Now
Fair
83.0°
High
84°
Low
72°
Full Forecast

Coupon

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News > Politics
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

State union: Gov. using wellness 'as a weapon'

Comments 82 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

BY NANCY HICKS / Lincoln Journal Star

Saturday, Jan 12, 2008 - 12:37:30 am CST

On Thursday, Gov. Dave Heineman encouraged state employees to participate in a wellness program.

Wearing a red Nebraska sports shirt, the governor and more than 75 employees walked briskly round and round a Capitol corridor for TV news cameras.

And Friday, Papillion Sen. Tim Gay introduced a bill backed by the governor that carries a financial incentive to encourage participation in a wellness program.

Story Photo
Gov. Dave Heineman

But there is a catch in the proposal, state union leaders say.

Employees would be punished for refusing to participate in a state-sanctioned wellness program under LB884. Those who don’t participate would be required to pay more than 21 percent of health insurance premiums, the traditional share for state workers.

The legislation would affect nearly 20,000 state employees.

This bill “is a piece of garbage,” said Mike Marvin, executive director of the major state employee union. “They are using wellness as a weapon.”

Marvin, director of NAPE/AFSCME, Local 61, AFL-CIO, said the move is contrary to how other states approach wellness programs.

“Rather than encourage employees to take part in a wellness program, they want to punish employees who won’t do it,” he said.

The bill would remove the requirement the state pay 79 percent of a state employee’s health insurance premium.

The 79-21 percent split — a tradition in Nebraska government — would remain only for employees who participate in a state-sanctioned wellness plan.

All others would pay more than 21 percent of the premium, but the bill didn’t specify how much.

Union leaders have talked with state administrators about a financial incentives where participating employees would pay less than the 21 percent for health insurance, Marvin said.

The business community is moving this direction, Gay said, with lower premiums or other incentives for people who sign up for wellness programs.

“I think this is something to look at to control costs,” he said.

And the bill will start the discussion, he said.

The health insurance system, with its skyrocketing premiums, isn’t working, he said.

Marvin said the bill had other problems beyond tinkering with premiums. It doesn’t define what a wellness program would include. And there are no exclusions for people with disabilities, he said.

“What if I am covered under the (Americans with Disabilities Act)? You can’t punish me for something I can’t do.”

The state has not yet created a wellness program. But it might include coaching or help for those who are overweight, have diabetic conditions, or asthma, said Roger Wilson, state controller.

The state would hire a company to run the program, he said.

Finally, Marvin pointed out, though state laws spells out the 79-21 split, health insurance premiums are part of the union bargaining process and can’t be changed in statute.

“Our contract prevails right now,” he said.

Reach Nancy Hicks at 473-7250 or nhicks@journalstar.com.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Politics > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Cat wrote on January 12, 2008 12:56 am:
" This is a dumb idea. While I'm all for encouraging employees to be healthier, the fact that it would require an official wellness program bothers me. I have my own exercise and sport plans, though it certainly wouldn't be obvious to look at me. Would I, as a state employee, have to bow to their specifics? If I'm forced to, under threat of 'punishment', would I be paid for participating in a work-requirement?

What about dependents? Does someone's daughter have to participate to be covered?

I understand that health costs are an issue. And I know the state is limited on incentives (after all, anything they do costs tax money, and that can't be squandered on encouraging a healthy lifestyle.) At the same time, this just seems like a bad idea that will have more problems than anything it might seem to solve. "
Diogenes wrote on January 12, 2008 1:21 am:
" Had enough? Vote a Democratic ticket next time. "
whatever wrote on January 12, 2008 4:00 am:
" Let the war against the obese begin. Obesity and poor health habits of any kind affect everyone, everywhere. From the higher cost of food, heating and transportation due to the obese and their disgusting overeating habits, to those that engage in casual sex, we must be forceful in our efforts to ensure the general health and well being of all our citizens. Good job governor and my hats off to Senator Gray. Once we get the public sector in line then the mandates in the private sector must begin. In the future we will all see in tangible figures the cost on society the obese and the sexually irresponsible have on us all. "
Brian wrote on January 12, 2008 8:13 am:
" I run regularly and consider myself in pretty decent shape. Though I wish that more people would eat healthier and exercise each day, I know that not everyone will do so. I don't think government should be involved in forcing people to exercise, but then again I don't know enough about the bill to make a clear-cut decision. "
votes wrote on January 12, 2008 8:16 am:
" I guess Gov. Heineman is confident he can win a future re-election bid without any votes from 20,000 state employees. "
James wrote on January 12, 2008 8:17 am:
" Sounds like a good plan to me! You can discriminate against people who smoke, are obese, etc... I say do it. Unhealthy people are a detriment on society. "
Western Nebraskan wrote on January 12, 2008 8:24 am:
" That's typical union response--in essence saying,"Our people have the right to be unhealthy, and if they have health problems because of it, the state should pay for it!" The governor's proposal is the only one that makes sense. If the employee chooses not to take advantage of the health benefits of a healthy lifestyle, that's fine. But they should pay for the extra medical problems that statistics have proven will result from that lifestyle. "
Sylvia wrote on January 12, 2008 8:37 am:
" There is no scientific evidence that this wellness program is good. Corporate interests have tainted the point system, making sure to get in references to "milk" instead of calcium, and awarding 1 point for every 8 minutes of golf. The alternative of competing with weight instead of points dumbfounds me more. Do we really want our state agencies turning into mini-celebrity fit clubs, where an increase in muscle mass could actually cost your team? I appreciate trying to lower premiums, but trying to do it with this feel-good program made up by a bunch of corporate interests and interns is not the way to do it. Please try actually policing the insurance companies and health care costs first. "
Mark wrote on January 12, 2008 8:44 am:
" This is a very good idea. Sounds like some of the bill details should be carefully thought out. This is not a weapon, Mr. Marvin. This is an incentive! Many people perform better when they have an incentive. Right now nearly 66% of our population is obese or overweight and research shows that those people who are overweight and don't exercise regularly have higher healthcare costs. They us more sick leave. They file more worker comp claims. They are not as productive. It is all fact backed up by research. Mr Marvin would do well (no pun intended)if he were an advocate for wellness for the folks he represents. If they were healthier and cost less to insure, his union members just might have more leverage to ask for higher wages. Good for you, Mr. Governor. "
I am not a state employee wrote on January 12, 2008 8:48 am:
" but this is a bad bill and will effect all Nebraskans. First it will be the smokers who have to pay more, then the next year, it will be the obese, because, after all, they are diabetics waiting to happen. Then, the third year, they will redefine "obese". But by then non-state insurance companies will copy this proposal, because, after all, the state has sanctioned it. It will effect all people in Nebraska. And you smokers, you know who you are, you are the ones still paying for the Devaney Center. And you chocoholics, you will be paying. I voted for Heinemann, and now I find myself in the position of agreeing with the union. And if you don't think that this will go down that way, look at the medicine in England. They have socialized medicine, except now for smokers and the obese. Who will be next? "
roer wrote on January 12, 2008 8:57 am:
" What is wrong with paying more if you don't want to participate. We subsidize your unwillingness to participate and be healthy to the tune of increased taxes and insurance premiums, and those that really need the coverage cost more than what the insurance companies pay and so the extra amount is usually written off or placed back into the pot so others share the burden. Participation in a wellness program doesn't insure that you will be healthy but if it doesn't cost you anything and is required by the State then it is no different than a higher premium for smokers or pre-existing condition riders. People should want to be healthy even if they have insurance. Insurance should not be a licence to be sick. "
Tim wrote on January 12, 2008 9:26 am:
" Way to go Gov H! I firmly believe in holding people accountable and rewarding (lower premiums, etc) those that take responsibility for their actions! If you don't take care of your body, you'll statistically have greater health issues. This is simply smart business... "
Howzat wrote on January 12, 2008 9:45 am:
" So an amateur endurance athlete would also have to participate in order to avoid a premium copay jack, even though they were in better condition than 99% of the world's population? "
State Employee wrote on January 12, 2008 9:45 am:
" This is too funny! Neighborhood residents have been complaining for years about State employees out walking around their neighborhoods all day instead of being inside working on State business. "
ted wrote on January 12, 2008 9:49 am:
" As long as the wellness program is available to all, I don't see the problem. I am always schocked when I go to Bryan or St. E's and see the staff working there. Many are younger women who are grossly overweight. They cannot be healthy at those weights. "
Thanks for the Ambiguity wrote on January 12, 2008 9:54 am:
" While this seems to be a great idea, I don't agree with punishing those who do not participate until we see that those who DO participate in the wellness programs are better off health wise and also very satisfied with their premium payments. The fact that nothing is spelled out in writing except the idea leads me to conclude that this bill has other hidden agendas, and I do not support the bill as stated. "
Mike in DC wrote on January 12, 2008 10:07 am:
" If they can show a wellness program cuts insurance and health costs, then the union has zero argument. It sort of like heavy smokers and heavy drinkers and those that are obese by their own eating habits screaming about paying higher insurance and heath costs. Hey, it costs more to DO those things, and if others are willing to join a program that statistically will increase their health... then hey, how can you blame the state if they are trying to improve the quality of health of their employees... EVEN IF the impetus is saving costs either directly or indirectly by having healthier employees? "
Bad bill wrote on January 12, 2008 10:16 am:
" I am not 100% sure all this exercise is the answer.From
the time I could walk to my "old" age I worked hard on a
farm, was never fat, left the farm and walked 8 blocks too
& from work, rain, snow,ice and mowed with a push mower,
yet I have arthritis, high blood pressure you name it.
Yet my sibling & side of the family that sat on their
tush & never did a stitch of work and now older have none
of these ailments. Seen this too often. I don't agree
with this bill. Our freedom is going down the drain
espically in Lincoln, there is no freedom. The city I
lived in, everybody on their lunch hours were rushing all
over the city shopping or window shopping, walked blocks
and blocks to bus lines or parking lots. In Lincoln the
taxpayers have to build garages close by so the poor
workers don't have to walk and there sure is no downtown
to go shopping or go window shopping on your lunch hour
like there once was. Seems the city creates the problem
then punishes the workers & taxpayers for the problem!
Guess who needs to get off their tush???!! "
jean wrote on January 12, 2008 10:19 am:
" It's about time that people start to take responsibility for their bad lifestyles. Those who take risks with their health should not expect the rest of us to pay their way. This is the way the private sector function, so why do government employees think they are special. Smoking, hand to mouth disease(overeating) couch potatoes, drinking, substance abuse are all choices. And while the Gov. is at it he should eliminate government funding of refreshments at meetings. No one has ever starved to death by going without sweets or liquids other than water within a short period of time. Just think of the time and money this would save. "
DJ wrote on January 12, 2008 10:36 am:
" Let me see if I got this right. The state wants employees that don't participate in a wellness program to pay more for health insurance. But, the state is going to hire a company to run the wellness program. Is there someting wrong with that picture. Take away from employees, and give to an outside company. ??????????????? "
DR wrote on January 12, 2008 11:08 am:
" Don't think of it as punishing those who don't participate, think of it as rewarding those who do. There are many kinks that need to be worked out, but this is the future. Just because you live an incredibly unhealthy lifestyle, doesn't make if fair for me to pay for your healthcare costs. Your lifestyle affects me. Now it will affect you too.... "
Francis wrote on January 12, 2008 11:11 am:
" If it is a great idea Governor, why not include those on Medicaid ? If they don't participate then shouldn't they pay a penalty ? "
here comes big brother wrote on January 12, 2008 11:45 am:
" oh, good, we will intrude on lives, especially those BAD folks who have certain diseases we don't like, and fine and punish those who don't allow this intrusion Next step, fine and punish those who do not meet wellness goals set arbitrarily by non-medical "wellness coaches". oh, and by the way, this will save us less money than we pay the company we hire to "manage" this for us, creating another state-sanctioned monopoly. But these new forced costs will be paid by employees, either in higher premiums or out of pocket, or both. Is not good health its own reward? And is it not an individual decision to decide how much of your free time, effort, and money it is worth to you? Oh, no. I guess we'd better let Big Brother do this for us, too. "
Laurie wrote on January 12, 2008 12:46 pm:
" Frankly, I don't have a problem with the state expecting their employees to take some of the responsibility for their health. However, how can you create a law requiring something that does not yet exist? There's a lot of "what if's" that have been glossed over here. What company will run this program? What are their credentials? What are the goals of this program (something more specific than "wellness", ok)? Is it going to address (gasp!) sex? What about mental health? What if all the "education", "coaching" or "help" doesn't work to control the health problem in question? I don't have asthma, but I don't see "coaching" as a very useful option. This sounds like a way for the state to take benefits from it's employees and make work for worthless wellness coaches. I would like to know what company is going to profit from this arrangement before the laws start getting changed. "
Hmmmmm? wrote on January 12, 2008 12:46 pm:
" In England, the MD's get bonuses based on the their ability to get their patients to lead healthier lifestyles. Here, the Governor wants to punish (or reward: it could be said that the withholding of a beating is a reward of sorts) the worker if they don't change their evil ways. I have to support the union on this one. I have better health benefits now then when I worked as a manager for the state. I don't have to belong to a health-promotion program to get these benefits. Just another plan to save money at the employee's expense rather than address some of the horrible management practices in our state government that neither rewards the good performance or punishes the poor performance of it's managers. It is a system run on politics rather than performance, and our governor is carrying on the grand tradition without fail. "
whatever wrote on January 12, 2008 12:54 pm:
" When you open the door to regulating personal behaviour this is what you get, and it's only the beginning. Someday many of you will wake up and wonder what happened to your rights and who took them away and all you will need to do is look in the mirror. Think people, think before you jump on the bandwagon in support of things that superficially seem "AOK". Think about where that "bandwagon" is heading. "
I'm just not sure wrote on January 12, 2008 1:07 pm:
" I'm a state employee. I'm in pretty good shape, I'll have no problem conforming to a new health program to get a little discount. My mom is also a state employee. She's in pretty good shape, but she's in her 60's. She has diabetes, she's a cancer survivor. She needs a discount way more than I do, but she'll have a harder time getting it. Honestly, I'm not sure what I think about this plan. I think it's a great idea, in theory. In practice, it scares the pants off me. "
JEN wrote on January 12, 2008 1:22 pm:
" If this bill effected private companies I doubt many of you would be supporting it. I'm a state employee, I lead a fairly healhty lifestyle. I don't smoke or drink. My health insurance already went up 15.5% on the 1st, plus an extra $5 on the copay, not to mention the deductible. I spend over 50 hours a week at work already, and only get paid for 40 of it. I don't need 1 more requirement for me to get the benefits I work my butt off for. No wonder the state can't retain employees. "
A REALLY tired BSDC employee wrote on January 12, 2008 1:25 pm:
" You know, I used to walk to and from work each day (2 miles each way). It is an effective way to manage my weight, save some money on gas, and attack stress without the use of some silly 'wellness' program. However, I emphasize "I used to". Now with the state's continuing inability to recruit, staff, and retain staff at my facility, I am forced to work 16 hour shifts with little or no notice. Ever walk 2-miles and be on your feet for 8 hours and then be forced to work yet *another* 8 hours and then need to walk 2-miles home before sun-up, and then have to be back at work with only 4 hours of sleep to do it all over again? Yea, it hurts (and so, I have been forced to stop walking). So much for wellness! Gov. Heineman has once again shown stupidity to go with a blatant lack of ability to deal with the state's *real* problems. If he wants to save the state some money, he should resign. He certainly isn't doing my "wellness" any favors with this recent proposal. "
$$$$ wrote on January 12, 2008 1:37 pm:
" How about applying this bill to the private sector as well??? I see plenty of smokers, plenty of fat folks, and plenty of lazy people there too. Yes, in fact, this is a great idea! "
Hypocrite? wrote on January 12, 2008 1:40 pm:
" What about the people who participate in the program, but still eat at places like McDonalds and drink sodas on a regular basis – such as the Governor? Isn’t that hypocritical?

I believe I’ve seen several news articles of the Governor commenting on his love of McDonalds, in fact, I think he ate there for the cameras on his anniversary. Is this part of the wellness program?

This is a stupid bill. Perhaps, the Governor should devote more attention to physical education, health and lunch programs in schools – that would be a great start to turning things around!
"
observation wrote on January 12, 2008 2:00 pm:
" Have you ever attended a state employee appreciation event? The enjoyment offerings are fat ladened, high calorie, artery clogging cookies, cakes, and sugar punch. Employees have been requesting alternatives such as fresh fruit/vegetables/cheese, but these requests have been ignored by the Administration. One just shakes their head and wonders what's next. "
article didn't mention.... wrote on January 12, 2008 2:07 pm:
" Yes, state employees did receive an email encouraging them to sign up as part of the wellness program. However, IT WASN'T FREE!!!! They wanted to charge a fee to join up!!!! Like many of my co-workers, I thought it was ridiculous to pay money for someone to tell me how to exercise or eat healthy. I know what I need to do to accomplish my own fitness and health goals without joining some "wellness group". If this bill passes, expect a windfall of lawsuits against it.
"
mike wrote on January 12, 2008 2:07 pm:
" I did not see anywhere in this article that said it would be banning anyone from making lifestyle choices, rather that should you decide to make a lifestyle choice that makes your probablility for disease or premature death higher than the average person your age, you would pay a slightly higher premium for the health care that will pay decidely higher costs than the average to cover your medical costs. It only means a more level playing field for those individuals that make the choice to adhere to a healthier lifestyle. "
Democrat on Monday wrote on January 12, 2008 2:10 pm:
" Monday, I will register as a Democrat. I am so incredibly tired of hearing how it's American to stick it to somebody else. I don't think that's what made America strong and respected and I don't think this will help Nebraska either. Disappointed, in Lincoln. "
Terri wrote on January 12, 2008 2:18 pm:
" Maybe the Legislature and the Governor should look at salaries and what some people are earning as wages before they even think about requiring them to participate in a wellness program or be punished for not participating. I'm on a very tight budget and I don't make enough to pay to participate in a wellness program, though I'd like to. Is the State going to provide it, and whate about those state employees that work in other areas besides Lincoln. "
what if..... wrote on January 12, 2008 2:44 pm:
" What if the governor and legislature didn't stop this proposal at the state employee level and, instead, said, "All Nebraskans must join a wellness program OR pay an additional tax which would be added onto their income tax return to help cover health programs across the state." Would those of you supporting this particular bill continue to support it if it covered all Nebraskans, not just state employees? "
Zoomie wrote on January 12, 2008 2:52 pm:
" One person here is correct, the standard is NOT to punish those who don't participate but to reward those who do. Punishment creates anger and resentment, and decreases those who'll participate; reward creates an incentive and is far more effective. I work for a NE health insurance company, and our corporate wellness program rewards participation (with different levels, so greater participation gets greater rewards), but does not punish those who can't or won't participate. Is this just Gov H trying to create a friction issue between himself and state employees, to increase support by non-employee Republicans in the state (who always love a politician who picks a fight with a union)? "
Thor wrote on January 12, 2008 3:01 pm:
" This is the reason I am against a smoking ban (I have not smoked in my life). It's a slippery slope. I read this article and my blood pressure probably skyrocketed. I am in great health and have my own wellness program. My only health problem is high cholesterol, but it is almost normal as I take medication. I go to my OB every year. Dentist twice a year. Eye doctor once a year. I have exercised religiously 23 years now and continue to do so. My weight is normal. What else does Dr. Heineman have to offer me so that if I chose to have health insurance thru the state, I can pay a lower premium? I am a state employee and no longer have insurance thru the state, but thru my spouse. Thank goodness. I do not need another wellness program, I follow my own and am in excellent health. I wonder how the state employees feel that voted this man back into office feel now. He fought the union thing last year on pay. My raise wasn't even 3 percent. I am not a fan of this man and consider this move blackmail. It IS a feel good legislation and those are the worst. Yes, this is just the beginning. I guess we are too dumb to decide these things on our own. Next you will see scales outside of McDonalds and if you weigh over a certain amount, you can't come in. I'm tired of Big Brother and the policing of everything we do. I liked it better years ago when Big Brother wasn't involved. God help us. "
CS wrote on January 12, 2008 3:36 pm:
" Why stop at the state? Let's just take this to the next level and kill all children born that have a genetic tendency towards unhealth. Born too small? Kill it. Born to big? Kill it. It worked for Sparta, for awhile. Many of you say you have to pay more for insurance-here's a secret- SO DO I. I pay for the same insurance everyone else does, and I have never seen this mythical 'fat person' statement that breaks down how much more you are all paying for me, vs. what I pay for myself. Get over yourselves or you will soon find that your 'healthful' habits aren't enough for them either. Eat Beef? Unhealthy. Eat corn/grains/cabohydrates? Unhealthy. Eat eggs, dairy, etc? Done excercise enough? Miss the mandatory parking lot PT in the morning? You are fired. Are you getting this yet? "
Yup wrote on January 12, 2008 3:44 pm:
" Then they'd better include zero alcohol use also. Drinking is just as harmful as overweight. "
State Employee with Asthma wrote on January 12, 2008 4:25 pm:
" I am a State Employee. My office is next to a storage room documented to contain black fungus. There are also rodents in the building. In addition, I am required to spend some time outdoors as part of my job in dusty conditions. The State does not provide protection for me. I have asthma and the first thing the "coach" would tell me is to have my employer, the State, fix the office and remove the mold and the rodents and provide a respirator for protection from dust. Sounds good to me! "
Charlene G wrote on January 12, 2008 4:35 pm:
" Is the insurance carrier going to give the State reduced rates or is the State going to just pocket the difference? Can anyone spell discrimination? When are ELECTED officials going to get the message that running the peoples lives isn't included in their job requirements?? "
Great IDEA!!! wrote on January 12, 2008 4:37 pm:
" Maybe some of the obese employees that work at Gold's Galleria would take less than the full green light to cross 10th Street if they weren't pushing 3 bills. I'm tired of paying too high of taxes to support their lifestyle of being overweight and under-exercised. "
Mike Marvin Executive Director NAPE wrote on January 12, 2008 4:37 pm:
" NAPE leadership supports a proper wellness program. The recomedations of the states consultant AON are resonable but the state has acted in a manner contrary to those recommedations. WE stand ready to talk about a reasonable well thought out wellness paln. "
simple wrote on January 12, 2008 4:39 pm:
" It's simple. Participate in a wellness program, or get your own private health insurance. As a taxpayer, I'm sick and tired of footing the bill for fat/unhealthy slobs. It goes without saying that healthy people are more productive as well. "
Cat wrote on January 12, 2008 5:05 pm:
" If you read the bill, it leaves it WIDE open as to what the state could require. THAT is bad legislation. The state could require everyone to run a mile a day if they chose, and it would fit under the terms of the law as proposed.

However, if 'risk' is a concern, maybe we have to limit the activities permitted. Rock climbing might be 'risky', or cross country running, or equestrian... "
Jan wrote on January 12, 2008 7:08 pm:
" Sorry all you guys against obese workers, you'll still be stuck with "fat". All they're saying is you have to participate in a wellness program, not lose weight. I doubt they could pass a law saying you have to fit within a certain weight and have it pass a law challenge. Several people have made valid comments, what about people with disabilities. There is a federal law about discriminating against disabilities, this would be discrimination. Wellness isn't about how much you weigh, but whether you live a healthy lifestyle. Do some of you against obese go out and drink? That should also be stopped. Same as contact sports, you could break a leg. See, you can laugh and make fun of overweight people, but be careful, cause it's going to apply to you too. And, of course, they will have to allow time during working hours to participate in this wellness program. You can't dictate that people do this on their own time, or on their own dime. So you taxpayers will have to fork over the money for this. LOL "
andy wrote on January 12, 2008 8:23 pm:
" Ya you stupid taxpayers!! We slobs, who do all the dirty work you don't wanna do, will find a way to screw you over any way. If they try to make me use my free time for this, Ill just call in sick more often. Cost you even more. And no, I can't be fired for calling in sick. "
Red wine? wrote on January 12, 2008 8:26 pm:
" Doesn't the research say that a bit of red wine per day is good for people? So does everyone have to drink it? Or is it that drinking is bad, and all must abstain? Is one aspirin a day okay, required, or banned? Will the state have it's own set of doctors, or will we be able to use our own to define "wellness". This bill is one of the most absurd introductions from the Governor's buddies. It only is a license to withhold access to insurance, not to enrich anyone's health. "
dlm wrote on January 12, 2008 8:44 pm:
" I cannot believe the prejudice I'm reading in these comments. Are all obese people lazy? No! Are all people who are fit productive? No! The danger with this bill is that sooner or later there will be no freedom for anyone. I'm tired of the government dictating to me how I should live my life. This is just another step toward the day when there will be no freedom in the USA. Hope you enjoy living in a country where you have no right to live your life the way you see fit. "
JR wrote on January 12, 2008 8:52 pm:
" Isn't it interesting? When it comes to corporations and large businesses, Gov Big Bucks wants to give them incentives ... a carrot ... for meeting certain criteria. But when it comes to state employees, he wants to use penalties ... a stick ... for not meeting certain unattainable goals. Shows where his heart and mind are ... in big business's back pocket.
As for the writer named Simple ... maybe you would care to illuminate all of us just how this plan would work. And please, don't leave out any details of your plan. I am very interested in how you see this working. "
what the hay? wrote on January 12, 2008 9:01 pm:
" Have any of you who have stated you are in favor of this proposal commented on the smoking ban on city campuses? It's kind of funny that when something affects the private sector, there is an uproar about personal freedom and yet, when it has to do with state employees only freedom can be chucked out the window. What a bunch of hypocrites! "
plainsmart wrote on January 12, 2008 9:11 pm:
" Jeez! We used to have an EXCELLENT state employee wellness program - until the Republicans decided to squeeze the Dept of Health budget & it was dropped. Voluntary, complete & accurate information (as compared with the current administrations pro-life, sensitive subject edicts), representatives from all the state agencies involved.

Not this Governor. Intrusive & punitive government is his style & the people he has marching in lock step at HHS with him. How about universal health care instead? And real wellness programs? The corporate & Catholic control of this state is shameful. We want change: we want a Constitutional democracy back! "
Jeff wrote on January 12, 2008 9:16 pm:
" Regardless of the details - this move toward wellness is going to be the national trend, as this country has to change its attitude about health, or we'll bring down the economy and our own pocketbooks if we think we can continue with the healthcare system we have. Of course smokers should pay higher premiums. You can be overweight - but if you keep up some sort of regular exercise you can stave off diabetes and hypertension. This is in everyone's best interest. The devil will be in the details and there will always be an argument whether it is "fair". But it is sound policy. Provide incentives to stay healthier. "
roer wrote on January 12, 2008 10:03 pm:
" Oh you know what, people should just be sick and not be part of any wellness program, then the people that are sick would be terminated and then jobs would be open for those that really need them. So Mr. Governor let the people be sick and let them not have a job that will create more opportunities for those that want a job. "
Doc wrote on January 12, 2008 10:57 pm:
" Okay Class, relax. This will not be the final copy of the bill, however, it could get people talking. Life insurance companies have done this for years or haven't you yet heard of a rated policy. People that aren't healthy pay more because they are a higher risk. The entire country is getting tired of the 'sickness' care that has been going on and is heading toward wellness. Exercise, eat healthy and take a series of good supplements, is what is going to help everyone. "
Troy wrote on January 12, 2008 11:08 pm:
" I am a State employee, I have a membership at a local health club where I workout and play racquetball 6 days a week. Why would I have to be a part of the wellness plan when I am already VERY fit and take VERY good care of myself! The thought that I would be required to sign up and participate in a wellness program is absurd. What is even more absurd is that I will be punished if I don't. GET REAL, think this through Gov. before you jump to conclusions. Do a few laps yourself...I think you need it also!!! "
Governor Comrade wrote on January 12, 2008 11:52 pm:
" This governor is a Republican? He seems more and more communistic all the time. Big on centralization, big on micromanaging every aspect of state government, and now big on making all his subjects do jumping jacks or else. How ironic that two way less than fit and trim types like Heineman and Gay want to tell everyone else to do as they say and not as they do. Heineman reminds me of the old Soviet Union and the dictatorial party chairmen that used to head the Politburo. He seems to go out of his way to screw with state employees, as if he came out of the private sector instead of actually feeding at the public trough himself his entire career. "
didn't think much of a union before wrote on January 13, 2008 2:12 am:
" I am LOL at this one. Why don't they include the people on medicare. The taxpayers pay for their medical bills, and that is through the state. Why didn't the LJS mention about the cost of this. As I see it, it wont be saving money because they have to pay for the program. Does it include their families. It is easier for person with a family when the family can be included at no addional charges. For those of us who don't work for the state it will be us next. What are you going to do then? I will stand behind the Union and this is a big change for me. "
PJK wrote on January 13, 2008 6:27 am:
" Am a state employee but my scheduled lunch hour is only 30 minutes so I could NOT partake of the "walking drama" exercise. Lincoln & Omaha zip code employees already have higher health insurance and the carrier is dictated. Each person has their own level of wellness, due to physical limitation etc. They state cannot say we all must walk 2.5 miles a day and eat carrots. "
Rights? wrote on January 13, 2008 7:25 am:
" These Wellness Programs cost a Bunch. What do they do? Check a Cholestrol, Blood Sugars, Body Mass, advise you to quit smoking? Then those Medical Records, who gets them? So will they make you pay more for insurance if your Cholestrol is high? Another Nanny Program to infringe on your Personal Freedoms!, all in the name of Insurance Costs. "
Corn wrote on January 13, 2008 8:13 am:
" Stop growing corn and everything made with it for human consumption. That would change the Govenors good idea. Lets go after ADM first. Lets change what is availble along with a heathly lifestyle. "
Just like the Private Sector wrote on January 13, 2008 8:30 am:
" I am all for a Wellness Program:
1. Build gyms for State Employees in NSOB and Capital.
2. Hire Trainers and Dieticians.
3. Provide reduced rates for State Employees using facilities (not the YMCA rates).

That would save money for a lot of State Employees...

I believe that is how the Private Sector does it!!!!! "
Vote Democrat!! wrote on January 13, 2008 9:02 am:
" Are you finally sick of this Nebraska? Or are you going to go like lemmings to the next election and vote republican regardless of thier actions these past 8 years? Is the state running better? More efficiently? Hmm let's see, HHS is STILL a costly mess, our taxes are NOT going down, the big "decision" is about moving an antique fair or NOt. Do you like people in you business? Smoking, wellness, where does it end go to church on sunday or get out of our state? PS not your choice of church..... "
I love this idea wrote on January 13, 2008 10:31 am:
" I must say I am glad this idea come to light. And don't worry you nah sayers it will pass maybe not this year, but somewhere down the road it will. In Nebraska we will continue to bring up issue until they finally pass.

I will say I think in its current form its wrong. I think we should FORCE all Nebraskans to adapt this policy. In fact we should we should have the government make its rules at to what foods, are decided to be unhealthy. Then we can assign grocery store cards to all citizens that they MUST present to the grocery clerk before their items are scanned. That way anything that is not on the list will cause the computer to beep. Then the clerk can take that item away from the customer so as to not cause this person to be unhealthy. And thus not cause ALL Nebraskans to have to pay higher health insurance. Wouldn't that be great. "
State employee wrote on January 13, 2008 10:49 am:
" I hope that the wellness program of the future is better than the one that they offered last year. The one in which they offered last year (and I participated in) was a joke. I met with a college student (nothing against college students) at the University once a week only to talk about what I ate and how much exercise I did.
"
republican for less govt? wrote on January 13, 2008 11:26 am:
" Is this another republican idea? Does it reduce government? Does it reduce costs (or simply cost-shift)? Does it lead to less intrusion in individual lives? Does it sustain individual freedom? No, none of these is true. When did the Republicans start taking over making laws to make the society conform, take away individual rights, play shell games with money or even raise rates on certain populations, just to pay for overall group? This is inconsistent with the party's platform. "
Where does it stop? wrote on January 13, 2008 12:54 pm:
" So it's a good idea to increase the percentage fat and/or obese people pay for their health insurance unless they join in a wellness program? Well, okay. Is it a good idea to increase the percentage a person pays for their health insurance every time they have another baby? Using the same premise---fat/obese people cost more due to health issues----then that's okay, too, because children cost more as well for immunizations, well baby check-ups, childhood accidents. Yes, I know families have a higher premium to pay but why should a family with one child pay the same percentage of the premium as a family with three children? Why should a family with healthy children pay the same percentage of the premium as a family with chronically ill children? It's the same idea, applied in a way that most people will find offensive. And it can be applied in many other situations----maybe cancer survivors should pay a higher percentage than people never diagnosed with cancer; people who have been hospitalized for illness or accidents should pay a higher percentage than those who have never been hospitalized. Do you really want to give our employers and insurance carriers the option of starting down this road? If so, get on board with this. I can already see a future where no one can afford health insurance because every claim results in people having to pay a higher percentage of their premium, making it just like auto insurance and homeowners insurance. "
Bubba wrote on January 13, 2008 5:05 pm:
" Great idea, now Regional Center employees will have to do more than just get up and get their coffee. But on the other side isn't that why most of them got a job with the state so they wouldn't have to actually work and still get all the government job benefits? Will they have to exercise on their 12 holidays, 4 weeks of vacation and 4 weeks of sick time? "
Jan wrote on January 13, 2008 5:31 pm:
" Hey I say look at family history or do some gene testing and if you are high risk. NO insurance. To bad, so sad for you. Sheesh you people are sick. Part of living in a civilized society is sharing the risk. We all have some kind of bad behavior. So get over your pious selves. I don't want my taxes to go to any of you whiners. "
Geez wrote on January 13, 2008 6:25 pm:
" This is pretty intense. I'm not in favor, but what concerns me even more is what the state will define as wellness.
I'm sure moderate drinkers and marijuana users will be shunned way before fat people, which is kind of absurd looking at the statistics in correlation with disease incidence and longevity. They already botched up wellness in public schools, encouraging diet soda consumption and having the greasiest, saltiest food in the universe.
What is a vegetarian supposed to do when told they must eat meat to be healthy, etc. even if it is for something like religious beliefs? Or someone uses drugs for spiritual purposes? These types of things are legitimate. Being fat because you are lazy and eat terribly is not, and is not part of any current religious group's values system. "
chronichealthissues wrote on January 13, 2008 7:33 pm:
" I am a state employee who has chronic health issues. I have been told by my doctors that limited exercise can be tolerated but only a few times a week and must be closely monitored so as not to make my health issues even worse. If I could choose to be healthy and be in a wellness program I would love to. Don't you think most people who have an illness/diease that rules their lives would give anything to not be ill? Try not blaming us for our health issues. It is not like we DID anything to bring them on. Most of us were just unfortunate and drew an unlucky card in the deck. Now punish us for being an employee of the state and unable to participate in the wellness program, so our insurance goes up even further? When our medical bills and prescriptions already take a huge chunk of change each and every month? Way to go Gov. keep up the excellent work. Don't expect my vote or those of my family come election. "
Stalin wrote on January 13, 2008 9:22 pm:
" You folks who endorse this have no idea the Pandora's Box that will be opened. You would be quite shocked and amazed and what DNA testing can find out about your potential healthcare costs. I for one come from a family where living to 95 to 100 is quite common and I look forward to the genetically disadvantaged taking care of my premiums. I should not under any circumstances subsidize anyone who is genetically disadvantaged or predisposed to certain illness. This is where it's heading people unless we all speak up and say enough is enough. And those that think the obese won't be targeted heavily in this "wellness" program aren't living in the real world, oh yeah the hammer is going to come down hard on them and the statistics on how the obese drive up healthcare costs are out there. "
Hay votes wrote on January 13, 2008 10:19 pm:
" Sounds to me like there are WAY to many state employees.Its time to start contracting this work out and take a serious look at how much money the taxpayers would save. We dont need 20000 employees to run a state this size.This is why the state is taxed to death.Lets try contracting and see if we save money or not,then at least we would know,it doesnt have to be all at once.I'll take Vagas odds we'll save. "
Why not wrote on January 14, 2008 8:18 am:
" Provide incentives for insurance companies to lower their premiums. Then the medical sector should be given incentives to lower cost. Then people will be healthier.. Oh an we actually get to the root of the problem of high insurance costs. The funny part is everyone seems to think that the healthy people won't get sick. What a joke. Who is constantly going to the doctors for a common sneeze, and being healthy prevent illness. Where I work the healthy people are using more sick time than the unhealthy lifestyle people. All those doctors visits, i have to snneze so I better stay home (sick time off). Come on people.

Who will teh public blame next when everyone is healthy and the insurance companies are still making hugh profits and your premiums still don't go down. Kind of like the the drop in crime rate that was suppose to happen once we passed the concealed weapon law. How is that working out for everyone. Did we see a drop in crime? No. Same as we pass these "get healthy" laws and we will see no drop in Health Insurance Premiums. "
Whoa Bubba! wrote on January 14, 2008 8:54 am:
" Bubba, state employees do get 12 holidays, twelve vacation days (after 5 years you get your first increase) twelve sick days (again, after five, there is the first increase). As a former Regional Center employee, I can tell you, sitting around drinking coffee was not something I had a lot of time for. My job kept me busy to the point were I did not always get a lunch break. As for the highly overrated state benefit package, as an RN, I make 20% more in the private sector than the maximum wage in the comparable state position. My insurance costs me 75% less at my current job than it would through the state (this is actually not completely true as I work part time and if I worked for the state, I would pay 75% more, plus and additional 40% of the state contribution. This is how the state "encourages" it's employees to go back to school). Ole' Bubba has the state employees living high on the hog. Actually, the only ones I know of that get their exercise by getting up to fill their coffee cups are the overpaid, under-worked managers. "
Specifics wrote on January 14, 2008 1:08 pm:
" Hey I'm all for wellness but this bill doesn't specify how much more of the traditional 79/21 split that employees would pay if they didn't participate. Is this really about wellness or is this the first step towards dismantling that ratio?

It seems pretty dangerous to me. This bill means 20,000 people who happen to be employees of the state would not have any idea how much they'd be paying for insurance the next year. 20,000 people! What happens to them and their families? "
Cat wrote on January 14, 2008 4:10 pm:
" I dont see why taxpayers have to pay for your families in the first place. You dont pay for mine. "
Another State Employee wrote on January 14, 2008 8:32 pm:
" Many State Employees already walk through the basement and tunnel of the State Office Building. Many others take the stairs. Outdoor pictures have just been mounted on the walls of the stairs and basement so that people walking these passages can have something pretty to look at - or to feel that they are looking out windows as they pass by. Rumor has it that the cost of these pictures was $4500 (and that doesn't include the time spent by State employees to put them up). But wait, this will boost morale! As you walk through the tunnel that leaks in the spring, summer and fall and mold starts growing on these pictures you will feel so much healthier. Isn't there someone in State Government that can oversee expenditures like this? Seems kind of spuspicious that these pictures went up just at the time of the Governor's "Wellness kickoff." "
This plan has many flaws wrote on January 16, 2008 11:54 am:
" First of all, promoting wellness is a good idea, but I do not believe this has been well thought out and has many flaws. Two examples: if exercise is a requirement, what happens if the employee is injured during the exercise? Will it be the State's liability to pay for the recovery of that injury? What about any lost time due to surgery, etc..? Another example, many of the choices provided to state employees for health insurance coverage did not promote taking a pro-active approach to health management. Some options did not cover annual well woman exams. How many women do you know have battled or are currently battling breast cancer? I believe wellness should be about not just exercise and healthy habits, but also about regular physical examinations. The earlier abnormalities can be found, the better the prognosis can be. My opinion is that this is more thought needs to go into this before they go forward with it. "
Hey Cat wrote on January 16, 2008 4:07 pm:
" Like it or not, the state has employees and like any employer, the way they treat their employees is a significant factor in how they attract and maintain good employees. If your employer suddenly takes x amount of dollars out of your paycheck, is that okay or do you want to know why. Will you be concerned about your family is your insurance suddenly becomes more expensive than you can afford to pay? As a taxpayer, you are responsible to see how the state managers are using your money. But these people work like anyone else does. You are not "giving" them anything! "

Ads by Yahoo!

Legislature Coverage