No longer true. Demographic, as opposed to community-based, rating systems swept the group insurance industry in 2003 and 2004. Independence Blue Cross in Philadelphia was among the last few health insurers to make the switch, which it did only because of the competitive pressure.

Rather than one group rate, premiums would now be calculated based on age and other factors. It makes sense for very, very small companies with only a handful of employees (it's intended for small- to mid-sized businesses), but as you near the cutoff (maybe 100 workers? more? i forget) it is more expensive than a community-based rate, and elder employees would see higher premiums. The concern of employee rights groups is that demographic rating would entice companies to higher younger workers since they would cost less to insure.

Yet another insurance-driven workplace policy.

Younger employees traditionally cost less in salary, too. A brand-new nursing grad makes 1/2 of what I do. And has NO experience. Just what you want when you're in the middle of a code situation--cheap, inexperienced help. :eek:

good to know, i've only looked at insurance in large companies so i was unaware of the new wave in small companies.

I work at a large company with different rates for smokers and non-smokers. They take your word for it, though. But if you say you're a non-smoker, and come down with a smoking-related illness, you may be in trouble.

Ever apply for an engineering position with the city of New Orleans? You get to do the piss test, with a twist: alcohol consumption in the previous forty-eight hours will disqualify you from getting the position.

Seems like in a city like NO it would be pretty hard not to have had a drink in the past forty-eight. Good news, though, if they are only doing a pee test--booze is out pretty darn fast...you'd almost have to be drunk right when they took the sample to fail it.

So only people from outside New Orleans can work there? :)

When somebody dies of liver cirrhosis in New Orleans, the death certificate lists it as 'natural causes'.

The smoking thing is not that surprising. As long as the ever exploding burden of health care costs are placed on the employer, these types of restrictions and intrusions will continue and deepen, screening for the lowest maintenance. Its just good business. Targeting the obese is given. Soon they'll clearly screen your genetic disposition for an array of diseases.

Not surprising there would be so much civil liberty backlash now, but maybe in the end Americans can make light of the situation.

Take NYC's smoking ban, for instance, now in the second month of its third year. Initially people were kicking and screaming about it, but the latest reports and surveys find people appreciate the ban and consider NYC venues healthier and more pleasant. Smoking among 18-30 year olds has declined dramatically, and dry cleaning bills have decreased proportionally.

A similar-ish situation, but the big point is that people learn to cope with such measures.

[quote from jaguar]While there are contributing factors to obesity that aren't controllable the vast majority of overweight people are overweight because they eat too much of the wrong stuff and don't do enough bloody exercise. End of story. One can't help their race or their sex but in most cases, one can do something about one's weight.[/quote]

So perfectly stated. It is very true that people in general don't want to do the work it takes to lose the weight. They want instant results. Want proof? Any of the fad diets. Atkins, South Beach. Sure, they may work for a little while, but at the same time, your killing your body. The human body needs a specefic balance of carbohydrates, proteins, and fats. People dont want to exercise. Too much effort, apparently.

On the topic of the smoking, the company was a health-care company. I don't blame them for A) not allowing their workers to smoke, simply because they know exactly what it does to them and B) health care is much more expensive for a smoker. Why should the company be penalized for the choices of the employee? The company has every right to fire the employees, they have every right to ask them for a piss test to see if they smoked. They broke a policy, or at least, indicated that they broke the policy, and for that, they were fired.

In the same post, Jag also stated: Being employed by a company does not mean they own you. You go there, do a job for them and they pay you for it, end of story. What you do away from the job site has nothing to do with that company, as long as it's legal and you're not putting the company in a bad light per se. If they want to charge you more for health insurance because you smoke so be it, but they better make it fair and charge everyone that participates in a health risk the same.