought, this really begs the question: so what is the cause of obesity? Is it eating unhealthy? Lack of exercise? Diabetes? Because if the cause is 90% food, 10% other, then why not add an extra tax too all food deemed unhealthy by the state? Then not only do you protect and serve your city-workers, but the entire populace of the state. If the issue is 10% food, 90% exercise, then why not mandate bi-daily jogs for city-workers, or even start a state-wide city to city jog-a-thon to raise awareness of an unhealthy lifestyle? Tell me, how does taxing the individual in a select group of workers who happen to have a bad BMI score solve anything?

[eppie]

I guess before we continue with this line of thought, this really begs the question: so what is the cause of obesity? Is it eating unhealthy? Lack of exercise? Diabetes? Because if the cause is 90% food, 10% other, then why not add an extra tax too all food deemed unhealthy by the state? Then not only do you protect and serve your city-workers, but the entire populace of the state. If the issue is 10% food, 90% exercise, then why not mandate bi-daily jogs for city-workers, or even start a state-wide city to city jog-a-thon to raise awareness of an unhealthy lifestyle? Tell me, how does taxing the individual in a select group of workers who happen to have a bad BMI score solve anything?

Well I still don't have a final stance on this topic, but wouldn't it be more fair when you consider free market to let insurers do what they want? If so they will quickly only insure low risk people for a base price and they will ask much higher payments from risk groups.
The only thing the government can do than is make sure that 'bad genes' cannot have you pay more for your insurance....that would be just unfair, even though it is free market thinking.
If not than the possibility is to do what you just mentioned....government banning bad food.
The other option is leave it like it is, but then we shouldnot complain about our high healthcare costs. It is a fact that obesity is unhealthy and that it more and more causes diabetes, and that for most people it can be avoided by a healthy lifestyle. Of course we should make sure there is a healthy alternative, it seems now that obesity is more common in low income households, making this a kind of class problem.


Interesting topic meat....I must say I was getting a bit annoyed by the fact that Kandrathe's last post in the other thread was standing there for 3 days as most recent post on the lounge.:)

[Taem]

In Holland where everybody is obliged to take a private insurance all these things play or will play a role.

[. . .]

Here in Sweden I see far less obese people than in the US, and we could afford it because our insurance covers everything.......but we pay 50 % tax.....
Anyway, you know I am kind of a socialist so it might be strange getting this opinion from me but the point is that I got tired of right wing and liberal people complaining about paying too much taxes...

Speaking of which: LINK

All Swiss animals are equal - but some more so than others

2 days ago

GENEVA (AFP) — Want to get rid of your goldfish? Swiss owners who have been flushing them down the toilet -- still alive -- must now find other methods since strict, new animal protection laws went into effect Monday.

Instead, a fish must be first knocked out and then killed before its body can be disposed of, the law stipulates.

The new legislation spells out in exhaustive detail how all domestic animals are to be treated, whether they be pets, farm animals or destined for scientific experiments.

Wild animals are also covered by the law if they reside in zoos or circuses.

Just like in George Orwell's satire "Animal Farm" however, some animals enjoy more "equal rights" than others.

Not only are goldfish now afforded a more "dignified" death than being dispatched round the U-bend, but it is now also forbidden for Swiss anglers to practise catch-and-release fishing or recreational catching only to throw the fish back in the water, or to use live fish as bait.

In the domestic sphere, common household pets such as budgies and hamsters can no longer be kept by themselves.

The same applies for more exotic breeds such as lamas, alpacas and yaks -- admittedly not your average pet but a common feature in zoos.

Even sheep and goats must have at least "a visual contact with their fellows," according to the new law.

Man's "best friend," the faithful hound, comes in for special treatment as dog owners will be obliged by law to take special classes on how to raise Fido properly so he is less likely to bite.

And Swiss dog-owners wishing to "customise" their pets as a fashion accessory will not be allowed to crop their tails or ears -- nor "force them to have surgery to get droopy ears."

But one cannot help but wonder if the animals would really welcome all the provisions Swiss lawmakers have generously bestowed upon them.

Pigs, for example, are often said to be happiest when rolling around in the mud -- but now they have the legal right to a shower to freshen up.

Your government not only controls personal freedoms in regards to Health, but apparently it wants to regulate how you treat animals also (i.e. fishing). I can't believe they made it illegal to fish and throw back in Switzerland. This, IMO, is an example of extreme protection, and a good example of control.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Your government not only controls personal freedoms in regards to Health, but apparently it wants to regulate how you treat animals also (i.e. fishing). I can't believe they made it illegal to fish and throw back in Switzerland. This, IMO, is an example of extreme protection, and a good example of control.

You do know that Sweden is not Switzerland? Red Green didn't;)

And neither of them is Holland where, I think, eppie is from.

The article doesn't make it clear, but does an animal have rights beyond death? For instance, is it still legal to slow cook pork? And does one have to eat steak with a knife in the left and a fork in the right?

And to think, I used to believe the Swiss were, overall, smart. Turns out, they've got the brains of the Vally Gals.

--Pete

[Taem]

I meant that article mostly as a joke, but my faux pas for not reading where eppie was from correctly - I saw the Sw.. and took it from there. I was looking for a way to fit it in somewhere without starting a new thread, while possibly sparking some interest in the subject, hopefully without being taken too seriously. Hope I brightened a few peoples moods :P; boring day at work.

[Mirajj]

The problem I have with this is that the BMI is a bunch of BS.

I went to google, picked the first BMI calculator site I got and plugged in my information. 5'7" and 255lbs. It coughed back a BMI of 39.9. The other 2 sites I chose randomly came back with the same number. That is considered "Morbidly Obese" for the curious.

And yet, my doctor has not a single worry about my weight (though I could lay off the soda...). I am a very solid mass of mostly muscle. My doctor himself figures I could probably stand to lose about 10 lbs, but he says it's hardly a worry.

I've been exercising quite a bit more lately, and actually saw a weight increase (used to be 250). But still according to Alabama's new law...I'm going to be charged $25 because of this? Or will they take my doctor's word that I'm probably in better shape than the pencil pusher charging me, despite me being "Morbidly Obese"...

[eppie]

Your government not only controls personal freedoms in regards to Health, but apparently it wants to regulate how you treat animals also (i.e. fishing). I can't believe they made it illegal to fish and throw back in Switzerland. This, IMO, is an example of extreme protection, and a good example of control.

Maybe there are a few strange examples, but a government that tells its citizen that they have to treat animals in an ethical way is a good thing.

There are too many bad things going on, ranging from the transport of horses and other farm animals (for the meat) from Holland to Italy in summer and the fact that they often had to stand for tens of hours at some border waiting etc, etc, to just plain animal abuse. And in this case there are no good laws in place yet. If you are caught having 20 dogs in a filthy cage that you didn't feed for a week.....you can do the same again after two weeks. There is not even a fine, let alone prison time involved.

People that flush their live goldfish through the toilet should just have their but kicked, bit will likely disappear anyway through normal evolution.