Alabama fines "fat" workers
#31
Archbishop_10K Wrote:When I was school, sex ed existed for no other reason than to make fun of it.

All I remember is that there was an anonymous question box which had no other purpose than to put the teacher on the spot.
Reply
#32
alaric Wrote:More defeatism, i would expect better from you Archie.

I'm just sayin'. It's really difficult to convince a bunch of teenage kids not to do it. It's a lot like telling people not to drink.
Reply
#33
Expect more of this fascism if Osama Obama is elected. It will only get worse.
Reply
#34
Tiny Wrote:
Archbishop_10K Wrote:When I was school, sex ed existed for no other reason than to make fun of it.

All I remember is that there was an anonymous question box which had no other purpose than to put the teacher on the spot.

I remeber that to it was so funny. We would ask the most off the wall questions and watch the teacher squirm. MWHAHAHA! It was great.
Reply
#35
cgraye Wrote:I really don't see the problem with this.  It's not like you have the right to health insurance from your employer.  It's a benefit.  And if your employer (in this case, the state) wants to charge people more money who are more likely to cost them more money, that seems fair.

Because one right that we do have is privacy of our medical records.  In fact any human resources professional, doctor's office, hospital, pharmacy or insurance company employee is well aware of the HIPPA rules and regulations regarding patient confidentiality.

Now suddenly an employer - the State of Alabama no less - is demanding access to medical records to decide who is and is not likely to cost them more? 

I have a huge problem with that.  I have had medical issues that I have discussed with my doctor that are extremely personal and none of my employer's business.

Now when employers start firing people for what shows up in these employment screenings - are you going to be okay with that?  When employers start thinking that families with three children are too large and that surgical sterilization would constitute compliance will you be okay with that?

Do a search on this and read some of the more comprehensive articles.  There is further the question of what constitutes compliance.

Again - if you are doing everything you should be doing (from a medical standpoint) to address a physical problem (let's say high cholesterol) but you are one of those with a genetic predisposition to high cholesterol - why should some idiot bureaucrat be able to decide that you are "non-compliant" even if your doctor is pleased with your progress?

I am vehemently opposed to all moves that interfere with patience confidentiality, quality of care and insert inexpert opinions into medical care.  And if you're smart - you should be too.


Reply
#36
HappyWife Wrote:
ErinIsNotNice Wrote:
HappyWife Wrote:If we put as much money into abstinence talks at schools, we would be better off.


[Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif]

Yeah, that would really work.

well I guess I don't have a solution for rampant promiscuity. I do know it is not fair to tax people for welfare though.

This conversation is way off the topic of the thread, since the article has nothing at all to do with welfare and everything to do with employees being penalized for sharing or not sharing their medical records with their employers.

BUT - I agree to an extent with Erin.  Abstinence is a good thing and obviously the desired state for all unmarried people.  However, teaching abstinence in a vacuum is pointless.

Sex is fun.  Sex feels good.  Sex is a desirable thing.  There has to be a compelling reason in someone's life to "Just Say NO!"  The only reason compelling enough to say no to something so pleasurable is God.

If the kids you're teaching abstinence to have no faith in God then you're teaching them "Say NO!" without a compelling reason to say no.  It just doesn't work.

We had abstinence education when I was in high school.  Quite honestly it was easy to see who followed the idea of abstinence and who didn't.  Those who did came from Christian homes where the idea of abstinence was taught by the most important sex educators - parents.  Those who didn't came from very secular homes where the message of abstinence was not taught.

Teaching it in school is a nice idea - but if the kids aren't hearing it at home and being give some reason other than "to avoid pregnancy" or "to avoid STDs" then it's going to fall on deaf ears.  Kids never believe that something bad will happen to them so trying to scare them into acting 'right' for fear of some temporal consequence is silly.  It's like showing films of car accidents to drivers' education classes.  The films are forgotten as soon as the 'invincible' teen is behind the wheel.

In our secular society the idea of abstinence in a vacuum is as useless as a fur lined parka in Death Valley.
Reply
#37
SouthernCatholic Wrote:
cgraye Wrote:I really don't see the problem with this.  It's not like you have the right to health insurance from your employer.  It's a benefit.  And if your employer (in this case, the state) wants to charge people more money who are more likely to cost them more money, that seems fair.

Because one right that we do have is privacy of our medical records.  In fact any human resources professional, doctor's office, hospital, pharmacy or insurance company employee is well aware of the HIPPA rules and regulations regarding patient confidentiality.

Now suddenly an employer - the State of Alabama no less - is demanding access to medical records to decide who is and is not likely to cost them more? 

I have a huge problem with that.  I have had medical issues that I have discussed with my doctor that are extremely personal and none of my employer's business.

Now when employers start firing people for what shows up in these employment screenings - are you going to be okay with that?  When employers start thinking that families with three children are too large and that surgical sterilization would constitute compliance will you be okay with that?

Do a search on this and read some of the more comprehensive articles.  There is further the question of what constitutes compliance.

Again - if you are doing everything you should be doing (from a medical standpoint) to address a physical problem (let's say high cholesterol) but you are one of those with a genetic predisposition to high cholesterol - why should some idiot bureaucrat be able to decide that you are "non-compliant" even if your doctor is pleased with your progress?

I am vehemently opposed to all moves that interfere with patience confidentiality, quality of care and insert inexpert opinions into medical care.  And if you're smart - you should be too.
This is why government in the healthcare business is a disaster of an idea. Private businesses cannot force you to sterilize or abort or contracept. Government, however, can.
Reply
#38
SouthernCatholic Wrote:Because one right that we do have is privacy of our medical records.  In fact any human resources professional, doctor's office, hospital, pharmacy or insurance company employee is well aware of the HIPPA rules and regulations regarding patient confidentiality.

Now suddenly an employer - the State of Alabama no less - is demanding access to medical records to decide who is and is not likely to cost them more? 

I have a huge problem with that.  I have had medical issues that I have discussed with my doctor that are extremely personal and none of my employer's business.

But you are not being forced to reveal anything.  If you want to keep your records secret, you can.

Quote:Now when employers start firing people for what shows up in these employment screenings - are you going to be okay with that?  When employers start thinking that families with three children are too large and that surgical sterilization would constitute compliance will you be okay with that?

No one is saying anything about firing.  They're talking about having people who are likely to cost more pay more.

Quote:Again - if you are doing everything you should be doing (from a medical standpoint) to address a physical problem (let's say high cholesterol) but you are one of those with a genetic predisposition to high cholesterol - why should some idiot bureaucrat be able to decide that you are "non-compliant" even if your doctor is pleased with your progress?

Because you are still a higher risk.  It's not a matter of fault or blame.  It's not a punishment for people who are not trying.  It's a simple matter of more fairly distributing the burden of the insurance payments.
Reply
#39
cgraye Wrote:
SouthernCatholic Wrote:Because one right that we do have is privacy of our medical records.  In fact any human resources professional, doctor's office, hospital, pharmacy or insurance company employee is well aware of the HIPPA rules and regulations regarding patient confidentiality.

Now suddenly an employer - the State of Alabama no less - is demanding access to medical records to decide who is and is not likely to cost them more? 

I have a huge problem with that.  I have had medical issues that I have discussed with my doctor that are extremely personal and none of my employer's business.

But you are not being forced to reveal anything.  If you want to keep your records secret, you can.

I do not believe that anyone should ever be penalized for keeping their private medical information private.  Particularly when there are laws in place guaranteeing privacy of medical records. 

You may have no problem with your medical records being made available to your employer - but I definitely do.


Quote:Now when employers start firing people for what shows up in these employment screenings - are you going to be okay with that?  When employers start thinking that families with three children are too large and that surgical sterilization would constitute compliance will you be okay with that?

No one is saying anything about firing.  They're talking about having people who are likely to cost more pay more.

I posed a hypothetical - and if you think that it won't happen you are hopelessly naive.  If an employer decides that you are too expensive to ensure or too likely to take time off from work they will move from financial penalties to firing.  You can bet on it.


Quote:Again - if you are doing everything you should be doing (from a medical standpoint) to address a physical problem (let's say high cholesterol) but you are one of those with a genetic predisposition to high cholesterol - why should some idiot bureaucrat be able to decide that you are "non-compliant" even if your doctor is pleased with your progress?

Because you are still a higher risk.  It's not a matter of fault or blame.  It's not a punishment for people who are not trying.  It's a simple matter of more fairly distributing the burden of the insurance payments.

I think you need to read some articles about this.  I live in Alabama and I've been watching local news coverage and know people whom this will affect.  There is indeed a punishment for not trying.  Those people who one year after their screening are deemed "non-compliant" will be penalized.   A key aspect though is that what will constitute "non-compliance" has not been defined.  That is a punishment for not trying.  Particularly if some non-medically trained bean counter decides that my doctor's idea of "progress" and "compliance" doesn't match their idea.

Nothing personal but I'm sick and tired of bean counters telling me what my medical care should be and their opinion overriding that of my medical professionals.



I do not believe in penalizing people "proactively" based on what should be private information.  I believe it is wrong and it is another step by the nanny state.  People who believe that this isn't a small step toward total control over your life are sticking their heads in the sand.

I am not willing to sacrifice my medical record privacy and I should not be penalized for keeping private that for which the laws already guarantee privacy.
Reply
#40
SouthernCatholic Wrote:I do not believe that anyone should ever be penalized for keeping their private medical information private.  Particularly when there are laws in place guaranteeing privacy of medical records. 

You may have no problem with your medical records being made available to your employer - but I definitely do.


It's not a penalty.  It's an additional benefit to those who are willing to have their medical condition verified.  If they are going to fairly distribute the burden, they are going to have to have some way to verify the level of risk for each person.  You aren't forced to use the health insurrance from your job.  This is no different than insurrance premiums being higher for people who represent greater risk to the insurrance company.  In fact, it's an extension of exactly that.


Quote:I posed a hypothetical - and if you think that it won't happen you are hopelessly naive.  If an employer decides that you are too expensive to ensure or too likely to take time off from work they will move from financial penalties to firing.  You can bet on it.



There are anti-discrimination laws to prevent that, though.

Quote:I think you need to read some articles about this.  I live in Alabama and I've been watching local news coverage and know people whom this will affect.  There is indeed a punishment for not trying.  Those people who one year after their screening are deemed "non-compliant" will be penalized.   A key aspect though is that what will constitute "non-compliance" has not been defined.  That is a punishment for not trying.  Particularly if some non-medically trained bean counter decides that my doctor's idea of "progress" and "compliance" doesn't match their idea.

Nothing personal but I'm sick and tired of bean counters telling me what my medical care should be and their opinion overriding that of my medical professionals.



I do not believe in penalizing people "proactively" based on what should be private information.  I believe it is wrong and it is another step by the nanny state.  People who believe that this isn't a small step toward total control over your life are sticking their heads in the sand.

I am not willing to sacrifice my medical record privacy and I should not be penalized for keeping private that for which the laws already guarantee privacy.

Why would anyone want to punish you for not trying, though?  Who would care?  Nobody is controlling anyone, here.  Nobody is being forced to do anything.

I would appreciate the benefit I get for keeping myself healthy, just as I appreciate the benefit I get on my car insurrance for not getting into any accidents.  I wouldn't like it if I were being forced to pick up the slack for people who aren't trying to be healthy or even people who are trying and still aren't healthy, because they aren't my responsibility.  The money to pay for this coverage has to come from somewhere, and it seems only fair that the people who are going to be getting the most out of it should be putting the most into it.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)