November 17, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Open Enrollment
November 18, 2007 at 9:53 pm
I've never really understood how it came to be the employers responsibility to provide for the general welfare (e.g. health) of the employee. Seems the gov't gave itself that job some 220 years ago:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare..." - but I digress.
Really, I would approach these schemes with the utmost caution. Do you really want your employer dictating every aspect of your health? I'm all for advocating a healthier lifestyle but that has to come from within, not through the accounting department. Though, allowing some "gym time" certainly would put you miles ahead of most other employers.
James Stover, McDBA
November 19, 2007 at 2:48 am
Ultimately, I think it's an individual's own responsibility to take good care of his / her health. It's your own choice how many hours you put in. It's your own choice if and how much you work out. It's your own choice what and how much you eat. But I think it's a wise investment for a company to help people a little bit. Stimulating a healthy lifestyle is does not necessarliy cost anything. You can use the company's purchasing power to arrange discounts for your personnel. Not offering junkfood in the cafetaria doesn't cost anything either. A little more of a challenge is choosing an easily accessible location and stimulating workers to come to the office by bike or on foot.
I changed jobs last year and instead of spending one and half hours in my car in traffic jams to work in a smog-infested area, I now get my daily 30 minute workout by taking my daughter to school and going to work by bike. Lost 12 pounds over the last year and I'm sure my cholesterol is better today as well.
November 19, 2007 at 7:04 am
If my memory does not fail me, way way back in the early 80's the "Red Roof Inns" corporate hdqrs had outside tennis courts, a sauna room, and an exercise room along with a personal trainer. The rule for use of these facilities was simple and direct, "as long as you get your work done - use the facilities when you wanted".
Now am working for a company in a larger office complex where the owner of the complex has set up an exercise room which can be used by any employee of any company in the complex - following each individual companies rules. A low keyed incentive for a healthier life style, welcomed by many, without excessive company expenditure. Not as big a "pitch" as what has been described but nevertheless something.
November 19, 2007 at 7:26 am
I don't think employers have to promote general welfare. It was a benefit the unions forced and companies started to offer to compete for workers.
With the way healthcare is changing in the US, I suspect that if you don't have a healthy lifestyle, then you might wind up with less coverage. The company isn't forcing anyone to be healthier, but if you don't get a medical exam and a "coach", then you get less coverage. Or it costs more.
What scares me is that I suspect that you might end up needing a physical before you get hired and that some people might get excluded from the "standard" company plan.
November 19, 2007 at 8:17 am
Since the company is paying for your healthcare benefits (or at least subsidizing). And since obsesity related healthcare is expensive. I believe the employer has every right to be concerned about your health. Seems only fair to me that you pay for your fair share - if you need additional healthcare because of a choice you make (smoking, not staying in shape ...) then you need to pay for your choices. Seems everyone has forgotten about personal responsibility lately. Have a DRP, stay in shape and don't buy a house you can't afford.
November 19, 2007 at 9:37 am
There was recently a story about a company that was going to charge additional money for health coverage if your Body Mass Indicator was over a certain level. Amongst the many problems of that was that if you're a body builder (as I'm sure all of us are:P ) your BMI is the same as someone who is 20-30 lbs overweight.
Time is a huge issue. I spent nine years working in a building where the fitness room was on the other side of the wall. Never once used it. Now I have an apartment that I've been in since April that has a very nicely appointed exercise room, I've set foot in it once.
In my defense, feeble though it may be, I walk to school three times a week. It really isn't enough, but it's something. I've considered riding a bike to work, it's only about three miles or so, but with the increased problems that I've been having with asthma and allergies this fall/winter, I'm not sure that it's worth it.
-----
[font="Arial"]Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves or we know where we can find information upon it. --Samuel Johnson[/font]
November 19, 2007 at 9:50 am
Steve Jones - Editor (11/19/2007)
I don't think employers have to promote general welfare. It was a benefit the unions forced and companies started to offer to compete for workers.With the way healthcare is changing in the US, I suspect that if you don't have a healthy lifestyle, then you might wind up with less coverage. The company isn't forcing anyone to be healthier, but if you don't get a medical exam and a "coach", then you get less coverage. Or it costs more.
What scares me is that I suspect that you might end up needing a physical before you get hired and that some people might get excluded from the "standard" company plan.
Unless you're in a truly small company (<50) in the US, which has the option to offer individual coverage as opposed to group coverage, HIPAA is your best friend there. HIPAA regs disallow "cherry-picking", so once you're over the 50-employee limit, your company MUST offer group-coverage, which means no exam, no denial based on pre-existing condition, and no exclusion based on that either.
It's also still illegal to ask medical questions (personal health questions) during the hiring process as of right now.
Also - it became the employer's responsibility when the government MADE it their responsibility. Personally I think the government should be taking on their OWN responsibility (as pointed out by James Stover), but that's an entirely different can of worms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
November 19, 2007 at 9:56 am
I hope they can't make changes to exclude people. As much as I think you have a personal responsibility, some things aren't your fault and as a society and group (in this case, company), we need to support others.
I do worry that in future years they'll make additional "charges" or "discounts" or benefits available to healthy people and not to unhealthy people. I'm a little concerned about the physical, but I certainly do need one.
I'm one of those high BMI people. Not a bodybuilder, but I have a big physique and they always have me listed as overweight. Not that I couldn't stand to lose 10 lbs, but at 220, 6', I haven't been at the "ideal" of 190 since 7th grade in high school. Best shape of my life was around 200-205.
November 19, 2007 at 10:20 am
""We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare..." - but I digress."
Unfortunately, this does not include retirement or healthcare. This interpretation is based on how we read it now, not what was meant when our country was founded. There is a general welfare clause in our Constitution, but if you want to know what was meant by it, you should read the Federalist Papers. You will find there that its interpretation was supposed to be very narrow, not broad like our polititians like to interpret it today.
November 19, 2007 at 11:35 am
I don't think you can blame government for forcing companies to offer health benefits. Unions began forcing health benefits in their contracts, governments picked them up for their employees. Private industry started offering them to help them compete for people long before it was made mandatory. Besides, companies only have to offer a basic insurance plan, not some of the more comprehensive ones that they offer. And how many of you, if given a choice between two jobs where the only difference (salary, location, etc.) was one paid for health insurance and one didn't, would take the one without?
November 19, 2007 at 11:40 am
Dave (11/19/2007)
...how many of you, if given a choice between two jobs where the only difference (salary, location, etc.) was one paid for health insurance and one didn't, would take the one without?
I'm in Steve's boat, my wife has been carrying me on her insurance as she makes more than I do. But benefits, ignoring insurance coverage, are definitely something to be seriously considered when it comes to new employment opportunities.
-----
[font="Arial"]Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves or we know where we can find information upon it. --Samuel Johnson[/font]
November 19, 2007 at 11:59 am
Lynn Pettis (11/19/2007)
""We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare..." - but I digress."Unfortunately, this does not include retirement or healthcare. This interpretation is based on how we read it now, not what was meant when our country was founded. There is a general welfare clause in our Constitution, but if you want to know what was meant by it, you should read the Federalist Papers. You will find there that its interpretation was supposed to be very narrow, not broad like our polititians like to interpret it today.
Well - that's a bit disingenuous since there was no such thing two hundred years ago. While you're certainly right on the "letter of the law", I can't see how the health of the general population ISN't within the concept of General Welfare as postulated by our founding fathers.
Are we really saying that the best possible scenario is one by which healthcare is a privilege reserved to those who can afford it, or those who are healthy? Does anyone else see the irony there?
Let's be honest here - healthcare is one area the US can learn some things from a LOT of other countries, since we usually rate VERY poorly in all objective surveys of the national state of health.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
November 19, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Government Bureaucracy is incapable of providing effect healthcare to its citizens. Just look at most of our federal agencies; they are bloated, inefficient, and self-promoting. If government wants to play a role in healthcare, then it should concentrate on creating an environment in which healthcare and insurance (which is just legalized extortion) is affordable for all. It should not try and get involved in the system itself.
Another change would require a change in tort law and limit how much money people can collect in damages, as well as put penalties in place for those that file frivilous lawsuits. I personally know two doctors that are no longer OB's due to the cost of malpractice suits. These doctors were excellent doctors with no history of malpractice complaints against them.
But we TOTALLY digress and are now talking politics. Not necessarily a good subject for such a forum as this, agre? How about we just agree to disagree and go about our normal work.
November 19, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Well - I think Steve kind of strayed "on purpose" today (that was the purpose of that editorial). That being said - I'd much rather talk SQL server on here, so I'm right there with you on THAT!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 22 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply