Skyrocketing Health Costs Pit Worker Against Worker

Wall Street Journal ^ | June 17, 2003 | TIMOTHY AEPPEL

[SamAdams76]

ROCKFORD, Ill. -- David Jackson points toward a co-worker driving a bright yellow forklift.

"Just look at that guy, his belly's almost touching the steering wheel," says the 58-year-old machine operator. "It's gross."

The forklift driver, Eugene Black, admits he's overweight. "I know my weight will get me in trouble," says Mr. Black, also 58, who is 6 feet tall and weighs about 340 pounds. He already has trouble walking because of pain in his ankles aggravated by his weight. He is a borderline diabetic and takes five prescription drugs, including one to control cholesterol.

[VermiciousKnid]

I would be delighted to compare my health care costs to those of my non-smoking but hypochondriac friends who are so delicate that they seem unable to survive without bags full of prescription medicines and dozens of doctor's visits per year.

Meanwhile, little old "unhealthy" me breezes through life with little more than the occasional cold (no doctor's visit required). BTW, I'm not all that unhealthy -- I'm a 6-foot-tall woman, 155 pounds, fit and trim & ready to rock and roll. I drink only moderately, do NO illegal drugs, rarely take prescription medicines of any kind, and have a normal BP of 100/70. My parents and all of my aunts and uncles are living (well into their 70s and 80s), and three of my grandparents passed away at no less than 85. Nana is still living (and smoking) at the ripe old age of 101. But Heavens to Betsy, I smoke, so of course that must mean I'm on death's doorstep and I should pay, pay, PAY. Right?

If we paid premiums based on ACTUAL frequency of use rather than use that MAY occur, I'd go for it in a second. Meanwhile, I think we can expect more of this kind of behavior: the smokers vs. the non-smokers, the obese vs. the fit, the active vs. the inactive, those who engage in "risky" behavior vs. those who do not, etc.

Eventually, EVERYBODY'S ox is gunna get gored. If it wasn't so scary, It would be hilarious.

Regards,

[VermiciousKnid]

There's a very easy solution to this and would keep employees out of each other's lives and that's to just give each employee a voucher for an equal amount and let the employees go out into the free market and buy their own insurance plans. If all companies did that, people would work a lot harder to keep themselves healthy and everyone's health costs would come down in a hurry

I like your plan.

Regards,

[templar]

I'd put good money on him indeed having a choice.

You'd probably win. Diabetes is not the only choice we make as adults. D*mn near every health problem we have is a result of the way we treat ourselves or don't treat ourelves. Good, bad, or mediocre health are mostly the direct result of our behavioral choices. (for those who disagree, particulary 50+ ones, answer these two questions for yourself. 1: What have I eaten this week?
2: How many hours of strenuous excercise have I engaged in this week? (hint: it ought to be at least 20)).

[GovernmentShrinker]

Obesity related problems are a big part of it

An AP article today mentioned a recent study which found that fully 50% of U.S. health care costs are directly related to obesity. Add in all the other self-inflicted health problems, and obviously much more than half of all medical costs are for self-inflicted ailments. The solution is to allow insurance companies and employers to exclude obese workers and smokers and anyone else with an easily identifiable self-inflicted health-destroying practice. Not only would health insurance suddenly get a lot cheaper, but a lot of those excluded people would suddenly find the motivation to clean up their act and get healthier. Huge savings and huge improvements in health -- who could be against it?

[cwb]

This is a good story because it has some interesting peripheral issues that need to be addressed. One of the reasons for the attack on tobacco users was because they were told their habit led to the rising costs of healthcare. As this article points out, the same can be said for overweight people, whose habit can also lead to rising healthcare costs. While it seems to be fashionable to now attack people's lifestyles under the guise of healthcare costs, were does it end? I'll tell you were it ends: The moment they go after the homosexual community and their lifestyle for the proliferation of the AIDS virus...and the associated healthcare costs it takes to treat that disease.

If we are going to be honest about unhealthy lifestyles and their associated costs to healthcare (and the rest of us), then the control of the AIDS virus should be a high priority since the cost to treat this is astronomical. But if anyone were to suggest that homosexuals control their "habits" they'd immediately be attacked as homophobes. Just like homosexuals don't like to be told how destructive their lifstyles are, why should it be any different for anyone else? Not to mention that this new concern for people's health has some disturbing trends from Germany of old. It was there that eugenics gained a lot of popular support in the elusive search for the superior race...and much of that thought found a home here with Margaret Singer and her various organizations. What will happen today with those individuals who decide not to adhere to the government's new health regiminet? Will they become outcasts, frowned upon as an inferior group? This is were witch-hunts begin. Just a different point of view.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Nobody should be trying to force anyone to give up their unhealthy habits -- this is free country. But we should put an absolute stop to the practice of forcing people who don't engage in unhealthy habits to fork over their hard-earned money to the smokers and overeaters and practitioners of careless promiscuity. Insurance is supposed to spread the risk of unforeseeable, uncontrollable events, but various laws regulating both insurance and employment have completely up-ended the concept of insurance, and turned it into a socialist wealth-transfer program.

[johnboy]

i recall working years ago with a gentleman in, oh, his sixties, i guess. he had a sign on the wall of his office which read: "if i'd ever known i was going to get this old, i would have taken better care of myself when i was younger." (or words to that effect.)

[johnboy]

a gentle reminder: margaret sanger predated nazi germany. by several decades.

[cwb]

Sorry...I didn't know who came first. I was reading about how she went underground and resurfaced in the 1950's. She' seems to have been around a while.

[cwb]

"we should put an absolute stop to the practice of forcing people who don't engage in unhealthy habits to fork over their hard-earned money to the smokers and overeaters and practitioners of careless promiscuity."

I absolutely agree. Unfortunately, there's a lot more going on than what you suggest. Between the lawsuits against fast-foods/tobacco and the covert crimilization (fines) of certain activites, it's more than just a healthcare issue.

[Willie Green]

Boy, aren't unions and socialized medicine fun.

The article didn't indicate whether or not these workers belonged to labor unions.

Besides, this isn't at all about socialized medicine, it's about the private sector health insurance.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[hunter112]

Why should anyone be surprised about this? Health insurance companies are just doing what auto insurance companies have been doing for many decades. Hell, even if you don't have a lot of tickets and/or accidents, you can be charged more just because you're in the wrong demographic. I'd like to see them start charging Asian drivers for their rate of accidents, and then the fit would hit the shan!

Ok, I'll be glad to pay fifty more bucks a month for being large (I'm 240 lbs, 5' 9"), the money I save from declining prices on steak will more than make up for it. Oh, and I don't see a doctor any more than once every 2-3 years, and only for minor matters (ear ache, for instance).

[Kevin Curry]

Drug and alcohol abuse are two HUGELY expensive habits that other people get mugged to pay for.

But when someone else is paying for your drug and alcohol indulgence, what motivation do you have to quit? Absolutely none. On the contrary, you have an incentive to keep on keepin' on.

[RichardW]

I hate to say this but this is going to require a government mandated solution. NO, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. i'm talking about beating some common sense into a lot of stubborn heads and getting this working efficiently. There is far too much time wasted in the paper shuffling, over prescribing, ambulance chasing and the like. What we need is a federal program mandating a consortium of insurance companies and a central claims process that is greatly simplified.

All of this nonsense and wasted discussion about who is to blame is silly and non-productive. You can either pay for it now or pay for it later because, dear friends, the current system is unsustainable. Who says so? Well, "El Rushbo" said the very same thing on his radio program. So, I think I am in rather good company.

[Willie Green]

Here's socialized medicine:

Bush's Medicare Plan is Hillary Clinton's Triumph
THE GOP'S MEDICARE SURRENDER - The Wall Street Journal

Of course, the factory workers discussed on this thread will have to pay for Bush's Socialist Mediscam giveaways with their taxes.
And on top of that, Dubya's gonna demolish their employer, their jobs and their benefits with "free trade" imports.

[NestorMakhno]

Gotta agree with ya on this one, though we've had our spats in the past. ;-D

For good or ill, the present social system of the USA is based on private health care and insurance. But there needs to be some legal restructuring here (if "government regulation" is too odious a term for some.)

Stop the hospitals and physicians from ripping off the system, get the HMOs and everyone out from between the doctor and his patient except as necessary by law.

Sound fair enough?

[lewislynn]

It's interesting. The same "conservatives" who go on about taxes and other government regulations being passed on to the consumer in higher prices and contributing to companies moving offshore etc. can't seem to make that same connection to THEIR own employee benefits they receive.

[Old Professer]

IS THIS A FOR-REAL ARTICLE?