Travis County debates weight-loss surgery as employee benefit

uscitizen

uscitizen

Villified User
Travis County debates weight-loss surgery as employee benefit

Associated Press

AUSTIN — Travis County is considering a pilot program to offer weight-loss surgery to its employees after a review suggested the move could save money in the long run.

County commissioners may decide today whether to pay for up to 15 bariatric surgeries per year during a five-year trial. The surgeries, which involve reducing the size of the stomach or rerouting the intestines, would each cost about $15,000 to $25,000, the county said.

for complete story goto:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/4197253.html



LOL, and I thought TX was a red state :)
Just work their fat asses thru lunch. Increase output and they lose weight.
 
It would only save them money if they stayed on as employees. Otherwise it would cost them quite a bit. I guess I should get a job there until I can get surgery then quit.
 
They could run excercise programs and all sing the company Anthem every morning... Life would be good then, we could insure that everybody was doing what was good for them!
 
I guess if they have more that 15 fatties that some will just be out of luck!

>>decide today whether to pay for up to 15 bariatric surgeries per year
 
IHateGovernment said:
What do you guys think of companies that fire their employees if they do not quit smoking.
Click to expand...

I think that what a person does on his own time is his own business. If the person isn't polluting the air of his fellow workers then the company has nothing to say about it. If the increased health risk is a factor in company-provided health insurance, then the employee concerned should pay the difference. But smoking is still legal and so long as it is, such measures really ought to be illegal if all requirements for employment are met.

I've been a nonsmoker, for nearly 11 years, so guess in this respect with this attitude I don't belong to the cult of the converts. At the same time I hate the smell of cigarette smoke and haven't had a craving since about 3 weeks after I quit. I don't want to smoke, don't want to be around it, but it's another person's decision to smoke or not, not mine.
 
I think that what a person does on his own time is his own business. If the person isn't polluting the air of his fellow workers then the company has nothing to say about it. If the increased health risk is a factor in company-provided health insurance, then the employee concerned should pay the difference. But smoking is still legal and so long as it is, such measures really ought to be illegal if all requirements for employment are met.

The thing is though that I don't believe employers are able to make their employees pay a higer contribution to insurance if they are smokers. From what I understand the amount must be uniform within the amount of people covered. Otherwise older people could also be asked to pay more.
 
Yes IHG, once started where does it stop ?
will it one day include those with genetic defects and those who engage in risky sports ?
 
Thats what sucks about insurance you are paying to cover people who do things you are smart enough to know not to do. You are covering two pack a day smokers, daily McDonald's diners, bungee jumpers etc. When your company pays for your insurance it has to pay more to cover these people and also makes it more expensive for you.

But where to draw the line deny insurance to the old, those who are genetically predisposed to illness.

The advance of technology is a threat to liberty in many cases.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Thats what sucks about insurance you are paying to cover people who do things you are smart enough to know not to do. You are covering two pack a day smokers, daily McDonald's diners, bungee jumpers etc. When your company pays for your insurance it has to pay more to cover these people and also makes it more expensive for you.

But where to draw the line deny insurance to the old, those who are genetically predisposed to illness.

The advance of technology is a threat to liberty in many cases.
Click to expand...

Yep, technology is a two edged sword in many areas. insurance, privacy, security, longer life vs costs, etc....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top