Staff Writer
At least one southern state is not taking their ranking at the top of the country's heaviest states list lying down (or sitting down for that matter). Alabama, which ranked second in a national obesity survey, is making overweight state workers pay -- literally.Alabama is giving its employees roughly a year to start getting in shape or state employees will be charged $25 a month for insurance that would otherwise be free. The plan was approved recently by the State Employees' Insurance Board.
State workers have until January 2010 to get free health screenings. If a problem like high blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes or obesity is discovered, then they will have a year to join a wellness program, see a doctor at no cost or improve their health on their own to keep the free insurance. However, if at a follow-up screening they have made no progress, they will lose the free insurance starting January 2011.
Alabama already charges those of its 37,527 state employees who smoke an insurance premium -- and has seen some success in reducing those numbers -- but now focuses its efforts on one of the South's largest problems: obesity risk. Some states offer benefits for healthy living, but Alabama is the first state to punish those not trying to slim down. This measure is not completely new. The Japanese recently introduced waistline restrictions that created quite a controversy.
It's a divisive issue. Members of the insurance board see fighting obesity trends as a way to get individuals to become more aware of their health. While some employees it affects see it as "Big Brotherish."
"I think it’s helpful that the state is taking notice of the obesity problem but do have some reservations on the overall approach," says eDiets Director of Nutrition Services Pamela Ofstein. "If the obesity problem improves, yes that will be beneficial to the state and employee – but what is the mental and physical cost to the employee?"
Nearly one-third of Alabamians are obese ranking only behind the heaviest state, Mississippi, so there is much room for improvement, but is penalizing people who aren't improving their health going to work?
"It may work for some but not for many, especially those who have serious, chronic diseases and have been battling weight and health issues for a long period of time," Ofstein warns. "As a health professional, we know that it takes baby steps to change behaviors and one year may not be enough time."
The obesity charge will apply to those with a body mass index of 35 or higher that do not make progress between screenings. The amount of progress necessary to avoid the charge has not been determined, but most could circumvent the cost by losing weight.
The State Insurance Board estimates it will spend $1.6 million next year on screenings and wellness programs, but will save substantially in the long term. The obesity problem faces many states, but they all handle it differently. While some states like Ohio offer payouts for health screenings and healthy behaviors, others have even taken the fight to fast food purveyors.
The war on obesity is being waged on a state level, as well as a local level. In Southern Los Angeles, for example, the city council has voted to halt the building of new fast food franchises, while New York City requires some chain restaurants to post calories on menus. While there is no quick fix, Ofstein believes this may be the right way to address the issue.
"Provide education for state employees (employees in general) and help teach them how to live healthier," suggests Ofstein. "I think it is a good idea to promote good health and provide the resource and education for the employees, not simply charge them."
If you want some help learning how to live healthier on your own, you can start by taking a health profile to learn how you can best lose weight. Click here to chat live online or call 866-756-0510 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday. Or, you can email us ANYTIME at nutritionnews@ediets.com.
It's obvious that something must be done to curb the exponentiallygrowing obesity epidemic, however it's unclear what is the best way to address it. Should state and local governments be stepping in to help their citizens maintain healthy weights? Are punishment or reward policies more effective? Weigh in on this heavy topic by commenting below.
If you like this story, try reading:
-- 2030: The End of the World as We Know It
-- Government Ban on Fast Food?
-- Measuring Matters: Japanese Pass Waist Restrictions
Labels: fattest states, health insurance, obesity epidemic, obesity insurance
Comment: September 3, 2008 10:07 PM - 
ronnakermit said...
I think this is a great idea!!!! Not only for state workers, but for people nationwide. Think about the cost of our healthcare, not only the dollar amount, but it would be better for these people who could live richer, fuller lives.
Comment: September 3, 2008 10:16 PM - 
said...
Perhaps, if more insurance plans offered to pay for bariatric surgery, some severely obese people would have more options.
Comment: September 3, 2008 11:00 PM - said...
That is really rude of them...sounds kind of like discrimination...what's next charging people with skin cancer because they don't stay out of the sun...why not charge people who smoke because they may get lung cancer....or people who drink alchol because they might have liver disease....does their insurance even pay for cost of nutritional counciling (most don't), or do they pay for health club memberships so the people can be healthier (most don't)...do they think that people want to be over weight? Do they think penalizing them is going to make them work harder at losing weight? You can't shame some one into dieting, it is just going to make them feel worse about themselves.
Comment: September 3, 2008 11:05 PM - said...
what's next? why stop at weight issues? This is a dangerous precedent in terms of confidentiality.
Comment: September 3, 2008 11:14 PM - Pat said...
I am surprised that the Alabama state taxpayers have not complained about footing 100% of employee health benefits. What incentive does an employee have to acquire good health or maintain their health if the healthcare is entirely free? In Alabamas case I don't see where state employees have much of a case to complain about a "fat tax" of $25. On a pure policy level I believe that positive incentives are better than negative incentives. However, it is human nature to take responsibility for ones actions & lifestyles when it hits the wallet.
Comment: September 3, 2008 11:16 PM - said...
My siblings and I had already been discussing what we think about this approach, and I think it's completely out of line to punish an employee because their physical attributes are in some way unacceptable to the state. Now if they instead chose to reward those same people and maybe even provided some work-out equipment that could be used on a lunch period or break, that would be fabulous. The last time I checked, in this country it's unacceptable and against the law to penalize people for sex, orientation, race, looks, women who are pregnant or have small children requiring child care, disabled persons etc. etc. Any parent can tell you that rewards get much better results than punishment. This idea is completely unaceptable.
Comment: September 4, 2008 12:59 AM - said...
I think it is discrimination for this to be applied to state employees only when it is a nation wide problem.
Comment: September 4, 2008 1:08 AM - Rachel said...
Punishment is never effective for long term behavioral modification. The State of Alabama needs to consider this before they implement such a policy. Instead, they need to create incentives for employees to initiate and maintain healthy lifestyles. Education and overall positive thinking are crucial to this end.
Comment: September 4, 2008 2:56 AM - said...
I can understand the reasons why Alabama acted that way, as - sadly - many people react better to financial pressure or fines than any other more positive measure.
However, paying for health insurance should not be the only measure. People who need to lose weight need encouragement and (psychological)support, information, and the feeling that as long as they are overweight, they are still accepted and loved by their surroundings. And the state of Alabama should try to organize that, too.
Most overweight people feel isolated enough already, so the State should not provide another reason to point at them.
Furthermore, food companies should also be encouraged to provide healthier and more honest food products, and I mean not only changing the label.
Comment: September 4, 2008 2:59 AM - said...
I have so many health issue that came from serving in a war, that may doctors would like me to lose some wieght but with med and problems they say it would lead to an early death, so they say the weight is not what they want to work on at this time. disabled some of my friends say if they try this then file a EEO complaint as a hastal work enviroment.. they believe there is a case..
Comment: September 4, 2008 3:53 AM - jenash44 said...
Personally, I think this is atrocious!!!!
What's next? The government and other agencies making judgments for and about people and their actions, behaviors, and habits is a most dangerous thing.
What is happening to our free will? How much further will this go? When and who draws the line?
Big Brother is deciding for me/us more and more what is ok and what is not ok, and that is simply not ok with me.
If I choose to be heavier than they think I should be, I have to pay. If I choose not to wear my seatbelt, I have to pay.
If I choose to be a smoker, I have to pay.
See a pattern here? When will this stop?
What is happening to free will, free speech, and the freedom to make my own decisions and choices?
This is very scary indeed, and an example of things to come.
Free? I think not. Enslaved to what others think I should or should not do or be.... indeed.
The lines of freedom are being crossed and they will continue to be until individuals stand up and say NO!
Comment: September 4, 2008 5:25 AM - Carol said...
As a retired state employee of the state of Alabama, I am appalled at this gross (no pun intended) discrimination. However, they did the same thing with smokers. I think that doing this is inherently wrong. It stinks. What they don't tell you that single policies for the state employees are FREE, the state pays the whole premium. IF they are having so much trouble with money, why not raise the single rate? I worked for the state for 25 years and for the last 15, did not pay a penny for my insurnace premiums. And why don't they charge families per person? You can have 10 children and pay the same family premium as a family with one child. Is that fair?
Comment: September 4, 2008 5:50 AM - said...
I think this is discrimination!!! This is not fair to punish someone for being over weight; obesity is a disease and very hard to overcome! Providing them with the means to lose weight is wonderful, but making them pay is just wrong! Are they giving employees who smoke this long to quit or they will be charged more too??? With cancer being one of the most expensive problems for insurance why not them too??? Discrimination, that is all that this is! What a shame!
Comment: September 4, 2008 6:34 AM - said...
are you kidding me? at what lengths does the goverment going to stop ditacting peoples lives. I know obesity is a problem but are you serious what message are we sending people?????
Comment: September 4, 2008 6:43 AM - 
Soonpass said...
The State is simply hitting people were it REALLY HURTS... their pockets. I think it is fair, how else can the state keep up with rising costs of heathcare? By the way, I'm not a a thin person, so i'm not talking from an apathetic point of view.
Comment: September 4, 2008 6:43 AM - said...
If any government (or company for that matter) wants to charge its employees for being overweight, then the insurance policy should cover weight loss medications and office visits not just screenings. This should be a law for the United States as a whole. It would be much cheaper to cover meds at $32.99 (Phentermine) or even the higher priced Meridia at $124.99 than it is to cover the health problems that obesity causes.
Comment: September 4, 2008 6:47 AM - said...
Good for the state. Too many people don't want to be accountable for thier weight. So many companies charge for smokers but being obese is just as costly for insurers. They are taking the steps to screen and educate these individuals and give them a full year to make improvments in thier life. This is all to the obese individuals own benefit.
Comment: September 4, 2008 6:49 AM - said...
This is totaly wrong. I thought in this country people had a right to be happy. I can see putting laws on drug use and such. But putting a law on the basic componant of life? How can a free government tell its eployees or anyone elts what they can cook and put into there mouths. It's a total violation of privacy. Granted this country is over weight and obese. I myself am obese but if someone told me that I cant eat a hamberger or I would loose my insurance or other working privilages than I would quite and leave the area mabey even the country if this ignerance is wide spred. Education is the best bet. Educate the young expecialy so that they dont grow up obese. If they want to implement this to there state employees then they should by law have to close down every fast food place in the state or make all fast food and restaurants in the state switch to vegen burgers and salads so that people in Alabama are not tempted while going down the street or watching T.V. But in doing that once again the state and government would be butting in on free enterprise. The basic backbone of this country and putting people out of work. If the government gets this much control over our daily lives than our country is no better than the Comunists that we hated durring the Cold war. Whats next a vouture program telling the citizens of Alabama what can and cant be in ther home panterys?
Comment: September 4, 2008 6:53 AM - said...
I think it is unfair for a company to judge or make decision for the employee. Most obesity is a an illness that some people can not control. It's a addiction, some cases falls in the same roll as being a drug addict or smoker. So to kick employees off the healthcare plans means your commiting a murder. So no I disagree. Paying extra, HELLO WE ARE IN RECESSION.
Comment: September 4, 2008 6:56 AM - said...
Frankly, I don't see 25 dollars a month as much of a penalty. I think most American workers already have to contribute something to their health plans. But where do you draw the line? Why don't they penalize smokers as well? There are many behaviors that contribute to one's ill health.
Comment: September 4, 2008 6:59 AM - said...
I think it's GREAT! A healthy lifestyle should be rewarded! And it's not like the state employees of AL aren't going to be given the time or resources to do it. Many health issues can be prevented if people devoted 30 minutes a day to some form of exercise. 30 minutes is not long at all when you consider how much time people now watch TV!
Look at our teenagers of today . . . I'm 36, have had 6 children, I workout 4-5 days a week, and I'm in much better shape than girls half my age! What will they look like when they're my age? It's very sad.
Comment: September 4, 2008 7:13 AM - said...
As employees of any company wheither government or private, the employee is to work under the direction of said employer. For these government employees it sounds like they are not having to pay any monthly premium at all right now (unlike the majority of private corp employees) so to say that they would be "charged" $25/month for not trying to be more healthy is not too much to ask in my opinion. They should have to pay $230/per payperiod (460/month) and than they can complain.
Comment: September 4, 2008 7:22 AM - said...
Most people have to pay something for their insurance, anyway. I would be more than happy to lose weight if their was an incentive such as not having to pay for it.
There are a number of people who have such things as high blood pressure without a weight problem as well, so simply losing weight, while helpful, should not be the only factor.
Comment: September 4, 2008 7:58 AM - loveroffashion said...
I think it is very valid to cite a fine for people that do not take it upon themselves to make a healthy change. Obesity in this country is an epidemic and sometimes drastic measures must be taken to prevent them.
Comment: September 4, 2008 8:20 AM - said...
They already have free heathcare so having to pay 25.00 because your obese and driving up the cost for everyone else is no big deal to me. I pay close to 400 a month for my families health care. They are not saying you have to look like a supermodel. They are saying that you need to have a BMI that is still right on the verge of obese. Also as long as they are seeing progress they will not be charged. They are doing this for the welfare of the worker. So if the worker wants to die young and drive up the health care cost then paying 25.00 should not be a big deal. On the flip side I think the state should help by providing healthy snacks in the breakroom as well as healthy catered lunches, exercise and diet programs. They are saying you cannot eat for favorite foods they are wanting employees to be healthy and not treat every meal like thanksgiving dinner and gorge yourself.
Comment: September 4, 2008 8:24 AM - dloye said...
First of all this is "fat discrimination." That of course is one of the last forms of discrimination that is socially sanctioned. That's point one. Now having the state insurance program fine the obese is really a direction we want to go?
Second, back up. State insurance? The assumption is that we want state providing our access to medical treatment via an insurance option. Is government the most efficient way to deal with access to medical care? Do I want the same bureaucracies that bring us (whatever egregious government intrusiveness you care to name) making decisions about who has access to health care and at what cost? (And who is to be discriminated against?)
Should state and local governments be stepping in to help their citizens maintain healthy weights? Assume you answer yes. Should it be punitive? Or rebates for improving blood pressure, keeping your lily white skin cancer prone skin covered or quitting smoking? Do you see how the last two would be prone to make liars out of us?
Clearly *I* don't want government here. Give me information and let me make my own decisions. I'll try to be consistent and do the same, when I'm trying to influence your decisions.
Comment: September 4, 2008 8:34 AM - said...
I think you are heading down a slippery slope. Are we going to start charging the sexually promiscuous or those indulging in risky behaviors because of the increase health cost of those behaviors. Genital herpes, other sexually transmitted diseases, AID, etc. that are on the increase and cost money to treat. Where will it end?
Comment: September 4, 2008 8:54 AM - said...
I can't believe that someone just said that insurance should pay for more of bariatric surgeries!! WHat about personal responsibility?? People just look for an easy fix - and there is none! Why did they get so obese in the first place?!?! Don't we see how we look? how hard it is to move from day to day? It makes me angry so much that people don't take responsibility for their own actions. Out of all people I know how hard it is - I struggle every day so I don't binge on something. But I choose to be healthy and in shape, even though I love to eat.
And $25 a month is not enough for people to wake up. We should all be charged much more than that if our BMI is above 35!
Discrimination!?!?! I see some comments - discrimination it will be when people that try to take care of their health have to pick up the bill for people who decide not to.
Comment: September 4, 2008 8:54 AM - said...
This is a FREE country. Government needs to stay out of the personal lives of the American people. These folks need to go back and review the Constitution, particularly the 9th and 10th Amendments.
There are some social issues involved here - issues that cannot be resolved by bullying. I have never known anyone who consciously chooses to be obese. As an employer, the State of Alabama should offer nutritional education and phychological counseling, if they are truly looking toward a resolution to the obesity problems among state employees. This current decision is setting a dangerous precedent for other human rights issues.
Comment: September 4, 2008 9:02 AM - said...
I can't believe people are even upset over this. First people need to take responsibility for there own health and live style choices. If they do things that cause them to be in a high risk category then I feel they should pay more. This is not mean nor is it discrimination it is about taking responsibility for your own actions. People have choice they can do something to improve their salutation or they can opt to do nothing in this case if they opt to do nothing they will be charged 25 dollars.
Second they are paying nothing as it is which I wish I could say the same even if I had to pay just the 25 dollars a month I would be happy.
Comment: September 4, 2008 9:07 AM - said...
Hooray! It's about time. This is about voluntary EATING HABITS, as measured by your BMI which is easily measured and completely under personal control. No one is being denied health insurance; just being required to pay part of the cost of glutony. Worrying about future implications of this program just clouds the issue. If overeating is a luxury you want to indulge, be willing to pay for it.
Comment: September 4, 2008 9:13 AM - said...
interesting debate ... in a totally free system, this would be, indeed, an intrusion of the government into people's private lives. Those who claim the right to do anything they please "I am responsible for my actions" forget that, because (or thanx) to the various safety nets, we are ALL responsible for everyone's actions: that is what EVERYBODY's taxes pay for. If you want to take a private insurance, your premium will be commensurate to the state of your health. Is that fair, perhaps not, but you can't have it both ways: total freedom to do what you want, but shared responsibly to fix you up if things go wrong (through taxes).
Environmentalists have been screaming for years that we should stop buying gas-guzzling SUVs, and they were ridiculed. When gaz prices hit 4 $ a gallon, it hit home: nobody wants to buy an SUV anymore.
Comment: September 4, 2008 9:21 AM - said...
I think that all companies should offer free membership to any weight lose program that the employee needs.i know that we fat people dont like when others calls us fat but I think that its time to face the music and realize that we have a major problem in our hands.Maybe some day we will thank those people that are forcing us to change.
Comment: September 4, 2008 9:21 AM - said...
I think that all companies should offer free membership to any weight lose program that the employee needs.i know that we fat people dont like when others calls us fat but I think that its time to face the music and realize that we have a major problem in our hands.Maybe some day we will thank those people that are forcing us to change.
Comment: September 4, 2008 9:30 AM - said...
While I can understand the state's frustration, I think they are going at it the wrong way. Does the policy take into consideration factors such as depression or illnesses. Not everyone "chooses" to be obese. What about people who have gained weight due to medications. I personally have kidney problems and am working on my weight, however twice in two years I was found to have renal carcinomas. It's pretty hard to worry about your weight when your fighting for your life. If money is such a problem why not charge every state employee the $25 fee and offer incentives for life improvements. Obese people are not the only ones to have health issues.
One other thought, what about people who were severly abused who use food to self-comfort. Is it gonna help them at all to just start charging them instead of helping them?
Comment: September 4, 2008 9:33 AM - Chris Bumgarner said...
Shame on the State of Alabama and Shame on you who think "this is a great idea". In other words you are saying make those fat people pay for being fat. Where do you think it will stop?
I suffered from obesity for most of my adult life. I had more challenges than I can tell you and I did everything I could to try to lose the weight myself and be healthy - it was on my mind every moment of every day...being overweight doesn't ever take a vacation.
My insurance company doesn't cover bariatric surgery...but it was in my estimate my last hope. I paid for it with my own 401K savings.
I saved my company, my insurance company and the "state" (future medicare/retirement) lots and lots of money (over the rest of my lifetime) because of the $30K I spent out of my own money to help myself.
I no longer have diabetes, high blood pressure, sleep apnea, acid-reflux and the list goes on...
On the same track I was on I know I was a burden - even to myself - do you think I enjoyed being overweight? I was strapped with medical/healthcare costs. But I was doing everything in my power to lose it and it was not working - not enough.
My question is, everyone benefitted from Me paying for My surgery - the company, insurance company, etc...but did anyone help me with the cost of the surgery...Let me tell you, $30K was a drop in the bucket compared to the burden I averted the insurance company having to pay on all my conditions for the remainder of my life....
But the insurance company would have paid and paid and paid and paid for all those other costs for me continuing to be obese & the comorbid diseases linked with it...they would not pay for anything related to bariatrics or losing weight other than 2 visits with a nutritionist per year.
Not all fat people are lazy and are happy being fat...it's a stereo type we've got to get over...It's a disease and has many other factors involved. Slapping a generic label on the problem is crazy and cruel.
I'm all for leading a healthy lifestyle but we need to becareful to put ourselves in other's shoes...you can only imagine - I've been in both. Of course I prefer to be thin & healthy - is there any question about that?
Let's be a nation about helping people - not punishing them.
Comment: September 4, 2008 9:34 AM - said...
The Japanese had to enforce the waistline restrictions because they are quickly becoming fast food addicts like Americans.They want to be like Americans and their waistline is paying for it.They have all the American fast food restaurants in Japan.Even though they walk daily and use mass transportation,the fast food diet is destroying their health.The Japanese government wants to intercede before it gets out of hand.They are not looking to punish their people for it.They just want their people to have awareness.Diabetes type 2 in the U.S.A. is skyrocketing.Are you telling me the only way to get the attention of Americans is to penalize them with their health insurance?There are over 47 million people in the U.S.A. that are without insurance.Surely Alabama can think of a better system than that.It sounds like a ploy for Alabama's state government to lower their insurance premiums.Perhaps they should penalize the smokers and drug addicts also.Do you think the cigarette manufacturers are not lobbying to keep that out of the health sector? Of course they are.The politicians should think of a reward system for their people instead of a penalty system.If you want to watch how Americans are dealt with as far as their health insurance, just watch the documentary, "Sicko" and then evaluate how the government cares about the health of Americans.
Comment: September 4, 2008 9:41 AM - said...
Hello people. Being overweight is not a disease!!!!!!!! Some people carry extra weight. To impose this on people who are heavier is just plain wrong. I'm a full figured woman who eats right and does not sit around all day. Yet I don't drop an ounce. But I am physically fit. I'm strong.
Comment: September 4, 2008 9:48 AM - said...
I don't know if saving $25.00 per month by slimming down is enough incentive. I have tried for years to change my eating habits, and I keep reverting to my old ways. Now, if I saved $200 or $300 per month by changing my eating habits and exercising more, you can be sure I'd think twice about ordering that ice cream cone or sitting in front of the TV.
Comment: September 4, 2008 10:04 AM - said...
I think this is a dangerous trend. As others here have commented, why stop at weight issues? This is a discriminatory policy, and I don't believe it will really address the issue of obesity effectively. It will just create other problems for people who already have problems.
The bottom line here is money. Obesity became a "national problem" when people figured out how to make money off of it. Rather than discriminate against people with obesity, we should continue to work for health education and preventative health care for everyone.
Comment: September 4, 2008 10:04 AM - said...
Iunderstand in theory that you would charge someone more who is at higher risk to use the insurance as they arlready do with smokers. Given that premise though would someone who is anorexic or bulimic also be charged at the same rate, or perhaps people who play extreme style sports, or who ride bikes on busy roads or ........? The list can go on and on. Few people are truly fat by choice, yes they choose what they eat and how much but often there is a "why" that is not always easy to be dealt with. The article mentions that there is assessments and help available but I wonder what kind. I suspect it will be determined by what end result is expected. If it is a way to start people paying for health insurance then the help won't be much. If the goal is to have healthier employees then it will be interesting to see what innovative methods all concerned will come up with to reach that end
Comment: September 4, 2008 10:12 AM - said...
Wow! Read the article before you get all in a tizzy about it. It says that anyone not passing the health screen will be able to join a wellness program for FREE to learn how to improve their health and lose weight. Whining that the government should provide them with healthy food and workout equipment is just that--whining. Apples and bananas are far cheaper than McDonald's and there are plenty of free ways to exercise.
I fail to understand why it is people feel that those of us who choose to make our health a priority in our lives should have to pay increased health care costs to cover for those who don't. This sounds like a much more fair way to do things than to worry about "discriminating". It's not discrimination to say to someone "if you continue to make choices that damage your health and drive up costs, we will stop offering you free health care." The fact is that the majority of obesity cases in this country are caused by poor eating and exercise choices, not by some genetic or medical flaw. People should be held responsible for their actions.
Comment: September 4, 2008 10:16 AM - said...
Interesting. I wonder if they will institute the same policy for smokers, people with drug problems, alcohol problems etc. These are addictive behaviors that can cause chronic health problems. Is it fair to penalize the overweight, but not the people struggling with other issues that affect their health?
Comment: September 4, 2008 10:32 AM - said...
I think this is a great idea!! Maybe this will give people motavation to lead healthier lifestyles and become more concerned about what they are doing to their bodies. This is a policy that all states should enforce not only in obesity but all health related issues that can be helped.
Comment: September 4, 2008 10:36 AM - said...
I wish I only paid $25 a month for my insurance. But, if I was asked to pay $25 more than a co-worker, just because I don't fall into the healthly weight catagory would be rather unfair. However, I agree with a previously posted comment about insurance companies covering health club memberships or a weight loss program. Preventative maintenance would be the best answer. I know that my insurance like most others do not cover memberships to health clubs or cover membership cost in weight loss programs, but if they did I would take full advantage of that opportunity. Maybe the people that work for the state of Alabama would too. Also, have they ever thought of Weight Watchers at work, that makes if much easier to get to meeting and you have others in your office that are working to accomplish the same goal as you, it can be very encouraging.
Comment: September 4, 2008 10:45 AM - said...
Unfortunately, some people are doomed with a slow metabolism which makes it that much harder to lose weight. I do agree, they should help to a degree. Maybe offer a weightloss progam to it's employees in agroup environment. More like a goal and not a penalty.
Comment: September 4, 2008 11:41 AM - said...
I'd have trouble with this one - except that taxpayers' dollars are paying for the extra health care that these people need. It's human nature to keep engaging in self-destructive behavior unless some pain is applied to make them stop, so I can see the state's point in doing this. And for the majority of obese people nowadays, it's not a thyroid or other such problem. It's eating way too much food (and too much bad food) and not exercising. If someone wants to do that to themselves, it's their business. But when someone else has to foot the bill for it, it ceases to be only their business.
Comment: September 4, 2008 12:07 PM - said...
This is ridiculous. Are they going make it harder and more expensive to be insured for alcoholics, cigarette smokers, and people that have other issues they struggle with? What is next? Who makes the decision who to discriminate against? Is this really incentive? It is really good to have a Wellness Program offered for employees--and a lot will probably take advantage of it. Maybe employees are already doing something else on their own. It is a struggle. Are they going to start locking people up to get them into shape. What other ways can a person's life be invaded. This makes me angry.
Comment: September 4, 2008 12:14 PM - said...
I think if a company is going to make their employees lose weight or lose insurance they should offer discount gym memberships and pay for them to be Ediets members.
They obviously do not understand that if you've always had a weight problem you have to learn how to eat and learn how to work out. You can't just snap your fingers and say ok I'll start losing weight today! without knowing how to do it.
I think its a much better idea to reward those who are doing the work to keep themselves healthy and be encouraging. People respond better to reward for a job well done than fear or punishment.
Comment: September 4, 2008 12:21 PM - said...
And for the people who are underweight??? What will the State of Alabama do to them???
Comment: September 4, 2008 12:37 PM - Hellkitty said...
I don't really think the 25 dollars will have much of an effect but maybe it will jump start some to think more about the connection between weight and health problems when every month they have to pay it. First off, it angers me to think that government employees get free health care when so many others are struggling. That seems like the real discrimination. I am a single female and a quarter of my earnings cover insurance and our rates jumped 45% this renewal so who knows how I am gonna cover the increase. Second, when you enroll in group insurance new employees must disclose any medical problems, pregnancies, smoking, alcohol consumption, and even weight affect the rate everyone pays on that group policy. Individuals are already feeling the pinch so they should be glad this is the only increase they are seeing.
Comment: September 4, 2008 1:20 PM - said...
How come is it that if you do something illegal(drugs) you can get free mental and physical care. Employers been over backwards to make sure they help people with drug problems. But if it's something legal, it's not covered under most plans and you have to fight tooth and nail to get any help.
Comment: September 4, 2008 1:52 PM - said...
Great first step. Obesity is not a disease, it is personal choice, much like smoking. If state and insurance companies can penalize smokers, than following the same logic they can penalize fat people. The logic is that if they choose lifestyle that significantly increases their risk of getting serious diseases, than that risk has to be distributed among themselves, not among the entire pool of insured people. Thus, smokers always pay higher premiums, and so should the obese. Of course fat people think it is some sort of discrimination, but it is just logic, if you want to do something harmful to yourself, you certainly are free to do so, but don't expect everyone else to pay for it, just pay yourself.
Comment: September 4, 2008 1:59 PM - said...
It would be really nice if the State insurance board would make it possible for State employees to undergo gastric bybass or lap band surgery at 100% coverage.
Most State employees cannot afford to have the surgery at 50%. This is not an easy wasy out, but it's the healthy way to loose the weight and keep it off. The majority of people that have these procedures return to being complety risk free.
Comment: September 4, 2008 2:08 PM - said...
What about people who have health problems that make them overweight? My sister has a thyroid problem and is taking medicine for it but continues to be overweight because her body won't let her lose the weight. Also my other sister takes steroids for her lupus and it causes her to gain weight. Even if she is eatting RIGHT and execising. So in all fairness I think this is a crock of crap and I can't believe people are supporting this.
Comment: September 4, 2008 2:17 PM - said...
I think that this is discrimination! I'm glad that I don't live there! I wouldn't take there insurance. What about being pregnant and having "baby fat" and what about those who have surgery, and put on weight? This is wrong! People, you need to fight for yourselves! Life is too short! Don't let the insurance companies get your $$!!!
Comment: September 4, 2008 2:24 PM - ArtistMonday said...
seriously, y'all need to chill the f^ck out on this issue. i live in alabama and while i'm not a state employee, i can understand where the state is coming from. i would KILL to ONLY have to pay $25 for insurance. personally, i pay over $200 for family insurance EVERY OTHER WEEK! i had bariatric surgery nearly two years ago and am a healthy weight NOW but i wouldn't have been complaining about a $25 fee PER MONTH for health insurance because of being overweight. yes, i would certainly have preferred FREE but good god people! $25 per month??? you can't beat that, fat or thin!!! give it a rest already. do you have any idea what the insurance companies have to shell out for overweight people for testing, medical supplies and prescriptions??? it's only fair that these people, who are causing ALL of our premiums to go up, should have to "carry their own weight" <-- pun intended!!!
Comment: September 4, 2008 2:37 PM - said...
Hi I live in BC Canada and I think it's a great idea This should be world wide for we now have way to many people who have some issues (weight or something else) that effects us one way or another Those who are serous about their health will do someting where other could careless (I myself thing I'm over weight by 15 LBS) I do take measures on weight control
Comment: September 4, 2008 2:44 PM - said...
It's great if a state recognizes health issues. Thus in this realm the state is singling out "obesity". I strongly feel that by the "punishment" method it is only giving the state(s) the authority to 'dictate' over citizens.
I definitely agree that obesity is a problem in which other health issues stem. My suggestion is: 1)offer free counseling with professional counselors not someone hired off the street that is skinny and no knowledge of the food pyramid. 2)Offer exercise classes that target persons with excess BMI.
We educate for many other health issues...HIV, Hepatitis, Cancer, unwanted pregnancy..the list could continue.(which is great) My point is "education" must be available. Healthy nutrition is the cornerstone of a healing body!
Comment: September 4, 2008 3:48 PM - said...
Actually, everyone else who is at a higher risk already made peace with the fact that they have to pay higher premiums to cover their choice, that is everyone else but the obese people. Imagine smokers complaining that having to pay higher insurance premiums is "discrimination"? Actually people who practice extreme sports and disclose it pay higher premiums too, people who speed and have record of it pay higher car insurance premiums and so on. It is only normal for people who choose to overeat and not to exercise to pay higher premiums for their health care, especially that heart disease is the #1 disease in our country, and obesity is directly correlated to it. With all the talk about genetic diseases and so on, the simple truth is that if you put less calories in your body than your body burns you won't be fat, disease or no disease. It is really simple energy conservation, nothing more, nothing less. Naturally, some healthy people who exercise a lot and have a dynamic lifestyle can eat 3000 calories or more (Michael Phelps for example is on a 9000 calories a day diet), but if you don't burn the calories and you have a slower metabolism because of certain condition, and you put more calories than you burn, you will be obese. But don't try to defend it with the condition, because again, condition or no condition, if you put less calories than you burn you won't be obese.
Comment: September 4, 2008 7:12 PM - said...
Everyone has their own view on obesity. To some people, it is a choice or lack of willpower. What about the recent report that showed that people that can't afford cars & have to shop at local stores have to pay up to 44% more for their groceries & have less nutritious foods to choose from?
I myself am trying to lose weight, but at what cost? Everytime that I have exercised (under medical supervision) for the past 6 years, I get major migraines (which a recent European study says can cause brain damage in the future) and I have to take prescription medications containing Butalbital. Some trade off... exercising 3 times a week, not losing weight & taking a minimum of 12 pills containing an addictive drug. And by the way, the migraine/exercise link existed for me from childhood, when I was skinny.
Comment: September 4, 2008 7:29 PM - said...
I know there are lots of health condtions and medications that hinder the body from losing weight, but come on they won't make you obese and hitting 35 on on your BMI if you are eating sensibly and living healthily.
And... it is not discrimination when you ask someone to be responsible for your actions/lifestyle choice. This is not about dictating how you live your life, but taking responsibilty. You wellcome to do whatever if nobody else is affected (having to chip in for your health cost) by your own freedom of choice!!!
Comment: September 4, 2008 8:44 PM - said...
This is just another outrageous way to get people's money. And if you're thinking that doesn't happen, look at the airlines charging for luggage now. How else can a person travel? You need clothes. And there's talk about airlines charging obese people extra for seats. Now they want obese people to lose weight or be rejected for insurance coverage or pay more? Who says a skinny person won't get sick? Maybe they should charge more for anorexic people? I haven't heard any talk about that. When will this robbery stop?
Comment: September 4, 2008 8:53 PM - said...
This could only back fire for some people who are overweight. Stress is a trigger for some in eating more and gaining weight. Therefore, feeling stressed about needing to lose weight or being one of the people who is having a finger pointed at them may only end up in their eating more. And if dieting is not done correctly with a management program, chances are, they will only gain the weight back. I understand the idea is to help overweight people, but I'm not convinced this is a good idea.
Comment: September 4, 2008 9:23 PM - said...
it is obvious that we americans have alot to say on this matter. If people don't want to take care of there health then that's fine, but they should have to pay higher rates than healthier people. What about a credit for the people who do take care of their health.
Comment: September 4, 2008 9:59 PM - said...
i think its a great idea.being over wieght is not a disease and besides where in the bible does it say that being overweight is ok?it doesnt.i think $25 is a little low but hey its a start.whatever gets my fat butt off the couch works for me!
Comment: September 4, 2008 11:45 PM - mooskiebrewsky said...
IVE NOTICED THAT EVERYONE SAYS THAT 25.00 FOR THE STATE WORKERS TO PAY ISNT ALL THAT MUCH.BUT THE WAY EVERYTHING IS NOW,EVERYONE IS TRYING TO MAKE IT,I KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE AND BEING IN CONSTRUCTION MYSELF THAT THE STATE DEPT DOES NOT PAY THAT MUCH MONEY,OR AT LEAST HERE IN LEWISTON IDAHO THEY DONT, THEY START AT 10.00 AN HOUR,AND THE COST OF LIVING AND GAS AND WHAT EVER,MAKING THE OVER WEIGHT PEOPLE PAY 25.00 IS BULL. SO WHAT IF THEY DONT HAVE TO PAY FOR THERE INSURANCE.YOU NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT HOW MUCH THE WORKER GETS BEFORE YOU JUDGE,SOME PEOPLE THERE IM SURE ARE HAVING A HARD TIME LIVING DAY TO DAY,BUT BEING OVER WEIGHT DOES NOT MAKE THEM A BAD PERSON OR A BAD WORKER.SOME PEOPLE JUST CANT LOSE WEIGHT NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO. I MY SELF AM NOT OVER WEIGHT, BUT I AM A EQUIPMENT OPERATER AND WE HIRE PEOPLE THAT ARE OVER WEIGHT.THAT IS DISCRIMINATION BY ALL MEANS, LIKE MYSELF I AM A WOMEN IN A MANS FIELD AND I HAVE BEEN DICRIMINATED BECAUSE OF MY LOOKS AND THEY CLAIM THE GUYS WOULD NEVER GET THERE WORK DONE...IF THE STATE DIDNT WANT TO HIRE GOOD PEOPLE AND OVERWEIGHT PEOPLE MAYBE THEY SHOULD NOT OF HIRED THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.TELL THEM THAT THEY DONT HAVE ENOUGH EXPERIENCE OR WHAT EVER.DONT FIRE OR MAKE THEM PAY FOR BEING OVER WEIGHT,THEY ALL READY FEEL BAD ENOUGH SO WHY MY I ASK MAKE IT WORSE FOR THEM, YOU NEVER KNOW MAYBE THEY ARE TRYING EVERYTHING THEY CAN AT HOME YOU DONT KNOW WHAT THERE HOME LIFE IS ABOUT,JUST LIKE THE OFFICERS OF THE LAW, WHAT ABOUT THEM, I MYSELF HAVE SEEN ALOT OF OVER WEIGHT POLICE OFFICERS, MOST OF THEM DRINK COFFEE AND EAT DOUGHNUTS,AND GREASEY FOOD.SO WHY NOT CHARGE THEM AS WELL, ALL THEY DO IS SIT IN THERE RIGS AND WATCH PEOPLE,IF THEY HAD TO RUN THEY WOULD DIE OF A HEARTATTACK.IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT ..I JUST THINK THIS IS THE MOST STUPIDIST THING I HAVE EVER HEARD OF ..
Comment: September 5, 2008 5:44 AM - said...
Man, I just see a bunch of P#@%#@s commenting here for the most part. "Waaa waaa... fat people need love and encouragement and self-esteem boosts". The problem is, like some have pointed out, Americans increasingly refuse to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, behavior or lifestyle. And when someone tries to force them to do so, everyone cries "discrimination" or "harassment" or any other such term. This comes down to money... fat people drain the health care system- the state recognizes that its obese employees are racking up huge medical bills. Thus, it's all about making individuals take personal responsibility... gee what a concept! So sack up! I couldn't care any less about a person's "self-esteem" issues or whatever other pathetic problem they are having... this kind hyper-compassion is why we now HAVE a country full of whiny, weak, obese freeloading individuals with no work ethic or personal ambition. Why should the rest of us pay for their problems- as long as their problems are fully within their control? And in this particular argument... they are! TAKE RESPONSIBILITY PEOPLE!
Comment: September 5, 2008 8:28 AM - said...
Not only do many insurance companies not pay for bariatric surgery, most will cover NOTHING to help people lose weight. The obese already suffer enough discrimination in life without adding insult to injury from government and insurance entities. Will the state or the insurance companies offer affordable gym memberships or any other assistance in attaining the desired progress, or are they only offering the threat of punative measures if insufficient progress is achieved? Considering that for many, stress is a major factor in maintaining obesity, I fail to see how adding more stress to the lives of those affected by this will be in any way beneficial.
Comment: September 5, 2008 1:22 PM - said...
WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! This is not discrimination, it is reality therapy! Kuddos to the person who said they just see a bunch of P#@%#@s, I agree...build a bridge and get over it people, I am tired of everyone whinning that obiesity is a disease and that people have slow metabolisim so it is harder for them and we should'nt be so hard on them and make them pay exta. That is Bull$%^&*! I have thyroid problems and a slow metabolisim and while it is frustrating and makes it harder for me, it is still MY responsibility to make things better by eating healthy and getting up to exercise instead of sitting on the couch feeling sorry for myself! Remember that the reason they are implementing this program is because they have a PROBLEM people, the entire state has been ranked as the 2nd fattest in the nation...and probably the world. So is the governemnt supposed to do nothing when this sort of thing actually does affect others in the nation. And to you who said that being overwieght is like smoking and drinking in that if they choose to engage in those behaviors it does not affect anyone but themselves, have you been living in a cave??? When someone smokes cigarettes, others breathe in that horid cancer filled toxin smoke who don't ask for it and therefore second hand smoke is one of the leading causes of cancer. When someone drinks and chooses to get in a car and drive it is someone elses life that is put in jeprady and drunk driving again is one of the leading causese of death among youth and adults. So don't try to sell people those ideas that a persons personal choices do not affect others, that is rediculous and untruthful!
So what is next, when will it stop? Get over it people, this country is "Free" because of our government so don't knock them for trying to control thier bratty population. I know I am going to offend many with this article, but I really don't care. Sometimes people need a harsh reality to make changes and oh my goodness, we are so horrible for trying to help people make changes in thier life that improve thier quality of life, health, longevity and relationships...how bad is that? Discrimination...please people, stop whinning, get off the couch, stop stuffing your face, take responsibility for yourself, stop making excuses and start improving your life for yourself and your family. No one is saying not to eat a burger or pizza or fried chicken, just don't eat it everyday, five times a day...be sensible! And if you want to use the whlole...these people are ill, it is an addiction thing...wake up; alcohol causes addicition and so does nicotine, you know what those addicts do, they go to rehabs to get better because being an addict of any sort is unhealthy and problematic for everyone not just that individual person. The government should not have to hold people's hand and give them a free gym memebership for them to be able to get healthy, millions of people do it everyday and they pay for it themselves or workout by walking outside or at home...or even looking up healthy things to eat on the internet and I know because I am one of them. So eat healthy, go to the doctor, exercise, take some vitamins, and stop making up excuses for people who are able bodied but just not motivated. I take it as a blessing everyday that I was born with the ability to walk and play normally, not disabled or mentally incompitant, take it as a blessing people, celebrate and take care of the vehicle God gave you to use...your mind, body and spirit!
Comment: September 6, 2008 9:40 AM - said...
While $25 may not seem like a big deal to many people, it's not the amount of the "fine" that's the problem, it's the imposition of a penalty itself. Obesity is not exclusively the result of an unhealthy lifestyle, neither are all obese folks unhealthy. A recent study found that 51% of overweight people are metabolically normal, i.e., healthy. Another study concluded that the lifetime health care costs for obese individuals are in fact lower than those of "healthy-living" people. Why? Because all those "healthy" folks live longer to die of more expensive diseases. There are multitudes of people drinking, smoking, and/or drugging themselves to death, yet they would be classified as living healthy lifestyles if a BMI of 35 is the only measurement. It's easy to target obesity because one can't conceal the fact that one's fat. We live in a society that views thinness as the paragon of beauty, and people will smoke, use drugs, starve, or undergo radical surgeries to achieve "perfection" and win society's approval. No, this penalty is not a positive step to reduce health care costs. It's just one more form of blatant discrimination against a certain segment of the population. Who are the most likely candidates for obesity? Hint: they aren't in the "white, with higher education and higher income" socioeconomic level who can afford club memberships, personal trainers, expensive foods, cosmetic surgeries, and the leisure time to pursue athletic activities.
Comment: September 6, 2008 8:04 PM - Phil said...
Alabama is heading in the right direction. If you read the blog, you will see that weight loss programs will be offered. Most people who need to lose weight, like myself, know what they need to do but just don't do it and stick with it. There is nothing more disgusting than seeing a grossly obese person with a handicap parking sticker take a motorized shopping cart and head right for the chips and sugar-loaded foods. I literally have never seen one of these people with a cart that doesn't have plenty of snack foods in it. The % of overweight people who need surgical intervention is minute, the vast majority of us can do it if we are willing to change our eating behavior. Hard? Yes. Impossible? No.
Comment: September 6, 2008 9:23 PM - said...
I have had my cholesterol, blood pressure and blood sugar levels checked. Regularly. They are exactly where they should be. Not elevated. Not high. At the right ratios. I exercise (moderately) 3 times a week, minumum 2 hours each time. Walk to work. Eat the veggies. Reduced the starches. Count the calories. The only way I seem to lose weight, is if I exercise vigorously for an hour every day. That's an hour EXTRA, on top of the 3 times a week for 2 hours each time. And I'm 100 lbs overweight. Other than commenting here, I'm not sitting on my rear, eating all day.
Comment: September 7, 2008 10:57 AM - said...
I really think this is discrimination. Not everyone who is overweight is lazy and not excercising. I've been overweight my whole life. I watch what I eat, don't eat fast food or fats and exercise 4x's a week and have a active lifestyle but still can't lose weight. So what about me,should I be penalized?
Comment: September 7, 2008 11:38 AM - said...
While I recognize obesity is a problem in this country, this is discrimination period!! How about states charge employees who smoke for their insurance, or employees who drink more than 1 drink daily? I work in a hospital and I can tell you that I see a lot of health care dollars spent on smokers and on drinkers. Heck, let's just apply this "punishment" to people who have more than 2 children, or who are 50 years or older? Where does it end?!! One more comment, I also see a lot of diabetic patients who are NOT obese!
Comment: September 7, 2008 12:40 PM - Jessica said...
I work for a man who has banned smoking and taken some slack for that. He has made many coments about doing the same for obese people (only problem for him is he is probably sitting right on the line of obesity himself). This year when we had open enrollment for insurance, it was mandatory for all employees under the insurance plan to go through an online health assessment. Well after talking to many people I work with about our scores here is what I learned. I am MORBIDLY OBESE and over 40 years old. HOWEVER I outscored 80% of the 100+ people that I have discussed the assessment with. I beat out young men under 25 who claim to be very fit. I beat women who look like supermodels. Their downfall is medication they are on (diabetics, high blood pressure, etc.). Yet here I stand with fantastic blood test results and among the higest scores in that sampling. Go figure. I am active, I do weights and teadmill 3 times a week. I watch what I eat to a point. I am just FAT. I have done the calorie counting thing and everything else imaginable. I lose some weight and then in time it comes back.
My point is this long tirade is that it is not just obese people that are unhealthy many of the so called perfect weight range people are on more medications each month than I have taken in my lifetime.
Comment: September 7, 2008 11:56 PM - said...
I agree on the whining - you are a country eating yourselves to death. Even more scary, you are killing your children with the same diet. It is criminal that people actually think the government shouldn't take some action - they are desperate - on a world scale you are the most unhealthy, overweight country. Too busy to make dinner - pick up fast food, too lazy to walk to the store, too lazy to make sure your children eat healthy. Lots of time to watch tv though! I am not American - if only you can hear what you sound like to the rest of the world. Absolutely mind boggling...very very sad.
Comment: September 13, 2008 8:31 AM - said...
I absolutely agree with this. I only hope that it goes nation wide. A person that takes care of themselves shouldn't have to pay as much for insurance as someone who doesn't take care of themselves. I've read a lot of these posts and the nay sayers all have one thing in common. They don't want to take personal accountability. Demanding that gym equipment or counseling or gastric bypass be provided is basically saying "I will not take responsibility for the condition my body is in. That's the government's job." So where does that end? This isn't giving up civil liberties, it's taking responsibility. Healthcare costs are skyrocketing and it is largely in part to people that don't take care of themselves.
Comment: September 13, 2008 9:08 AM - said...
I believe that paying higher health insurance for risky behavior is nothing but FAIR.
It is NOT any discrimination at all. It just slightly covers higher risks that fat people undergo.
And yes, whitewater rafting, hang-gliding, smoking, alcohol a and drugs abusing etc. shoud mean higher health insurance as well.
Comment: September 13, 2008 1:49 PM - said...
I personally think that everyone should pay health insurance premiums based on their level of health and fitness. Why should people who watch what they eat and exercise to stay within their healthy weight range pay the same for health insurance as those who don't and end up overweight/obese? People who make good lifestyle choices should not have to subsidize the cost of those who don't.
Comment: September 13, 2008 4:24 PM - said...
this is out rageous. much of the problem is that our food supply is tainted with all sorts of toxins, including hormones designed to make animals grow as big as quickly as possible. also many of our employers cause such stress and make it impossible for a person to be of a healthy weight because the stress causes that well known stress hormone to kick in causing an impossible situation. and if u have a job like I do, where u are not allowed to drink water as necessary, not allowed to pee , as necessary. it is virtually impossible to maintain a healthy body.
Comment: September 13, 2008 11:23 PM - said...
People already can not drink and smoke and enjoy the same insurance rates as people who try to take care of themselves. Something can be done about weigh NOT cancer. Stomach surgery is not the best way to deal with obesity. Biggest Loser has made that clear.
Being addicted to food is as destructive to a family as any other addiction but it is legal to eat ones self to death. There sould be incentives for obesity and health insurance.
Comment: September 17, 2008 4:23 AM - said...
I agree with others saying it's very predjudiced. Evidently, the people that brought this dumb idea up never had a weight problem. There are those that don't. On the other hand why don't they go after the fast food and restaurants and have them cut their sodium levels way down, cut down the fat and everything they should be doing plus the portions so those of us trying to lose or maintain the weight can with ease. It's like saying lose the weight but look we have nothing to offer you. Go after the grocery stores to throw out so much junk food. This to me is where a lot of the problem lies anyway. Years back we didn't have this much junk food in our stores and things were just different than today. I see where they could make changes without kicking everyone with the healthcare issue on raising their insurance, that's not right.
Comment: September 17, 2008 5:15 AM - Stephanie said...
this summer ate 1200-1500 calories a day- took several hour long walks a week- gained 10 lbs-- went to the doc and she says she feels silly prescribing diet and exercise when experience tells her that body size is largely genetic and 90% of people who diet gain it back in 5 years (and no, not by going back to old habits and "pigging out" as some of you so kindly like to say)-- I say tax the redheads instead! (jk) Still eating healthy and moderating calories and exercising but I am placing less importance on the outcome since my body will do what it does... I hope all of this discrimination truly brings to light the genetic nature of body size and destroys the height/weight chart for good.
Comment: September 17, 2008 6:51 AM - said...
This ia bad idea...what's next? Based on the results of a screening that shows a "pre-existing" condition, do you lose your health insurance & your job? I see the argument of paying health insurance based on risky behaviors including food addiction. But sometimes, genetics also plays in. I fear the focus on hatred of the obese in our society is fairly aryan in nature. What next after the war on obesity? The war on the physically challenged? Those deemed to short or too tall for height? Etc?
I'm a state worker in another state which is considering a similar plan regarding healty living/obesity. For my job I am required to travel often to small towns overnight, where when you use the words "low calorie" or "low fat" or "heart healthy" with reference to their menus, they offer nothing! Since I spend 20-30% of my year overnight (not optional) for the job, unable to truly make my own meals & control what others put into my food, I am likely to gain weight! (I am not obese but participate on my own in a weight maintenance program (a famous name - won't mention here in case that's not allowed). But, this circumstance does make my life hellish when I have to yo-yo diet some weeks to be within an acceptable range when I weigh in...when I cook for myself I'm well within my allowable weight range within the program). Wonder if any Alabama state employees have a similar problem primarily caused by their positions...
Comment: September 17, 2008 7:00 AM - said...
Being a state worker in Alabama I had to give my opinion since I will be one of those affected. To those who believe that insurance is free, I assure you it is not. It is only free to single people. Those of us with a spouse and/or children pay a fair share premium each month. To have that increase is not fair. If you look at the salary ranges in Alabama it should be quite obvious why so many are obese. Some of us have to stretch our mighty dollar, buying mainly rice, pasta, and potatoes (carb laden diet), to get the most out of our money. I have tried to live healthier and each time I think I can afford the lean meats and fresh vegetables I am hit with some new tax or increase in gas/food. Diet supplements are expensive and I won't waste my money that way. Yes, I am fat, but I don't have diabetes, high blood pressure, etc. Maybe I am one of the few, but to be singled out I feel is unfair. Help me, don't punish me.
Comment: September 17, 2008 7:32 AM - said...
The fact that they have to pay $25 for insurance which they have been getting for free, no wonder the state is in trouble. I can't think of too many places that you can work and get free insurance, except for Congress.
The health care crisis in this country is in shambles and people are balking at having to pay $25 for insurance.
Yes, we are an overweight country, but when you can make the price for healthy natural food affordable, people might buy that instead of $0.99 unhealthy burgers, fries etc.
It's the cost of eating healthy that is a crime. It's cheap to eat high calorie, fat laden foods.
Most people I know would eat healthier, but it's easier to run to a fast food place and pick up something than it is to pay more at a store and fix it yourself.
Comment: September 17, 2008 9:22 AM - said...
Hallelujah, Japan! ... for shedding the pounds.
Hallelujah, Los Angeles! Mickey D's grease is at the source of our fat problem and its 'quarter pounder' has compounded the worldly obesity epidemic.
Hallelujah, Alabama! More states should follow suit.
What are we afraid of?
Comment: September 17, 2008 9:35 AM - said...
My husband works for the State of Alabama. Family coverage is NOT free by any means only single coverage. Also - for those who don't understand the small fee of $25.00 to put it in perspective - he has worked for them for over 18 years and only makes about $37,000 a year. And this is a person who is responsible for inspecting and approving the bridges the good people of our state drive over each and every day.
ALSO - most fat people don't CHOOSE to be fat. Many have health problems for which the medication causes them to uncontrollably gain weight. There are many Americans who are NOT overweight who do absolutely nothing to maintain that weight - they just have good metabolism and genes. My mother is one of those who constantly criticizes people for their weight. She eats very unhealthy food and a lot of it. The only difference between her and someone who is "fat" is good metabolism. I've seen several people in my life who were skinny all their lives and then they suddenly start to gain weight with no change to their eating habits. These same people always criticized lazy people that were fat (because somehow most people think fat people are lazy). They almost lost their mind because they absolutely cannot understand what is causing them to gain weight all of a sudden and can't seem to lose it no matter how much they exercise or diet. The simple answer is their metabolism slows down. So - for those who are out to point fingers or call names - you better watch out because that can sadly come back to haunt you.
Comment: September 17, 2008 9:38 AM - said...
There is not enough information in the article to comment on whether this is a good practice or not. I am all for rewarding people who improve chronic health issues via weight loss, but how much improvement does someone need to make to offset a "charge"? It's a tough call. I do believe that health care providers do have the right to charge more for people who continue unhealthy habits. I am not being hypocritical -- as an overweight woman with high blood pressure, it would be good incentive for me to really work hard at it...
Comment: September 17, 2008 9:52 AM - said...
I agree that healthy foods needs to be more affordable if we as a nation are going to get healthier.
With the cost of gas, utilities, all insurance, property and income taxes, mortgage payments and well...everything else skyrocketing...we have to learn to skimp somewhere to get by on LOWER wages. Sometimes, food is the only thing we can control about our spending.
When my husband took a 20% paycut to keep his job, we had to quit shopping for healthy foods and stick to whatever was on sale. My paychecks were no longer just for spending cash.
My husband has a BMI of 42, but he has 62" shoulders at 6'4". He was built like a linebacker and would look sickly if he were the 200 lbs. it requires to have a 24 BMI. I believe BMI is a poor indicator of overall health. He has normal blood pressure and cholesterol; these are better indications that he is healthy for his size.
If we all had the FREE healthcare of Government Agencies, we might have the right to complain about a $25 weight fee, but most of us are shelling out up to 25% of our wages for healthcare, leaving 75% of our paychecks to cover ever increasing bills. I believe incentives are better than penalties. Give me more money from my checks so I can afford healthier foods and a gym membership!
Comment: September 17, 2008 10:24 AM - said...
I find this to be more "big government", not an effort to help people. The irony of it is the fact that our food, in and of itself, plays a huge role in the obesity epidemic, as well as other diseases. Our food is starting to be irradiated, and 90% of it is Frankenfoods. This affects human's endocrinology systems and much more, too long to go into. So, if the states who do this really care about people, they will lobby and make efforts to clean up our food and get some truthful labels on the rest of the products that affect our health such as household products. We, the people, are really the victims of it all.
P.S. I am not overweight but rather petite and fit. So, not a disgruntled person here.
Comment: September 17, 2008 10:49 AM - said...
I think people should stay out of other people's personal business. If you want to start this, I think there are more important issues. Ban alcohol, do you realize how many alcoholics there are and how many peoples lives are being adversely affected? Ban smoking, same thing. These two issues alone are worse the somebody weight gain. Start there before you start picking on somebody's eating habits.
Comment: September 17, 2008 11:09 AM - said...
I believe in this. My premiums go up every year, and my insurance is NOT free. I get up in the morning and run, eat healhty, etc. I have struggled with weight ALL my life and even been to treatment for an eating disorder. If I can change my behaviors that are obviously mental illness ones in one year, so can they. I am not "cured" but with therapy and wellness programs those WHO WANT TO BE HELPED will succeed. Some would rather just pay the money and not change (I do believe that if they made it 50.00 or more it would promote more people to change). That is a personal choice.
Health insurance is a priveledge/benefit, especially free health insurance. I know mine runs 400.00/month, and I pay 25%. Most companies don't offer free health insurance, so I promote the change. I think it is sad that some don't take care of themselves.
Comment: September 17, 2008 11:13 AM - said...
Ditto to "Pat". What incentive do they have when insurance is completely covered. No one (unless they work for the state) usually gets full coverage insurance fully paid for by the employer.
This is a great idea. Obesity is a serious problem in this country. I live in Mississippi now, but I am a Florida native. It is sick how many people just don't care here. Very few really keep in shape in comparison to Florida.
I know some have weight issues, but a few healthy changes can go a long way!
Comment: September 17, 2008 12:42 PM - said...
Some very good posts here. I support this action and I hope other employers follow the same course.
For the people who say what’s next, pre-screening? Pre-screening reveals genetic predispositions, this is about lifestyle choices.
People have always paid more for insurance based on the CHOICES they make, whether it is owning a high powered sports car, keeping an aggressive breed of dog, or smoking. And now body weight.
Some posts point out that some individuals have large frames and can not reach the ideal BMI. There are adjustments to the ideal BMI based on frame size, hopefully Alabama will take that into consideration.
I work for one the largest health care providers in the U.S. More than 40% of our company’s resources go towards treating LIFESTYLE health issues. Given our country’s aging population, it only makes sense to get people to take better care of themselves.
Comment: September 17, 2008 12:46 PM - said...
I wonder what comments we'd be seeing if Alabama had chosen to single out another "epidemic" condition attributed to lifestyle choices. What would everyone say if they had targeted AIDS instead of obesity? I can hear the screams from the ACLU and gay/lesbian rights groups now. The problem is, fat folks just don't have the backing of civil liberties organizations.
Comment: September 17, 2008 12:47 PM - said...
I was saddened at some of the comments made though in regards to the article. I think many people are afraid of healthy living, and see this as a method of control. However, I feel that $300.00/year is not an obscene amount of money to pay out if you do not take care of your health and weight. It does not seem that the expectations of Alabama are outrageous, you have one year to begin to improving your health. The annual amount of money put out in health care for unhealthy and or over weight people is outrageous, and so much of this money comes from our tax dollars. Something has to be done about obesity!
"Government estimates on the cost of obesity-related illnesses in the US in combined out-of-pocket, private insurance and government insurance payouts are about US$50 million annually. The NIH estimates the total direct and indirect cost of obesity is US$117 billion annually.
The Centre for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington, DC-based consumer advocacy group, says paying for obesity treatment is a cop-out. "It's crazy to focus so much on treatment of this illness after it's happened rather than on preventive measures," says Executive Director Michael Jacobsen.
Politicians who are serious about addressing obesity, he says, should work toward preventive measures like rearranging food subsidies to favour healthy foods, increasing taxes on unhealthy foods and launching a national media campaign targeting high risk groups like children and the poor."
This information was taken from the web site: US Medicare opens door to covering obesity treatments -- Gregoire 171 (7): 717 -- Canadian Medical Association Journa
Comment: September 17, 2008 12:59 PM - said...
Atrocious is right! Sounds like socialism to me. ...comforming to standards. Thanks liberal media.
Comment: September 17, 2008 1:00 PM - said...
HELLO !!!! Are we there yet? RUSSIA ---What happened to FREEDOM?
With all that's going on in this WORLD - How can we stoop so low???
Comment: September 17, 2008 1:03 PM - said...
What happened to freedom? This is just one more step toward socialism /communism. Stupid laws such as this takes away our freedom of choice. Anyone who agrees to such stupidity should move to Russia, China or another communistic country. WAKE UP AMERICA BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!! Next government will be madating how many times a household can flush the toliet.
Comment: September 17, 2008 1:12 PM - said...
So now we get to be penalized for our genetics. By the technical definition, I am obese, however, I am 50 years old, play racquetball 5 times a week against 30+ year olds who are "done" before I am and hike regularly. I have high blood pressure, but then so did my Dad who was not over weight (I get that from my mother) and his brother who was six-six and 140 lbs, so I don't think my weight is the primary factor here. Other than regular physicals, my only medical costs have been for injuries from playing sports. Maybe we should charge everyone who exercises an extra fee, since, let's face it, 100% of all sports medicine goes to these people. Being a overweight also allows me to keep my thermostat lower in the winter. Let's charge all the skinny people (like my sister) an energy surcharge since they use more trying to keep themselves warm. In fact, maybe we should pay people to sign a "Do not recesitate" order since that would greatly reduce our medical expenses.
Comment: September 17, 2008 2:55 PM - said...
This is not a punishment for obese people. It's allowing people to take responsibility for their lifestyles. If your weight problem is purely genetic, then the likelihood of you being charged $25 is small, and even if you were charged, you have to realize that this kind of thing happens. People pay for things all of the time as a result of genetic problems, like bad eyesight. You have a problem, whether it's your fault or not, and you have to pay for it so that other people don't have to.
Comment: September 17, 2008 6:06 PM - said...
I don't consider $25 a year punishment. It's helping to pay for the healthcare you use. And making progress rewards you. It's all about the "spin" on how it is presented.
Comment: September 17, 2008 8:15 PM - kookooo said...
It is sad that it has come to this! People shouldn't be forced into doing something that they don't want to do. If they want to be fat then let them be fat. On top of that some people just can't help themselves. For some people, it is forever going to plegue their exsistence. What are they going to do. Pay for all of those gastric bypasses plus cosmetic surgery. Alot of that weight believe it or not is extra skin. This is not going to work! The only one's who are going to lose weight are the one's who want to lose the weight and the one's who can't afford to pay an extra 25.00 out of their paycheck for something that they rarely use. Some people are so set in their ways that they would probably go as far as to quit and find new jobs! One's that don't have weight requirments. No one is going to see how this will benefit them in the long run. They are just gonna see it as they are trying to tell them how to live. All I am saying is change like that is hard and is going to take alot longer than a year. I hope those benefits come with a free gym membership, a personal trainner!!!!!and a therapist!!!!!!!
Comment: September 18, 2008 8:01 AM - said...
I'm a state employee and I'm overweight (as are about 50% of my coworkers... partially due to the amount of stress state employees are under. It has been medically proven that stress hormones contribute to obesity. I've asked my doctor about nutritional referrals and my insurance does not provide for anything like. My insurance also does not offer discounts for health club memberships and as a state employee (with state employee income being some of the lowest pay in the state), it is not always affordable. It seems that the "powers that be" purchase the cheapest coverage possible, so there aren't many options out there for us. You can't financially penalize someone and then not offer them incentives. It doesn't make sense... it just adds to the stress that creates the hormones, that creates the problems... in the house that Jack built.
Comment: September 18, 2008 11:25 AM - said...
Descrimination!!! What next?? Cancel insurance for those with Cancer or Epilepsy???
Comment: September 22, 2008 9:34 PM - said...
Oh and by the way are you permiscouis, do you use protection? What about aids. Do you go out after dark to do your exercise because of your work schedule? You risk getting hit by a car or whatever else that can happen. What I am trying to say there are tons of things that we chose to put our lives in jeoprody.
Comment: September 24, 2008 3:11 PM - said...
Some people are overweight because they eat too much and dont excercise. Some people are overweight becasue they have medical problems. Some people are overweight despite eating healthy and excercising regularly. Some people are thin, do not go to the gym,and eat unhealthy all the time. Some people are thin beacasue they make themselves sick in order to be thin. Some people are thin despite excercising and eating right.Its a pretty braod spectrum of people here. Notice how I said overweight and not obese? Obese is a word, I believe that gets used incorrectly.It is possible to be overweight and still be an active healthy individual. (Baseball players anyone?) I say this...we are skating on thin ice with this. If its really about getting people to be healthy, lets focus less on the numbers on the scale and more on getting people to be active. And lets be honest, the BMI chart is not exactly the best chart to use when determining (or in this case judjing) ones weight.According to the BMI chart, half the NFL is "obese". With that said, lets focus on getting people to go out and enjoy themselves before we start implementing unjust and unfair rules and regulations. I think if we made it truly about getting healthy and less about the numbers on a scale, than people would be more receptive and willing. Lets try to help people feel good about themselves in a positive way, not point a finger and make them feel worse. It would not kill companies and the insurance agencies to organize group workouts and might even help them in the long run.We could really learn a lesson from the military on this. And for the record.. a lot of overweight people know they are overweight and they do want to make changes. Its hard to change when the worlds pointing at you and laughing though.
Comment: October 6, 2008 10:42 PM - said...
I was 110 after high school until having kids. I've gained and lost weight. (My ex didn't like me looking good so I gained again.) I'm at about 220 right now and have NOT done the online health survey at work or joined coworkers doing a "Biggest Looser" contest. As long as I'm doing my job it should not matter what I weigh. I don't smoke, and only drink once in a while. Which thing is worse? Other than a few extra pounds and bad allergies I'm in good health.
RSS/XML
