COLUMBIA --- Obese state workers could see their wallets slim down under a bill that would charge them $25 more in monthly health-care premiums.
Some say the idea would hurt worker morale at a time when agency funding cuts, staff furloughs and mounting demand for public services are already taxing the public work force.
In Aiken and Edgefield counties, 5,262 public employees participate in the state health plan, which enrolls 181,218 statewide.
While the bill, introduced by state Sen. Greg Ryberg, R-Aiken, has raised passions on both sides of the argument, what's certain is that obesity-related health problems are costly.
In 2007 those claims cost South Carolina $71.5 million, according to figures collected by Mr. Ryberg's staff.
South Carolina, which has the fifth-highest obesity rate in the nation, would probably get more use from the policy than slimmer states. So far, only Alabama has enacted something similar.
The idea for Mr. Ryberg's bill, S. 109, sprang from a policy to be enacted next year that raises tobacco users' premiums an additional $25 per month.
"The focus of the bill is taxpayer dollars," said Danny Varat, spokesman for Mr. Ryberg.
"Gov. Sanford noted in his support of the smokers' premium increase that the cost of personal choices shouldn't be borne by the taxpayer, and the same applies here."
As for whether Mr. Sanford would support Mr. Ryberg's bill, spokesman Joel Sawyer said, "We haven't reviewed the specifics of the senator's bill, but we'd be open to it."
Others are decidedly against it.
"This is really baffling to me," said Broadus Jamerson, executive director of the South Carolina State Employees Association.
"The military does this kind of thing, but they do it on a different scale and it's another ball game. But here we're dealing with civilian life, folks just on their regular jobs," he said.
Jeffrey Levi, executive director of Trust for America's Health, said there are better ways to control obesity-related health care costs -- offering more healthful choices in employee cafeterias, for one, and giving those who get screened for conditions a cash bonus.
Mr. Jamerson said the bill could lead to others becoming targets.
"What do you do next? Do you start dealing with people who are anorexic? They have health problems, too," he said. "What happens to folks who are obese through no fault of their own, but because of their body type, their body makeup and genes?"
Reach Sarita Chourey at (803) 727-4257 or sarita.chourey@morris.com.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2010. All Rights Reserved.
Makes since. Kind of like a use tax. You wish to use cigarettes and increase your medical problems, you should pay for it. You wish to be obese or fail to take corrective action, you should pay for it, not everyone else. And, furthermore, if you are obese to the point where you don't easily fit into the seat on the plane, you certainly should have to pay for two seats vs. invading the privacy of the person next to you. Its nothing against obese people, smokers or alcoholics as each is within their rights to do with their bodies as they please. However, healthy, entergetic people who keep theirselves in good shape deserve a break on health care premiums as they fall into a much lower risk category. You can charge more for obesity or smoking and it will be called unfair so why not just give discounts to those who don't smoke and are within their proper healthy weight.
Do fat smokers have to pay $50? From my observations there are many of those ......
i like your idea, as it is: rather than outright punish fatties, chimneys, or drunks, give incentives to change behavior by rewarding healthy people with lower premiums.
I think the airlines should make people get on the scale with their luggage at check-in, and the price of the ticket is based on the total weight. My little 130 pounds uses less fuel than the 300# person. Why should I pay the same amount? At least let me carry more luggage if we have to pay the same cost.
And all-you-can-eat buffet prices should be based on weight as well!
ok lets go to the next obvious step....if your over 40 years old you can expect your premiums to also go up.....
At last something I can agree with PTHS on.
Yep that sounds about right where this plan is marching atsugua13...Maybe down the road anyone who reaches the grand old age of 50 needs to be put euthanatized so as to keep the costs of health care down...
NEone, maybe they should charge extra for smokers to fly. The way they stink up the place and at buffets too. Why should non-smokers lose their appetite while sitting next to them.
I certainly think this is a reasonable approach to the health service issue. As long as the government is in the health care business, why not pass laws that will reduce the cost? Start with the high risk lifestyles...obese, smoker, motorcyclist, rock climber, long distant bicyclist, and anything else that may lead to high risk health issues. We all know if you tax what you dislike and reward what you like, you can influence social behavior.
Hypo - We are just doing our part to help keep you from becoming obese. ;-)
Some people have medical conditions that cause them to gain weight, if a person pays their portion of healthcare premiums they should use them as needed. I don't think someone should be made to pay higher premiums just because they weigh more, or smoke. And everyone speaks of taxpayer money, they pay taxes as well, don't they. And everyone who has a problem with sitting next to a fat person on the plane, why don't you buy two tickets and you can be sure you won't be uncomfortable sitting next to a fat person.
panther - If they have a medical condition that makes them look like a manatee, then they require more medical care than a healthy person. Why shouldn't they pay more?
What about people that are too thin?
PTHS thanks, but I have it under control. Now if they can keep me from going gray.......
Easy to spot the fatties in this post, lol.
I am a skinny, greying, smoker in my latter-40's who likes beer. It's a good thing I'm not a State Employee I suppose! I'd be paying them to work there. lol
this has nothing to do with the "burdened" tax payer. it's all about the insurance companies not wanting to pay out. what is ryberg gettting from the big ins. companies to bring this forward? fats not good. a fact. but neither is booze, and a gazillion other things. only the ins. companies intrest is whats going on here.
Sure - let's just have an ala cart of surcharges: Smokers $ 25, Drinkers $ 25, Obese $ 25. Then you can add other categories like excessive risk takers: Motorcycle riders, hotair balloon riders, frequent flyers, those who drive washington road at 5pm, those who live in high crime neighborhoods. And then my personal favorite, add a surcharge for stupidity because surely that group is at risk of doing something dumb, choking on a foot or just ticking off the wrong person some day.
Great. What happens when they develop EATING DISORDERS?
Martinez - Now you are making it even worse. I like motorcycles, firearms, rock concerts, skinny dipping at night while intoxicated, flying in private aircraft and hanging out with mobsters in Las Vegas casinos. Can you please calculate how much it would cost me per week to work for them? Do I get a discount for being skinny and living in CC? ;-)
They get an additional tax yankee now...Ah so much for social policies...Maybe we can gather a few more of these delightful "pea-brains" together for another "think-along"...And we actually continue to vote for these people...That is the problem now many of these politicians have way to much time on their hands or way to many social drinking gatherings...Either way times are getting weirder and weirder...
atsugua13 : My husband turned 50 and his life insurance went way up. Isn't this the same thing?
Obesity is a choice in unhealthy lifestyles, such as smoking. Although rock-climbing, and those other high-risk hobbies listed by patriciathomas can lead to bad results, mostly they lead to good health. An accident now and then in those endeavors is fairly rare, while obesity only leads to more medical problems. If you want to eat like a pig and be unhealthy, then don't expect me to subsidize your healthcare!
how come they never mention raising taxes and healthcare premiums on drinkers?
Now that would take away from those who considering drinking as a proper pass time in order for them to come up with new ways to tax the rest of the masses Trouble...:-)
forgot about that part christian, thank you, that explains it
And, next, it will be folks that ride motorcycles, 4 wheelers, or those that fail to use seat belts while driving, folks that drink white wine instead of red, coffee instead of decaf, don't drink milk or "purified" water, fly instead of drive, eat too much saturated fat and not enough oat bran, and ??? Well, you get the idea. We don't need legislated law that would impose one man's opinion of right and wrong on others. GGpap.
ok, why are we not charging those who eat right, dont drink or smoke and exercise regularly a larger premium? seems to me the only reason they are doing all that is so that they can live longer than the rest of us and run up our health care costs with their old age needs........
You can tell these folks are still young. When they get older, they'll change their minds, as it starts affecting them personally (and their wallet). Same o' same 'o.