What next? An anorexia or bulimia fee? How about an asthmatic fee? Or a fee for diabetics? Discrimination in fine form, I say.

it is pretty discriminating, however, i'm sure it will be a motivation for these people to get healthier. i know it would surely get me up a moving, $25 adds up in the long run.

I can see both sides of the argument for having an obesity fee, but I think this is a little out of hand. It seems a bit too "Big Brother" for me.

Wow, that's pretty crazy. I dislike insurance companies in general anyway and disagree with most of their fees and premiums.

If we the taxpayers are paying for your healthcare, It's totally fair. You should not be allowed to deliberately sabotage your health on MY dollar.

Sorry but I think it's a fabulous idea.

I'm with Berlin.. I think it will motivate them to get in shape because the last thing anyone wants is to have to another expense! I just don't feel there is an excuse for obesity..

Well [I used to be obese-ish- 160 pounds doesn't belong on a 5 foot-nothing person] I think this is a great idea because basically.. if you think about it [and I have thought about it], you put your money where your mouth is. I go out to eat a lot and I'm still chubby [not as bad as I was before but still] and the fact that I'm investing in my fat was a big eye-opener. These people in other states [across the nation we have pretty large people, and I'm not talking giants or muscle] should be encouraged by their government to help them out.. I'm not sure if money is the right answer but I believe it's a great start. People just need to keep brainstorming and coming up with better ideas to fight this never ending battle.

I feel that you get better results by positively reinforcing a desired behavior. I would be in favor of rewarding people for eating well,exercising, and maintaining a reasonable BMI, rather than punishment for not doing so. Punishing a behavior almost always results in low moral and resentment. Particularly in economic times such as these, when that 25 dollars may mean the difference of a person being able to afford gas to get to work in the first place.

yea agree with fuzzles, punishing people wont to the trick, obese people will probably feel attacked and rightfully so, though i do get the point of this fee

This would be great incentive for my fat a$$ to take responsibility it it has not already. Especially if I have 1.5 years to reach a goal.

wont do* the trick hehe sorry

No! Some people are overweight, not because they don't exercise but because they are genetically predisposed towards obesity or have thyroid or other hormonal problems. This is like punishing people for being short or having brown hair.

I totally agree with foxie and Jeny. If you're messing up your own health, you should have to pay for it. There's no reason that someone who's fit and healthy should have to suffer for your weight problem when it's almost always a voluntary issue.

Which is why I disagree with fuzzles' first comment, since asthma or diabetes aren't generally preventable health problems.

Depends. If its weight that was gained from an unhealthy lifestyle, then yes. But some people gained the weight because of medications (steroids are known to do that), or other medical conditions.

However, a McDonalds diet with a couch potato exercise routine should be charged.

this is a way for insurance companies to make even more money not to help people i can assure you of that.

I'm completely in favor of this b/c the health insurance costs for the state gov't are hugely impacted by obesity (and having lots of women in child-bearing ages, but that's hardly preventable). If my salary is $50K and my employer pays $5K to insure me b/c I take care of my body (versus $10K to insure someone else), I would like to think that I deserve some of that differential. That said, I only think a penalty should be assessed for avoidable health conditions (I know, hard to draw that line). Strangely, these same thoughts (in conjunction with a lack of confidence in how the gov't handles things) are part of my hesitation about national health insurance.

A question for those that are opposed - would you be as opposed if it was in the form of a $400 benefit paid out to the non-obese (instead of a $400 tax levied on those that are obese)? Maybe they'd get better buy-in with better positioning.

For those of you in favor, what about other preventable ailments - e.g. smoking. Can you charge a fee for being obese and not charge a fee for being a smoker (especially if the associated insurance increases are comparable)?

It's a hilariously brilliant idea.

ht1979 makes some really good points. I was wondering, as some others, about people who are obese not by choice, but due to medical conditions. There could be some kind of waiver put in place, or a "doctor's note" of sorts for these people.

Wow, how completely insensitive most of these comments are. There are certainly people who sit on their big behinds and stuff twinkies into their faces all day. However, there are usually emotional issues behind overeating obese people, how about treating the cause and not holding people responsible for the symptom? If the majority of our population do not have private health insurance, and mental/behavioral health is not a priority for public health insurance providers, how do we know that we aren't penalizing the right people? Public health information is not always readily available in neighborhoods where there's fast food and liquor stores on every corner, and saying that people should know the right thing to do doesn't cut it. It's so easy to blame the layperson, but education is key and if there isn't a big enough push to educate then we continue in the manner we've grown accustomed. Fast food is cheap, good food not so much. Whole foods=whole paycheck.

I say all this to say, I exercise 6 days a week, teach aerobics 2x weekly, and have Hashimoto's thyroiditis that keeps the weight on me. For those who will say i don't eat right, I have been closely monitored by a nutritionist, an endocrinologist, and do not have ANY other health issues. I eat normal and balanced meals, and exercise, just happened to start gaining weight in sets of 20lbs when i turned 25, I'm 32 now. At my heaviest I was 400lbs, I literally starved down to 300, and landed myself in the hospital, for malnutrition. Perhaps it will be said that I am in the minority, but I refuse to believe that; there is a reason and solution for overeating and obesity, and it isn't as simple as fining people to get off their asses.

With all due respect...

hkcupcake and others with similar views,

I don't feel that there is anything "hilarious" about health care, or lack thereof.

Both of my parents have lived healthy lives, fed their family healthy foods, had few issues with regard to genetics, and had record attendence when it came to getting to work and performing at the top of their game. Both are now dealing with heart issues that are unexplained, and "insurance" companies are doing everything in the world to avoid helping them. But, boy, are the insurance companies not only eager to get paid, but to cut ANY risk whatsoever!

Where does accountability come into play here?

couldn't have said better myself, Fuzzles!

it*

Complete BS.

I have less sick days than almost all of my co-workers and the odd time I am off it's because someone brought some bug from home into the office that their kid picked up in daycare. I'd like a kickback from working parents for giving me their kids germs and recoupment of my lost time from work - thank you very much!

As a fat person... I don't have any health issues and haven't needed an antibiotic in over 20 years.
Having said that, I'll agree that a lot of people who are overweight do have medical issues. But so do thin people with lousy eating and lifestyle habits.

I'd rather see employers and insurance companies utilize a more positive approach. Add coverage for personal trainer and nutritionist and behavioral therapist as is offered for physio and chiropractors. I won't use a chiropractor in my lifetime but I'd jump at a personal trainer for 10 sessions a year. Providing access to these types of services to people who can't otherwise afford it I think would help move a lot of them in the right direction. Most people who are fat can't believe they got that way - and may not have the tools and understanding needed to turn things around on their own. Or are at a point where it feels like an insurmountable task and need a support system to get them going.

Bottom line is you cannot assume that one person is healthier than another simply by their BMI. There's plenty of people with cancer, heart disease, high cholesterol, diabetes, etc. that are below a 35 BMI. They're not exercising or eating right either - which is really the key to good health.

I hate this kind of money-grabbing stupidity.

Well, insurance companies do charge more for certain pre-existing conditions such as asthma when you buy on your own (not a group plan) - so, if someone who has a condition that they can't help that results in higher premiums, why shouldn't someone else have to pay higher premiums for their condition? A BMI of 30 is already obese, so 35 is undeniably an unhealthy weight for anyone - this isn't an unreasonable cut-off. If you can't help your weight, that's no different from having asthma or another condition. Some companies charge smokers more, and people don't get that angry about it - it's just as difficult to quit smoking as it is for people to lose weight, if not more in some cases.

But they should really structure this differently - giving lower premiums to those who maintain a healthy weight, rather than increasing it for those who are overweight. I really don't think that paying an extra $25 a month will encourage anyone to step on the treadmill. Let's face it, we're all guilty of putting on extra pounds because it is simply easier to eat fast food food for lunch, even if it costs more than if we brought something healthy from home.

That's really insensitive and ignorant. It would be a much better idea to have free classes teaching people how to shop and cook healthy foods, education in schools on the topic, actually healthy school lunches, get information out there about how to be healthy, etc.

So many people don't understand all the different factors. This may be an extreme example but my grandfather who had diabetes insisted on getting a plain doughnut instead of a glazed one and insisted that it was ok for him to eat because you couldn't see the sugar.

Ok so basically what we are saying here is, if perhaps you have a medical reason for being large like underactive thyroid you have to pay for it because your company thinks your just being lazy. WTF type of pressure is this? And then we wonder why people develope eating disorders or get so depressed that they can't work and then everyone else has to pay for your lack of compassion. Oh yeah that sounds totally fair. Don't forget to start charging everyone who doesn't have blonde hair and blue eyes for making all of the blonde hair blue eyed skinny people work with you!

I'm okay with this.

If weight is the only factor they are adding a premium to, then that would be wrong.

To be fair, it should also be scaled so people who choose to have multiple kids pay a premium, because that sure costs those tax payers a lot more than the people who have one or no kids.

Smokers should pay twice as much, because not only do they put themselves at risk, but others with second hand smoke.

Alcohol consumption puts one at a higher risk for many diseases, including the recent findings that a couple of glasses of wine a day can increase your chance of breast cancer.

And if a person chooses to ride motorcycles, that's a high risk group for injury.

Of course if you start in this direction, it's a slippery slope to surcharges for almost anything, and if you omit something, even accidentally, you could be at risk of having your policy canceled altogether. That's a current trend insurance companies are trying.

I see a lot of outrage in the comments, but I think it's fine. Obesity is shown to increase risks of heart disease, cancer etc. which would make health insurance premiums go up. Smokers have higher premiums I believe, as do those with established chronic conditions such as myself. It may not be fair to everyone, but hey, neither's not being able to get my own policy because of a pre-existing condition.

Maybe this would provide financial motivation for folks to take their health seriously.

I genuinely think this is a terrific idea. While it may seem to be unfair to some, its unfair to the average taxpayer and others in the insurance plan when the obese person ends up getting sick or hurt because of their weight. The avg. person ends up paying for the obesity-related injury care, and that simply isn't fair. While there are many things you could charge an extra fee from, things like smoking and obesity are somewhat more fair. As much as people claim to say otherwise, you CAN do something about each of those. You can quit smoking, and you can lose weight. Its tough, yes, but it can be done. And its simply getting to the point where I'm sick of paying for other's mistakes. You wouldn't be happy paying if there were a ton of people always trying to commit suicide, and having to pay for the rehab, etc for them. Being obese is the same thing, just slower.

And to PrettyBluLuv....while I understand there are some medical reasons, trust me. I have an underactive thyroid (quite severe unforunately), but I have managed to avoid becoming obese or really more than a larger, normal BMI girl. No, its not as easy as for others, but we're making everything too easy in this country

I understand that there are medical explanations for some people, but I'm sorry--the majority of the state of Alabama does not have a thyroid condition making them fat. I used to live in Birmingham and there's just a different attitude about health and fitness from anywhere else I ever lived. (Even in the biggest city in the state, I get strange looks when I run around my parent's neighborhood--and of course there isn't a sidewalk so sometimes it's a little dangerous). Maybe this is a wake-up call. I do understand the other side's arguments and I wouldn't call this a perfect plan, but something needs to be done about the problem. It's out of control.

yes. it's a wodernful way to motivate people and god or nature made people slim on maybe slightly overweight, and being really fat is agaist humane nature. i'm not into being totally slim, but being 5'3'' and 200lbs is too much - those people have to pay, so that they get in shame, obviously nothing else works for them.

to those who came up with emotional eating as an excuse - why is this problem so big in US only? Look at other countries where healthy eating is a tradition, people don't lay the blame on emotions, there are obese people there, but it's mostly pure love for the food and having too much money.

sh135 how fat are you? 170 lbs. i don't hink it's considered fat. and fees should not apply to overweight people, just the really heavy ones.

Hopefully, the state of Alabama will also charge monthly fees to people who engage in other deadly activities that will raise their healthcare costs: people who smoke, people who drive fast sports cars, people who consume large amount of alcohol, etc. They should probably also tack on an extra charge for athletes, who are more likely to have an expensive orthopedic injury. And while they're at it, add in women of childbearing age. Pregnancy is very expensive and I don't think my tax dollars should support medical costs because women make the choice to have babies.

It may seem cruel, but maybe it's what people need to realize how much their weight is affecting their lives? People may be willing to part with energy, veggies/fruits, and all the great stuff you get with living a healthy life, but most people don't like being separated with their money. If it inspires people to lose weight and be healthy, maybe it's worth a shot?

And maybe they could use that extra money for something good, like a company gym, or healthier options in the lunch room?

anything for the government to get money...

Statistics have shown that the obese put a huge monetary strain on the healthcare system. By paying $25 a month--which, by the way, is REALLY low--they can help offset those medical bills. I also think that the threat of having to shell out money would be good motivation to get fit.

A lot of the people who are opposed to this think that anyone who's fat will be charged; that's not true. I read that the people who will be affected are only those with a BMI over 30, which is considered obese. People with anything under that--including those classified as "overweight"--will not be affected.

I understand that positive reinforcement might work better, like fuzzles suggested, but then what about the people who are already eating and being healthy? Are they also going to be rewarded for already having a healthy lifestyle? Or forgotten about?

I can see both sides of it too..

I have seen people have to get military weight waivers and be on permanent PT with BMIs of a modest 27-29, b/c they are overweight according to the "chart". Nevermind that these people have 9% body fat, and are rock solid otherwise. It seems to offend the government when something doesn't fit into the "numbers". So I wonder will people be taken on a case-by-case basis for BMI?

Something else to think about: If you have a lesbian couple on the same insurance, do you raise the fees b/c there may be a higher incidence of breast or ovarian cancer? Or homosexual male couple for double the number of prostates and testicles?

For those who commented on the issue of smoking, if you look at the report Alabama has charged the same type of premium to smokers for a number of years now. Because obesity is second only to smoking in preventable deaths, and because smoking is often tied to the same emotional issues that some people referenced, why is this fee any different? Of course there are some health problems that lead to obesity, but that's a small percentage.

Also, a BMI of 35 is really high. As mentioned above, 30 is the obesity cutoff on the BMI scale, so going even higher than that seems like a perfectly acceptable cut-off to me. As referenced in the report, that means that someone who is 5'6" would have to weigh 220 pounds before they were charged extra.

why stop there lets charge people who are different, not main stream religion and those also who agree.
lets start a witch hunt and dob on people to be charge more on all they do

rolls eyes

I am on the fence on this one. I feel that what is being missed here, is the fact that a majority of obese people are obese due to socieoeconimic factors and not pure laziness (I also agree that there should be a clause in place for those with thyroid diseases). If you grew up in a middle class family, chances are you had access to healthy food, quality education and good "fitness rolemodels" (i.e your parents perhaps played golf or tennis, took aerobics classes, etc). If you grew up in home or neighborhood where there wasn't extra income available for gym memberships, where it wasn't an option to spend more than $10 on dinner for a family of 4 (Hello, Mickey D's!), where there weren't plenty of jogging and bike paths or money for extracurricular activities, it would start to add up. You would be "groomed" so to speak to pick up unhealthy habits (not to mention the fact that gym class is one of the first programs school cut out when facing budget problems). So if they go this route, I hope they are looking at the bigger problem and not just using it as a band-aid b/c, as someone mentioned earlier, this is just a SYMPTON, its not going to solve the PROBLEM or DISEASE. Then you also have to take into account the fact that if you are going to force people who may (and I hope they monitor this) be at the bottom of the pay check scale, hitting them with extra fees is not going to leave them with any extra money to buy grilled chicken and veggies instead of a big mac for dinner, much less join a gym.

"Statistics have shown that the obese put a huge monetary strain on the healthcare system"

I disagree and knowing nurses who see people come in for silly reasons .
This is not a reason many come in.

It really is annoying when people judge one by the size.

Just to reply to something mentioned in a few comments - it's not complicated to eat reasonably 'healthy'. It doesn't mean shopping at Whole Foods or farmer's markets, just basic cooking as opposed to junk food, frying, too much greasy stuff, etc. I don't think you need a class to understand that.

Advah,

That seems the same as telling teens not to have sex, but not giving them a reason for this, or reinforcing it with examples, such as HIV rates, pregnancy, or other STDs. Just because you may know something, doesn't mean that everyone else does. Eating well is lost on most people, b/c they are trying to make a dollar last in this economy, cheap food is usually the least healthy, for instance ground beef VS. ground turkey, at my market the difference is about 3 dollars. I only have to feed me so I buy what I want. But, consider a single mom of 2 on a salary of 50k or less, with a mortgage, and tuition, and car note...