Study reveals fat people have 13x number of lost work days, cost employers more than normal people

[shortylickens]

Well, I know I'm fat and I know I put in a lot more effort than all the skinnies I know.
So fvck em. I get things done and I've only used the health insurance for my kidney stones, which both a general practitioner and a urologist have confirmed are not related to my gut.

Also, like others have pointed out, this study didnt look at fat people, it looked at people with a high BMI, which is already proven to be BS.

 

[senseamp]

We need universal healthcare. Employers should not be put into position where they have to discriminate against people based on health to be successful.

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: senseamp
We need universal healthcare. Employers should not be put into position where they have to discriminate against people based on health to be successful.

Talk to a Canadian, I bet they'll give you a couple reasons it's a pain in the butt. For starters it's more expensive and the waits are huge compared to privatized healthcare.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger

Originally posted by: senseamp
We need universal healthcare. Employers should not be put into position where they have to discriminate against people based on health to be successful.

Talk to a Canadian, I bet they'll give you a couple reasons it's a pain in the butt. For starters it's more expensive and the waits are huge compared to privatized healthcare.

OK, I'll talk to a Canadian if you talk to an uninsured American. There are 40 million of them, I am sure you can find one. And if not, just wait a couple years, there will be a lot more.
Canadians, please weigh in.

 

[ColdFusion718]

fatties FTL!

 

[Xyclone]

Originally posted by: nonameo

Originally posted by: Bateluer
Interesting. I would not be opposed to higher health care and insurance costs for people grotesquely overweight, nor would it bother me if employers had a 'Get Fit or get fired' policy'. But, in keeping with that, employers should offer exercise facilities of some sort, or discounted memberships to gyms or something. You need to provide people with the proper tools to do the job you want them to do.

I think time may be a bigger problem than access. It seems that having a stuffed schedule is the "in" thing this century.

30 minutes a day for cardio? They can't fit that into their "stuffed schedule?"

Anyways, I work out 2-2.5 hrs 3-4 times a week, and feel great. But, to stay healthy, all you need to do cardio, and the problem with fatasses is that they think real cardio (running, swimming, etc.) is "too hard," or that things like walking or playing their Nintendo Wii can help them lose weight.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: Xyclone

Originally posted by: nonameo

Originally posted by: Bateluer
Interesting. I would not be opposed to higher health care and insurance costs for people grotesquely overweight, nor would it bother me if employers had a 'Get Fit or get fired' policy'. But, in keeping with that, employers should offer exercise facilities of some sort, or discounted memberships to gyms or something. You need to provide people with the proper tools to do the job you want them to do.

I think time may be a bigger problem than access. It seems that having a stuffed schedule is the "in" thing this century.

30 minutes a day for cardio? They can't fit that into their "stuffed schedule?"

Anyways, I work out 2-2.5 hrs 3-4 times a week, and feel great. But, to stay healthy, all you need to do cardio, and the problem with fatasses is that they think real cardio (running, swimming, etc.) is "too hard," or that things like walking or playing their Nintendo Wii can help them lose weight.

Is your mother or any other member of your family fat? If so, its a risk factor and nobody should hire you.
You also have a gene for stupidity and intolerence.
Why are you so stupid, I demand answer!

 

[BabaBooey]

I have seen some ignorant ****** posted here but this takes the prize,bunch of biased ignorant fvcks ...post on and show just how ignorant you are...:beer:



What a joke...

 

[ch33zw1z]

Originally posted by: senseamp
We need universal healthcare. Employers should not be put into position where they have to discriminate against people based on health to be successful.

I agree about the universal healthcare, but how would that motivate fatties to lose weight and be more healthy?

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: bababooey
I have seen some ignorant ****** posted here but this takes the prize,bunch of biased ignorant fvcks ...post on and show just how ignorant you are...:beer:



What a joke...

Was this comment addressed to me?

If so I can tell you that I take offence with people who comme in here, hide behind their keyboards and throw insult at a hole category of people and think they can get away with it. They are not just pointing out fact, they comme in here and call names, insult people any way they can think of and bully their way around. I would like to see those same people carry on with their antic in a real world environment and see what that gets them.


Live and let live.

 

[beer]

I (as the OP) did not expect such a strong (negative) response to my message. I'm not going to take you on one on one with the posts that are coming back attacking me, but maybe it's worth stopping for a moment and realizing that this thread characterizes exactly what the rest of the world thinks about us - not me because I am a gym rat, but "fat Americans" who make up the majority of our country. There are lots of excuses, a lot of justification, but no one seems to argue with the point than an hour of running three times a week would keep you in decent shape, and most of you can't even run for ten minutes. Or go up twenty flights of stairs. Reasons why, of course, you don't have the time, but you're going to go into work this morning and take the elevators, aren't you?

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: ch33zw1z

Originally posted by: senseamp
We need universal healthcare. Employers should not be put into position where they have to discriminate against people based on health to be successful.

I agree about the universal healthcare, but how would that motivate fatties to lose weight and be more healthy?

It may not, but at least they'll still have a job and pay taxes, instead of being laid off and be a burden to the society. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: ch33zw1z

Originally posted by: senseamp
We need universal healthcare. Employers should not be put into position where they have to discriminate against people based on health to be successful.

I agree about the universal healthcare, but how would that motivate fatties to lose weight and be more healthy?

It may not, but at least they'll still have a job and pay taxes, instead of being laid off and be a burden to the society. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

perfect is a far cry from big enough to cause negative health effects. employers aren't looking for "perfect" people, they're looking for people who can get the job done, with minimal "sick" time. If you are too big to do the job effectively, shouldn't that be taken into account?

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: beer
I (as the OP) did not expect such a strong (negative) response to my message. I'm not going to take you on one on one with the posts that are coming back attacking me, but maybe it's worth stopping for a moment and realizing that this thread characterizes exactly what the rest of the world thinks about us - not me because I am a gym rat, but "fat Americans" who make up the majority of our country. There are lots of excuses, a lot of justification, but no one seems to argue with the point than an hour of running three times a week would keep you in decent shape, and most of you can't even run for ten minutes. Or go up twenty flights of stairs. Reasons why, of course, you don't have the time, but you're going to go into work this morning and take the elevators, aren't you?

The problem is that you don't even understand the cause behind it.

It has little to do with exercise and everything to do with food (no one eats the 3 square meals a day, nothing in between anymore). People aren't overweight because they are lazy and that is the largest misconception (and it is pretty crappy because twirps who call them "fatties" often equate it with laziness)

In the 1950s-70s when everyone was thin they had elevators, escalators and cars just the same as they have today. People sat around watching TV quite a bit. What--you think those thin housewives of the 50s went running 3 times a week? Tough chance.

 

[ppdes]

>no one eats the 3 square meals a day, nothing in between anymore

I can't understand statements like this at all. How could you not control what you put in your own mouth? I only eat two meals a day and have no problem at all doing it.

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: ppdes
>no one eats the 3 square meals a day, nothing in between anymore

I can't understand statements like this at all. How could you not control what you put in your own mouth? I only eat two meals a day and have no problem at all doing it.

How come you can't understand the statement? I wasn't excusing it, just pointing out that most people don't even understand the damn reason for obesity. Kids around here snicker at overweight people for being "lazy". That is an error that deserves distinction.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: beer
I (as the OP) did not expect such a strong (negative) response to my message. I'm not going to take you on one on one with the posts that are coming back attacking me, but maybe it's worth stopping for a moment and realizing that this thread characterizes exactly what the rest of the world thinks about us - not me because I am a gym rat, but "fat Americans" who make up the majority of our country. There are lots of excuses, a lot of justification, but no one seems to argue with the point than an hour of running three times a week would keep you in decent shape, and most of you can't even run for ten minutes. Or go up twenty flights of stairs. Reasons why, of course, you don't have the time, but you're going to go into work this morning and take the elevators, aren't you?

The problem is that you don't even understand the cause behind it.

It has little to do with exercise and everything to do with food (no one eats the 3 square meals a day, nothing in between anymore). People aren't overweight because they are lazy and that is the largest misconception (and it is pretty crappy because twirps who call them "fatties" often equate it with laziness)

In the 1950s-70s when everyone was thin they had elevators, escalators and cars just the same as they have today. People sat around watching TV quite a bit. What--you think those thin housewives of the 50s went running 3 times a week? Tough chance.

I don't think video games were nearly as prevalent back then. Plus the internet didn't even exist.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Xstatic1

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: Xstatic1
it's not just people who are overweight...it's those who think it's okay to have multiple health conditions. you don't know how many people i've sat next to in the doctor's waiting room and the other patients start verbally listing all their conditions to other patients like they're proud of it. changing the mindset of overweight and these ppl who are okay having x conditions and taking a slew of meds is gonna take an act of gawd.

what needs to happen is that health care insurance should change in such a way that it reimburses the premiums of the healthy workers. so like if the workers (& their families) have healthy bloods test and get their annual physicals and don't utilize let's say $2,000 worth of annual medical expenses, then the healthy workers deserve to have a portion of the premiums they paid into their health insurance returned back to them. it's the unhealthy folks, obese & otherwise, that drive up the costs of insurance for everyone.

I think you're missing the entire point of insurance. Everybody pays into the pool, the people who need it take out of the pool (more than they paid in, that's why you buy health insurance instead of paying for your costs yourself) and the insurance company bets that they come out ahead.

Plus, people who are healthy are not necessarily taking better care of themselves than others, they're just lucky. Those of us with genetic disorders (rheumatoid arthritis for me, as I mentioned above) don't need to be financially punished for our already bad luck.

first off, i had left out a word ("just") in my original posting.

i understand insurance. maybe i should have been more clear that those who work for private employers (not talking about public entities) and are relatively healthy or not utilizing their health care benefits are the ones being penalized. and that's why i brought up workers getting reimbursed (at the end of the year) a portion of health care premiums if they have healthy bloods test and get their annual physicals and don't utilize let's say $2,000 worth of annual medical expenses.

i've about to make-up some monthly premium amounts. employee-only health care costs $300 monthly; employee + spouse costs $400, employee + family costs $550. for ease, i'll use the employee-only cost of $300 monthly ($3,600 yearly). using my example of $2,000 worth of annual med expenses, if a relatively healthy person who goes in to see their doc twice a year (office visit cost = $100 x 2), and their blood work = $500 x 2=$1,000. total medical expense for that year = $200 + $1000 = $1,200...then wouldn't it be reasonable that the worker be reimbursed a portion of what they paid for the year ($3,600)? i am not saying the full amount ($3,600), but 10..15...20% would be cool.

It might seem fair but then the insurance companies would be bankrupt. The overage costs for healthy people pays for people who have higher medical costs. That's the function of insurance. And the point of healthy people buying into it is because you never know when you might wind up being the unhealthy one with costs you can't cover.

 

[orion23]

Why should the insurace pay for the costs related to an overweight person's medical expenses (due to the weight)

Or pay for a smoker's critical condition>

Or a drinker's...

Let alone hire someone knowing these facts...

 

[aCynic2]

It's been my experience most people, as in 90%, don't know the first thing about proper eating and exercise and this includes a lot of people who think they know.

You'll see fat women eating 800 cals/day, randomly going from machine to machine, or walking on a treadmill, and wondering why they are aren't losing anything.

It's not much different for guys, they'll eat 1600, play on machine, do leg presses instead of squats, no deadlifts, etc, and simply not go anywhere.

A lot of the people bitching about fat people can afford to learn and implement a thing or two.

Read this:

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1546556

 

[Xstatic1]

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: Xstatic1

Originally posted by: HotChic

I think you're missing the entire point of insurance. Everybody pays into the pool, the people who need it take out of the pool (more than they paid in, that's why you buy health insurance instead of paying for your costs yourself) and the insurance company bets that they come out ahead.

Plus, people who are healthy are not necessarily taking better care of themselves than others, they're just lucky. Those of us with genetic disorders (rheumatoid arthritis for me, as I mentioned above) don't need to be financially punished for our already bad luck.

first off, i had left out a word ("just") in my original posting.

i understand insurance. maybe i should have been more clear that those who work for private employers (not talking about public entities) and are relatively healthy or not utilizing their health care benefits are the ones being penalized. and that's why i brought up workers getting reimbursed (at the end of the year) a portion of health care premiums if they have healthy bloods test and get their annual physicals and don't utilize let's say $2,000 worth of annual medical expenses.

i've about to make-up some monthly premium amounts. employee-only health care costs $300 monthly; employee + spouse costs $400, employee + family costs $550. for ease, i'll use the employee-only cost of $300 monthly ($3,600 yearly). using my example of $2,000 worth of annual med expenses, if a relatively healthy person who goes in to see their doc twice a year (office visit cost = $100 x 2), and their blood work = $500 x 2=$1,000. total medical expense for that year = $200 + $1000 = $1,200...then wouldn't it be reasonable that the worker be reimbursed a portion of what they paid for the year ($3,600)? i am not saying the full amount ($3,600), but 10..15...20% would be cool.

It might seem fair but then the insurance companies would be bankrupt. The overage costs for healthy people pays for people who have higher medical costs. That's the function of insurance. And the point of healthy people buying into it is because you never know when you might wind up being the unhealthy one with costs you can't cover.

you?re not telling me anything I don?t already know. health insurance companies are betting that their insureds won?t utilize the full benefits since most people only go to the doctor when they?re really sick, so in the meantime they?re collecting ALL those premiums monthly and when the small % of people who are the true expense (those who are hospitalized or have major surgeries)?then all the insurance company will do is raise the premiums for that employer the following year. also, another way insurance companies keep their money is denying claims.

if you don?t think health insurance companies are profiting big time, UnitedHealthcare wouldn?t have a net profit of $3B, Cigna and Aetna $1.6B and their CEOs total compensation wouldn't be $124M, $13M, $22M annually, respectively. remember the $100 office visit that I mentioned above (and probably is even listed as $100 on the Explanation of Benefits statement)? well, the doctor maybe only gets $80 for it.

i could go on & on talking about this, but i think i'll stop right here.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Xstatic1
it's not just people who are overweight...it's those who think it's okay to have multiple health conditions. you don't know how many people i've sat next to in the doctor's waiting room and the other patients start verbally listing all their conditions to other patients like they're proud of it. changing the mindset of overweight and these ppl who are okay having x conditions and taking a slew of meds is gonna take an act of gawd.

what needs to happen is that health care insurance should change in such a way that it reimburses the premiums of the healthy workers. so like if the workers (& their families) have healthy bloods test and get their annual physicals and don't utilize let's say $2,000 worth of annual medical expenses, then the healthy workers deserve to have a portion of the premiums they paid into their health insurance returned back to them. it's the unhealthy folks, obese & otherwise, that drive up the costs of insurance for everyone.

You want them to reimburse you when you don't cost them as much as you're paying? Are you willing to reimburse them when you cost them more than you're paying? Keep in mind, a major medical condition can cost in the millions of dollars...

 

[pyonir]

It's funny, because the people that miss the most days at my work, in my department, are thin.

 

[aCynic2]

Originally posted by: pyonir
It's funny, because the people that miss the most days at my work, in my department, are thin.

And the people I see as being sick the most are the ones who disinfect all the time. So, the thin people are probably malnourished, the sick people have under worked immune systems...

 

[StageLeft]

They are also less attractive, less likely to get raises, more likely to get laughed at by kids, more likely to wheeze going up stairs, etc. Some people just can't take their lives into their own hands and so remain enslaved by their impulses and short term desires. Sucks for them, I imagine.