here's a dilemma for you

[veronica_rich]

An Indiana court has ordered a restaurant employer to pay for an employee's weight loss surgery, because the back injury he obtained on the job can't be performed until he has weight loss surgery.

I'm of two minds about this. My immediate reaction was Thanks, dumbass - now employers have even more reason not to hire the fat, in addition to not hiring the non-contagious ill, young women, and anyone else who isn't 100 percent. Thanks for making it even harder for me out there. It's likely not the employer's fault this guy was fat, after all. I have sympathy for the company.

But then I started thinking more about it. It's also not a lot of employers' faults their employees have or develop cancer, but that doesn't mean the cancerous should die for lack of care or not be hired, say, if their condition is chronic rather than acute (usually unable to work anyway). Being fat is certainly more controllable than cancer, but if you're not fat, let me enlighten you: It's not entirely. There are people in this world who literally cannot lose more than maybe 10-20 pounds on a disciplined exercise and food program, without surgery or intensive dieting (we're talking 700 calories a day or less even with regular exercise, which is genuine starvation, causing more health problems than it solves - and there's no way a person can maintain that kind of diet for a lifetime after the goal weight is reached, which is what it would take NOT to gain it back). It's also not an employer's fault a female employee may get pregnant at some point and require time off for doctor visits and maternity leave - but it's not females' fault that they're the only ones who CAN have the babies, either. Somebody has to do it, and an entire gender shouldn't be denied the chance to better themselves financially or mentally in work, just because of biology. (I won't even go into all the problems caused for a great many women once a month, for 40 years, by their menstrual cycle, over which they also have limited control. Most simply ignore the pain and work, even though it can reach a point at times where it rivals the stomach flu for intensity.)

To me, this may be another good reason public health care - either supplemental or in addition to employer-provided insurance for some conditions - is a good idea. If you need time off for medical reasons, sure, your employer still has to find someone else to pick up the slack for a while ... but perhaps they would be more amenable to this IF they didn't also have to foot the medical costs. Weight Loss Dude is going to be out of work for a while, but I bet that pizzeria wouldn't be so fast to stick to skinny hires only in the future if it wasn't having to pay for the reduction surgery that the employee likely can't afford on his own.

Comments

[mneiai.livejournal.com]

While I understand your argument, it brings up a few questions in my mind--If that employee is THAT fat, then was that part of the cause of the injury in the first place? And, also, can they absolutely not at all afford the weight loss surgery on their own? Because if they could afford the weight loss surgery on their own (and I'm not talking about have the money just lying around, because there are plenty of people who will scrimp and save for important surgeries) and their weight was a source of health issues (like, say, strain on their bones/joints/etc. that could lead to back injuries...), then the whole thing is their own fault to begin with.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

First, let's bust a preconceived mental image. I'M "that" fat and I assure you I fit and move in places a regular-sized person does, except I do find coach airline seats pretty tight (in other words, I don't look what you might imagine 340 pounds to be). I've weighed an extremely high number for a lot of years, even when I was doing manual labor eight hours a day, including literally running back and forth the length of a dishroom and a restaurant with no time to sit down. (Which, on a side note, reinforces that there are times weight is simply impossible to lose on one's own no matter how much physical labor is being put forth.) My point isn't to bitch, but to say his size didn't necessarily contribute to his injury - though I agree it is possible it could have. If he wasn't in good health in addition to being fat (if it was all fatty fat, instead of some "muscley" fat, it definitely would affect his recovery time.

My guess is the surgery is considered necessary so the doctors can get to the area that needs the back work, or once they do the work, if he has that much weight, it could hinder his recovery. Without seeing a photo of him, I couldn't even guess. But there are plenty of injuries a slender person could sustain that would also disable them temporarily or permanently.

[mneiai.livejournal.com]

Well, obviously you weren't "that" fat, then, if you were muscled under the fat--the same amount of muscle weighs more than that amount of fat--so if this person was 340 and all of that was fat, they'd not only LOOK "that" fat, they'd be extremely unhealthy to the point where they really should have done something about it earlier.

And while slender people may be able to get physical injuries like anything else with a body, the injuries general result from something serious (for example, my BIL broke his collarbone in a bike accident last week and he's average sized). Also, they automatically have better recovery times, barring other health related issues. What I'm saying is if this person was an unhealthy person and an unhealthy weight before being injured, and if that contributed to the injury, then the employer should probably not even have to pay for the surgery for the actual injury, let alone the weight loss surgery, since it would be at least partially the fault of the person who was injured in the first place, especially if they could have afforded to get the weight loss surgery before.

[gobsmacked.livejournal.com]

the injuries general result from something serious
Pardon? Where are the statistics for this?

Also, they automatically have better recovery times, barring other health related issues
Where is this proven scientifically? And I don't mean an article on Yahoo Lifestyle or in Elle or Shape magazine or even Time. I mean real hard evidence from the Journal of American Medicine or a similarly reputable professional journal that did actually research.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

The story also says he put on 40 pounds after his injury. What if he was a relatively "fit" 340 pounds while working, but after being restricted in movement and gaining 40 pounds as a result, was no longer in good health to do the necessary exercise to recover after back surgery?

I think to a regular-sized person, they don't see much difference between 340 and 380 - but believe me, there was a world of difference between the 360+ I used to be and the 330 I was after I found the right dose of thyroid medication - I felt a lot better. (I'm up a little more now because my body adjusted to that dose - and I gained weight until my doctor ordered blood tests and realized my old dose hadn't been working for a while, and moved me up.) I can actually see how a 340-pound person could be in relatively decent physical shape and, after not moving much for a while, gain 40 pounds in a short time.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

It's a sticky wicket. What about somebody who's smoked for 40 years and gets injured as a result of not being able to do something well as a result? (Yeah, I admit I can't think of anything off the top of my head; I'm just musing aloud. There's more than one kind of self-harming behavior out there that isn't illegal.)

And, I think I may be mixing up workers' comp and health insurance here. Which leads me to wonder, does this pizzeria not offer health insurance to its employees? It wouldn't surprise me. It must not, or I'd think THAT would be the designee to cover any gastric bypass or whatever surgery, not the company itself. (Then again, every foodservice place I worked, I never had insurance either.)

[metalkatt.livejournal.com]

Also, gastric bypass may not work. A certain person I know whom I shall not name has had a roux-en-y, and is unhealthily heavier now than she was before the bypass.

[ellie-pierson.livejournal.com]

If I may butt in here. I've considered gastric bypass surgery, and would do it in a heartbeat if the insurance company would pay for it. If I were to self pay for the surgery it would be between 25,000 to 30,000 dollars. That price does include the follow up visits for a year. It is very possible that the employee isn't able to save up that much money for the surgery.

[metalkatt.livejournal.com]

If you're the type of person who can follow the guidelines and regimens afterward, great! More power to you! The person I know will not, and stuffs herself full of cheese, crackers, and ice cream, much to my continued consternation. She got her insurance company at the time to pay for it. Then again, she has several college degrees, and a job with the government, so it makes a bit of a difference.

[crevette.livejournal.com]

Actually, it's been found that overweight people survive various illnesses and injuries better than slender people.

Just sayin'.

[joyful-molly.livejournal.com]

It's a bit difficult to say anything here, as such a surgery would be paid for by the insurance of the employee. An employer never has to pay for an employees injuries or illnesses.

First of all, I'm glad the man gets the surgery he needs, and don't care much who will pay for it. But on second thought, I find the case frivolous and don't think the employer is responsible. But as I said, it's difficult for me to wrap my brain about the matter in the first place. Culture clash...

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

Welcome to America. We're roughly at the stage of a 23-year-old at this point - old enough to figure things out and know a few things, but still young enough that we're going "I know, I KNOW, just get away, goddamnit, I'LL FIGURE IT OUT."