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.
Coffee, soda, chocolate, red meat, cigars, scotch, even cigarettes - are not death sentences when done in moderation. The diffence between cigarettes and those others is that they are rarely consumed in moderation. They are an addiction that will eventually kill you.
but some don't know how to drink in moderation,or smoke cigars in moderation (is not cigars tobbacco also?)
there for you all that comsume these products no matter how little should be taxed more because you are the cause of inflated health costs.
This issue dovetails very well to the thread I had started a few days ago concerning the Japanese measuring everyone's waist during mandated annual physicals, and asking if this is a potential issue when we debate national health insurance.
Fascinating stuff, I wonder if folks are really willing to accept all of the consequences of these types of proposals. I kind of see it like my main complaint in life, mandatory seat belt usage. You start at one point, and then...
Employees should have the option of dropping out of their employer's health plan if they wish. But employers are in a tough spot when it comes to providing health care. If too many employees have risk factors like smoking, the premiums go nuts.
How else would people suggest these employers bring down costs?
The same could be said for people that drink and people that are overweight.In most insancews even the people tested for drugs it takes a reasonable belief that they are under the inflenece so that it endangers others. We don't need to go off on witch hunts with smoking as we have alot of tohermore seriuos problems in the work place IMO. I do not smoke by the way.
I split on this issue. On one hand I think it should be illegal for an employer to fire or discipline a smoker that was hired prior to the employer's no smoking policy. If they hired an employee that smokes and that employee has worked there for years, no company should be able to come along and say "quit or be fired".
On the other hand, I think it is perfectly fine- and good bsuness sense- not to hire a smoker and to have a policy that says if you start smoking after hire, you will be terminated. And to test for nicotine as well as illegal drugs. I would not hire a smoker (I am an ex smoker myself) knowing what I know about smoking these days.
What they did at my company is basically double the cost of health insurance and then provide a credit (about half the cost) to non-smokers. You had to certify you are a non-smoker but as far as I know there is no intent to test anyone.
But it does open a can of worms, I know a smoker who is upset because there are a LOT of overweight people who are at a much higher risk for more health problems and they are not paying a higher premium. Smoking is just one risk for health problems, doesn't seem fair to single just that one out.
They are an addiction that will eventually kill you.
If you don't smoke you won't die?
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.
