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.

(Sun Sentinel)   The city of Delray, Florida will no longer hire people who regularly use tobacco products in order to keep health insurance premiums low   (sun-sentinel.com) divider line 331
    More: Hero, tobacco products, premiums, health insurance premiums  
•       •       •

4484 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Oct 2012 at 9:57 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



331 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-02 10:18:12 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: if smoking is soo bad plz make it ILLEGAL. if u find fault in this sentence, legalize pot


Why should finding fault with your terrible abuse of the English language make me want to legalize pot?
 
2012-10-02 10:18:56 AM

badhatharry: Egoy3k: So if someone were to irregularly use tobacco then what? I mean what if they give themselves snuff suppositories or something?

It will show up on your drug test.


so only use high powered stimulants that don't show up. like methiopropamine!!!!!
 
2012-10-02 10:20:06 AM
Good. People who smoke are offensive. They stink and they don't even realize how bad it is. We make fun of fat people with BO. It's time to start making fun of those who are too DUMB or WEAK-WILLED to quit.

I'm an ex-smoker and I have no mercy.
 
2012-10-02 10:20:59 AM
Let's not do things by half-measures. We should be going after those people who persistently aerobically respirate. They routinely inhale a corrosive, reactive gas and there is no known way to break the addiction short of death.
 
2012-10-02 10:21:16 AM
Junkies and drunks are still welcome to apply.
 
2012-10-02 10:21:23 AM

RickyWilliams'sBong: Can't tax or discriminate against the fatasses though, of course


Only because of stupid people like you and your brainless attitude toward the subject. I'm all for taxing fatasses. And alcoholics.

You want to put risk into the system? Pay. Not a tough concept. Although I'd be okay with a system that fat lardos, braindead smokers and alcoholics could sign on to that permanently exempts every medical professional in the country from treating them if they can't pay cash or produce an insurance card as an alternative and which states that if a professional chooses to treat them anyway that all costs associated with the treatment are strictly there's to assume if the lardo/smoker/alcoholic can't pay for the treatment. Just don't really know how you'd implement it.

Smokers are the dumbest, most selfish people on the planet. "Oh no! I do something that has no social or economic benefit but incurs social and economic costs and people don't like that! Why won't other people pay the price for my decisions! It's my right to inflict costs on everyone else for my own pleasure!"

Idiots.
 
2012-10-02 10:21:53 AM
what about people that snort/smoke cocaine? surely they should pay more in health insurance??? or are we just ignoring the problem because nobody in their right mind smokes/???
 
2012-10-02 10:22:48 AM

badhatharry:
That's right. Birth control pills cost $3,000 per year.


Yea, can we discriminate against whores too? Not a very healthy lifestyle choice. Bless their hearts...
 
2012-10-02 10:22:49 AM
Yeah, turns out you're just a number on a spread sheet. Your habit has made your number uncompetitive.
 
2012-10-02 10:22:49 AM

badhatharry: You fatties better speak up. They will come for you next. Then maybe the people with pre-existing conditions. Just cost too much to hire.

  


bilder.hifi-forum.de
 
2012-10-02 10:23:44 AM
Vegan Meat Popsicle Smartest
Funniest
2012-10-02 10:11:48 AM


cchris_39: Don't forget the gays. One AIDS claim hit us for over $1 million.

Obvious troll is obvious.




Stupid comment is stupid.
The "troll" is just as legitimate an argument.
 
2012-10-02 10:23:49 AM
First they came for the smokers....
When they come for Drew and his beer, who will be left to speak up for him
 
2012-10-02 10:24:11 AM

vernonFL: I'm not trolling here - I smoked for years and my health insurance through my company was not more than anyone else. When I quit smoking, my costs did not go down.


Health insurance companies sometimes now offer employers some discounting for encouraging employees not to smoke. They will often cover the cost of smoking cessation programs. Most don't care about employees being obese, but that's changing. But those discounts evaporate if the insurance company starts paying out more in claims for the company's employees. Smart employers know that regardless of what they do, their health insurance costs are going to go up every year. It's the cost of doing business, though many companies pass 100% of the increase off to their employees.

I turned 55 this year and on 9/29, I received notice from HR that effective 10/1, the cost of my voluntary group life insurance coverage would increase by 200% because of my age. I was a bit shocked by this. HR, in their typical HR understanding, told me that open season was coming up and I could reduce my premium down to the standard rate again if I were to take no more than $50K coverage. And, why yes, this moronic recommendation did come from a 26 year old ditzy blond, who still lives with her parents.
 
2012-10-02 10:24:20 AM
DeusMeh
2012-10-02 10:14:09 AM



the real issue here, and i'm shocked, shocked i tells you, that you fark independents and small gov't types aren't outraged about this. if the government were the one imposing restrictions that essentially lead to 'who can work where,' the tea party (if they were as advertised) would hold several 2 hr rallies in protest. but an insurance company, essentially dictating to a business entity, how they should be run?

thats cool bro. carry on


but its ok if someone is doing something we dont approve of
that makes us different from the neocons hmmmmm somehow (and yes im being sarcastic)
 
2012-10-02 10:24:42 AM

karmaceutical: super_grass: As long as we can do the same for people with alcohol, obesity, or substance abuse issues, i don't see a problem.

How about heart problems?


Only if it's congenital. Otherwise, it's a self inflicted injury like tobacco addiction.

And we can't have these people raising our insurance rates.
 
2012-10-02 10:24:48 AM

PallMall: super_grass: As long as we can do the same for people with alcohol, obesity, or substance abuse issues, i don't see a problem.

THIS.

Smokers -> Cigarettes
Fats -> Food

It's discrimination to single out a group of folks who are addicted to cigarettes, but not the ones who are addicted to food.


Since when is smoking a requirement to stay alive?
 
2012-10-02 10:25:22 AM
Wouldn't it just be cheaper and easier to round up all the smokers, fatties, drinkers and regular drug users (legal and illegal) and gas them? While we're at it, we can also round up rock climbers, motorcycle riders, and "extreme" sports people and gas them too. That way there will only be healthy people who are not "at risk" sitting in their cubicles slaving away. Heck, we'll all live forever and not cost the system a dime, existing solely to make a profit for the State. We can all be heroes and wear our hero tags on our healthy and safe drone asses.
 
2012-10-02 10:27:53 AM
As an ex smoker I would love to start again just to blow smoke in the face of many people in this thread.

The simple fact is the cigarettes are legal, and smoking is legal. Until such time as it is made illegal this sort of action against the users of tobacco is not going to stand up well in court. If you want things to change make it illegal, and start hoping that whatever it is you do that is in the slightest bit dangerous or unhealthy isn't the next fad taboo.
 
2012-10-02 10:28:10 AM

austin_millbarge: PallMall: super_grass: As long as we can do the same for people with alcohol, obesity, or substance abuse issues, i don't see a problem.

THIS.

Smokers -> Cigarettes
Fats -> Food

It's discrimination to single out a group of folks who are addicted to cigarettes, but not the ones who are addicted to food.

Since when is smoking a requirement to stay alive?


so what you're saying is if i only smoke, say 4 a day i'm not really "addicted" cause it's a level LOWER than the "addiction" level.
go to hell. everything is addictive. but we dont' care. if u don't like smoking make it illegal. then no one will smoke at work.
 
2012-10-02 10:28:13 AM

Cheron: As a nonsmoker I think this is a bad idea. Can they also not hire some one who eats fast food, rides a bike without a helmet or has multiple sex partners? When we use health cost as a measuring stick we can restrict all sorts of legal behavior because they statistically increase risk.


Well, the alternative is they just stop paying for health care. Except they can't really do that anymore.


Single payer, please!
 
2012-10-02 10:28:26 AM

gja: blow


This non-smoker agrees. Subby's probably more annoying than any smoker could be.
 
2012-10-02 10:29:03 AM
(Ugh, thought that post disappeared, sorry about the repeat.)
 
2012-10-02 10:29:18 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: if marijuana is so much better for u why not legalize it??


With the money that the government makes because it's illegal? never going to happen.

/government/insurance/companies don't give a shiat if your healthy, as long as you pay
 
2012-10-02 10:29:18 AM
Yeah, THAT's the thing that will lower health insurance. Not the removal of the government subsidization of the big pharma but not hiring smokers.

That's it, I'm firing all my bacon eating employees.
 
2012-10-02 10:29:18 AM

gja: Dear subby,
Go give a shotgun a blowjob.

/no, really


This non-smoker agrees. Subby's probably more annoying than any smoker could be.

\quote misquoted first time
 
2012-10-02 10:29:21 AM

badhatharry: You fatties better speak up. They will come for you next. Then maybe the people with pre-existing conditions. Just cost too much to hire.


It's hard to speak when your mouth is full. Perhaps they can spell something out in Fritos?

Anyway, though it's not used as a hiring factor, we get a substantial discount on our healthcare premiums (via cash incentives) if we meet a number of markers...nicotine free is one, being under a certain BMI is another (along with cholesterol, BP, etc.).

However, the BMI is sort of silly...I wish that they'd just test bodyfat.
 
2012-10-02 10:29:43 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: so what you're saying is if i only smoke, say 4 a day i'm not really "addicted" cause it's a level LOWER than the "addiction" level.
go to hell. everything is addictive. but we dont' care. if u don't like smoking make it illegal. then no one will smoke at work.


This has nothing to do with smoke at work. They're not going to hire you if all you do is have a smoke at home.


I wonder if it applies to cigars, too. Surely some of the higher-ups in town smoke cigars?
 
2012-10-02 10:29:57 AM

vernonFL: I'm not trolling here - I smoked for years and my health insurance through my company was not more than anyone else. When I quit smoking, my costs did not go down.


fat you sound
 
2012-10-02 10:30:56 AM

TheYeti: However, the BMI is sort of silly...I wish that they'd just test bodyfat.


Places that actually require a physical probably do, but then people would be upset because that usually also includes a urine test.
 
2012-10-02 10:31:05 AM

Egoy3k: Until such time as it is made illegal this sort of action against the users of tobacco is not going to stand up well in court.


LOL

Smokers aren't a protected class. The court will tell them to stop smoking or seek employment elsewhere.
 
2012-10-02 10:31:17 AM

Cheron: As a nonsmoker I think this is a bad idea. Can they also not hire some one who eats fast food, rides a bike without a helmet or has multiple sex partners? When we use health cost as a measuring stick we can restrict all sorts of legal behavior because they statistically increase risk.


fandomania.com
 
2012-10-02 10:31:27 AM
What I would like to see is higher taxes on fast/junk food and soda/sugary drinks. Smokers pay more taxes. There are too many of us on this planet anyway, why not let them smoke and eat and drink till their hearts are content (pun intended). One thing that keeps health costs high is keeping someone alive with machines. They bought the ticket, I say let 'em crash.
 
2012-10-02 10:31:41 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: RickyWilliams'sBong: Can't tax or discriminate against the fatasses though, of course

Only because of stupid people like you and your brainless attitude toward the subject. I'm all for taxing fatasses. And alcoholics.

You want to put risk into the system? Pay. Not a tough concept. Although I'd be okay with a system that fat lardos, braindead smokers and alcoholics could sign on to that permanently exempts every medical professional in the country from treating them if they can't pay cash or produce an insurance card as an alternative and which states that if a professional chooses to treat them anyway that all costs associated with the treatment are strictly there's to assume if the lardo/smoker/alcoholic can't pay for the treatment. Just don't really know how you'd implement it.

Smokers are the dumbest, most selfish people on the planet. "Oh no! I do something that has no social or economic benefit but incurs social and economic costs and people don't like that! Why won't other people pay the price for my decisions! It's my right to inflict costs on everyone else for my own pleasure!"

Idiots.


Through cigarette taxes and earlier deaths (this lower soc security payments), smokers actually contribute more to society than they take out.

This doesn't even factor in the indirect costs of higher prices that financed the tobacco settlement windfall to the states.

/the more you know.
 
2012-10-02 10:31:49 AM

doubled99: The "troll" is just as legitimate an argument.


Actually you racist prick, what you mean is that they shouldn't hire black people since black men account for a hugely disproportionate number of new AIDS cases.

You're a racist.
 
2012-10-02 10:32:12 AM

stupiddream: What I would like to see is higher taxes on fast/junk food and soda/sugary drinks. Smokers pay more taxes. There are too many of us on this planet anyway, why not let them smoke and eat and drink till their hearts are content (pun intended). One thing that keeps health costs high is keeping someone alive with machines. They bought the ticket, I say let 'em crash.


Because they are entirely capable of having a clutch of children before dying from a coronary, cancer, or diabetes.
 
2012-10-02 10:32:50 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: doubled99: The "troll" is just as legitimate an argument.

Actually you racist prick, what you mean is that they shouldn't hire black people since black men account for a hugely disproportionate number of new AIDS cases.

You're a racist.


The market is racist.
 
2012-10-02 10:33:26 AM

Reverend Monkeypants: Yeah, THAT's the thing that will lower health insurance. Not the removal of the government subsidization of the big pharma but not hiring smokers.

That's it, I'm firing all my bacon eating employees.


The city of Delray probably won't be able to remove "government subsidization of the big pharma", but they can amend their own hiring policies.

Really just a matter of what is achievable.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-10-02 10:33:38 AM

kidakita: Wouldn't it just be cheaper and easier to round up all the smokers, fatties, drinkers and regular drug users (legal and illegal) and gas them? While we're at it, we can also round up rock climbers, motorcycle riders, and "extreme" sports people and gas them too. That way there will only be healthy people who are not "at risk" sitting in their cubicles slaving away. Heck, we'll all live forever and not cost the system a dime, existing solely to make a profit for the State. We can all be heroes and wear our hero tags on our healthy and safe drone asses.


Yeah, these guys had the same idea.
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2012-10-02 10:33:45 AM

austin_millbarge: Since when is smoking a requirement to stay alive?


Since when is being fat a requirement to stay alive?

/Haven't seen the documentary where the food addict is skinny yet.
 
2012-10-02 10:35:18 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Through cigarette taxes and earlier deaths (this lower soc security payments), smokers actually contribute more to society than they take out.


I know that this is a fun "fact-like statement" to make based on an intentional misrepresentation of an actual fact regarding a smoker's expected life span, but it's not true. The cost to society of a smoker does not stop and end with their health care costs and social security benefits. In addition to health problems smoking causes damage to property, fires, and when the smoker dies it removes their entire skill set and experience from the employment pool.

Your comment is at best unsupportable and more likely just outright false.
 
2012-10-02 10:35:32 AM
pipe smokers live LONGER than normal people. surely they should get a CUT in health insurance for smoking.
 
2012-10-02 10:35:33 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Egoy3k: Until such time as it is made illegal this sort of action against the users of tobacco is not going to stand up well in court.

LOL

Smokers aren't a protected class. The court will tell them to stop smoking or seek employment elsewhere.


Then fat people shouldn't be a protected class either. I'm pretty sure if Delray, FL quit hiring fat people, their insurance would drop at least 50% vs the 5%-10% it will drop by cutting smokers.
 
GCD
2012-10-02 10:35:58 AM
Here's a question for all of you:

Would you WILLINGLY pay to cover someone who deliberately harmed themselves by hacking off a limb?

I'm willing to guess the answer there is going to be "No".

So, why should you be paying more to cover someone who is DELIBERATELY consuming a product that has known to cause all kinds of costly health issues (more costly than if they did chop of a limb)?

The people who smoke are quickly becoming the minority and yet, the majority of non-smokers are the ones left holding the bill for the billions of dollars spent on WHEN (not IF) whatever maladies associated with smoking occur.

Their estimated savings of $12,000 is small, but so is Delray (pop. 60,522 in 2010), so it evens out. Hell, if Delray has 200 city employees, it works out to $60/year in savings, which isn't a lot either, but hey, that's $60 in my pocket and not going towards someone who is willingly ingesting carcinogens.
 
2012-10-02 10:36:30 AM
why would someone use tobacco to keep their health insurance premiums low and how would a potential employer know they using tobacco for that reason? is there a check box on the application? That seems like a strangely specific question.
 
2012-10-02 10:36:45 AM

super_grass: karmaceutical: super_grass: As long as we can do the same for people with alcohol, obesity, or substance abuse issues, i don't see a problem.

How about heart problems?

Only if it's congenital. Otherwise, it's a self inflicted injury like tobacco addiction.

And we can't have these people raising our insurance rates.


It is just funny. Here at our small company, health insurance is a big deal. For small groups like ours, you just pay more. I'd love for these Delary Beach city workers to come have a gander at what I have to pay. In fact, our insurance agent people (not big enough to deal direct with Cigna, I guess) came by the other day to let us know that our rates were going up... and we had to change plans for a couple months till the new rates come out in January and move us all over to something else. They brought donuts, of course, cause when you are about to ram your pole up someone's unlubed ass, it always helps to bring sugary snacks. Anyway... I can't even insure my wife and kids through this group plan, it is just plain too expensive. I went "to the streets" to get a plan privately, with better coverage, for about half of what it would costs through our group. Oddly enough, it is also through Cigna... just without commissions to the agent and the pooled risk in our group. Basically I would be paying that extra money towards my co-workers health issues, of which there are some pretty big issues. And some people would have you believe that Obamacare is socialism...
 
2012-10-02 10:36:48 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: doubled99: The "troll" is just as legitimate an argument.

Actually you racist prick, what you mean is that they shouldn't hire black people since black men account for a hugely disproportionate number of new AIDS cases.

You're a racist.


The new "Godwin" battle cry
 
2012-10-02 10:37:32 AM

Rufus Lee King: Well, following this "logic", African-Americans should be charged higher premiums because they are more prone to hypertension than whites.

That won't go, now, will it?


Mainly because you can't quit being black and it wasn't a lifestyle choice to be black in the first place.

Neither of these things are true for smokers.
 
2012-10-02 10:37:34 AM

PallMall: Then fat people shouldn't be a protected class either. I'm pretty sure if Delray, FL quit hiring fat people, their insurance would drop at least 50% vs the 5%-10% it will drop by cutting smokers.


They may well plan that later.


Of course, "fat" is a moving target, as are America's waistlines.
 
2012-10-02 10:37:49 AM

Spartacus Outlaw: They are using a hypothetical $12,000 a year cost of insurance and disability. The figure must be an average, taken from a few who get sick and then they spread the cost out over everyone who smokes to come up with a figure that they then say applies to everyone. Okay, that didn't make much sense.


I'd be amazed if treatment for lung cancer only costs $12,000 a year. I got an MRI for a kidney stone two years ago, and without insurance it would have cost me a few grand. And that was just to say "Yep, it's a kidney stone." 8 weeks of Chemo can easily set someone back $30,000.
 
2012-10-02 10:38:08 AM

JackieRabbit: vernonFL: I'm not trolling here - I smoked for years and my health insurance through my company was not more than anyone else. When I quit smoking, my costs did not go down.

Health insurance companies sometimes now offer employers some discounting for encouraging employees not to smoke. They will often cover the cost of smoking cessation programs. Most don't care about employees being obese, but that's changing. But those discounts evaporate if the insurance company starts paying out more in claims for the company's employees. Smart employers know that regardless of what they do, their health insurance costs are going to go up every year. It's the cost of doing business, though many companies pass 100% of the increase off to their employees.

I turned 55 this year and on 9/29, I received notice from HR that effective 10/1, the cost of my voluntary group life insurance coverage would increase by 200% because of my age. I was a bit shocked by this. HR, in their typical HR understanding, told me that open season was coming up and I could reduce my premium down to the standard rate again if I were to take no more than $50K coverage. And, why yes, this moronic recommendation did come from a 26 year old ditzy blond, who still lives with her parents.


GO BE OLD SOMEWHERE ELSE!
 
Displayed 50 of 331 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report