Big Fat Facts Big Fat Index

Insurers Make the Fat Tax Happen

There was debate a few years ago, at least here in the US, if a "fat tax" should be instituted. Foods deemed "bad" (by someone) would carry a higher tax, because it was postulated that fat people ate those bad foods and thus would pay more.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm here to tell you that the fat tax is here. But it's taken on a different form than first anticipated: it's coming to us through healthcare insurers, a last gasp of an industry that was supposed to be nationalized years ago.

The tactic is described in this article, and is thinly veiled: you work out, you lose weight, you get an incentive of some sort. Some insurers are offering cash rewards for participating in weight loss classes and programs. Some are simply charging non-BMI-fat people less even though the BMI is a pile of rubbish as a health indicator.

Something frustrating is this quote from Jim Brown, head of a company in Ohio that recently started its own fat tax. Emphasis mine.

"I had a choice to be lazy or lean," said Brown, 44, an information technology employee who lost 90 pounds and has reached his goal of 210 pounds. Despite being overweight, Brown didn't have any health problems, but he noted: "If I hadn't changed, things probably would catch up with me."

Argh. Oh yeah, and if you don't participate, your premiums double. Great. The article notes that insurance costs have "been rising at double-digit levels" for "several" years. There are other articles out there that try to pin this on the Obesity Epidemic™, but never mention other possibilities - hardly ever.

We are living in a time with a fat tax that isn't called a fat tax, but is instead called a "health incentive". Make no mistake about it: due to the way it's set up, this is something established to punish fat people financially. [Many BFBers sent this in - thanks.]

The Issue of Pregnancy | Arkansas, Arkansas...

moongirli September 22nd, 2005 | Link | Hm. And here's me, with no
Hm. And here's me, with no insurance, because I just turned 24 and got booted off of my parents' plans. It's almost tempting to stay off of it.
AmyPhillip September 22nd, 2005 | Link | Would you be opposed to a
Would you be opposed to a plan that gave premium breaks to people who exercised a certain number of times a week or some non-fat measurement of health? Obviously, such standards would be harder to enforce, but my gym keeps track of when and how often I visit, and I'm sure I could get a printout of the information from them for my health insurance company. What I'm hoping will happen is that insurers will figure out over time that fining fat people doesn't save them nearly as much money as fining unhealthy or sedentary people would and will use that as their benchmarks instead of weight.
Khaulein September 22nd, 2005 | Link | "The tactic is described in
"The tactic is described in this article, and is thinly veiled: you work out, you lose weight, you get an incentive of some sort." I dunno, other than the guy who said he had dodged health probs by losing weight I didn't see any references to weight in the article at all, just the names of a lot of companies giving premium breaks to ppl for using health clubs regardless of size. This has been going on for several yrs. Seems they "want" ppl to work out...they prob "want" ppl to lose weight too but I didn't see that here. Now I am way way more active than many skinnier women and have been for yrs, so I could take advantage of something like this...but not of a "BMI premium incentive". All of these companies only care about their bottom line obviously, and I'm sure they see stats indicating fit >>> sedentary. I would rather see them using this than small >>> large, wouldn't you??? Health at any size...
BLR September 22nd, 2005 | Link | How much more do smokers
How much more do smokers pay, in terms of insurance premiums, than non-smokers?
Viola September 22nd, 2005 | Link | I don't know about the
I don't know about the smokers' premiums, but I was turned down for life insurance at age 22 even though I had no health problems, and my blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol levels were in the healthy range. This plan had rates for smokers, but not for the obese.
Jeanie-R September 22nd, 2005 | Link | The people who claim they
The people who claim they deserve a break because they exercise annoy me as much as the folks who believe they deserve a break because their bmi falls in the "normal" range. In my opinion we all deserve access to healthcare because we are human beings, fat, thin, sedentary or active. The time for universal healthcare in the US is long overdue.
stef September 22nd, 2005 | Link | It must be a "little bit fat
It must be a "little bit fat tax." Because really fat people simply can't get any insurance at all, much of the time. You know, I'm actually down with the idea of insurers or the government paying for gym memberships as a part of universal health care. But they need to pay for everyone, not just thin people or people who've lost weight or people who have already been working out.
antidieter September 22nd, 2005 | Link | I don't know I exercise all
I don't know I exercise all the time and am still fat, so does that mean I am less healthy? this is just a ploy to justify higher premiums, and personally it will backfire in their faces. as people do lose weight join weight watchers or whatever lose weight, not manage to keep it off, get fat again, along with the other health parameters going off the charts, which translates into higher medical costs in the long run. I think health parameters should be the way to go, like bp, cholesterol, muscle/fat ratio, which shows if you do in fact exercise, or some other factors not weight. of course some people are just naturally muscular whether they exercise or not. RR
Maria September 23rd, 2005 | Link | Actually there was a
Actually there was a reference to weight in the article: "The nation's largest hospital operator, HCA Inc. of Nashville, Tenn., said that in 2002 it saved $2.76 for every $1 it invested. The employer gave a $116 cash incentive to each participant who completed a weight-management program. " Now, the article didn't specify the weight of the participants in the weight management program. But the tone of the article suggests that fat people were encouraged to sign up for the program and that weight-loss was the goal.
GAinCA September 23rd, 2005 | Link | "I had a choice to be lazy
"I had a choice to be lazy or lean," said Brown Oh yeah, because if you're fat it automatically means you're lazy, right?
BigThinker September 23rd, 2005 | Link | Just watch. They'll begin
Just watch. They'll begin monitoring our grocery purchases in ten years.
jrochest September 23rd, 2005 | Link | I don't know about this: the
I don't know about this: the point of health insurance, private or government run, is that everyone is supposed to have it. The healthy people balance out the unhealthy, making the system work. Fat discrimination aside, this feels a lot like removing those most likely to need service from the pool. I mean, think about it: if they can remove the fat, they can remove the old, they can remove those with a family history of heart disease or cancer, eventually ending up with the paradox that only the young and healthy can get health insurance.
paul September 23rd, 2005 | Link | ... eventually ending up
... eventually ending up with the paradox that only the young and healthy can get health insurance. Have to work "rich" in there somehow, too.
nwhiker September 23rd, 2005 | Link | Just watch. They'll begin
Just watch. They'll begin monitoring our grocery purchases in ten years. Yeah... using that handy dandy "Shopper's Advantage Card" that allows you to SAVE!!!
Lizzy September 23rd, 2005 | Link | [blockquote]Just watch.
[blockquote]Just watch. They'll begin monitoring our grocery purchases in ten years.[/blockquote] Yeah, and I'm sure they'll assume all the ice cream, candy, doughnuts, etc. I buy are for me, when I consume about 10% of it while my skinny fiance eats the rest (which is fine with me - I stopped craving sweets very often when I stopped dieting). [blockquote]Have to work "rich" in there somehow, too.[/blockquote] I thought it already was. I mean, have you checked the rates of health insurance these days? I looked into it for my fiance, as he's unemployed and I can't put him on my group plan through my work until we're married. IIRC, I would need to spend something like $200-$300 per month on hospital bills just to break even on it. Not to mention that's a policy where not very much at all is covered.
llh September 23rd, 2005 | Link | Everyone forgets Jim Fix and
Everyone forgets Jim Fix and the millions of thin workout obsessed people who meet untimely fates.
chartreuse September 23rd, 2005 | Link | jrochest - you hit the nail
jrochest - you hit the nail on the head, I think. Fat acceptance issues aside, it's just bizarre to charge people for health insurance based on their likelihood to get disease, given that health care exists for the sole purpose of providing care to people who get disease!
jenhuff September 23rd, 2005 | Link | really it comes down to the
really it comes down to the basic immorality of profiting from the suffering of others. For-profit health care is nothing more than greedy b****rds exploiting the misfortunes of the sick. For-profit health insurance is the same...I understand the concept of profit motivating innovations and new discoveries etc. etc. but it's still sickening.
RandyS September 23rd, 2005 | Link | Jim Fixx, an icon in the
Jim Fixx, an icon in the running community in the 60's and 70's did indeed die of a heart attack (while running) at the early age of 52. But don't assume that running didn't greatly extend his life. In fact, 3 male relatives, his father, uncle and brother, all died in their late 30's to early 40's, all of heart attacks. It would seem to me that Jim Fixx is an example of exercise extending life. [Note from Paul: Please do not sign your posts. It's in the rules, and it's redundant given the "Posted by..." line below.]
paul September 23rd, 2005 | Link | I'd like to reiterate that
I'd like to reiterate that part of the problem with this entire situation is, simply, that it makes the assumption that fat people can not be healthy. That is the crux of the problem, but it trickles down to the fact that charging fat people more - by charging "healthy" people less - is discriminatory. And "healthy", sadly, is becoming the new buzzword for "not fat". Some proponents of the fat tax feel that we, as fat people, want government handouts. That's BS. We want equality and parity in healthcare access - like everyone else. But, because of all of the assumptions about us out there, this gets dismissed as, "Those fat people want to just [eat, be lazy, etc.] and get FREE healthcare even though [a flawed] study says they cost more! Waaah!" Blah.
BLR September 23rd, 2005 | Link | That is the crux of the
That is the crux of the problem, but it trickles down to the fact that charging fat people more - by charging "healthy" people less - is discriminatory. Insurance is a science of statistics, and premiums are based directly upon those statistics. Want auto insurance, but can't afford to move out of your poor, crime-ridden neighborhood? You'll pay more than the person with the same car in posh neighborhood with great security. There's a greater risk of something happening to the car in the crime-ridden neighborhood, and you eat up that risk in higher premiums. If current statistics show that sedentary people cost insurance companies more than non-sedentary people, the insurance companies will charge those sedentary people more. If the insurance company is charging higher premiums for people who statistics do NOT say are at higher risk, it should be fought - and hard. I suppose what bothers me is that while some companies are focusing on benefits to those who participate in weight loss, a lot of them are focusing on what it means to keep healthy. To have a reactionary "They hate fat people!" response tells me how many people, even within FA/SA, still think that fat doesn't equal healthy and fat doesn't equal active. We KNOW this isn't true, it's a stereotype, and it's a horrible one to keep propagating. (is that spelled right?) Also keep in mind that there are two types of people who will NOT benefit from a weight-loss benefit program: the fat & happy who refuse to enter into failed diet programs, and the thin & happy who have the intended "results" of the diet program but still don't get the benefit of the cash break. Hey, Paul - did you see the recent Salon article on NAAFA's convention and promoting HAES among children & parents?
rebelle September 24th, 2005 | Link | The thing about this article
The thing about this article that got to me was the reference to the workers who engange in "dieting or other healthy behaviors." HEALTHY BEHAVIORS?!? Dieting is NOT a healthy behavior. Worse than the specific references to weight were the veiled ones like this. They show how entrenched the mindset is, that if you're dieting it's "about your health" because, of course, fat is "unhealthy" and the "way" to become less fat is "to diet." I wonder, though, what Worthington would make of me...a woman who is both fat AND fit. Probably wouldn't come up, because if they didn't believe the health stats of the man who dropped 90 pounds, they're not just going to take my word for it.
beakergirl September 24th, 2005 | Link | Two thoughts: I eat a
Two thoughts: I eat a reasonably healthy diet (lots of veggies and fruits, whole grains, not much meat, don't ever eat stuff like McDonald's) and I work out for an hour a day five or six days a week. But I'm still heavier than the "insurance company charts" say I "should" be. here is my question: Will the insurer look at my lifestyle (and the fact that the ONLY health issue I have is pollen allergies, which I DEFY you to tie to my fatness) and go "Okay, you're doing enough, you get the lower rate" or are they solely going to look at the fact that I am a 5'7" woman who weighs 200 lb and slap me with either a higher charge or refuse me insurance outright? I think it's moderately ridiculous - what about the people who are just big but are healthy? What about the skinny skinny people who eat crap and never exercise? These sort of things frustrate me because everyone talks like dropping weight should be so easy, and if you try an exercise/healthy eating program and don't almost immediately become thin, either you're cheating/lying or there's something wrong with you. I could drop perhaps 20 pounds by starving myself and exercising obsessively, but then I'd get so crabby that they'd probably send me to anger management counseling, which would cost them more money than I'm costing them now. (Not to mention the arthritis that might set in 10 years from now after abusing my knees in the "recommended" hi-impact aerobics classes).
ajoyce September 24th, 2005 | Link | So I have a question. Do
So I have a question. Do Shaq and Ah-nold have to pay more for insurance too?
lildee September 26th, 2005 | Link | yay, JeannieR- we all
yay, JeannieR- we all deserve health coverage just for being humans. Most countries have figured this out, when will the US?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.