Everyone is worried about healthcare, whether it's the cost, the coverage, or how legislastive reform will change the way we're used to dealing with it. Just yesterday, after meeting with representatives of all factions of the healthcare equation, President Obama reiterated his commitment to moving a healthcare reform bill through Congress before its August recess. Details are sketchy, other than suggestions that the plan could center on expanding Medicare to cover the uninsured (even though the recession has both Medicare and Social Security on the ropes).

Healthcare reform is a huge, complex issue that's tough to get your arms around. But a recent New York Times article brought it down to a more human scale, and provides a hint of what could be in store if Washington takes a more active role in healthcare issues.

The article dealt with Congress's plans to “give employers sweeping authority to reward employees for healthy behavior, including better diet, more exercise, weight loss and smoking cessation.”

Federal rules currently limit what employers and insurance companies can do to “incentivize” employees to focus on prevention and wellness. Several proposals are afloat that would rescind these limitations as part of whatever federal healthcare reform program gets passed.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, right? According to the article, employers currently face some confusing tax, labor and insurance laws when it comes to offering wellness programs. It only makes sense to introduce some standardization to these well-meaning programs.

What bothers me about this move is the potential to punish rather than encourage — and the not-so-subtle subtext of lifestyle discrimination.

Everybody knows that prevention programs are far less costly to administer than having to treat an illness directly arising from poor lifestyle choices. But somewhere in the inevitable gray area in between lies the touchy issue of personal freedom — you know, that pursuit-of-happiness stuff that's written into the Declaration of Independence.

When it comes to the workplace, we're already living in a recessionary, layoff-driven “buyers' market,” with most states giving employers at-will rights to hire and fire. Employees still left standing in today's job market are dancing as fast as they can, picking up the slack for their laid-off brethren. It doesn't seem right that on top of everything else, their employers can levy financial penalties for unhealthy practices, either on or off the job.

And I'm not talking about shooting black-tar heroin or killing a quart of Finlandia before work. Clarian Health, an Indiana hospital chain, made headlines several years ago when it announced plans to deduct as much as $30 per paycheck for workers it deemed obese.

We're living in a culture where We-TV can get away with “I Want to Save Your Life” — an “ Intervention”-type program that puts overeating on the same level as drug or alcohol abuse. In this sort of environment, it isn't that far-fetched to think your employer could send a skeletal guy in Spandex charging into your office to make sure your carbs are curbed.

It seems to me that this sort of Big Nannyism would ultimately be bad for employee retention and productivity, not to mention opening the floodgates for some really nasty EPL lawsuits.

If employers want their workforce to focus more on the carrot than the steak, they should use the carrot instead of the stick. And if Congress wants to help them, legislators should be careful not to introduce measures that could make it easier to punish workers instead of helping them.

Special Reports /

Toops Scoops: The Carrot-Steak Approach?

Related Stories

Recommended For You