Comments on: Where Do You Draw the Line on Enforced Wellness?

By: Kristina

Kristina — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:48:54 +0000

Also to add, the military provides Laser Vision correction at no cost to the military, they require Physical Fitness exams 3 times a week. Those that smoke usually only do so on deployment when they have no access to a cold beer in 150 degree weather, or the comfort of a loved one for 6 months to 18 months at a time. The military happens to be the most focused and requires not only fitness, but a healthy lifestyle. If a young man or woman wants to smoke a cigarette while defending our country and on a 15 minute watch break in between being bombed and fighting off the enemy, I dont think we should take that from them. Many foods and alcohol are prohibitted in the countries we are currently at war with. Most quit smoking when they return, since it adversly affects their PT qualification. Its really the the most selfish/rediculous suggestion any socialist/liberal has brought up in recent history.

By: Kristina

Kristina — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:39:37 +0000

I have mixed feelings. I have worked for companies where emplyees would get up to $500 credit/year (divided monthly) on their annual premiums for engaging in a fabulous Matria wellness program. Employees had to complete an online assessment, track physical activity, engage in walking/physical programs, and healthy food challenges. However, the management would pick 3 days a week for their department and allocate 1 hour (outside of a honored lunch period) to encourage and allow for employees to participate. The company was trully dedicated to bettering employee health also by allowing employees to order 5 lb weights and a stepper via the company store at no cost, if they would like.

If an employer is not equally committed to not just encouraging their employees but making the effort to ease the burden on employees to participate in mandated programs. it makes it challenging for any employee who is already working 10 or more hours a day, has obligations and commitments to family and community resources outside of the workplace to force a tracking system.

It actually adds to stress in the workplace, as is my opinion. Since, it is not like those that want to be healthier are not doing activities to achieve such personal goals, especially when this is a program targeted to those who may not make life changes.

Those who are uninterested in addition to not being allowed the time, simply wont change the bottom line for your cost of healthcare. My 2 cents.

By: ken

ken — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 22:58:13 +0000

for liberals there is no line on enforcement – they love running others peoples lives….

By: David Janus

David Janus — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:12:23 +0000

Very nice post.

From a business perspective, I think the key to a credible (and successful) wellness program is the ability to link the program to real business needs. The WSJ had an article earlier this month (http://bit.ly/Ett2o) that discussed a company that has – so far – been quite successful with implementing a very aggressive wellness program, including mandating all employees to get a physical in order to be eligible to receive health insurance. The article describes very clear business reasons for the company’s policy. As you describe well in your blog, there is really no such connection that would make an aggressive anti-tobacco campaign for soldiers in the field make a lot of sense.

By: Shelly

Shelly — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 18:12:23 +0000

I could not have said it any better myself Mike.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:28:41 +0000

What’s really sad about the majority mentality in relationship to smoking is that the majority who does not smoke says that the minority who do should not, and that ends the inquiry in their view. By comparison, I could decide that anyone who was overweight should be taxed heavily, or anyone that received a speeding ticket should have their car taken away, or anyone who takes “legal” narcotics propogated by pharmaceutical industry should be subject to controlled susbtance requirements, or anyone who drinks beer/wine should be prohibited from doing so, all on health grounds. That’s not really what’s going on though. What it really amounts to is a self-righteous moral superiority complex – no different than religion, or political, or ideologues – deciding for the minority what should be the norm. The health cost they disguise it with is laughable – it’s just a pretext. If it was a health issue, then all cars would have rev-limiters prohibiting them from going faster than 50 mph, corn syrup would be as illegal as crack, legal addictive substances sold by big pharma would be the outrage it is, and the deadly consequences of alcohol would be accorded proper context relative to marijuana (and the big alochol lobby would be reviled). These health initiatives disguise the real issue, which is majority rule (circa Nuremburg 1933), embellished as a social contract. If we passed a Constitutional amendment outlawing self-righteous, overweight, pill-popping, lead-footed, pickled, narrowminded ideologues, I’d be happy to quit smoking. Until then, not so much.