It depends on the person. I am 5'5 and and I would have to be about 175 to get under 30. In high school, I was 5'4 235lb and in ridiculous shape. Granted half my family are huge barrel chested short guys w/ legs like tree trunks. 18.5 inch neck and 34inch waist and 14-15% body fat. I had some friends in similar shape like you who were taller and their BMI was always low. According to BMI (40.3), I was Obese Class III (Very severely obese). Never touched steroids and barely lifted at the time. The chart severely skews shorter athletes to taller.
- Status
It depends on the person. I am 5'5 and and I would have to be about 175 to get under 30. In high school, I was 5'4 235lb and in ridiculous shape. Granted half my family are huge barrel chested short guys w/ legs like tree trunks. 18.5 inch neck and 34inch waist and 14-15% body fat. I had some friends in similar shape like you who were taller and their BMI was always low. According to BMI (40.3), I was Obese Class III (Very severely obese). Never touched steroids and barely lifted at the time. The chart severely skews shorter athletes to taller.
Sadly my beautiful wife was employed by CVS. I heard stories of questionnaires that were circulated that would allow "discounted rates" for certain things like gym membership, BP checks, Glucose monitor, fruit & veggie intake, etc...
The horror stories of her employ with that company made me insist that she give up her job. It was making her miserable. It was for her peace of mind. She smiles again, now.
I hate CVS for the misery that their tactics caused my wife. I'd nut-kick any exec of CVS at the drop of a hat. Just sayin'
The horror stories of her employ with that company made me insist that she give up her job. It was making her miserable. It was for her peace of mind. She smiles again, now.
I hate CVS for the misery that their tactics caused my wife. I'd nut-kick any exec of CVS at the drop of a hat. Just sayin'
I think what I find most troubling is that it isn't a discount people are missing out on at CVS, it is an additional fee they are tacking on if they fail the biometric screening parameters. Where I work they do biometrics, voluntarily, for a discount on your health insurance. Being the stubborn rebel I am, I refuse to go do it. I figure it is none of their business what my numbers are. And I would qualify for the discount based on my current labs, vitals, etc. It is just my little way of sticking it to the man, I guess. I do not want to play their little game.
I agree that as a nation we do need to be healthier. But I feel that the motivator should be personal, not your boss or company telling you that you must do this or that or face a monetary penalty. I understand that insurance companies are looking at bottom lines, and obesity and smoking are very costly over the lifespan. But once we start vetting out every risk to keep insurance low, how far are we gonna take it? Nicotine is already screened, now biometrics is commonplace, I just wonder how long before we start targeting people who drink alcohol, or consume too much soda. It could get nasty before it is all said and done. My biggest fear?? Somehow people are going to start being denied employment over biometric screenings. We have already seen it happen with nicotine.
I agree that as a nation we do need to be healthier. But I feel that the motivator should be personal, not your boss or company telling you that you must do this or that or face a monetary penalty. I understand that insurance companies are looking at bottom lines, and obesity and smoking are very costly over the lifespan. But once we start vetting out every risk to keep insurance low, how far are we gonna take it? Nicotine is already screened, now biometrics is commonplace, I just wonder how long before we start targeting people who drink alcohol, or consume too much soda. It could get nasty before it is all said and done. My biggest fear?? Somehow people are going to start being denied employment over biometric screenings. We have already seen it happen with nicotine.
That would be all nice and fine if lobbyists and the government "public servants" they paid off hadn't created a system for themselves that already charge people 4 times the amount as people who have insurance. Quite a little coup, I'd say.
As far as whether it is any of your business how someone else chooses to live their life, it isn't. The only reason people believe that it is, is because they bought into this socialist pile of crapola that we have allowed to be built up all around us.
Don't be surprised when these same people think they have the right to tell you that you can no longer vape.
Unfortunately, personal motivation does not seem to be working .. so, unless some sort of leverage is used, we all end up paying ..
I understand your point, however logically there should then be a rider that people are not covered for any health costs incurred due to participating in an optional high-risk activity - skiing, sports , etc etc etc - so that others do not have to subsidize THEIR medical treatments and medication. And if course if you end up needing a knee replacement and at one time you were a jogger ...
Perhaps I am cynical regarding insurance companies, but I do not believe that a significant amount of the money saved will end up as lower premiums for other users - I think most of it will end up as higher earnings for the company.
Maybe they should make everyone run through a fitness test to determine physical shape. Some people who are genetically thin eat wrong, don't exercise, and couldn't run a mile if they had to.
I'm a big guy for my 5'11" height at 235 pounds, but I'm retired and have the spare time to do 100 reps a day on specific body parts with a curl bar, use the Total Gym, and ride a stationary bike a little over 5 miles a day. I spend about an hour doing all that 5-7 days a week.
My BMI isn't quite where the charts say I should be, and neither is my weight, but I'm physically fit and like the way I look in the mirror. That doesn't really matter in the corporate screening, though. Vaping puts me in the "nicotine user" class for an extra 100 bucks a year on health insurance.
I'm a big guy for my 5'11" height at 235 pounds, but I'm retired and have the spare time to do 100 reps a day on specific body parts with a curl bar, use the Total Gym, and ride a stationary bike a little over 5 miles a day. I spend about an hour doing all that 5-7 days a week.
My BMI isn't quite where the charts say I should be, and neither is my weight, but I'm physically fit and like the way I look in the mirror. That doesn't really matter in the corporate screening, though. Vaping puts me in the "nicotine user" class for an extra 100 bucks a year on health insurance.
that is terrible. what happens to the people that have medical conditions that cause those numbers to be high like hypo/hyperthyroidism (my mother has/my grandfather died from) which cant be controlled by dietary changes or even cured with medications?
Using financial "leverage" for the purpose of coercing people into particular lifestyle choices is political tyranny. Human beings ought not be slaves to the motivations and agendas of concentrated, for-profit capital, and institutions that foster such enslavement should be resisted.
I think what I find most troubling is that it isn't a discount people are missing out on at CVS, it is an additional fee they are tacking on if they fail the biometric screening parameters. Where I work they do biometrics, voluntarily, for a discount on your health insurance. Being the stubborn rebel I am, I refuse to go do it. I figure it is none of their business what my numbers are. And I would qualify for the discount based on my current labs, vitals, etc. It is just my little way of sticking it to the man, I guess. I do not want to play their little game.
I agree that as a nation we do need to be healthier. But I feel that the motivator should be personal, not your boss or company telling you that you must do this or that or face a monetary penalty. I understand that insurance companies are looking at bottom lines, and obesity and smoking are very costly over the lifespan. But once we start vetting out every risk to keep insurance low, how far are we gonna take it? Nicotine is already screened, now biometrics is commonplace, I just wonder how long before we start targeting people who drink alcohol, or consume too much soda. It could get nasty before it is all said and done. My biggest fear?? Somehow people are going to start being denied employment over biometric screenings. We have already seen it happen with nicotine.
Agree. My issue with all of it is where does it stop. Pretty soon they will be doing genetic screeeing in the womb and terminating based on genetic markers and probablity of contracting whatever. Also, what happens when someone proves statistically that a protected class is more prone to diabetes, overweight, alcoholism, high blood pressure or whatever the disease of the day is. What if they are not part of a protected class?
Seems to me the whole human race needs to be protected.
As disturbing as it is that this is happening, is the fact that some say so what, we need it.
Excuse me? to quote Earl Pitts (radio personality) "Wake up America"..before its too late.
By the way, If you are a NIC nurse, thanks for what you do. Have multiples family experience with some of your collegues.
I'm dieting currently. I've lost about 20 pounds since the beginning of febuary.
Has nothing to do with money and everything to do with the fact that I am working towards being a marine biologist, and I don't want to have narwhals coming on to me when i get into a wet suit.
Personally motivating enough?
First - CVS $60 is a fine for not participating in the program.
Second - unhealthy people set the cost standards. Known possible expenses allow calculation cost to provide coverage without going out of business.
Third - Healthy people can receive a Discount due to less likely medical cost.
Second - unhealthy people set the cost standards. Known possible expenses allow calculation cost to provide coverage without going out of business.
Third - Healthy people can receive a Discount due to less likely medical cost.
why should I get healthy when insurance covers an electric wheelchair? PASS THE STEAK AMERICA
Those in the medical and insurance industry who abhor nicotine and/or electronic alternatives to smoking simply must be willfully ignorant. This is supposed to be their area of expertise, yet they ignore its several benefits and presence in many of the foods we love. Too often, they merely associate it with cigarettes and the wicked chemicals contained within and vicious symptoms associated with them (chemicals far more addicting and dangerous than little ol' nicotine).
My blood pressure has slowly risen over the past decade, yet a mere six months after kicking cigs, a nurse noted that my blood pressure registered perfect despite my BMI being slightly over the ideal and having drank two cups of coffee that morning. I no longer cough my lungs out on rare occasions, lose breath during activity, nor quit breathing in my sleep. Nor do I irrationally crave my vape as I did my smoking. Rather, I merely desire the interaction. Sadly, unlike our addictions, the ignorance of many seems largely untreatable. I find if I pay it overdue heed, I tend to lose parts of my serenity/sanity.
My blood pressure has slowly risen over the past decade, yet a mere six months after kicking cigs, a nurse noted that my blood pressure registered perfect despite my BMI being slightly over the ideal and having drank two cups of coffee that morning. I no longer cough my lungs out on rare occasions, lose breath during activity, nor quit breathing in my sleep. Nor do I irrationally crave my vape as I did my smoking. Rather, I merely desire the interaction. Sadly, unlike our addictions, the ignorance of many seems largely untreatable. I find if I pay it overdue heed, I tend to lose parts of my serenity/sanity.
This is just two ways of marketing the same concept. The problem is with the for-profit insurance paradigm itself, and the unbridled power insurance companies wield over ordinary people.
There shouldn't be any such thing as "health insurance", because there's no aggregate risk/reward factor at work, and health care can be accepted as a fixed social cost and delivered as needed as a fixed public expense. In other words, though we don't know what, if any, health care costs might be incurred by any given individual in the next year, people in large numbers are statistically predictable, so we know there will be x number of new cancers, x number of people who fall down the stairs and break their nose etc... Insurance companies are, essentially, bookies; speculators in human misery and tragedy, laying bets and profiting on the "action", except that— unlike bookies— they hire armies of lawyers to avoid paying out whenever they can because they have the power and the resources to do so.
Everyone wins if you take the profiteering out of health care delivery except a handful of oligarchs.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
