Off-Topic Discussion for the day: Should jobs that provide full Health benefits have requirements?

Zoidberg747 · Aug 8, 2014

TarkatanDentist said:
As someone from the UK, which has the very flawed yet absolutely necessary NHS, the fact that this question would even be asked is disgusting to me.

Everyone has the right to have their healthcare needs met regardless of their health and background. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

^^^

You could literally take three pictures of yourself at the gym without working out anyway. Would never work.

mfkaoz · Aug 8, 2014

AK Pig Of The Hut said:
Hold on

You can get benefits if you're unhealthy or in bad shape

What I'm proposing is when you do get them you are then required to take advantage of it and are required to live a healthier life style

Companies are connected

Health insurance, taxes, employees longevity, are all connected

If anything I could be completely open to this not being a requirement but can be made a requirement company by company and the companies that choose to do this get tax breaks because they're overall helping the entire country

I get where you're going with this, but it's still kinda crazy to think about. Personally, I don't think it should be required. The incentive to lead a healthier lifestyle is already there once you acquire health insurance because they let you know from the jump that leading a healthier lifestyle would allow them to provide you lower premiums. I'm not sure on how health insurance applies when it's through a company because I've never personally received any, so I don't really have any room to speak.

Agree to disagree I guess.

Pig Of The Hut · Aug 8, 2014

TarkatanDentist said:
As someone from the UK, which has the very flawed yet absolutely necessary NHS, the fact that this question would even be asked is disgusting to me.

Everyone has the right to have their healthcare needs met regardless of their health and background. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

So we should reward those who smoke a pack a day and eat 4000 calories the same as the ones who spend 5 days a week at the gym and eat really well and because of that are healthy?

Sounds lazy

Relaxedstate · Aug 8, 2014

It would be nice if you got an insurance deductible for exercising/eating healthy. Like "good' drivers get a deductible for years of safe driving/taking a driving Ed class.

Other than that everyone should have access to quality healthcare, especially in a nation that is filled with food deserts in low socioeconimic areas

Pig Of The Hut · Aug 8, 2014

Zoidberg747 said:
^^^

You could literally take three pictures of yourself at the gym without working out anyway. Would never work.

Not true

Clock in and out w time stamps and businesses w their own health clubs could report any deceptive acts like clicking in and and leaving

Pig Of The Hut · Aug 8, 2014

TelekineticBeing said:
I think everyone has the right to have their healthcare needs met without it completely ruining their lives financially, but there also HAS to be personal accountability. If you eat like trash and smoke a pack of cigarettes a day, who's fault is it really that you're having serious problems with your heart?

Exactly and I'm just brainstorming ways to fix it

Pig Of The Hut · Aug 8, 2014

LtLuthor said:
It's quite questionable to require a workout every day, or to dictate certain eating habits- as it's a very pro-active demand.

However, it's more reasonable to just place "no-smoker" requirements. As it's not dictating people need to do something to improve their health, as much as it's dictating they don't actively destroy it.

I like this but what if they actively destroy it w their eating as well?

Pig Of The Hut · Aug 8, 2014

xQUANTUMx said:
I live in a country with a nationalized health care system. That being said, some insurance companies here will lower premiums and even in some cases eliminate deductibles not based on your working out etc but a simple blood panel where they can check your bio markers vs risk factors etc (ie thrombophlebitis, HDL/LDL/VLDL ratios etc)

That's fantastic

Pig Of The Hut · Aug 8, 2014

Faded Dreams V said:
Seriously imagined an employer being like, "you want health insurance? Well drop and give me 50, maggot!!!!" lol

In all seriousness, I don't know about forcing people to work-out to receive these benefits, but annual physicals should be mandatory. Results from those alone may be enough incentive for some people to join a gym out of their own volition.

I guess my argument of this would be people that take advantage of the health care system rather than take care of themselves

There's has to be some sort of accountability installed into this process

Pig Of The Hut · Aug 8, 2014

ThaShiveGeek said:
The physical yes... Well I wouldn't say yes, but I'm not against it either. The working out proof no. I get where you're going with it though. I think it's in the same realm of making people who get food stamps and welfare do drug test. Also the Obama Care situation. I can understand the need for it. As far as working out though... I tell people all the time. I'm fat. I'm happy being fat. I'm not insecure and I don't feel the need to change. I'm happy with my size. In my opinion I wouldn't like to have my employer tell me I can't receive benefits because I'm not working out. I work my full time job. As long as I can function what I do with my private time is up to me. I also think that people have this notion that EVERY over weight person has a problem with being over weight and that's not the case. (Maybe that's why we as a nation are obese?! lol) Good question though.

Good points

Zoidberg747 · Aug 8, 2014

AK Pig Of The Hut said:
Not true

Clock in and out w time stamps and businesses w their own health clubs could report any deceptive acts like clicking in and and leaving

I dont know a single gym that would care enough to report who is doing what. So then you would be forcing everyone to use the company gym, which would probably throw you off your rhythm.

Not to mention most people would just quit and find a job that doesnt require you to workout. If people want to live an unhealthy life that is their right, you are basically saying that companies shouldn't provide healthcare unless someone is healthy. This could(and would) be exploited in so many ways it isnt even funny. They could force you to only eat in their cafeteria since they know their food is healthy(you have to pay for the food of course). They could cut off your healthcare at the first sign of any illness(common cold, flu, etc. since you are not "healthy"). I could go on but I wont, there are way too many ways this could be abused.

Companies know what kind of healthcare they provide, if they think someone will bankrupt them using it too much they shouldn't have hired them in the first place.

SneakyTortoise · Aug 8, 2014

I think people aren't really thinking about this enough, but instead are just getting angry or insulted and replying with the first thing that comes into mind.

Think about this hypothetical system:

A company has a gym on the ground floor of their building.

Employees are offered a free, fully-covered healthcare plan if they opt in to a plan where they have to clock 3 hours of their working week in the gym and eat lunch 3 days a week from the healthy work cafeteria.

What would be wrong with this? This does not affect their private life in any way and they are being rewarded for their effort.

It does, however, still baffle me that you Americans are so opposed to a National Health Service. You guys are crazy.

Pig Of The Hut · Aug 8, 2014

RelentlessOhio said:
I'm going to sound liberal and ignorant, but this is just my opinion. I'll use my mom's job as an example.

My mother has worked for Siemens E&A for 10 years now. Her branch produces electric induction motors. Anything from a tiny 100 HP, all the way to 10,000 HP. Usually they are produced for large warehouses and oil rigs.

Anyways, I worked there as well for about 6 months. What I've noticed is that each year, the health insurance premiums increase, while the coverage decreases. There's really never logical explanation, other than they want to save even more. And Siemens is a multi-billion dollar company - they can more than afford to treat their employees to great benefits.

However this isn't the case. The dental and medical co-pays increase every year, and it seems like the list of whats covered gets smaller and smaller. I used to only have to pay $15 at the doctors office for a co-pay per visit, same with the dentist. Now it's damn near $35. And that's just over the span of a couple years.

Do I believe that physical assessments and reports should be sent to the employers? Yes I do. But only medical diagnoses that can be mitigated by the person. Examples are smoking and drinking. You make a conscious choice to destroy your body by doing those things - aka you should have to pay a higher premium and spend more for the same coverage than a person with say diabetes. Diabetes isn't something you elect to have or not have.

What I basically mean is the people who knowingly cost the companies money based on their own selfish habits should have to pay more. You don't get emphysema or a shot liver just through chance, you do it because you chose to smoke 20 cigarettes a day and drink a 12 case a night. Those with serious, non-elected medical conditions shouldn't have to pay the price. Obviously some people would see what's elective and non-elective conditions differently.

I just feel like it's only fair.

I completely agree with this

Also do You know for example in your situation you described your premiums and co pays could be raised because of other people on the company's plan? For example 4 bad apples raise premiums and do pays for 8 good apples

AK L0rdoftheFLY · Aug 8, 2014

My Masters project for my degree in Exercise physiology was on this subject Brant. We should talk sometime about it instead of Injustice.

I have way too much to say about this at the moment to type on a message board. The laws are very clear that a business above a certain size HAS to provide healthcare regardless of the employees habits. There comes a point when it is cost effective to implement wellness programs due to tax benefits. These tax benefits are based on number of employees and annual profit/revenue.

If there are any specific questions I'm happy to answer.

I'm an expert on 3 things
1) NRS games
2) Education Technology Sales
3) Exercise physiology / Healthcare reform

TheSpore · Aug 8, 2014

AK Pig Of The Hut said:
This is not a troll question and I'm very serious about it and I wanna hear from all sides

Our country has enormous health issues, millions from the poorest to the wealthiest develop diabetes (develop not born with) and develop a numerous amount of health problems. I'll stop here w that and just ask the question

Should full time jobs that provide health insurance/benefits/Dental require the employee to provide evidence of an annual physical as well as evidence of attendance with a gym 3x minimum a week - one hour / or "XYZ" amounts per month barring any pre existing injury, handicapped properties in order to keep their companies health insurance and benefits provided for the employee ?

Think about the following:
Overall country health
Epidemic of diabetes developed (not born with)
Reduced cost for tax payers to pay for these issues
Etc

Just some thought today for a maybe interesting discussion

Well coming from an actual Type-1 Diabetic who was not born with the disease. I feel that a full time job should provide Medical benefits, otherwise my entire paycheck alone would go into supporting my condition. Currently my disease costs me loads of money and often times can barely make the payment to support the condition. I will elaborate more on this later on Pig.

Pig Of The Hut · Aug 8, 2014

HellblazerHawkman said:
I'd prefer a mandatory physical to the situation a lot of people like me got stuck in. I work for Sears (have for 3 years, ever wanted to feel like a bigger loser in life, go with them) and before the Healthcare act, I could work 40 hours a week (39.99 technically) no problem. After, I'm struggling to get even 30 (for those unaware, 30 hours is the new federal guideline for when you have to give someone healthcare as I understand it). Now I'm making less money on top of not being able to go to a doctor (beyond an emergency room visit, never fucking doing that again). Ain't some Fox news bullshit, this was a mandate by Sears to all of the stores (worked for 2 in this period). I'm with Republicans on things got fucked in this law (for SOME not ALL), hoping we get some work done on it come midterms (not a total appeal).

Side note, our European brothers can back me up or correct me, but overseas they can't get away with charging you out the ass for care. Heard a story on this, to give an example, here you need a kidney removed, they charge you for the operating table, hospital room, tools the doctor used, food, etc. Overseas, by law, they can't itemize your hospital bill like that. We cut that shit down, costs will come down and care becomes more affordable (and as @LtLuthor pointed out, doctors won't have an incentive to keep you coming back).

Another side note, implants and medication are WAY overpriced. Might have been the same story, I think it was something like a $1000 joint replacement gets sold to a hospital for $10000, who in turns charges you (sketchy on this number) $30000 for the operation to put it in.

Anyone correct me on any info I got wrong, I don't like spewing incorrect info

Edit, Sorry for the tangent realized I didn't address the question. I say yes as long as it's not enforced in a fascist sense. Keep in mind, it's fucking expensive to eat healthy (Gym too). Maybe do it like Car insurance companies do and incentivize safe habits (Progressive sees how I drive because I let them with a little device and my rates go down because I drive safe)

Loved reading the post

Great info and your description of the sears situation actually came up yesterday lol, this guy had literally the same story

Unbelievable and ridiculous but I can see where companies are doing this to avoid biting the bullet

NRF CharlieMurphy · Aug 8, 2014

So no one has suggested that everyone work together?

I think company's should def. make health care a privilege. However, why aren't business' working with Gym's, Yoga, Running groups etc etc? How hard would it be for ANY company to call up a local gym and say "We are going to 'prefer' you as our companies gym. What we need from you is to tag these people [employee health care list of people who signed up THROUGH work] and let us know their habits of working out."

Now you have accountability as well as helping out local business' to grow.

This can also be done in other ways. I'm pretty sure Canada does blood tests.

The problem is "America is free bitches".

This means people feel they can just do whatever they want.

what a mess our healthcare system has become

G4S KT · Aug 8, 2014

The idea would work better by offering positive reinforcement to those who are actively staying healthy as opposed to penalizing those who have unhealthy routines.

Think safe-driving-bonus-check or w/e

ThaShiveGeek · Aug 8, 2014

Oh America the great.

Pig Of The Hut · Aug 8, 2014

gamemk said:
People are only born. Some are born into privilege and some are not. One can afford to be irresponsible and the other cannot. What neither can choose many times is how healthy they are. Poor people don't eat as well because they can't afford to. Poor people don't work out because they can't afford to. When they need care it is provided whether they have insurance or not. And the care is paid for whether they have insurance or not. You say they shouldn't get health care; does that extend to all care? Are you saying let irresponsible people die? Just deny them care? You know they give prison inmates all the care they need right? So a rapist should get all the care they need but not a poor person?

As for full time workers, taxpayers don't pay their healthcare, so how would their unhealthy lifestyles affect taxpayers?

By your logic, why give poor people anything? Lebron james' mother, a pregnant, out of wedlock teen should have been given no taxpayer aid in your opinion, because she was irresponsible? Now, Lebrun is paying more taxes than anyone on this forum probably ever will, but I guess he should have just been put in foster care, no?

Denying poor people/irresponsible people any kind of care is cruel, and actually financially inefficient, because no one is going to let them starve to death and ban them from health care. By your logic, why not let irresponsible criminals all starve to death and deny them health care while incarcerated, no matter what the crime is. Irresponsible is irresponsible, no?

Read first paragraph and need to clear something up

I'm saying once you get the benefits from your employer (and assuming gym memberships is included) I feel you should be required to use it and maintain or adapt to a healthier lifestyle in order to keep these benefits

So in quick summary you can be born poor, fat, poverty etc however if u get a job that gives benefits I'm saying you should be required (touchy word) to change lifestyle at this point to maintain the benefits

...no on to the rest .

RelentlessOhio · Aug 8, 2014

gamemk said:
We do have one; it's called prison. We pay to offer benefits to murderers and rapists but we fight over whether a mcdonalds worker should get it.

Sad as it is to admit, this is completely true. I had an uncle who spent 2 years in prison for fraud, and he got regular dialysis for his kidney. Never had to pay a dime really.

Pig Of The Hut · Aug 8, 2014

gamemk said:
People are only born. Some are born into privilege and some are not. One can afford to be irresponsible and the other cannot. What neither can choose many times is how healthy they are. Poor people don't eat as well because they can't afford to. Poor people don't work out because they can't afford to. When they need care it is provided whether they have insurance or not. And the care is paid for whether they have insurance or not. You say they shouldn't get health care; does that extend to all care? Are you saying let irresponsible people die? Just deny them care? You know they give prison inmates all the care they need right? So a rapist should get all the care they need but not a poor person?

As for full time workers, taxpayers don't pay their healthcare, so how would their unhealthy lifestyles affect taxpayers?

By your logic, why give poor people anything? Lebron james' mother, a pregnant, out of wedlock teen should have been given no taxpayer aid in your opinion, because she was irresponsible? Now, Lebrun is paying more taxes than anyone on this forum probably ever will, but I guess he should have just been put in foster care, no?

Denying poor people/irresponsible people any kind of care is cruel, and actually financially inefficient, because no one is going to let them starve to death and ban them from health care. By your logic, why not let irresponsible criminals all starve to death and deny them health care while incarcerated, no matter what the crime is. Irresponsible is irresponsible, no?

Ok you're completely off on another level

Dude, stop, I'm not attacking poor people for fuck sakes

I'm saying upon getting a job that gives u benefits Idc how f ing poor you were, unhealthy lifestyle u were living, etc I'm saying when given these benefits to help enter ones life you become more about the solution than the problem

Stop making this about Lebron James mother and focus more about what I'm talking about

aj1701 · Aug 8, 2014

TarkatanDentist said:
As someone from the UK, which has the very flawed yet absolutely necessary NHS, the fact that this question would even be asked is disgusting to me.

Everyone has the right to have their healthcare needs met regardless of their health and background. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

See, I think its disgusting that someone who does all the wrong things healthwise (smokes, drinks heavily, eats here) ends up with things that would have been totally preventable, but I then have to help foot their bill to fix the problems they created for themselves by not being responsible.

Where the hell is personal responsibility in all this health reform debate? It seems strangely absent to me.

To answer pigs question, yes, I think a health evaluation should be done and it should have an impact on your premiums, just like if you're a careless driver that increases your premiums too.

Pig Of The Hut · Aug 8, 2014

Zoidberg747 said:
I dont know a single gym that would care enough to report who is doing what. So then you would be forcing everyone to use the company gym, which would probably throw you off your rhythm.

Not to mention most people would just quit and find a job that doesnt require you to workout. If people want to live an unhealthy life that is their right, you are basically saying that companies shouldn't provide healthcare unless someone is healthy. This could(and would) be exploited in so many ways it isnt even funny. They could force you to only eat in their cafeteria since they know their food is healthy(you have to pay for the food of course). They could cut off your healthcare at the first sign of any illness(common cold, flu, etc. since you are not "healthy"). I could go on but I wont, there are way too many ways this could be abused.

Companies know what kind of healthcare they provide, if they think someone will bankrupt them using it too much they shouldn't have hired them in the first place.

Well when the mandatory physical happens every year and it shows you've been bullshitting your claims of fitness and healthy lifestyle then bye bye benefits

I like the idea of major tax breaks for employers and employees and companies who offer this type of program

Pig Of The Hut · Aug 8, 2014

SneakyTortoise said:
I think people aren't really thinking about this enough, but instead are just getting angry or insulted and replying with the first thing that comes into mind.

Think about this hypothetical system:

A company has a gym on the ground floor of their building.

Employees are offered a free, fully-covered healthcare plan if they opt in to a plan where they have to clock 3 hours of their working week in the gym and eat lunch 3 days a week from the healthy work cafeteria.

What would be wrong with this? This does not affect their private life in any way and they are being rewarded for their effort.

It does, however, still baffle me that you Americans are so opposed to a National Health Service. You guys are crazy.

Seriously

Thank you!!!!

Off-Topic Discussion for the day: Should jobs that provide full Health benefits have requirements?

My blades will find your heart

Banned

Day 0 Phenomenal Dr. Fate and Darkseid player

PTH|RM Relaxedstate

Day 0 Phenomenal Dr. Fate and Darkseid player

Day 0 Phenomenal Dr. Fate and Darkseid player

Day 0 Phenomenal Dr. Fate and Darkseid player

Day 0 Phenomenal Dr. Fate and Darkseid player

Day 0 Phenomenal Dr. Fate and Darkseid player

Day 0 Phenomenal Dr. Fate and Darkseid player

My blades will find your heart

Official Master of Salt

Day 0 Phenomenal Dr. Fate and Darkseid player

I hatelove this game

Nurgle Chaos God of Death and Disease

Day 0 Phenomenal Dr. Fate and Darkseid player

Kindergarten Meta

Gaming4Satan Founder

Est In Harvey 1989

Day 0 Phenomenal Dr. Fate and Darkseid player

Divekick x 1000

Day 0 Phenomenal Dr. Fate and Darkseid player

Noob

Day 0 Phenomenal Dr. Fate and Darkseid player

Day 0 Phenomenal Dr. Fate and Darkseid player