Seeking Alpha

With their healthcare costs ballooning, many companies have started to penalize fat employees...

With their healthcare costs ballooning, many companies have started to penalize fat employees with regards to healthcare coverage, raising all sorts of legal, privacy and discrimination questions. Michelin North America, for example, plans to cut healthcare credits for staff who fail to meet requirement for waistline and other metrics, and don't sign up to health programs. Other companies making similar moves include Mohawk (MHK), CVS and Honeywell (HON).
Comments (60)
  • AZ Desert Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (232) | Send Message
     
    Honestly I have no problem with this but I can see how some people would play the discrimination card.

     

    A better idea would be for companies to require individuals under an employer sponsored health insurance plan to have 1-2 month "sabbatical" from their normal costs and co-pays and have to pay all costs as if the company plan didn't exist.

     

    At that point maybe people will realize how their personal life decisions relates to overall healthcare costs.
    7 Apr 2013, 09:16 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Nothing to worry about - Obamacare cures all!!!!
    7 Apr 2013, 09:27 AM Reply Like
  • Archman Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (2350) | Send Message
     
    Mister Destructo:
    You do make a good point about discrimination. However we seem to be at a point, where just to many Americans do not seem to care and have no problem laying the associated costs on everyone else.

     

    There have been numerous reports published that if current trends stay in place, over 70% of all Americans will be obese (not just over weight) by the year 2020. There is plenty of evidence out there that states being obese almost guarantees your life will be shorter and you will be a burden on the healthcare system due to all the problems associated with obesity.

     

    As always in the end: People have to make their own choices.

     

    I say bravo to those companies willing to say enough is enough with irresponsibility, within reasonable limits.
    Perhaps if those workers who want to pass the burdens on to the rest of us were forced to shoulder more of the costs associated with their lifestyle choices, they would think twice about dining daily at the all you can eat buffets.
    7 Apr 2013, 09:32 AM Reply Like
  • AZ Desert Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (232) | Send Message
     
    Hence the need to "teach people a lesson" and have them pay all the costs for a short time.
    7 Apr 2013, 09:35 AM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (581) | Send Message
     
    This is sad. A person's value to the company should be measured in terms of performance and contribution not on personal habits. If an overweight person costs the company more money it should be taken into account when calculating compensation. If that person doesn't like the compensation they can seek employment elsewhere. Same negative goes for smoking and conversely for exercising.

     

    Companies have taken the easy way out in figuring out compensation for a long time - yeah its hard but managers get paid for hard work.
    7 Apr 2013, 12:11 PM Reply Like
  • tradewin
    , contributor
    Comments (658) | Send Message
     
    A person's value usually is taken into account with the company they work for. But how long should a company continue to absorb increases in health care costs? The bottom line. If an employee loses weight, the company doesn't get nailed by their healthcare provider, the employee gets healthier and doesn't get penalized.
    7 Apr 2013, 12:22 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (581) | Send Message
     
    If a company values the employee but the cost of having that employee is higher, the company can choose to have that employee pay those increased costs - then the employee can make a choice with the understanding of the impact of his/her lifestyle choices, or the company can choose to suck it up, the company can make an intelligent cost / benefit assessment.

     

    Those overreaching one-size-fits-all policies damage the companies personnel assets and are demoralizing because they are designed for the lowest common denominator assuming all employees have the same kind of jobs and situations.
    7 Apr 2013, 01:15 PM Reply Like
  • The Patriot
    , contributor
    Comments (320) | Send Message
     
    Gay men account for the vast majority of AIDS cases. Shouldnt they also "pay" for their lifestyle ?
    7 Apr 2013, 05:52 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (581) | Send Message
     
    Sounds like a question for an insurance actuary. I pay more insurance because I live in Florida, am I getting discriminated against? You pay more for life insurance if you smoke and that is lifestyle choice....

     

    So logically the answer to your question is yes, if they pose a greater risk for the insurance carriers. By the same token if a gay couple was less of a risk I would assume a lower rate.
    7 Apr 2013, 11:50 PM Reply Like
  • jrjrob
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Excellent point and I agree. There has been nothing fair about the healthy, those that exercise and eat healthy foods, paying as much as those people that don't. It is past time companies start doing this, it's the fair thing to do. The obesity epidemic is crippling our healthcare system and they must pay more. This will be implemented soon, universally. It's past-due.
    10 Apr 2013, 03:37 PM Reply Like
  • jrjrob
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Absolutely! It is past due that people that do not exercise and do not eat healthy meals pay more than those of us that do these things. What is fair about people that work hard to be healthy pay as much as those that abuse their bodies? Answer-nothing! The obesity epidemic is crippling the healthcare system and our economy. You eat more, you pay more..... past-time.
    10 Apr 2013, 03:38 PM Reply Like
  • Paul Leibowitz
    , contributor
    Comments (1292) | Send Message
     
    "Gay men account for the vast majority of AIDS cases. Shouldn't they also "pay" for their lifestyle ?"

     

    @ThePatriot

     

    Having spent my entire career working on cures and treatments for human disease and ailments, it pains me to run into people like you who, out of their own self-interests and prejudices, target those least able to help themselves.

     

    What you may call a healthy lifestyle for yourself may include activities that others believe pose great risk to society, including popular activities such as premarital sex and unprotected sex even when married.

     

    Insofar as many who share your views are free to procreate, I am most concerned that a more serious threat to the human race than AIDS is the continued dilution of an otherwise intelligent gene pool.
    11 Apr 2013, 12:34 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3975) | Send Message
     
    Reword the market current to mean 'smokers' versus 'overweight' people.

     

    My point being, this is the Next Big Thing now that the scourge of smoking has been marginalized. Momentum is growing behind this.

     

    The comments made here are also reminiscent of those made when the war on smoking was begun.

     

    Disclosure: non obese ex-smoker... and happy being an EX-smoker for that matter... but I do find the parallels interesting. I suspect the campaign will be successful, and the first shot, Bloomberg's attempt to ban extra large soft drinks, will be forgotten in the annals of this war...
    7 Apr 2013, 09:47 AM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4008) | Send Message
     
    If we are to suffer under socialized medicine, then I propose a tax on the obese, but not too much that they stop eating at MCD. I like my dividends.
    7 Apr 2013, 10:51 AM Reply Like
  • mickmars
    , contributor
    Comments (1323) | Send Message
     
    A good over-sized coffin manufacturer could be the AAPL of the 2020's.
    8 Apr 2013, 08:19 AM Reply Like
  • Agbug
    , contributor
    Comments (1085) | Send Message
     
    I can't help but observe this relates to employer provided healthcare. Of course they only want to employ healthy individuals. The goal being to get us to retirement, where we are no longer a liability to corporations, but what happens then? Everyone lives to their 90's on Medicare presumably.

     

    I have to ask, which is cheaper over the long term, a emphysema ridden diabetic that dies in their 60s, or someone that lives in retirement for 30 years? Anyone catch the ex-Japanese finance minister's comment about "we need these people to die already" a month ago?

     

    Where's that guy that liked to comment "time to fire up the soylent green program"? Seems appropriate on this topic.
    7 Apr 2013, 10:51 AM Reply Like
  • noob
    , contributor
    Comments (334) | Send Message
     
    What you miss about the person who lives or dies is that we spend a lot of money on that terminal healthcare. If someone chooses to die in their 60's that's fine with me - but please don't burden me with their medical coverage in the meantime.

     

    You see, if I wasn't going to be burdened with someone's cost of choice then I wouldn't care. Companies could opt to simply not provide any insurance coverage -- except there is that huge distortion called tax shelter. That would simplify things a bit.

     

    Almost - now you can't disallow coverage for a pre-existing condition (obesity). Soon you'll be forced to pay the same premiums -- so the person who has the worse health benefits the most.

     

    Unless we can actually get society to support fitness over tolerance of the morbidly obese or anorexic. And do not try to tell me that they can't help it. I've watched friends lose 200 pounds just by living better - no fads, no operations, no kidding.
    7 Apr 2013, 11:31 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    I'm that guy ;-)

     

    Time to fire up the soylent green program!
    7 Apr 2013, 11:33 AM Reply Like
  • Agbug
    , contributor
    Comments (1085) | Send Message
     
    noob, your comment doesn't address the question, or I missed it. 30 years of retirement on Medicare is a long time, even for someone reasonably healthy. I was recently in SLC and keep hearing an ad for joint replacements so that "you can enjoy the lifestyle to which you aspire". Who is paying for that, or the Scooter store ads?
    7 Apr 2013, 11:44 AM Reply Like
  • Agbug
    , contributor
    Comments (1085) | Send Message
     
    Good to see your still alive, Tricky, and that I checked before stealing your line.
    7 Apr 2013, 11:45 AM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4008) | Send Message
     
    I'd rather eat at Mickey D's. Soylent Green is people.
    7 Apr 2013, 01:40 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1582) | Send Message
     
    @Agbug -- ha! Good thing you did, I'm very litigious in protecting my trademarked catchphrases ;-)

     

    @ Geoff -- hmm. McDonalds vs. Soylent Green. Hmm. Ethical issues aside, I'm not sure which meal would taste nastier (I'll make an exception for Egg McMuffins but everything else at McD's is disgusting... well, fries are okay too).
    7 Apr 2013, 05:30 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12704) | Send Message
     
    When liberals wish to impose their own restrictions and/or costs on behavior and personal freedoms (school lunches, large sodas, etc., ad nauseum), it's not a problem. If anybody else imposes standards, it's "discrimination."

     

    Pure hypocrisy.
    7 Apr 2013, 11:10 AM Reply Like
  • OptionManiac
    , contributor
    Comments (3304) | Send Message
     
    I see it the other way. People scream when the government gets into their lives, but when the company you work your butt off for wants to dig into your life, it's ok.

     

    That being said, this "liberal" who works outs and watches what he eats does not want to subsidize those who are killing themselves care-free living.

     

    Disclosure: I do own MCD (but never eat there) - there's hypocrisy for ya Tack - but I am human, after all!
    7 Apr 2013, 11:43 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12704) | Send Message
     
    OM:

     

    In my own estimation, nobody owes anybody health insurance without qualifications, not the company, the Government, nobody. Everybody's free to acquire their own coverage, if they don't like the terms of group coverage. When I used to work in the corporate world, years back, I did precisely that because I could get a better, cheaper plan that my employer was offering.

     

    This entire notion that everything in life in an entitlement and nobody has the right to provide a qualification standard or impose a cost is some kind of sickness, in itself.
    7 Apr 2013, 11:53 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Very well stated Tack.
    7 Apr 2013, 02:22 PM Reply Like
  • bgold1955
    , contributor
    Comments (1935) | Send Message
     
    Tack..... Not sure how long ago you opted for private insurance over Corp offering but health care in the US has exploded since the late 90's. I have individual private insurance, I am not overweight, don't smoke, no pre-existing condition, etc and I can assure you of one thing, I AM subsidizing corp and gov't plans as I have absolutely no bargaining power. So why should I be paying such an enormous amount of money for my plan now? Cost and greed that's why and that's what has happened in the last 15 years with our medical care. Medical care costs in the US is approaching 18% of GDP more than twice of other industrialized countries. Why can't people understand that?
    7 Apr 2013, 03:56 PM Reply Like
  • OptionManiac
    , contributor
    Comments (3304) | Send Message
     
    It's called living in a society, Tack, not everyone for themselves. We wouldn't have banded into groups thousands of years ago if it wasn't beneficial to the individual. That being said, back then, those who didn't carry their weight didn't share food.
    7 Apr 2013, 04:30 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12704) | Send Message
     
    OM:

     

    There's a huge difference between forming voluntary associations and having those that want something forcing others to provide it for them. That distinction appears increasingly lost on American society.
    7 Apr 2013, 05:31 PM Reply Like
  • OptionManiac
    , contributor
    Comments (3304) | Send Message
     
    Tack - I am as sick as you of fellow citizens feeling that society owes them something without contributing anything themselves. Too bad not everybody pitches in, wouldn't this be a great country.

     

    Even for many who work their butts off, "freedom" from a healthcare catastrophe is just one stroke of bad luck away. Is it up to society to set up a system so that one doesn't lose their home, and then their life, because of inadequate healthcare? I work with someone who in a previous job had the company's health insurance canceled in the middle of his wife being treated for breast cancer. Long story short, the guy now lives in a one bedroom apartment after losing his five bedroom house, and his wife passed away.
    7 Apr 2013, 08:57 PM Reply Like
  • mickmars
    , contributor
    Comments (1323) | Send Message
     
    I think it's cool when I get to share a third of my airplane seat with the obese guy next to me. I mean, it's my fault he's 280 lbs, not his own.
    8 Apr 2013, 07:55 AM Reply Like
  • OptionManiac
    , contributor
    Comments (3304) | Send Message
     
    Airline seats are a nightmare when you sit next to a normal sized person.
    8 Apr 2013, 10:03 PM Reply Like
  • noob
    , contributor
    Comments (334) | Send Message
     
    I saw this coming two years ago. It's only going to get worse.

     

    Soon they will tell you what you must eat -- even if you choose to eat better than that. You will still be penalized for non-conformance. Reminds me of Animal Farm.
    7 Apr 2013, 11:26 AM Reply Like
  • Ajayyy
    , contributor
    Comments (310) | Send Message
     
    Your assumption that food controls will take place if we let health controls to occur is a slippery slope fallacy and not a logical argument.
    7 Apr 2013, 11:28 PM Reply Like
  • Uncle Pie
    , contributor
    Comments (2665) | Send Message
     
    Eventually everyone will be required to have a DNA test, and those genetically predisposed to expensive diseases will be unemployable.
    7 Apr 2013, 11:33 AM Reply Like
  • OptionManiac
    , contributor
    Comments (3304) | Send Message
     
    Insurance companies have a problem with this. Those who get the test and have significant potential health issues down the road will pay for health insurance. Those who don't have looming issues will diss insurance. Companies are stuck with just those who have the impending costs. It's like selling fire insurance to only homeowners who smoke in bed.
    7 Apr 2013, 11:46 AM Reply Like
  • tradewin
    , contributor
    Comments (658) | Send Message
     
    It's interesting. Just read a paper by The University of Chicago Press: How Credit Card Payments Increase Unhealthy food Purchases: Visceral Regulation of Vices. So who is responsible for this problem? C.C. companies, consumers, producers, retailers?
    7 Apr 2013, 11:53 AM Reply Like
  • Life Skills
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    Warning: stereotypes and blanket statements will occur.

     

    How often do you see overweight government employees? How often do you see government employees smoking? As a taxpayer, it seems we need to eliminate healthcare provided by the government for its employees, unless the employees maintain a minimum level of health over the course of employment. Since the employee portion of health care is so inexpensive, how can a government control its future health care costs without implementing incentives/disincentives? You would think cops would be the most fit people in society, as their ability to chase and handle criminals would be enhanced greatly. I know, the unions would never... You would think... how did everything become so damn backwards.It's interesting this is news, you would think... this is how any effective insurance company/plan would operate from the start.
    7 Apr 2013, 01:20 PM Reply Like
  • CCTVAL
    , contributor
    Comments (28) | Send Message
     
    Michelin penalizes fat people? Give me a break. Look at the Michelin Man, he should be penalized big time. Put him on a diet. Talk about hypocrisy.
    7 Apr 2013, 02:03 PM Reply Like
  • tradewin
    , contributor
    Comments (658) | Send Message
     
    That's beautiful cctval. lol
    7 Apr 2013, 02:31 PM Reply Like
  • zagfan44
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    May be my imagination, but recent Michelin Man ads look like the 'ol boy is starting to develop a waistline! I think he's dropped about 10psi!
    7 Apr 2013, 02:49 PM Reply Like
  • Be Here Now
    , contributor
    Comments (3760) | Send Message
     
    The idea that penalizing employees for being obese is somehow discriminatory ignores the fact that not doing so is discriminatory against those who lead a healthy lifestyle and take responsibility for their own well being. I am forced to subsidize the health care of people who smoke and/or are obese. How is that fair to me?
    7 Apr 2013, 04:44 PM Reply Like
  • Ajayyy
    , contributor
    Comments (310) | Send Message
     
    Putting all ideologies aside, this is a very important step for US. With obesity out of hand and innumerable proven benefits of exercise and healthy living, this might move companies to a healthier performance simply because the people working there are healthy. We have made education a priority maybe it's time to push health because body and mind work optimally when both are exercised regularly.
    7 Apr 2013, 11:28 PM Reply Like
  • wedidit
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    Obesity is a major problem in the USA and getting worst by the day. IMHO, the only way to attack the problem is through the pocket book and it appears that some companies are taking action and good for them. Being fat is a choice and for those who chose to be fat should pay the price through higher premiums just as some smokers are having to do.

     

    One area to start would be for those who are currently receiving Medicare. First establish a percentage limit over ideal weight, height and age. Thirty percent sounds like a good number. So some one who's ideal weight is 170 pounds could actually weigh 221 pounds before being penalized. Medicare has a code for most everything so add one more for weight. When a person visits their doctor the weight is entered. Then annually when Medicare premiums are adjusted increase premiums by the percentage over the allowed 30% for that person. Using our example and the person weight 238 pounds which is 10% over the allowed meaning a 10% increase in their monthly Medicare premiums.

     

    If the person assumes responsibility for their weight and gets below the plus 30% their premiums will be adjusted for the following year.
    8 Apr 2013, 02:36 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (581) | Send Message
     
    Very well thought out plan for about 80-90% of the population. What do you do for the remaining 10-20% that don't have control of their weight through no fault of their own?

     

    It's always the outliers that are the issue not the majority.
    8 Apr 2013, 03:02 PM Reply Like
  • wedidit
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    I have a hard time with the no fault of their own. When one takes in more calories than they burn they will gain weight. Weight loss occurs when one burns more calories than they consume. The choice is up to the individual.
    8 Apr 2013, 04:12 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (581) | Send Message
     
    You have a hard time with a minority of folks who may have an actual disease like diabetes that can cause obesity?

     

    Unless you have doctor cred and know better - that's cold dude. That's like kicking a guy when he's down.
    8 Apr 2013, 10:30 PM Reply Like
  • Be Here Now
    , contributor
    Comments (3760) | Send Message
     
    You have it backwards. Obesity causes diabetes. Diabetes does not cause obesity.
    8 Apr 2013, 10:49 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (581) | Send Message
     
    Nope - not all the time... it's that kind of thinking that leads us to a one-size-fits-all mentality.

     

    do alittle research
    9 Apr 2013, 09:09 PM Reply Like
  • Paul Leibowitz
    , contributor
    Comments (1292) | Send Message
     
    Insulin therapy or intensification of insulin therapy commonly results in weight gain in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. http://on.mo.gov/14aj9UI

     

    In addition, one of the hallmarks of diabetes is peripheral neuropathy which, some claim, can lead to a breakdown in the communication of signals to/from the brain caused by lipolysis and can result in faulty information used to regulate the breakdown of fat during periods when the body is low on glycogen, a carbohydrate fuel used for energy. Some claim that's one reason why those with "prediabetic" blood sugars get fat.

     

    I am not taking a stance. Merely reporting what is in the literature.
    9 Apr 2013, 11:58 PM Reply Like
  • tradewin
    , contributor
    Comments (658) | Send Message
     
    People can be diabetic without being obese.
    8 Apr 2013, 11:22 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (581) | Send Message
     
    yes they can - but that isn't the point. Obesity can be cause by something other than bad habits.
    9 Apr 2013, 09:11 PM Reply Like
  • Paul Leibowitz
    , contributor
    Comments (1292) | Send Message
     
    Genetics plays a role in body weight for many people, such as base metabolic rate and the extent to which body fat is stored in one body region vs another. What you may call a healthy lifestyle may include activities that others believe pose great risk to health, including popular activities such as premarital sex, unprotected sex, alcohol consumption, and the increased risk of skin cancer from tanning at a beach. Certain jobs cause far more health-related illnesses than others, including sedentary desk jobs.

     

    If anything, if someone smokes, isn't it fairer for their out of pocket costs for medical care resulting from lung cancer to be higher rather than for everything?

     

    Of course, one would have to prove that smoking caused their lung cancer. After all, non-smokers also get "smoker's" lung cancer.

     

    Should we penalize someone who is thin and a smoker for getting a skin cancer from sunbathing but charge a thin non-smoker less for the same treatment. Smoking and weight have nothing to do with skin damage from sunbathing.

     

    All of it is discriminatory. Healthcare costs can be brought down without targeting anyone. Think about it. If the obese or smokers are forced to pay higher premiums, then where does it stop?

     

    The perfect waist size? Who determines if someone is fat or if they're normal because their genetics causes fat to be stored preferentially around the waistline rather than more evenly over the body?

     

    Type II diabetes does have a strong genetic predisposition. Do we exempt those with Type I juvenile diabetes who, by concidence cost the healthcare system far more than those with Type II on a per patient basis?

     

    Increasing premiums will not reduce costs. Increasing everyone's will help short-term but not solve the problem. If you doubled the premiums for everyone, it would not accomplish what you think it would. You would be increasing the cost by making capital more available. It would be inflationary.

     

    Changes are needed in the system, particularly in how medicine is practiced and what hospitals attempt to charge per procedure (including the giving of an aspirin).

     

    Consider that those at most risk are least able to afford increased premiums and are the majority of the nation's population. It's political suicide.

     

    There are conflicting views on whether cigarette smoking increases or decreases the risk of Alzheimers and/or Parkinsons. Are you an expert in the area? If so, read and think. If not, stay out of it. I *am* qualified to have an expert opinion and I am telling you that there is no way to know fact from fiction. Read this http://bit.ly/11PDoU9 and the this: http://bit.ly/16L97ak Google the topic as much as you like.

     

    There are always ongoing debates between scientists with far more credibility than those wanting to vote one way or another out of self-interest, including the majority of people with the self-inflicted delusion that anything read in print must have an element of truth to it or it would not have been printed ... or that anyone has "the" answer.

     

    How about trying to lower healtcare costs for people. What if UNH, WLP, HUM, and their peers ceased paying dividends and converted to non-profit status? Why should these companies enrich shareholders with dividends, and employ people with massive multi-million dollar salaries from earnings extracted as premiums from those barely able to pay them?

     

    Just sayin'
    9 Apr 2013, 03:53 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Unfortunately non-profits are now paying salaries just as high as for-profit. Non-profit hospitals are a complete scam - when they tell you they did 100 million of "free" care in a year you want to take a much much closer look at what comprised that care - as they report their FULL price for everything as that care. So 8,000 for a scan you can get down the street for 450. Suddenly that 100 million is more like 5-6 million - which is usually less than the executive suite took home that year!!!!

     

    Non-profit is just a way to divert profits into the hands of administrators instead of the government.

     

    And as an aside, a way to get rid of a lot of "cost" would be to simply pass a regulation saying that those without insurance pay the Medicare rate plus 5%. And outlaw the hospital pricing schemes that exist to negotiate with insurance companies - leaving the poorest among us being charged outrageous amounts for basic care.
    9 Apr 2013, 05:56 PM Reply Like
  • Paul Leibowitz
    , contributor
    Comments (1292) | Send Message
     
    David,

     

    I largely agree with what you wrote about the abuse by many not-for-profits. I didn't want to spend anytime explaining how it could work (it can). My only point was the irony of for-profit companies managing the administration of premium plans on behalf of the government and enriching shareholders who, on one hand, complain about costs and, on the other, like to collect dividends from these companies and pray for capital gains.

     

    That said, I think these are big jobs and the pay should reflect that. There are many ways to cap the pay and still leave people feeling well compensated.

     

    Too many people are pointing fingers at others for their own self-enrichment. We are one country, one people. We should be helping one another, not singling people out. We should be looking to find ways to care for people.

     

    Companies starting to penalize fat employees with regards to healthcare coverage are not trying to help their employees. They are trying to lower their costs and increase profits and earnings.

     

    That's good. But, shouldn't they be focused on improving the performance of their core business instead of adding a few cents to GAAP earnings?

     

    Increasing premiums will not reduce costs. Costs would increase because more capital would be available. It would be inflationary.

     

    Those at most risk of poor health are least able to afford increased premiums. They are the majority of the nation's population. The poorer one is, the more reliant one is on less expensive food, mainly carbohydrates.

     

    It's political suicide to target groups of people.

     

    Hmmm .... Wait. That could be a good thing : - )
    9 Apr 2013, 06:51 PM Reply Like
  • OptionManiac
    , contributor
    Comments (3304) | Send Message
     
    Like your comments. Too many on this site have forgotten that humans had banded together in groups for the betterment of the individual. Companies probably should offer gym memberships first, along with coaching. There are people who do need a wake up call before they hit bottom and are clutching at their chest while working on a stressful project. There are so many simple ways people can improve their health, but it is tough to implement. My company has donut day every Thursday - it has gotten to the point that there would be an insurrection if the donuts were skipped.
    9 Apr 2013, 08:18 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (581) | Send Message
     
    Donut Thursday - that's hilarious.... don't tell me - you work for a healthcare provider.
    9 Apr 2013, 09:12 PM Reply Like
  • OptionManiac
    , contributor
    Comments (3304) | Send Message
     
    No, worse, a winery. Ever go to work at 7AM and have someone put a glass of hard cider in your face and ask what do you think of this? And then put a donut on top of that? I live in a cruel world.
    9 Apr 2013, 09:21 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Well I have limited knowledge of the hospital business. What I do know is from local information. We have a non-profit hospital and they were highly embarrassed when some data was released a few years ago. The number of administrators per doctor has increased by 2.5 times over the past 20 years. Thats all about people gaming the system IMO. In addition, compensation for executives during that time increased an average of 13.5% per year! The president, CFO and a few directors of the hospital are making more than the CEO of a decent sized manufacturer about 20 minutes away (thats salary, not sure about his options). That is obscene for positions that are about "doing good". And our hospital is not some large regional powerhouse of a hospital - it provides basic services and care for a geographic area that probably comprises about 35,000-40,000 people. There are many procedures they don't do, and many patients are funnelled to a good regional hospital about 90 minutes away.

     

    As with most things involving government, money is not getting to the folks that its supposed to. Instead administrators and executives are enriching themselves, while pricing those they supposedly serve out of the market.

     

    Personally I think we should go back to a market based system, combined with some common sense regulations - especially around emergency care pricing.

     

    But if we aren't going to do that then just socialize the whole thing and put these folks into the government pay structure. If folks truly realized how much many of these hospital administrators made they would be outraged. There is nothing non-profit about it.
    10 Apr 2013, 04:08 AM Reply Like
  • OptionManiac
    , contributor
    Comments (3304) | Send Message
     
    That being said, I work with a guy who's wife is a nurse in the ICU. Most of the younger patients are obese, this guy's wife says the nurses don't seem to have learned any lessons from working in the ICU.
    9 Apr 2013, 09:24 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|