quote:

ORIGINAL: Starbucks880

My main issue is that the BMI isn't a very good indicator to use. My husband is a big guy. he happens to weigh 260 pounds. He is 6 feet 4 in tall. His BMI is 31.6, which puts him at obese--except my husband isn't obese. He exercises everyday and lifts weights--his body fat is low and he is very muscular as a result of his workout. His lipids and blood pressure are both excellent. He is a perfect example why the BMI is pretty useless. It would make more sense to use waist/hip ratio, for example and to take into account other problems.

I do think it is a good idea to use means to get people healthy, but what about others who use high costs? What about those with cancer who use a ton of money for treatment--maybe they should be charged an extra fee? What about couples who don't use birth control--should we charge them since more children equal more costs and also it isn't cheap to birth a baby in this country,especially if there are complications? What about the many other non-obesity related chronic conditions that cost a lot? What about those who have unprotected sex?

The fact of the matter, while it does sound good in theory to charge those who are fat and smoke--it is only because it is acceptable to pick them out that not many have a problem with that. If the government really did decide to get intrusive into the employees lives and start charging fees to every single condition that racks up the fees, then there would be a huge uproar. I do applaud trying new ideas to give people the initiative to be active since obesity and smoking do cause a whole host of problems and costs in so many ways, but why just pick out those two groups of people if you are going to charge them more?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zhi

Body mass index is a stupid metric.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God

Don't they have a way of measuring your body fat?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zhi

The problem that most of us are pointing out is that a) being "fat" is not the only lifestyle choice that causes issues, and b) BMI is a very ineffective way to try to determine whether someone is at higher risk.

Driving records are pretty easy to get ahold of, and are not private. Health records are supposed to be. There are many factors that can make a person overweight, from personal choice to genetics to diseases (like thyroid disease). If we're going to open up genetics as a valid reason to charge a person more, then everyone who has any family record of cancer, heart disease, genetic diseases, etc, is going to get higher rates simply because they have "bad" genetics. If we're going to open up choices as a valid reason to charge a person more, why stop with their eating habits? Why not find out their sexual habits? Promiscuity can lead to more disease. What about their choices in exercise? If they want to take Tae Kwon Do instead of a nice, safe, spinning class, they could break a leg... let's not even DISCUSS how dangerous rock climbing could be, if you don't fall off and break something you could get Lyme disease from a tick.

And, BMI is a horrible metric. Bodybuilders at 5% fat will have a high BMI. Studies have shown it's basically useless in determining increased likelihood of heart disease and cholesterol. If they want to check something, they should check cholesterol levels and blood pressure, because at least that's a real indicator.

Going by BMI to determine if you deserve higher rates is like deciding that you're a risk because you're driving a Ford and for some reason Fords have been involved in more accidents, statistically, than other models.