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 66
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-02 10:27:53 AM
6 votes:
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 10:03:56 AM
6 votes:
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 09:59:16 AM
5 votes:
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 10:25:22 AM
4 votes:
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 10:10:54 AM
4 votes:
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 08:09:58 AM
4 votes:
hero tag is highly inappropriate. is there no anti-smoking fascist tag?
2012-10-02 10:03:40 AM
3 votes:
Cool!
When can we start discriminating against fat people now that it's all about health?
2012-10-02 10:01:06 AM
3 votes:
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 02:07:30 PM
2 votes:
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 01:05:49 PM
2 votes:

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.
gja [TotalFark]
2012-10-02 10:33:38 AM
2 votes:

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 10:29:18 AM
2 votes:

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 10:22:49 AM
2 votes:

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 10:10:25 AM
2 votes:
"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 10:05:16 AM
2 votes:
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 10:05:15 AM
2 votes:

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 10:05:01 AM
2 votes:
Marijuana, Heroin, Oxy, Cocaine and Kool Aid still acceptable
2012-10-02 10:03:16 AM
2 votes:
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 09:58:50 AM
2 votes:

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 08:09:37 AM
2 votes:
Wow, subs, its too damn early for this kind of trollin
2012-10-02 05:12:24 PM
1 votes:
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 02:45:28 PM
1 votes:

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 02:21:08 PM
1 votes:
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 01:57:03 PM
1 votes:

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 01:13:59 PM
1 votes:
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 01:10:47 PM
1 votes:

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 01:09:42 PM
1 votes:

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 12:26:54 PM
1 votes:

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 12:22:09 PM
1 votes:

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 12:18:14 PM
1 votes:

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 12:17:09 PM
1 votes:
Soooo... when are they going to stop hiring fat people?
2012-10-02 12:14:31 PM
1 votes:

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 12:01:53 PM
1 votes:
How does the city of Delray feel about purple drank?

/asking for a friend
2012-10-02 11:36:34 AM
1 votes:

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 11:24:15 AM
1 votes:

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

2012-10-02 11:22:14 AM
1 votes:
You know who takes the most sick days? Smokers? Nope. Fat chicks.
2012-10-02 11:17:10 AM
1 votes:
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 11:15:34 AM
1 votes:
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 11:05:45 AM
1 votes:
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 10:44:56 AM
1 votes:

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 10:44:21 AM
1 votes:

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 10:38:08 AM
1 votes:

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 10:37:49 AM
1 votes:

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 10:35:32 AM
1 votes:
pipe smokers live LONGER than normal people. surely they should get a CUT in health insurance for smoking.
2012-10-02 10:31:49 AM
1 votes:

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 10:31:41 AM
1 votes:

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 10:18:56 AM
1 votes:

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 10:18:12 AM
1 votes:

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 10:18:02 AM
1 votes:
as a smoker, I am ok with this as long as they also ban all of the disgusting obese from working
2012-10-02 10:14:09 AM
1 votes:
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 10:12:49 AM
1 votes:

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 10:11:26 AM
1 votes:
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 10:10:57 AM
1 votes:

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 10:10:32 AM
1 votes:

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 10:07:31 AM
1 votes:
Don't forget the gays. One AIDS claim hit us for over $1 million.
2012-10-02 10:06:33 AM
1 votes:
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 10:05:55 AM
1 votes:

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 10:05:45 AM
1 votes:
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 10:05:35 AM
1 votes:
"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 10:03:39 AM
1 votes:
What if they regularly use tobacco products for some other reason than healthcare costs?
2012-10-02 10:03:30 AM
1 votes:
"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 10:01:39 AM
1 votes:

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 10:01:23 AM
1 votes:

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 10:00:57 AM
1 votes:

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 10:00:05 AM
1 votes:
Troll, troll, troll your Fark
Be a stupid ass, ...

Law suit in 5... 4... 3...
2012-10-02 09:46:37 AM
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 66 of 66 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report