Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

$mokers pay the price (Company charges smoker employees $100 a month more for insurance)
South Florida Sun Sentinel ^ | Oct. 10, 2007 | Michael Mayo

Posted on 10/11/2007 2:35:03 AM PDT by tlb

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-117 next last
To: sure_fine
will they do the same for overweight employees too?

Why not go after fat people? Being fat carries a higher risk of possible health problems later, right?. Genetically overweight? Unless you can prove it's genetic, you'll probably get penalized for laziness and overeating. Next they'll demand to come to your home and inspect it for anything they consider to be unsafe conditions. We all know more accidents occur in the home, right?. Are you doing your thirty-minute walk at least three times a week? No? Ooohh, too much junk food in your pantry? That rug there, tripping hazard. How often do you climb that ladder over there? Commute to work on a motorcycle? Risky choice. Choose instead to drive a large carbon footprint? Ah, now you are risking the health of others, and drowning polar bears as well. Own a gun?

The place where I work has banned smoking anywhere on their (substantially large) company-managed property, including the parking lots and your car. You can't walk all the way out to the parking lot and smoke in your own car. (I don't smoke). Then there is the other do-gooder feel-good nonsense called "Behavior Based Assessment" where someone follows you around observing your normal daily routine and taking notes. Then they sit you down and tell you what you should do to 'reduce your health risks' (you looked over your shoulder and greeted someone while walking down the hall today. Tsk tsk, you could've walked into a wall). And now that we've made your work environment "safe" (all done under the excuse of creating a better work environment, reducing health costs and increasing the quality of life for our employees) let's discuss your hobbies...

If we never make an insurance claim and stay healthy, we just keep paying those ever-increasing insurance premiums for nothing in return, and the insurance companies get to keep the money, all the while penalizing us for engaging in what they determine to be risky behavior.

They may consider it "risky behavior", but I call it "enjoying life". I would really like all the meddlers out there to stop "helping" me, and just leave me the hell alone. Whatever happened to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"? Life itself is a risk, and in the end, we're still going to die anyway.

< /rant>

41 posted on 10/11/2007 5:59:36 AM PDT by pigsmith (Viewing life as a gift from God, I tend to regard self-defense more as an obligation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sure_fine
lol... another toon from pookie today

Perfect!

42 posted on 10/11/2007 6:11:24 AM PDT by pigsmith (Viewing life as a gift from God, I tend to regard self-defense more as an obligation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: pigsmith

Funny thing is, people living on the dole don’t put up with this crap.


43 posted on 10/11/2007 6:13:24 AM PDT by Realism (Some believe that the facts-of-life are open to debate.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: sure_fine

I think everyone should pay for the true cost of their insurance. If you have greater risk factors like smoking or being fat then your insurance should be higher. Its no different than charging more for car insurance when the driver has a bunch of DUI’s or speeding insurance.


44 posted on 10/11/2007 6:14:49 AM PDT by FightThePower! (Fight the powers that be!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman
The whole insurance game is based on risks. If I get auto insurance and have tickets for reckless driving on my driving record - I will pay higher premiums. If my home is old and has bad wiring - I will pay higher homeowners insurance.

That's the way it used to be. Now it is illegal for insurance companies to charge more for auto insurance for Newark residents as compared with moi who lives about 15 miles west, even though people who live where I do are a much lower risk. I think the same is true for taking level of education into account. (Hmmm. I wonder why this is.) There is no risk that I will become pregnant, but I must be part of a group that pays out maternity/abortion benefits. It is illegal to charge geezers more than 20 year-olds for health insurance, though for some reason it's okay to charge 20 year-olds more for auto insurance. Etc., etc., usw.

ML/NJ

45 posted on 10/11/2007 6:16:16 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tlb; sure_fine
This isn't news to me. My company has done it for 4 years. It's $600 per year more for smokers.

Sure_fine while the company hasn't started charging overweight employees more yet, employees who go through a health screening that measures body mass index, blood sugar, blood pressure and cholesterol get an additional premium reduction.

Logical consequences, people.

46 posted on 10/11/2007 6:18:23 AM PDT by CholeraJoe (No problem should be abandoned until treachery and brute force have been tried and failed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Realism
Funny thing is, people living on the dole don’t put up with this crap.

And why should they? They have us healthy employed people to carry the load, and it's not fair that we should have what they don't but don't worry Hillary! is going to take things away from you for the common good and save us all from ourselves and I need to take a deeeeep breath, take my hands off the keyboard and step away from the computer....

47 posted on 10/11/2007 6:19:12 AM PDT by pigsmith (Viewing life as a gift from God, I tend to regard self-defense more as an obligation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: tlb
It’s gotta suck being a smoker nowadays, and from what I see, it will get worse, socially, economically and the health outlook is not so great either as a smoker gets older. Glad I quit 25 years ago when it was only up to me. Smoking is kind of like belonging to a union. You pay a lot of money to someone who is not really looking out for your best interests. Come to think of it, belonging to a union is much better than smoking.
48 posted on 10/11/2007 6:25:04 AM PDT by Dixie Yooper (Ephesians 6:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tlb

The company I work for has had a smokers surcharge on their health benefits premiums for several years now. It has led several employees to quit smoking. Now the company is refocusing their attention from illness treatment to “wellness and illness preventative” measures. I think this is a plan to help the company create the case to begin penalizing overweight employees. It’s coming. They’re gonna force us all to do what’s best for us whether we want to or not. Alcohol drinkers, you’re next. Motorcycle riders, get in line. Those of you with genetic predispositioned diseases.....you’re time is coming.


49 posted on 10/11/2007 6:25:52 AM PDT by OB1kNOb (Support Duncan Hunter for the 2008 GOP presidential nominee. He is THE conservative candidate!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cbkaty
BTW, has anyone ever demonstrated that smokers actually do consume more medical service dollars than non-smokers? My father was a heavy smoker and died from lung cancer at age 72. He probably didn't spend more than 30 days in a hospital his whole life. Maybe seven days of that was due to his lung cancer. Now, of course, he consumes no health care dollars.

ML/NJ

50 posted on 10/11/2007 6:26:55 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sure_fine
will they do the same for overweight employees too?

don't forget the stressed out workers, they are higher risk for MI's.

51 posted on 10/11/2007 6:28:02 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Realism
"Maybe costs should be based upon usage, many of the hypochondriac's out there are living "healthy lifestyles".

That is a very reasonable suggestion. Our company tried to do something along that line by increasing the co-pay. I think I'd rather see the overall premium be adjusted. Of course, the way my wife likes to run to the doctor and take our kids to the doctor it would probably end up costing me a lot more. Still, it would be fair.

52 posted on 10/11/2007 6:32:15 AM PDT by T.Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro

and the ones who chip finger nails, they could get infections


53 posted on 10/11/2007 6:32:27 AM PDT by sure_fine (• " not one to over kill the thought process " •)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro

and how about the ones with dentures, they could sneeze them out and hit you in eye


54 posted on 10/11/2007 6:34:22 AM PDT by sure_fine (• " not one to over kill the thought process " •)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: tlb
I think companies should charge more to their employees who run in marathons.

Charge black people more because of higher risks of blood pressure, strokes.

Charge Hispanics more because of higher risks of diabetes.

Charge more to anyone who participates in extreme sports.

Definitely charge single people more than married.

Charge women of childbearing age more; they might have a baby who needs $500,000 of neonatal intensive care.

Charge older workers more; they get sick more often.

See where this is going?

The point is, GROUP insurance is just that. Once you start cherry-picking in GROUP insurance, it's no longer a GROUP policy. How companies legally got away with picking off smokers, I can't imagine. Now that the camel's nose is in the tent, just about any sub-group of people can be analyzed and singled out, because of *something* they do, because of *some* feature they have, that will cost the company more money in health insurance.

If I were queen of the forest, I'd make sure that every company that cherry-picks for whatever reason would LOSE their tax break for group insurance. Because once you start selecting, it's not group insurance anymore.

55 posted on 10/11/2007 6:35:25 AM PDT by valkyrieanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meyer
I’m sorry but you idea will NEVER gain acceptance.

It makes way, way too much sense.

Just think of all the poor government bureaucrats that would be out of a job were your commonsense idea adopted.

:)

Wanna see the future of healthcare in this country? Take a gander at my tag line.

56 posted on 10/11/2007 7:03:59 AM PDT by upchuck (Hildabeaste as Prez... unimaginable, devastating misery!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tlb

I agree with this, to a certain extent, like you say. If an individual is engaging in riskier behavior, the cost of that risk should not be forcibly “shared” with everyone else.

HOWEVER - you know that the left will not allow the individual to have to pay more for riskier behaviors such as homosexual lifestyles, sex outside of marriage, drug use, etc.

Like you said, it’s politically correct to have the individual shoulder his own burden for his own choices in SOME areas, but not in others.

Political Correctness = outlawing the speaking of the truth.


57 posted on 10/11/2007 7:08:12 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tlb
Naturally, this makes me wonder what other unhealthy sins will be surcharged in coming years.

I heard the future on FoxNews the other night. People will have to take regular physicals, threadmills, EKG/EEG's, the whole bit.

Those who exercise and have improved health stats will pay less, those who gain weight or don't show health improvement will pay more.

And this is before we get to drinking. They'll control everything we eat, drink, smoke, every drug - prescription or not - that we take.

It's a slow road to the gestapo. And it's not just smokers anymore.

It's YOU!

58 posted on 10/11/2007 7:08:44 AM PDT by HeartlandOfAmerica (The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

The dirty BIG secret behind socialized healthcare is between the lines of your post -

once they get everyone dependent on a common system, any behavior that they don’t like will be called a “burden on the healthcare system” and you will be forced to comply or not get treated - like that poor bastid in England who can’t get his ankle operated on because he smokes.


59 posted on 10/11/2007 7:13:04 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: HeartlandOfAmerica

What about all those taxes and surcharges on cigarettes we ALREADY pay, that were justified (way back when) by increased tobacco risks, but went to something else instead?

How many state and local budgets do smokers already balance? Seems to me the government at all levels is funding schools, etc. on the backs of smokers.

At least we could get a “good citizen” award, instead of being sneered at. Sheesh!


60 posted on 10/11/2007 7:15:47 AM PDT by Judith Anne (Thank you St. Jude for favors granted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-117 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson