[wallijonn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood Obesity kills far more than smoking does, (although the combination of the two is really bad), so this is definitely within the realm of the slippery slope.

<hyperbole alert>

Don't be surprised if the insurance company will drop you after they take a picture of you entering a MacDonalds or BurgerKing. Or they have your purchases scanned at the supermarket - margarine, soda, beef, lobster, chocolate, sugar, flour, candy and pork rinds? You're no longer covered. The State may as well take your children away because you are trying to kill them. Btw, make sure you don't eat bananas during the rainey and summer seasons - it attracts mosquitoes which may carry diseases.

 

[Mr.PD]

I spent a long time typing up a great reply then I was told I hadn't logged in, despite the fact that I did log in prior to posting.

The railroad I work for is starting a no smoking on company property this July. I suspect that since it will be unenfoceable they will find a need to require all employees to be non smokers. I could be a mile away from the nearest person and smoke if I wanted to. Nobody would see me, unless a manager is hiding in the forest with binoculars.

I think that these companies are doing this in an effort to cut health insurance costs. Too bad the insurance companies won't cut prices. They may say they will. Like when everybody in Oregon got duped into thinking that our auto insurance would go down if we voted in a seat belt law. Of course we saw no reduction. But by golly we got a seat belt law, that may save the insurance companies money in claims.

 

[Jeff Guidry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.PD Like when everybody in Oregon got duped into thinking that our auto insurance would go down if we voted in a seat belt law. Of course we saw no reduction. But by golly we got a seat belt law, that may save the insurance companies money in claims.

The benefit you might get from this law is not having your premiums rise as fast as they would have if there were no seatbelt law.

 

[jpr703]

Sooner or later they're going to get the crap sued out them for this practice and they'll deserve it when it happens.

I don't smoke and I don't like to be around it but the thought of a corporation regulating someone's private life scares the begeeesus out of me.

 

[chadbang]

>TO THE KIDS WHO SURVIVED the 40's, 50's, 60's and
>70's.......
>First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked
>and/or drank while they carried us.
>They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing and
>didn't get tested for diabetes.
>Then after that trauma, our baby cribs were covered
>with bright colored lead-based paints.
>We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors
>or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no
>helmets, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking.
>As children, we would ride in cars with no seat
>belts
>or air bags. Riding in the back of a pick up on a warm
>day was always a special treat.
>W e drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle.
>We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one
>bottle and NO ONE actually died from this.
>We ate cupcakes, bread and butter and drank soda pop
>with sugar in it, but we weren't overweight because
>
>WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!
>We would leave home in the morning and play all day,
>as long as we were back when the streetlights came on.
>No one was able to reach us all day. And we were O.K.
>We would spend hours building our go-carts out of
>scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out
>we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes
>a few times, we learned to solve the problem.
>We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's, X-boxes, no
>video games at all, no 99 channels on cable, no
>video tape movies, no surround sound, no cell phones, no
>personal computers, no internet or internet chat
>rooms..........WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside
>and found them!
>We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth
>and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.
>We made up games with sticks and tennis balls and
>ate worms and although we were told it would happen, we
>did not put out very many eyes, nor did the worms live in us forever.
>We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and
>knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just walked in and talked
>to them!
>Little league had tryouts and not everyone made the
>team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with
>disappointment. Imagine that!!
>The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the
>law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law!
>This generation has produced some of the best
>risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever!
>The past 50 years have been an explosion of
>innovation and new ideas.
>We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility,
>and we learned HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!
>And YOU are one of them! CONGRATULATIONS! Please pass
>this on to others who have had the luck to grow up as
>kids. Kind of makes you want to run through the
>house with
>scissors, doesn't it?! (Did that, too.)

 

[BPRJam]

This thread reminds me of something that Benjamin Franklin said (and that you've probably heard before):

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security shall have, and deserve, neither."

As I get older I think this becomes more and more true, and applies to more and more things.

Why would I want to sacrifice liberty for the security of good health, or for lower insurance premiums.

(Although I don't smoke) Put a cigarette in one hand, and a ding-dong in the other, I'll die at 50, sick, but happy and free.

Too bad companies don't realize that hard-working, well adjusted, employee who smokes will make them more money than one who doesn't smoke, but is otherwise unhealthy mentally.

BPRJam

 

[acs236]

The most interesting thing about this is that corporations, in the interest of reducing costs, are in fact setting a social policy that could make it impractical for people to smoke. I wonder when Phillip Morris will institute this policy.

There are lots of issues at play here, including the "right" to smoke; the right to hire whom you choose; and the practical necessity of requiring employers to provide health insurance.

Directors of corporations have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders. If they can dramatically cut costs by refusing to hire smokers, then you can argue that they have the duty to institute such a policy.

Really interesting forces at work here.

 

[NacMacFeegle]

Chadbang what a great post. How the hell did we ever make it thru?

-Nac...

 

[chadbang]

Yeah. I didn't write it. My friend emailed it to me last night. Too true, huh?


As far the smoking issue goes, I quit smoking three years ago (and put on 60 pounds) and I now HATE cigarettes. Can't stand 'em. But I would absolute defend the right of those who want to smoke outside of the workplace. I can see the restaurant and public place bans, but not in privacy. Well, whatever. Meanwhile, execs can get totally skulled on martinis over lunch and this is not a problem.

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

I'd rather have a plasma TV now than to have a guaranteed respirator in the future... __________________

but as you yourself just stated "I" would rather.....

that is choice man and not enforcement of someone elses values.

Do we really want food police in resturants ?

how about if someone decides the average citizen has no clue how to handle their money so they enforce a LAW where your loot goes into an account and then you have to ask a gov employeee for permission to spend your own loot ? If that person decides your purchase is justified of course.afterall,we can not have irresponsible spending !

Not a stretch folks.Once you give up a freedom it NEVER comes back !

Those who are anti smoking may be comfortable with this stuff and the skinny people may be OK with others telling fat people what they can eat but wait until it is something YOU like that is targetd and then we shall see how willing you are for others to decide how you can live your own life.


FREEDOM FIRST !

all else is meaningless

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

Yeah. I didn't write it. My friend emailed it to me last night. Too true, huh?

right on target for those of us that actually LIVED in those times.
times where you stepped up or didn't.All up to the individual and what was inside,not some organisation with a beef

 

[TWIFOSP]

I'm torn. Part of me says that a private company should be able to employ whoever they want based on any criteria they want. The other part of me says people's private lives shouldn't matter to the company.

Basically it comes down to people should be responsible for their own health, but be free to do whatever they choose to themselves as long as it doesn't affect the health of others directly or indirectly. But the individuals who express that freedom also need to be aware that what you do to yourself is a personality trait. And that personality trait is free to be judged by others. Anything you do is open game when someone forms an opinion about you. Whether they should care or not is another debate. But I would be of the opinion that an employer is allowed to make that judgement. A private one anyway.

 

[saab]

Maybe this makes more sense to me than many others because I work in the group health insurance industry. Insurance has been mutated from what it was and is meant to be. because of this mutation, insurance companies are paying for preceures nobody ever thought they would (when as the last time your car insurance paid for an oil change?)

The reality is that there are certain people who cost more in medical costs than others. Smokers is one of these groups of people. Maybe not one individual smoker, but smokers as a whole. In this companies case, they are self insured, which means that they pay their employees health costs directly. They are then reinsured for the huge medical claims (after $10,000 or so) So, it is not a matter of lower premiums for this company, but lower medical costs.

The employees right to smoke has not been taken away, and I do not believe that it is a right to be employed. So, in my eyes, no rights have been removed.

Sorry I have gone on so long, but I just have some opinions that obviously vary greatly than some others here.

ps If this moves to the outside I would like access please.

-John

 

[TWIFOSP]

Chadbang as a child who grew up in the 80s and was a teenager in the 90s, let me say that email is so true.

And I wish I was raised more that way. Granted I wasn't coddled nearly as much as today's kids are. We didn't have neon plastic helmets and crap. But we still were coddled too much.

The first step to success is failure. And kids aren't allowed to fail these days because there is no failure. Only psuedo success.

A modern kids first impression of the real world used to be shock when they find out the way they were raised doesn't apply. Now the real world is changing to reflect how kids were raised, and we all suffer from it. HR and PR hiding the ugly truth. We're stifling ourselves at the expense of innovation and few care about it. As long as I can watch the superbowl, who cares right?

If I ever have kids, I will encourage their mistakes and not apologize for them. There will be consequences good or bad, and they will learn negatively or positively.

Sorry for the off-topic quip, but as a young person (23) I have to say that it isn't just the older folks who recongnize these problems.

 

[aeriyn]

I'm only 20, but my childhood was VERY similar to that little story. I was a child of the 90s, but we still ran outside after school and didn't come back until sundown. My parents never really worried about where I was or what I was doing. We didn't have satellite TV or Internet access until I was a teenager.

I got hurt a lot as a kid. =P When I went home crying, my mother didn't hold me and cuddle me as nice as that would've been, she said something along the lines of, "Well, you shouldn't have been doing something stupid." =P

I didn't wear a bicycle helmet. I was sent into the gas station with a dollar and a quarter to buy cigarettes for my mom (yes, this was like 1991 lol). I didn't have many friends, but the ones I did have were close and we did everything together. I had a computer and a few game consoles, but I was still outside playing more than I was inside on the computer and/or console.

My parents raised me in a similar manner to the way people were raised when they were kids. It wasn't the common thing to do, but I appreciate it a lot, because it gave me the strength to deal with my parents when they started becoming hostile toward me (because of my orientation and lifestyle). I may intensely dislike my stepfather for his abuse, but part of me is grateful that before he lost his mind, he actually did a pretty decent job of making me independent and competent.