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.
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.
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...
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.
Like I said earlier, my employer was paying for all health care costs out of pocket.
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?
"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.
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."
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.
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.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.
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...
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.
Companies spend about 40 percent more on employer-paid health-care insurance for tobacco users.
Smoking is the leading cause of COPD. A smoker is 10 times more likely to die of COPD than a non-smoker.