12345

Obamacare Provision Allows Employer(s) To Penalize Overweight Employees? (Read 324 times)


The King of Beasts

    [insert cynical joke about his prescription costs.]

     

    I laughed.

    "As a dreamer of dreams and a travelin' man I have chalked up many a mile. Read dozens of books about heroes and crooks, And I've learned much from both of their styles." ~ Jimmy Buffett

     

    "I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit. "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."”

      How on earth can you Correctly and FAIRLY Penalize, or reward, folks monetarily???

       

      age graded 800 meter time.  it's the only fair way.

      In an infinite universe, the one thing sentient life cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion

      http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white&fb_source=message

       

       

       





        I've got one question.  "Overweight Employees"...

         

        --Just how do you define "Overweight"?  How do you put a value on that???

         

        I ask because my wife is in the Navy, she weighs about 180, 5 foot 9, and when you see her, she is certainly not fat, or even chubby!  All muscle.  She used to be a catcher in high school, has solid meaty legs, etc.  I'll even be honest here:  She can beat me arm wrestling. :-)

         

        But when the NAVY measures her, Hips, Wasit, Neck, she technically fails their bodyfat percentage indicator.  (Because she has a skinny neck, which counts against you on this system)   And yet, I see women in the Navy that are shorter in height, over 200 pounds, look a hot mess, and still PASS the test because they have HUGE (fat) necks!

         

        So again, my question... All of us are different, and some folks who weigh 180 look better and are healthier than other folks' who weigh 160...  How on earth can you Correctly and FAIRLY Penalize, or reward, folks monetarily???

        .

         

        You'd think the Navy could afford to use hydrostatic measurement or InBody machines. The latter can still be expensive, but they're extremely accurate, and they're popping up in some mainstream gyms.

           You'd think the Navy could afford to use hydrostatic measurement or InBody machines. The latter can still be expensive, but they're extremely accurate, and they're popping up in some mainstream gyms.

           

          You have to remember the NAVY is a government entity.  Allowing the much more ACCURATE hydrostatic testing would make too much sense!  :-)   I would have paid for my wife to get a civilian hydrostatic test, and she would have passed easily, but there is 0 option to allow this.  The Navy will not accept it.

           

          Honestly, I think the reason is what the Navy would call 'fairness', and their argument goes:  1) They cannot provide hydrostatic testing at all locations, such as overseas for example, therefore it is 'not fair" if my wife gets a hydro and passes, but a gal like my wife currently in Afghanistan or deployed on ship has no means by which to get a hydro, therefore, "not fair".  In other words screw everyone, no option to do it for anyone.   And that is the way your government works. :-)

          .

          The Plan (big parts)→  /// April:  Hampton, VA 24 Hour Run for Cancer  ///   May:  3 Days at the Fair (12 Hour)  ///  Nov:  New York Marathon (Staying at the Waldorf Astoria, its a "Bucket List" thing.  Can someone loan me some Zamunda money to help pay for it?)   ∞

          12345