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
 
2012-10-02 08:09:37 AM
Wow, subs, its too damn early for this kind of trollin
 
2012-10-02 08:09:58 AM
hero tag is highly inappropriate. is there no anti-smoking fascist tag?
 
2012-10-02 09:46:37 AM
As an ex-smoker, smoking is an addiction that should be covered just like an alcohol or other drug addiction. Smokers should have to pay significantly more for their health insurance.
 
2012-10-02 09:58:50 AM

vernonFL: As an ex-smoker, smoking is an addiction that should be covered just like an alcohol or other drug addiction. Smokers should have to pay significantly more for their health insurance.


Don't they already pay more?
 
2012-10-02 09:59:16 AM
The city of Delray, Florida will no longer hire people who regularly use tobacco products or are female in order to keep health insurance premiums low

There. Enhanced It For You.
 
2012-10-02 10:00:05 AM
Troll, troll, troll your Fark
Be a stupid ass, ...

Law suit in 5... 4... 3...
 
GBB
2012-10-02 10:00:13 AM
smokers are disgusting people... treat them like lepers.
 
2012-10-02 10:00:57 AM

BitwiseShift: The city of Delray, Florida will no longer hire people who regularly use tobacco products or are female or obese in order to keep health insurance premiums low

There. Enhanced It For You.


Forgot something
 
2012-10-02 10:01:06 AM
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.
 
2012-10-02 10:01:23 AM

JonPace: vernonFL: As an ex-smoker, smoking is an addiction that should be covered just like an alcohol or other drug addiction. Smokers should have to pay significantly more for their health insurance.

Don't they already pay more?


Yep.
 
2012-10-02 10:01:39 AM

JonPace: vernonFL: As an ex-smoker, smoking is an addiction that should be covered just like an alcohol or other drug addiction. Smokers should have to pay significantly more for their health insurance.

Don't they already pay more?


By a lot. It's also an easy way to get denied coverage. He's trolling out of his ass, ignore everything he said after 'As'.

BitwiseShift: The city of Delray, Florida will no longer hire people who regularly use tobacco products or are female in order to keep health insurance premiums low

There. Enhanced It For You.


You missed 'fat' or 'per-existing conditions'. But yeah.
 
2012-10-02 10:03:03 AM
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.
 
2012-10-02 10:03:16 AM
As long as we can do the same for people with alcohol, obesity, or substance abuse issues, i don't see a problem.
 
2012-10-02 10:03:30 AM
"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.
 
2012-10-02 10:03:39 AM
What if they regularly use tobacco products for some other reason than healthcare costs?
 
2012-10-02 10:03:40 AM
Cool!
When can we start discriminating against fat people now that it's all about health?
 
2012-10-02 10:03:47 AM
I can just feel the compassion and the thoughtful, well-written comments bubbling up in this thread.
 
2012-10-02 10:03:56 AM
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.
 
2012-10-02 10:05:01 AM
Marijuana, Heroin, Oxy, Cocaine and Kool Aid still acceptable
 
2012-10-02 10:05:15 AM

abhorrent1: BitwiseShift: The city of Delray, Florida will no longer hire people who regularly use tobacco products or are female or obese or minority in order to keep health insurance premiums low

There. Enhanced It For You.

Forgot something

 
2012-10-02 10:05:16 AM
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.
 
2012-10-02 10:05:35 AM
"The city of Delray, Florida will no longer hire people who regularly use tobacco products in order to keep health insurance premiums low"

I wouldn't hire them either. They'd have to be some special kind of stupid to use tobacco products in order to keep health insurance premiums low.
 
2012-10-02 10:05:45 AM
Health Insurance companies love fatties because they by nature aren't too health conscious on average, see the doctor less often and die quick deaths from heath attack.

It's LIFE insurance companies that hate fatties... for all the same reasons.
 
2012-10-02 10:05:55 AM

JonPace: Don't they already pay more?


Yea. But everybody else does too when it's group insurance.

And, as usual, all the smoking idiots come out and claim this is some rights issue. Is anybody telling you that you can't smoke? Nope. Only that if you're stupid enough to that you should bear the brunt of the consequences on your own.

Go burn your lungs to a crisp on your dime, shiatheads, I shouldn't have to pay for your stupidity.

/ and stay in your own house to do it while you're at it
 
2012-10-02 10:06:33 AM
I refuse to hire anyone who cannot count to potato. Out also are those who cannot demonstrate multi-tasking skills by texting and driving at the same time.
 
2012-10-02 10:06:42 AM
if marijuana is so much better for u why not legalize it??
 
2012-10-02 10:07:31 AM
Don't forget the gays. One AIDS claim hit us for over $1 million.
 
2012-10-02 10:07:54 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.


Yeah, but now you get to pay premiums for more years.
 
2012-10-02 10:08:21 AM
Sounds good, I hope they put the squeeze on fatties next.
 
2012-10-02 10:08:40 AM
"We AAAAAALLLLLL bundle."
www.barstoolentertainment.com
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-10-02 10:09:35 AM
Dear subby,
Go give a shotgun a blowjob.

/no, really
 
2012-10-02 10:10:00 AM

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.
 
2012-10-02 10:10:25 AM
"The city of Delray, Florida will no longer hire people who regularly use tobacco products in order to keep health insurance premiums low"

I wouldn't hire them either. A person would have to be a special kind of stupid to use tobacco products in order to keep health insurance premiums low.
 
2012-10-02 10:10:32 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.


This in a big big way
 
2012-10-02 10:10:40 AM
A lot of angry smokers in this thread.... LOL
 
2012-10-02 10:10:54 AM
It is a good idea but there are numbers that show Tobacco users have a lower lifetime health cost than non users. Lung Cancer is expensive to treat but it is also a relatively quick killer, compared to caring for someone for decades with all the minor senior problems.

Link
 
2012-10-02 10:10:57 AM

BitwiseShift: The city of Delray, Florida will no longer hire people who regularly use tobacco products or are female in order to keep health insurance premiums low

There. Enhanced It For You.


or have children
 
2012-10-02 10:11:26 AM
When are they going to start discriminating against stupid? That would be refreshing. She's paying $800 for toilet seats but at least she doesn't smoke.
 
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.
 
2012-10-02 10:11:48 AM

abhorrent1: BitwiseShift: The city of Delray, Florida will no longer hire people who regularly use tobacco products or are female or obese in order to keep health insurance premiums low

There. Enhanced It For You.

Forgot something


That's right. Birth control pills cost $3,000 per year.
 
2012-10-02 10:12:04 AM
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.

What I'm trying to say is they aren't going to magically save many, many thousands of dollars. They just potentially will not have to pay as much.

When I quit smoking my health insurance premium went down less than $40 a month.
 
2012-10-02 10:12:49 AM

vernonFL: As an ex-smoker, smoking is an addiction that should be covered just like an alcohol or other drug addiction. Smokers should have to pay significantly more for their health insurance.


I agree. Places I've worked that had health insurance, the employee share was about $60 a month higher for smokers, and I didn't have a problem with it. The $2500 deductible before a cent of coverage kicks in, I had issues with...
 
2012-10-02 10:13:13 AM
So if someone were to irregularly use tobacco then what? I mean what if they give themselves snuff suppositories or something?
 
2012-10-02 10:13:58 AM
Smokers already pay ever-higher taxes allegedly due to various health cost reasons, even though they don't live as long and consequently don't suck Medicare dry.

Can't tax or discriminate against the fatasses though, of course. Not that I'd advocate it in principle, but if we're going to penalize one (now fairly small) group for unhealthy behavior, everybody should be fair game.
 
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
 
2012-10-02 10:15:29 AM

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.
 
2012-10-02 10:15:47 AM
if smoking is soo bad plz make it ILLEGAL. if u find fault in this sentence, legalize pot
 
2012-10-02 10:17:03 AM
So it's ok to deny employment to smokers, but what about fat people? Would as many people agree with denying the obese as they do smoking? I don't smoke anymore, and wish I had never started, but it's the principle of the matter. If a city government can do this, then where will the line be drawn?

435,000 deaths caused by smoking.

400,000 deaths caused by obesity.

If you ban smoking, then you will have to get rid of the snack machine in the break room. All this is going to do is have people lying about smoking to get a job and piss off the people who don't want to lie.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/6438.php
 
2012-10-02 10:18:02 AM
as a smoker, I am ok with this as long as they also ban all of the disgusting obese from working
 
2012-10-02 10:18:11 AM

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?
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
2012-10-02 11:39:00 AM
Either carry out your employer's insurance-approved exercise regimen TO THE LETTER, or find another job sluggard! Good luck finding one!
 
2012-10-02 11:39:14 AM

abhorrent1: BitwiseShift: The city of Delray, Florida will no longer hire people who regularly use tobacco products or are female or obese in order to keep health insurance premiums low

There. Enhanced It For You.

Forgot something


What about internet addictions? Might not result in higher insurance premiums, but sure costs a lot in terms of lost productivity.
 
2012-10-02 11:41:36 AM
Wait, how is being a fatty a drain on the system?

/fatty
//Been to the doctor once in the last few years
///ear infections aren't fat related
////bet dollars to donuts that skinny people go more
//mmmm donuts
 
2012-10-02 11:42:09 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: 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.


This is a load of crap. If you draw out the costs of smokers vs non smokers over an entire life spam (Smokers being shorter on average) the costs for the insurance company are basically a wash. And that is assuming you do not develop cancer or some other debilitating disease in one of the other million ways that are not smoking related.

Next up they are going to indicate that if you do not take public transportation you are taking choice based risks to your health and increase your premium further. Or if you play sports or have ever played sports they won't cover any "impact" related stresses or injuries.

And the most entertaining thing about this is the fact it is just another money grab by an industry that should not even exist in the first place.
 
2012-10-02 11:43:35 AM

PlatinumDragon: Either carry out your employer's insurance-approved exercise regimen TO THE LETTER, or find another job sluggard other insurance! Good luck finding one!

 
2012-10-02 11:44:15 AM

Chafed Willi: Wait, how is being a fatty a drain on the system?


ytrewq.com
Citation
 
2012-10-02 11:44:55 AM

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.


but at least you get to feel superior on the internet.
 
2012-10-02 11:50:27 AM

PallMall: 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 image 287x399]


So pleasure is the reason to smoke? I am sure heroine provides even greater pleasure so why not do that?

There are all kinds of things that can give pleasure with detrimental consequences. You have to think a bit about the decisions you make (something stupid people tend not to do).
 
2012-10-02 11:53:03 AM
Rather than spend even more money advertising that cigarettes are bad, let's just take the filters out and not worry about the bad crap - let people smoke themselves to death. It's a free country, they can smoke if they want, but let's at least reduce the burden on the system by making the cigarettes as deadly as possible.
 
2012-10-02 11:53:21 AM
Perhaps they should review people with children too, kids cost a lot of money to keep healthy.
 
2012-10-02 11:53:32 AM

PallMall: 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.


You have to make reasonable accommodation, that is not reasonable for this position, which is on the moon.
 
2012-10-02 11:57:46 AM

FistingMidgets: I am sure heroine provides even greater pleasure so why not do that?


I get pleasure from my heroine all the time.

zarberg: Rather than spend even more money advertising that cigarettes are bad, let's just take the filters out and not worry about the bad crap - let people smoke themselves to death. It's a free country, they can smoke if they want, but let's at least reduce the burden on the system by making the cigarettes as deadly as possible.


Same goes for fatty foods. Make sure to put arsenic in every cheeseburger, shake, bacon slice etc. So that greasy fat farks won't steal as much air as they would otherwise.
 
2012-10-02 11:59:33 AM

probesport: PallMall: 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.

You have to make reasonable accommodation, that is not reasonable for this position, which is on the moon.


Sounds pretty reasonable to me. It didn't require an entire forklift, just a kit to be retrofitted to the fatty's (previously obtained through government handout) hover round - technically a moon rover already.
 
2012-10-02 12:01:53 PM
How does the city of Delray feel about purple drank?

/asking for a friend
 
2012-10-02 12:03:57 PM

PallMall: Chafed Willi: Wait, how is being a fatty a drain on the system?


Citation


Oh good, I don't fall into the morbid category so I'm just as much of a drain as someone with a bmi of 26.

Thanks for the clarification, none of which applies to me.
 
2012-10-02 12:04:40 PM

MikeMc: How does the city of Delray feel about purple drank?

/asking for a friend


uh only if u have a legal prescription. and drink small amounts at once.
 
2012-10-02 12:09:10 PM
However, you may still drink until your liver rots out, be -- especially if you're a guy -- 100 lbs overweight (and all of that poking out the front of your uniform shirt), smoke pot, do meth and be hooked on any of assorted painkillers.

I wonder how the guys who have to go into reeking sewer systems feel about this? After several hours wading through thigh high human shiat full of who knows what nasty diseases, I'd think a relaxing smoke would be welcome.

Not to mention working in the repair shop, where they get to be exposed to all sorts of chemicals and krud on the garbage and spray trucks. (The mechanics often have to pull dead rats off transmissions and dig bolt heads out of packed, rotting garbage along with being exposed to vast amounts of low grade diesel fuel.)

And they're worried about tobacco usage?
 
2012-10-02 12:09:12 PM
It's all rehab/recovery centers in Delray. Heavily Jewish. Nice beach.
 
2012-10-02 12:10:27 PM

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.


Agreed, but you left a few out. Here's a good (but not comprehensive) starter list:

Smokers
Obese People
Anyone who drinks more than one glass of red wine on occasion
Anyone who uses any potentially addictive drug, whether recreationally or by prescription
Homosexuals
Anyone who engages in sex outside of a fully monogamous heterosexual relationship (proof of monogamy required--it's insurance, after all)
Anyone who engages in sex with a partner who has or has ever had an STD
Anyone with any kind of pre-existing condition (including migraines, high blood pressure, diabetes, seizures [even childhood seizures that no longer occur], etc.)
Anyone who drives a motor vehicle during times of high traffic volumes
Anyone who drives a two-wheeled vehicle--motorized or non-motorized--without a helmet, regardless of state law
Anyone who engages in any sporting activity such as skiing, mountain biking, hiking, or other activities which could be considered dangerous
Anyone who eats at any sort of fast-food restaurant more than once a month


Seriously, whether you think smoking is disgusting or not, you might want to think about speaking up because if you let this stand, that list is where this is headed. It's not a smoker's rights issue, it's a personal liberty issue. Smokers are just the easy targets right now. Next, yes, it will be the obese folks, then the gay folks... then it will be the straight folks who have more than one partner in "x" period of time, or the folks who have an STD in "x" period of time, the folks who enjoy "x" sporting activities... and so on. If you can't see the road they're starting down with this, then you haven't been paying attention--not to history, not to anything that's happened in the last twenty years. There's nothing new under the sun; you can call it different, but the only thing that's changed is the year.
 
2012-10-02 12:11:12 PM
FTA: "Smokers can cost a company or government agency an average of $12,000 a year in health and disability-related costs."

So they have potentially saved the city $12,000. I guess they have nothing more important to deal with.
 
2012-10-02 12:11:15 PM

billybobtoo: It's all rehab/recovery centers in Delray. Heavily Jewish. Nice beach.


In Southern Florida? NO. FARKING. WAY!?!?!
 
2012-10-02 12:11:44 PM

Rik01: However, you may still drink until your liver rots out, be -- especially if you're a guy -- 100 lbs overweight (and all of that poking out the front of your uniform shirt), smoke pot, do meth and be hooked on any of assorted painkillers.

I wonder how the guys who have to go into reeking sewer systems feel about this? After several hours wading through thigh high human shiat full of who knows what nasty diseases, I'd think a relaxing smoke would be welcome.

Not to mention working in the repair shop, where they get to be exposed to all sorts of chemicals and krud on the garbage and spray trucks. (The mechanics often have to pull dead rats off transmissions and dig bolt heads out of packed, rotting garbage along with being exposed to vast amounts of low grade diesel fuel.)

And they're worried about tobacco usage?


hint: nobody does all that crap without smoking. if ur doing meth, you're smoking. it's the least common denominator
the LCD

www.modtronix.com
 
2012-10-02 12:12:34 PM

RevMark: FTA: "Smokers can cost a company or government agency an average of $12,000 a year in health and disability-related costs."

So they have potentially saved the city $12,000. I guess they have nothing more important to deal with.


So they call it a disability, yet discriminate? Where's the crippled, sue-happy lawyer from Sac when you need him?
 
2012-10-02 12:14:31 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: MikeMc: How does the city of Delray feel about purple drank?

/asking for a friend

uh only if u have a legal prescription. and drink small amounts at once.


If you have a legal prescription and drink small amounts you're not calling it "purple drank"...
 
2012-10-02 12:14:34 PM
They the City of Delray would just replace all the people with robotics, they could eliminate the entire health budget completely.

People are expensive. Why hire them at all?
 
2012-10-02 12:15:21 PM

scarmig: The the City of Delray could just replace all the people with robotics, then could eliminate the entire health budget completely.

People are expensive. Why hire them at all?

 
2012-10-02 12:16:28 PM

scarmig: They the City of Delray would just replace all the people with robotics golems, they could eliminate the entire health budget completely.


Fixed that for Jew.
 
2012-10-02 12:16:29 PM
but we can still use bath salts right?


/kiss my fat @$$
//feminazi scum
 
2012-10-02 12:17:09 PM
Soooo... when are they going to stop hiring fat people?
 
2012-10-02 12:17:25 PM

cig-mkr: Perhaps they should review people with children too, kids cost a lot of money to keep healthy.


especially the fat ones.
 
2012-10-02 12:18:06 PM

MikeMc: Jon iz teh kewl: MikeMc: How does the city of Delray feel about purple drank?

/asking for a friend

uh only if u have a legal prescription. and drink small amounts at once.

If you have a legal prescription and drink small amounts you're not calling it "purple drank"...


if you're gay you might. don't rule out gay people.
 
2012-10-02 12:18:14 PM

Rufus Lee King: All kidding aside, this sort of stuff enters into dangerous territory.


It does, but it's a discussion worth having.

You've got to eat to live. Fat people (including "glandular" types, which are vanishingly rare in real life) eat too much and/or the wrong things. If they diet to a healthy weight that reduces their propensity toward fat-related diseases, they eat less and better.

Smokers don't smoke less or better. They voluntarily smoke (well, until they get addicted to the delicious nicotine) until they quit, entirely. Smoking was never necessary. Also, unless they stroke out on the highway or fall on you to the point of crushing you, the fattie's overeating doesn't (unless you are in a lifeboat!) in the normal course of event affect the non-fat person.

Smoker's smoke can damage the health of non-smokers due to proximity. Smokers who pass out or fall asleep while smoking can burn down buildings and chucking butts out of moving cars passing drought-stricken forests has been known to burn down said forests and nearby suburbs.

Aesthetically displeasing People of Wal-Mart don't really have the same health impact, in my view, even if they are hard on the eyes.

Full disclosure: I am the non-smoking offspring of two smokers. One parent stopped in the '70s and self-incented by putting away the cost of a pack or so per day until he died of non-smoking related illness at 82, and the other quit in 1998 only to die of a post-operative clot in 2002 at 68 years old after the removal of a cancerous lung. She waited too long, it seems, but she had four years post-slavery.
 
2012-10-02 12:22:09 PM

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.


WTF sorts of "healthy foods" are you buying at the grocery stores to make this excuse? My weekly grocery bill for my bf and I is lower than my weekly junk food/eating out tab was when I lived alone and was obese. That means I pay less now to feed two people than I used to spend just to feed myself. Some weeks we spend over $20 on fruit alone. Healthy eating requires much more effort than junky/process/convenience eating but it is not truly more expensive.

I suppose a person could live exclusively on ramen noodles or kraft mac n cheese and see their bills go up when they start eating real food, but pasta, rice and beans are fairly healthy staples and they are even cheaper. Most obese people don't get that way eating ramen. There's usually some expensive soda or fast food involved.
 
2012-10-02 12:22:30 PM

Valiente: Aesthetically displeasing People of Wal-Mart don't really have the same health impact, in my view, even if they are hard on the eyes


Having to view these people is a mental health issue and every bit as damaging.
 
2012-10-02 12:23:10 PM

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. 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.


I don't know about health insurance, but I have read that smokers are much more likely to be injured at work than non-smokers, so there is a real risk that employers will have to shell out more for worker's compensation if they employ smokers.

\don't know the reason for that, but it was speculated that nicotine cravings distract smoker employees, leading to injuries
 
2012-10-02 12:25:33 PM
I do not smoke and tend to despise people who "go outside" to smoke but stand in the doorway forcing me to walk through it.

Even I, in all my bias against smoking, can see that this goes too far.
 
2012-10-02 12:26:53 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: MikeMc: Jon iz teh kewl: MikeMc: How does the city of Delray feel about purple drank?

/asking for a friend

uh only if u have a legal prescription. and drink small amounts at once.

If you have a legal prescription and drink small amounts you're not calling it "purple drank"...

if you're gay you might. don't rule out gay people.


i finally favorited you in grey 1 as idiot. ffs.
 
2012-10-02 12:26:54 PM

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.


If you get AIDS and your employer finds out, I'm pretty sure they'll find a way to fire you.

Some things never change.
 
2012-10-02 12:36:54 PM
aids
1,000,000 homosexual males
275,000 needle users
1 contaminated blood transfusion

See? Aids EFFECTS US ALLL!!!!!
Now then , if youll excuse me im gonna go to a public 'bath house' and savage some stain holes , so dont touch my bennies while im gone!! Goddamn breeders


Smoking is a repulsive habit(and I aughta know,I smoked 18 years),but a habit is ALL it is and all the knee jerking hand wringing and sobbing about it being a terrible 'disease' is nonsense.The state shouldnt limit hiring peolpe who smoke? The state shouldnt be in the business of introducing destructive habit forming devices into the population in the first place,revenue potential be damned! If a Government entity decides to do something like this then it should be done in tandem with generous smoke cessation progams.
 
2012-10-02 12:44:55 PM
Love to see my hometown getting in on the action.
 
2012-10-02 12:49:21 PM
hiring stupid people still okay.
 
2012-10-02 12:51:09 PM

MikeMc: Valiente: Aesthetically displeasing People of Wal-Mart don't really have the same health impact, in my view, even if they are hard on the eyes

Having to view these people is a mental health issue and every bit as damaging.


Well, I feel that way about reality TV/Lohan/Kardashians, but it's an allegedly free world and I can avert my eyes in many other directions.

I can't stop breathing when I walk through a cloud of tobacco smoke. Not without purpling up at the two-minute mark, anyway.
 
2012-10-02 12:57:19 PM

PlatinumDragon: Mote, beam, eye, etc.


Except I'm the one proposing that I be held responsible for those things...

Cyrorm: Gee, so nice of you to stero-type all smokers.


The facts have already been cited, scroll up the thread. You're less productive and you're out sick more. You're a shiatty worker and you should be fired for smoking.

Kazrath: If you draw out the costs of smokers vs non smokers over an entire life spam (Smokers being shorter on average) the costs for the insurance company are basically a wash


You people keep saying that, and I've been trying to ignore it, but it's not true. You're lying. Stop lying.

Kazrath: Next up they are going to indicate that if you do not take public transportation you are taking choice based risks to your health and increase your premium further.


Why do you keep making analogies when you clearly have no idea how an insurance risk pool works? Protip: if the vast majority of people in the pool all do the same thing, like drive to work, then the pool already includes costs associated with that risk. Your analogy. It is made of fail and wrong.
 
2012-10-02 01:05:49 PM

Rufus Lee King: Health insurance? What's that?


A mafia like extortion tactic to profit off a business while providing a "protection" tax to the consumer to increase profits and decrease service.
 
2012-10-02 01:07:59 PM

Valiente: Rufus Lee King: All kidding aside, this sort of stuff enters into dangerous territory.

It does, but it's a discussion worth having.

You've got to eat to live. Fat people (including "glandular" types, which are vanishingly rare in real life) eat too much and/or the wrong things. If they diet to a healthy weight that reduces their propensity toward fat-related diseases, they eat less and better.

Smokers don't smoke less or better. They voluntarily smoke (well, until they get addicted to the delicious nicotine) until they quit, entirely. Smoking was never necessary. Also, unless they stroke out on the highway or fall on you to the point of crushing you, the fattie's overeating doesn't (unless you are in a lifeboat!) in the normal course of event affect the non-fat person.


So, fark smokers, and fark people who need a life raft. Got it. Those fat bastards should have never even gotten close to a body of water!! I do love the way you worded it though: Unless they do something that affects you, the fatty doesn't affect you. People do stroke out on the highway. People do need life rafts from time to time.

Smoker's smoke can damage the health of non-smokers due to proximity. Smokers who pass out or fall asleep while smoking can burn down buildings and chucking butts out of moving cars passing drought-stricken forests has been known to burn down said forests and nearby suburbs.

And fires from people cooking NEVER happen. I see inmates on the side of the road picking up McDonald's bags and empty cups with straws all day long. But littering is harmless.

Aesthetically displeasing People of Wal-Mart don't really have the same health impact, in my view, even if they are hard on the eyes.

If only it were that. But their excess eating has an impact on the environment. Animals don't give birth to little burgers wrapped up in a carboard box and layered with cheese. All this stuff has to be produced, which has an impact on the environment. It takes more fuel, and creates more toxic byproducts, to carry a 300 pound person to work than it does a 180 pound person.

Full disclosure: I am the non-smoking offspring of two smokers. One parent stopped in the '70s and self-incented by putting away the cost of a pack or so per day until he died of non-smoking related illness at 82, and the other quit in 1998 only to die of a post-operative clot in 2002 at 68 years old after the removal of a cancerous lung. She waited too long, it seems, but she had four years post-slavery.

She should have been smoking and enjoying herself those last 4 years...
 
2012-10-02 01:09:30 PM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: "The city of Delray, Florida will no longer hire people who regularly use tobacco products in order to keep health insurance premiums low"

I wouldn't hire them either. A person would have to be a special kind of stupid to use tobacco products in order to keep health insurance premiums low.


Nice catch
 
2012-10-02 01:09:42 PM

stonelotus: hiring stupid people still okay.


They're actually selecting for a higher proportion of non-stupid people by refusing to hire smokers. This is a true statement, statistically, the lower a person's intelligence is, the more likely it is they are a smoker.
 
2012-10-02 01:10:47 PM

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.


And meat-eaters, don't forget them. Oh, and atheists. Atheists are statistically more prone to illness and have shorter life spans than non-atheists, so don't hire atheists either. Gotta keep the costs down, you know.

Discrimination is a funny and very slippery slope to watch people try to walk on.
 
2012-10-02 01:13:51 PM

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.


Your funny
 
2012-10-02 01:13:59 PM
So users of nasal snuff or Swedish snus, which have never been shown to cause any, and I mean any, form of cancer, are subject to this ban as well as those who might enjoy an occasional celebratory cigar. Sure what they mean to be attacking is cigarette smoking but the laziness that goes into this sort of thing sets a terrible precedent for future such bans.
 
2012-10-02 01:20:55 PM
I know this is Florida but have you heard of something called The Constitution?
 
2012-10-02 01:25:52 PM
Can't they just pass on the extra costs to smokers?  I'm a smoker, and I wouldn't mind.  Its fair.
 
2012-10-02 01:28:39 PM

Mishno: stonelotus: hiring stupid people still okay.

They're actually selecting for a higher proportion of non-stupid people by refusing to hire smokers. This is a true statement, statistically, the lower a person's intelligence is, the more likely it is they are a smoker.


www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk
 
2012-10-02 01:29:07 PM

Mishno: stonelotus: hiring stupid people still okay.

They're actually selecting for a higher proportion of non-stupid people by refusing to hire smokers. This is a true statement, statistically, the lower a person's intelligence is, the more likely it is they are a smoker.


source, please.
 
2012-10-02 01:30:09 PM
Fark all insurance, all types, forever. Fark all idiots who applaud brave actions like this (because of $$) then whine and complain about every other stupid thing driven by the same industry.

UHC is a great idea but jesus christ, in this nation of twats we would be eating "health goo" served in seaweed required by law because of the same stupid justifications people use for stuff like this.

Good on those of you applauding the removal of private/personal choice for increased profits for the insurance companies! I sure hope you're at least a shareholder because if not you're as pitiful as the person smoking from a tracheotomy hole.
 
2012-10-02 01:30:28 PM

lowrad: Vegan Meat Popsicle: RickyWilliams'sBong:

Your funny


His funny what?
 
2012-10-02 01:33:01 PM

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.


The college I attend used to have a patio area for smokers but decided to ban smoking on the property now (unless you are in a car). So if you don't have a car you now have to run across a 50 mph road with no aid from a crosswalk or stop lights/signs. I'm still waiting for someone to get hit.
 
2012-10-02 01:33:46 PM

downstairs: Can't they just pass on the extra costs to smokers?  I'm a smoker, and I wouldn't mind.  Its fair.


They have, for a couple decades now.
 
2012-10-02 01:40:54 PM

stonelotus: Mishno: stonelotus: hiring stupid people still okay.

They're actually selecting for a higher proportion of non-stupid people by refusing to hire smokers. This is a true statement, statistically, the lower a person's intelligence is, the more likely it is they are a smoker.

source, please.


Link
 
2012-10-02 01:52:30 PM

Science_Guy_3.14159: I know this is Florida but have you heard of something called The Constitution?


Would you care to quote the part of the Constitution that protects smokers?
 
2012-10-02 01:53:02 PM

Mishno: stonelotus: Mishno: stonelotus: hiring stupid people still okay.

They're actually selecting for a higher proportion of non-stupid people by refusing to hire smokers. This is a true statement, statistically, the lower a person's intelligence is, the more likely it is they are a smoker.

source, please.

Link


www.seanbonner.com
 
2012-10-02 01:55:23 PM
This is why I won't vote.
 
2012-10-02 01:57:03 PM

Mock26: Science_Guy_3.14159: I know this is Florida but have you heard of something called The Constitution?

Would you care to quote the part of the Constitution that protects smokers?


The part that doesn't say "we can oppress smokers". You need to learn what the Constitution is actually saying. It's not a list of your rights. It's much much greater than that.
 
2012-10-02 01:58:40 PM

IRQ12: Good on those of you applauding the removal of private/personal choice for increased profits for the insurance companies!


Nothing has been removed. You can go work elsewhere or self employ and buy your own insurance if you choose to be a smoker.
 
2012-10-02 02:04:17 PM

HotWingConspiracy: IRQ12: Good on those of you applauding the removal of private/personal choice for increased profits for the insurance companies!

Nothing has been removed. You can go work elsewhere or self employ and buy your own insurance if you choose to be a smoker.



You sound trollish.
 
2012-10-02 02:07:03 PM

HotWingConspiracy: IRQ12: Good on those of you applauding the removal of private/personal choice for increased profits for the insurance companies!

Nothing has been removed. You can go work elsewhere or self employ and buy your own insurance if you choose to be a smoker.


whoa. At first I misread that as "want birth control for contraceptive purposes" and was wondering what the world had come to. Now I see that you said "choose to be a smoker".
 
2012-10-02 02:07:30 PM
It has been almost a year since I had a cigarette. My company banned smoking on its campus and created a discount program for non-smokers health insurance premiums. It was the nudge I needed.

And for all of you strawmanning about obesity, my employer addressed this with a number of health insurance discounts available for participating in various health and wellness programs/activities. I'm trapped by my employer and health insurance provider in a sinister plot to make me healthier - the horror!

You have just as much of a right to smoke as you have the right to hit yourself in the head with a claw hammer. Both of these activities may also impact your hirability.
 
2012-10-02 02:08:26 PM

Amos Quito: HotWingConspiracy: IRQ12: Good on those of you applauding the removal of private/personal choice for increased profits for the insurance companies!

Nothing has been removed. You can go work elsewhere or self employ and buy your own insurance if you choose to be a smoker.


You sound trollish.


Amos Quito: HotWingConspiracy: IRQ12: Good on those of you applauding the removal of private/personal choice for increased profits for the insurance companies!

Nothing has been removed. You can go work elsewhere or self employ and buy your own insurance if you choose to be a smoker.


You sound trollish.


" the removal of private/personal choice " is a bit hyperbolic, seeing as how you're completely free to choose to smoke.
 
2012-10-02 02:08:30 PM
Vegan Meat Popsicle Smartest
Funniest
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.


Whaaaa! The dumb guy called me names!

You stated it. It's just statistics.
Sucks when logic gives you something you find socially unacceptable, huh?
 
2012-10-02 02:12:57 PM

skullkrusher: HotWingConspiracy: IRQ12: Good on those of you applauding the removal of private/personal choice for increased profits for the insurance companies!

Nothing has been removed. You can go work elsewhere or self employ and buy your own insurance if you choose to be a smoker.

whoa. At first I misread that as "want birth control for contraceptive purposes" and was wondering what the world had come to. Now I see that you said "choose to be a smoker".


Oh look, someone wants to pretend that birth control is only for contraception. Been to that thread, it sucked.
 
2012-10-02 02:13:43 PM

Mishno: stonelotus: hiring stupid people still okay.

They're actually selecting for a higher proportion of non-stupid people by refusing to hire smokers. This is a true statement, statistically, the lower a person's intelligence is, the more likely it is they are a smoker.


I don't know about that, Obama smoked and look where he wound up.
 
2012-10-02 02:14:01 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Amos Quito: HotWingConspiracy: IRQ12: Good on those of you applauding the removal of private/personal choice for increased profits for the insurance companies!

Nothing has been removed. You can go work elsewhere or self employ and buy your own insurance if you choose to be a smoker.


You sound trollish.

Amos Quito: HotWingConspiracy: IRQ12: Good on those of you applauding the removal of private/personal choice for increased profits for the insurance companies!

Nothing has been removed. You can go work elsewhere or self employ and buy your own insurance if you choose to be a smoker.


You sound trollish.

" the removal of private/personal choice " is a bit hyperbolic, seeing as how you're completely free to choose to smoke.



Okay, but if Delray *really* wanted to cut risks and reduce costs, they'd move the city out of Florida.
 
2012-10-02 02:15:25 PM

HotWingConspiracy: skullkrusher: HotWingConspiracy: IRQ12: Good on those of you applauding the removal of private/personal choice for increased profits for the insurance companies!

Nothing has been removed. You can go work elsewhere or self employ and buy your own insurance if you choose to be a smoker.

whoa. At first I misread that as "want birth control for contraceptive purposes" and was wondering what the world had come to. Now I see that you said "choose to be a smoker".

Oh look, someone wants to pretend that birth control is only for contraception. Been to that thread, it sucked.


oh look, someone who can't read. Been to that thread. Every farking day.
 
2012-10-02 02:15:59 PM

Amos Quito: HotWingConspiracy: Amos Quito: HotWingConspiracy: IRQ12: Good on those of you applauding the removal of private/personal choice for increased profits for the insurance companies!

Nothing has been removed. You can go work elsewhere or self employ and buy your own insurance if you choose to be a smoker.


You sound trollish.

Amos Quito: HotWingConspiracy: IRQ12: Good on those of you applauding the removal of private/personal choice for increased profits for the insurance companies!

Nothing has been removed. You can go work elsewhere or self employ and buy your own insurance if you choose to be a smoker.


You sound trollish.

" the removal of private/personal choice " is a bit hyperbolic, seeing as how you're completely free to choose to smoke.


Okay, but if Delray *really* wanted to cut risks and reduce costs, they'd move the city out of Florida.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-02 02:16:10 PM

cig-mkr: Mishno: stonelotus: hiring stupid people still okay.

They're actually selecting for a higher proportion of non-stupid people by refusing to hire smokers. This is a true statement, statistically, the lower a person's intelligence is, the more likely it is they are a smoker.

I don't know about that, Obama smoked and look where he wound up.



I hope he doesn't dream of being mayor of Delray some day.
 
2012-10-02 02:18:19 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: ...
You have just as much of a right to smoke as you have the right to hit yourself in the head with a claw hammer. Both of these activities may also impact your hirability.


Unless your job is being a patient of your employer, neither should.

I swear you people watch Demolition Man and think, "wow, what a good idea."
 
2012-10-02 02:21:08 PM
From Psychology Today: 4 Ripple Effects of Second Hand Fat

"While those who adhere to the SHF mindset would argue their case and cause is easily analogous to second hand smoke, we simply cannot allow our obese population to suffer a similar trauma, being marginalized when we all most need to be engaged in improving upon the overall situation."

Sounds like the researchers are fat.
 
2012-10-02 02:21:54 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Amos Quito: HotWingConspiracy: Amos Quito: HotWingConspiracy: IRQ12: Good on those of you applauding the removal of private/personal choice for increased profits for the insurance companies!

Nothing has been removed. You can go work elsewhere or self employ and buy your own insurance if you choose to be a smoker.


You sound trollish.

Amos Quito: HotWingConspiracy: IRQ12: Good on those of you applauding the removal of private/personal choice for increased profits for the insurance companies!

Nothing has been removed. You can go work elsewhere or self employ and buy your own insurance if you choose to be a smoker.


You sound trollish.

" the removal of private/personal choice " is a bit hyperbolic, seeing as how you're completely free to choose to smoke.


Okay, but if Delray *really* wanted to cut risks and reduce costs, they'd move the city out of Florida.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 500x300]



Link
 
2012-10-02 02:24:58 PM

Mishno: stonelotus: hiring stupid people still okay.

They're actually selecting for a higher proportion of non-stupid people by refusing to hire smokers. This is a true statement, statistically, the lower a person's intelligence is, the more likely it is they are a smoker.


www.mnn.com
 
2012-10-02 02:27:05 PM
"regularly" = cigar smoking rich white guy loophole intact
 
2012-10-02 02:28:53 PM
blogs.villagevoice.com

^Read article with interest^
 
2012-10-02 02:29:44 PM

Dandyhook: "regularly" = cigar smoking rich white guy loophole intact


actually, it likely means those who use tobacco... regularly. Like having a cigar or a cigarette when you're out with the boys 2 months ago won't impact you but smoking cigarettes daily or a few cigars a week will.
 
2012-10-02 02:36:26 PM
Can any of the freedom loving opponents of this policy explain why employers should be prohibited from discriminating against smokers? Do you believe that tobacco users should be a protected class? Do you believe that the ADA should be interpreted to protect smokers? What is the rational beyond, "I like to smoke?"
 
2012-10-02 02:45:28 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Can any of the freedom loving opponents of this policy explain why employers should be prohibited from discriminating against smokers? Do you believe that tobacco users should be a protected class? Do you believe that the ADA should be interpreted to protect smokers? What is the rational beyond, "I like to smoke?"


Personally, I don't like the idea my employer can fire me for choices I make in my personal life. What's next, can he fire me for being a New York Giants fan? Can he fire me for not being a vegetarian? Can he fire me for having a pet snake? I have no problem with them saying no smoking on company property. But to then dictate what I do once I am off that property seems to be overextending. I'd hate to be shopping one day, and my boss happens to be in the store and looks in my cart. "Sugary cereal... soda... mac n cheese... pfft, so unhealthy... you're fired."

If smoking makes me a worse employee, fire me for my bad productivity. Or don't give me a raise when it is employee performance review time and I am not up to par with everyone else. I can see it now, going to my next job, "Why did you leave your last job?" "Oh, I was fired because I went to Arby's for lunch..."
 
2012-10-02 02:46:50 PM
I can't wait for cities to refuse to hire people who are over weight, drink alcohol, go rock climbing, or any number of other things using the excuse that it reduces health care costs.
 
2012-10-02 02:47:07 PM

elysive: 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.

WTF sorts of "healthy foods" are you buying at the grocery stores to make this excuse? My weekly grocery bill for my bf and I is lower than my weekly junk food/eating out tab was when I lived alone and was obese. That means I pay less now to feed two people than I used to spend just to feed myself. Some weeks we spend over $20 on fruit alone. Healthy eating requires much more effort than junky/process/convenience eating but it is not truly more expensive.

I suppose a person could live exclusively on ramen noodles or kraft mac n cheese and see their bills go up when they start eating real food, but pasta, rice and beans are fairly healthy staples and they are even cheaper. Most obese people don't get that way eating ramen. There's usually some expensive soda or fast food involved.


i kinda got obese eating ramen. i'm still trying to lose the 10 lbs so i can get back into the "overweight" category
 
2012-10-02 02:49:11 PM

stonelotus: Mishno: stonelotus: hiring stupid people still okay.

They're actually selecting for a higher proportion of non-stupid people by refusing to hire smokers. This is a true statement, statistically, the lower a person's intelligence is, the more likely it is they are a smoker.

source, please.


First link Google provided:

Link
 
2012-10-02 02:49:32 PM

Barnstormer: From Psychology Today: 4 Ripple Effects of Second Hand Fat

"While those who adhere to the SHF mindset would argue their case and cause is easily analogous to second hand smoke, we simply cannot allow our obese population to suffer a similar trauma, being marginalized when we all most need to be engaged in improving upon the overall situation."

Sounds like the researchers are fat.


I bet their keyboards are so greasy they had to give up and use Dragon speech-to-text software.

/they had to physically edit out all the "BURP"s, "LIPSMACK"s and "POOT"s
 
2012-10-02 02:52:42 PM

benagain: So it's ok to deny employment to smokers, but what about fat people? Would as many people agree with denying the obese as they do smoking? I don't smoke anymore, and wish I had never started, but it's the principle of the matter. If a city government can do this, then where will the line be drawn?

435,000 deaths caused by smoking.

400,000 deaths caused by obesity.

If you ban smoking, then you will have to get rid of the snack machine in the break room. All this is going to do is have people lying about smoking to get a job and piss off the people who don't want to lie.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/6438.php

 
10,000,000,000 deaths caused by religion...
I do agree about the lying issue though. Do they require a medical exam prior to hiring ? I was under the impression the state of FL had ceased hiring anyone with detectable brain activity quite some time ago.
 
2012-10-02 02:56:56 PM

doubled99: Sucks when logic...


Logic? HA! You have no idea what the fark you're talking about. Pulling random shiat out of your ass and tossing it at the wall in the dire hope that it just happens to stick is desperation, not logic. There are actual numbers behind all of this and if you'd bothered to go dig any up before you went full derp you'd know how stupid you're being.

There are about 1.2 million people in the U.S. living with HIV. There are more than 40 smokers for every 1 of those people.

In the last 30 years, about 600,000 Americans have died as a result of HIV. There are that many deaths due to smoking every 18 months.

Just to bullshiat with some monetary figures, the CDC says that the average cost per smoking employee, to the employer, is $3,300 per year. An HIV patient costs about $25,000 per year ($600,000 for an added 24 years of life).

Smoking, therefore, costs up to five times as much as HIV in health costs and lost productivity alone. Even if we double the figure for HIV to add in lost productivity smoking is still 250% more expensive.

And of course, all this ignores the fact that not everyone who gets HIV did something to bring it on themselves while everybody who smokes choose to cause all their own smoking-related problems.

I await your compelling "logic" explaining how these two things are in any way, shape, or form comparable.  You probably couldn't have picked a stupider analogy to defend. If you'd of been smart, you'd have gone with car crashes, not picked up that other guy's lame AIDS troll. Even with the extraordinarily high costs of treating AIDS patients, here aren't enough people with HIV to make that retarded analogy anything close to sensible.
 
2012-10-02 03:03:11 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Can any of the freedom loving opponents of this policy explain why employers should be prohibited from discriminating against smokers? Do you believe that tobacco users should be a protected class? Do you believe that the ADA should be interpreted to protect smokers? What is the rational beyond, "I like to smoke?"


So I am sure you are ok with the whole facebook password thing because who knows? You could be admitting to unhealthy things like riding quads or oversleeping which may cause their premiums to go up.

Employers using personal/private lives as part of employments terms (as they don't apply to the job) is a terrible idea, regardless of the issue.
 
2012-10-02 03:03:31 PM

OgreMagi: I can't wait for cities to refuse to hire people who are over weight, drink alcohol, go rock climbing, or any number of other things using the excuse that it reduces health care costs.


I have you colored in bright red which means you post insanely stupid things all the time, but hey, while we're having fun...

All that would make sense except rock climbing, which does not significantly increase your risks. Far and away the most dangerous, non-disease related thing you do every day is something everyone else in your risk pool already does as well: driving. The 7th leading cause of death in America and, along with firearms, the only other non-disease cause of death in the top 10 reasons.

Climbing up a rock wall with some ropes attached to you doesn't add much more risk to your pool once you've already factored in that whole "careening down the interstate at 80 mph in the midst of a hundred other two and a half ton steel caskets on wheels" thing.

But facts are hard, so just make up things that sound fact-like, right?

Ironically, weight and alcohol abuse are actually two things that should be prioritized over even smoking given that cardiovascular disease and cancer are the two leading causes of death and diet and alcohol abuse are two major factors in both of those things.
 
2012-10-02 03:08:07 PM

stonicus: Uranus Is Huge!: Can any of the freedom loving opponents of this policy explain why employers should be prohibited from discriminating against smokers? Do you believe that tobacco users should be a protected class? Do you believe that the ADA should be interpreted to protect smokers? What is the rational beyond, "I like to smoke?"

Personally, I don't like the idea my employer can fire me for choices I make in my personal life. What's next, can he fire me for being a New York Giants fan? Can he fire me for not being a vegetarian? Can he fire me for having a pet snake? I have no problem with them saying no smoking on company property. But to then dictate what I do once I am off that property seems to be overextending. I'd hate to be shopping one day, and my boss happens to be in the store and looks in my cart. "Sugary cereal... soda... mac n cheese... pfft, so unhealthy... you're fired."

If smoking makes me a worse employee, fire me for my bad productivity. Or don't give me a raise when it is employee performance review time and I am not up to par with everyone else. I can see it now, going to my next job, "Why did you leave your last job?" "Oh, I was fired because I went to Arby's for lunch..."


Rather than trying to address your slippery slope, I will just point out that the labor laws in most states allow you to be fired for any or no reason. There are protections for certain folks.
 
2012-10-02 03:08:58 PM
Is Obama a smoker?
 
2012-10-02 03:15:39 PM
Watch out fatties, they are coming for you next.
 
2012-10-02 03:21:03 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: stonicus: Uranus Is Huge!: Can any of the freedom loving opponents of this policy explain why employers should be prohibited from discriminating against smokers? Do you believe that tobacco users should be a protected class? Do you believe that the ADA should be interpreted to protect smokers? What is the rational beyond, "I like to smoke?"

Personally, I don't like the idea my employer can fire me for choices I make in my personal life. What's next, can he fire me for being a New York Giants fan? Can he fire me for not being a vegetarian? Can he fire me for having a pet snake? I have no problem with them saying no smoking on company property. But to then dictate what I do once I am off that property seems to be overextending. I'd hate to be shopping one day, and my boss happens to be in the store and looks in my cart. "Sugary cereal... soda... mac n cheese... pfft, so unhealthy... you're fired."

If smoking makes me a worse employee, fire me for my bad productivity. Or don't give me a raise when it is employee performance review time and I am not up to par with everyone else. I can see it now, going to my next job, "Why did you leave your last job?" "Oh, I was fired because I went to Arby's for lunch..."

Rather than trying to address your slippery slope, I will just point out that the labor laws in most states allow you to be fired for any or no reason. There are protections for certain folks.


Should it be protected? No. Do I disagree with it? Yes.
But I base my "no" on protection from the "it's my choice" angle. So if you're disabled through a deliberate action of your own (bungee jumping accident, skiing, rock climbing, etc..) then you shouldn't be protected either. Born with no leg? Cool. Lost your leg in a water skiing accident? Hop the hell out of my office...
 
2012-10-02 03:24:33 PM

PallMall: 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 image 287x399]


Hmmm try reading more than 2 words next time, Billy.
 
2012-10-02 03:31:57 PM
Meh... Go buy an e-cig.
 
2012-10-02 03:37:12 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Meh... Go buy an e-cig.


That's still nicotine.
 
2012-10-02 03:40:17 PM

stonicus: Uranus Is Huge!: Meh... Go buy an e-cig.

That's still nicotine.


Yet not tobacco... and available without nicotine.
 
2012-10-02 03:42:05 PM

stonicus: Mock26: Science_Guy_3.14159: I know this is Florida but have you heard of something called The Constitution?

Would you care to quote the part of the Constitution that protects smokers?

The part that doesn't say "we can oppress smokers". You need to learn what the Constitution is actually saying. It's not a list of your rights. It's much much greater than that.


The Constitution does not work that way.

If what you say is true, however, then explain how it is legal (and constitutional) for states to pass legislation that bans same-sex marriages. After all, the Constitution does not say that "we can oppress homosexuals."
 
2012-10-02 03:42:42 PM

FizixJunkee: stonelotus: Mishno: stonelotus: hiring stupid people still okay.

They're actually selecting for a higher proportion of non-stupid people by refusing to hire smokers. This is a true statement, statistically, the lower a person's intelligence is, the more likely it is they are a smoker.

source, please.

First link Google provided:

Link


That's interesting reading. I smoke and I smoke but my IQ is at 138. I must be an anomaly.
 
2012-10-02 03:56:13 PM

Pair-o-Dice: FizixJunkee: stonelotus: Mishno: stonelotus: hiring stupid people still okay.

They're actually selecting for a higher proportion of non-stupid people by refusing to hire smokers. This is a true statement, statistically, the lower a person's intelligence is, the more likely it is they are a smoker.

source, please.

First link Google provided:

Link

That's interesting reading. I smoke and I smoke but my IQ is at 138. I must be an anomaly.


Me too...but the highest I have scored is 132, but the last two times were 122 and 119.

/and I favorited you as smart guy...we will see. ; )
 
2012-10-02 03:57:29 PM
Next up: fatties.
After that: people who do not exercise regularly.
etc.
 
2012-10-02 04:09:16 PM
The dirty little secrete is that local, state, and federal governments have gotten so used the sweet sweet tax money they get from cigarette purchases that if everyone were to quit, there would be in a world of shiat...
 
2012-10-02 04:11:02 PM
One day they get rid of the smokers, the next thing you know they're telling us what we can and can't wear to work. Utter bullcrap.
 
2012-10-02 04:25:56 PM
Wonder if the ban includes e-cigarettes? The big knock on smoking is well, the smoking. E-cigs atomize nicotine suspended in a solution similar to what is used in asthma inhalers; the e-cig user exhales a nearly odorless vapor.

I've been using e-cigs for about a year. I feel much better; no more coughing up half a lung every morning, no more smelly clothes and hair, I can vape at my desk at work, my car stays much cleaner inside, and it's a whole lot cheaper than tobacco to boot.

My doctor told me if e-cigs work for me, go for it, and he certified me as a non-smoker for my annual health insurance renewal.
 
2012-10-02 04:29:29 PM

Pair-o-Dice: FizixJunkee: stonelotus: Mishno: stonelotus: hiring stupid people still okay.

They're actually selecting for a higher proportion of non-stupid people by refusing to hire smokers. This is a true statement, statistically, the lower a person's intelligence is, the more likely it is they are a smoker.

source, please.

First link Google provided:

Link

That's interesting reading. I smoke and I smoke but my IQ is at 138. I must be an anomaly.


That's how statistics work. The research described in almost all of the links returned on a google of "smoking cigarettes intelligence" indicates the dumber a person is, the more likely they are a smoker. Not "only dumb people smoke". There's some indication of: "the longer you smoke, the dumber you get", too. Maybe you used to have an IQ of 138....

I don't really care if you smoke, as long as no one who doesn't want to, can smell it. And don't throw your butts on the ground.
 
2012-10-02 04:43:11 PM
DeusMeh


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.
So you've conceded democrats are controlling fascists?
 
2012-10-02 05:10:23 PM
Makes me wonder if Delray's immediate neighbor, Boynton, had anything to do with this. They have been corrupted by first-cousin sexting, after all
 
2012-10-02 05:12:24 PM
Vegan Meat Popsicle:

Your posts have the tone of a little kid jamming his fingers in his ears and screaming at full volume.

\ Caffeine is a vegan right?
 
2012-10-02 05:18:06 PM

benagain: So it's ok to deny employment to smokers, but what about fat people? Would as many people agree with denying the obese as they do smoking? I don't smoke anymore, and wish I had never started, but it's the principle of the matter. If a city government can do this, then where will the line be drawn?

435,000 deaths caused by smoking.

400,000 deaths caused by obesity.

If you ban smoking, then you will have to get rid of the snack machine in the break room. All this is going to do is have people lying about smoking to get a job and piss off the people who don't want to lie.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/6438.php


Why get rid of the snack machine? If I chose to not be a lazy ass and live a good healthy life, should I not be able to enjoy a treat now and then?

Instead, have the snack machine utilize a keycard system. Those who can keep their body fat percentage less than that of a beluga whale will have access to the snack machine.
 
2012-10-02 05:22:32 PM

careless lisper: benagain: So it's ok to deny employment to smokers, but what about fat people? Would as many people agree with denying the obese as they do smoking? I don't smoke anymore, and wish I had never started, but it's the principle of the matter. If a city government can do this, then where will the line be drawn?

435,000 deaths caused by smoking.

400,000 deaths caused by obesity.

If you ban smoking, then you will have to get rid of the snack machine in the break room. All this is going to do is have people lying about smoking to get a job and piss off the people who don't want to lie.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/6438.php

Why get rid of the snack machine? If I chose to not be a lazy ass and live a good healthy life, should I not be able to enjoy a treat now and then?

Instead, have the snack machine utilize a keycard system. Those who can keep their body fat percentage less than that of a beluga whale will have access to the snack machine.


Such snack foods are bad for you. Therefore you must not have them.

IMHO it's most likely true that a cigarette once a week would not significantly harm you, any more than a chocolate bar a week would.
 
2012-10-02 05:41:06 PM

Mishno: stonelotus: Mishno: stonelotus: hiring stupid people still okay.

They're actually selecting for a higher proportion of non-stupid people by refusing to hire smokers. This is a true statement, statistically, the lower a person's intelligence is, the more likely it is they are a smoker.

source, please.

Link


[i_bet_the_jews_did_this.jpg]
 
2012-10-02 06:15:19 PM

Cyclonic Cooking Action: Your posts have the tone of a little kid jamming his fingers in his ears and screaming at full volume.


I've cited a 50-year study from British Medical Journal about life expectancy, a study from Vrije Universiteit about sick days of smokers, a U.S. Navy study about smoker under performance and four stats from the CDC in defense of my comments.

Number of citations of any kind anybody arguing with me has offered? Exactly zero.

But, yea, I'm probably the one refusing to acknowledge reality here. 

And if your complaint is the tone of my posts? Too farking bad. Smokers are morons and don't deserve any respect.
 
2012-10-02 06:20:29 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: blah,blah, blah... Smokers are morons and don't deserve any respect.


You are a huge asshole and don't deserve any respect either with your attitude.
 
2012-10-02 06:39:07 PM

En0ch_The_Red: Wonder if the ban includes e-cigarettes? The big knock on smoking is well, the smoking. E-cigs atomize nicotine suspended in a solution similar to what is used in asthma inhalers; the e-cig user exhales a nearly odorless vapor.

I've been using e-cigs for about a year. I feel much better; no more coughing up half a lung every morning, no more smelly clothes and hair, I can vape at my desk at work, my car stays much cleaner inside, and it's a whole lot cheaper than tobacco to boot.

My doctor told me if e-cigs work for me, go for it, and he certified me as a non-smoker for my annual health insurance renewal.


Cool story, bro.
 
2012-10-02 07:02:46 PM

Cyclonic Cooking Action: You are a huge asshole and don't deserve any respect either with your attitude.


And, yet, I'm still right. Imagine that.
 
2012-10-02 07:16:54 PM
It's so weird to me that people get so hysterical and smug about smoking.

It's not allowed in pretty much any public building in the country, now shut the fark up and move on.
 
2012-10-02 07:29:39 PM
We're overdue for a new drug war anyway.
So lets get busy making a new kind of second class citizen while unlearning everything the last two bans taught us!
 
2012-10-02 08:33:50 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: elysive: WTF sorts of "healthy foods" are you buying at the grocery stores to make this excuse? My weekly grocery bill for my bf and I is lower than my weekly junk food/eating out tab was when I lived alone and was obese. That means I pay less now to feed two people than I used to spend just to feed myself. Some weeks we spend over $20 on fruit alone. Healthy eating requires much more effort than junky/process/convenience eating but it is not truly more expensive.

I suppose a person could live exclusively on ramen noodles or kraft mac n cheese and see their bills go up when they start eating real food, but pasta, rice and beans are fairly healthy staples and they are even cheaper. Most obese people don't get that way eating ramen. There's usually some expensive soda or fast food involved.

i kinda got obese eating ramen. i'm still trying to lose the 10 lbs so i can get back into the "overweight" category


Man, that's a sucky thing to have to eat in large quantities. That said, and not that I know your current diet, I doubt it would break your stingy/lazy bank to just switch over to rice and beans and the increase in fiber alone (and reduction in sodium though it's pretty much a one time loss of water) would do wonders for your weight loss.

Sadly the BMI that determines the poundage a person should be doesn't mean too much. You'd probably be better off/wouldn't have to worry so specifically about 10 lb if you focused on adding some exercise to the regimen. Muscle > fat. How a person looks and feels > numbers on the scale.
 
2012-10-02 08:36:31 PM
The federal government has two departments that deal with the wholesomeness of products, USDA and FDA. If something is found to be unwholesome (in this case as fit for human consumption), the government could remove said product from the shelves. The reality being, that in moderation, the use of tobacco products has minimal negative effects on the population, thus prohibiting the FDA from labeling the product unfit for human consumption.

OR

Tobacco products are actually that bad for you, are the cause of death for all users who aren't killed by alternative means, and still allow people to peddle poison because of the sizable donation of sin taxes.
 
2012-10-02 08:38:02 PM
*not fit
 
2012-10-02 09:19:08 PM

way south: We're overdue for a new drug war anyway.
So lets get busy making a new kind of second class citizen while unlearning everything the last two bans taught us!


Who's banning smoking? Oh, right nobody... don't light up near that strawman. You might burn to death.
 
2012-10-02 09:58:12 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: way south: We're overdue for a new drug war anyway.
So lets get busy making a new kind of second class citizen while unlearning everything the last two bans taught us!

Who's banning smoking? Oh, right nobody... don't light up near that strawman. You might burn to death.


They don't need to ban it per say, just make it too expensive to maintain the hobby. The supply/demand mechanics work out the same, and all that much faster if users are being denied employment or insurance.
Lets also not kid ourselves. When the nanny state gets going on a subject, a ban is always the inevitable goal. You are either being willfully naive or short sighted to suggest otherwise.

/its for our own good, of course.
/and the good of the black market, which is currently raking it in on people dodging cigarette taxes.
 
2012-10-02 11:26:44 PM
These threads are always great for helping me identify the smug axeholes on this site, I think we should have one at least once a week.
 
2012-10-03 12:23:05 AM

Autarky: as a smoker, I am ok with this as long as they also ban all of the disgusting obese from working


THIS.

Also, f(k you, Subby.
 
2012-10-03 04:00:03 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


You shouldn't be smoking anything until you reach the age of 18.
 
2012-10-03 06:27:00 AM

MikeMc: 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.


But you could be chewing nicotine gum, therefore you would test positive while being a nonsmoker. Wonder what they will do in this case?
 
2012-10-03 08:50:52 AM

PastaFazoole: MikeMc: 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.

But you could be chewing nicotine gum, therefore you would test positive while being a nonsmoker. Wonder what they will do in this case?


umm, i'm guessing they don't test?? it's pretty easy to see if someone is smoking on the job..
 
2012-10-03 09:19:43 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: PastaFazoole: MikeMc: 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.

But you could be chewing nicotine gum, therefore you would test positive while being a nonsmoker. Wonder what they will do in this case?

umm, i'm guessing they don't test?? it's pretty easy to see if someone is smoking on the job..


no distinction was made based on where the smoking takes place. I smoke less than a pack a week. I don't smoke inside my house and might smoke 1-2 cigarettes at home in a week. I work from home but when I had an office I didn't smoke at the workplace. I pretty much just smoke when I go to a bar and have a few drinks or if I'm driving longer distances (anything over 20 minutes). I'm still considered a smoker and would be not be eligible for hire in Delray Beach (15 minutes away from me btw).

what's funny is that you can still smoke at a lot of restaurants here in FL, including the Atlantic Ave. strip in Delray Beach. they usually get that banned first.
 
Displayed 331 of 331 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report