Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jorgelito
Wrong, it's about cost control measures.
Just add choice to it: If you are overwieght or smoke then deny them coverage (by the employer) that's more than fair. All the other silly scenarios are irrelevant as they do not incur cost to the employer (through health coverage).
|
There are probably dozens of other "lifestyle choices" and risky behaviour that also add costs to the employer. I think the general acceptance of this type of policy is a slippery slope.
I just did a quick search on skiing injury costs and found the following:
Quote:
Medically Treated Injuries Related To Winter Sports
Total Costs: $14.9 billion
Source: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. These estimates are projections of medically-treated injuries in 1999 related to these recreational activities. They are derived from estimates of hospital emergency room-treated injuries reported through the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's National Electronic Injury Surveillance System.
Aetna
|
How long before the accountants start wanting to restrict this activity? Now imagine the other lifestyle choices that incur additional medical costs and result in higher absenteism. A few billion here, a few billion there, and pretty soon we are talking some serious money. Sure, we could all sign a non-skiing, non-bicycling, non-unsafe sex, non-(any other lifefestyle choice that has risks), etc...but do we really want this to become the standard for having a job and/or medical coverage?
Like I said before, they have the right to do this but we should let them know how disgusted we are with this type of thinking and maybe fewer companies will follow their example.