My company is going to fine tobacco users 500 bucks

[child of wonder]

Don't old people incur a greater deal of medical expenses than young people? Why isn't the company health insurance prorated based on age?

Time for those freeloaders to pay their share!

 

[bignateyk]

My ER insurance has 3 penalties
1. For smoking
2. For being too fat - bmi over 30 or cholesterol over 250
3. For insuring spouse and/or kids if spouse is eligible to other insurance.

So yeah 3. Is biggest BS. Beats everything else.

Ours just started doing 1) and 3) from your list. I don't know how they can get away with number 3. I'm sure number 2 isn't far behind for us.

 

[bignateyk]

Don't old people incur a greater deal of medical expenses than young people? Why isn't the company health insurance prorated based on age?

Time for those freeloaders to pay their share!

Age is a protected class. Our company gets around this by grading insurance based on salary. You can generally assume older people make more money, so higher salaries pay more for health insurance.

 

[nickbits]

What about idiot tax. I've know far more people that did stupid shit and had to go to the doctors, even though they were otherwise healthy (non-smoker/drinker and skinny). How about those people. Fucking tired of this shit. Idiots is what cost people.

Hey look a saw I think I'll have my hand/fingers in front of it while cutting. I could go on and on with stupid shit like this that actually happened.

But then again I'm sure you idiots would be against this, because that means charging people more that actually use the insurance more. Fuck common sense though can't have that.

I think you will find people with chronic illnesses and cancer level type diseases cost the system way more than acute trauma.
My baseline billed medical costs are 60k/year. This year I will be closer to 75K or more if I need a cornea transplant. I realize insurance pays less than the billed rate.

 

[yuchai]

Your employer is absolutely able to charge different rates to different employees however they want, as long as it's not a protected class under the law.

To all that is worried about slippery slopes and all that, consider that your employer is not even required to offer you health coverage at all (even with Obamacare they can choose not to offer it and pay a fine). Most offer it currently only because of the tax advantage and the need to stay competitive with their peers so that they can attract & retain talent.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Pretty reasonable. Why should non-drinkers/fatties/diabetics etc have to pay more to cover the drinkers/fatties/diabetics etc higher premiums?

How about this?

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Your employer is absolutely able to charge different rates to different employees however they want, as long as it's not a protected class under the law.

To all that is worried about slippery slopes and all that, consider that your employer is not even required to offer you health coverage at all (even with Obamacare they can choose not to offer it and pay a fine). Most offer it currently only because of the tax advantage and the need to stay competitive with their peers so that they can attract & retain talent.

And employees arent required to continue working for a company with declining benefits. Not only that, but they arent required to work as hard as before either. Things like this destroy morale and cause productivity loss because people stop caring.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

3. For insuring spouse and/or kids if spouse is eligible to other insurance.

Ours just started doing 1) and 3) from your list. I don't know how they can get away with number 3. I'm sure number 2 isn't far behind for us.

WHAT?! How the Hell?!

How the hell do they:
1) Detect if your spouse/kids have a job that offers insurance
2) Detect if they are employed
3) .... How the hell is that even legal?! That is BS

Usually healthcare for someone+spouse is simply 2x the normal. So the only hopeful benefit is that one is lower than the other by a significant amount.

 

[JTsyo]

WHAT?! How the Hell?!

How the hell do they:
1) Detect if your spouse/kids have a job that offers insurance
2) Detect if they are employed
3) .... How the hell is that even legal?! That is BS

Usually healthcare for someone+spouse is simply 2x the normal. So the only hopeful benefit is that one is lower than the other by a significant amount.

I agree that's some BS right there. I guess they figure it'll still be cheaper than actually getting the second insurance so they get more money from you for the same service. Best case you drop your company's plan and go on a family plan from your spouse's employer. Too bad you can't get one plan and get both companies to pay into it, that way everyone wins.

 

[bignateyk]

I agree that's some BS right there. I guess they figure it'll still be cheaper than actually getting the second insurance so they get more money from you for the same service. Best case you drop your company's plan and go on a family plan from your spouse's employer. Too bad you can't get one plan and get both companies to pay into it, that way everyone wins.

The part that makes it the biggest BS is that if you have kids, you have to pay an extra $100 a month if your spouse has eligible insurance. I can kind of see for your spouse, but your KIDS?

 

[sactoking]

Age is a protected class. Our company gets around this by grading insurance based on salary. You can generally assume older people make more money, so higher salaries pay more for health insurance.

That's not completely accurate. Age is a protected characteristic for some things, such as hiring, but not for health insurance rate setting. In fact, the ACA explicitly allows age rating so long as it is within the 3:1 ratio.

Age generally isn't used in employment-based insurance not because it's protected but because group plans use modified community rating, where the overall characteristics of the population control over the specific characteristics of a sample employee.

Salary-based premiums are an offshoot of programs that offer different benefits based on job duties. Such plans will be, IIRC, illegal as of 1/1/14.

 

[AustinInDallas]

im fine with this as long as other fines are imposed.

...i typed them all out, and they seemed racist so i deleted them

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Smokers cost the HC system less in the long run.

Companies can do WTF they want.

 

[futurefields]

if they fine smokers then they need to start fining the drinkers too

 

[yuchai]

That's not completely accurate. Age is a protected characteristic for some things, such as hiring, but not for health insurance rate setting. In fact, the ACA explicitly allows age rating so long as it is within the 3:1 ratio.

Age generally isn't used in employment-based insurance not because it's protected but because group plans use modified community rating, where the overall characteristics of the population control over the specific characteristics of a sample employee.

Salary-based premiums are an offshoot of programs that offer different benefits based on job duties. Such plans will be, IIRC, illegal as of 1/1/14.

I am pretty sure that salary based premiums are still allowed under Obamacare.

 

[yuchai]

And employees arent required to continue working for a company with declining benefits. Not only that, but they arent required to work as hard as before either. Things like this destroy morale and cause productivity loss because people stop caring.

Yes - which is why companies haven't been changing things drastically for the most part in the past. But health care costs is becoming such a prominent piece of the pie that it's getting the attention of the highest levels of management. Accordingly companies are willing to try new ideas to help control costs.

The issue you described only applies if 1 company does something and nobody else within the industry does it. This is not the situation here. What typically happens is an early adopter puts something in place. Others within the industry see that the benefits outweigh the costs (including employee engagement issues) and are then putting it in place to keep pace with the competition.

 

[SparkyJJO]

if they fine smokers then they need to start fining the drinkers too

Define "drinkers."

Alcohol consumption within reason has no negative side effects. And some forms (such as wine) have antioxidants along with it that can be beneficial. Obviously if you're getting drunk you've gone too far and are now in the harmful stages.

However, with smoking, there is no "within reason" that has no negatives, and there are no positives to make up for it. So, no, you can't directly classify them the same way.

 

[sactoking]

I am pretty sure that salary based premiums are still allowed under Obamacare.

Not since September 23, 2010. Section 1001 of the ACA amended the Public Health Service Act section 2716 (42 U.S.C. § 300gg-16), a section which used to only apply to self-insured groups, to apply to fully-insured groups as well. Employers who violate the provisions (by not providing the same benefits to other employees as provided to highly-compensated employees) face a fine of $100 per day.

 

[jpiniero]

Maybe I'm misreading, but I think he's talking about same quality, but people with higher salaries pay more.

 

[sportage]

Wow could I tell u stories.
And totally agree, non smokers should not pay for the later health issues of the smoker.
Point... Just one co-worker example:
Employee X, 50 and has smoked since their teens.
Smoker related health issues to date:
3 heart attacks.
1 brain aneurism 2002 (hospitalized 3 months, miracle recovery).
Leukemia (diag 2005. On gleevec with full remission at the cost of $8000 a month medication cost for gleevec. Gleevec covered by company insurance. Co pay $85. Insurance covers $7915. This is monthly @ 30 day supply).
Pulmonary embolus 2012 (hospital 1 month. Medications 6 months)
2013 diag heart failure symptoms. 6 new daily medications added.
2013 switched to E-cig.

It might seem kool or trendy to smoke, especially while still healthy and young, but it does catch up to one. Life after 40-50 can and most likely be hell on earth.

Another true story concerning a family member:
Brother in law Craig, 60, lifetime smoker.
Planned on retiring after employment 35 years @ age 62 with a nice company pension.
Planning on moving to Branson to retire with his wife.
Blessed with 4 children, many grand kids.
Dropped dead in the shower from fatal heart attach January 2013 age 60.

Stats claim smoking knocks 10 years off ones life.
Average male life expectancy age 72.
Sudden death @ the age of 60.
Another smoking statistic confirmed.

Smoking does and will catch up to the smoker.
Paying $500 extra for insurance is just the beginning.

 

[Ns1]

Another true story concerning a family member:
Brother in law Craig, 60, lifetime smoker.
Planned on retiring after employment 35 years @ age 62 with a nice company pension.
Planning on moving to Branson to retire with his wife.
Blessed with 4 children, many grand kids.
Dropped dead in the shower from fatal heart attach January 2013 age 60.

404 health care costs not found. Seems like smoking actually saved society from his looming healthcare costs due to old age.

 

[sactoking]

Maybe I'm misreading, but I think he's talking about same quality, but people with higher salaries pay more.

Doesn't matter, it's the same provision. In order for a higher salary employee to pay more for the same health benefit that would mean that the employer's contribution ratio would be lower which, IIRC, is also a violation of 42 USC 300gg-16.

 

[postmortemIA]

WHAT?! How the Hell?!

How the hell do they:
1) Detect if your spouse/kids have a job that offers insurance
2) Detect if they are employed
3) .... How the hell is that even legal?! That is BS

Usually healthcare for someone+spouse is simply 2x the normal. So the only hopeful benefit is that one is lower than the other by a significant amount.

Just HR says: disciplinary action if you lie. So dare to do so..

The ugliest part is kids coverage, having to pay surcharge even if spouse's insurance is worse.

But, that is not all... here's what some companies do: they reject to insure a spouse which is eligible for insurance under his/hers employer.

 

[Lobotomized]

My company is going to fine tobacco users 500 bucks

The ones in your company who approved this are assholes.

 

[jpiniero]

Doesn't matter, it's the same provision. In order for a higher salary employee to pay more for the same health benefit that would mean that the employer's contribution ratio would be lower which, IIRC, is also a violation of 42 USC 300gg-16.

That's interesting. I'm looking at the insurance rates of an org which does charge different rates based upon salary - the lowest tier pays much less than the other two. I imagine next year they will just say F-it and make everyone pay the highest tier.

They also offer part timers insurance with little or no contribution. Have to figure that will go away next year.

But, that is not all... here's what some companies do: they reject to insure a spouse which is eligible for insurance under his/hers employer.

IIRC, in Obamacare if you have a spouse who also can get insurance you have to 'share' the insurance costs between the two companies. No more taking insurance from the better plan.