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  
•       •       •

4486 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 11:03:54 AM
Are they going to test for nicotine? What about e-cigarettes, nicotine gum, etc? Seems healthier than brown juice chugging caffeine addicts.

Tobacco is just as viable a commodity as coffee. Now, the chemicals added by tobacco companies are BS and should be regulated, but our over protective government has yet to stop that practice. We are going to allow this highly addictive product to remain legal, but make as much money off of it as possible and now punish people further by using this readily available product.
 
2012-10-02 11:04:15 AM
Will they not hire women who might get pregnant, or even those with children who statistically probably have a higher rate of absenteeism than single people, or should we screen for possible preexisting conditions? Maybe they should just hire exclusively Christian Scientists if they want to cut health care costs.
 
2012-10-02 11:04:38 AM

HotWingConspiracy: 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.


LOL.

Until one of them cries "discrimination." Good luck winning that court case.

probesport: 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.


If they can't, they're disabled... so you have to get a fork-lift addon to their hover-round. Blame the ADA.
 
2012-10-02 11:04:39 AM
Why don't women have to pay more for insurance? They choose to get pregnant. On top of their workload having to be absorbed by the rest of the team, we should pay higher premiums so they can have babies?
 
2012-10-02 11:04:50 AM
The city of Delray, Florida will no longer hire people who regularly use tobacco products in order to keep health insurance premiums low

That should be the real headline.
 
2012-10-02 11:05:07 AM
Next step: Smoking is outlawed as universal healthcare takes root.

/Democrats are fascists
//The blind hypocrisy makes me giggle
 
2012-10-02 11:05:30 AM

PlatinumDragon: So, what's your carbon footprint, smoky? Too high? PAY UP.


Like the gas guzzler tax? Or the various tax breaks that are frequently made available to people who choose to buy more energy efficient products?

Perfectly fair, already implemented, should probably be expanded. Because, again, if your choices have consequences for other people, you should have to pay.

Don't like it? Don't do selfish shiat that affects other people. Freedom doesn't mean you get to inflict problems on everyone else without taking responsibility for the consequences.
 
2012-10-02 11:05:45 AM
Aren't these people suffering enough just by being in Florida? I like it here in WI where it's illegal to discriminate in hiring/employment based on "Use or nonuse of lawful products".
 
2012-10-02 11:06:26 AM

Rufus Lee King: I know how a lot of you FARK people are. You have some serious crypto-fascists in here where tobacco is concerned.

All tobacco-smokers should DIAF, to use the acronym, according to you.

Then, you'd spend pages arguing if dropping these on one of us would be "ironic" or not.

[www.whale.to image 270x379]


Take of your masks, I know you.

imageshack.us
 
2012-10-02 11:07:25 AM
All those saying they are happy to see this happen can go EABOD!!!! You're glad to see a "City" discriminate against a group of people that are doing something that is perfectly legal? The reasons they are doing it does not matter, its discrimination pure and simple and should be brought to court to have this policy thrownout.
 
2012-10-02 11:08:31 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: PlatinumDragon: So, what's your carbon footprint, smoky? Too high? PAY UP.

Like the gas guzzler tax? Or the various tax breaks that are frequently made available to people who choose to buy more energy efficient products?

Perfectly fair, already implemented, should probably be expanded. Because, again, if your choices have consequences for other people, you should have to pay.

Don't like it? Don't do selfish shiat that affects other people. Freedom doesn't mean you get to inflict problems on everyone else without taking responsibility for the consequences.


Unless youare illegal, then its ok to make others pay for you.
 
2012-10-02 11:08:50 AM

Cyrorm: All those saying they are happy to see this happen can go EABOD!!!! You're glad to see a "City" discriminate against a group of people that are doing something that is perfectly legal? The reasons they are doing it does not matter, its discrimination pure and simple and should be brought to court to have this policy thrownout.


Put more elegantly than I could have put it.
 
2012-10-02 11:09:53 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: 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.


No, it's because it's cost-prohibitive to police everyone and grade out their premiums to such an absurd degree, dipshiat. That doesn't mean the costs don't exist.
 
2012-10-02 11:10:48 AM

PallMall: Until one of them cries "discrimination." Good luck winning that court case.


To which the city will reply, "we currently have a herd of fatties working for us, we're clearly not discriminating. The position was filled by an applicant that had a better interview, but we've retained the plaintiff's resume for future opportunities."
 
2012-10-02 11:12:18 AM

Cyrorm: You're glad to see a "City" discriminate against a group of people that are doing something that is perfectly legal?


As a smoker, you are a less desirable candidate in a job market with a glut of qualified candidates. You cost more, you produce less. Sorry you choose to make yourself an undesirable candidate, but that is your choice and I agree 100% with you and your compatriots: you should be perfectly free to make that choice.
 
2012-10-02 11:14:57 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: PlatinumDragon: So, what's your carbon footprint, smoky? Too high? PAY UP.

Like the gas guzzler tax? Or the various tax breaks that are frequently made available to people who choose to buy more energy efficient products?

Perfectly fair, already implemented, should probably be expanded. Because, again, if your choices have consequences for other people, you should have to pay.

Don't like it? Don't do selfish shiat that affects other people. Freedom doesn't mean you get to inflict problems on everyone else without taking responsibility for the consequences.


Consider all of the things you do that affect the lives of others, directly or otherwise. Think hard - you probably don't even realize how selfish you really are, unless you're engaging in subsistence agriculture and living in a sod hut of your own construction away from civilization. Someone's probably helped pay for your medical visits (you do have insurance, yes? Freeloader), and there's no way in hell all of those plastic products you own cost enough to cover the cost of disposal and reconversion, not to mention extraction of a non-renewable resource. Drink booze? Eat anything sugary? How dare you place an unpriced burden upon others! Work harder to pay for your sins, plebe! (assuming anyone will hire you, since you'll cost them money somehow).

Mote, beam, eye, etc.
 
2012-10-02 11:14:59 AM

RickyWilliams'sBong: it's because it's cost-prohibitive


And why do you think that is? Why do you think it's cost-prohibitive to track the costs of, say, snowboarders, versus tracking the costs of smokers? Think reeeeeeaaalllll hard about that and let me know what you come up with.

Joe Blowme: Unless youare illegal, then its ok to make others pay for you.


Do you ever get this account confused with your "jon iz teh kewl" sockpuppet?
 
2012-10-02 11:15:34 AM
I like how half this thread is debating discrimination against "fatties" vs. smokers as if these were two distinct subsets of people. In my experience, there is a LARGE overlap there. If you don't care about your health in one area, it's likely you won't care in others' too. So actually, getting rid of the smokers may also get rid of a big portion of the most obese employees, "coincidentally". So the savings could end up being larger than just directly from smoking-related costs if there is indeed a correlation there as I suspect.

Anyway, to the substance of the argument, smoking is probably the most well-documented unhealthy, unnecessary, and voluntary behavior. That's why it gets singled out where other risk behaviors don't. Also, smokers are a minority at less than 20% of the population. So it's doable to refuse to hire them in most cases. If most city governments refused to hire anyone overweight, they wouldn't be able to fill their positions, given the percentage that are overweight or obese these days. That isn't to say that they shouldn't try to control obesity-related costs somehow: they certainly should, perhaps by rewarding people for weight loss, etc (and I'd support the same thing for people who quit smoking). But let's be honest: obesity is a deep cultural problem that needs a deep cultural solution. Smoking has already been drastically reduced, with much of the pro-smoking element eliminated from culture already.
 
2012-10-02 11:16:02 AM
badhatharry: " Then maybe the people with pre-existing conditions."

Yeah, choosing to smoke is just like having a congenital heart defect, etc.
Stick to warning off people who drink, smoke pot and/or are fat.

That covers pretty much all of America anyway.
 
2012-10-02 11:16:05 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle:

Don't like it? Don't do selfish shiat that affects other people. Freedom doesn't mean you get to inflict problems on everyone else without taking responsibility for the consequences.


You heard it here first folks. We're ending all forms of welfare and shooting illegals on sight.
 
2012-10-02 11:16:08 AM

HotWingConspiracy: PallMall: Until one of them cries "discrimination." Good luck winning that court case.

To which the city will reply, "we currently have a herd of fatties working for us, we're clearly not discriminating. The position was filled by an applicant that had a better interview, but we've retained the plaintiff's resume for future opportunities."


Not if they fire them all. Don't be a stooge.
 
2012-10-02 11:17:10 AM
All you people saying that fat people should be discrimitated against aren't looking at the big picture. No one forces you to smoke, but you still have to eat. Healthy eating is way more expensive than eating processed crap that causes obesity. I didn't eat a lot myself, but was 270 on the scale. I changed my diet and have lost 50 pounds so far. My grocery bill is also up about $70 a week. My sister was was very big herself. She didn't eat a lot, as her family was very poor. What they could afford to eat is what caused the weight gain. No amount of exercise will cause you to loose that much weight if you still eat like crap. Their second daughter is very active in sports, but still chunky.

Smokers know the risks when they start smoking. They can suck it.
 
2012-10-02 11:17:29 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Cyrorm: You're glad to see a "City" discriminate against a group of people that are doing something that is perfectly legal?

As a smoker, you are a less desirable candidate in a job market with a glut of qualified candidates. You cost more, you produce less. Sorry you choose to make yourself an undesirable candidate, but that is your choice and I agree 100% with you and your compatriots: you should be perfectly free to make that choice.


Gee, so nice of you to stero-type all smokers. I can gurantee you that I "produce more" than my non-smoking co-workers do and since I'm not participating in my employer's insurance I'm not costing anyone anymore money.
 
2012-10-02 11:17:40 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: RickyWilliams'sBong: it's because it's cost-prohibitive

And why do you think that is? Why do you think it's cost-prohibitive to track the costs of, say, snowboarders, versus tracking the costs of smokers? Think reeeeeeaaalllll hard about that and let me know what you come up with.

Joe Blowme: Unless youare illegal, then its ok to make others pay for you.

Do you ever get this account confused with your "jon iz teh kewl" sockpuppet?




/deflection, this is how it works
 
2012-10-02 11:19:17 AM
I'm anti-smoking and want to see it banned in public places.

But this is over the line. First of all this is a government construct not a private enterprise that can do what it wants. Specifically the city is still bound by the 14th amendments equal protection clause. A government has no right to discriminate.
 
2012-10-02 11:20:05 AM
PallMall: "It's discrimination to single out a group of folks who are addicted to cigarettes, but not the ones who are addicted to food."

1. You don't see any difference between habitually ingesting a known carcinogen and poor diet?
2. I thought smokers were addicted to nicotine. Couldn't you be addicted to nicotine gum and not run afoul of this policy? It doesn't sound like the *addiction* is at issue here.
 
2012-10-02 11:20:44 AM

Dafuq: All you people saying that fat people should be discrimitated against aren't looking at the big picture. No one forces you to smoke, but you still have to eat.


But you don't have to eat 6,000 calories of crap a day...
 
2012-10-02 11:20:45 AM

Dafuq: All you people saying that fat people should be discrimitated against aren't looking at the big picture. No one forces you to smoke, but you still have to eat. Healthy eating is way more expensive than eating processed crap that causes obesity. I didn't eat a lot myself, but was 270 on the scale. I changed my diet and have lost 50 pounds so far. My grocery bill is also up about $70 a week. My sister was was very big herself. She didn't eat a lot, as her family was very poor. What they could afford to eat is what caused the weight gain. No amount of exercise will cause you to loose that much weight if you still eat like crap. Their second daughter is very active in sports, but still chunky.

Smokers know the risks when they start smoking. They can suck it.


I'm tired of hearing this excuse from fat farks. It is perfectly feasible to exercise enough to offset your intake regardless of your food budget.
This is about as valid as "I'm big boned"

/I need to take a sick day
//Seeing your sister made me ill
 
2012-10-02 11:21:26 AM

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

1. You don't see any difference between habitually ingesting a known carcinogen and poor diet?
2. I thought smokers were addicted to nicotine. Couldn't you be addicted to nicotine gum and not run afoul of this policy? It doesn't sound like the *addiction* is at issue here.


They will most likely test for nicotine.
 
2012-10-02 11:22:14 AM
You know who takes the most sick days? Smokers? Nope. Fat chicks.
 
2012-10-02 11:24:15 AM

MikeMc: You know who takes the most sick days? Smokers? Nope. Fat chicksGolfers.

 
2012-10-02 11:25:10 AM
MikeMc: "They will most likely test for nicotine."

It's a government hiring policy. If they say "tobacco" and test for nicotine, they're going to get the shiat sued out of them.
Which isn't to say you're wrong. They might. Local government can be dumb that way.
 
2012-10-02 11:25:14 AM

karmaceutical: MikeMc: You know who takes the most sick days? Smokers? Nope. Fat chicksGolfers.


I was counting Sick Days not "Sick Days", you may be right though.
 
2012-10-02 11:26:37 AM

Dafuq: All you people saying that fat people should be discrimitated against aren't looking at the big picture. No one forces you to smoke, but you still have to eat. Healthy eating is way more expensive than eating processed crap that causes obesity. I didn't eat a lot myself, but was 270 on the scale. I changed my diet and have lost 50 pounds so far. My grocery bill is also up about $70 a week. My sister was was very big herself. She didn't eat a lot, as her family was very poor. What they could afford to eat is what caused the weight gain. No amount of exercise will cause you to loose that much weight if you still eat like crap. Their second daughter is very active in sports, but still chunky.

Smokers know the risks when they start smoking. They can suck it.


LOL @ You.

Keep jumping through those hoops to defend being a disgusting fat body. Fat people know the risks associated with getting fat too. I'd say they can suck it, but that's the sound they make near a dinner plate by default.

// And perhaps the "jumping" comment was misplaced, as the only thing that makes a fat person jump is a 2-for-1 special at the slop trough.
 
2012-10-02 11:26:57 AM
I do like Boston's in Delray.
 
2012-10-02 11:26:58 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: 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


Just take a can of Ozium with you down to the basement. I'll keep your mom busy. *wink, wink*
 
2012-10-02 11:27:49 AM

MikeMc: karmaceutical: MikeMc: You know who takes the most sick days? Smokers? Nope. Fat chicksGolfers.

I was counting Sick Days not "Sick Days", you may be right though.


You mean people who acre actually too sick to work? Why would you waste a sick day to sit at home and be miserable?
 
2012-10-02 11:31:50 AM
Other acceptable excuses for not hiring an individual:

1. Drinking
2. McDonald's
3. Sedentary lifestyle
4. Family history of health problems
5. Black Skin
6. Tits
7. Hook nose
8. Towel on head
9. Smells like barnyard
10. Baptismal splasher
11. ...

Where there's a will, there's a way.
 
2012-10-02 11:32:02 AM
Meanwhile, nepotism and quota filling are all still perfectly legal. My personal anecdote is that most of them don't have enough to do so they generate drama with their coworkers and stay in the same ghetto state of mind they were hired in. One lady still said AXE after 20+ years working on the jerb, which reflects badly on the educational institution and thought the Tsunami People were indigenous of the island of Tsunami??? Fat? yes. Ignorant of anything that happened after 1982? yes. Always taking her 8yo kid to the farking ER for a (weekly) sore throat? you better believe it. Once called a co-worker a "spoilt lil cracka"? yes, but more than once. Didn't have direct deposit (or a bank account) so that Student Loans couldn't garnish her wages that she defaulted on for 1.3 years at a community college and would whine everytime she got her check 3 days later than DD? you know it, brother. Had a Shortcut to My Computer right next to My Computer on her desktop...er...shopping cart? yeppers. It kinda sucked because the rest of the departments near us were full of normal, quasi-educated folks (that still generated drama somehow) and yet we had to tiptoe around this loud, ignorant bootstrap hire that later got passed on after the department dissolved.
Far more time and money is "wasted" on people's children in a workplace. I am a smoker that is quitting this year after the wife finishes her PhD and we find out what non-smoking campus we are moving to next lol. I am ready, mainly because I want to do skimboarding and surfing again and be there for my nieces when they drive my sis crazy in about 9.3 years lol. I would agree that it is a bad habit, but so is alcoholism and obesity which they actually seem to encourage :( I will be impressed when I can get on a farking jetplane without Franklin Fatass larding over into my seat or Patel being made to wear deodorant. Then we will all truly be equal lol.

/City and State workers are miserable POSes no matter what.
//Was a state POS for 5 years
 
2012-10-02 11:33:17 AM
Shouldn't they also make all drivers of any internal combustion engine power vehicle pay higher premiums? Not only are they sickening themselves but they are also sickening everyone else that is close by by the fumes of their engines. An honest question, because I'm too lazy to GIS: how much more poisonous is car exhaust than tobacco smoke and how much by volume is released into the air every day? And all of you drivers still choose to drive?!?!
 
2012-10-02 11:34:14 AM
Beach. Delray Beach, FL

/got married there
 
2012-10-02 11:34:43 AM
Once you have the job, now your employer is allowed to place restrictions on how you lead your life. I dunno about any of you, but this does not fly with me.
 
2012-10-02 11:35:26 AM
To all those wanting them to discriminate against stupid - they are. Only a stupid person would smoke knowing all the cost, addiction and health issues.
 
2012-10-02 11:35:39 AM

karmaceutical: MikeMc: karmaceutical: MikeMc: You know who takes the most sick days? Smokers? Nope. Fat chicksGolfers.

I was counting Sick Days not "Sick Days", you may be right though.

You mean people who acre actually too sick to work? Why would you waste a sick day to sit at home and be miserable?


I've heard it's done.
 
2012-10-02 11:35:55 AM

Dafuq: All you people saying that fat people should be discrimitated against aren't looking at the big picture. No one forces you to smoke, but you still have to eat. Healthy eating is way more expensive than eating processed crap that causes obesity. I didn't eat a lot myself, but was 270 on the scale. I changed my diet and have lost 50 pounds so far. My grocery bill is also up about $70 a week. My sister was was very big herself. She didn't eat a lot, as her family was very poor. What they could afford to eat is what caused the weight gain. No amount of exercise will cause you to loose that much weight if you still eat like crap. Their second daughter is very active in sports, but still chunky.

Smokers know the risks when they start smoking. They can suck it.


True, we have to eat, but we don't ever have to go to McDonalds. So how would you react if your boss told you tomorrow "if we find out any of you ever go to McDonalds again, you're fired."
 
2012-10-02 11:36:34 AM

cman: Wow, subs, its too damn early for this kind of trollin


Trolling? I kind of doubt that. The fortune 500 company I work for introduced a new 50 dollar a month premium increase for all tobacco users. Glad they have given me a 51% salary increase over the last 18 months to make up for it.
 
2012-10-02 11:37:04 AM
I need to find subby's car and dump my ashtray collections in it.
-1 Subby

I think they should ban fat people...insurance premiums would go lower too.
Also all old people because of their medications.
Also stupid people, like subby, for brain illnesses...

puff puff pass...don't F up the rotation...
 
2012-10-02 11:37:57 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: 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.


you stressed "CHOOSE" in your lesson in how insurance works. Whether a risk-increasing trait is chosen or not is irrelevant

Vegan Meat Popsicle: 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.


choices certainly can and should increase insurance premiums
 
2012-10-02 11:38:31 AM

kimmygibblershomework: Meanwhile, nepotism


BAN ALL FAMILY RUN BUSINESSES!!!

FistingMidgets: To all those wanting them to discriminate against stupid - they are. Only a stupid person would smoke knowing all the cost, addiction and health issues.


vintage-original-ads.com
 
2012-10-02 11:38:47 AM

Kazrath: cman: Wow, subs, its too damn early for this kind of trollin

Trolling? I kind of doubt that. The fortune 500 company I work for introduced a new 50 dollar a month premium increase for all tobacco users. Glad they have given me a 51% salary increase over the last 18 months to make up for it.


at least they're allowing it.

to say GAY is pretty ghey in and of itself.
 
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