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: 5
6
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
What I do in my own time, is my own business... As long as it is legal, I don't think they should have the right to do this....I wonder, does this count as discrimination? it sure seems like it. Not hiring some one because of a legal activity they participate in? Come on.... how is that even legal?


I suspect that it doesn't have anything to do with what is legal, but about what is ethical. Two entirely different creatures.

You can't have a doctor telling you that you should quit smoking cigarettes for your health while both of you are in the smoker's pit at work. Kind of hypocritical don't you think?

And the insurance company should be able to promote lower insurance costs for non-smokers as it is showing to be supporting this behavior in its own workers.

Smoking is not supported by any constitutional rights other than no one has the right to force you to quit. But there is nothing to say no-one can't discriminate against you for YOUR lifestyle CHOICE.

For example, I have voluntarily allowed my driver's license to expire. Perfectly legal. But woe is me who gets behind the wheel of a vehicle and gets caught speeding or is in an accident.




posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 


as you claim " its unconstitutional " , please cite what section of the constitution covers this



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by juniperberry

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
What I do in my own time, is my own business... As long as it is legal, I don't think they should have the right to do this....I wonder, does this count as discrimination? it sure seems like it. Not hiring some one because of a legal activity they participate in? Come on.... how is that even legal?


I suspect that it doesn't have anything to do with what is legal, but about what is ethical. Two entirely different creatures.
It actually involves both legal and ethical issues.

Clearly discriminating against smokers is a form of discrimination.

In answer to the question about whether it's legal, if there's no law against it, then yes, it's a legal form of discrimination. See my previous posting for a listing of the forms of illegal discrimination. If it's not on that list, then it's probably legal at the federal level, then you have to check state laws, which humana did, and found there's no law in AZ against discriminating against smokers.

You can argue about ethics all day but we're grownups here who recognize corporate greed drives capitalism, so if companies can save a buck, they'll do it, and that's what this is about, saving money. The only control you have is to lobby your representatives to get more laws passed to make even more types of discrimination illegal. I think there are probably too many laws already. I don't like a company dictating to me what I can do on my own time away from work, but if my actions on my own time affect their profitability, then I understand why they are motivated to do that.
edit on 1-7-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by haarvik
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.


hey man, no one wants to hear that.

just look around these posts. i smoke a good 2 1/2 pks a day for over 40yrs. nada, cholesterol is elevated but otherwise, i'm about right.

i agree, nutrition and environmental (air pollution) factors are huge and smokers are getting targeted for blame.

some people just get it (cancer). my wife's aunt died of skin cancer, never smoked a day in her life.

it's cancer, maybe not lung cancer but CANCER!

smokers are footing the bill for everyone else, we are frail, period.

insurance co's bet on when you will die and they increase there odds when they ban people that smoke and other habits, like "obesity".

the crap we breath and eat and being poisoned, on purpose, by everyone to make a buck, is beyond insane.

to single out smokers for rising costs is even beyond that!

who or what is at the bottom of this circle jerk is just out of reach for me.

eventually they will eat each other and we will see who is left standing.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
My smoking hurts no one but myself.
That's false. It would be true if smokers didn't statistically incur higher medical costs than non-smokers, but they do. If your employer provides life insurance like mine, smoking affects the cost of that also.
What about homosexuals and HIV?
What about blacks and sickle cell anemia?
What about skiers?

I don't smoke, but if you eliminate EVERY risky behavior because "you don't like it", and hide it under the guise of "it costs more", you're going down a slippery slope. How much radiation are you exposed to when you use your cell phone, or sit in front of your monitor. What's next? It's funny how people who generally hate big business tend to support anti-smoking. Maybe we should all just crawl into a hole, and do nothing except work, work, work like good SLAVES!



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
My smoking hurts no one but myself.
That's false. It would be true if smokers didn't statistically incur higher medical costs than non-smokers, but they do. If your employer provides life insurance like mine, smoking affects the cost of that also.

What about homosexuals and HIV?
What about blacks and sickle cell anemia?
What about skiers?

I don't smoke, but if you eliminate EVERY risky behavior because "you don't like it", and hide it under the guise of "it costs more", you're going down a slippery slope. How much radiation are you exposed to when you use your cell phone, or sit in front of your monitor. What's next? It's funny how people who generally hate big business tend to support anti-smoking. Maybe we should all just crawl into a hole, and do nothing except work, work, work like good SLAVES!


so what good is insurance then!


ya, you are a vegan, don't smoke, triathlons, non-drinker and pay insurance for 40-50yrs and drop dead of an anurism and they pay out 150k. maybe emergency room too. buried? you also payed for that too.

i am agreeing with you.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
My smoking hurts no one but myself.
That's false. It would be true if smokers didn't statistically incur higher medical costs than non-smokers, but they do. If your employer provides life insurance like mine, smoking affects the cost of that also.
You didn't tag that quote correctly, you're missing an open quote tag which makes it look like I said something I didn't say. Please recheck the source and edit to fix, or message me if you don't know how to fix it (hopefully there's still time to edit).



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   
I'm thinking that addictions are classified as some kind of disability these days, so I'm thinking that somebody could make a case for discrimination.

Also, it's a legal substance that doesn't really dangerously impair one's job performance like alcohol does, so this is a pretty clear case of invasion of privacy.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by gnosticquasar
I'm thinking that addictions are classified as some kind of disability these days, so I'm thinking that somebody could make a case for discrimination.
askjan.org...


persons addicted to drugs, but who are no longer using drugs illegally and are receiving treatment for drug addiction or who have been rehabilitated successfully, are protected by the ADA from discrimination on the basis of past drug addiction (EEOC, 1992).
They discuss addiction to illegal drugs, but not addiction to legal drugs like nicotine.

But if you try to infer from that statement, if you're in a program to quit smoking to kick your addiction at the time you apply for a job with Humana, you might have a point. But this doesn't allow you to continue to smoke. If they refused to hire you because you were in a program to quit smoking, it's possible there may be some merit to your thought and possibly some recourse for you, but you'd have to check with an attorney.


Also, it's a legal substance that doesn't really dangerously impair one's job performance like alcohol does, so this is a pretty clear case of invasion of privacy.
That's right. But that's legal.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join