If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP)   Whirlpool suspends 39 workers who lied about smoking. Who didn't see this coming?   (hosted.ap.org) divider line 337
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

15973 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Apr 2008 at 10:47 AM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



337 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-04-23 11:44:39 AM  
Uncle Karl: stellarossa: Hi Karl!

I've heard of bonds, yes.

Ah yes Universal Health Care. I lived with Universal Health Care for more than 30 years. It was great. You can get an appointment to see your doctor in less than 3 weeks. Only 18 months to wait before getting your hip replaced. Only paying 90-100% of the cost for dental work. I sure miss it.

I lived with it for many years as well, and you are a liar or come from some backwater hellhole, or the UK. Right now with good old expensive covers everything insurance it takes 4 weeks minimum to see my endocrinologist and 2 weeks to see the regular doc.

/Germany, worked great


Correct on both counts: UK, hellhole. S'why I don't live there anymore.

/non-liar
 
2008-04-23 11:45:53 AM  
nobodys_goose: I wonder how big an uprising there would be if every company in America fired every person who didn't have a "healthy lifestyle".

I'd finally be able to find a job?
 
2008-04-23 11:47:03 AM  
Pocket Ninja: Just talking off the top of my head here, but if you sign official papers for your employer claiming one thing, and it turns out upon examination that thing is completely untrue, you're pretty much asking to be fired. It would be one thing if the company had gone through with pruning shears and cut everybody who admitted to smoking. That's not what happened. They cut the people who were caught *lying*. Lying. Smoking. Not the same thing, although there will be lots of people in here wanting very much for it to be. These people were just trying to avoid the extra premiums charged by their health insurance carrier for smokers--or, in other words, happily passing on their higher costs to their unsuspecting co-workers. Fark them.

That's the Clinton Ploy. It doesn't work. Well and reasonably stated, though, and no troll of any kind.

Tucci: Smokers can be such assholes sometimes.
Self righteous health nazis can be such assholes sometimes.

Duke_Phillips: Fark is so helpful, I've learned that the most persecuted people on the planet are white male Christians who smoke. Poor guys

Women think I am overly macho and smelly
Blacks think I have a tiny johnson
Asians think I'm lazy
Mexicans think I am anal
Gays think I am latently homosexual
Atheists think I am stupid
Arabs think I'm Satan
Non smokers think I am trying to kill them

You have a chip on your shoulder? I am Paul farking Bunyan.

/Dennis Miller was funny once upon a time

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: cryinoutloud: [Drunken Cousin Explained] [Union benefits biatched about][Whining]

You should join a union.


Precisely - this is what unions are for - making sure that their workers are taken care of. Sure, it makes things cost more, and it can lead to excesses, but so can giving the CEOs free reign. There's a balance to be struck, and we passed it going the wrong way during the Reagan Administration.

Treygreen13: MDGeist: Yea another "I hate Smokers" Fark thread!

It's amusing to see the same people that post pictures of little under age girls in their underwear try to come down on others for their bad habits.

The persecution complex has reached it's peak.


Yeah, it was a biatch when those disgruntled smokers flew a plane into your house, wasn't it.

/ Hyperbole, thy name be Treygreen13
 
2008-04-23 11:47:07 AM  
Uncle Karl: Spongebob Plaid Pants: Uncle Karl: Spongebob Plaid Pants: Also, I don't smoke, but I hear it takes a year for the nicotine to work its way out of your system. ONE cigarette in the past year qualifies you as a smoker.

You hear wrong, the half-life of nicotine in a human is about 2 hours.

Yeah, I gotta quit believing what I hear. But I do believe the insurance applications ask if you have smoked in the past 6-12 months. And I wasn't talking about half-life, just the level of nicotine or whatever substance they test for to call you a smoker. Anyone know more about this?

72 hours, That is how long you go from smoking to taking a tobacco use urine test and passing. This is about 24hours more than is needed just to be sure, and is the time a heavy smoker needs to wait.

15 seconds is how long it would be before I told my employer to go fark himself if he wanted me to take a urine test.

/not a drug user, but a fan of privacy and educated enough to get another job easily


Thanks, Karl. I really didn't know. See Mom, Fark can be educational. (Hope she doesn't notice that the Foobies link is a different color.)
 
2008-04-23 11:47:23 AM  
No Such Agency: stellarossa:
Ah yes Universal Health Care. I lived with Universal Health Care for more than 30 years. It was great. You can get an appointment to see your doctor in less than 3 weeks. Only 18 months to wait before getting your hip replaced. Only paying 90-100% of the cost for dental work. I sure miss it.

We don't miss you either. PS: my dad enjoys still having a house instead of having to sell it to pay for mom to almost survive cancer.


Yeah, my uncle in Germany got brain cancer, the we cut your head apart and you get to learn to walk again kind. Two years later he is back at the same job and still has his home and cars.

In the US your job would have fired you the minute you stopped getting 50hrs a week in and then you would not be able to pay for the cobra and lose your home.
 
2008-04-23 11:50:12 AM  
stiletto_the_wise:

Welcome to The Corporation.
You will eat what we tell you to eat.
You will drink what we tell you to drink.
You will exercise when we tell you to exercise.
Your body weight will remain within a certain range.
You will not participate in hobbies we determine to be risky.


You left out:
If you want to be included in our insurance plan at a discounted premium made eligible to you for not participating in at risk behaviors.
 
2008-04-23 11:51:03 AM  
Treygreen13: ronaprhys: question_dj: I think you're missing what I'm getting at.

If the employee opts out of their employers insurance program, why should they be held to the policy if it's only being implemented to save on the employers medical costs? The employee buying their own insurance privately is saving the company money.

And I think you're missing the point of this article:

1 - Whirlpool allows employees to smoke and provides "smoking shelters" for them to do so if they choose to.
2 - These 39 employees signed official company forms saying that they didn't smoke in order to get a break on their insurance costs ($500/year).
3 - They then decided to smoke on company premises, which got them suspended.

There's nothing about a Whirlpool policy that prohibits smoking, nor does it have anything to do with employees who opted out of the company provided insurance.

This.
Seems like there is no shortage of people on Fark who want to complain about "the man".


Saying "this" to this is definitely a

i141.photobucket.com
 
2008-04-23 11:51:05 AM  
Sarcastica75: robisfunky: /approves

I love you!

/I haven't said it yet this week.


You know I love you too, Sarcastica75!
/it's a Fark love fest!
 
2008-04-23 11:51:07 AM  
bline21: WaltzingMathilda: mattknows: Sybarite: Those insurance forms can be pretty confusing. Maybe they all accidentally checked the NO box and thought they were checking the NONE OF YOUR GODDAMN BUSINESS box.

THIS

Again....underwriting. You want to increase your health risk? You insurance costs more.

Do you have a problem with speeding tickets increasing your car inurance? If so, you're an idiot.

Hope they're firing all the fatasses too...


Currently not a part of the underwriting process ... however, the premium does go up when they have a history of medical conditions. First offense at being fat? They pay out, but then their premium goes up. Pretty simple game.

No one's getting fired for smoking. You fail at reading comprehension.
 
2008-04-23 11:51:18 AM  
SpacePunk: What other risky behaviors does the insurance company charge more for? Drinking? Homosexuality? Whoring? Eating high fat foods? Drug use? Reckless driving?

And which of those is *not* a risky habit to have, and the rest of us should pay for seperately since you won't own up to having it?
 
2008-04-23 11:52:09 AM  
I can't believe no one has said this yet.

Question: Who are the most prolific in comission of insurance fraud?

Answer: Insurance companies.

You're a damn fool if you believe otherwise.
 
2008-04-23 11:52:46 AM  
WaltzingMathilda: however, the premium does go up when they have a history of medical conditions.

Which is a nice way of saying that many Americans are totally uninsurable without an employer group policy and we are somehow ok with that.
 
2008-04-23 11:53:11 AM  
Theaetetus: drunken_snowbunny: But no, we had the same policy installed for this year's coverage and I wrote to my bosses that if smokers are being charged more for their health risk, isn't it only fair that employees with a BMI of 30 or higher should also pay a surcharge? Never got a response.

Unless you had also included all sorts of exceptions for bodybuilders, tall people, and people with genetic thyroid disorders, that's probably why you never got a response.


The point I was trying to get across is that it's a slippery slope. First they go after people that smoke, because of the health risks involved. Why wouldn't people with severe weight problems be next on the list? They're high risks for diabetes, heart disease and certain types of cancer.
 
2008-04-23 11:53:25 AM  
WaltzingMathilda: Again....underwriting. You want to increase your health risk? You insurance costs more.

You understand that insurance is the same as betting on a card game, right? It works pretty much the same way. Underwrining is just another way of counting cards. The larger, more diverse, and less differentiated the pool of policy holders (the more cards in the shoe), the more costs will tend to the average (the more likely the nextcard will be truly random). By subdividing policy holders by risk, the insurance companies are trying to up their odds. They're sying, in effect, well, we'd like you to use Pinochle decks, but since we can't do that, let's take all the Dueces and Treys out of the shoe.

So it's not "underwriting", it's shady underwriting.

How long until your genetic propensity to cancer as determined by a mandatory blood test disqualifies you from insurance? That would be smart underwriting. It would maximize profits.
 
2008-04-23 11:53:35 AM  
Uncle Karl:
Yeah, my uncle in Germany got brain cancer, the we cut your head apart and you get to learn to walk again kind.


Huh? Have you had a similar procedure?
 
2008-04-23 11:54:45 AM  
Mayor Bee: What if they promise just to smoke the ones that say "Low birth rate"? I mean, if they smoke the ones that say "Lung cancer, heart disease, etc.", they're just asking for it.

Is that a Bill Hicks reference?
I loved it when he would say: Non smokers die, everyday.
 
2008-04-23 11:55:01 AM  
Uncle Karl: WaltzingMathilda: however, the premium does go up when they have a history of medical conditions.

Which is a nice way of saying that many Americans are totally uninsurable without an employer group policy and we are somehow ok with that.


And why are you entitled to insurance again?
 
2008-04-23 11:55:05 AM  
stellarossa: Uncle Karl:
Yeah, my uncle in Germany got brain cancer, the we cut your head apart and you get to learn to walk again kind.

Huh? Have you had a similar procedure?


I was trying to indicate that it was not treatable via normal cancer medications and that he had to learn to do many things again.

The sort of thing that in this country would certainly lead to bankruptcy.
 
2008-04-23 11:55:35 AM  
stellarossa: Uncle Karl:
Yeah, my uncle in Germany got brain cancer, the we cut your head apart and you get to learn to walk again kind.

Huh? Have you had a similar procedure?


To tie together this thread and the Watchmen movie thread:

"You know the kind of cancer that gets better? That ain't the kind I got."
 
2008-04-23 11:56:33 AM  
WaltzingMathilda: Uncle Karl: WaltzingMathilda: however, the premium does go up when they have a history of medical conditions.

Which is a nice way of saying that many Americans are totally uninsurable without an employer group policy and we are somehow ok with that.

And why are you entitled to insurance again?


Human decency?
I happen to believe that medical care at some basic level is a basic right in a civilized society.
 
2008-04-23 11:56:51 AM  
I'm a liar AND a cheat so I'm getting a kick out of these replies...
 
2008-04-23 11:58:01 AM  
Company will be sued for wrongful termination. Here is why. 2 weeks ago, person A gets new job. Person A is a non smoker and has stated so on said persons application for medical insurance. Last week, person A's wife burned the scrambled eggs. The dog just bit his/her leg. Person A's daughter ran away and his/her fine young son has turned out gay.

Person A is now a smoker. Not guilty of lying, just guilty of having a bad day.

I know this aint how it really happened but I bet at least ONE of em will give it a shot in court. I might be pretty winnable depending on the circumstances.
 
2008-04-23 11:58:27 AM  
WaltzingMathilda: bline21: WaltzingMathilda: mattknows: Sybarite: Those insurance forms can be pretty confusing. Maybe they all accidentally checked the NO box and thought they were checking the NONE OF YOUR GODDAMN BUSINESS box.

THIS

Again....underwriting. You want to increase your health risk? You insurance costs more.

Do you have a problem with speeding tickets increasing your car inurance? If so, you're an idiot.

Hope they're firing all the fatasses too...

Currently not a part of the underwriting process ... however, the premium does go up when they have a history of medical conditions. First offense at being fat? They pay out, but then their premium goes up. Pretty simple game.

No one's getting fired for smoking. You fail at reading comprehension.


Yes, I understand that in "this" article that is not happening, but the thread to a general turn and this is happening all over the country/world. Smokers pay more or are even denied insurance unless they quit while the fatties keep their breakroom doughnuts and McDonald's lunches.
 
2008-04-23 11:59:10 AM  
Meant to say "took", not "to"
 
2008-04-23 11:59:39 AM  
bline21: WaltzingMathilda: bline21: WaltzingMathilda: mattknows: Sybarite: Those insurance forms can be pretty confusing. Maybe they all accidentally checked the NO box and thought they were checking the NONE OF YOUR GODDAMN BUSINESS box.

THIS

Again....underwriting. You want to increase your health risk? You insurance costs more.

Do you have a problem with speeding tickets increasing your car inurance? If so, you're an idiot.

Hope they're firing all the fatasses too...

Currently not a part of the underwriting process ... however, the premium does go up when they have a history of medical conditions. First offense at being fat? They pay out, but then their premium goes up. Pretty simple game.

No one's getting fired for smoking. You fail at reading comprehension.

Yes, I understand that in "this" article that is not happening, but the thread to a general turn and this is happening all over the country/world. Smokers pay more or are even denied insurance unless they quit while the fatties keep their breakroom doughnuts and McDonald's lunches.


Fatties day will come.
 
2008-04-23 12:00:25 PM  
Uncle Karl: WaltzingMathilda: Uncle Karl: WaltzingMathilda: however, the premium does go up when they have a history of medical conditions.

Which is a nice way of saying that many Americans are totally uninsurable without an employer group policy and we are somehow ok with that.

And why are you entitled to insurance again?

Human decency?
I happen to believe that medical care at some basic level is a basic right in a civilized society.


And it exists here. Almost all hospitals have to treat anyone that walks through their doors, regardless of ability to pay. In fact, that very condition helps to drive up the costs for those of us who have insurance. Medicare Part D, B, (and the others), 340B, and PHS contracts all do that with drugs for the indigent population.

So what's your point again?
 
2008-04-23 12:01:04 PM  
TypoFlyspray: WaltzingMathilda: Again....underwriting. You want to increase your health risk? You insurance costs more.

You understand that insurance is the same as betting on a card game, right? It works pretty much the same way. Underwrining is just another way of counting cards. The larger, more diverse, and less differentiated the pool of policy holders (the more cards in the shoe), the more costs will tend to the average (the more likely the nextcard will be truly random). By subdividing policy holders by risk, the insurance companies are trying to up their odds. They're sying, in effect, well, we'd like you to use Pinochle decks, but since we can't do that, let's take all the Dueces and Treys out of the shoe.

So it's not "underwriting", it's shady underwriting.

How long until your genetic propensity to cancer as determined by a mandatory blood test disqualifies you from insurance? That would be smart underwriting. It would maximize profits.


Your argument would make sense if, and only if, the subdivided groups weren't intentionally creating a higher risk for themselves. It's not much of a card game when the overwhelming evidence says "this activity WAY more than likely causes this result."

Where do you draw the line, you might ask? Probably at your extreme ... genetic propensity IS the card game you're discussing and is why insurance is around. That's doomsday big brother paranoia bullshiat that you know is never going to be allowed by the insurance regulators ... once underwriting actually becomes shady, it probably will be regulated in such a way that it's not. Just because you can come up with something crazy that they might want to do, doesn't mean they will, nor does it negate that smoking, intentionally, because you're too farking weak to stop doing something that will kill you that other people shouldn't have to pay for.
 
2008-04-23 12:01:09 PM  
WaltzingMathilda: mattknows: Sybarite: Those insurance forms can be pretty confusing. Maybe they all accidentally checked the NO box and thought they were checking the NONE OF YOUR GODDAMN BUSINESS box.

THIS

Again....underwriting. You want to increase your health risk? You insurance costs more.



What they did amounts to fraud and I won't defend them. What I want to know is when will these questions apply to alcoholics, fatties, druggies, people at risk for STDs, sky divers, race car drivers, and people who play with swords.

/smoker
//won't lie about it to save money
///won't buy cheaper cigs to save money, either
 
2008-04-23 12:04:00 PM  
Ringtailed79: generaltimmy: This is about insurance fraud ($500 deduction). Who thought these blue colalr types would be involved in a white colalr crime?

One is a typo, two means you're an idiot.


No, it means I am not a great typist. My words often get mixed up.

You took time to post this means you are a fag
 
2008-04-23 12:04:50 PM  
WaltzingMathilda: Your argument would make sense if, and only if, the subdivided groups weren't intentionally creating a higher risk for themselves. It's not much of a card game when the overwhelming evidence says "this activity WAY more than likely causes this result."

So I caused my thyroid disease?
I purposefully infected myself with a virus that cause my immume system to flip out? Please indicate when I did that. Now remember this is a hypothesis for the cause as a conclusive cause for Hashimoto's has never been proven/found.
 
2008-04-23 12:04:56 PM  
Smokers suck.
 
2008-04-23 12:06:29 PM  
So should I be allowed to terminate someone if I find out they have a high chance of having an autistic or Downs Syndrome child? You know since that will cost my company tons of money in health care. After all the protected disability class is not the employee but rather part of their family.

"Sorry Bill, I heard your kid has a touch of the Downs, hate to be the bad guy but you're fired. Yeah I know you just had a life changing event, but hey I'm in it to make sure that my health insurance costs don't go up. See you around, no wait I won't. Hey don't feel bad, next I'm off to fire Mary in Accounting, I just found out that she has a history of ovarian cancer in her family."
 
2008-04-23 12:06:51 PM  
generaltimmy: Ringtailed79: generaltimmy: This is about insurance fraud ($500 deduction). Who thought these blue colalr types would be involved in a white colalr crime?

One is a typo, two means you're an idiot.

No, it means I am not a great typist. My words often get mixed up.

You took time to post this means you are a fag


haha...agreed!
 
2008-04-23 12:06:57 PM  
ronaprhys: Uncle Karl: WaltzingMathilda: Uncle Karl: WaltzingMathilda: however, the premium does go up when they have a history of medical conditions.

Which is a nice way of saying that many Americans are totally uninsurable without an employer group policy and we are somehow ok with that.

And why are you entitled to insurance again?

Human decency?
I happen to believe that medical care at some basic level is a basic right in a civilized society.

And it exists here. Almost all hospitals have to treat anyone that walks through their doors, regardless of ability to pay. In fact, that very condition helps to drive up the costs for those of us who have insurance. Medicare Part D, B, (and the others), 340B, and PHS contracts all do that with drugs for the indigent population.

So what's your point again?


That those are only available after you lose everything.
So you take a functioning member of society, and when he gets sick he ends up homeless and unable to find another job later.
 
2008-04-23 12:07:23 PM  
stellarossa: Fatties day will come.

And it probably should. Risks normally inherent to life should be covered, and as a payor, I have no real problem covering. Lifestyle choices that lead to excessive costs should have increased premiums. This isn't outside of the realm of what insurance was created for. It's specifically insurance operating within a market. I live a healthier than normal lifestyle and would like to, in fact, pay insurance premiums that reflect that. Remove the higher risk groups that are associated with choices they're making that lead to a significant increase in healthcare costs. Smoking is one, obesity is another. Likely these two are major drivers for cost increases that can experience some measure of control.
 
2008-04-23 12:09:14 PM  
jdcgonzalez: WaltzingMathilda: mattknows: Sybarite: Those insurance forms can be pretty confusing. Maybe they all accidentally checked the NO box and thought they were checking the NONE OF YOUR GODDAMN BUSINESS box.

THIS

Again....underwriting. You want to increase your health risk? You insurance costs more.


What they did amounts to fraud and I won't defend them. What I want to know is when will these questions apply to alcoholics, fatties, druggies, people at risk for STDs, sky divers, race car drivers, and people who play with swords.

/smoker
//won't lie about it to save money
///won't buy cheaper cigs to save money, either


Only the fatties in your list really drives up costs (with the exception of AIDS). Sky divers and race car drivers DO have to answer those sorts of questions on LIFE insurance forms (if what they do hurts them, they're probably going to die, and if not, it's not likely that their long-term care will be anywhere near as expensive as smoking related illness .. pain killers and a nurse to help a cripple pee does not come close to chemo/transplants, etc.) In the long run, most of the types of people you named just aren't a drain on the health care system, only the Life insurance system ... don't get them confused.

/fatties day will come, don't worry, smokers
//fatty smokers, wow will they be paying out the ass
 
2008-04-23 12:09:37 PM  
Uncle Karl: ronaprhys: Uncle Karl: WaltzingMathilda: Uncle Karl: WaltzingMathilda: however, the premium does go up when they have a history of medical conditions.

Which is a nice way of saying that many Americans are totally uninsurable without an employer group policy and we are somehow ok with that.

And why are you entitled to insurance again?

Human decency?
I happen to believe that medical care at some basic level is a basic right in a civilized society.

And it exists here. Almost all hospitals have to treat anyone that walks through their doors, regardless of ability to pay. In fact, that very condition helps to drive up the costs for those of us who have insurance. Medicare Part D, B, (and the others), 340B, and PHS contracts all do that with drugs for the indigent population.

So what's your point again?

That those are only available after you lose everything.
So you take a functioning member of society, and when he gets sick he ends up homeless and unable to find another job later.


THIS, and unless anyone has ever been in a situation where they have tried to get the "help" of the government, you don't know shiat.

It is damn near impossible to get approved for any of that without being homeless or dirt poor!
 
2008-04-23 12:10:51 PM  
The problem is the health insurance industry, and uncontrolled medical costs (often for grotesque markups on supplies like razors, bed linens, walkers and carts).

It's time for socialized medicine and national health care. Period.
 
2008-04-23 12:11:26 PM  
WaltzingMathilda: jdcgonzalez: WaltzingMathilda: mattknows: Sybarite: Those insurance forms can be pretty confusing. Maybe they all accidentally checked the NO box and thought they were checking the NONE OF YOUR GODDAMN BUSINESS box.

THIS

Again....underwriting. You want to increase your health risk? You insurance costs more.


What they did amounts to fraud and I won't defend them. What I want to know is when will these questions apply to alcoholics, fatties, druggies, people at risk for STDs, sky divers, race car drivers, and people who play with swords.

/smoker
//won't lie about it to save money
///won't buy cheaper cigs to save money, either

Only the fatties in your list really drives up costs (with the exception of AIDS). Sky divers and race car drivers DO have to answer those sorts of questions on LIFE insurance forms (if what they do hurts them, they're probably going to die, and if not, it's not likely that their long-term care will be anywhere near as expensive as smoking related illness .. pain killers and a nurse to help a cripple pee does not come close to chemo/transplants, etc.) In the long run, most of the types of people you named just aren't a drain on the health care system, only the Life insurance system ... don't get them confused.

/fatties day will come, don't worry, smokers
//fatty smokers, wow will they be paying out the ass


What about a life supported vegetable, who used to skydive, for 30 years??
 
2008-04-23 12:12:52 PM  
"I can't think of a client of ours who has not shifted their focus to controlling the cost of their health care plan," said Indianapolis benefits lawyer Mike Paton.

ORLY?

i16.photobucket.com
 
2008-04-23 12:13:51 PM  
Uncle Karl: WaltzingMathilda: Your argument would make sense if, and only if, the subdivided groups weren't intentionally creating a higher risk for themselves. It's not much of a card game when the overwhelming evidence says "this activity WAY more than likely causes this result."

So I caused my thyroid disease?
I purposefully infected myself with a virus that cause my immume system to flip out? Please indicate when I did that. Now remember this is a hypothesis for the cause as a conclusive cause for Hashimoto's has never been proven/found.


How the fark should I know if you caused it? I'm just saying "smoking definitely increases health care costs, and smoking is an intentional act by people, so quit biatching, you're not in a defendable subgroup." I don't think you read my post correctly. I said genetic propensity is the real card game and subgroups should not be created based on a gene map. So STFU and don't split hairs just to create an argument that basic reading comprehension will tell you is not there.
 
2008-04-23 12:15:27 PM  
bline21: WaltzingMathilda: jdcgonzalez: WaltzingMathilda: mattknows: Sybarite: Those insurance forms can be pretty confusing. Maybe they all accidentally checked the NO box and thought they were checking the NONE OF YOUR GODDAMN BUSINESS box.

THIS

Again....underwriting. You want to increase your health risk? You insurance costs more.


What they did amounts to fraud and I won't defend them. What I want to know is when will these questions apply to alcoholics, fatties, druggies, people at risk for STDs, sky divers, race car drivers, and people who play with swords.

/smoker
//won't lie about it to save money
///won't buy cheaper cigs to save money, either

Only the fatties in your list really drives up costs (with the exception of AIDS). Sky divers and race car drivers DO have to answer those sorts of questions on LIFE insurance forms (if what they do hurts them, they're probably going to die, and if not, it's not likely that their long-term care will be anywhere near as expensive as smoking related illness .. pain killers and a nurse to help a cripple pee does not come close to chemo/transplants, etc.) In the long run, most of the types of people you named just aren't a drain on the health care system, only the Life insurance system ... don't get them confused.

/fatties day will come, don't worry, smokers
//fatty smokers, wow will they be paying out the ass

What about a life supported vegetable, who used to skydive, for 30 years??


Again ... very small risk. If smoking only caused 1% of the smoking population to end up with long term care, it's probably a question that wouldn't be asked of anyone. Basic Underwriting.
 
2008-04-23 12:16:54 PM  
I just came in here to say the headline sucks and in no way funny.

/that is all
 
2008-04-23 12:16:59 PM  
So when we all have universal health coverage, will the inevitable government regulation of personal lifestyle be considered a fiscally-prudent cost-saving measure or will it be an intolerable intrusion upon our privacy?

Discuss!!
 
2008-04-23 12:18:39 PM  
WaltzingMathilda: I don't think you read my post correctly. I said genetic propensity is the real card game and subgroups should not be created based on a gene map. So STFU and don't split hairs just to create an argument that basic reading comprehension will tell you is not there.

You said people put themselves in groups based on what they did, I am basically uninsurable through no fault of my own. The system is broken. If an insurance company wants to gamble fine, but no casino ever let its players check the cards first.
 
2008-04-23 12:19:10 PM  
I Quit smoking a few years ago after smoking off and on for about 7 years and don't care to smoke again.

I still think this stuff is absurd and completely out of line.

Guess which company's appliances I won't ever be buying?
 
2008-04-23 12:19:15 PM  
Uncle Karl: That those are only available after you lose everything. So you take a functioning member of society, and when he gets sick he ends up homeless and unable to find another job later.

No - the treatment is available anyone who walks in, regardless of ability to pay. Those specific programs I mentioned provide meds and other services to low income (not lost everything, as you put it) folks.

So, the treatment is available to anyone, as I stated earlier.
 
2008-04-23 12:19:21 PM  
Pocket Ninja: "The employees in question here would have never been found out if they hadn't been brazen (which is, in this case, a synonym for stupid) enough to light up at work despite having knowingly lied on company documentation. "

Except if they came down with emphysema and their blood test showed they were a smoker. While nicotine/cotinine clears the bloodstream pretty fast, I think you can tell from hemoglobin tests whether the patient's a smoker for weeks afterwards.

I know someone that this happened to when I worked at a hospital in the 90s. Insurance company canceled their policy within 48 hours of the test results. The guy probably felt real smart about lying on his application to save a few bucks a month after those first few five-digit bills for his treatment.
 
2008-04-23 12:20:19 PM  
GoldSpider: So when we all have universal health coverage, will the inevitable government regulation of personal lifestyle be considered a fiscally-prudent cost-saving measure or will it be an intolerable intrusion upon our privacy?

Discuss!!


Judging that other nations with universal health care have higher rates of smoking, I doubt it will happen. No nation that has universal healthcare does this "inevitable government regulation of personal lifestyle ", so I wager it is not very inevitable at all.
 
2008-04-23 12:21:18 PM  
ZeroPly: Except if they came down with emphysema and their blood test showed they were a smoker. While nicotine/cotinine clears the bloodstream pretty fast, I think you can tell from hemoglobin tests whether the patient's a smoker for weeks afterwards.

How does that prove anything other than he sucked smoke? He could have liked the BBQ to much.
 
Displayed 50 of 337 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report