![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
I was reading in the Wall Street Journal today that Wal-Mart had an internal memo proposing that the retailer cut its health-care costs by discouraging unhealthy people from applying for jobs. For example, they can state that all cashiers are required to perform cart gathering or other physical responsibilities to discourage the infirm from applying. Currently this is not against the law, but definitely in a gray area. The law prohibits not hiring workers because of disabilities, age, or race. But whether employers can screen out other groups, like the obese, remains to be seen.
Across America, health-care costs are rising. Most of a company’s health-care costs can be accounted to a minority of employees. For example, WellPoint Inc., a health care company, state that of its 29 million customers, 7% account for 63% of the company’s medical costs.
In many ways, this makes sense. You wouldn’t want to give a dying person life insurance the same way you wouldn’t want to give health insurance to someone who was very unhealthy. The article mentioned that General Mills imposes a $20 surcharge each month on the health benefits of smokers and Union Pacific weeds out potential high-cost workers by not hiring smokers in states were it’s legal to do so. The memo goes beyond that by tackling the problem during the hiring process.
If employers are allowed in some states to raise cost of health benefits for smokers, should they also be allowed to raise cost for the elderly and obese? In all three groups there is substantial data proving that these groups require more health benefits.
October 27 2005, 14:16:11 UTC 6 years ago
no one at my job except my friend Kellyn knows about my diabetes. and i have no intention of telling anyone. everyone always thinks that i am going to break or something horrible is going to happen. its just not ok.
October 27 2005, 15:21:27 UTC 6 years ago
I believe in some cases individuals are required to tell employers they have diabetes, although in the majority you don’t have to. The anti-discrimination laws only provide protection from discrimination if the employer knows about the disability.
Your health insurance rates are a lot higher because in general people with diabetes require more medical attention than the rest of the population. I’m sorry it costs so much but that’s just a reality of life since rates are based on statistics. :(
October 27 2005, 17:40:49 UTC 6 years ago
Why??
It's so blatantly simple to get healthcare for everyone we ought to just go ahead and do it. There's no reason diabetes or pre-existing conditions, or being old or obese or anything else ought to be a reason for people not to be able to get health care.October 27 2005, 18:32:37 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Why??
Did you say blatantly simple? I don’t understand how you can even make such a statement. Are you familiar at all with Canada’s health care system? Sure, everyone has free healthcare, but guess what, there are very long waits to see specialists, get diagnostic tests or undergo elective surgery. People can wait as long as 3 years in pain for a knee or hip surgery. The average time a patient waited between referral from a general practitioner to treatment in 2002 in Ontario was 14 weeks. People have died waiting for a procedure.Doctors have been leaving Canada and there has been a drop in medical school graduates over the past few years to make matters worse.
Oh yeah, and then it is against Canadian law to opt out of the health-care system and pay for your own surgery. Pretty much you have no choice but to wait in a long line.
Health care can have a zero price to the user, but it doesn’t have a zero cost. The problem with a good service having a zero price is that demand will exceed supply. When price isn’t allowed to make demand equal supply, other things must occur. One of these ways it by queing the demand, which is making people wait. Another way is to have a person as a medical czar, who determines who is eligible for what procedures.
I’m sorry but if that is the price of health-care for everyone, I don’t want to be a part of it. I don’t believe that health-care service is a human right regardless of ability to pay and that it should be free.
In fact, I don’t want my tax dollars (tax bracket of 28%) being spent on taking care of a smoker who is in a hospital dying due to smoking. Why should my tax dollars be spent on the health care of an obese person who chose his/her unhealthy lifestyle?
Don’t get me wrong now. I’d like to see people with diabetes receiving care because they had no choice. Born with a heart problem you should be able to receive surgery.
I have an issue with people who engage in activities that put themselves in danger, not with people who have no choice.
Anonymous
October 30 2005, 09:55:35 UTC 6 years ago
Road paved with good intentions
i concur that it seems very attractive to discriminate health care based upon lifestyle choices. However, there are drawbacks:(a) Health/Diet Fads: There is a new "it" diet every year, and to make a braod categorization these diets work on short term benefits, but are questionable in the long term.
(b) Stress: Some new studies indicate high levels of stress are a larger factor than diet or exercise in cancer and heart disease. These results are downplayed, as those individuals in high stress jobs could demand helath related bonus compensation.
(c) New Scientific Studies: See (b) above. There are always new studies out which indicate new factors. However, it takes time for these findings to be confirmed under scientific review and then further time for these findings to be placed into a format that is suitable for the common man's understanding. Furthermore, due to academic infighting some of these studies never reach general acceptance. (Not to mention that >60% of drug and health research is now privately funded -- research findings on privately funded drugs tend to find favorable results 5.8x more often than publicly funded research)
(d) Genetic pre-disposition: see Gattaca. If lifestyle choices are given different treatment under the law it creates precedents to allow for other genetic "choices" to be affected by health care companies.
(e) Legislating death:
(a) Health/Diet Fads: There is a new "it" diet every year, and to make a braod categorization these diets work on short term benefits, but are questionable in the long term.
(b) Stress: Some new studies indicate high levels of stress are a larger factor than diet or exercise in cancer and heart disease. These results are downplayed, as those individuals in high stress jobs could demand helath related bonus compensation.
(c) New Scientific Studies: See (b) above. There are always new studies out which indicate new factors. However, it takes time for these findings to be confirmed under scientific review and then further time for these findings to be placed into a format that is suitable for the common man's understanding. Furthermore, due to academic infighting some of these studies never reach general acceptance. (Not to mention that >60% of drug and health research is now privately funded -- research findings on privately funded drugs tend to find favorable results 5.8x more often than publicly funded research)
(d) Genetic pre-disposition: see Gattaca. If lifestyle choices are given different treatment under the law it creates precedents to allow for other genetic "choices" to be affected by health care companies.
(e) Legislating death: <slightly off-topic, but in response to the notion that nationalized health care has more merit> see Terry Schiavo. Do we really want government statutes dictating the level of care that an individual receive? My great-grandmother lived to be 109. At 98 she received a new hip -- would a national health care endorse or discourage this. She continued to live on her own at home for 4 more years.
In summary, while I like the idea of saving a few percent on health care costs, I'm not sure that excluding folks based upon a few characteristics is the right approach.
this is a terribly complicated issue...