It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Humana Won't Hire Smokers in Arizona

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Well here is the funny thing, I do not use their medical benefits. My husband is retired Army so we use Tricare, so my employer does not pay ANY of my healthcare costs. Tricare is much cheaper for us annually. So Humana does not absorb the cost of my healthcare. Not one red cent. I do have life insurance through them...that is kind of ironic though .

Maybe that would be the answer? Refusing insurance to smokers instead of refusing to hire smokers? That would make the most sense if their argument is the cost of our healthcare...





posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
S & F for a great, meaty topic! Thanx!


I am a long-time smoker, pack a day...wait!...gotta go get a smoke...ahhhh (that's outta the way)...

That having been said...

REALLY?!

In this economy, you really expect anyone to play to your addictions? Why all the outrage over other's righful disgust of y(our) filthiness and foulness, forcing others to watch someone knowingly killing themselves slowly?

Seriously, grow up, own your addictions, and be grateful that you can do it at all in this Fascism you so studiously pointed out!



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
The root of this problem, and where the constitutionality comes in is that are infringing on your personal rights by dictating what you can/cannot do when you are not on company time. This is just the beginning. i remember when they were talking about banning smoking on airplanes. No one thought it would pass. I remember having a conversation with a relative and telling them that this was just the beginning. Soon you will not be able to smoke in bars, and even in your own home. Some of that has already happened.

Alcohol does WAY more damage than smoking. How many smoking related traffic deaths have happened? We do more damage to our system by eating processed food than smoking will ever do. We allow doctors to give us known carcinogen containing pills that kill us. I don't see what the difference is. Well, according to the air snobs second hand smoke kills just as much. Wrong again! When you inhale the smoke, your lungs retain the chemicals. What comes back out doesn't. I guess next they will not hire people who fart because the gases could potentially cause cancer.

This is getting way out of control. All of you people on here that are preaching against the NWO and staunchly defending freedom should be outraged by this. To not feel outraged by this obvious intrusion into your personal freedoms speaks volumes of what you truly believe in. Freedom is freedom. You can't line item it.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by k21968
Maybe that would be the answer? Refusing insurance to smokers instead of refusing to hire smokers? That would make the most sense if their argument is the cost of our healthcare...
That could be one alternative. or another alternative could be that they might make an exception to the no smoker rule to people in your situation who waive all health care benefits.

If it's not going to cost them one red cent in health care or insurance, the only other possible objection I can think of would be absenteeism, which of course again could be statistically related to health. Even of you have other health care coverage, if you are sicker and miss more work that could be a separate issue...just saying. But I think they could live with that if you did a good job and were there when you really needed to be there. Lung cancer can be pretty debilitating however, a friend of mine (smoker) died from it and eventually was pretty incapacitated until she died.

But I think cost is probably the major factor. I know bean counters.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
The costs related to smoking or other nicotine use are indeed there. However, what is actually wrong with the notion of charging the smoker's a bit more for the costs? If the health or life insurance statisticians figure it costs an extra 40 bucks a month to cover a smoker's additional health costs, just pass that direct to the smoker. Being a smoker myself, I have no problem with that and see no need to have the employer pay any of the extra charge for that. Especially if there are cessation programs or alternatives that handily and easily work. What I don't see or follow is the notion that some central authority needing to control every aspect of an individual's behavior. Next thing you know, these same will make sure that you get some counseling in room 101 if you pop a bead of sweat.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by k21968
reply to post by Phantom28804
 


I work for Humana and I smoke and I am overweight. I guess I should start looking for alternate employment.

We were discussing this at our daily meeting yesterday and the smokers amongst us brought up that it was discrimination. Our boss said they have a gadzillion attorneys who have already ensured no legal action could come of it.

Fortunately the state I live in has not done this yet. However, I dont think they could. Kentucky is the tobacco capital of America. It concerns me. I am good at my job, I go to work (today is a vacation day) and I meet or exceed all expectations from the company. If they asked me to stop smoking tomorrow to keep my job I would have to quit to feed my family, but I would then have to persue medication for the rage that would ensue. Smoking calms my nerves.

Whats next? Not hiring people who drink a glass of wine with their dinner? It is the same thing. ALcohol hurts/ kills many people and causes health problems as well.

This topic was a hot one at work yesterday and basically the non smokers were happy and the smokers were not. There was no in between.

I choose to smoke. I smoke in our "smoke shacks" outside. My smoking hurts no one but myself. It does not affect my work performance so I do not understand this at all.


do the bosses smoke?

what is the rational for the stance? insurance money?

because i've known a lot of non smoking deadbeats at work.

productivity is not related to smoking.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Overstuffed
The costs related to smoking or other nicotine use are indeed there. However, what is actually wrong with the notion of charging the smoker's a bit more for the costs?
Like I said earlier, my employer was paying for all health care costs out of pocket.

So if your smoking led you to have a heart attack and you needed a $40,000 heart surgery, that's what the company had to pay out of pocket, the $40,000. Is that what you want them to pass on to you?



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
I have smoked for over 30 years. Some of those years were non-filtered cigarettes. I just had my checkup last month and I have the vital signs of a teenager. So how did I cause healthcare costs to go up? I know many other smokers just like myself, some of them into their 70's who have smoked for over 50 years. Just because some people have illnesses related to smoking doesn't mean everyone will. That's stereotyping.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Team Locke
 


As an ex-smoker I can tell you that I got significant value from both the relationships I made in the smoking lounge as well as critical information obtained there that helped me do my job. Not being in a sales role, I was also able to gleen information from potential clients, who were more open in that relaxed environment than in a sales presentation and give the sales team a heads-up which led to sales.

Sure there are folks who abuse the smoke break deal. There are also folks who look at their fantasy football numbers a few times a day, call to check in on their kids at day care, take breaks to stretch, pray, any number of things. What someone does during the day is immaterial. What is material is the quantity and quality of the work and making judgements about that absent an objective assessment of the work quality and output is poor management.

Would you rather have a person who went on a 10 minute smoke break every two hours who did fantastic work or someone who never took a break but was mediocre at the job or someone who never left their desk but who was checking up on their kids at daycare once an hour. The only thing that matters with respect to employment is the work. You want to discriminate against smokers, fine. Charge them more for insurance, which by the way is discriminatory as well, but that is a different topic.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Yes, sounds like controlling health costs is what they're after:


"They are trying to get a handle on the cost of health care and health insurance," said Henry GrosJean, a broker for GrosJean and Associates, a benefit-advisory firm.


Health in the United States has become a commodity, something to make money from. Health care has become an industry, with plenty of corporate money flowing to Washington for legislation (witness Health Insurance Reform called the "Healthcare Initiative") and from industry front groups to influence citizens to keep the status quo.

Health care $, to achieve maximum profit, CEO income, and dividends for stockholders, can't be spent on illness and individuals who choose to engage in potentially costly health habits. Personal responsibility in this case incurs such corporate results.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
while everyone is freaking out about tobacco smoking and if the company has the right to conduct tests, well have a look at this fine piece of article and see how 1+1=3


Susan Mosher said she had eaten half of her meal when she noticed that the red sauce on her fries wasn't ketchup. "The waitress had came over, I thought her eyes were going to pop out of her head. Because as soon as she seen it, she knew also what it was, and she just kept saying Oh my God, Oh my God, and took it and ran to the kitchen," Mosher said. The blood apparently came from a cook who'd cut himself while prepping the food. Mosher is demanding that the Cracker Barrel run a blood test on the cook, but the restaurant declined, explaining "A company by law cannot compel such testing," before apologizing for the "incident."

gothamist.com...



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by haarvik
I have smoked for over 30 years. Some of those years were non-filtered cigarettes. I just had my checkup last month and I have the vital signs of a teenager. So how did I cause healthcare costs to go up? I know many other smokers just like myself, some of them into their 70's who have smoked for over 50 years. Just because some people have illnesses related to smoking doesn't mean everyone will.
Instead of citing anecdotes, you need to look at statistics. If all smokers had the same results as you, the article in the OP would never have been written because it wouldn't be an issue.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


What you REALLY have to do is look at the underlying issue that causes the health effects and not just something someone uses. Just as all of us who drink are not alcoholics with bad livers. Read my post fully. It has been proven that eating processed foods causes cancer and other chronic diseases. Yet no one seems to care. I fully believe that most of the health issues we have today are not the result of smoking, drinking or other supposedly harmful habits, but rather from eating these processed foods laden with poisons and devoid of nutrients. My grandfather lived to be 91, yet smoked a pack of winston a day for almost 70 of those years. He died of old age, no adverse health conditions from smoking. But then again, he lived on a farm and ate what he grew and not the processed foods. Get to the root of the problem, get the USDA and FDA to do what they were designed to do and ban these processed foods and our health issues will diminish by leaps and bounds.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by k21968
Maybe that would be the answer? Refusing insurance to smokers instead of refusing to hire smokers? That would make the most sense if their argument is the cost of our healthcare...
That could be one alternative. or another alternative could be that they might make an exception to the no smoker rule to people in your situation who waive all health care benefits.

If it's not going to cost them one red cent in health care or insurance, the only other possible objection I can think of would be absenteeism, which of course again could be statistically related to health. Even of you have other health care coverage, if you are sicker and miss more work that could be a separate issue...just saying. But I think they could live with that if you did a good job and were there when you really needed to be there. Lung cancer can be pretty debilitating however, a friend of mine (smoker) died from it and eventually was pretty incapacitated until she died.

But I think cost is probably the major factor. I know bean counters.


this smoking crap is a red herring, it is big oil (pollution) big pharma ($90k a year for cancer drugs) and gov tobacco taxes.

oh ya, insurance companies. they got smokers coming and going. tobacco companies are killing on the black market from counterfeit smokes made in other countries. that's why they can do that.

it's like this, "ok, i can make this product, sell it but you blame me for all the ills, it covers your ass, big oil and big pharm, you can charge 1000's for treatment and insurance can charge big bucks too!
just to blame tobacco instead of the oil companies. oh yeah, the gov gets their cut too."

imagine if it came out that cancer didn't come from tobacco, i mean as much as the fear mongers want you to believe? they are all in on it to scapegoat the smokers.



of all the people i've known that has died, no one has died from smoking. and i'm almost 60.

several have died of cancer, non related to smoking because they didn't smoke.

brain cancer, melanoma, leukemia, no lung cancer.

everyone is being played, smokers and non smokers.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by haarvik
 

Even if you're healthy it doesn't statistically lower the costs of smokers:

www.quitguide.com...

Companies spend about 40 percent more on employer-paid health-care insurance for tobacco users.


That's the problem in a nutshell right there.


Smoking is the leading cause of COPD. A smoker is 10 times more likely to die of COPD than a non-smoker.


The population base that statistic is derived from may have various eating habits, but it seems ridiculous to claim that all the smokers eat unhealthy while all the non-smokers eat healthy, if that's what you're claiming. I don't see how you can possibly account for that statistic with diet.
edit on 1-7-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


That's not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is I think the foods we eat play a more prominent role in these diseases that what smoking on it's own does. There are too many people who smoke with no adverse effects from it than people who have diseases that are supposedly connected with smoking and do not smoke.

A fact: Prior to 1930 the USA had only 3,000 deaths annually attributed to CHD. Most of the people in that era smoked, and smoked without filters. By 1950, that number increased to nearly 500,000. The difference? Processed food was introduced to the population during the 1930's. Nutrition is the key to health, not smoking, drinking, etc.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


To me it's not so much that one company dislikes smokers, and there personal preference. The problem I see is when is enough enough? Honestly, what I choose to do on my time does not affect my job or employment, and is my choice of what I do not the company I work for.

Fine they want to choose not to hire smokers, what about smokers that were already employed? They just get terminated? What about when they decide they don't want to hire someone with a family history of Diabetes or Cancer because they have a increased chance of developing the disease in there life. Let's not forget Heart Disease and other ailments that occur more frequently in people with family history.

The problem is not that smoking raises insurance. I mean the health nuts and non-smokers would lead you to believe that smokers are the primary cause of increased health care. It doesn't matter that there are tons of other things out there or that you can get lung cancer just as easily from car exhaust as from smoking. Nor does it matter that alcoholics and bullemics increase health care as well. Lets not forget anyone exposed to lead paint, asbestos, radiation, or any other things that affect health that occur on a day to day basis in this world. The only thing that is occurring now is that Smokers are the target of the hour so to speak. When they are done with us they will go after those that weigh more then they should.

Smoking is an addiction and I will be the first to admit that I am addicted. At the same time it was also a personal choice for me. I would love to quit smoking, but to be frank being forced into a corner by the government, employers, and even my fellowman doesn't make me want to quit it makes me want to give you the middle finger and keep doing what I have been doing. My employer has recently done something similar by introducing a wellness program and basically saying that you either do what they want or pay a higher premium. My mother's employer has the same program, however, there approach is to reward the employee for living a healthier lifestyle with bonuses, discounts etc. The difference is my employer is saying do this or suffere the consequences where as her's is saying do this and we will reward you for making efforts. There is a lot more encouragement out of there approach. The approach my employer took is more the antagonistic approach that just pisses people off.

My life choices and lifestyle. Ok on this one our Constitution and Bill of Rights ensure me my indvidual liberties and justices. This means I can choose how to live my life, not have it dictated to me. I would love for anyone to tell me how making laws saying that you can't smoke here there or anywhere is not dictating my civil liberties? Smokers are treated like nothing more then the kid that no one likes in high school. People would rather push, bully, and shove them away rather then accept them as a fellow human being. Do I care if you drink yourself to death? No not really, and apparently no one else does either, but they surely care if I smoke myself to death. Secondhand smoke kills is the argument I have heard, but so does alcohol. Death by domestic violence, drunk drivers, alcohol poisoning, liver disease, and oral and throat cancer.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Phantom28804
 


Amen! Of course you know will be next. DNA screening to see if you have the potential for some disease and if so, they will not hire you. When does it stop? Like I said in my earlier post, you can't be for freedom and support this. The two don't mix.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by RoswellCityLimits
 


You can choose to ignore this now, but mark my words it will come back on you later when they are dictating what you can and can't do just to live in America, or maybe they might just start killing off the undesirables.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
It's a private business and as long as they are not discriminating on the basis of race or religion, then they can do what they want. I hope that the people in an uproar about this aren't good Ron Paul supporters...



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join