Fatties Need Not Apply......CVS imposes penalties on fatties and smokers.

They are passing on the cost because they want to keep their money instead of you keeping yours.. it boils down to greed.

as for the "provide documentation evidence....." I have a sibling that had to that... it is not fun. It was not brought on by his lifestyle. Guess what.. he got the job and has good insurance.. Originally Posted by Spirit13

Partly true, and partly unadulterated horseshit...

If you went out and got your own private insurance and answered "yes" to the questions "do you smoke" or "do you have diabetes", you'd have to pay more for that insurance than me, all other things equal. Up until now, your employer has been gleefully sucking up that cost and paying the extra for you. Now they're saying, "hey, he has to pay for his own insurance if we don't give it to him, so he can damn well pay for his own fucked up health choices, we're not going to subsidize his idiocy anymore".

So. It's true that this is about them keeping their money and you not keeping your money.

It's not true that it's about greed, it's about not giving you the gift of totally free healthcare anymore and not paying for your fucked up lifestyle choices. That's not greed, that's not giving away something for nothing...in other words, good business sense...

P.S-I'm not going to break down how a group plan works and what I have to pay for employees, but the fact that more than two thirds of our population is obese means that the insurance companies no longer get a benefit from a large healthy employee group and are able to suck up the costs of the sick ones...it's the exact opposite now...hence, people get to start paying their own way...

"greed" is the new catch word these days as if it's bad for a company to want to make money. Does my employer think I'm greedy when I ask for more money? I hope not, but fuck him if he does, he can just say "no" if he wants to try that route. I smoke, drink, bang hookers and even less respectable women, ride a motorcycle which is inherently dangerous, and drive WAY too fast. If I had to pay more for those things then so be it, I wouldn't like it, but at the same time it's not unreasonable. What does it have to do with greed? Insurance companies, believe it or not, do not exist to provide you with insurance, they exist to make money. They just so happen to have to provide insurance as a way of making money. If anyone doesn't like their policies they always have the option of telling them to fuck off and declining it.

The whole greed this and greed that stuff that so many people in this country (most of whom never donate ANYTHING to anyone, EVER) love saying nowadays is a silly, ignorant crock of shit.

Exactly...

Agree with WU on this one. As insurance and medical costs becomes more costly, insurers will (and have) find ways to cut costs (more categories) and insureds (?) can decide which category they want to be in.

When I renew the my company medical insurance each year, the new pricing IS based on how many claims there were or are ongoing for cancer, diabetes, surgeries, age of males and child bearing capable females, etc. The total cost is an average of what the individual make up is. My employees don't see that. I do. Our rates drop when I hire more young healthy males.

This is why many companies institute healthy life style management programs, weight loss programs, stop smoking programs. And I have seen a few that refuse to hire anyone that uses tobacco. Period. Nothing wrong with this. Even if you don't agree with it, you are free to work elsewhere.

As far as lying about smoking to your company about insurance? Just like car insurance. They can refund your premiums (or not) and deny your claim. Lying when you buy insurance sounds foolish to me.

Well, since we're on a 'cheap bastards paying only for their own problems', lets discuss this.

My wife and I don't have any kids, why should I pay taxes to the local school district? Using the 'cheap bastard' theory I shouldn't have to pay school taxes, but I suck it up and do it because it's the right thing to do and it won't do any good fighting it.

Uncle Sam always gets a nice check from me, but why should I pay taxes for $2,500 toilet seats? I also think the F22 Raptor is overkill at this time, why should I pay taxes for something as expensive as that?

We can bitch and moan all day long about where our money goes and why, but it is what it is and won't do any good. Just vote when you can to make your voice heard.

Apples, meet oranges...

:facepalm:

With regard to my part in this debate, if you read my original post, I wasn’t necessarily complaining that my insurance went up $50 a month. Hell, I get health insurance, dental and vision for $78 dollars a month at the smokers rate, and I am acutely aware of what a bargain it is these days. But, I was glad to see that CVS is going to demand more money from their obese workers. I wish our company would as well. I have coworkers that are in their early fifties and crowding three hundred pounds. These people should get a break on their insurance while I pay more for mine? Bullshit! BTW some mentioned a glandular problem with regard to the obese? Do you know how rare that truly is? And it can be corrected with meds and diets. Fat people with no willpower use that excuse.
With regard to the diabetics I work with, every one of them is grossly overweight. I realize you can be thin and have diabetes, but I also know that if you follow your diabetic diet strictly and just do some very modest exercise, you will shed the pounds. As a matter of fact, anyone looking for a proven diet, go buy a book on Diabetic diets. I promise, you will lose weight.
Also, we are very fortunate to have another benefit where I work, our company has a cafeteria with professional chefs and feeds us very well for free. I watch my diabetic coworkers double down on the complex carbs and dessert. And almost every year they seem to miss work because their blood sugar is out of whack. I realize diabetes is not a decision, but maintaining their diet, and weight is. Again, why should I pay more while I watch these guys and gals load up their plate with chocolate pie?

With increasing health care premiums that companies have to pay the one sure way to cut costs are to lay the older worker off. Not that they lay off all the older workers but laying some off will help the bottom line.
So if you are working in a large company and there is a layoff... quietly inquire if the ones laid off had a chronic medical condition. Even if the older worker is healthy - they still save money.

Sue for age discrimination? lotsa luck, unless one finds an email that says in effect lay the old fossils off. By now laying people off has been finessed.

Lucky you that the company only wants you to pay a bit more

Heh, ask my wife if she'd let me pay for her health insurance...this should be good... Originally Posted by Wakeuр

Yeah....Never gonna happen

Apples, meet oranges...

:facepalm: Originally Posted by Wakeuр

I stand by my comments.

Actually you should be happy, here's another fattie thread where you can get back on your pedestal and talk down to people.

I'm wakeup and I hate whores and fatties, and I'm fucking invincible...........yea, you da fuckin man.

Just for kicks, and since I started this thread, can we take it another direction? And I promise not to use any inflammatory language with regard to weight. I’m being charged $50 more a month for health insurance for my tobacco use. I’ll leave diabetics out of the discussion, but should my morbidly obese coworkers not have to pay an additional $600 per year as the smokers do? In all fairness, I was offered free smoking cessation counseling, medication and 90 days to give up the tobacco. I declined the offer. I think the morbidly obese should be offered the same to show that they are making strides to reduce their weight. If they meet certain goals and keep maintain their weight at a healthy level, they should be given the reduced costs as well. Does any of the above seem unfair?

A holes like you suck too.

Like WU

Hahahahahahahahahaha! Thanks for the clarification, genius.

P.S.-There's a little button labeled "Edit" so you don't have to make another post...

P.P.S.-If you're fat, stand up and say it proudly!

Just for kicks, and since I started this thread, can we take it another direction? And I promise not to use any inflammatory language with regard to weight. I’m being charged $50 more a month for health insurance for my tobacco use. I’ll leave diabetics out of the discussion, but should my morbidly obese coworkers not have to pay an additional $600 per year as the smokers do? In all fairness, I was offered free smoking cessation counseling, medication and 90 days to give up the tobacco. I declined the offer. I think the morbidly obese should be offered the same to show that they are making strides to reduce their weight. If they meet certain goals and keep maintain their weight at a healthy level, they should be given the reduced costs as well. Does any of the above seem unfair? Originally Posted by GymRat

I have no problems debating things in this manner. All of us should be above getting into the immature "fatty fatty two by four, can't fit through the bathroom door". We should all be above this.

First of all you have to legally define 'obese'. What is obese. >300 pounds? It's hard to legally define obese without visiting a doctor. Some guy like yourself may see 280 as obese while someone else states the >300 pounds is obese. That football player who is 6'6" and ripped at 300 pounds isn't obese while some 5'10" dude is obese at 260 pounds.

I know Southwest airlines has a double fee for a person who is spilling over from one seat to another.

A buddy of mine told me that a company he contracted for had a 280 pound weight limit, not because of health, but because some of the bucket trucks had a 300 pound weight limit, which was 280 for the man and 20 pounds for tools and material. After they got rid of the obsolete bucket trucks and the limits were around 350 pounds, they upped the weight limit to 310 pounds. He told me that they weighed everybody who's job classification could put them in a bucket. Even guys who weighed <150 got weighed because they legally had to weigh everybody.

What I'm trying to say is that when you legally penalize someone you must be careful. If you smoke a pack every two weeks, I don't feel you should be categorized that same as someone who smokes a pack a day. Like the weight scenario I described above, where do you draw the line?

Also if you penalize someone for weighing 300 pounds, when they drop down to 250, shouldn't the penalty be revoked? If you're penalized for being a smoker, and you quit and bring in some clear chest x rays and good bloodwork, shouldn't you be rewarded or at least have the penalty dropped?

As I've mentioned before, I've lost around 40 pounds over the past few months, and I can guarantee anybody beyond a shadow of a doubt that the bloodwork before the weight loss was terrible, while the bloodwork after the weight loss was as normal as could be, and was the best blood results I've had in the past 4 years. This weight loss was nothing but portion control, never drinking either cokes or diet cokes, and some walking.

There's just a lot to think about. Legalities should be an absolute, not a variable.