Does the Senate bills actually increase your chances of losing coverage?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Senate proposals put premium on healthy living

Bills could put workers under pressure to lose weight, stop smoking

Get in shape or pay a price.

That's a message more Americans could hear if the health care reform bills passed by the Senate Finance and Health committees become law.

By more than doubling the maximum rewards and penalties that companies can apply to employees who flunk medical evaluations, the bills could put workers under intense financial pressure to lose weight, stop smoking or even lower their cholesterol.

The initiative, largely eclipsed in the health care debate, builds on a trend that is already in play among some corporations and that more workers will see in the packages they bring home during this month's open enrollment. Some employers offer lower premiums to people who complete personal health assessments; others offer only limited benefit packages to smokers.

The current legislative effort takes the trend a step further. It is backed by major employer groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. It is opposed by labor unions and groups devoted to combating serious illnesses, such as the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, and the American Diabetes Association.

A colossal loophole?

President Obama and members of Congress have declared that they are trying to create a system in which no one can be denied coverage or charged higher premiums based on their health status. The health insurance lobby has said it shares that goal. However, so-called wellness incentives could introduce a colossal loophole. In effect, they would permit insurers and employers to make coverage less affordable for people exhibiting risk factors for problems like diabetes, heart disease and stroke.

"Everybody said that we're going to be ending discrimination based on preexisting conditions. But this is in effect discrimination again based on preexisting conditions," said Ann Kempski of the Service Employees International Union.

The legislation would make exceptions for people who have medical reasons for not meeting targets.

Supporters say economic incentives can prompt workers to make healthier choices, thereby reducing medical expenses. The aim is to "focus on wellness and prevention rather than just disease and treatment," said Business Roundtable president John J. Castellani.

BeniComp Group, an Indiana company that manages incentives for employers, says on its Web site that the programs can save employers money in a variety of ways. Medical screenings will catch problems early. Employers will shift costs to others. Some employees will "choose other health care options."

Douglas J. Short, BeniComp's chief executive, said the incentives he uses focus on outcomes, not conditions.

"I can't give you an incentive based on being a diabetic or not being a diabetic, but whether you're managing your blood glucose level — I can give you an incentive based on that," Short said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33336289/ns/po...ashington_post/

Edited October 17, 2009 by Lone Ranger

[George&Hazel 1]

Why should people that take care of them self be forced to pay for those that that make poor lifestyle choices?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This should have broad support among the Republicans who tout personal responsibility so much. Let's see...

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Why should people that take care of them self be forced to pay for those that that make poor lifestyle choices?

If they die off sooner, more for the rest of us.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Poll Here

[George&Hazel 1]

This should have broad support among the Republicans who tout personal responsibility so much. Let's see...

Thats something they say. Don't think they actually believe it though....... Kind of like a Glenn Beck tear.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This should have broad support among the Republicans who tout personal responsibility so much. Let's see...

Thats something they say. Don't think they actually believe it though........

I know and it's these moments where it really shows.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

This should have broad support among the Republicans who tout personal responsibility so much. Let's see...

Thats something they say. Don't think they actually believe it though........

I know and it's these moments where it really shows.

Yeah! Let's bait the teabaggers, and see if they bite!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This should have broad support among the Republicans who tout personal responsibility so much. Let's see...

Thats something they say. Don't think they actually believe it though........

I know and it's these moments where it really shows.

Yeah! Let's bait the teabaggers, and see if they bite!

Baiting? I'm just pointing out an observation.

[bluesgorilla 2]

Why should people that take care of them self be forced to pay for those that that make poor lifestyle choices?

By the same token, if you are an active person and blow out your elbow or shoulder while playing tennis, why should others bear the cost of your decision to play tennis?

Getting the govt. involved in health care just extends the tyranny of the Federal government. Giving the govt. a financial stake in what we eat and how we chose to spend our leisure time and take care of our bodies is a huge invasion of my privacy and an infringement on my human rights.

Collectivism leads to tyranny.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Why should people that take care of them self be forced to pay for those that that make poor lifestyle choices?

By the same token, if you are an active person and blow out your elbow or shoulder while playing tennis, why should others bear the cost of your decision to play tennis?

Getting the govt. your employer involved in health care just extends the tyranny of the Federal government employers. Giving the govt. employer a financial stake in what we eat and how we chose to spend our leisure time and take care of our bodies is a huge invasion of my privacy and an infringement on my human rights.

Yup. The health GESTAPO is already upon us. nly it's not the government that established it. Private enterprise is doing it and you have the choice to either subscribe or pay up.

I agree on that first paragraph of yous, though. If we're going to scrutinize behaviors that affect our health (which we already do), then high risk sports and leisure activities should be scrutinized just as much as other high risk behaviors.