This looks like fertile ground for those oft mentioned "Blood Sucking" plaintiff's lawyers

No different than the gov't telling us...say that selling a certain amount of soda is illegal.

I think it would be a better idea to provide nutritional counseling, weight loss programs and take a more positive spin on things. Sounds like a tax on the poor who usually have poor diets and health problems, etc.

As one who has been watching her weight her whole life-I was an overweight child and teenager-I so disagree with this policy. Having the desire to lose weight has to come from within. I only lost the weight because I wanted to, not because anyone else told me to.

Kelly Welles wrote:
While this form of behavioral economics is ripe for debate, the fact remains that the healthier people are, the less demand they place on the healthcare system including Medicaid and Medicare. Not only will they live longer but they will be more productive in every aspect of their lives. I side with Queenie and Rona. Education, while crucial, is not enough. People need to relate to the payoff in a way that is not abstract. Perhaps Rona should write a book?

As a not tiny guy who holds his own on the ballfield, basketball court, etc. I argue more than just size matters. In my youth, people my age and apparently more fit passed on; a variety of factors matter; I argue not against maintaining one's best body size but inactivity also plays a role; diet in quality and quantity play roles; lifestyles matter. So does a Michelin worker above the waste-size limit who regularly visits his MD and maintains adequate blood-pressure with Meds merit a penalty vs a worker within the waste size who never visits a MD, had unknown hypertension, perhaps risking heart attack or stroke and the complications therein?

Katalin Goencz wrote:
"Obamacare" or as I still like to call it Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act, will have its major provision in effect starting January 2014. That is the exchanges, where people will be able to purchase insurance on the exchanges. This too, has built in premium surcharges for certain lifestyle choices. I can understand that, but what consideration will be given for the chronically ill, and those will illness acquired at birth? Mental illness is still not being addressed well enough. Even with the new CT law in the wake of Sandy Hook school shooting we are still just patching up some loopholes.
It seems that cost is still out of control and premium penalties will only be padding the insurance company's bottom line. What is it they gave us back in return?
Perhaps a better way would be to give discounts for those with normal weight and healthy.

The Standard American Diet (SAD)has resulted in wide ranging economic costs. This type of corporate policy makes no sense. It assumes that thin people are healthy, that the suggested cholesterol and blood pressure levels are actually meaningful and myriad other often erroneous assumptions. On the employee's part, there has to be a willingness to take personal responsibility and make healthy lifestyle choices - stop blaming bad genes and start eating better and exercising. Simple changes can yield huge results. That being said, the true measure of an employee's worth should be productivity not his or her waistline or cholesterol level. Maybe we should get employers out of the business of offering healthcare benefits altogether. A discussion for another blog I suspect...

I'm late to this party, but this is from the company whose avatar is the Michelin Man. Irony is not dead.

I'm late to this pary, but this is from the company whose avatar is the Michelin Man. Irony is not dead.