So that's how the world of "Logan's Run" came about! (And yes, I picked a photo from the short-lived tv program rather than the movie because the movie Jessica was a horsey-face)
Posted on 05/16/2005 1:29:17 PM PDT by wmichgrad
Companies look to save on insurance
Cannot post article or excerpt due to copyright complaint.
This is sure to open a cans of worms. While it's PC to tag smokers and the chubby I wonder if they'll also go after homosexuals?
I know of one company that dropped Weyco because of their policy. I wonder if Weyco has saved more than it has lost in business, or if the publicity has helped them...
ALL the big wigs at my place smoke.
I have been wondering about this. It's actually a legitimate argument if they are picking up the tab. If you had to pay for it yourself, you might change your habits.
As a taxpayer, if the government ever became the insurer, I would resent seeing people smoking, etc. then expecting the government (i.e. me the taxpayer) to pick up the tab for illnesses they caused to themselves.
They are just setting the stage for national health care. Oh the hardship, now the state will have to step in to ensure that less-then-olympian ready employees can find jobs. Private enterprise shouldn't be paying for that. Wasn't it great that we sold our industries to a bunch of foreign communist. Yet another free trade dump brought to you by your globalist loving traitors.
Get insurance companies to deny coverage if the homeowner had guns in the home on the pretext that "they're dangerous".
You're already paying the tab for the Medicare and Medicaid participants who haven't done squat to maintain their own health.
If the employer is coerced to pay for health treatments, then the employer should have a say in what is required.
If the employee negotiates to pay for his or her own health care 100%, then he or she should be able to do whatever he or she wants. But because he or she would be liable for the insurance, doctors visits and medicines, he or she would likely take better care so as not to require excessive treatment or expensive policies.
The employer usually pays 80%. We really can't know how much we are being overcharged because we bought into the third party payer system and it turned out that it built a huge, expensive and inattentive bureaucracy. How about this? We tried it. We don't like it. Let's buy our own health insurance. And separately we'll pay for our care.
Real insurance would cover pregnancy stays in the hospital, coverage for surgeries or other extreme life events. This would be less than the $350 a month that is being paid on your behalf right now. Assuming you are unmarried and have no children. As a separate act, we would just pay the doctors directly for the office visit.
And we won't go crazy on meds. Statins kill muscle mass. That includes your heart and brain.
People also die in surgery because the doctor has given a medication to lower blood pressure and he or she does not understand that if the pressure is too low, the patient will die. This nearly happened to my father and he stopped taking the medication (he had normal blood pressure without it) and it unfortunately did happen to a friend of his.
Other meds may be convenience meds, like Zelnorm. Unless you have a serious problem that can't be altered by diet, maybe you don't want to take it and have to risk the side effects.
It may be “PC” but I’d like to see the documentation.
I was never more than peripherally involved in health insurance rate determination but my understanding has always been that smokers didn’t incur significantly higher medical costs than their non-smoking counterparts.
Not during their working years anyway. Depending on age group, IIRC, the smoking universe costs very slightly less – or essentially the same – as the non-smokers. It was only when they hit 50+ years old when the smoking problems started (and often post-retirement, when they're covered by some other insurance). Many of them required expensive treatments that were unsuccessful and they died shortly thereafter. So overall, your generic smoker could cost you less in direct medical costs than their non-smoking counterpart with heart problems, for instance.
But like I say, I wasn’t intimately involved with health insurance. I was intimately involved in personal/specialty lines auto insurance. We knew 20 years ago (across every company I’m aware of and in every state) that THE person that represented the LEAST risk to an insurer was a married male (any age) with a SINGLE DWI.
Don’t ask me why. It was assumed that it was because the “little lady” was leaning on him and he knew he’d better watch himself. At any rate, that person represented the LEAST risk of paying a claim. Don’t expect a discount for it.
I'm sure there are plenty of other interesting little factlets like that - quite possibly concerning smokers - that the general public isn't privy to.
The government already does with medicare, medicaid and Tri-care etc.
Right, good point. I use tobacco from time to time, and pay a higher premium because of it. I'm nearly 40, single, no kids, have never been able to claim dollar one off health insurance and have paid for every dang kid's birth and sniffles at my company. The point is, we pool together and hope for the best. Companies who begin to pit one employee against another will eventually pay a price. Personally, I'd prefer a bump in pay and I'd buy my own insurance and they could all go to h*ll.
Isn't the majority of aids patients gay? Isn't their lifestyle more dangerous than smokers?
A smoker or a chubby will challenge it in court using discrimination because gays are more of a medical risks. It'll be fun to watch if that first person has the wherewithall to challenge them.
I would if it were me.
What if it had nothing to do with who pays for insurance? What if employers cited loss of productivity of those with "unhealthy lifestyles?" For example, those engaging in "extreme sports" are more likely to suffer broken bones and prone to being out of work. If a case like that were allowed to stand, one's employer could claim nearly any "vice" as unhealthy, and not fit for employment.
On average, those who live responsibly, and take reasonable measures to maintain their health, have many more productive years and many fewer years in which their care cost more than they are contributing. They are net contributors to the economy.
True and it already bothers me.
And the same goes for some damn government run healthcare system. It starts the slide down the old slippery slope. Start with smokers, then people who are overweight, people who don't exercise or eat a healthy diet, mandatory pre-natal testing and abortions for those fetuses (fetii ?) who aren't quite up to snuff, etc. Much too costly, don't ya know.
Personally, I'd prefer a bump in pay and I'd buy my own insurance and they could all go to h*ll.
I'll second that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.