"AMEN!"
Don't you wish people were that matter of fact about the morality and behavior of their politicians?
Posted on 04/27/2008 10:33:18 AM PDT by OnRightOnLeftCoast
obtaining $500 by fraud is fraud, period
no one said that they must quit smoking
they lied to get the $500 dollars
it’s about the lie, not the smoking
It wasn't the smoking that got them fired, it was lying about being a non-smoker for a health insurance discount that got them fired.
You do not know what the question was, and the argument is not about whether it is OK to smoke or not. The article states that the employees were seen smoking after receiving a $500 discount on their health insurance premium based upon a false statement. That is fraud.
Be sick of it all you want. The idea behind insurance is to spread the costs amongst all participants, not point out and penalize those who may have higher health risks.
I know a lot of smokers and fatties in their 70’s-90’s.
Either it’s an all inclusive group policy, or it’s a private group.
This is the real problem, not the fatties (you jerk) or the smokers.
The only thing they did wrong was to lie on an insurance application. For that they get fired? Kicked out of the group, sure, but fired?
...notice you didn’t mention the butt plugging homo’s in your hate speech there , buddy. Your friends, maybe?
So it’s okay to lie on a health insurance question?
Why not also do something about other destructive behaviour, like gay sex or people who tend to drive over the speed limit, or people who have more than one drink a day... or eat too much chocolate, etc., etc.
When they’re throwing money with it so a false answer could potentially be fraud you’ve got to air on the side of caution. I do a similar smoker/ non-smoker cycle, and because of that for all forms of medical importance or legal ramification no matter where I am in the cycle I list myself as a smoker.
If the give you $500 off your insurance for being a non-smoker and you start again I think you a pretty high level of responsibility to let them know. If only to avoid situations like this person is in.
>>First, the question is, “Have you used tobacco products in the last year?” The form specifically includes cigarettes, cigars, pipes and smokeless tobacco.<<
That makes tons of sense. Everyone of these forms I’ve seen just ask if you are a smoker.
To me, that just never seemed to be enough.
>>and the argument is not about whether it is OK to smoke or not.<<
I never said it WAS! Where did you get that?
My respect for the social darwinists increased 10 fold after reading this thread.
They were not fired. They were suspended without pay.
I pay $258 more per month on my private health insurance because I do admit that I smoke. That's different from the "group" insurance offered to groups like company insurance policies. If they single out one possible cause of higher risk then they should account for all the known causes... everything from too much sun (skin cancer) to drinking bottled water from those cancer-causing plastic bottles, or people who don't get enough exercise. Group insurance means "group".
Well then, by golly, I sit corrected on that point only.
Thank you for your kindness in reminding me.
I said they deserve to be fired.
I think nicotine can be detected for about a month.
Please don't take this post as criticism. On a gut level, I agree with your sentiments. I would like to use your post, to get some discussion, and maybe some good ideas, that I can use to help me refine my position on this issue. I really am struggling.
I am a non-smoker, but probably tend towards the "fattie" side of the equation. I don't want to pay for smokers whose health problems are probably caused by their bad habit. I don't want to pay for the health problems of the "morbidly obese", but I'm just a little overweight. Do I have to pay a higher premium? Also, my parents smoked as I was growing up. I am therefor a second-hand smoker. Should my premiums be higher?
How about genetic diseases? Should a person with, say, a family history of depression have to pay more for health insurance than someone who does not? Smoking is also much more prevalent among those suffering from depression. Some medications for depression are very expensive AND cause weight gain.
Howzabout a family history of low thyroid function? People who suffer from low thyroid activity tend to be overweight.
Many very fit people participate in extreme sports, risking a severe injury requiring expensive orthopedic surgery. Should these fit people pay higher premiums based on their activities?
While we're on the subject of behaviors that negatively affect your health, consider homosexuality and Aids. Shall we raise insurance rates for homosexual behavior? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Right now, insurers have formulas for determining the cost of your driving insurance based upon risk of insuring you, including your age, sex, type of car your drive, and your driving history. If health insurance companies were truly allowed to do the same, taking into account EVERYTHING associated with the individuals health and lifestyle, I would be okay with different people paying different premiums for the same level of care.....just like the auto insurers do. Until they do this, however, I feel uncomfortable singling out one or two groups to penalize.
I just read an article pointing to viruses being linked to lung cancer.
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080425/full/news.2008.779.html?s=news_rss
AMEN!
“It wasn’t the smoking that got them fired, it was lying about being a non-smoker for a health insurance discount that got them fired.”
In that case, they have no defense. If they want to smoke, then smoke, just take responsibility.
"AMEN!"
Don't you wish people were that matter of fact about the morality and behavior of their politicians?
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.