2009.10.07
Obesity and health care
There was an interesting piece on NPR's Morning Edition today about steps the grocery chain Safeway has taken with its health insurance. CEO Steve Burd explained that it charges obese employees -- with a BMI greater than 30 -- higher premiums to offset the greater medical expenses they will accumulate on average. It's the same approach many companies take with smokers who on average also incur higher medical expenses.
The Safeway program does not just apply a stick, though. The company also offers incentives to obese employees who lose weight.
Burd said the program has kept its health care costs flat over five years thanks to the program. He also argues that if national health care reform incorporated something similar, it could go a long way to reining in medical expenses in America. The Centers for Disease Control calculated that in 2008 obesity-related problems cost the nation about $147 billion, and an obese person every year incurs $1,4000 more in medical bills compared to someone with a healthy weight.
Any serious conversation about health care reform cannot ignore these sorts of expenses.
Some governments are not waiting for the federal government. North Carolina will start charging its state obese and smoker employees higher premiums. Maybe that's something the Virginia General Assembly should look into when it convenes next year.
RSS feed 
Good for them.
You want to lead an unhealthy lifestyle? You should pay for it.
Comment by Patrick — October 7, 2009 @ 6:54 pm
There's no way Democrats will ask poor people to give up their cigarettes in exchange for free health care, EVER. You think taking away people's guns fires some people up, try taking away poor people's smokes.
Lipping concern about the health of poor people is one thing, but risk political power over it? No way.
Comment by Suzie — October 7, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
I can see this opening the door for all sorts of arguments, and one reason I don't believe government should be administering health care.
What other unhealthy behaviors will be argued?
Comment by Ed S. — October 7, 2009 @ 8:27 pm
I wonder what would happen if they charged higher premiums to their gay employees. Same thing.
Comment by Henry — October 7, 2009 @ 10:27 pm
Ed S. is right. The LEFT loves rules, as it always advocates governing to the lowest common denominator. Because some people don't wish or won't wear a seatbelt, there must be a law mandating seatbelt use (and a secondary offense statute is not stringent enough). Because some people don't wish, want or can purchase health insurance, there must be a law mandating health insurance purchases by everyone. And please do not argue that you don't want it, or can easily afford to pay out of pocket. No, no, no. You will do as you are told.
Government regulation of lifestyle decisions are merely the natural outgrowth of liberal nannyism. Smoking is unhealthy? It is not enough that a liberal won't smoke, NO ONE can smoke. Overweight? Report for exercise class!
The Left loves order and abhors freedom. Just like the Nazis, the Communists, and modern day Democrats.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 8, 2009 @ 6:57 am
Yeah..it does open that can of worms--LIFESTYLE.
1) Do you play recreational sports or bicycle?
2) Do you have more than one "partner" in any given year?
3) Do you consume more than 5 alcoholic beverages in any given week?
Do we stop there?? How about genetics?
Anyone in your immediate family have a history of cancer, heart disease,
osteoperosis?
Please see the lady at the window on your way out.
Comment by BUD — October 8, 2009 @ 6:57 am
Henry? Are you suggesting that homosexual sodomy is anything less than glorious, wonderfully fulfilling and healthy? No health care for you!
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 8, 2009 @ 6:58 am
Why not charge more based on ability to pay? Isn't class envy at the heart of most BH0 domestic legislation?
Comment by Bob H — October 8, 2009 @ 7:38 am
@GFK #5, This isn't about rules, GFK; it's about personal responsibility. I'd have thought, if I'd given it any, that you and your Rayndy mind would have been all over this. If people are going to make the poor lifestyle decisions that lead to obesity, if they are not going to exercise and are going to eat food that is bad for them, why should other health insurance customers subsidize them.
Part of the entire health care debate is reining in medical costs that are growing at an unsustainable rate. Getting people to live healthier is one way to do that.
And besides, as noted in the original post, there aren't any rules here. No one is required to do anything. If you are obese and choose not to do anything about it, that remains your choice. You just have to pay more for that choice. If you make improvements, you are rewarded.
Comment by C. Trejbal — October 8, 2009 @ 8:21 am
Well wait just a minute Christian. Part of the whole health care mantra pushed by the Left is that health insurance companies should not be able to reject someone for preexisting conditions, or require them to pay more for coverage. And I most certainly have not heard any body advocate charging someone more for health insurance based upon their sexual behavior; and there is much sexual behavior that leads to horrible and incurable diseases.
So which is it? You can charge someone more for health insurance if they eat at the drive thru and smoke camels, but not if they have other problems? Or if they engage in other behaviors?
And is not this the real problem with President obama's plan? The cry will always be that if the government pays for it, it ought to be able to charge more for things of which it disapproves. It all leads to a loss of freedom, which would NOT occur if the government simply stayed out of the whole mess.
Admit it. You love "Atlas Shrugged".
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 8, 2009 @ 8:59 am
#10 Great Book - finished it about a month ago.
I agree with GFK - It is about rules. I have been a smoker for close to 20 years. But this year made the decision for my health (first of all) and (secondly) because of all the rules the government seems to be making in regards to those who smoke ie. health care premiums, non smoking in restaurants & bars, no smoking eventually in your own domain, car or elswhere? So I decided I would take myself and my addiction out of the equation.
I am glad to say it has been a month this coming Sunday without a cigarette and honestly it hasn't been as hard as I thought. And yes I know it is a long road ahead - but I AM feeling healthier.
Comment by Walker — October 8, 2009 @ 9:29 am
Congrats Walker, I was a 2 pack a day smoker for over 10 years and now have been without one for about 5 years.
I remember quitting cold turkey and after 4 days my urges were about 90% gone! Didnt need the patches or gum or anything. After those 4 days, the mere thought of a cigarette would make me dry-heave LOL.
Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — October 8, 2009 @ 9:43 am
Not to mention,
What if obesity isn't a choice? I mean RTEB is already on record that homosexuality isn't a choice, how now can obesity be a choice? Some people's body's burn calories better than others. Take that huge baby that was born in Indonesia (what was it, 20 ponds or more?), chances are that is going to be one BIG person. Is that by choice?
Slippery slope. Whatever happened to "freedom" in this country?
Comment by Bob H — October 8, 2009 @ 10:43 am
#12 - I have had the urges, mostly situational. I hope I can get to the same point you are and further.
Comment by Walker — October 8, 2009 @ 12:10 pm
Hang in there, Walker. The urges will pass. You will be amazed at how well you will be breathing in another week or so and will enjoy the odors and tastes of ordinary things that were dulled by smoking.
When I quit, cold turkey as well, I found a brisk, quick walk with deep breathing fought off those initial urges.
Comment by Luanne T. — October 8, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
11 years free of tobacco addiction for me on 10/01/09 !! yahoo ...YOU CAN DO IT WALKER.
I tried it with the step down type patches and they worked just fine.
Comment by pammala — October 8, 2009 @ 2:49 pm