The Fat Patrol: A Weighty Problem

Daniel said:

Earlier this year an Indiana hospital chain announced plans to dock workers
paychecks if they continued to smoke and/or didn't adopt healthy lifestyles
that would reduce their blood pressure and/or cut their cholesterol levels.

Being only a proposal, nothing can yet be done about this. However, if
they do go through with it, I smell federal law suit. Be it in their
right/authority to do or not, the PR backlash would make the hospital
settle out of court for an insane amount of non-disclosed money.

Quoted message said:

A larger firm decided on a positive approach. It promised extra dollars to
employees whose children got into physical fitness programs. Many companies
(including Uncle Sam) now help employees with the cost of quit-smoking
programs.

But do they offer financial assistance for weight loss programs?
Discrimination occures to more then just the "protected" classes in
America. Color, age, sexual orientation, gender, and religion are what
the protections are based upon. It would seem that companies see this,
and assume that discrimination based on other criteria is perfectly ok.

Quoted message said:

Some years back, the director of an important federal agency (its initials
rhyme with O-P-M) got into a heap of trouble, and almost lost her job, for
encouraging staffers to lose weight. Her motives, aides said, were pure.
They said she was shocked and worried by the physical stature of some of
her staffers.

She should have lost her job. Her criteria for the people who work for
her should be job abilities. If you work in a filing room, you need to be
able to lift 50 lbs, but no other physical attributes should be of concern
to her.

Quoted message said:

Health insurance premiums everywhere are going up. Many private firms have
either cut back or dropped health insurance programs because of their high
costs.

And that's why we need a european style universal coverage health care
system. The answer is not to discriminate, it is not to force people to
change by holding their pay checks hostage.

Quoted message said:

Many scientists link smoking and obesity with heart disease, cancer, and
diabetes. Some say the latter disease has reached near epidemic
proportions. Or soon will.

Interestingly enough, I remember reading some place that the average life
span of a doctor is 10 years LESS then an average person. Nutritionalists
argue that this is because doctors go to the doctor too often, and the
over abundance to RX medications ruin their internal systems.

Quoted message said:

The issue raises a lot of questions and, for many, sets off a lot of alarm
bells. The only sure winners so far in the private sector are lawyers hired
to defend or attack enforced lifestyle rules.

Thus making the lawyer's wallets fatter then anyone else. Good going size
nazi bigots.

Daniel said:

Earlier this year an Indiana hospital chain announced plans to dock workers
paychecks if they continued to smoke and/or didn't adopt healthy lifestyles
that would reduce their blood pressure and/or cut their cholesterol levels.

Being only a proposal, nothing can yet be done about this. However, if
they do go through with it, I smell federal law suit. Be it in their
right/authority to do or not, the PR backlash would make the hospital
settle out of court for an insane amount of non-disclosed money.

Quoted message said:

A larger firm decided on a positive approach. It promised extra dollars to
employees whose children got into physical fitness programs. Many companies
(including Uncle Sam) now help employees with the cost of quit-smoking
programs.

But do they offer financial assistance for weight loss programs?
Discrimination occures to more then just the "protected" classes in
America. Color, age, sexual orientation, gender, and religion are what
the protections are based upon. It would seem that companies see this,
and assume that discrimination based on other criteria is perfectly ok.

Quoted message said:

Some years back, the director of an important federal agency (its initials
rhyme with O-P-M) got into a heap of trouble, and almost lost her job, for
encouraging staffers to lose weight. Her motives, aides said, were pure.
They said she was shocked and worried by the physical stature of some of
her staffers.

She should have lost her job. Her criteria for the people who work for
her should be job abilities. If you work in a filing room, you need to be
able to lift 50 lbs, but no other physical attributes should be of concern
to her.

Quoted message said:

Health insurance premiums everywhere are going up. Many private firms have
either cut back or dropped health insurance programs because of their high
costs.

And that's why we need a european style universal coverage health care
system. The answer is not to discriminate, it is not to force people to
change by holding their pay checks hostage.

Quoted message said:

Many scientists link smoking and obesity with heart disease, cancer, and
diabetes. Some say the latter disease has reached near epidemic
proportions. Or soon will.

Interestingly enough, I remember reading some place that the average life
span of a doctor is 10 years LESS then an average person. Nutritionalists
argue that this is because doctors go to the doctor too often, and the
over abundance to RX medications ruin their internal systems.

Quoted message said:

The issue raises a lot of questions and, for many, sets off a lot of alarm
bells. The only sure winners so far in the private sector are lawyers hired
to defend or attack enforced lifestyle rules.

Thus making the lawyer's wallets fatter then anyone else. Good going size
nazi bigots.

Daniel said:

Earlier this year an Indiana hospital chain announced plans to dock workers
paychecks if they continued to smoke and/or didn't adopt healthy lifestyles
that would reduce their blood pressure and/or cut their cholesterol levels.

Being only a proposal, nothing can yet be done about this. However, if
they do go through with it, I smell federal law suit. Be it in their
right/authority to do or not, the PR backlash would make the hospital
settle out of court for an insane amount of non-disclosed money.

Quoted message said:

A larger firm decided on a positive approach. It promised extra dollars to
employees whose children got into physical fitness programs. Many companies
(including Uncle Sam) now help employees with the cost of quit-smoking
programs.

But do they offer financial assistance for weight loss programs?
Discrimination occures to more then just the "protected" classes in
America. Color, age, sexual orientation, gender, and religion are what
the protections are based upon. It would seem that companies see this,
and assume that discrimination based on other criteria is perfectly ok.

Quoted message said:

Some years back, the director of an important federal agency (its initials
rhyme with O-P-M) got into a heap of trouble, and almost lost her job, for
encouraging staffers to lose weight. Her motives, aides said, were pure.
They said she was shocked and worried by the physical stature of some of
her staffers.

She should have lost her job. Her criteria for the people who work for
her should be job abilities. If you work in a filing room, you need to be
able to lift 50 lbs, but no other physical attributes should be of concern
to her.

Quoted message said:

Health insurance premiums everywhere are going up. Many private firms have
either cut back or dropped health insurance programs because of their high
costs.

And that's why we need a european style universal coverage health care
system. The answer is not to discriminate, it is not to force people to
change by holding their pay checks hostage.

Quoted message said:

Many scientists link smoking and obesity with heart disease, cancer, and
diabetes. Some say the latter disease has reached near epidemic
proportions. Or soon will.

Interestingly enough, I remember reading some place that the average life
span of a doctor is 10 years LESS then an average person. Nutritionalists
argue that this is because doctors go to the doctor too often, and the
over abundance to RX medications ruin their internal systems.

Quoted message said:

The issue raises a lot of questions and, for many, sets off a lot of alarm
bells. The only sure winners so far in the private sector are lawyers hired
to defend or attack enforced lifestyle rules.

Thus making the lawyer's wallets fatter then anyone else. Good going size
nazi bigots.

Daniel said:

Earlier this year an Indiana hospital chain announced plans to dock workers
paychecks if they continued to smoke and/or didn't adopt healthy lifestyles
that would reduce their blood pressure and/or cut their cholesterol levels.

Being only a proposal, nothing can yet be done about this. However, if
they do go through with it, I smell federal law suit. Be it in their
right/authority to do or not, the PR backlash would make the hospital
settle out of court for an insane amount of non-disclosed money.

Quoted message said:

A larger firm decided on a positive approach. It promised extra dollars to
employees whose children got into physical fitness programs. Many companies
(including Uncle Sam) now help employees with the cost of quit-smoking
programs.

But do they offer financial assistance for weight loss programs?
Discrimination occures to more then just the "protected" classes in
America. Color, age, sexual orientation, gender, and religion are what
the protections are based upon. It would seem that companies see this,
and assume that discrimination based on other criteria is perfectly ok.

Quoted message said:

Some years back, the director of an important federal agency (its initials
rhyme with O-P-M) got into a heap of trouble, and almost lost her job, for
encouraging staffers to lose weight. Her motives, aides said, were pure.
They said she was shocked and worried by the physical stature of some of
her staffers.

She should have lost her job. Her criteria for the people who work for
her should be job abilities. If you work in a filing room, you need to be
able to lift 50 lbs, but no other physical attributes should be of concern
to her.

Quoted message said:

Health insurance premiums everywhere are going up. Many private firms have
either cut back or dropped health insurance programs because of their high
costs.

And that's why we need a european style universal coverage health care
system. The answer is not to discriminate, it is not to force people to
change by holding their pay checks hostage.

Quoted message said:

Many scientists link smoking and obesity with heart disease, cancer, and
diabetes. Some say the latter disease has reached near epidemic
proportions. Or soon will.

Interestingly enough, I remember reading some place that the average life
span of a doctor is 10 years LESS then an average person. Nutritionalists
argue that this is because doctors go to the doctor too often, and the
over abundance to RX medications ruin their internal systems.

Quoted message said:

The issue raises a lot of questions and, for many, sets off a lot of alarm
bells. The only sure winners so far in the private sector are lawyers hired
to defend or attack enforced lifestyle rules.

Thus making the lawyer's wallets fatter then anyone else. Good going size
nazi bigots.

On Nov 5, 9:04 am, The Master <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Daniel said:

Earlier this year an Indiana hospital chain announced plans to dock workers
paychecks if they continued to smoke and/or didn't adopt healthy lifestyles
that would reduce their blood pressure and/or cut their cholesterol levels.

Being only a proposal, nothing can yet be done about this. However, if
they do go through with it, I smell federal law suit. Be it in their
right/authority to do or not, the PR backlash would make the hospital
settle out of court for an insane amount of non-disclosed money.

Forget lawsuit. It's a bad incentive. People respond more positively
to 110% than to 90% as a potential salary.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A larger firm decided on a positive approach. It promised extra dollars to
employees whose children got into physical fitness programs. Many companies
(including Uncle Sam) now help employees with the cost of quit-smoking
programs.

But do they offer financial assistance for weight loss programs?
Discrimination occures to more then just the "protected" classes in
America. Color, age, sexual orientation, gender, and religion are what
the protections are based upon. It would seem that companies see this,
and assume that discrimination based on other criteria is perfectly ok.

If you offer a bonus to employees who lose weight or quit smoking,
or improve their health in other manners, this isn't discrimination
against
the overweight, smokers or other unhealthy people. It's discrimination
against the people who are already healthy non-smokers. However, a
carefully designed incentive system, offering bonus pay for
maintenance
of health in addition to improvements might prove lawsuit proof. If
you
are overweight and smoke, you can earn the bonus or you can continue
in your unhealthy ways and cost the company more money in lost
productivity (have cited the study in Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine demonstraing lower productivity from heavier
employees) and higher insurance premiums (those insurance companies
know a thing or a thousand about risk profiling I imagine, since it's
their
whole business model).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Some years back, the director of an important federal agency (its initials
rhyme with O-P-M) got into a heap of trouble, and almost lost her job, for
encouraging staffers to lose weight. Her motives, aides said, were pure.
They said she was shocked and worried by the physical stature of some of
her staffers.

She should have lost her job. Her criteria for the people who work for
her should be job abilities. If you work in a filing room, you need to be
able to lift 50 lbs, but no other physical attributes should be of concern
to her.

Unless, of course, you could demonstrate a causitive link between
excess
weight and productivity. At that point it's not a capability issue,
but a
performance quality issue, in the aggregate. Now, if you're
overweight, you
probably don't want to hear it and would cry discrimination, but if
you're
an employer and you want to get the most productivity out of your wage
investments, well, it's another story entirely.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Health insurance premiums everywhere are going up. Many private firms have
either cut back or dropped health insurance programs because of their high
costs.

And that's why we need a european style universal coverage health care
system. The answer is not to discriminate, it is not to force people to
change by holding their pay checks hostage.

How about incent people to change with extra money. With the current
level
of obesity and smoking related illnesses (abdominal obesity is
strongly linked
to cancer), european style coverage is probably not feasbile. And I'm
like
the idea of socialized medicine. Or at least expansion of the two-tier
system.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Many scientists link smoking and obesity with heart disease, cancer, and
diabetes. Some say the latter disease has reached near epidemic
proportions. Or soon will.

Interestingly enough, I remember reading some place that the average life
span of a doctor is 10 years LESS then an average person. Nutritionalists
argue that this is because doctors go to the doctor too often, and the
over abundance to RX medications ruin their internal systems.

It might be a stress issue. It might be a long hours issue. It might
be
exposure to more diseases and causes of death through the nature of
their work. I dunno if Mike Rowe has covered it yet, but doctoring can
be
a Dirty Job.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The issue raises a lot of questions and, for many, sets off a lot of alarm
bells. The only sure winners so far in the private sector are lawyers hired
to defend or attack enforced lifestyle rules.

Thus making the lawyer's wallets fatter then anyone else. Good going size
nazi bigots.

Hrm, god forbid anyone try to make a fat person richer and thinner. I
suspect
that the fat acceptors will be the biggest obstacle (visual pun
unintentional, but
valid) to the progress of incentive based solutions.

Last thing: I agree with you, taking pay away is a poor answer. Base
pay is
viewed as entitlement. Bonuses, however, are good incentives, as they
are a
reward for doing more than the base requirement for base pay. That's
how we
learned it in my compensation and incentives class (Washington
University
in St. Louis, Dr. Barton Hamilton teaching, Spring 2005).

On Nov 5, 9:04 am, The Master <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Daniel said:

Earlier this year an Indiana hospital chain announced plans to dock workers
paychecks if they continued to smoke and/or didn't adopt healthy lifestyles
that would reduce their blood pressure and/or cut their cholesterol levels.

Being only a proposal, nothing can yet be done about this. However, if
they do go through with it, I smell federal law suit. Be it in their
right/authority to do or not, the PR backlash would make the hospital
settle out of court for an insane amount of non-disclosed money.

Forget lawsuit. It's a bad incentive. People respond more positively
to 110% than to 90% as a potential salary.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A larger firm decided on a positive approach. It promised extra dollars to
employees whose children got into physical fitness programs. Many companies
(including Uncle Sam) now help employees with the cost of quit-smoking
programs.

But do they offer financial assistance for weight loss programs?
Discrimination occures to more then just the "protected" classes in
America. Color, age, sexual orientation, gender, and religion are what
the protections are based upon. It would seem that companies see this,
and assume that discrimination based on other criteria is perfectly ok.

If you offer a bonus to employees who lose weight or quit smoking,
or improve their health in other manners, this isn't discrimination
against
the overweight, smokers or other unhealthy people. It's discrimination
against the people who are already healthy non-smokers. However, a
carefully designed incentive system, offering bonus pay for
maintenance
of health in addition to improvements might prove lawsuit proof. If
you
are overweight and smoke, you can earn the bonus or you can continue
in your unhealthy ways and cost the company more money in lost
productivity (have cited the study in Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine demonstraing lower productivity from heavier
employees) and higher insurance premiums (those insurance companies
know a thing or a thousand about risk profiling I imagine, since it's
their
whole business model).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Some years back, the director of an important federal agency (its initials
rhyme with O-P-M) got into a heap of trouble, and almost lost her job, for
encouraging staffers to lose weight. Her motives, aides said, were pure.
They said she was shocked and worried by the physical stature of some of
her staffers.

She should have lost her job. Her criteria for the people who work for
her should be job abilities. If you work in a filing room, you need to be
able to lift 50 lbs, but no other physical attributes should be of concern
to her.

Unless, of course, you could demonstrate a causitive link between
excess
weight and productivity. At that point it's not a capability issue,
but a
performance quality issue, in the aggregate. Now, if you're
overweight, you
probably don't want to hear it and would cry discrimination, but if
you're
an employer and you want to get the most productivity out of your wage
investments, well, it's another story entirely.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Health insurance premiums everywhere are going up. Many private firms have
either cut back or dropped health insurance programs because of their high
costs.

And that's why we need a european style universal coverage health care
system. The answer is not to discriminate, it is not to force people to
change by holding their pay checks hostage.

How about incent people to change with extra money. With the current
level
of obesity and smoking related illnesses (abdominal obesity is
strongly linked
to cancer), european style coverage is probably not feasbile. And I'm
like
the idea of socialized medicine. Or at least expansion of the two-tier
system.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Many scientists link smoking and obesity with heart disease, cancer, and
diabetes. Some say the latter disease has reached near epidemic
proportions. Or soon will.

Interestingly enough, I remember reading some place that the average life
span of a doctor is 10 years LESS then an average person. Nutritionalists
argue that this is because doctors go to the doctor too often, and the
over abundance to RX medications ruin their internal systems.

It might be a stress issue. It might be a long hours issue. It might
be
exposure to more diseases and causes of death through the nature of
their work. I dunno if Mike Rowe has covered it yet, but doctoring can
be
a Dirty Job.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The issue raises a lot of questions and, for many, sets off a lot of alarm
bells. The only sure winners so far in the private sector are lawyers hired
to defend or attack enforced lifestyle rules.

Thus making the lawyer's wallets fatter then anyone else. Good going size
nazi bigots.

Hrm, god forbid anyone try to make a fat person richer and thinner. I
suspect
that the fat acceptors will be the biggest obstacle (visual pun
unintentional, but
valid) to the progress of incentive based solutions.

Last thing: I agree with you, taking pay away is a poor answer. Base
pay is
viewed as entitlement. Bonuses, however, are good incentives, as they
are a
reward for doing more than the base requirement for base pay. That's
how we
learned it in my compensation and incentives class (Washington
University
in St. Louis, Dr. Barton Hamilton teaching, Spring 2005).

On Nov 5, 9:04 am, The Master <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Daniel said:

Earlier this year an Indiana hospital chain announced plans to dock workers
paychecks if they continued to smoke and/or didn't adopt healthy lifestyles
that would reduce their blood pressure and/or cut their cholesterol levels.

Being only a proposal, nothing can yet be done about this. However, if
they do go through with it, I smell federal law suit. Be it in their
right/authority to do or not, the PR backlash would make the hospital
settle out of court for an insane amount of non-disclosed money.

Forget lawsuit. It's a bad incentive. People respond more positively
to 110% than to 90% as a potential salary.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A larger firm decided on a positive approach. It promised extra dollars to
employees whose children got into physical fitness programs. Many companies
(including Uncle Sam) now help employees with the cost of quit-smoking
programs.

But do they offer financial assistance for weight loss programs?
Discrimination occures to more then just the "protected" classes in
America. Color, age, sexual orientation, gender, and religion are what
the protections are based upon. It would seem that companies see this,
and assume that discrimination based on other criteria is perfectly ok.

If you offer a bonus to employees who lose weight or quit smoking,
or improve their health in other manners, this isn't discrimination
against
the overweight, smokers or other unhealthy people. It's discrimination
against the people who are already healthy non-smokers. However, a
carefully designed incentive system, offering bonus pay for
maintenance
of health in addition to improvements might prove lawsuit proof. If
you
are overweight and smoke, you can earn the bonus or you can continue
in your unhealthy ways and cost the company more money in lost
productivity (have cited the study in Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine demonstraing lower productivity from heavier
employees) and higher insurance premiums (those insurance companies
know a thing or a thousand about risk profiling I imagine, since it's
their
whole business model).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Some years back, the director of an important federal agency (its initials
rhyme with O-P-M) got into a heap of trouble, and almost lost her job, for
encouraging staffers to lose weight. Her motives, aides said, were pure.
They said she was shocked and worried by the physical stature of some of
her staffers.

She should have lost her job. Her criteria for the people who work for
her should be job abilities. If you work in a filing room, you need to be
able to lift 50 lbs, but no other physical attributes should be of concern
to her.

Unless, of course, you could demonstrate a causitive link between
excess
weight and productivity. At that point it's not a capability issue,
but a
performance quality issue, in the aggregate. Now, if you're
overweight, you
probably don't want to hear it and would cry discrimination, but if
you're
an employer and you want to get the most productivity out of your wage
investments, well, it's another story entirely.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Health insurance premiums everywhere are going up. Many private firms have
either cut back or dropped health insurance programs because of their high
costs.

And that's why we need a european style universal coverage health care
system. The answer is not to discriminate, it is not to force people to
change by holding their pay checks hostage.

How about incent people to change with extra money. With the current
level
of obesity and smoking related illnesses (abdominal obesity is
strongly linked
to cancer), european style coverage is probably not feasbile. And I'm
like
the idea of socialized medicine. Or at least expansion of the two-tier
system.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Many scientists link smoking and obesity with heart disease, cancer, and
diabetes. Some say the latter disease has reached near epidemic
proportions. Or soon will.

Interestingly enough, I remember reading some place that the average life
span of a doctor is 10 years LESS then an average person. Nutritionalists
argue that this is because doctors go to the doctor too often, and the
over abundance to RX medications ruin their internal systems.

It might be a stress issue. It might be a long hours issue. It might
be
exposure to more diseases and causes of death through the nature of
their work. I dunno if Mike Rowe has covered it yet, but doctoring can
be
a Dirty Job.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The issue raises a lot of questions and, for many, sets off a lot of alarm
bells. The only sure winners so far in the private sector are lawyers hired
to defend or attack enforced lifestyle rules.

Thus making the lawyer's wallets fatter then anyone else. Good going size
nazi bigots.

Hrm, god forbid anyone try to make a fat person richer and thinner. I
suspect
that the fat acceptors will be the biggest obstacle (visual pun
unintentional, but
valid) to the progress of incentive based solutions.

Last thing: I agree with you, taking pay away is a poor answer. Base
pay is
viewed as entitlement. Bonuses, however, are good incentives, as they
are a
reward for doing more than the base requirement for base pay. That's
how we
learned it in my compensation and incentives class (Washington
University
in St. Louis, Dr. Barton Hamilton teaching, Spring 2005).

On Nov 5, 9:04 am, The Master <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Daniel said:

Earlier this year an Indiana hospital chain announced plans to dock workers
paychecks if they continued to smoke and/or didn't adopt healthy lifestyles
that would reduce their blood pressure and/or cut their cholesterol levels.

Being only a proposal, nothing can yet be done about this. However, if
they do go through with it, I smell federal law suit. Be it in their
right/authority to do or not, the PR backlash would make the hospital
settle out of court for an insane amount of non-disclosed money.

Forget lawsuit. It's a bad incentive. People respond more positively
to 110% than to 90% as a potential salary.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A larger firm decided on a positive approach. It promised extra dollars to
employees whose children got into physical fitness programs. Many companies
(including Uncle Sam) now help employees with the cost of quit-smoking
programs.

But do they offer financial assistance for weight loss programs?
Discrimination occures to more then just the "protected" classes in
America. Color, age, sexual orientation, gender, and religion are what
the protections are based upon. It would seem that companies see this,
and assume that discrimination based on other criteria is perfectly ok.

If you offer a bonus to employees who lose weight or quit smoking,
or improve their health in other manners, this isn't discrimination
against
the overweight, smokers or other unhealthy people. It's discrimination
against the people who are already healthy non-smokers. However, a
carefully designed incentive system, offering bonus pay for
maintenance
of health in addition to improvements might prove lawsuit proof. If
you
are overweight and smoke, you can earn the bonus or you can continue
in your unhealthy ways and cost the company more money in lost
productivity (have cited the study in Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine demonstraing lower productivity from heavier
employees) and higher insurance premiums (those insurance companies
know a thing or a thousand about risk profiling I imagine, since it's
their
whole business model).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Some years back, the director of an important federal agency (its initials
rhyme with O-P-M) got into a heap of trouble, and almost lost her job, for
encouraging staffers to lose weight. Her motives, aides said, were pure.
They said she was shocked and worried by the physical stature of some of
her staffers.

She should have lost her job. Her criteria for the people who work for
her should be job abilities. If you work in a filing room, you need to be
able to lift 50 lbs, but no other physical attributes should be of concern
to her.

Unless, of course, you could demonstrate a causitive link between
excess
weight and productivity. At that point it's not a capability issue,
but a
performance quality issue, in the aggregate. Now, if you're
overweight, you
probably don't want to hear it and would cry discrimination, but if
you're
an employer and you want to get the most productivity out of your wage
investments, well, it's another story entirely.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Health insurance premiums everywhere are going up. Many private firms have
either cut back or dropped health insurance programs because of their high
costs.

And that's why we need a european style universal coverage health care
system. The answer is not to discriminate, it is not to force people to
change by holding their pay checks hostage.

How about incent people to change with extra money. With the current
level
of obesity and smoking related illnesses (abdominal obesity is
strongly linked
to cancer), european style coverage is probably not feasbile. And I'm
like
the idea of socialized medicine. Or at least expansion of the two-tier
system.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Many scientists link smoking and obesity with heart disease, cancer, and
diabetes. Some say the latter disease has reached near epidemic
proportions. Or soon will.

Interestingly enough, I remember reading some place that the average life
span of a doctor is 10 years LESS then an average person. Nutritionalists
argue that this is because doctors go to the doctor too often, and the
over abundance to RX medications ruin their internal systems.

It might be a stress issue. It might be a long hours issue. It might
be
exposure to more diseases and causes of death through the nature of
their work. I dunno if Mike Rowe has covered it yet, but doctoring can
be
a Dirty Job.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The issue raises a lot of questions and, for many, sets off a lot of alarm
bells. The only sure winners so far in the private sector are lawyers hired
to defend or attack enforced lifestyle rules.

Thus making the lawyer's wallets fatter then anyone else. Good going size
nazi bigots.

Hrm, god forbid anyone try to make a fat person richer and thinner. I
suspect
that the fat acceptors will be the biggest obstacle (visual pun
unintentional, but
valid) to the progress of incentive based solutions.

Last thing: I agree with you, taking pay away is a poor answer. Base
pay is
viewed as entitlement. Bonuses, however, are good incentives, as they
are a
reward for doing more than the base requirement for base pay. That's
how we
learned it in my compensation and incentives class (Washington
University
in St. Louis, Dr. Barton Hamilton teaching, Spring 2005).

"Daniel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?sid=1283658&nid=22

November 1, 2007 - 6:45am

A growing number of American companies, worried about the growing
waistlines of their employees and the impact on health care costs, are
considering either a carrot or stick approach to slim their workforce.

F-ing libs. They'll have us eating whole grains. [censored].

"Daniel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?sid=1283658&nid=22

November 1, 2007 - 6:45am

A growing number of American companies, worried about the growing
waistlines of their employees and the impact on health care costs, are
considering either a carrot or stick approach to slim their workforce.

F-ing libs. They'll have us eating whole grains. [censored].

"Daniel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?sid=1283658&nid=22

November 1, 2007 - 6:45am

A growing number of American companies, worried about the growing
waistlines of their employees and the impact on health care costs, are
considering either a carrot or stick approach to slim their workforce.

F-ing libs. They'll have us eating whole grains. [censored].

"Daniel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?sid=1283658&nid=22

November 1, 2007 - 6:45am

A growing number of American companies, worried about the growing
waistlines of their employees and the impact on health care costs, are
considering either a carrot or stick approach to slim their workforce.

F-ing libs. They'll have us eating whole grains. [censored].

Robin King said:

"Daniel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?sid=1283658&nid=22

November 1, 2007 - 6:45am

The proposal was to fine workers $5 per paycheck if they smoked and

to trim

Quoted message said:

$10 from each paycheck if they were overweight and didn't take steps

to

Quoted message said:

slim down. Naturally it caused a firestorm of complaints.

As it should. Smoking is one thing, but forcing people to
slim down will make many of them fatter in the long run.

Cite?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Many scientists link smoking and obesity with heart disease, cancer,

and

Quoted message said:

diabetes. Some say the latter disease has reached near epidemic
proportions. Or soon will.

Hint: Diabetes and hypertension are also associated with
groups of people that suffer prejudice.

Cite?

Quoted message said:

Hint2: The standards for what blood sugar level constitutes
diabetes have gotten stricter over the years. That's why you see more
young people diagnosed with it.

Cite?

Quoted message said:

Hint3: Fat doesn't cause diabetes, and most fat people will
not get it

Cite?

Quoted message said:

Hint4: Fat people have better survival rates when it comes to
heart disease.

Cite?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So what, if anything, should the government do?

How about just encouraging healthy lifestyles without using
weight as a barometer? Or age?

Age discrimination is illegal, and should be, but a company can legally cut
costs by having obese employees pay more for their health benefits.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So what role, if any, does the employer, especially yours, have in

policing

Quoted message said:

the health of workers?

None.

Obese workers are more expensive and less productive.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Should there be a carrot-like incentive (maybe extra
pay or bonuses) for those with healthy lifestyles? Or should Uncle

Sam

Quoted message said:

wield the stick and whack the wallets and purses of those without

healthy

Quoted message said:

lifestyles.

How about neither? They're more likely to whack the people
who can least afford it.

Why can fat people least afford it?

Robin King said:

"Daniel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?sid=1283658&nid=22

November 1, 2007 - 6:45am

The proposal was to fine workers $5 per paycheck if they smoked and

to trim

Quoted message said:

$10 from each paycheck if they were overweight and didn't take steps

to

Quoted message said:

slim down. Naturally it caused a firestorm of complaints.

As it should. Smoking is one thing, but forcing people to
slim down will make many of them fatter in the long run.

Cite?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Many scientists link smoking and obesity with heart disease, cancer,

and

Quoted message said:

diabetes. Some say the latter disease has reached near epidemic
proportions. Or soon will.

Hint: Diabetes and hypertension are also associated with
groups of people that suffer prejudice.

Cite?

Quoted message said:

Hint2: The standards for what blood sugar level constitutes
diabetes have gotten stricter over the years. That's why you see more
young people diagnosed with it.

Cite?

Quoted message said:

Hint3: Fat doesn't cause diabetes, and most fat people will
not get it

Cite?

Quoted message said:

Hint4: Fat people have better survival rates when it comes to
heart disease.

Cite?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So what, if anything, should the government do?

How about just encouraging healthy lifestyles without using
weight as a barometer? Or age?

Age discrimination is illegal, and should be, but a company can legally cut
costs by having obese employees pay more for their health benefits.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So what role, if any, does the employer, especially yours, have in

policing

Quoted message said:

the health of workers?

None.

Obese workers are more expensive and less productive.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Should there be a carrot-like incentive (maybe extra
pay or bonuses) for those with healthy lifestyles? Or should Uncle

Sam

Quoted message said:

wield the stick and whack the wallets and purses of those without

healthy

Quoted message said:

lifestyles.

How about neither? They're more likely to whack the people
who can least afford it.

Why can fat people least afford it?

Robin King said:

"Daniel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?sid=1283658&nid=22

November 1, 2007 - 6:45am

The proposal was to fine workers $5 per paycheck if they smoked and

to trim

Quoted message said:

$10 from each paycheck if they were overweight and didn't take steps

to

Quoted message said:

slim down. Naturally it caused a firestorm of complaints.

As it should. Smoking is one thing, but forcing people to
slim down will make many of them fatter in the long run.

Cite?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Many scientists link smoking and obesity with heart disease, cancer,

and

Quoted message said:

diabetes. Some say the latter disease has reached near epidemic
proportions. Or soon will.

Hint: Diabetes and hypertension are also associated with
groups of people that suffer prejudice.

Cite?

Quoted message said:

Hint2: The standards for what blood sugar level constitutes
diabetes have gotten stricter over the years. That's why you see more
young people diagnosed with it.

Cite?

Quoted message said:

Hint3: Fat doesn't cause diabetes, and most fat people will
not get it

Cite?

Quoted message said:

Hint4: Fat people have better survival rates when it comes to
heart disease.

Cite?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So what, if anything, should the government do?

How about just encouraging healthy lifestyles without using
weight as a barometer? Or age?

Age discrimination is illegal, and should be, but a company can legally cut
costs by having obese employees pay more for their health benefits.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So what role, if any, does the employer, especially yours, have in

policing

Quoted message said:

the health of workers?

None.

Obese workers are more expensive and less productive.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Should there be a carrot-like incentive (maybe extra
pay or bonuses) for those with healthy lifestyles? Or should Uncle

Sam

Quoted message said:

wield the stick and whack the wallets and purses of those without

healthy

Quoted message said:

lifestyles.

How about neither? They're more likely to whack the people
who can least afford it.

Why can fat people least afford it?

Robin King said:

"Daniel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?sid=1283658&nid=22

November 1, 2007 - 6:45am

The proposal was to fine workers $5 per paycheck if they smoked and

to trim

Quoted message said:

$10 from each paycheck if they were overweight and didn't take steps

to

Quoted message said:

slim down. Naturally it caused a firestorm of complaints.

As it should. Smoking is one thing, but forcing people to
slim down will make many of them fatter in the long run.

Cite?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Many scientists link smoking and obesity with heart disease, cancer,

and

Quoted message said:

diabetes. Some say the latter disease has reached near epidemic
proportions. Or soon will.

Hint: Diabetes and hypertension are also associated with
groups of people that suffer prejudice.

Cite?

Quoted message said:

Hint2: The standards for what blood sugar level constitutes
diabetes have gotten stricter over the years. That's why you see more
young people diagnosed with it.

Cite?

Quoted message said:

Hint3: Fat doesn't cause diabetes, and most fat people will
not get it

Cite?

Quoted message said:

Hint4: Fat people have better survival rates when it comes to
heart disease.

Cite?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So what, if anything, should the government do?

How about just encouraging healthy lifestyles without using
weight as a barometer? Or age?

Age discrimination is illegal, and should be, but a company can legally cut
costs by having obese employees pay more for their health benefits.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So what role, if any, does the employer, especially yours, have in

policing

Quoted message said:

the health of workers?

None.

Obese workers are more expensive and less productive.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Should there be a carrot-like incentive (maybe extra
pay or bonuses) for those with healthy lifestyles? Or should Uncle

Sam

Quoted message said:

wield the stick and whack the wallets and purses of those without

healthy

Quoted message said:

lifestyles.

How about neither? They're more likely to whack the people
who can least afford it.

Why can fat people least afford it?

Hollywood said:

However, a
carefully designed incentive system, offering bonus pay for
maintenance
of health in addition to improvements might prove lawsuit proof. If
you
are overweight and smoke, you can earn the bonus or you can continue
in your unhealthy ways and cost the company more money in lost
productivity (have cited the study in Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine demonstraing lower productivity from heavier
employees) and higher insurance premiums (those insurance companies
know a thing or a thousand about risk profiling I imagine, since it's
their
whole business model).

I don't know if such a plan would insure victory in a lawsuit, but I can
tell you right now one would be filed. If fat people are less productive,
then give a bonus on productivity. If fat people are sick more, then give
a bonus on less time off sick. Then you are rewarding things that can be
measured, quantified, and recorded. Docking pay because a worker is fat
is morally and ethically wrong, docking pay because the weight affects the
ability to do the job is more to do with the job then the weight directly.

The same can be said about smokers... Smokers tend to take many smoke
breaks, many more then most non-smokers. Docking pay because they smoke
will result in a law suit. Docking pay for frequent breaks is a job issue
rather then a personal one.

If a fat smoker can do the job, doesn't take excessive time off work for
sickness, and doesn't take too many smoke breaks, docking their pay would
NEVER stand up in a court of law, because the personal habbits are NOT
affecting work productivity. But if they are affecting productivity, dock
because of the reduction.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

She should have lost her job. Her criteria for the people who work for
her should be job abilities. If you work in a filing room, you need to be
able to lift 50 lbs, but no other physical attributes should be of concern
to her.

Unless, of course, you could demonstrate a causitive link between
excess
weight and productivity.

And then you dock because of the PRODUCTIVITY, not the WEIGHT. This story
was talking about docking pay because of weight, not productivity.

Quoted message said:

Now, if you're
overweight, you
probably don't want to hear it and would cry discrimination, but if
you're
an employer and you want to get the most productivity out of your wage
investments, well, it's another story entirely.

We are in agreement there. But again, that's not what this story was
talking about. It talked about docking for weight alone, even if it
wasn't yet an issue for an employee, as a preventative measure. Once it
IS a REAL problem, dock all you want. But until the problem can be
quantified, the employeer has nothing to stand on.

Quoted message said:

Last thing: I agree with you, taking pay away is a poor answer. Base
pay is
viewed as entitlement. Bonuses, however, are good incentives, as they
are a
reward for doing more than the base requirement for base pay. That's
how we
learned it in my compensation and incentives class (Washington
University
in St. Louis, Dr. Barton Hamilton teaching, Spring 2005).

And that's fine, as long as the bonuses can be given out for work related
goals rather then personal ones alone.

Hollywood said:

However, a
carefully designed incentive system, offering bonus pay for
maintenance
of health in addition to improvements might prove lawsuit proof. If
you
are overweight and smoke, you can earn the bonus or you can continue
in your unhealthy ways and cost the company more money in lost
productivity (have cited the study in Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine demonstraing lower productivity from heavier
employees) and higher insurance premiums (those insurance companies
know a thing or a thousand about risk profiling I imagine, since it's
their
whole business model).

I don't know if such a plan would insure victory in a lawsuit, but I can
tell you right now one would be filed. If fat people are less productive,
then give a bonus on productivity. If fat people are sick more, then give
a bonus on less time off sick. Then you are rewarding things that can be
measured, quantified, and recorded. Docking pay because a worker is fat
is morally and ethically wrong, docking pay because the weight affects the
ability to do the job is more to do with the job then the weight directly.

The same can be said about smokers... Smokers tend to take many smoke
breaks, many more then most non-smokers. Docking pay because they smoke
will result in a law suit. Docking pay for frequent breaks is a job issue
rather then a personal one.

If a fat smoker can do the job, doesn't take excessive time off work for
sickness, and doesn't take too many smoke breaks, docking their pay would
NEVER stand up in a court of law, because the personal habbits are NOT
affecting work productivity. But if they are affecting productivity, dock
because of the reduction.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

She should have lost her job. Her criteria for the people who work for
her should be job abilities. If you work in a filing room, you need to be
able to lift 50 lbs, but no other physical attributes should be of concern
to her.

Unless, of course, you could demonstrate a causitive link between
excess
weight and productivity.

And then you dock because of the PRODUCTIVITY, not the WEIGHT. This story
was talking about docking pay because of weight, not productivity.

Quoted message said:

Now, if you're
overweight, you
probably don't want to hear it and would cry discrimination, but if
you're
an employer and you want to get the most productivity out of your wage
investments, well, it's another story entirely.

We are in agreement there. But again, that's not what this story was
talking about. It talked about docking for weight alone, even if it
wasn't yet an issue for an employee, as a preventative measure. Once it
IS a REAL problem, dock all you want. But until the problem can be
quantified, the employeer has nothing to stand on.

Quoted message said:

Last thing: I agree with you, taking pay away is a poor answer. Base
pay is
viewed as entitlement. Bonuses, however, are good incentives, as they
are a
reward for doing more than the base requirement for base pay. That's
how we
learned it in my compensation and incentives class (Washington
University
in St. Louis, Dr. Barton Hamilton teaching, Spring 2005).

And that's fine, as long as the bonuses can be given out for work related
goals rather then personal ones alone.

Hollywood said:

However, a
carefully designed incentive system, offering bonus pay for
maintenance
of health in addition to improvements might prove lawsuit proof. If
you
are overweight and smoke, you can earn the bonus or you can continue
in your unhealthy ways and cost the company more money in lost
productivity (have cited the study in Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine demonstraing lower productivity from heavier
employees) and higher insurance premiums (those insurance companies
know a thing or a thousand about risk profiling I imagine, since it's
their
whole business model).

I don't know if such a plan would insure victory in a lawsuit, but I can
tell you right now one would be filed. If fat people are less productive,
then give a bonus on productivity. If fat people are sick more, then give
a bonus on less time off sick. Then you are rewarding things that can be
measured, quantified, and recorded. Docking pay because a worker is fat
is morally and ethically wrong, docking pay because the weight affects the
ability to do the job is more to do with the job then the weight directly.

The same can be said about smokers... Smokers tend to take many smoke
breaks, many more then most non-smokers. Docking pay because they smoke
will result in a law suit. Docking pay for frequent breaks is a job issue
rather then a personal one.

If a fat smoker can do the job, doesn't take excessive time off work for
sickness, and doesn't take too many smoke breaks, docking their pay would
NEVER stand up in a court of law, because the personal habbits are NOT
affecting work productivity. But if they are affecting productivity, dock
because of the reduction.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

She should have lost her job. Her criteria for the people who work for
her should be job abilities. If you work in a filing room, you need to be
able to lift 50 lbs, but no other physical attributes should be of concern
to her.

Unless, of course, you could demonstrate a causitive link between
excess
weight and productivity.

And then you dock because of the PRODUCTIVITY, not the WEIGHT. This story
was talking about docking pay because of weight, not productivity.

Quoted message said:

Now, if you're
overweight, you
probably don't want to hear it and would cry discrimination, but if
you're
an employer and you want to get the most productivity out of your wage
investments, well, it's another story entirely.

We are in agreement there. But again, that's not what this story was
talking about. It talked about docking for weight alone, even if it
wasn't yet an issue for an employee, as a preventative measure. Once it
IS a REAL problem, dock all you want. But until the problem can be
quantified, the employeer has nothing to stand on.

Quoted message said:

Last thing: I agree with you, taking pay away is a poor answer. Base
pay is
viewed as entitlement. Bonuses, however, are good incentives, as they
are a
reward for doing more than the base requirement for base pay. That's
how we
learned it in my compensation and incentives class (Washington
University
in St. Louis, Dr. Barton Hamilton teaching, Spring 2005).

And that's fine, as long as the bonuses can be given out for work related
goals rather then personal ones alone.