Got a great idea from CVS/huffpost this morn.

They reported what CVS is doing (and most other large companies) to make sure their employees are healthier and I think I may implement my own version.

You can thank LJ and all the other folks that wanted FORCED health risk insurance for employees.

I have come to find out that not only does my company run better with healthier employees, it runs much cheaper, partly due to basic efficiency of healthier employees, but also due to the much lower health insurance costs in states where if we have less claims or demands for health services, my costs go down.

This means that if I have an indication that an employee may be less healthy, more sickly, or does anything that could be statistically associated with being more sick or demanding more health services.....I may consider terminating them, as long as the reason is legal, and as most employees here know, there is almost always a legal reason one could get fired at any time. Ever take home a pen, that is stealing.

In the end, just giving folks the heads up, especially those of you with fat kids, ugly kids, or any of you that is less than perfect in appearance or health....your job is now more at risk than it was before the do gooders tried to save you from ?

Remember, if you are fired for stealing a pen - NO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE and now, no health insurance or paycheck. Most employers know this, so you won't be fired for being fat, old or for smoking officially, but that is why you will be on your ass soon enough or have less opportunity.

One thing that just about ALWAYS effect health insurance rates is the age of the people in a group or plan. Older people always cost more if it is measured and thus the health insurance law is going to be another reason those getting older will not get jobs. Interesting enough, this is happening at a time when many folks 40-60 are not expecting to ever be able to stop working. Funny enough, they may have no choice as even less people than normal want to hire these low T burnouts. I wonder if you can keep your plan cheaper by having less childbirths, they are pretty expensive. If you can do so this will help the job market shift back to a man's world, by govt design or just to be save, terminate all women that have a little bump on their tummy or start wearing baggy clothes.

This is just the tip of the iceburg, the entire life and business optimization game is changing, when things change, those that can take advantage of change will do very well, those that did well in recent bad times will thrive with these new regs, and those that found the last few years tough, you have not seen anything yet.

Pretty cool way to force the American people to be healthy, aye? Produce a very real bias that influences all kinds of behavior to be negative towards those that are not health perfect. This has the potential to really make us all healthier, though we will have to let the weak and poor suffer more to get there.

This is really cool, I just did not think of this before....what a massive influence this health law can have on opportunity level of those that are not perfect. This literally increases the value of people that are healthy to society and significantly decreases the value of those that are not perfect. Before health had such a long term consequence, the govt has now made it so if you are not healthy or even hint at not being healthy, you could have a direct and immediate consequence - you may have nothing as a result.

Now that is effective, all be it immoral, government!

Interesting idea. Everyone with a BMI above ##, you are out of here!!!

So you see fat people on the street, you know they are on unemployment or disability.
(And we wind up paying for their healthcare anyway.)

Sure, post this when I'm stuffing chocolate easter eggs into my mouth...

I don't like you no more.

FredHayek wrote: Interesting idea. Everyone with a BMI above ##, you are out of here!!!

So you see fat people on the street, you know they are on unemployment or disability.
(And we wind up paying for their healthcare anyway.)

No Fred, they MAY be on unemployment or disability, but the DO have less opportunity forever because of the do gooders with armed enforcers. Using govt force to take away the opportunity of those that need it most, the fat, old and the ugly.

It is not an idea, it is the near future. When you mess with a system, you own it. Now those that supported the health insurance risk law now have even more responsibility to the unemployed, they helped them get there by design.

Your chocolate easter egg thing (nobody that matters) makes me realize that I can likely call the data clearinghouse companies and buy shopping data and profiles of my employees. I can then predict their potential poor health or just assign them to internal health risk group based on their purchases - food, recreation, etc. Now that I say that, they say Target knows when you get your period, they know when you are trying to get pregnant, they know when you do get pregnant....and I bet I can buy that data and make sure I don't have to finance those pregnancies or that pesky time off....remember, you did not try to hide it, you bought all your crap with a credit card and signed up for the rewards plan and then told them they could share your data so you could save 1% that day. In terms of the data collection era, this was a really bad time to do this to unhealthy or people that could possible ever be perceived to be unhealthy.

Imagine the info I will be able to get about my employees using drones. This is going to get very cool. It is going to suck to be an employee even more in the future than ever. Makes the cubical seem liberating in comparison.

lol

And consider this: the man who is 40 and into extreme sports, collaped lung, numerous trips to the emergency room, once put a bike part through his cheek. He is actually much more expensive company insurance wise than the non-smoking obese fellow who hasn't seen his doctor in years. Or the athletically fit runner who got a replacement hip when she turned 50. Should companies fire those healthcare liabilities too?

Yup, the obese guy that refuses to see a doctor will probably only have one bill - The last ride to the ER when they call the TOD.

You can't thank me for that , any more than you can thank me for number of restaurants that want to cut their employee's hours, and screw them over, to "send a message" that they don't like ObamaCare. I just add those businesses and chains to my list of places I no longer do business with.

Oh, and CVS hasn't said that they would fire people that don't measure up...They said there "would be consequences", (presumably imposing some sort of premium penalty on them.) But hey, you guys have never let FACTS get in the way of a good outrage...Why start now?

You don't like what CVS is doing?...Don't shop there.

I like places that are gun-free zones, and I let the owners know that I appreciate it. I vote with my pocketbook...The same way you guys do. You don't like it, I'm quite sure you will add them to the list of places you don't business with.

Next outrage-of-the-day____?

Personally, I don't have an issue with people who choose unhealthy lifestyles paying higher premiums. Why should I subsidize the smoker, the 300lb couch potato or the liver destroying binge drinker? I choose to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Should zi be penalized for that?

chickaree wrote: Personally, I don't have an issue with people who choose unhealthy lifestyles paying higher premiums. Why should I subsidize the smoker, the 300lb couch potato or the liver destroying binge drinker? I choose to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Should zi be penalized for that?

Are you sitting down?...I don't either.... And that's the way it's been for decades... Why should I pay for your choosing to smoke?, binge-drink?

chickaree wrote: Personally, I don't have an issue with people who choose unhealthy lifestyles paying higher premiums. Why should I subsidize the smoker, the 300lb couch potato or the liver destroying binge drinker? I choose to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Should zi be penalized for that?

No, you should be happy to contribute to the welfare of those less fortunate.