Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In Austin, that would be easy to do for one or two, but Victoria... That is a long shot, for even one hospital.
One out of 3 Texans is obese, I think Texas is in the top 10 fattest state in the union. Austin county isn't much better, I believe 1 out of 4 is sportin a double chin.
Skinny non-smokers can lead unhealthy lifestyles too, from drinking too much on the weekends/evenings, to eating fast food regularly, not drinking enough water, not exercising regularly, etc. Just because somebody appears healthy, that doesn't necessarily mean they do everything required of a healthy lifestyle. So again, where does it end? Would you agree with employers questioning YOUR eating habits, and rejecting you based on not meeting your daily allowance of fruits & vegetables? It's not just fat people who can be lazy & eat poorly, ya know.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying that being considerably overweight isn't healthy - otherwise I wouldn't have bothered losing that weight 6+ years ago, and wouldn't still be fighting the tendency with healthy eating (for the most part ) and daily exercise. But none of this should be considered in terms of employment, unless the job requires physical duties that you cannot perform as a result of your weight. Period.
If I'm reading that correctly, you confirm what I said earlier... so why is the insurance issue always brought into this debate? It's not costing them ANY extra to insure fat people, right? I guess people are only projecting future issues, which is unfair to the point where it should almost be illegal IMO.
Actually in the long run it probably does cost more for the insurace company.
Even if the employer does not pay higher premiums ...
Look at it in the big picture .....
you have increased premiums because more people are going to the dr. for their ailments.
bottom line
underweight
overweight
smokers
heavy drinkers
drug users are more to insure because its an unhealthy life style
eventually it will cost more to the employer and eventually higher premiums.
This is part of the reason and i want to stress PART of the reason our insurance costs are increasing.
Why is it "unacceptable behavior?" Last time I checked smoking cigarettes was legal for adults, and I don't give a flying crap if it bothers your widdle nose... but I live in California where you can't even smoke NEAR a public building, so I've reached my limit of accommodating other people when it comes to that subject. Get over it and grow a pair, is all I can really say when somebody is offended by the fact that I smoke. The Sheriffs I spend most of my smoke breaks with say the same thing - but usually in even more colorful words, LOL.
As long as you dont blow smoke in my face , I could care less if you or anyone else smokes.
however when your exhaling and stinking up my clothes that is a diff story..
maybe smokers should grow a pair and go smoke in private.
I know many smokers who step aside and go do their thing..
One out of 3 Texans is obese, I think Texas is in the top 10 fattest state in the union. Austin county isn't much better, I believe 1 out of 4 is sportin a double chin.
Travis County is one of the top ten fittest counties in the nation.
I know plenty of healthy-looking people who drink on the weekends, and that's going to be the next target of these nanny laws - or perhaps they'll start going after people with genetic predispositions to health issues (which can't be controlled), like cancer and heart disease? Just wait, it's coming soon enough!
What "Nanny Laws"? I thought this brouhaha was about a Private Employer, setting a hiring policy.
I don't see the problem here. It is not like it is something that cannot be changed. If you want a job there and you are overweight, lose the weight. What is the problem?
What "Nanny Laws"? I thought this brouhaha was about a Private Employer, setting a hiring policy.
Which they are well within their rights to do.
I didn't mean that literally, I should have said "nanny law-ISH" rules. But for the record, just because a business is private, that doesn't mean they can do whatever they want... there are still laws they must follow, including those against blatant discrimination. And yes, I do realize weight isn't a protected class (at least not yet).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) and daily exercise. But none of this should be considered in terms of employment, unless the job requires physical duties that you cannot perform as a result of your weight. Period.
