For a male 6'0 you have to be under 279 pounds to get approved on a plan currently. I don't think that unreasonable.

 

So will we all have to show up at the 'weigh station' on an annual basis and be inspected like automobiles? We will be measured and judge by a political appointed board? Probably subject to open records laws. So much for HIPPA.

 

Given the variety of human shapes and forms labeling and classifying people using government numbers is scary. Maybe the Germans had a similar chart to know who was useful to work in the factory when they got of the trains in 1943. Just change 'gas' to 'Higher cost plan'. Should work.

So will we all have to show up at the 'weigh station' on an annual basis and be inspected like automobiles? We will be measured and judge by a political appointed board? Probably subject to open records laws. So much for HIPPA.

 

Given the variety of human shapes and forms labeling and classifying people using government numbers is scary. Maybe the Germans had a similar chart to know who was useful to work in the factory when they got of the trains in 1943. Just change 'gas' to 'Higher cost plan'. Should work.

 

Everyone should get a physical every year anyway. If a person wants a "healthy premium rebate" then get your results from your doctor and send them in every October during enrollment. People who want the rebate, or whatever, would have to do the leg work. It really wouldn't be a big deal. If you are 279 lbs, but your vitals are healthy, your blood pressure low, you LDL/HDL good, and your bodyfat is respectable, who cares. If you are 280 lbs at 30% bodyfat, that's not so good. I think that you'd agree w/ that.

Everyone should get a physical every year anyway. If a person wants a "healthy premium rebate" then get your results from your doctor and send them in every October during enrollment. People who want the rebate, or whatever, would have to do the leg work. It really wouldn't be a big deal. If you are 279 lbs, but your vitals are healthy, your blood pressure low, you LDL/HDL good, and your bodyfat is respectable, who cares. If you are 280 lbs at 30% bodyfat, that's not so good. I think that you'd agree w/ that.

 

This violates HIPAA Laws.

This violates HIPAA Laws.

 

How? The person requesting the rebate shows proof that they qualify for it. How doe sthat violate anything?

It's cheaper to eat unhealthy. I know produce is cheap, but lets be honest, most raw vegetables are not good to eat plain and some people just don't get full on a salad.

It's cheaper to eat unhealthy. I know produce is cheap, but lets be honest, most raw vegetables are not good to eat plain and some people just don't get full on a salad.

 

That's a very simplified way of looking at it. Eggs are easy to make and to make taste good. Eggs fried in olive oil are a good source of protein and a healthy fat. There are endless other examples. However for a family, I can see where you are coming from. However, the taste thing to me is a weak argument. It just is a matter of lack of self discipline. "I know that it is much better for me, but I don't get the enjoyment from it, so I'm going for gratification."

So will we all have to show up at the 'weigh station' on an annual basis and be inspected like automobiles? We will be measured and judge by a political appointed board? Probably subject to open records laws. So much for HIPPA.

 

Given the variety of human shapes and forms labeling and classifying people using government numbers is scary. Maybe the Germans had a similar chart to know who was useful to work in the factory when they got of the trains in 1943. Just change 'gas' to 'Higher cost plan'. Should work.

None of that will matter anymore. Starting 2014.

This violates HIPAA Laws.

 

We do a health screening at work every year and they get the results and you get credits on your premium if you are "healthy".

Genetics play a role in obesity also.

 

Too an extent yes, but not too the point that people try blame it. I come from a family that everyone else is over weight or obese except for myself. I got lazy for a while and ballooned up to 230. I was disgusted at the fact that I let myself get like that, started hitting the gym 4-5 days a week last fall and watching what I eat actually. I got back under 200 but it took an actual effort to do so. Far too often I hear people say they need to get back to the gym that they need to start eating better but all they do is talk, they don't game plan and actually put words too action. Being obese is a choice more times than not.

He can be up to 235 at 5'6. 190 is right within the preferred health range. I don't see why that would be an issue for him .

190 at 5'6" is in the obese range according to BMI. 115-154 is considered heathy for that height per the BMI.

It's cheaper to eat unhealthy. I know produce is cheap, but lets be honest, most raw vegetables are not good to eat plain and some people just don't get full on a salad.

I just don't understand this line of thinking.

That's a very simplified way of looking at it. Eggs are easy to make and to make taste good. Eggs fried in olive oil are a good source of protein and a healthy fat. There are endless other examples. However for a family, I can see where you are coming from. However, the taste thing to me is a weak argument. It just is a matter of lack of self discipline. "I know that it is much better for me, but I don't get the enjoyment from it, so I'm going for gratification."

MMMM, fried eggs.... I always cook mine in coconut oil.

Everyone should get a physical every year anyway. If a person wants a "healthy premium rebate" then get your results from your doctor and send them in every October during enrollment. People who want the rebate, or whatever, would have to do the leg work. It really wouldn't be a big deal. If you are 279 lbs, but your vitals are healthy, your blood pressure low, you LDL/HDL good, and your bodyfat is respectable, who cares. If you are 280 lbs at 30% bodyfat, that's not so good. I think that you'd agree w/ that.

 

Everyone? Every year?

 

I and many others never had annual physicals as young 20-somethings. Thats the crux - most young adults do not really need all this 'free' stuff like annual physicals. Yet they are the target of the new laws. You should have catastrophic insurance for very high expense risks - but in general this group can get by with infrequent visits to a doctor.

 

Now, lets see what the downstream impact of annual physicals with the goal of getting reduced insurance is. Lets say EVERYONE did it. Great, less than half probably do today. So now you have a doubling of annual visits. Now many of those will be found to be a) overweight, b) have mild to moderate hypertension, c) have high bad cholesterol, etc. So a majority of them (over half of the new people) will be put on plans or drugs or both - and told to come back in, oh lets say, 3 months. And do that regularly. So now you double the number of annual physicals (probably even more) just with the requirement and then you going to have a lot of people with 'follow-up' visits.

 

First - this will dramatically increase costs. This is a lot more 'proactive medical attention' than today - and it will cost a lot. Second - doctors are leaving the practice. Most areas - especially rural areas and states like Kentucky - already have severe GP doctor shortages. Where are the doctors going to come from?

 

I am just trying to play the logic here. The concepts are well intentioned. But practical in any means? Doubtful.

Everyone? Every year?

 

I and many others never had annual physicals as young 20-somethings. Thats the crux - most young adults do not really need all this 'free' stuff like annual physicals. Yet they are the target of the new laws. You should have catastrophic insurance for very high expense risks - but in general this group can get by with infrequent visits to a doctor.

 

Now, lets see what the downstream impact of annual physicals with the goal of getting reduced insurance is. Lets say EVERYONE did it. Great, less than half probably do today. So now you have a doubling of annual visits. Now many of those will be found to be a) overweight, b) have mild to moderate hypertension, c) have high bad cholesterol, etc. So a majority of them (over half of the new people) will be put on plans or drugs or both - and told to come back in, oh lets say, 3 months. And do that regularly. So now you double the number of annual physicals (probably even more) just with the requirement and then you going to have a lot of people with 'follow-up' visits.

 

First - this will dramatically increase costs. This is a lot more 'proactive medical attention' than today - and it will cost a lot. Second - doctors are leaving the practice. Most areas - especially rural areas and states like Kentucky - already have severe GP doctor shortages. Where are the doctors going to come from?

 

I am just trying to play the logic here. The concepts are well intentioned. But practical in any means? Doubtful.

 

You used logic with arbitrary numbers. Half and all? 20 somethings don't get physicals, but you think that they would for a break in their health care premium, since we are staying logical? Just like tax refunds that go unclaimed, many people wouldn't do this. I'd argue that any uptick would be wiped out by year 2. Additionally, the game plan here is preventing larger medical crisis, so I'm failing to see how taking care of a minor to moderate issue early is more harmful than taking care of major issues with extensive hospital care.

 

I, more than most people, understand the doctor shortage. I married into a family of them. I don't, however, get your argument on practicality by using just worst case scenarios. I think that the truth is somwhere between my utopian, "it'll work out cut and dry," and your pessimistic view. It is at least worth investigating.

Everyone? Every year?

 

I and many others never had annual physicals as young 20-somethings. Thats the crux - most young adults do not really need all this 'free' stuff like annual physicals. Yet they are the target of the new laws. You should have catastrophic insurance for very high expense risks - but in general this group can get by with infrequent visits to a doctor.

 

Now, lets see what the downstream impact of annual physicals with the goal of getting reduced insurance is. Lets say EVERYONE did it. Great, less than half probably do today. So now you have a doubling of annual visits. Now many of those will be found to be a) overweight, b) have mild to moderate hypertension, c) have high bad cholesterol, etc. So a majority of them (over half of the new people) will be put on plans or drugs or both - and told to come back in, oh lets say, 3 months. And do that regularly. So now you double the number of annual physicals (probably even more) just with the requirement and then you going to have a lot of people with 'follow-up' visits.

 

First - this will dramatically increase costs. This is a lot more 'proactive medical attention' than today - and it will cost a lot. Second - doctors are leaving the practice. Most areas - especially rural areas and states like Kentucky - already have severe GP doctor shortages. Where are the doctors going to come from?

 

I am just trying to play the logic here. The concepts are well intentioned. But practical in any means? Doubtful.

To put it bluntly absolutely. Just because you and many others didn't and don't get them annually doesn't mean it was smart. Physicals are not costly and in the long run it's just stupid not to. I'm not saying we force people to do it but if you don't I question your sanity.