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 10:38:43 AM

HotWingConspiracy: 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.


But they are true for obesity.
 
2012-10-02 10:39:13 AM

Joe Blowme: The new "Godwin" battle cry


How is it not racist to say that companies shouldn't hire someone because they're black?

Not that I expect an intelligent response from you. You've never given one to anyone else in any other thread you've ever been in and I doubt you'll start now.
 
2012-10-02 10:39:16 AM

GCD: 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 obese are quickly becoming the minority majority and yet, the majority minority 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 being fat 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 cheeseburgers.


FTFY
 
2012-10-02 10:39:33 AM

PallMall: 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.


They aren't. You may find a disabled fatty, but it's the disability that gives them cover, not their girth.

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'd be very interested in seeing your math, I'm sure.
 
2012-10-02 10:39:39 AM
As a smoker, I would point out that we are subsidizing your own healthcare and social security, since we pay massive taxes towards healthcare that you don't, and won't live long enough to be a leech on the system. Ultimately, it is healthy farks that go to the doctor every 3 months and for every little nothing that will drag the nation into bankruptcy.

But by all means, keep blaming the evil smelly smokers.
 
2012-10-02 10:39:42 AM

ph0rk: HotWingConspiracy: 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.

But they are true for obesity.


johngushue.typepad.com
 
2012-10-02 10:40:28 AM

ph0rk: HotWingConspiracy: 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.

But they are true for obesity.


Unless it's due to disability.
 
2012-10-02 10:41:07 AM

ph0rk: 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.


Well, they should be planning it now... if they're going to start making cuts like that - we're all equal - so don't discriminate. That includes cripples, blacks, illegals, etc.
 
2012-10-02 10:41:41 AM

thewulf: This is awesome. Glad to see more places doing this.

My last job did this and it was fantastic. Current employer is working to eliminate it from the entire property, which means smokes need to walk to the street. Might not be a motivation to quit for most of you, until you realize that I work in a Canadian suburb. -30 with high humidity winds = sucky.


My employer did this a few years ago. Our entire campus, including inside vehicles, is now non-smoking. There was an initial plan to build a smoking lounge, but someone anonymously sent the entire company the bottom line of how much that would cost, and how many computer and monitor upgrades could be done for that cost. So no smoking lounge. In 2" of snow you see these idiots fast walking to get beyond the wall, to literally get 2min of smoking out of a 15min break.

Also, I don't care about anyone's idiotic logic about fat people and base jumpers. We never had fat people outside the entrances forcing people to eat cheeseburgers. And base jumping has never been a huge problem on campus. When idiots go with the "they'll come for fatties next", the only thing most of us wish for is some sort of tax for people who failed basic logic.
 
2012-10-02 10:43:21 AM

ph0rk: But they are true for obesity.


And fat people should pay more.

That is how insurance works. When you CHOOSE to do things that create significant additional risk above and beyond what is reasonable for any average member of the pool you should have to pay more

Smokers whining about the fact that they have to pay more into a pool they CHOOSE to create more risk in is one of the most absurd things ever.
 
2012-10-02 10:44:01 AM

HotWingConspiracy: They aren't. You may find a disabled fatty, but it's the disability that gives them cover, not their girth.


So you can refuse to hire someone because they're fat? Obviously you have no experience in hiring employees.

They'd be very interested in seeing your math, I'm sure.

I was told there would be no math.
 
2012-10-02 10:44:21 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.


They do not need to be a protected class. Smoking is a legal activity and employers may prohibit legal activities on their premises and during work hours, but they cannot prohibit an employee from participating when not working. One cannot disqualify an applicant for employment for participating in a legal activity either. DelRay is walking on a very slippery legal slope.
 
2012-10-02 10:44:56 AM

GCD: 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".


Would you WILLINGLY pay to cover someone who deliberately harmed themselves by joining and armed service and getting deployed in a war zone?

/wow, this is fun!
 
2012-10-02 10:45:23 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Smokers whining about the fact that they have to pay more into a pool they CHOOSE to create more risk in is one of the most absurd things ever.


I don't see many smokers whining about paying more. Maybe it's not something cool, but they'd surely pay it.

Now try that with a fatty... they'll go all stampede-at-Golden-Corral on you.
 
2012-10-02 10:45:33 AM
As one who enjoys an alcoholic beverage every now and then or possibly a bit more often, I don't like this trend!
 
2012-10-02 10:45:40 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: 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.


It's precisely because nobody thinks their preferred habits cause higher costs to society that this policy is so stupid. But I'm sure your rock-climbing, jogging, motorcycling, red meat-eating, family medical history, etc, have no impact on health care costs or any other cost to society.

Dumbass.
 
2012-10-02 10:46:07 AM
OH BOY LET'S STOP HIRING PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING HEALTH CONDITIONS TOO, WE'LL SAVE A BUNDLE!

I am so beyond angry and fed up with this kind of bullcrap.

Keep screaming about how you don't want socialized heal care, folks - because pretty soon NONE OF YOU will be able to get insurance.
 
2012-10-02 10:46:36 AM

Egoy3k: 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.


so is shiatting, but it doesn't mean you have some fundamental "right" to be allowed to smear it on others... although from the tone of your post, it wouldn't surprise me if you indulge yourself in this regard..
 
2012-10-02 10:47:12 AM

WarszawaScream: OH BOY LET'S STOP HIRING PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING HEALTH CONDITIONS TOO, WE'LL SAVE A BUNDLE!

I am so beyond angry and fed up with this kind of bullcrap.

Keep screaming about how you don't want socialized heal HEALTH care, folks - because pretty soon NONE OF YOU will be able to get insurance.


FTFM

Typing in sudden bursts of rage does not bode well for correct speeling.
 
2012-10-02 10:47:31 AM

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


OK, I legalized pot. Now what would you like me to do?
 
2012-10-02 10:47:31 AM

Gepetto: "In order to keep health insurance premiums low, the city of Delray, Florida will no longer hire people who regularly use tobacco products"

Now that makes more sense.


I didn't want to come in here with the grammar nazi flag waving.... but, really, it had to be done.
 
2012-10-02 10:47:34 AM

JackieRabbit: 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.

They do not need to be a protected class. Smoking is a legal activity and employers may prohibit legal activities on their premises and during work hours, but they cannot prohibit an employee from participating when not working. One cannot disqualify an applicant for employment for participating in a legal activity either. DelRay is walking on a very slippery legal slope.


I'm 100% confident that they will win all challenges to this hiring requirement.
 
2012-10-02 10:48:27 AM

Yunus: As one who enjoys an alcoholic beverage every now and then or possibly a bit more often, I don't like this trend!


it's not a trend. and religious people LOVE ALCOHOL ESPECIALLY WINE
CAUSE ItS GAY

but they HATE smokers cause weed is the tool of the DEBIL
 
2012-10-02 10:49:29 AM

HotWingConspiracy: ph0rk: HotWingConspiracy: 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.

But they are true for obesity.

Unless it's due to disability.


But being obese -is- a disability. I can't imagine people will continue to have it both ways.

Alcohol will be next, I am sure. Then, those that commute more than 10 miles. Live in a city with bad traffic? Live in a city with bad air? Get too much sun?

All of these are possible and even moral so long as health insurance is a for-profit enterprise.
 
2012-10-02 10:49:41 AM
I once worked at a facility where they were having a problem with cigarette litter so they issued the following edict: "Smokers will no longer be allowed to take cigarettes into the facility". My smoker boss asked me if I would carry his smokes in for him as it was legal for me to do so. I politely declined.
 
2012-10-02 10:50:13 AM

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

OK, I legalized pot. Now what would you like me to do?


convince my mom to let me smoke it in the house
 
2012-10-02 10:50:46 AM
Who uses tobacco products to make insurance premiums lower?
 
2012-10-02 10:53:16 AM
good! smokers are disgusting, should have a scarlett " S " tattooed on their forehead
 
2012-10-02 10:53:28 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: ph0rk: But they are true for obesity.

And fat people should pay more.

That is how insurance works. When you CHOOSE to do things that create significant additional risk above and beyond what is reasonable for any average member of the pool you should have to pay more

Smokers whining about the fact that they have to pay more into a pool they CHOOSE to create more risk in is one of the most absurd things ever.


except the whole "CHOOSE" part of that is bogus. You don't CHOOSE to have a history of heart disease but if you do, you create a significant risk above and beyond. The costs of coverage don't care if the higher outlay is due to voluntary behavior or a bad genetic hand being dealt.
 
2012-10-02 10:54:40 AM
Do they have over 50 employees? Just cult healtcare altogether and force them on Obama care, then count the money saved and use it on hookers and blow
 
GCD
2012-10-02 10:54:45 AM

PallMall: GCD: 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 obese are quickly becoming the minority majority and yet, the majority minority 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 being fat 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 cheeseburgers.

FTFY


Never said I disagreed with that argument either.

wippit: Would you WILLINGLY pay to cover someone who deliberately harmed themselves by joining and armed service and getting deployed in a war zone?

/wow, this is fun!


If I had a choice of where my tax dollars went in terms of providing health care, you're damn right I would. I would much rather divert my tax dollars towards helping people who truly need it rather than people who ultimately determined their future fate by continuing to abuse a product that is known to cause health issues.
 
2012-10-02 10:55:30 AM

proteus_b: Egoy3k: 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.

so is shiatting, but it doesn't mean you have some fundamental "right" to be allowed to smear it on others... although from the tone of your post, it wouldn't surprise me if you indulge yourself in this regard..


Wow, I think I hit a nerve.
 
2012-10-02 10:56:23 AM

ph0rk: HotWingConspiracy: 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.

But they are true for obesity.


expected. 0/10
 
2012-10-02 10:56:36 AM

PallMall: So you can refuse to hire someone because they're fat? Obviously you have no experience in hiring employees.


You can refuse to hire for any reason you like, you just don't tell them why. Good luck with proving it's due to fatness, as I can almost guarantee that they city employs other fatties.
 
2012-10-02 10:57:12 AM

chaddsfarkprefect: "We AAAAAALLLLLL bundle."
[www.barstoolentertainment.com image 320x180]


PUPPYYYYYYYY!
 
2012-10-02 10:57:12 AM

Cast: As a smoker, I would point out that we are subsidizing your own healthcare and social security, since we pay massive taxes towards healthcare that you don't, and won't live long enough to be a leech on the system.


Wrong. Or lying. Whichever. You're defending smokers so I guess it's safe to assume you're just lying.

If you smoke your entire adult life you can expect to cut about 10 years on average off your life expectancy. 71% of smokers live to reach at least 70. Nearly 1/3 reach 80.

[cite]

Idiot smokers don't die soon enough in no small part due to the fact that we're so much better at keeping them alive despite themselves. And you think that makes up for the fact that they take 50% more sick days on average? Lost productivity costs money, you think an extra 14 days a year off the job every year for 35 years doesn't cost something?

Smokers. Are. Societal. Leeches. By. Choice. They should pay more. End of story.

RickyWilliams'sBong: have no impact on health care costs or any other cost to society.


You're right, on average they don't. That's why they're not figured specifically on actuarial tables.

Dumbass.

But, no, seriously, I'm sure you're such a brilliant mind that you found a whole bunch of loopholes that those dumb-dumbs running insurance companies just never even thought about. Riiiight.

PallMall: Now try that with a fatty...


I'm all for it. If you're going to gorge yourself on buckets of fried chicken and ice cream every night until your arteries become a ticking time bomb under my insurance costs you SHOULD pay more. Much, much more. 

I don't really understand how any of this is controversial. You shouldn't be allowed to put other people's money at increased risk for your own personal guilty pleasures and companies looking to control costs should feel perfectly free to tell you that they won't place burdens you create by choice on their existing employees.
 
2012-10-02 10:57:27 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle:
... 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.


Wait.. are we talking about smokers or the Democrats' voting base?
 
2012-10-02 10:57:38 AM

skullkrusher: Vegan Meat Popsicle: ph0rk: But they are true for obesity.

And fat people should pay more.

That is how insurance works. When you CHOOSE to do things that create significant additional risk above and beyond what is reasonable for any average member of the pool you should have to pay more

Smokers whining about the fact that they have to pay more into a pool they CHOOSE to create more risk in is one of the most absurd things ever.

except the whole "CHOOSE" part of that is bogus. You don't CHOOSE to have a history of heart disease but if you do, you create a significant risk above and beyond. The costs of coverage don't care if the higher outlay is due to voluntary behavior or a bad genetic hand being dealt.


This is the Free Market, man. The means, executives are FREE to identify behaviors in the consumers of their product, and compel them to modify their behavior towards less risk... or higher profits... same thing.
 
2012-10-02 10:58:19 AM

doubled99: Cool!
When can we start discriminating against fat people now that it's all about health?


Our state health insurance plan two yeasr ago implemented a policy to force smokers and the obese workers into the highest cost premium, unless they could demonstrate they were in a stop-smoking program or were under a doctor's treatment for weight loss.

The smokers I worked with were laughing at this requirement, since their doctors just rubber-stamped the proper documentation for them so they could keep the lower premium policy. The obese coverage part of the policy never got put into action, since once the Republicans got control of the legislature they killed the entire thing. Something about "let people choose what they want to do, derp derp derp".
 
2012-10-02 10:58:52 AM

PallMall: So you can refuse to hire someone because they're fat? Obviously you have no experience in hiring employees.


The job requires all employees be able to bend down, pick up 40 lbs then carry it 10 feet.
 
2012-10-02 10:58:59 AM
Hahahaha - Go be a smoker somewhere else.
 
2012-10-02 10:59:35 AM
And once again, I'm glad I live in a civilized country instead of Ferenginar.
 
2012-10-02 10:59:41 AM
way too early for this sh*t...

but I pay more for my insurance...about $480 more a year.

but it doesn't matter...remember, we are just 24/7/365 employees of the machine. the own us. do not make any decision that may effect their bottom line.


am I alone in thinking this is complete bullsh*t? I may work for you but you do not own me.

like I said...way too early.
 
2012-10-02 11:00:30 AM

clearlyatroll: Vegan Meat Popsicle:
... 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.

Wait.. are we talking about smokers or the Democrats' voting base?


No illegals
 
2012-10-02 11:00:45 AM

skullkrusher: except the whole "CHOOSE" part of that is bogus. You don't CHOOSE to have a history of heart disease but if you do, you create a significant risk above and beyond. The costs of coverage don't care if the higher outlay is due to voluntary behavior or a bad genetic hand being dealt.


The fact that I only referenced choices in no way excludes inherent traits so I don't really get what your point is. Yes, if you're born with a genetic defect that the insurance company knows about you'll pay more. But that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about presumably otherwise healthy people choosing to make themselves unhealthy and then whining that the choice has consequences. Making a choice to become unhealthy should have consequences related to health insurance. ESPECIALLY since people who have no choice in the matter already have their health problems held against them from day one.

If we're going to say it's okay to discriminate on health premiums against people born with defects, we should definitely be discriminating against defects who choose to have health problems.
 
2012-10-02 11:00:49 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?


How about if they've got STD's, or aren't using birth control? What if they tend to risky recreational activities (skydiving, mountain climbing, bear wrestling, etc)? What if workers' cholesterol is too high, or if genetic testing shows they are more prone to heart attacks, cancer, or bone degeneration?

/hard to find perfectly healthy people
 
2012-10-02 11:01:18 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Cast: As a smoker, I would point out that we are subsidizing your own healthcare and social security, since we pay massive taxes towards healthcare that you don't, and won't live long enough to be a leech on the system.

Wrong. Or lying. Whichever. You're defending smokers so I guess it's safe to assume you're just lying.

If you smoke your entire adult life you can expect to cut about 10 years on average off your life expectancy. 71% of smokers live to reach at least 70. Nearly 1/3 reach 80.

[cite]

Idiot smokers don't die soon enough in no small part due to the fact that we're so much better at keeping them alive despite themselves. And you think that makes up for the fact that they take 50% more sick days on average? Lost productivity costs money, you think an extra 14 days a year off the job every year for 35 years doesn't cost something?

Smokers. Are. Societal. Leeches. By. Choice. They should pay more. End of story.

RickyWilliams'sBong: have no impact on health care costs or any other cost to society.

You're right, on average they don't. That's why they're not figured specifically on actuarial tables.

Dumbass.

But, no, seriously, I'm sure you're such a brilliant mind that you found a whole bunch of loopholes that those dumb-dumbs running insurance companies just never even thought about. Riiiight.

PallMall: Now try that with a fatty...

I'm all for it. If you're going to gorge yourself on buckets of fried chicken and ice cream every night until your arteries become a ticking time bomb under my insurance costs you SHOULD pay more. Much, much more. 

I don't really understand how any of this is controversial. You shouldn't be allowed to put other people's money at increased risk for your own personal guilty pleasures and companies looking to control costs should feel perfectly free to tell you that they won't place burdens you create by choice on their existing employees.


So, what's your carbon footprint, smoky? Too high? PAY UP.
 
2012-10-02 11:02:54 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.


"They ain't a-goin' ta take mah Mounteen Doo!!! Ah'll shewt 'em!!"
 
2012-10-02 11:03:30 AM
Remember, boys and girls: This is evil because a city government is doing it. If a private business does it, it's the Free Market® and and suck it, libs.
 
2012-10-02 11:03:43 AM

Bendal: 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?

How about if they've got STD's, or aren't using birth control? What if they tend to risky recreational activities (skydiving, mountain climbing, bear wrestling, etc)? What if workers' cholesterol is too high, or if genetic testing shows they are more prone to heart attacks, cancer, or bone degeneration?

/hard to find perfectly healthy people


Man, what if they live in a bad part of town or drive to work on a more dangerous highway. I don't want my premium dollars going to pay for someone who chooses to drive to work on 95S during the morning rush.
 
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