for the artophiles (i made that one up): 5-0! hit the deck, it's the carabinieri!
so kathryn and i are doing the self magazine challenge which involves a daily poll. yesterday, as i clicked in to lamely record my pre-dawn jaunt with the mollster, i noted the question of the day: should employees who are obese or smokers be required to pay more for their health insurance? the results were heavily (no pun intended) slanted with about 82% of the respondents saying yes, they should be required to cough it up (this bad pun ALSO unintended, sorry). not sure how i honestly feel about the subject, but all of you ladies out there hopped up on fitness endorphins are sure snappy with that judgment-passing (on day THREE of your diets, sisters - how many of you hit the ice cream hard last night?).
so you're obese. so you're dragging on the butts. countless studies show that you're without question hacking away at the quality of your health. well, what about the workaholics in the crowd? stress level city, friends. bad for you all around, countless more studies have proven. so if the same theory applies, and your employees are pulling down ten to twelve hour days for you, should they also be required to fund more of their own insurance?
if you'll recall, i spent a few weeks on crutches recently and hated every second of it. my arms were black and blue, my back was sore, and my other joints were stinging from repeated, awkward hobbling. however, my recovery time would've been a LOT shorter if i hadn't had to go to work. the extra stress of three weeks on crutches probably contributed to the several follow up appointments that occured DURING work time. thus, my being at work resulted in having to take more time off, (because when i wasn't working, rest assured, i was parked on my couch). sooo. for being a diligent employee and working even though i knew i was only hurting myself more, do i owe the company more for my health insurance? i think not.
certainly, obesity and smoking aren't really contributing to the company in any way, but i think there's a huge grey area surrounding who should and shouldn't be stepping it up on insurance rates, and it's probably best to just not go there, particularly when you're feeling all righteous from your ten minute jogs, girls. snap!
#663 When your roommate goes away for the weekend
15 hours ago
4 comments:
Hey you're treading on my turf here. :) Welcome to health & productivity management and the lovely debates that crash around MY workplace all day. I love hearing the thoughts from someone who isn't up to theirs in this all day.
Back for more. Really, the better alternative than punishing the unhealthy workers, is incentivizing the healthier workers. Lowering the health care premiums for those non-smokers, for those who maintain a healthy BMI, those who participate in a stress mgmt course, etc is one way to achieve the same point but using the carrot instead of the stick. Support the employees who are doing the right thing, and promote the type of environment and program that will shift more of those employees who are at higher risk back down the continuum into lower risk categories. Everyone wins.
Okay, I'll stop now, I promise.
this is actually what i was hoping for - someone who's FAR more informed to provide some insight. i certainly spewed all over your PR crossover, right? fire away!! i want to know just in case i choose to run a successful business full of lean-protein and whole grain-consuming super athletes some day. :)
i've had several debates myself with people over this issue. without venturing into the vast gray area of details, i tend to employ these principles as a vantage point:
*current health care is problem b/c it's crazy expensive and largely inaccessible to many people
*seems like a two-front approach could be effective at lowering the cost of health care and encouraging more healthy living: 1) gov-subsidized (or even free) health care for ailments that are accidental or largely unrelated to lifestyle decisions, and 2) financial incentives (ie lower health care costs) for people making healthy lifestyle decisions (not smoking, healthy BMI, etc.)
*left-of-center people will like it because the government would take a collective approach to lowering the cost of health care for everyone
*right-of-center people will like it because it would inject more accountability into the equation, and wouldn't be an all-out gov't takeover of health care.
just a few thoughts on a complicated and nuanced issue.
Post a Comment