[rickcr42]

Quote:

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.

fine.but what prevents some knucklhead from going home and putting a stick in his eye ?
Should a company rep follow folks around to make sure they act correctly ?

should they put video cameras in the home so they can catch cheaters who claim not to smoke ?

and what about those who like greasy nasty foods.should they be fired because they are at a risk to have a heart attack ?

and again.if I had my choice i dsay fire all ugly or stupid people then deport them to "stupid island" or something.I should not have to deal with eyesores or idiots.

Extreme ?

Think about it.

Quote:

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.

good for you.getting banged around a bit is a good learning experience.

do something stupid and get hurt ?

you learn to not do that !

That or you get lumped up again

i was the King of Stupid Human Tricks and my parents would say to me on a far too regular basis "did it hurt ?"

"did you learn something or will you be doing that again ?"

uh....yes...probably...uh ..I dunno ?

But i would do the same damn crap again.I figured at least until I either died or got it right and since i am still here i got some of it right or learned when to cut and run

Jumping off the roof with a sheet to see if it would work as a parachute was something I only tried once though.
I thought I broke every bone in my body when i landed badly ,as if there is a good way to land with a wanna be parachute !
But all it ended up being was the wind being knocked out of me BIG TIME !

I felt like I was actually gonna DIE but felt even worse when the ambulance showed up and I started to feel better .Out of fear of the a*s whipping i was going to get if I was not actually hurt I said nothing about my miraculous recovery.

the doc :

"does this hurt ?"

me "Yes"

"how about this ?"

me "yeah that hurts too"

"and this ?"

me "ooooh yeeeah.big time"

well it did ended up hurting "all over" when the doctor informed my dad that there was nothing wrong with me and took my beatin' for

A- being a d*ck and jumping off the roof

B-lying about being hurt.Far worse than being a d*ck in my family is being a liar

he DID ask if I enjoyed my ambulance ride before i got my a*s kicked so i guess that was something

 

[saab]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickcr42 fine.but what prevents some knucklhead from going home and putting a stick in his eye ? Should a company rep follow folks around to make sure they act correctly ? should they put video cameras in the home so they can catch cheaters who claim not to smoke ? and what about those who like greasy nasty foods.should they be fired because they are at a risk to have a heart attack ? and again.if I had my choice i dsay fire all ugly or stupid people then deport them to "stupid island" or something.I should not have to deal with eyesores or idiots. Extreme ? Think about it.

I have thought about it!

Rick, I don't want to get into a tizzy here, I just think sometimes people should look at things from other perspectives.

I personally would not be opposed to companies not hiring obese workers. Smoking and over eating are choices. What did everyone with crazy growing up stories should realize? There are consequences for choices made. Maybe if you CHOOSE to smoke, you will not be able to work for certain employers. To say that these choices do not adversely affect the employers is nonsense.

I in no way think that the right to smoke should be taken away (or the right to over eat for that matter,) but I also do not think that a private company should lose the right to hire workers based on health concerns.

I just get fed up with people throwing up their arms about things like this. I guess it just makes sense to me.

 

[Bunnyears]

It's nice to know that some parents didn't care whether their kids used a bicycle helmet in the early 90s. I sent my kids out in helmets that they hated, and I was as strict as I could be. Ofcourse, my brother worked in a hospital emergency room at the time and was constantly telling me stories of little kids that came in with serious brain injuries from riding without a helmet. Even worse were the stories I heard about injuries that could have been avoided if people used seat belts and had their kids properly restrained in the car. I also supervised my children at play and intervened anytime I saw them engaging in risky behavior. Did that prevent all injury? No. But I am certain that they would have sustained worse injuries without supervision. Why shouldn't my children profit by my wisdom and experience? You don't have to break your arm to learn that jumping off the roof of a building is dangerous. A supervising adult is more than capable of reprimanding and preventing such behavior. Why else do we supervise our children? Obviously when they are so young they are completely without mature judgement. That is why we make rules about what they are allowed to do and enforce those rules. That is what parenting is about.

Obviously no one anticipates a serious injury doing the normal everyday things, but that is when those injuries are most likely to occur. The problem with cigarette addiction is that the health care costs don't start with cancer. They end with cancer. In between there are all the missed work days because even simple colds become pneumonia, something that continues to happen decades after you stop smoking because of the fact that smoking can do permanent injury to the lungs. Add to that the chronic health problems such as emphysema and cardio-vascular disease that also occur and the employer of a smoker who is directly covering medical insurance really can't afford to employ smokers. In my husband's office, medical costs for smokers are far greater than those for non smokers. I can completely understand why an employer who is directly insuring his employees would not want to employ anyone who smokes. Smoking may be legal, but it is a completely optional behavior that costs society billions in health related costs. No one forces you to smoke, so if someone is going to indulge, then he or she should have to put up with the inconveniences. And in the end, if they don't like the inconveniences of smoking, they can do themselves and the rest of the world a favor and quit.

 

[saab]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears In my husband's office, medical costs for smokers are far greater than those for non smokers. I can completely understand why an employer who is directly insuring his employees would not want to employ anyone who smokes. Smoking may be legal, but it is a completely optional behavior that costs society billions in health related costs. No one forces you to smoke, so if someone is going to indulge, then he or she should have to put up with the inconveniences. And in the end, if they don't like the inconveniences of smoking, they can do themselves and the rest of the world a favor and quit.

Thank you Bunny, I could not have said it better myself.

I have worked with firms who have implimented similar policies, however not as drastic. I encouraged a self-funded client to set up a benefit plan that requires smokers to "opt" into a higher deductible plan. They also are offering free smoking cessation courses to their employees. The trick is finding out who lies. The employees must sign a document saying they do not smoke. If they are found to be liars, the may lose their jobs and be charged with insurance fraud.

Just so people may know where I am coming from, I am a 23 year old self employed group health insurance agent helping run a managing general agency

-John

 

[Wodgy]

To be honest, I'm not really inclined to have much sympathy for the smokers.

That said, the real problem is that it's not going to stop here. Obesity will be next, then being overweight. Dropping fat workers or denying their eligibility for insurance would obviously save insurance costs too, so it will be done.

That all sounds rather reasonable, but why would they stop there? There are dozens of other "lifestyle choices" that have an impact on insurance costs: having one or more children, choosing to get pregnant, choosing to get married, alcohol consumption, amount of exercise, consumption of junk food, eating meat, consumption of trans and saturated fats, living in an area of town with more smog or lower air quality, living in a house with lead pipes, listening to headphones (because, let's face it, so many listen loud, predisposing them to tinnitus). All of those are different levels of risk, obviously, but you can bet that some employers will start to segregate, one by one, because it is always more profitable to have as few insured employees as possible. "Fiduciary duty" to shareholders and all.

I'm all for legislation defining how far companies can go here, otherwise they'll go as far as they can. Smoking and obesity, and probably being overweight, sound fine to me. At some point though, it needs to stop.

 

[gsferrari]

Someone else said this in another thread...

George Carlin :

"American people are willing to trade away their freedom for the feeling...the illusion...of safety"


People should be able to do whatever they like in a democracy as long as it :-

* has no immediate effect on people in their environment
* has no long term effect on people in their environment
* does not create situations where illegal and unethical acts may be performed
* does not endanger the public
* does not damage government and private property that does not belong to the individual


Basically - line up all the points that will result in a completely isolated environment where you can do all that you want...


But we live in a community...and we need to use our heads before we use or fists....


I think this is iillegal (fire people because of what they do with their time off-hours).

 

[saab]

I believe that insurance itself will change before we get to that level Wodgy. The thing is, people don't feel bad attacking smokers because it is pretty much socially acceptable to do so.

I believe that the insurance industry, and what people expect from insurance, will have to go under a major overhaul in the fairly near future.

Just my $.02 (+)

-John

 

[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saab I believe that insurance itself will change before we get to that level Wodgy. The thing is, people don't feel bad attacking smokers because it is pretty much socially acceptable to do so.

And it is not socially acceptable to go after fat people?

Quote:

I believe that the insurance industry, and what people expect from insurance, will have to go under a major overhaul in the fairly near future.

I agree, but the insurance and medical industry is huge (a full 14% of GDP and growing faster than overall GDP) and such a large ship is very, very hard and slow to turn. We've been on a course towards lower, more restricted and expensive benefits, without significant structural changes, for a long time, and I don't expect this course to change any time soon.

 

[Bunnyears]

Wodgy, women already feel the sting of discrimination for chosing to have children. Our careers are glass ceilinged, we are condemned by our employers if we take time for child-related issues and condemned by society if we don't take the time, etc. If the smokers feel a little squeezed because the behavior they have chosen to indulge in causes problems for employers, then why not? Every woman who has chosen to have children (and that is a biological imperative of our species, not really an optional behavior) gets squeezed, so I can't get excited about smokers' issues.

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

Rick, I don't want to get into a tizzy here, I just think sometimes people should look at things from other perspectives.

you folks are all not getting my point.

it is not about smokers or fat people but what is deciced to be out of style and who then is made to be a target for the wrath of the people who think they know better.Land of the free my ass !

More like the land of the wanna be socialists .

I will fight to the death any person who tries to take my freedom away as would most people but the insidious thing is that this freedom of ours is not being taken in one big chunk so that you notice it but just a leeetle bit aty a time around the edges.

but before you TAKE away you must get the people on your side.at least enough to get an argument going.so what you do is spend a few years using propaganda against a particuylar group or lifestyle.

nothing blatant,just the brain creep over time so when the hammer falls no one cares because as we all know "those people" were not with the fkn program anyway.

and this goes by just fine and no one cares .

No one until it is THEM and something THEY do that is now the new target of the PC police !

these things do not remain staic and once one group is taken care of the search is on for the next target group of undesireables.
then the drumbeat again commences so nothing notable actually hapens until after time of being numbed to the reality of what is going on you just go along.

Well folks.One morning you just may wake up and realise you gave away the whole shootin' match one piece at a time and ALL your rights are under the direct control of someone else and you will have to ask permission to even wipe your own a*s.

not me folks.They will have KILL me first !

then they can do what they want with my carcass but as long as I draw breath I will be for personal choice and personal responsibility.

If i DO want to stick a metal rod in my eye who are YOU to stop me ?

as if you could.........

 

[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears Wodgy, women already feel the sting of discrimination for chosing to have children. Our careers are glass ceilinged, we are condemned by our employers if we take time for child-related issues and condemned by society if we don't take the time, etc. If the smokers feel a little squeezed because the behavior they have chosen to indulge in causes problems for employers, then why not? Every woman who has chosen to have children (and that is a biological imperative of our species, not really an optional behavior) gets squeezed, so I can't get excited about smokers' issues.

Bah! Having children is a choice. You know that's what the "fiduciary duty to shareholders" people will be spouting after they go after the fat people. The profit imperative is much stronger to a CFO than the biological imperative to have children is to a woman. A baby doesn't smell nearly as good as money. (Being a woman is not a choice, which is why there are laws against discrimination based on sex, so I don't see the relevance of your glass-ceiling comment.)

I agree with Rick, this is more about trying to squeeze a few dimes out of an unpopular group than anything else. That's why a line should be drawn somewhere. Allowing this for smokers and fat people would probably be a reasonable compromise.

 

[saab]

Rick,

I do not think that you are understanding my point. No one is taking away the God given right to smoke, or be fat, or stick a frickin stick on your eye. A company has decided to not employ people who chose to do so. If you want to work for this company, follow its guidlines. If you don't want to work for it, do whatever you want.

If you have the right to be fat or smoke or impale your eyeball why shouldn't the owner of a company have the right to decide who they hire or fire. It's all freedom.

Wodgy - I meant it is socially acceptable to tell a smoker how harmfull cigarettes are, but go up to fat person and tell them they should put that burger down because they are killing themselve and chances are you will get your ***** beat by a very large person and his or her friends. Just a side point I find interesting.


edit: I am sorry if I stirred some things up, I am just kind of playing devil's advocate here. I do think things are starting to get out of hand (but they have been heading this way for a long time.)

 

[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saab Wodgy - I meant it is socially acceptable to tell a smoker how harmfull cigarettes are, but go up to fat person and tell them they should put that burger down because they are killing themselve and chances are you will get your ***** beat by a very large person and his or her friends. Just a side point I find interesting.

I don't know where you are in the country, but it seems to me that it has become perfectly acceptable to crack jokes about fat people, and the "honey, are you sure you really want to eat that?" kind of comment is not uncommon. The general public perception, however unfair and misguided, is that obesity is a willpower issue, and that fat people are lazy. Fat people, especially women, feel ugly and self-conscious, and they will not in general beat you up for a nasty side crack. IMO, you're more likely to have your head bitten off by a smoker for criticizing them.

Case in point: remember the media reaction to John Banzhaf's lawsuits against McDonalds for making several people fat? Complete ridicule. Banzhaf's lawsuits against the tobacco companies were never ridiculed in the same way. The general public perception is that obesity should be an easier willpower issue to conquer than a cigarette addiction. (Not that I condone such an attitude, just pointing it out.)

 

[saab]

I understand what you are saying Wodgy, but around here, it wouldn not be take too well if you were to go upto a fat person and ridicule them for being fat, or tell them what they should do to change.

Not a big point though, I probably should not have mentioned it.

-John

 

[acs236]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wodgy And it is not socially acceptable to go after fat people?

One basic, though perhaps not complete, difference is that being overweight can be related to a variety of reasons or factors. Not every overweight person is simply an over-eater. However, a smoker is simply someone who smokes.