Next week, I'm scheduled to have a new job physical. This physical will set my health insurance rates, so it's kind of a big one for me. The problem is that I am five pounds too heavy to qualify for the better rates. It doesn't matter that I'm a fairly solid girl, or that my body fat isn't as high as my weight would have you believe. What matters is that on the BMI scale, I am obese.
Because they only allow you to update these numbers once every six months, if I do not lose five pounds by next Thursday, I will be stuck paying a 10% "penalty" for six months. I'm infuriated by this, but it's company policy, so there's not a damn thing I can do about it. Funnily enough, I work for a health insurance company. *rolls eyes*
So how do I do this and not derail my entire diet/exercise plan? Or worse, make myself sick? Am I going to have to cut my calories drastically for the next week to make this happen? And what affect will that have on me once I go back to eating normally?
How much money are you talking about over six months?
I think there are ways to lose 5 pounds, but they aren't terribly healthy ways, and all involve losing water, not fat.
Don't drink anything ~12 hours prior to the physical.
I don't particularly care if it's fat or water or my left leg. I just don't want to get socked with an extra $60 - $100 in "penalties" because of this.
Walk on the treadmill for 6 hours a day?
I lost more than that last week, but since you don't want to be sick the whole "lie in bed all day while eating nothing" routine probably won't cut it.
Pretty sure you can do it. It is just a matter of eating barely enough to survive :ph34r:
Quote from: merithyn on August 09, 2012, 09:09:20 AM
I don't particularly care if it's fat or water or my left leg. I just don't want to get socked with an extra $60 - $100 in "penalties" because of this.
Google how boxers and other athletes "make weight" before a big fight. They can lose 5 pounds or more or water.
None of it sounds real pleasant though. I question whetehr it would be worth it for $60 to $100.
Quote from: Barrister on August 09, 2012, 09:15:15 AM
None of it sounds real pleasant though. I question whetehr it would be worth it for $60 to $100.
On your income, it isn't. On mine, it is.
My son needed to lose a few hundred grams before a tournament, his stupid trainer told him to go running with a cut open plasticbag on his upper body half an hour before weigh in
It probably works, but i got pissed he told THAT to a ten year old
V
Unless you have existing issues you are not very likely to make yourself sick for just a week or so of very reduced caloric intake. I've fasted for longer periods without trouble (only IV saline for hydration).
Quote from: Iormlund on August 09, 2012, 09:34:46 AM
Unless you have existing issues you are not very likely to make yourself sick for just a week or so of very reduced caloric intake. I've fasted for longer periods without trouble (only IV saline for hydration).
It's not calories though she needs to reduce - it's water.
Let's survey the web:
health.com - menu plan to lose 5 pounds in 7 days
Quote
http://www.health.com/health/static/downloads/drop-five.pdf
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/advice/health/drop-5-pounds-in-a-week-0509-4
QuoteDrink Mainly Water
Ban White Bread and Pasta
Do Cardio 30 Minutes a Day
Drink Coffee an Hour Before Working Out
Have Nightly You-on-Top Sex
Do 36 Push-Ups and Lunges Every Other Day
Sleep 30 Minutes More a Night
Make One Food Sacrifice
http://www.livestrong.com/article/43821-lose-pounds-days/
QuoteTo lose 5 pounds in 7 days requires focusing on creating a caloric deficit, known as a negative energy balance. A negative energy balance means that the body is burning more calories than it is consuming or storing. It takes a deficit of 3,500 calories to lose a single pound. In this case, a total caloric deficit of 24,500 calories must be achieved, which means an average reduction of 3,500 calories per day. Sound nutritional habits combined with increased physical activity makes this achievement possible.
Step 1
Create a calorie deficit by reducing fat in your diet. Limit red meat consumption to no more than three times per week. Trim all visible fat from meat, chicken and fish. Skinless chicken or turkey white meat are healthier options. Avoid frying foods to minimize intake of saturated and trans fats. Eliminate processed lunch meats such as bologna and salami due to their high fat content. Monitor and minimize the amount of oil, butter, margarine and sour cream you add to your food.
Step 2
Eat smaller, more frequent meals. Avoid overindulging. Five to six smaller meals every two-and-a-half or three hours will maintain an accelerated metabolism. Have protein with every meal, as protein enhances metabolic processes. Avoid eating starches after 3 p.m. Many people consume the majority of their calories after 7 p.m. Eat like a king for breakfast and like a prince for dinner. Increase water intake to approximately 1/2 gallon per day.
Step 3
Increase physical activity to speed up achieving a negative energy balance. Exercise can contribute to the reduction of 500 calories per day. Perform cardiovascular exercise on most days of the week for 30 to 60 minutes. Maintain intensity levels between 50 to 75 percent of maximum output. Vary workouts by incorporating interval training, bouts of high-intensity intervals followed by periods of rest. Weight train two to three times per week on nonconsecutive days. Trained muscles can utilize fat as a source of energy in resistance training. Use weights that are heavy enough to present a challenge to the working muscles. This will increase muscle hypertrophy, or growth. The more lean muscle you have, the more fat and calories you burn.
http://www.fatsecret.com/Community.aspx?pa=fp&t=66402
QuoteI lost 3 bls in 2 days by only eating fruits and veggies end up gaining back all and more the 4th and 5th day .... eat between 1000-1500 calories, exercise more, drink water you might not lose 5bls but you'll look toner giving the illusion of weight loss..... I usually look very miserable and swollen when I try to lose weight fast and the unhealthy way so I don't recommend it. Good luck.
http://blessedmommy.hubpages.com/hub/Lose-Up-To-10-Pounds-In-3-Days-On-The-3-Day-Diet
Quote3 DAY DIET
DAY 1: BREAKFAST--1/2 GRAPEFRUIT, 1 SLICE TOAST,
2 TBS. PEANUT BUTTER, COFFEE OR TEA
LUNCH--1/2 CUP TUNA, 1 SLICE TOAST, COFFEE OR TEA
DINNER--2 SLICES ANY TYPE OF MEAT (ABOUT 3
OZ), 1 CUP GREEN BEANS, 1/2 BANANA, 1 SMALL
APPLE, 1 CUP VANILLA ICE CREAM
DAY 2: BREAKFAST--1 EGG, 1 SLICE TOAST, 1/2 BANANA
LUNCH--1 CUP COTTAGE CHEESE (OR 1 SLICE
CHEDDAR CHEESE), 1 HARD BOILED EGG, 5
SALTINE CRACKERS
DINNER--2 HOT DOGS, (no buns), 1 CUP BROCCOLI,
1/2 CUP CARROTS, 1/2 BANANA, 1/2 CUP VANILLA ICE CREAM
DAY 3: BREAKFAST--5 SALTINE CRACKERS, 1 SLICE CHEDDAR
CHEESE, 1 SMALL APPLE
LUNCH--1 HARD BOILED EGG, 1 SLICE TOAST
DINNER--1 CUP TUNA, 1/2 BANANA, 1 CUP VANILLA ICE CREAM
Max approves of the cosmo recommendations.
As for quick weight loss, diuretics and reduced food intake. Laxitives too if you want to go the model route.
Thanks, garbon. Can't do the diet, but the other suggestions are useful.
Quote from: Barrister on August 09, 2012, 09:36:45 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on August 09, 2012, 09:34:46 AM
Unless you have existing issues you are not very likely to make yourself sick for just a week or so of very reduced caloric intake. I've fasted for longer periods without trouble (only IV saline for hydration).
It's not calories though she needs to reduce - it's water.
It's not one thing or the other. Exercise and a proper diet help with both.
Quote from: Barrister on August 09, 2012, 09:15:15 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 09, 2012, 09:09:20 AM
I don't particularly care if it's fat or water or my left leg. I just don't want to get socked with an extra $60 - $100 in "penalties" because of this.
Google how boxers and other athletes "make weight" before a big fight. They can lose 5 pounds or more or water.
None of it sounds real pleasant though. I question whetehr it would be worth it for $60 to $100.
A friend of my brother used to be on taekwondo competitions when he was a kid. Anytime he was a kilo or two over his weight class limit he'd spend the whole day before official weighting just jogging up and down the hotel corridors while wearing lots of thick clothes. Then as soon as he got weighted he'd drink it all back.
Quote from: HVC on August 09, 2012, 09:46:29 AM
Meri Max approves of the cosmo recommendations.
:yes:
guess no one wants to take my laxative advice :lol:
Quote from: HVC on August 09, 2012, 10:01:43 AM
guess no one wants to take my laxative advice :lol:
Do you have a website?
Water tablets and vomiting after every other meal?
5lbs is equivalent to about 22,000 kcals so you can't really do it by dieting, so, as others have said, you need to dehydrate yourself.......that might not help for the rest of the physical though :hmm:
Can I say only in America ? :P
It's a bit odd that 'the system' can result in someone having to think about unpleasant dietary activity or even do something unheathly, just to avoid being screwed over by their own employer.
Quote from: mongers on August 09, 2012, 10:43:53 AM
Can I say only in America ? :P
It's a bit odd that 'the system' can result in someone having to think about unpleasant dietary activity or even do something unheathly, just to avoid being screwed over by their own employer.
Yeah, pretty much.
Quote from: merithyn on August 09, 2012, 10:46:53 AM
Quote from: mongers on August 09, 2012, 10:43:53 AM
Can I say only in America ? :P
It's a bit odd that 'the system' can result in someone having to think about unpleasant dietary activity or even do something unheathly, just to avoid being screwed over by their own employer.
Yeah, pretty much.
I'm not suggesting this as an answer, as I know you can't cycle, but bicycle seems to be a moderately pleasant way of loosing weight temporarily.
Yesterday I did some not very energetic riding in midly warm temperatures, not much above 70, and going by what I weigh this afternoon, I'd probably lost 3-4 pounds due to water loss.
I say it's not unpleasant, because the exercise is heating you up, but the airflow really aids cooling, so you don't feel hot and bothered; you'll finish the exercise not exhausted, not covered in sweat, but having lost a fair amount of weight.
Last time I had a stomach virus I lost more than 5 lbs in like 3 days. But no fun. :(
I think 5 pounds is too much for a week, yes. Severe caloric restriction or fasting would have to be in the mix, plus dehydration. Maybe have four or five vodkas the day before the physical to cause a water flush. That can shed a couple pounds overnight. All this sounds dangerous to me. Don't wear heavy shoes?
Conceal several helium-filled balloons on your person :hmm: ?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 09, 2012, 11:24:57 AM
Conceal several helium-filled balloons on your person :hmm: ?
:w00t: :w00t: :w00t:
Brilliant!
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 09, 2012, 11:24:57 AM
Conceal several helium-filled balloons on your person :hmm: ?
1. Insert nozzle from helium tank in anus
...
3. Profit!
One of those really deep, far-reaching enemas (not really serious).
Has anyone suggested amputation yet?
Quote from: katmai on August 09, 2012, 03:36:00 PM
Has anyone suggested amputation yet?
I just assumed that that kind of operation wouldn't heal sufficiently inside 7 days to look good on a physical.
I usually drop a pants size after a good dump.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 09, 2012, 03:40:20 PM
I usually drop a pants size after a good dump.
I seem to recall Meri suggesting something of this type to Jaron a while back. :P
Quote from: merithyn on August 09, 2012, 09:03:56 AM
So how do I do this and not derail my entire diet/exercise plan? Or worse, make myself sick? Am I going to have to cut my calories drastically for the next week to make this happen? And what affect will that have on me once I go back to eating normally?
laxatives, tons of it. They will not only clean out anything left in your intestines, but they will dehydrate you as well.
I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but dehydration is the surest bet. Human body stores a shitload of water. Speaking of shitloads, laxatives wouldn't hurt either.
Yeah i dropped like 8 lbs over Christmas fighting the bout of bronchitis
Quote from: merithyn on August 09, 2012, 09:03:56 AM
Next week, I'm scheduled to have a new job physical. This physical will set my health insurance rates, so it's kind of a big one for me. The problem is that I am five pounds too heavy to qualify for the better rates. It doesn't matter that I'm a fairly solid girl, or that my body fat isn't as high as my weight would have you believe. What matters is that on the BMI scale, I am obese.
Because they only allow you to update these numbers once every six months, if I do not lose five pounds by next Thursday, I will be stuck paying a 10% "penalty" for six months. I'm infuriated by this, but it's company policy, so there's not a damn thing I can do about it. Funnily enough, I work for a health insurance company. *rolls eyes*
So how do I do this and not derail my entire diet/exercise plan? Or worse, make myself sick? Am I going to have to cut my calories drastically for the next week to make this happen? And what affect will that have on me once I go back to eating normally?
Didn;t read your post, too much lite beer.
But my 2 centx:
This is for the whole 6 days out of the 7 days, since I would neve r recoment to work out on shabbat.
5 pull ups, 10 dips, 15 elevated push ups, 20 sit ups, 25 air squads.
Do it 10 times.
Then run 2 miles at combat speed.
Do this for 6 days, and you wil definitively lose more than 5 lbs.
Doing 25 air squads, even once, would indeed lose you quite a bit of weight. Not sure how Max would feel about that, though. :unsure:
Siegy posting drunk. :lol:
I aint drunk. I'm steel posting, I am not?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 09, 2012, 05:11:40 PM
Siegy posting drunk. :lol:
I imagine his wife will come in and find half a can of Millerlite and Siege passed out.
Meri, I wouldn't try to improvise a technique that involves drugs (even over the counter stuff). I'd find a boxing or wrestling forum and follow some of their techniques, with the knowledge not to push things too far because they are athletes probably used to some of the methods. And being boxers and wrestlers, they may not have the best judgment anyway.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 09, 2012, 06:15:54 PM
And being boxers and wrestlers, they may not have the best judgment anyway.
:glare:
Quote from: katmai on August 09, 2012, 06:21:35 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 09, 2012, 06:15:54 PM
And being boxers and wrestlers, they may not have the best judgment anyway.
:glare:
Were you hit in the head a few hundred times in high school?
Since I skipped HS, no :P
But did wrestle, my coach was All-American at Naval Academy...sadly didn't mean he could translate that to me having any talent :P
And boxed as teenager.
Quote from: mongers on August 09, 2012, 10:43:53 AM
It's a bit odd that 'the system' can result in someone having to think about unpleasant dietary activity or even do something unheathly, just to avoid being screwed over by their own employer.
Just FYI, not every employer treats their employees like this.
We sure don't. But hey she works for the insurance company I guess. They're bound to do that stuff to their own.
Is 5 pounds really possible with the water loss thing? Checking up 5 pounds is over 2kg. When I exercise heavily I only lose around 1kg in water.
Quote from: merithyn on August 09, 2012, 10:46:53 AM
Quote from: mongers on August 09, 2012, 10:43:53 AM
Can I say only in America ? :P
It's a bit odd that 'the system' can result in someone having to think about unpleasant dietary activity or even do something unheathly, just to avoid being screwed over by their own employer.
Yeah, pretty much.
I would say the system probably intended for you to start thinking about the penalty the moment it was enforced, ie 6 months ago, not in the last minute.. I presume these requirements weren't exactly a surprise information that dawned on you two weeks ago? :)
V
Valdemar, prepare to be tutu'd :P
Quote from: HVC on August 10, 2012, 06:03:06 AM
Valdemar, prepare to be tutu'd :P
Indeed :D But seriously, if you can only update information every 6 months, then I presume the same restrictions were in place 6 months ago, and not arbitrarily enforced two weeks ago :)
If 60$ is worth two weeks of misery, then it would have been easier taking it down two months ago :contract:
V
EDIT: Basically I cannot see how this can be the company's fault, they have to draw the line somewhere, and I bet there is cold math behind the penalty payment, there usually is in insurance prices.
It would be like griping about why the speed limit isn't 58 instead of 55 as that would mean a fine instead of losing the license when calculating the relative transgression in percent
She probably didn't work there 6 months ago.
It's not the company's fault, its the entire system that's fucked up.
You should have a week of constant, sweaty sex. Burns calories, and you'll dehydrate at the same time!
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 10, 2012, 06:33:20 AM
She probably didn't work there 6 months ago.
It's not the company's fault, its the entire system that's fucked up.
I bet it was somewhere in writing when she signed up, unless she has been uncovered from sign on until now :D
The system as such may be fucked up, but the insurance company will have to have some guidelines. the alternative would be full physicals :perv: on all applicants which would be extremely expensive.
V
Yes, that's not a reason to not be angry about it tho.
I read it somewhere, not sure where, that dehydration and laxatives are your safest bets
Quote from: Valdemar on August 10, 2012, 03:11:35 AMI would say the system probably intended for you to start thinking about the penalty the moment it was enforced, ie 6 months ago, not in the last minute.. I presume these requirements weren't exactly a surprise information that dawned on you two weeks ago? :)
V
What was six months ago? She's just being hired now.
Congratulations then on the new job :)
V
Let's see you eat a little more crow.
Shrug, I still think it is a last minute ditch effort and not really fair to bitch at the lack of leniency of the company. It can hardly come as a suprise. I also suspect that these levels are pretty universal across insurance companies, so I bet that most people who has that kind of insurance are well aware of them, irrespective of being employed at this particullar company or soemwhere else. What levels do you think governs her current insurance if she has one?
Especially if it is universal BMI index being used, then I'm pretty sure Merri already knew where on that scale she was :)
V
I was wondering if I could get you to be more of an asshole. Mission Accomplished!
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2012, 08:04:34 AM
I was wondering if I could get you to be more of an asshole. Mission Accomplished!
Yeah The Languish Way is strong; thank god none of us were involved in the Northern Ireland peace process.
Wow, someone in Languish talking out of their ass with no knowlegde on the topic. :o
Quote from: lustindarkness on August 10, 2012, 08:28:04 AM
Wow, someone in Languish talking out of their ass with no knowlegde on the topic. :o
:o
And what asses these are. :o
Quote from: lustindarkness on August 10, 2012, 08:28:04 AM
Wow, someone in Languish talking out of their ass with no knowlegde on the topic. :o
I don't understand how people can be so smug on topics that they don't know anything about. V's posts in this thread have just been heaps of assumptions with an air of superiority.
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2012, 09:11:13 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on August 10, 2012, 08:28:04 AM
Wow, someone in Languish talking out of their ass with no knowlegde on the topic. :o
I don't understand how people can be so smug on topics that they don't know anything about. V's posts in this thread have just been heaps of assumptions with an air of superiority.
None of which are correct. Shocking.
New developments: The information I was given was partially correct, but not 100% correct. The company will indeed be charging a premium for insurance based on the BMI (to the tune of 20%!! not 10%). However, the incorrect part was that it was already in place. That is not the case. Apparently, it won't start until January 1, which means that I have 4.5 months to lose the five pounds. Whew! Much more manageable!
I do still think that the policy is wrong, but sadly, it seems to be the more common route for health insurance in the US these days. I've heard of a couple of companies in the area moving in this direction. Oddly enough, those companies are the type where their employees sit on the rump all day, the company provides fatty, unhealthy lunches, and little motivation (other than this new premium increase) to do anything to lose the weight. At least the company I'll be working for has made serious efforts to help get people healthy despite the relatively unhealthy work environment. (Unhealthy in that we sit in cubicles for hours at a time, tied to the phones so we're really not even able to get up to walk around every hour, as is suggested.)
Quote from: Valdemar on August 10, 2012, 07:58:12 AM
Shrug, I still think it is a last minute ditch effort and not really fair to bitch at the lack of leniency of the company. It can hardly come as a suprise. I also suspect that these levels are pretty universal across insurance companies, so I bet that most people who has that kind of insurance are well aware of them, irrespective of being employed at this particullar company or soemwhere else. What levels do you think governs her current insurance if she has one?
Especially if it is universal BMI index being used, then I'm pretty sure Merri already knew where on that scale she was :)
V
Just so that I have this right, you're basically saying that the fact that I'm obese by the BMI - which I should know - is the problem in this scenario? I'm ~5 pounds over the limit, I run three times a week, lift weights on the off days, walk ~5-7 miles every day but Sunday, and am relatively healthy for my age and circumstances. Why on earth would I think that would translate to an increase in my group health insurance? And to you, this makes sense?
By the by, it isn't common in insurance companies. It's a new thing. And it's stupid. BMI means that most of the world's Olympians are obese, some morbidly so. It was created to determine trends among thousands of people and was never intended to be used for a single person's health guidelines. It's worthless as the sole process to be used on something like this, but this company is going to charge extra money based on it?
But feel free to continue to prove your ignorance.
Quote from: merithyn on August 10, 2012, 10:06:10 AM
By the by, it isn't common in insurance companies. It's a new thing. And it's stupid. BMI means that most of the world's Olympians are obese, some morbidly so. It was created to determine trends among thousands of people and was never intended to be used for a single person's health guidelines. It's worthless as the sole process to be used on something like this, but this company is going to charge extra money based on it?
So you're saying that knowing a person's BMI won't help you predict his/her health or healthcare costs? :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2012, 10:14:43 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 10, 2012, 10:06:10 AM
By the by, it isn't common in insurance companies. It's a new thing. And it's stupid. BMI means that most of the world's Olympians are obese, some morbidly so. It was created to determine trends among thousands of people and was never intended to be used for a single person's health guidelines. It's worthless as the sole process to be used on something like this, but this company is going to charge extra money based on it?
So you're saying that knowing a person's BMI won't help you predict his/her health or healthcare costs? :hmm:
you gotta use something.
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2012, 10:14:43 AM
So you're saying that knowing a person's BMI won't help you predict his/her health or healthcare costs? :hmm:
I've been saying that for years. It doesn't take into account body shapes or sizes. It doesn't take into account muscle weight. It was NEVER meant to be used for individual health analysis. It is a terrible way to predict health, so it follows that it's a terrible way to predict healthcare costs for an individual.
Quote from: HVC on August 10, 2012, 10:17:40 AM
you gotta use something.
There has to be a better way than the BMI. Why not use body fat percentage as measured by calipers?
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2012, 10:14:43 AM
So you're saying that knowing a person's BMI won't help you predict his/her health or healthcare costs? :hmm:
People with very low BMI are more likely to be injured due to being shoved in lockers.
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2012, 10:14:43 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 10, 2012, 10:06:10 AM
By the by, it isn't common in insurance companies. It's a new thing. And it's stupid. BMI means that most of the world's Olympians are obese, some morbidly so. It was created to determine trends among thousands of people and was never intended to be used for a single person's health guidelines. It's worthless as the sole process to be used on something like this, but this company is going to charge extra money based on it?
So you're saying that knowing a person's BMI won't help you predict his/her health or healthcare costs? :hmm:
Watch out Merithyn! You poked the actuary! :(
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2012, 09:11:13 AM
I don't understand how people can be so smug on topics that they don't know anything about.
After so many years, Languish remains a mystery to garbon. :P
Nothing's going to perfectly predict every individual person's costs, but on a macro level I would say BMI is probably a fair way to assess risk.
My company pretty much does what Meri's company does, but they start out charging you a higher rate and then if you meet certain goals for personal health you get a discount.
Quote from: Malthus on August 10, 2012, 10:22:05 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2012, 10:14:43 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 10, 2012, 10:06:10 AM
By the by, it isn't common in insurance companies. It's a new thing. And it's stupid. BMI means that most of the world's Olympians are obese, some morbidly so. It was created to determine trends among thousands of people and was never intended to be used for a single person's health guidelines. It's worthless as the sole process to be used on something like this, but this company is going to charge extra money based on it?
So you're saying that knowing a person's BMI won't help you predict his/her health or healthcare costs? :hmm:
Watch out Merithyn! You poked the actuary! :(
I did that once. She gave me crabs :(
:P
Quote from: derspiess on August 10, 2012, 10:25:09 AM
Nothing's going to perfectly predict every individual person's costs, but on a macro level I would say BMI is probably a fair way to assess risk.
For the overall group fees, yes, I agree. For individual assessment, it is not. There has to be far more information provided than just a BMI to be able to assess an individual's health.
QuoteMy company pretty much does what Meri's company does, but they start out charging you a higher rate and then if you meet certain goals for personal health you get a discount.
This actually makes a lot more sense to me, so long as those personal health goals are reasonable and not reliant on just the BMI. It offers employees the incentive to work toward specific goals to reduce their costs, which is far better than penalizing based on a single number.
Quote from: merithyn on August 10, 2012, 10:20:00 AM
I've been saying that for years. It doesn't take into account body shapes or sizes. It doesn't take into account muscle weight. It was NEVER meant to be used for individual health analysis. It is a terrible way to predict health, so it follows that it's a terrible way to predict healthcare costs for an individual.
In car insurance, if you get a speeding ticket, your insurance rates will probably rise. Insurance companies don't take into account whether the speeding ticket was issued by Officer Dickwad, who cites people for going 67 in 65 near the end of the month, or by Officer Sweetiepie, who won't pull you over until you do 92 in 65, and then he will knock 25 mph off the cited speed. Does that make your driving record useless for predicting your insurance costs as well?
Quote from: HVC on August 10, 2012, 10:29:36 AM
I did that once. She gave me crabs :(
:P
What are the odds?
Well, she probably knows. ;)
Quote from: merithyn on August 10, 2012, 10:31:11 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 10, 2012, 10:25:09 AM
Nothing's going to perfectly predict every individual person's costs, but on a macro level I would say BMI is probably a fair way to assess risk.
For the overall group fees, yes, I agree. For individual assessment, it is not. There has to be far more information provided than just a BMI to be able to assess an individual's health.
QuoteMy company pretty much does what Meri's company does, but they start out charging you a higher rate and then if you meet certain goals for personal health you get a discount.
This actually makes a lot more sense to me, so long as those personal health goals are reasonable and not reliant on just the BMI. It offers employees the incentive to work toward specific goals to reduce their costs, which is far better than penalizing based on a single number.
The problem is that pricing would be made more individually fair to the exact degree as insurance companies become more intrusive into the health of individuals. That carries some costs as well, since the company has to pay to be intrusive, and people are likely to dislike being pinched with calipers or whatever by some insurance company nurse.
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2012, 10:32:01 AM
In car insurance, if you get a speeding ticket, your insurance rates will probably rise. Insurance companies don't take into account whether the speeding ticket was issued by Officer Dickwad, who cites people for going 67 in 65 near the end of the month, or by Officer Sweetiepie, who won't pull you over until you do 92 in 65, and then he will knock 25 mph off the cited speed. Does that make your driving record useless for predicting your insurance costs as well?
Apples and oranges, and you know it.
There are objective ways to determine health that do not fall into a "nice" doctor or a "mean" doctor scenario.
You guys do understand that 90% of Meri's opposition to this is because the BMI is calling her obese? Is the BMI scale was more accurately designed it wouldn't do it & everything would be Super.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 10, 2012, 10:47:14 AM
You guys do understand that 90% of Meri's opposition to this is because the BMI is calling her obese? Is the BMI scale was more accurately designed it wouldn't do it & everything would be Super.
I wait with bated breath for Meri to crush you for making your wacky assumptions.
Figuratively, of course. :P
Quote from: Malthus on August 10, 2012, 10:50:06 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 10, 2012, 10:47:14 AM
You guys do understand that 90% of Meri's opposition to this is because the BMI is calling her obese? Is the BMI scale was more accurately designed it wouldn't do it & everything would be Super.
I wait with bated breath for Meri to crush you for making your wacky assumptions.
Figuratively, of course. :P
shhh, you're gonna ruin the show
Quote from: merithyn on August 10, 2012, 10:44:46 AM
Apples and oranges, and you know it.
If I did know it, I wouldn't be making that analogy. The point that applies to both is that a measure that isn't a perfect predictor is not necessarily a measure that is a completely useless predictor. It's a fallacy that lay people buy into time after time after time.
Statistics is not binary mathematics; in fact, it's completely the opposite. The answer is almost never 0 or 1, it's always somewhere in the middle.
It's a really poor predictor when applied to the individual. It works for the insurance company because they are dealing with thousands of people. It sucks for the atypical individual because they are not.
Quote from: Malthus on August 10, 2012, 10:50:06 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 10, 2012, 10:47:14 AM
You guys do understand that 90% of Meri's opposition to this is because the BMI is calling her obese? Is the BMI scale was more accurately designed it wouldn't do it & everything would be Super.
I wait with bated breath for Meri to crush you for making your wacky assumptions.
Figuratively, of course. :P
That's the only way because in real life, I'm bigger then her.
You wouldn't dare say that to my face.
Quote from: Maximus on August 10, 2012, 11:01:56 AM
You wouldn't dare say that to my face.
That I'm bigger then your wife? I never thought anyone could consider
that an insult.
*sigh*
I was mocking your ad baculum while making a Paul Atreides reference.
Ah. :blush:
New answer : I would, I'll need a stool but I would!
I am officially endorsing Syt's weight loss plan. :)
Quote from: Maximus on August 10, 2012, 10:57:22 AM
It's a really poor predictor when applied to the individual. It works for the insurance company because they are dealing with thousands of people. It sucks for the atypical individual because they are not.
So is every single other rating variable.
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2012, 11:23:29 AM
Quote from: Maximus on August 10, 2012, 10:57:22 AM
It's a really poor predictor when applied to the individual. It works for the insurance company because they are dealing with thousands of people. It sucks for the atypical individual because they are not.
So is every single other rating variable.
Right, which is why if you want to be more fair to the individual, you need to collect lots of data. Which means having the insurer take a greater interest in your personal data, meaning more intrusion (and some higher costs).
Is the fairness worth it? Some people built like wrestlers will get a better deal it is true.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 10, 2012, 10:47:14 AM
You guys do understand that 90% of Meri's opposition to this is because the BMI is calling her obese? Is the BMI scale was more accurately designed it wouldn't do it & everything would be Super.
Since I completely disregard the BMI as being of any use on an individual basis, how can I give two fucks what it calls me? Given that I am likely more muscular than your little psuedo-French ass, I don't think you're really in a position to call me much of anything other than, "Ma'am". :mad:
:P
Said for the benefit of the show.
If there is going to be a physical anyway, why not just have a rating the doctor can give that contains multiple predictors rather than just using one flawed number?
Quote from: Malthus on August 10, 2012, 11:31:03 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2012, 11:23:29 AM
Quote from: Maximus on August 10, 2012, 10:57:22 AM
It's a really poor predictor when applied to the individual. It works for the insurance company because they are dealing with thousands of people. It sucks for the atypical individual because they are not.
So is every single other rating variable.
Right, which is why if you want to be more fair to the individual, you need to collect lots of data. Which means having the insurer take a greater interest in your personal data, meaning more intrusion (and some higher costs).
Is the fairness worth it? Some people built like wrestlers will get a better worse deal it is true.
FYP since wrestlers are not likely to be in the "healthy" part of the BMI.
Actually, even using the old standard from the 1980s - don't remember what it was called, but the scale included height, weight, and body type - would be a HUGE step up from the BMI.
DGuller, you seem to be advocating to allow an imperfect measurement simply because, well, nothing's perfect. Just because nothing is perfect doesn't mean that there can't be a better means found. I'm advocating for that better means, not to disregard all data.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 10, 2012, 11:35:31 AM
If there is going to be a physical anyway, why not just have a rating the doctor can give that contains multiple predictors rather than just using one flawed number?
Exactly! I mean, my doctor has told me REPEATEDLY that I am to ignore the BMI, that it doesn't suit my body type, and that while I need to lose weight, I shouldn't try to lose as much as the silly chart suggests as it would be far too much for me. He looks at the complete picture, not a single number. ALL doctors should do that.
Quote from: merithyn on August 10, 2012, 11:38:26 AM
DGuller, you seem to be advocating to allow an imperfect measurement simply because, well, nothing's perfect. Just because nothing is perfect doesn't mean that there can't be a better means found. I'm advocating for that better means, not to disregard all data.
I'm not advocating anything. I'm just taking exception to calling something that's imperfect useless. There is a world of difference between imperfect and useless, and lots of really stupid conclusions are being drawn when those two words are used interchangeably.
Obviously something that's less imperfect is better than something that's more imperfect at predicting stuff, though as Malthus points out, other considerations need to be given weight as well.
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2012, 11:41:38 AM
I'm not advocating anything. I'm just taking exception to calling something that's imperfect useless. There is a world of difference between imperfect and useless, and lots of really stupid conclusions are being drawn when those two words are used interchangeably.
Obviously something that's less imperfect is better than something that's more imperfect at predicting stuff, though as Malthus points out, other considerations need to be given weight as well.
I believe that in this case - determining an individual's health - this means is, indeed, worthless for any number of individuals.
Anybody said 'listen to your body' yet?
No, no one but you is that witty or creative.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 10, 2012, 11:53:25 AM
Anybody said 'listen to your body' yet?
Sorry wasn't in Cosmo's suggestions.
Quote from: merithyn on August 10, 2012, 11:44:24 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2012, 11:41:38 AM
I'm not advocating anything. I'm just taking exception to calling something that's imperfect useless. There is a world of difference between imperfect and useless, and lots of really stupid conclusions are being drawn when those two words are used interchangeably.
Obviously something that's less imperfect is better than something that's more imperfect at predicting stuff, though as Malthus points out, other considerations need to be given weight as well.
I believe that in this case - determining an individual's health - this means is, indeed, worthless for any number of individuals.
but they're not determining your health, they're determining your risk. Under that understanding then from an insurance point BMI is a valid tool. Statistically (yell at me if i'm using that term wrong, Dguller :P ) a higher BMI number is a predictor of future health issues. At a policy level it makes sense, though at a personal level it sucks for you.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 10, 2012, 11:53:25 AM
Anybody said 'listen to your body' yet?
My body says "feed me". i've found that listening to my body isn't the best weight loss method.
Quote from: HVC on August 10, 2012, 12:11:25 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 10, 2012, 11:53:25 AM
Anybody said 'listen to your body' yet?
My body says "feed me". i've found that listening to my body isn't the best weight loss method.
I prefer to tell my body to deal with it and stop growling.
Quote from: HVC on August 10, 2012, 12:10:41 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 10, 2012, 11:44:24 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2012, 11:41:38 AM
I'm not advocating anything. I'm just taking exception to calling something that's imperfect useless. There is a world of difference between imperfect and useless, and lots of really stupid conclusions are being drawn when those two words are used interchangeably.
Obviously something that's less imperfect is better than something that's more imperfect at predicting stuff, though as Malthus points out, other considerations need to be given weight as well.
I believe that in this case - determining an individual's health - this means is, indeed, worthless for any number of individuals.
but they're not determining your health, they're determining your risk. Under that understanding then from an insurance point BMI is a valid tool. Statistically (yell at me if i'm using that term wrong, Dguller :P ) a higher BMI number is a predictor of future health issues. At a policy level it makes sense, though at a personal level it sucks for you.
I don't know. I mean look at these studies pulled from wiki:
QuoteA study published by JAMA in 2005 showed that "overweight" people had a similar relative risk of mortality to "normal" weight people as defined by BMI, while "underweight" and "obese" people had a higher death rate.
In an analysis of 40 studies involving 250,000 people, patients with coronary artery disease with "normal" BMIs were at higher risk of death from cardiovascular disease than people whose BMIs put them in the "overweight" range (BMI 25–29.9).
A 2010 study that followed 11,000 subjects for up to eight years concluded that BMI is not a good measure for the risk of heart attack, stroke or death. A better measure was found to be the waist-to-height ratio.
Meri said she was in the obese column for BMI so the higher mortality of the 2005 study stands. Coronary disease, stroke, and heart attacks can be caused by a host of other issues (yay thin smokers :D ). Being overweight also leads to diabetes which is a pain as far as insurers are concerned. you don't die quick, but you cost a lot of money.
I agree that BMI isn't the best method, but my contention is that it isn't useless from an insurers perspective. It's cost effective and statistically relevant. that's all they really need (a la Dgullers speeding ticket scenario).
Still, it would be more statistically relevant to use an aggregate score that contains not only BMI but also cholesterol level, BP, body fat percentage, W/H ratio etc.
My point of contention is that if it isn't actually correlated with a lot of causes of mortality, it doesn't seem particularly useful.
Side note but what's this about insurers checking BMI? I've had a flurry of different insurance plans in the last few years and for most of that span haven't even had so much as a physical.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 10, 2012, 12:27:15 PM
Still, it would be more statistically relevant to use an aggregate score that contains not only BMI but also cholesterol level, BP, body fat percentage, W/H ratio etc.
I guess it depends on whether or not they routinely have access to that personal info?
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2012, 12:29:42 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 10, 2012, 12:27:15 PM
Still, it would be more statistically relevant to use an aggregate score that contains not only BMI but also cholesterol level, BP, body fat percentage, W/H ratio etc.
I guess it depends on whether or not they routinely have access to that personal info?
She's going in for a physical, I think that is all standard procedure there.
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2012, 12:29:06 PM
My point of contention is that if it isn't actually correlated with a lot of causes of mortality, it doesn't seem particularly useful.
BMI is not correlated with health problems?
Quote from: sbr on August 10, 2012, 12:32:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2012, 12:29:42 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 10, 2012, 12:27:15 PM
Still, it would be more statistically relevant to use an aggregate score that contains not only BMI but also cholesterol level, BP, body fat percentage, W/H ratio etc.
I guess it depends on whether or not they routinely have access to that personal info?
She's going in for a physical, I think that is all standard procedure there.
Yeah I guess I'm just wondering if the insurance company gets access to all the files.
Quote from: derspiess on August 10, 2012, 12:33:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2012, 12:29:06 PM
My point of contention is that if it isn't actually correlated with a lot of causes of mortality, it doesn't seem particularly useful.
BMI is not correlated with health problems?
How about what you re-read what I wrote? :)
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2012, 12:17:41 PM
I don't know. I mean look at these studies pulled from wiki:
QuoteA study published by JAMA in 2005 showed that "overweight" people had a similar relative risk of mortality to "normal" weight people as defined by BMI, while "underweight" and "obese" people had a higher death rate.
In an analysis of 40 studies involving 250,000 people, patients with coronary artery disease with "normal" BMIs were at higher risk of death from cardiovascular disease than people whose BMIs put them in the "overweight" range (BMI 25–29.9).
A 2010 study that followed 11,000 subjects for up to eight years concluded that BMI is not a good measure for the risk of heart attack, stroke or death. A better measure was found to be the waist-to-height ratio.
That doesn't invalidate BMI in the least. :huh: If BMI were useless, these studies would show the same risk of death for all BMI values.
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2012, 12:44:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2012, 12:17:41 PM
I don't know. I mean look at these studies pulled from wiki:
QuoteA study published by JAMA in 2005 showed that "overweight" people had a similar relative risk of mortality to "normal" weight people as defined by BMI, while "underweight" and "obese" people had a higher death rate.
In an analysis of 40 studies involving 250,000 people, patients with coronary artery disease with "normal" BMIs were at higher risk of death from cardiovascular disease than people whose BMIs put them in the "overweight" range (BMI 25–29.9).
A 2010 study that followed 11,000 subjects for up to eight years concluded that BMI is not a good measure for the risk of heart attack, stroke or death. A better measure was found to be the waist-to-height ratio.
That doesn't invalidate BMI in the least. :huh: If BMI were useless, these studies would show the same risk of death for all BMI values.
:huh:
The 2nd one lists that those with normal BMIs were more at risk to die than overweight BMIs when both had the same pre-existing condition.
The 2nd shows that it wasn't correlated with several causes of mortality nor mortality itself.
I don't think the point is to show that it has no use but that its flawed enough that some other model should be (or variables) taken into account.
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2012, 12:49:59 PM
:huh:
The 2nd one lists that those with normal BMIs were more at risk to die than overweight BMIs when both had the same pre-existing condition.
The key is the risk wasn't the same. The only bad result in statistics is the independence of predictive variables and outcomes. If having speeding tickets was correlated with having
less accidents, knowing whether you have speeding tickets would still be just as important.
QuoteThe 2nd shows that it wasn't correlated with several causes of mortality nor mortality itself.
I'm not sure where it says that.
QuoteI don't think the point is to show that it has no use but that its flawed enough that some other model should be (or variables) taken into account.
If that was your point, then it doesn't address the rebuke of merithyn's argument. She claims that BMI is completely useless, and your quote doesn't support that assertion.
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2012, 12:56:55 PM
The key is the risk wasn't the same. The only bad result in statistics is the independence of predictive variables and outcomes. If having speeding tickets was correlated with having less accidents, knowing whether you have speeding tickets would still be just as important.
So are these hypothetical insurance companies charging more to normal BMI individuals because we know if they develop cardiovascular disease they have a higher risk of dying?
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2012, 12:56:55 PMI'm not sure where it says that.
In the bit where it says it is not a good measure (and I'd guess predictor) of several causes of mortality / mortality.
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2012, 12:56:55 PM
If that was your point, then it doesn't address the rebuke of merithyn's argument. She claims that BMI is completely useless, and your quote doesn't support that assertion.
Actually didn't she say something about it being useful (or at least used) for populations in general? Her complaint was about applying the heuristic to specific individuals.
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2012, 12:38:38 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 10, 2012, 12:33:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2012, 12:29:06 PM
My point of contention is that if it isn't actually correlated with a lot of causes of mortality, it doesn't seem particularly useful.
BMI is not correlated with health problems?
How about what you re-read what I wrote? :)
Okay, then how is mortality relevant unless we're talking about life insurance?
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2012, 01:01:35 PM
So are these hypothetical insurance companies charging more to normal BMI individuals because we know if they develop cardiovascular disease they have a higher risk of dying?
I don't know, and that's not particularly relevant. Even if insurance companies are mispricing people on BMI, it's not really the fault of BMI.
QuoteIn the bit where it says it is not a good measure (and I'd guess predictor) of several causes of mortality / mortality.
I believe I already covered the "imperfect equals useless" fallacy.
QuoteActually didn't she say something about it being useful (or at least used) for populations in general? Her complaint was about applying the heuristic to specific individuals.
Yes, but that's a distinction without a difference. Something that is predictive for populations is predictive for individuals as well.
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2012, 01:17:24 PMI don't know, and that's not particularly relevant. Even if insurance companies are mispricing people on BMI, it's not really the fault of BMI.
How is it not relevant? The discussion is about whether insurance companies should be pricing based on BMI.
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2012, 01:17:24 PM
I believe I already covered the "imperfect equals useless" fallacy.
Not relevant for what I'm saying though as I haven't maintained that BMI is completely useless but rather that it may be flawed enough to not be a good stand-in for health events that individuals will suffer.
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2012, 01:17:24 PM
Yes, but that's a distinction without a difference. Something that is predictive for populations is predictive for individuals as well.
I'm not sure. After all it is specific individuals being insured. What if a given carrier's population isn't representive of general population as whole and instead is skewed towards individuals for whom BMI is a poor measure?
Quote from: derspiess on August 10, 2012, 01:16:10 PM
Okay, then how is mortality relevant unless we're talking about life insurance?
Well perhaps it is a big assumption on my part, but I would think mortality would be closely linked with potential health costs that an individual might incur as many cases of mortality will stem from health conditions.
Quote from: merithyn on August 10, 2012, 11:38:26 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 10, 2012, 11:31:03 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2012, 11:23:29 AM
Quote from: Maximus on August 10, 2012, 10:57:22 AM
It's a really poor predictor when applied to the individual. It works for the insurance company because they are dealing with thousands of people. It sucks for the atypical individual because they are not.
So is every single other rating variable.
Right, which is why if you want to be more fair to the individual, you need to collect lots of data. Which means having the insurer take a greater interest in your personal data, meaning more intrusion (and some higher costs).
Is the fairness worth it? Some people built like wrestlers will get a better worse deal it is true.
FYP since wrestlers are not likely to be in the "healthy" part of the BMI.
Actually, even using the old standard from the 1980s - don't remember what it was called, but the scale included height, weight, and body type - would be a HUGE step up from the BMI.
DGuller, you seem to be advocating to allow an imperfect measurement simply because, well, nothing's perfect. Just because nothing is perfect doesn't mean that there can't be a better means found. I'm advocating for that better means, not to disregard all data.
What I mean is that if a system were more fair, people built like wrestlers would get a better deal. They are (presumably) in the "bad" BMI range but are, in fact, healthy.
The thing is that generally, the more fair the system, the more intrusive the company has to be. You mentioned calipers upthread. That sort of thing.
Quote from: Malthus on August 10, 2012, 01:46:37 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 10, 2012, 11:38:26 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 10, 2012, 11:31:03 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2012, 11:23:29 AM
Quote from: Maximus on August 10, 2012, 10:57:22 AM
It's a really poor predictor when applied to the individual. It works for the insurance company because they are dealing with thousands of people. It sucks for the atypical individual because they are not.
So is every single other rating variable.
Right, which is why if you want to be more fair to the individual, you need to collect lots of data. Which means having the insurer take a greater interest in your personal data, meaning more intrusion (and some higher costs).
Is the fairness worth it? Some people built like wrestlers will get a better worse deal it is true.
FYP since wrestlers are not likely to be in the "healthy" part of the BMI.
Actually, even using the old standard from the 1980s - don't remember what it was called, but the scale included height, weight, and body type - would be a HUGE step up from the BMI.
DGuller, you seem to be advocating to allow an imperfect measurement simply because, well, nothing's perfect. Just because nothing is perfect doesn't mean that there can't be a better means found. I'm advocating for that better means, not to disregard all data.
What I mean is that if a system were more fair, people built like wrestlers would get a better deal. They are (presumably) in the "bad" BMI range but are, in fact, healthy.
The thing is that generally, the more fair the system, the more intrusive the company has to be. You mentioned calipers upthread. That sort of thing.
What's the point of a non-intrusive physical check for health insurance? There are good reasons for the information to be collected.
Quote from: Malthus on August 10, 2012, 01:46:37 PM
The thing is that generally, the more fair the system, the more intrusive the company has to be. You mentioned calipers upthread. That sort of thing.
I think that's the crux of it and what I've no idea about. How much of our medical history/info do our insurance companies already have?
Quote from: The Larch on August 10, 2012, 01:56:12 PM
What's the point of a non-intrusive physical check for health insurance? There are good reasons for the information to be collected.
Well, that's just the issue. Allegedly, they are presently basing the decision purely on BMI, which is relatively non-intrusive.
A "better" as in fairer system would require more thoroughness. But there costs involved in being more throrough. The issue is whether is is better to use a cruder, more infair system that is cheap, or a mores sophisticated system that is also more expensive (both in money and in annoyance)
They're already spending the time and money to do a physical.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 10, 2012, 02:34:38 PM
They're already spending the time and money to do a physical.
According to the OP, the rates will be set by BMI alone, which indicates that the "physical" is pretty superficial. If not, it is admittedly a weird system, to do a thorough physical and then base the rates on BMI only.
Quote from: Malthus on August 10, 2012, 02:44:43 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 10, 2012, 02:34:38 PM
They're already spending the time and money to do a physical.
According to the OP, the rates will be set by BMI alone, which indicates that the "physical" is pretty superficial. If not, it is admittedly a weird system, to do a thorough physical and then base the rates on BMI only.
And yet, that is exactly how it works. I have to have a complete physical with blood work and TB test, but the increase is based entirely on the BMI.
Quote from: merithyn on August 10, 2012, 02:54:40 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 10, 2012, 02:44:43 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 10, 2012, 02:34:38 PM
They're already spending the time and money to do a physical.
According to the OP, the rates will be set by BMI alone, which indicates that the "physical" is pretty superficial. If not, it is admittedly a weird system, to do a thorough physical and then base the rates on BMI only.
And yet, that is exactly how it works. I have to have a complete physical with blood work and TB test, but the increase is based entirely on the BMI.
In that case, the system is indeed silly, as they already have the info to make a better determination. What's the rest of the physical for - to determine whether to screen you out from getting insurance at all?
Yeah probably. HIV positive?
Oh, uh...suddenly we found a better applicant...
Quote from: Malthus on August 10, 2012, 03:06:53 PM
In that case, the system is indeed silly, as they already have the info to make a better determination. What's the rest of the physical for - to determine whether to screen you out from getting insurance at all?
The insurance company is owned by a hospital. Everyone in the hospital is required to get a physical on hiring, so everyone in the insurance company now has to. They bill it as making sure that we take care of ourselves through well-checks, etc. I don't know if it's used as a screening tool at all, but I would think that that would be illegal. (Wouldn't surprise me at all if it isn't, though.)
The TB test is again a requirement for hospital employees to prevent the spread to patients. It became a blanket policy for us, too.
Drug test is, well, pretty much ubiquitous anymore.
Reading a thread like this gives me warm fuzzy feelings about our creaky Canadian socialist medicare system. :D
Actually, Meri, I've never had any of those as a req - pointedly the drug test.
Quote from: Malthus on August 10, 2012, 03:06:53 PM
In that case, the system is indeed silly, as they already have the info to make a better determination. What's the rest of the physical for - to determine whether to screen you out from getting insurance at all?
You can't get denied coverage for a group insurance, nor can the hiring decision be based on your health. For the same reason, the insurance company may not be legally allowed to base rates on something more in-depth than BMI.
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2012, 03:29:00 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 10, 2012, 03:06:53 PM
In that case, the system is indeed silly, as they already have the info to make a better determination. What's the rest of the physical for - to determine whether to screen you out from getting insurance at all?
You can't get denied coverage for a group insurance, nor can the hiring decision be based on your health. For the same reason, the insurance company may not be legally allowed to base rates on something more in-depth than BMI.
Then the full physical really has nothing to do with insurance at all?
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2012, 03:29:00 PM
You can't get denied coverage for a group insurance, nor can the hiring decision be based on your health. For the same reason, the insurance company may not be legally allowed to base rates on something more in-depth than BMI.
An insurance company can - legally - be allowed to base rates on many things, the BMI is only one criteria. Whether or not you smoke, your age, previous medical history - all of these things can come into play, as well as others.
Quote from: Malthus on August 10, 2012, 03:39:55 PM
Then the full physical really has nothing to do with insurance at all?
Probably not. I would guess that it has more to do with monitoring health. My company gives optional biometric exams, in exchange for a slight discount. None of the information is used in setting your rates. The only personal information that is used in setting the individual rates is whether you smoke or not.
Quote from: merithyn on August 10, 2012, 03:42:03 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2012, 03:29:00 PM
You can't get denied coverage for a group insurance, nor can the hiring decision be based on your health. For the same reason, the insurance company may not be legally allowed to base rates on something more in-depth than BMI.
An insurance company can - legally - be allowed to base rates on many things, the BMI is only one criteria. Whether or not you smoke, your age, previous medical history - all of these things can come into play, as well as others.
Individual health insurance, yes. Group health insurance provided at work, no.
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2012, 03:44:59 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 10, 2012, 03:42:03 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2012, 03:29:00 PM
You can't get denied coverage for a group insurance, nor can the hiring decision be based on your health. For the same reason, the insurance company may not be legally allowed to base rates on something more in-depth than BMI.
An insurance company can - legally - be allowed to base rates on many things, the BMI is only one criteria. Whether or not you smoke, your age, previous medical history - all of these things can come into play, as well as others.
Individual health insurance, yes. Group health insurance provided at work, no.
Seems awfully arbitrary that you can discriminate based on BMI, but not (say) on whether you smoke.
You can in fact discriminate based on whether you smoke, my company does. My response was to the general notion, not to any individual item.
Every health insurance plan I've seen has had some kind of smoker penalty. At the very least, you're required to go to counseling to help you quit.
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2012, 03:44:59 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 10, 2012, 03:42:03 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2012, 03:29:00 PM
You can't get denied coverage for a group insurance, nor can the hiring decision be based on your health. For the same reason, the insurance company may not be legally allowed to base rates on something more in-depth than BMI.
An insurance company can - legally - be allowed to base rates on many things, the BMI is only one criteria. Whether or not you smoke, your age, previous medical history - all of these things can come into play, as well as others.
Individual health insurance, yes. Group health insurance provided at work, no.
Citation?
Because we have several group policies that have riders for pre-existing conditions, are based on overall health, etc. I'd like to see where you're getting this information from.
it generally sounds like a sane idea to me (albeit within an insane system) but... they're basing it all on bmi? wwhat if theyve a guy who is a super fit and muscular sports freak working there ?
Quote from: Tyr on August 10, 2012, 05:07:39 PM
it generally sounds like a sane idea to me (albeit within an insane system) but... they're basing it all on bmi? wwhat if theyve a guy who is a super fit and muscular sports freak working there ?
He's probably gay.
Quote from: merithyn on August 10, 2012, 04:21:47 PM
Citation?
Because we have several group policies that have riders for pre-existing conditions, are based on overall health, etc. I'd like to see where you're getting this information from.
General knowledge. As far as I know, in exchange for the tax deduction, group health plans are very limited in what kind of underwriting they can do. There is a concept of a pre-existing condition for group health coverage, but it's a period during which pre-existing conditions for a new member who hasn't been previously insured are not covered, rather than a blanket exclusion like it is with individual policies.
I see. Well, your general knowledge is only partially correct. The riders restrict all kinds of things, from pre-existing conditions to smoking, pregnancy, height/weight ratio, the neighborhood or community you live in, and more. They can restrict them for a year, two years, or for as long as the employee has the condition. Every company sets their own rules when they buy their policies. The only legal rule is that if a member had a condition covered prior to employment with no more than a 59-day break, they must be given continued coverage.
So you're completely off on what can be use against an employee in group coverage.
EDiT: my source is the director of group policies at the insurance company where I work.
Ok, then, I stand corrected.
Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2012, 05:53:25 PM
Ok, then, I stand corrected.
You're going to sit your ass down. :angry:
Quote from: derspiess on August 10, 2012, 10:25:09 AM
Nothing's going to perfectly predict every individual person's costs, but on a macro level I would say BMI is probably a fair way to assess risk.
My company pretty much does what Meri's company does, but they start out charging you a higher rate and then if you meet certain goals for personal health you get a discount.
Garbon's goating aside this was basically what my thoughts were
A, insurance company got to set some level, BMI is universal, right or wrong, its recognised across board.
B, It is unlikely that Merri didn't have an inkling that this might be the case
C, Merri is very well aware of her BMI, heck, she has been griping about it and the unfairness of the BMI itself since she joined languish.
Ergo, the need to lose 5 pounds in short term cannot be completely surprising, ofc I missed the fact that she only has two weeks to complete it due recently joining the company, but that doesn't change the basic fact that she is five pounds on the wrong side of a universally recognised, if faulty, scale that many organisations use and that she knows that fact well in advance. As such there really is no apparent reason to blame the company
Even with a faulty scale losing five pounds brings Merri from obese to overweight, not into teenage haute couture sizes. That DOES mean increased risk of health related issues, whether feeling fit or not.
Merri's prices and everyone elses would sky rocket way beyond a 60$ increase if everyone should have individually related healthchecks and insurance estimates. Not to mention the administration of the insurances afterwards.
So really, I'm sorry Merri have to sweat it out for two weeks, but I cannot see that this can such a big ambush as you make it up to be.
V
Quote from: Valdemar on August 13, 2012, 04:39:58 AM
So really, I'm sorry Merri have to sweat it out for two weeks, but I cannot see that this can such a big ambush as you make it up to be.
V
What the fuck are you talking about? I never set it up as any kind of ambush. I just said it's bullshit.
And obviously you didn't read anything anyone said if you still believe that being overweight by the BMI leads to more health issues. But then, I shouldn't be surprised. You've made it a habit to comment on things you know nothing about as if you're an expert.
I didn't say BMI leads to more health issues.
I said EVEN if BMI is faulty, if you are in that end of the scale then you re likely to have increased risk of health issues, by any scale
And yes, to me, your posts did come of as if the two weeks notice and the refusal of the company to waver, or at least modify their requirements, or change the scale, was a surprise, an ambush.
V
Quote from: Valdemar on August 13, 2012, 07:14:08 AM
And yes, to me, your posts did come of as if the two weeks notice and the refusal of the company to waver, or at least modify their requirements, or change the scale, was a surprise, an ambush.
V
But that's already been spoken to in many posts. I'm not really sure why you insist on making an ass of yourself in this thread.
Quote from: garbon on August 13, 2012, 07:37:44 AM
But that's already been spoken to in many posts. I'm not really sure why you insist on making an ass of yourself in this thread.
So that you can feel superior pointing out what you think is obvious :hug:
If it has already been pointed out, then whats the harm, in saying what has already been said before and replying to comments? :hmm:
V
I'm not feeling superior, I'm feeling like you are being obstinate and rude.
Like I said it has already been shown many times that this wasn't some sudden request that she felt ambushed by - beyond the extent that this came up when she had just taken a new job. I've never been on a group insurance plan that had me have a physical nor analyzed my BMI, so it is totally fair to not expect that insurance company would do such.
I know that you are ignorant of how things work here in America, so I'm not sure why you deem it necessary to keep sharing your inaccurate views.
And are you not claiming superiority when you go on about how Meri should have expected this?
more importanly, did the laxatives work? :P
Quote from: garbon on August 13, 2012, 08:27:46 AM
I'm not feeling superior, I'm feeling like you are being obstinate and rude.
I see, so it isn't smuck feelings of superiority that makes you pick out my posts twice, calling them making an ass of my self, despite the fact that you admit they are only saying the same as every one else? :rolleyes: Must be me reading your motives completely wrong.. again.. :D
I'm so sorry Garbon if you don't feel superior :hug:
V
WTF, you aren't saying the same as anyone else. You keep insisting that Meri should have known about BMI requirements for insurance at a new job. You've not provided any evidence of why that would be the case (just assumptions) - whereas Meri, Max and myself have providing talking points to the opposite position.
You're really the only one in this thread trying to make Meri look like an idiot.
Is it now? Maybe if you read the thread again in one go?
Cause I saw plentyful of comments discussing BMI as a measure for insurance, why this wasn't unusual, why it would be costly to do it another way.
So stop being selective and try reading it again. And if you yourself tells me, two posts ago that I'm only rehashing what others said, then why exactly does that matter to you? If not to make you feel superior pointing it out?
V
Quote from: Valdemar on August 13, 2012, 08:39:51 AM
I see, so it isn't smuck feelings of superiority that makes you pick out my posts twice, calling them making an ass of my self, despite the fact that you admit they are only saying the same as every one else? :rolleyes: Must be me reading your motives completely wrong.. again.. :D
Please, feel free to quote a single other person in this thread claiming that I am crying "ambush!" Just one. Anyone. Besides you, that is.
That your reading comprehension is lacking has never been called into question. So let me be perfectly clear: I was surprised that the BMI would be a factor for my new job, as it has never been so before at any other job that I've taken. I find it crappy that a health insurance company would base the cost of insurance for the individual on a scale that was never intended to be used to assess individual health. The point of this thread to was to figure out a way to circumvent the stupid scale within seven days, which turned out to not be necessary.
I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. Either it's to make me feel badly about my weight, which I don't, or to make me appear to be stupid, which in turn you've managed to do to yourself. Either way, a wise man might either admit he was wrong, or simply shut the fuck up and fade away. Given who I'm speaking to, I think I can give up on either of those things happening.
Quote from: merithyn on August 13, 2012, 09:01:32 AM
I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. Either it's to make me feel badly about my weight, which I don't, or to make me appear to be stupid, which in turn you've managed to do to yourself. Either way, a wise man might either admit he was wrong, or simply shut the fuck up and fade away. Given who I'm speaking to, I think I can give up on either of those things happening.
Indeed. It is most perplexing.
Have you tried something Meri?
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 13, 2012, 09:09:39 AM
Have you tried something Meri?
No need. The policy doesn't go into affect until January 1, 2013. Given my current weight loss trend, I should be well below the necessary weight by then. :showoff:
Yay for America.
Quote from: garbon on August 13, 2012, 09:05:20 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 13, 2012, 09:01:32 AM
I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. Either it's to make me feel badly about my weight, which I don't, or to make me appear to be stupid, which in turn you've managed to do to yourself. Either way, a wise man might either admit he was wrong, or simply shut the fuck up and fade away. Given who I'm speaking to, I think I can give up on either of those things happening.
Indeed. It is most perplexing.
Yeah, it's a bit weird, I expect he'll resurrect the thread in a few more days; words dog and bone come to mind.
Quote from: merithyn on August 13, 2012, 09:10:56 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 13, 2012, 09:09:39 AM
Have you tried something Meri?
No need. The policy doesn't go into affect until January 1, 2013. Given my current weight loss trend, I should be well below the necessary weight by then. :showoff:
So what was the point of this thread then? :unsure:
Did she lose the weight?
General histrionics
Quote from: Barrister on August 13, 2012, 09:42:04 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 13, 2012, 09:10:56 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 13, 2012, 09:09:39 AM
Have you tried something Meri?
No need. The policy doesn't go into affect until January 1, 2013. Given my current weight loss trend, I should be well below the necessary weight by then. :showoff:
So what was the point of this thread then? :unsure:
Somewhere between Post 1 and Post 69 in the thread, Meri learned that the policy didn't kick in until January.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,8181.msg457803.html#msg457803
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,8181.msg458345.html#msg458345
Quote from: ulmont on August 13, 2012, 09:45:02 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 13, 2012, 09:42:04 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 13, 2012, 09:10:56 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 13, 2012, 09:09:39 AM
Have you tried something Meri?
No need. The policy doesn't go into affect until January 1, 2013. Given my current weight loss trend, I should be well below the necessary weight by then. :showoff:
So what was the point of this thread then? :unsure:
Somewhere between Post 1 and Post 69 in the thread, Meri learned that the policy didn't kick in until January.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,8181.msg457803.html#msg457803
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,8181.msg458345.html#msg458345
Gotcha. :thumbsup:
However, the purpose of the thread morphed into V demonstrating his ignorance and lack of social graces. Thread was pretty much dead till he decided to bump it.