Is North Carolina's 'fat tax' necessary or too invasive?

For the current 25 voters 62.5% thinking this "fat tax" is positive - think again - try walking in NC State Employees shoes then you will rethink your vote! State employees take the brunt of the state budget spending cuts with reducing their salary this year to balance the budget, yet we are still expected to perform at high productivity levels with more work, less employees due to budget constraints numerous state employee positions have been cut this year , we should be positive thinking yet have our salaries reduced, our out of pocket health care cost sky rocket, this year with a huge increase in the deductible to be met and out of pocket pay to physicians, specialist and prescription drugs increased effective July 1 2009 and on top of that we are expected to be tobacco free and weight reduced but this also includes the dependents on the insurance! So that's an entire family affected - if you fail to comply your insurance will pay out at a 70/30 rate. So all of this is being done to help "balance" the budget. There is more to this story than what folks realize on how state employees are bareing the burden on balancing a state budget. So in my opinion putting an extra stress on state employees mandating they comply or they will suffer more consequences in out of pocket expense is not fair at all.

I have to agree with vickie- "There is more to this story than what folks realize..." The State Health Plan has, this year, DOUBLED the deductible (from $800 for an employee and dependents last year to $1600 this year) and eliminated some coverage and reduced most other coverage. As a smoker, I understand that my lifestyle stereotypically incurs additional expense. I also understand that excess weight stereotypically incurs additional expense. BUT, so does a homosexual lifestyle and alcoholism; yet, these two groups are not being targeted. HIPPA RIGHTS ARE BEING WAIVED: "In order to implement its comprehensive wellness initiative, the State of North Carolina has elected to exempt the State Health Plan from the HIPAA rules prohibiting discrimination against individual participants and beneficiaries based on health status related factors, including health status, medical condition (physical and mental illnesses), claims experience, receipt of health care, insurability, and disability." (Random testing will be used to verify the cessation of a legal activity.) What rights will we be expected to give up next?

genetic science has shown that weight is controlled by genes to the same degree as height. How can you tax someone on their genes?

I believe genes only go so far.  Do some people's genes really cause them to eat 20,000 calories a day and weight 5,000 pounds?  I don't think so.

The so called "fat gene" does exist but it simply means that a person is predisposed to be a little heavier than normal. For example a 5'10 male instead of weighing 180lbs might weigh 210. This does not give people permission to be over 50lbs overweight. Their is NO not fat gene that predisposes you to be grossly obese. That is a lifestyle and like other lifestyle decisions should be taxed. Alabama has a similar and I hope that it spreads across the country. By the way, how come people from Colorado are not affected bye the fat gene? Elevation, cleaner air, the high altitutude forces you to breath harder?

The so called "fat gene" does exist but it simply means that a person is predisposed to be a little heavier than normal. For example a 5'10 male instead of weighing 180lbs might weigh 210. This does not give people permission to be over 50lbs overweight. Their is NO not fat gene that predisposes you to be grossly obese. That is a lifestyle and like other lifestyle decisions should be taxed.

The so called "fat gene" does exist but it simply means that a person is predisposed to be a little heavier than normal. For example a 5'10 male instead of weighing 180lbs might weigh 210. This does not give people permission to be over 50lbs overweight. Their is NO not fat gene that predisposes you to be grossly obese. That is a lifestyle and like other lifestyle decisions should be taxed.

The so called "fat gene" does exist but it simply means that a person is predisposed to be a little heavier than normal. For example a 5'10 male instead of weighing 180lbs might weigh 210. This does not give people permission to be over 50lbs overweight. Their is NO not fat gene that predisposes you to be grossly obese. That is a lifestyle and like other lifestyle decisions should be taxed. I work in health care and it is so ANNOYING how much resources are spent taking care of people who will NOT take care of themselves. I hope all the states start doing something to get people to live healthier lives. Like most Americans I am overweight by about 35 lbs so I am not work out person but lets be reasonable- 300lb men and women? That is not in genes!

Weight is the last acceptable bastion of discrimination. Discrimination against large people is discrimination whether you want to admit it or not. Turning the U.S. Int a boneyard isn't going to solve any of the problems that we currently have--only deprive people of money they might need for necessary medication of other things. The bigotry of the terminallly anorexic is sickening. Do the permanently emaciated have the right to deny others their civil rights because they look different? If loooking half dead is a good thing, why are the vegetables only crowd gray and sallow? I certainly wouldn't want to look like any of them. this law should be challenged in court and declared unconstitutional. it's based on physical racism not intelligence.

I agree with Vickie and TTucker, this is a bit too much 'Big Brother' for me. I, too, am a North Carolina State Employee who is angry about what BCBS has mandated for smokers and those with BMI >40 as to higher premiums and co-pays, as well as the NC State Legislature has allowed BCBS to 'set' their own 'terms of agreement' in a policy that only two of the legislators actually know what is in this policy.

It has been Dana Cope, Executive Director of SEANC, who has spearheaded a movement to get BCBS to be transparent as far as what their policy says and to move the oversight to another branch of the State of NC. We are being help captive by a company that writes over 72% of all of NC citizens' policies.

This is why we need health care reform so that those of us can pick and choose who we want to have as our health insurance carrier.

Penalizing people BEFORE they even use benefits is a discriminatory and ludicrous scam for more money by the insurance industry (I know, hard to believe).  I've known chain smokers who never go to the doctor (or use health care benefits)  and I've also known skinny, non-smokers who run to the ER everytime their kid gets a runny nose (literally)!  Health care should be across the board, and benefits & procedures could be limited depending on the participants need and personal response throughout the process.  You can't focus on fat people and smokers without penalizing ALL unhealthy lifestyle choices.  How about gays, promiscuity, heavy or light drinkers (who decides where the limit is?), people who work nights, people who don't handle stress well, .... where does the list end?!  And, who decides where it ends? Very scary decision!

This one is easy if your fat you will not like this tax.

My insurance provider already does charge LESS to those who don't smoke - or - those who quit smoking. I hope they add fat and alcoholism to the list. And - reduce my insurance premium even more.

Always the stupid government trying to legislate behavior. Keep government out of it. No matter what good you may see in it, it is NEVER a good idea to give a government more power over the citizens.

I think there should be a tax on hatred. Thin people hate fat people. Young people hate old people. Healthy people hate sick people. Black people hate white people. Gays hate straight people. Democrats hate Republicans. The list is endless. If all this hatred could be bottled up and used for energy, we could solve the energy crisis overnight.

How about taxing people who continue to create babies for the public to take care of? No-we reward these people with another check for each new baby. And that baby, in turn, grows up to do the same thing. It's a continuing scam to rob those who work and give to those who only breed.

This is discrimination and nothing more. These redneck crackers can't discriminate on gays, non-whites, women, etc. so now they are going after those who are over weight or smokers!

As for you brickwall, you should change your name to brick s---house cause you obviously have your head stuck where the sun don't shine.

Wasn't the Revolutionary War fought to end TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!

We are talking about a state where tobacco is a serious economic factor; and where the diets and resulting obesity factors are one of the highest in the nation? I seriously doubt that any poitician has the political courage to lean on smoking there. As for obesity, there is a serious % of peole who are victims of genetics, accidents and dieases that factor in. They already face health issues that impact their earnings and their expenses. This heading for the high courts!

This is so discriminating it should scare everyone. Who makes the determination regarding what is obese? Keep in mind, bone structure, height, activity level, muscle mass all make that number vastly different per person. If you are excessively thin, do you get a refund or lower rate than average? Will they then move on to charging extra if you are over a certain age? Will those with Type 2 diabetes or high blood pressure be singled out for developing these ailments? Beware, once this is allowed to be put into place, other States will inevitably follow suit. This will somehow affect us all - and definitely in the pocketbook! Eventually, insurance for all EXCEPT you won't be able to afford the premiums......

"Health" care costs are bankrupting this country and we can't compete in the marketplace. We don't have a "health" care system we have a disease care system and we rank lower than many developed nations in our level of health. A huge percentage of the money spent on actual patient care is spent dealing with health issues which are self inflicted due to poor lifestyle choices. It's either about personal responsiblity (or lack thereof) or we better not complain about the cost of "health" care. There's currently no incentive to change. Do away with "health" insurance entirely and level the playing field if you want a truly level playing field. Abuse the laws of health and ultimately you lose your safety net. Insurance companies shareholders/CEO's don't want change, if the cost of "health" care actually goes down their profits go down. Most of our elected officials don't want the costs to go down because they're bought and paid for by the lobbyists for those raking in huge profits. Or, they'll get a cushy job in the industries they're being lobbied by (and supposed to be regulating for a competitive free market by the way) when they leave public office. The public doesn't care about bringing the costs down as long as someone else is footing the bill (like their employer, or the "health" insurance company, medicare/medicaid) at least in the short term (which is the attention span of most sheeple). Physicians can't/won't do it because they're a cog in a system that doesn't pay them to educate/motivate/inspire their patients and hold them accountable. The current system just pays for proceedures done to patients and the more expensive/technological/specialized the proceedure the better it pays. It all boils down to the fact that health comes from inside us or it doesn't come at all and when we make poor lifestyle choices such as crappy diets, or smoking or failing to exercise regularly then we're peeing into the wind and "health" care will continue to bankrupt us. It's no different than ignoring the maintenance on your vehicle and when when it blows up you whine and complain about the huge repair bill and expect your neighbor to step up and help you pay for it. If people refuse to exercise personal responsibility for their choices then ultimately society has no choice but to do so, or pretty soon there won't be a society. How about the current "decrimination" forced on those of us that do exercise personal reponsiblity in our own lifestyle decisions, but currently we have to subsidize the cost of treating those who choose to whistle past the graveyard.