Browsing the news this morning, I came across this item
Quit Smoking or Quit Your Job, Company Says
Email this Story

Jan 27, 9:03 AM (ET)

By Andrew Stern

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The owner of a Michigan company who forced his employees to either quit smoking or quit their jobs said on Wednesday he also wants to tell fat workers to lose weight or else.

A ban on tobacco use -- whether at home or at the workplace -- led four employees to quit their jobs last week at Okemos, Michigan-based Weyco Inc., which handles insurance claims.

The workers refused to take a mandatory urine test demanded of Weyco's 200 employees by founder and sole owner Howard Weyers, a demand that he said was perfectly legal.

"If you don't want to take the test, you can leave," Weyers told Reuters. "I'm not controlling their lives; they have a choice whether they want to work here."

Next on the firing line: overweight workers.

"We have to work on eating habits and getting people to exercise. But if you're obese, you're (legally) protected," Weyers said.

He has brought in an eating disorder therapist to speak to workers, provided eating coaches, created a point system for employees to earn health-related $100 bonuses and plans to offer $45 vouchers for health club memberships.

The 71-year-old Weyers, who said he has never smoked and pronounced himself in good shape thanks to daily runs, said employees' health as well as saving money on the company's own insurance claims led him to first bar smokers from being hired in 2003.

Last year, he banned smoking during office hours, then demanded smokers pay a monthly $50 "assessment," and finally instituted mandatory testing.

Twenty workers quit the habit.

Weyers tells clients to quit whining about health care costs and to "set some expectations; demand some things."

Job placement specialist John Challenger said Weyco's moves could set a precedent for larger companies -- if it survives potential legal challenges.

"Certainly it raises an interesting boundary issue: rising health care costs and society's aversion to smoking versus privacy and freedom rights of an individual," Challenger said.

So far no legal challenges have been made to Weyco's policies.
John Challenger, placement specialist quoted in the item, is a very well-respected professional in the "outplacement" business.

At first glance, this might seem to be merely some crackpot indulging his own prejudices against smoking, but I have an idea other organizations would home in on the idea of saving money on health care costs by getting rid of ALL folks who can possibly increase the health care insurance rates. This means that next on the list of unwanted employees will be women of child bearing age. Next might be folks with high blood pressure or diabetes. Soon, folks with allergies and those who have grandmothers who had breast cancer will also be verboten. Maybe people of African descent because they have a predisposition to sickle cell anemia? [I used the German word on purpose to evoke the Nazi eugenics programs.]

What do you think, Cove Reader? Will this isolated instance develop into a trend or will it blow over? I don't want to debate what categories of "disability" are OK or not OK to ban - that could be too incendiary. I'd like to limit the comments to your perception of whether other organizations will jump on the bandwagon with Mr. Weyers and why.

My former employer "discriminates" with insurance by charging an employee 5% more if he/she smokes, and 5% more if he/she is overweight. Yes, an overweight smoker would pay 10% more than a non-smoker of average weight.

Is it fair? I don't know, but apparently it is legal. It is very similar to the story posted by Wes but not exactly the same.

What do you think, Cove Reader? Will this isolated instance develop into a trend or will it blow over? I don't want to debate what categories of "disability" are OK or not OK to ban - that could be too incendiary. I'd like to limit the comments to your perception of whether other organizations will jump on the bandwagon with Mr. Weyers and why.

I think others will try to jump on the bandwagon to help reduce insurance costs, to the point that someone (the government) may have to finally address this growing problem once and for all.

JMHO

Ahhh, the specter of the old slippery slope! Yes, I think other organizations will try similar things until something (probably a court ruling or new law) gets in the way.

As an ex-smoker (I'm trying to maintain that "ex"-part) I can sympathize with those in the story. Heck, I'm probably overweight depending on what definition of that you use. And I drink. :eek: Now, throw in an employer who says quit and/or slim down or you're fired and I can imagine the overwhelming desire to have a few beers, a few smokes, and a few fattening foods to soothe the nerves! :tg:

(Comments about cigarettes deleted as :topic: to the thread in this Forum. Such topics belong in the coffee break Forum.-Wes Bucey, Moderator)

Yeah, Mike. I feel many employees caught in such a situation would be stressed enough to overindulge.

What do you imagine is the thinking of corporate honchos in pursuing such a program? Do you think they feel they are "superior" to the employee? Something else?

If I had my druthers, I'd want Winston Churchill as my boss. He never would have condoned penalties against smokers, drinkers, and overeaters!:D

I'm not familiar with the laws in the US regarding this topic, but I can't see how this can POSSIBLY be legeal.

To regulate a persons behaviour in the workplace is one thing; I have no problem with workplaces banning smoking (although I am a smoker myself).

But to tell a person that they risk being discharged or penalized for indulging in a LEGAL pastime, at their own expense, while not at work, is a totally different thing.

Yes, it could lower health care costs for the employer; at least initially. But what's next? Do you drive a sports car to work? (Define sports car). Better not allow that; you might get in an accident. How about sports? Do you play hockey? Scuba dive or parachute? Maybe hang-gliding? All high-risk sports, and ones which may result in enormous health care costs.

Somewhere the line has to be drawn, and this should be the place. If it is legal, and off-duty, then your employer should not be allowed to regulate it.

I could accept (just barely) the increase in health care premiums (if supported by independent financial analysis), but I would also demand that the same type of penalties be applied to anyone who indulges in any OTHER activity that might lead to a health care claim.

I could accept (just barely) the increase in health care premiums (if supported by independent financial analysis), but I would also demand that the same type of penalties be applied to anyone who indulges in any OTHER activity that might lead to a health care claim.
This may be the crux of the topic. If the employer can discriminate against smokers and fat folks, how soon will it lead to discriminating against folks whose families have a history of cancer or heart disease? (Insurance underwriters certainly make those distinctions now.)

Now consider this:

Would you just avoid working for an employer like this?
Would you buy from an employer who discriminated against his employees like this?
If you would refuse to buy from a company that did this to its employees, how about refusing to buy from companies that discriminate against their workers in other ways (sweat shops, child labor, slave wages, etc.)?
If the employer discriminates against its employees to gain a competitive edge with its insurance companies, how about boycotting those insurance companies that do business with that employer because they encourage that activity?
How about boycotting the companies that buy their goods from the company because they reward and encourage that activity by giving the company business?


What else can we do to create a wave of moral revulsion against companies that do this if we are appalled at such activity?
How can we encourage the company if we think its actions are correct and justifiable?

What do we tell our daughters when a majority of companies following this policy refuse to hire them for the simple reason they "might" get pregnant and run up the company insurance bills or that they can get a job, but no health insurance?

For those of us in countries with socialized medicine, could our governments take a lead from this discrimination and refuse to care for smokers, fat people, alcoholics, unwed mothers, diabetics? Would we agree?

Ponder this quote from 1945 on this, the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz:
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/appl.gifhttp://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/thumbup1.gifGreat points and excellent argument against socialized anything.

I know that I will be discriminated against next since I am vertically challenged. I am too short for my weight. I will be put on the rack until I am "adjusted" to the appropriate height of about 7' 3" tall.http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/lmao.gif Pardon the kibbitz (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=kibbitz), but I couldn't resist.

BTW, I almost forgot to mention that single people are being discriminated in the workplace when the company pays for Health Insurance. The cost for a family is higher.

Wes: great point, the problem is not smoking or not, is where such attitude in selecting employees basing the judgement on health care costs could lead in the end.. :applause:

Being a single will I be discriminated or charged more in the future because of a supposed more promiscuous social/sex life?
And if I even own a sport car? :bonk:

Employment at a company is an agreement to follow the policies and do work for compensation.

If you do not like the policies, or work, then leave and do something that you enjoy. It is called freedom of will. As an employer, I have the same right and freedom to say " we no longer need you" . You are free to start your own business and set rules that suit you.

I used to allow smoking in a designated area until there were complaints about the smell. Now it is go outside. Better yet, let me pay any bill presented to me for a 'stop smoking ' program, hypnosis, the patch, send me the bill. In 35 years, I have only had one employee use that program, actually his wife, a 4 pack a day smoker who did quit and is clean for 5 years. They used the savings to redecorate the house.

As I play hockey, shoot guns, drive fast cars, and fly planes, who am I to set health risks on your own time? However, it is a company stock car and employee team that runs it, a company shooting team, and we also play hockey together so the heath risks are shared, so is the fun and health benefits. Too chubby to fit in a car, skates , etc? Then cheer your teammates on munching a hotdog and coke. To each his own.

What do you think, Cove Reader? Will this isolated instance develop into a trend or will it blow over? I don't want to debate what categories of "disability" are OK or not OK to ban - that could be too incendiary. I'd like to limit the comments to your perception of whether other organizations will jump on the bandwagon with Mr. Weyers and why.This isn't new - It goes back to Henry Ford, at least, who sent teams to workers homes to 'judge' their home life as to whether it fit in Ford's profile. I believe we discussed this here in a thread a few years ago.

To me its a simple thing - If a business owner wants to restrict employees to a certain set of criteria which has nothing to do with performance, ability, etc., that business owner will loose many of the the best and the brightest.

To me its a simple thing - If a business owner wants to restrict employees to a certain set of criteria which has nothing to do with performance, ability, etc., that business owner will loose many of the the best and the brightest.

I agree, but i Think too that worker should be Helped to understand what is good or wrong for his Health.
Principally for Worker and secondary for business owner.
If Durkeim does not mistake in his social teory Based on the metaphor of an organism in which many parts function together to sustain the whole. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_functionalism)
Why not try to preserve health of Worker or more Why one goal of ISO 9000 aren't to preserve Health of worker?

I would also answer to Mrs Barbara when she Asked
"Why should the covers help you getting the diagram filled? " ( in this http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=12360)
Because I (and other http://www.healthypeople.gov/About/goals.htm) think That Worker Health is strictly connected whit Quality Performance
and my be we have the responsabilty to Know How to preserve ours and worker health.
By

I would also answer to Mrs Barbara when she Asked
"Why should the covers help you getting the diagram filled? " ( in this http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=12360)


You neglect to mention that Barbara did her best to get you to explain what it was you were on about after the post you link to above:

Again, Cavanna, could you be more precise in your question so we could help you?

You neglect to mention that Barbara did her best to get you to explain what it was you were on about after the post you link to above:
:mg: Yes, sure, I remember JWS05. But what do you think about this thread? By :)

Back to the original question of the thread.
Yes I do think that this will be a growing trend. Healthcare cost are spirling out of control for busnesess. Even employees who take care of themselves are starting to figure out that they are paying for the health care of others that do not.

To me it comes down to wether or not the conditions were the result of a choice. I have no problem with a company not hireing and or firing employees that smoke, are overweight, choose to skydive or do anything else that creates a risk for the company. (The risk I am taling about is lose of investment in the worker or increased costs.) However, discriminating on the basis of skin color, or height, or sex, or age should not be tolerated.

Also, I think the government (in the US the People) should have a right to protect activities that they wish to promote, i.e. having children.

To me it comes down to wether or not the conditions were the result of a choice. I have no problem with a company not hireing and or firing employees that smoke, are overweight, choose to skydive or do anything else that creates a risk for the company.

Actually, driving your car to work can be more risky than skydiving. Have a look here: http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/skydiving8.htm

Also, I think the government (in the US the People) should have a right to protect activities that they wish to promote, i.e. having children.

I read that sentence three times and still can't figure out what it means, but it appears to be a political statement, and certainly :topic: , so let's just leave it alone, shall we?

To me its a simple thing - If a business owner wants to restrict employees to a certain set of criteria which has nothing to do with performance, ability, etc., that business owner will loose many of the the best and the brightest.


Marc... very true on the above statement. The 'criteria' is the key part.

Remember the Boy Scouts and their firing of gay troop leaders that were deemed not worthy of employment despite having achieved all possible awards? The best and brightest, but still not meeting the moral criteria.

We can all go into the past on criteria that has since been corrected, such as hostesses on airlines being pretty,single, and being female.


Business is tough enough without alienating the people that make it viable, your workforce.

we had a Company wide meeting regarding insurance. This year our rates jumped 36%. The only affordable option for the Company was to increase our weekly cost of insurance(18%), increase our deductible ($500 to $2,000)and decrease the insurance company's co-pay (80/20 to 70/30). So in essence, we pay more for less. I suppose it's better than the alternative, which would be to have no insurance at all.

Geez, its getting to the point where some are going to have to get a part time job just to be able to pay the nearly $200/week that they have to pay to keep their families insured. :(

Adriane

Geez, its getting to the point where some are going to have to get a part time job just to be able to pay the nearly $200/week that they have to pay to keep their families insured. :(
Adriane

It is getting crazy, but if you have a major health issue, what you're paying for insurance will seem small in comparison. My son was born prematurely in 1985 and spent his first two weeks in a neonatal IC unit and a total of a month in the hospital before coming home. If I recall correctly, we had to pay about $1000 out of pocket on a bill that totaled something like $80,000. I went to the company's benefits person and only half-jokingly told her to make the insurance company an offer: if they bought me a new car, I'd have a vasectomy:lol: .

I'm sure many co.'s will try. But, I think sooner or later they all will run in to many law suits for discriminating against people who are exercising a (for now) lawful right - This is a recipe for trouble.

Other facts.
1) Smokers die young, and (as a demographic) cost the health care industry LESS money.
2) Outlawing tobacco use will result in a black market trade the likes of which will make the prohibition years look like rolling thru a 4 way intersection.

As for me, I hope they simply out law tobacco products.
When this happens, my kids will be the next Kennedys,
because I'm going to make a billion bucks selling boot leg cigarettes –
And I’ll sleep soundly in the knowledge that their futures are secure.

You are right the out of pocket doesn't seem like much when you compare it to a major event such as you had. One thing that I have noticed in recent years is that the isurance companies do not pay that much either expessially if you are using a contract healthcare provider (in network.) Last year I had an operation for kidney stones. The total bills, hospital, anethesia, doctor, etc. was ~$20,000. I paid my $500 deductable and, because I am anal about these things, tracked how much the insurance company paid by checking the benifit statements. The grand total for a ~$20,000 bill? Me $500 insurance company ~$900. Who paid the other $19,000?

You are right the out of pocket doesn't seem like much when you compare it to a major event such as you had. One thing that I have noticed in recent years is that the isurance companies do not pay that much either expessially if you are using a contract healthcare provider (in network.) Last year I had an operation for kidney stones. The total bills, hospital, anethesia, doctor, etc. was ~$20,000. I paid my $500 deductable and, because I am anal about these things, tracked how much the insurance company paid by checking the benifit statements. The grand total for a ~$20,000 bill? Me $500 insurance company ~$900. Who paid the other $19,000?The poor guy without insurance.

Adriane,

I keep insurance costs very low by using a $5000 deducible with B/C,B/S and covering all costs incurred by employees below that amount out of a company fund from savings gleaned from lower premiums. Employees co pay on office visits. Optional are dental and vision. Even a $5000 deducible is getting expensive. The company next door moved to Canada, (10 minutes away) to save on heath insurance, ironic since many Canadian friends come to the USA due to the long wait for care , especially on blood tests etc. The smokers at my plant are very private when they smoke outside, they sure do not enjoy it. We are small, only 40 employees. What really excites my employees is participation in the bidding process and health. We have turned down a lot of work because it is just too risky and not fun, like cutting fiberglas for example. Itching and masks, possible skin reactions, no thanks say my folk. They like being included , and the jobs we do choose go much smoother because they are a part of the process.

We are offered the opportunity to use a Flexible Spending Account. For those unfamiliar, it's a sort of savings account to use for your deductible and other medical expenses that may arise during the year. Only draw back with our plan is that any money left in the account at the end of the year magically dissappears. I have not participated in this option but know some who have that have been very thankful that they did throughout the year.
Adriane

....ironic since many Canadian friends come to the USA due to the long wait for care , especially on blood tests etc.I'd like to see evidence to back up this statement. That is - You may have some Canadian friends who do but this is not the norm. It sounds good when trying to make the US system look good, but is a standard urban legend.

Not to mention in the US many, many people get no care because they cannot afford it. I'd rather be in a long line than to not be able to afford medical care at all.

One more tidbit - Approximately 60% of all bankruptcies in the US are middle class people who had catastrophic health 'incidents' such as stroke, major surgery, etc. As an aside, the US is just about the only industrialized nation in the world that does not have a national health plan.

As an aside, the US is just about the only industrialized nation in the world that does not have a national health plan.

Well, no matter, it won't be industrialized for long. :rolleyes:

Sorry.

As far as women not getting being hired because they might have a kid, it happens. I've been to countless interviews where I've been asked things like "Are you planning on having children in the next few years?" This is of course an 'illegal' question, but obviously if you call them out on it, you can be pretty sure you won't be getting a call back. I always wanted to say something like "Oh, who knows, I might get knocked up and squeeze out a couple of puppies" but managed to bite my tongue and respond with the safer "No."

I'd like to see evidence to back up this statement. That is - You may have some Canadian friends who do but this is not the norm. It sounds good when trying to make the US system look good, but is a standard urban legend.

Marc, Check out the website www.unitednorthamerica.com .
look under heathcare. It compares US and Canada heathcare in many areas.

Bottom line is : Those that can afford healthcare like the freedom of choice.

Those that can't will take anything they can get. I plan on working hard so I can afford to get the doctor who graduated first, not last, in his class. Which doc would you choose?

Bottom line is : Those that can afford healthcare like the freedom of choice. It really upsets me when I see a statement like that. It portends that people with money cannot get the medical choices they want. What was it, the Harry and Louise advertisements by the drug companies not so many years ago which introduced that statement? It was meant to infer that people would have no choice and that was not the case. Especially if one was affluent.

It is true everywhere that people who have a lot of money can get what ever health care they want - Including anywhere in the world if one is rich enough. Just because a country has national health coverage doesn't mean the rich can't get above and beyond what the 'average' citizen can get. That will always be true.

BTW - www unitednorthamerica com is nothing more than a general search engine so I'm not sure what that is about.

I plan on working hard so I can afford to get the doctor who graduated first, not last, in his class. Which doc would you choose? My doc and dentist are friends from years ago in high school and college. They weren't the tops in their classes, as far as I know - I do know they're good.

I went to Westminster College in Fulton, MO and was accepted, at age 28 (I worked before I went to college starting at age 24 and paid my own way) at Tulane medical school on a 1 year admission 'delay'. It's a long story, but I'm really not a blood and guts person and decided it wasn't the thing for me. Along the way I saw who got into medical schools. Some were good, some were terrible. Some with good grades were emergency idiots. So - What ever measure makes you feel comfortable.

Me - If I had a major medical procedure to go through and has 48 hours to get it done, I'd be in Thailand or the Phillipines.

I'm 55 and take several medicines - I get them from Canadian pharmacies.

Golly! What a flurry of activity for a long moribund thread.

My original premise continues to be my thought:
Bosses who want to intrude in and control the private lives of their employees can stop all my criticism of them if they do the following:

open their [the boss's] income tax returns to all employees
open all their [the boss's and every member of his family] health records to all employees
open all company decisions to a democratic vote of all employeesUnless and until that happens, I, personally, will continue to boycott the companies run by such bosses. I already boycott Walmart and Sam's Club and a few other, less visible companies because I am adamantly opposed to their policies vis a vis their employees.

One of the posters above mentioned a company stock car and a company shooting team. I wonder if these activities were initially proposed by employees or the boss?
Would that boss as enthusiastically support and finance

a lesbian soccer team?
a life model art class?
nude Tai Chi on the company's front lawn?
any other activity not originally promoted and engaged in by the boss?I recall one boss in a suburb of Chicago who had his yacht in the Mackinac race every year (supported and paid by company funds - pre tax - no company employees on the yacht, which had a paid crew plus the boss.) My conservative estimate of the annual cost was about $1,000 per employee (500 employees.) If you were the employee, which would you rather have:

a boss who indulged a hobby?
an extra $1,000 in your pay envelope?:topic: The yacht did NOT showcase any company products, nor did company name appear on the sailboat.

One of the posters above mentioned a company stock car and a company shooting team. I wonder if these activities were initially proposed by employees or the boss?
Would that boss as enthusiastically support and finance
[LIST]
a lesbian soccer team?
a life model art class?
nude Tai Chi on the company's front lawn?
any other activity not originally promoted and engaged in by the boss?

To answer your question.... all of the activities were proposed by employees to the boss (me) as fun things to do together. We also have a golf outing and enjoy Bocci ball at lunch, competing against neighboring companies on the front lawn. (fully dressed!!) I partially support these activities with $ and do so willingly as it promotes mental and physical health. None are done on company time. The stock car is parked on company property and has logos all over it. My contribution is a place to work on it, period. I will support any group activity that has a fun and heathy outcome, within reason. The key words are group, health and fun. Plus the employees have to propose it. Of course, not all employees participate in all activities, but that is their choice. What fun heath programs and activities do you have at your place? The only restriction I have to participate is that you must be a non-smoker. I will pay the bills that the employee incurrs to quit smoking. Result: 3 new non-smokers have been reborn in the last year and I have a waiting list of potential new employees. This does discriminate against non smokers but I tell them that if they do take up the habit, (which they never will) the same benefits will be available to them. Again, what do you do to promote health at your place of employment? We also have 'best joke telling' awards, picnics, birthday celebrations, and the like for those who are not 'sports inclined'. What do others do out there for company related health for their employees?

By the way , the off topic issue of personal income and privacy may be good for another forum. We post all pay brackets so everyone knows who makes what, including the boss, so one can plan their march up the ladder of success in the company. Higher levels of pay require higher skills and education. Of course, I pay all educational costs if they want to better themselves on their march upward, but so far, no takers. Still , on the health topic, 3 more non-smokers in the world is something, and I feel good about that.

nude Tai Chi on the company's front lawn?


No way, we don't want to see that:nope:

No way, we don't want to see that:nope:

What do you mean, "we"?:cool:

I think this other thread is interesting for Health discussion http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=8952
In it there is a reference about SA 8000 (http://www.sa-intl.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=document.showDocumentByID&nodeID=1&DocumentID=136)
SA 8000 chapter 3
1.1 The company shall appoint a senior
management representative responsible for the health and safety of all personnel.
By Cavanna

Cavanna,

Great idea and easy way for management to get involved. I happen to be a Red Cross instructor and so get as many employees as possible to classes to get the latest on first aid, which also connects directly to safety. The classes are not on company time by the way and are free. If they enjoy snow skiing, which is another company sponsored and employee suggested activity, then they also have the opportunity to try out for the Ski Patrol, if they are so inclined. That's how I have fun skiing and helping others at the same time. Of course, at the plant discussing safety is not quite as exciting, but there are films that we show employees (required as part of ISO) that do a good job.

I thought it might be apropo to bring this thread up to date - in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal on page D1, is an article titled "A Company's Threat: Quit Smoking or Leave" with the subtitle Scotts Miracle-Gro Joins Ranks Of Companies Who View Tobacco Users as Burden. The arrticle is by Ilan Brat. Some highlights from the article include:
1. Scotts with 5300 US workers is one of the largest companies so far to put an outright ban on smoking even off the job.
2. Since April, Humana has given employees who say they haven't smoked in the last 12 months a $5 bonus in their paycheck per pay period.
3. General Mills imposes a $20 a month surcharge on the health benfits of smokers.
4. According to the National Workrights Institute, a not-for-profit organization that focuses on human rights in the workplace 30 states have laws that protect smokers.

Note, I don't smoke and don't like the smell of cigarettes and cigars. I do enjoy the smell of good pipe tobacco - growing up several favorite uncles smoked pipes, so that has probably influenced my perception of tobacco smoke.

I am somewhat concerned regarding the underlying philosophy regarding restricting/penalizing smokers due to perceived higher health care costs. (I definitely believe that insurance companies charge more for companies who have smokers in their employment.) My larger concern is which subclass of employee is next - those of us who are overweight/undertall, :) , those of us over 50 (probably not due to age discrimination laws) Or possibly those who go through genetic testing and have some predisposition to heart attacks or strokes or ? I perceive smokers as an easy target, and these attacks on them potentially as the initial steps down a slippery slope.

Its not just companies. Here in Summit County, Ohio the county charter government most recently passed an all out ban on smoking any where but your own home. The proposal was to ban smoking from all buildings, businesses, etc. throughout the entire county. They passed the ban but two of the major cities (Akron and Cuyahoga Falls) in Summit County have already pledged not to comply. There interest was in all the bars and nightclubs and bowling allies suffering loss of business and hence tax revenue.
So the Ban is rendered moot.
The medical doctors at the hospitals were crushed as it was they who spearheaded the attack using statistics from other places who have already enacted the ban. Such as a 36% decrease in heart attacks in Pueblo Colerado since passing the ban two years ago.
Meanwhile, the Great State of Ohio has modified the infamous E-Check (tail pipe emissions testing) so that we no longer have to pay the $19.50 fee. It seems that they will spend $20,000,000 of the tobacco settlement money to pay for it.
Wonderfull!!!:nope:

I thought it might be apropo to bring this thread up to date - in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal on page D1, is an article titled "A Company's Threat: Quit Smoking or Leave" with the subtitle Scotts Miracle-Gro Joins Ranks Of Companies Who View Tobacco Users as Burden. The arrticle is by Ilan Brat. Some highlights from the article include:
1. Scotts with 5300 US workers is one of the largest companies so far to put an outright ban on smoking even off the job.
2. Since April, Humana has given employees who say they haven't smoked in the last 12 months a $5 bonus in their paycheck per pay period.
3. General Mills imposes a $20 a month surcharge on the health benfits of smokers.
4. According to the National Workrights Institute, a not-for-profit organization that focuses on human rights in the workplace 30 states have laws that protect smokers.

Note, I don't smoke and don't like the smell of cigarettes and cigars. I do enjoy the smell of good pipe tobacco - growing up several favorite uncles smoked pipes, so that has probably influenced my perception of tobacco smoke.

I am somewhat concerned regarding the underlying philosophy regarding restricting/penalizing smokers due to perceived higher health care costs. (I definitely believe that insurance companies charge more for companies who have smokers in their employment.) My larger concern is which subclass of employee is next - those of us who are overweight/undertall, :) , those of us over 50 (probably not due to age discrimination laws) Or possibly those who go through genetic testing and have some predisposition to heart attacks or strokes or ? I perceive smokers as an easy target, and these attacks on them potentially as the initial steps down a slippery slope.The risk is higher. Sky divers pay higher life insurance costs (or can't get insurance) why shouldn't smokers pay higher health insurance costs? It's a choice a smoker makes. Age, is a factor in determining how much you pay for life insurance or health insurance.

The risk is higher. Sky divers pay higher life insurance costs (or can't get insurance) why shouldn't smokers pay higher health insurance costs? It's a choice a smoker makes. Age, is a factor in determining how much you pay for life insurance or health insurance.This ignores the point about more and more intrusion into someone's private life. We know (statistically) smokers have higher incidence of illness than the general population. We know, too, that people of African descent have a higher incidence of sickle cell anemia, diabetes, asthma, high blood pressure. Shall we charge more to have blacks put on the health care plan? Or should we just refuse to hire any blacks because they are statistically more likely to have chronic, long-term illnesses? Jews of Eastern European descent are more likely to have Crohn's Disease, an incurable inflammation of the bowel, at the rate of 4 to 5 times the general population. Shall we discriminate and refuse to hire ALL Jews of eastern European descent?

Discrimination is such a slippery slope. Please reread the quote by Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984) "when they came for me" and the circumstances surrounding it before rushing to join ANY group wishing to discriminate against another group! (see a full treatment of Niemoeller at http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/niem.htm)

Interestingly, Niemoeller, himself, was an atrocious bigot, who only changed when he was forced by circumstances to realize the error of his ways.

The risk is higher. Sky divers pay higher life insurance costs (or can't get insurance) why shouldn't smokers pay higher health insurance costs? It's a choice a smoker makes. Age, is a factor in determining how much you pay for life insurance or health insurance.
By your logic fat people that eat too much because it is their choice (it is unhealthy, you know) should have to pay higher insurance rates. TMaybe employers should reject their applications too.

National health care would make these issues moot.

National health care would make these issues moot.In theory, I wholeheartedly agree. The reality is that most of the countries with socialized medicine end up with a two-tier health care system where the most skilled health practitioners open a private, fee-based practice or they leave for more lucrative posts in another country where they can reap the financial rewards for their skills.

With family that comes from great Britain, you are certainly aware of the Harley Street physicians who are off the National Medicine radar.

Canada has a similar "shadow health care" system where people pay to avoid long waits for specialized treatment.

Much as we'd like it to be otherwise, socialized medicine has flaws, not the least of which is lack of inovation in new techniques because of lack of incentive to rush to market with "new, improved _____"

Which is worse for our collective psyche:

Seeking ways to fix a broken system (even in small increments)?
or
Overthrowing the entire system and starting from scratch?

In theory, I wholeheartedly agree. The reality is that most of the countries with socialized medicine end up with a two-tier health care system where the most skilled health practitioners open a private, fee-based practice or they leave for more lucrative posts in another country where they can reap the financial rewards for their skills.Still, moot. There is a 3 tiered system here.

1. Rich People - Whatever is needed
2. People with health insurance - Bare minimum needed to survive, long waits, etc.
3. Poor People - While there are some existing programs, they continue to be cut. Soon it will be Nada if one has no money.

Canada has a similar "shadow health care" system where people pay to avoid long waits for specialized treatment.The same exists here for certain 'specialized' treatments, especially with insurance company interference.

Much as we'd like it to be otherwise, socialized medicine has flaws, not the least of which is lack of inovation in new techniques because of lack of incentive to rush to market with "new, improved _____" Poppycock. That's just the standard capitalist response to any threat - Look how free software is being villainized (including by Microsoft) which includes throwing words out like 'socialized' and 'communist'.

BTW - I'm not sure 'socialized' medicine is really a good descriptor. How about National Health Care?

Poppycock. That's just the standard capitalist response to any threat - Look how free software is being villainized (including by Microsoft) which includes throwing words out like 'socialized' and 'communist'.

I don't think Wes is really a capitalist...gee wiz, there seems to be a lot of socialists around here. :bigwave:

I think most people are a bit of both. I think we all know we really can't label someone based upon one aspect of their belief system especially when it comes to capitalism and socialism.

Poppycock. That's just the standard capitalist response to any threat - Look how free software is being villainized (including by Microsoft) which includes throwing words out like 'socialized' and 'communist'.

BTW - I'm not sure 'socialized' medicine is really a good descriptor. How about National Health Care?How about International Health Care? I like the "doctors without borders" concept and they get some of my donation money.

Those who write free software can do it relatively cheaply. New drugs and new surgical techniques do not occur without capital investment for infrastructure. That capital isn't forthcoming unless there is payback.

How about InternationalThose who write free software can do it relatively cheaply. New drugs and new surgical techniques do not occur without capital investment for infrastructure. That capital isn't forthcoming unless there is payback.

Wes,

I have to disagree with you on this one. We currently have a flurishing, open-source drug manufacturing industry right here in the states. It's just that they need to be working on drugs to cure cancer, heart disease, etc. instead of working on meth. (He says with tounge in cheek.)

How about International Health Care? I like the "doctors without borders" concept and they get some of my donation money. I'd go along with that. Cuba and Venezuela just set up a doctors for cheap oil trade.

Those who write free software can do it relatively cheaply. New drugs and new surgical techniques do not occur without capital investment for infrastructure. That capital isn't forthcoming unless there is payback. I'm not at all convinced that's always true, but even if it typically is big companies aren't the only source of money for this stuff. Let's also remember a lot comes out of colleges and universities.

ddhartma: A friend of mine recently told me people can make meth just about anywhere. Told me two girls where she works do it at work. Both are having severe dental problems, supposedly loosing most of their teeth (both are under 25 years old). I've never really followed meth 'news', but apparently it's quite popular.

My concern (with previous post) is obviously the intrusion into our private lives by government. There are arguments, of course, on both sides of the equation. we see a increase in this intrusion with each year that goes by. Lets try seat belt regulation, helmets, headlights, etc. Now smoking is big issue. I am a reformed smoker and I can tell you that the smell of it nauseates me. But if I allow government to say I can't smoke do we welcome the next prohibition??? I am also overweight with high blood pressure??? I think we need to really look at these issues. IMO they resemble the Japanese Manchurion Philosophy. "If they don't want to eat, we are obligated to force it down their throats" (my apologies if its not verbatim or if spelling is wrong):bonk:

Even 42 years ago, when I was still an academic teaching at a big state university, many of my colleagues were on much larger research grants from private industry than I got from the National Science Foundation. One drug company spread so much money around that half my own grad students were moonlighting on its project - a colleague was paying them $5.00/hour to kill and dissect out intestines of lab rats to be catalogued for preparation and made into microscope slides to determine the effects of a drug my colleague's team was testing.

It was a contributory factor in me leaving academia for the commercial life.

Most research departments of universities are primarily subsidized by outside grants and contracts (non government.) Some schools make deals to share in royalties of successful products.

Our Health is affected by the choices we make in food, smoking, hobbies, work. It is the freedom of choice that we enjoy in the good ole USA.

If I choose to not better myself, not read, eat poorly, smoke, and be essentially a burden on society, a 'low life', why does society have an obligation to pay my way and save me from self destruction?

I have the same freedom of choice not to employ such a person, and if I do employ someone who later chooses the 'low life ' path in life, then they need to accept the consequences of being out of work. I pay for non smoking classes, diet plans , for my employees, etc but very few (like only one) has ever taken advantage of them. After awhile, I lay them off. They are a negative effect on the other folk who care about themselves. There are many others, especially in Michigan, that really want to work and be heathy too. I hire many who work out of their homes. As long as the work is quality and doesn't smell like a smoke house or brewery, that's fine.

National Health care.....

One third of the nurses in Detroit area hospitals come from across the border from Canada. Why? More money, less waiting, better heath care.

A National Health care system in this country would just add more restrictions by the government on our personal freedom. More taxes( a lot more!!), long waits, (in Canada the average wait for a basic test is 16 weeks), and less options of treatment. I don't particularly want to support the 'low lifes' by govt force, that is why charities exist and one can donate to the cause of choice.

Govt is needed to protect our feedoms, not restrict them. Does Irag now have National heath care courtesy of the USA??

Regards, diecuts

One third of the nurses in Detroit area hospitals come from across the border from Canada. Why? More money, less waiting, better heath care.I'd have to see the stats supporting 33% of the nurses being from Canada. No matter, I'd bet realistically it would be a matter of $ to them, not wait time or 'better' health care.

What is the role of government? Improve the lives of its citizens as a whole, ensure that the playing field is level, help us recover from bad choices, prevent us from making bad choices in the first place, protect those who can not protect themselves, etc? I believe, although I must admit my feelings change, that governments should exist to ensure a level playing field, protect its citizens from outside forces (by this I refer to military assault not economic forces) and provide services that improve life of all the citizens.

I believe that much of the current cost in our health care system is the result of the insurance companies themselves. They have more power than those they insure. (unlevel playing field.) Insurance providers contract with healthcare providers to for care to their clients at reduced rates. Other clients of the healthcare providers pick up that cost. The published rates are never even close to what is actually paid by those with insurance and the ones paying those artificially inflated rates are those without insurance. And anyone who would be willing to shop to get a better rate, and put some type of free market pressure on costs can not get the information on what the true cost is in the first place.

I believe that the government should be involved in health care in the following way. Set the limitations of what is covered by a health care policy and break the link between the insurance companies and the providers. Those who buy health insurance would purchase policies that pay a certain percentage of the "average" cost of each procedure in their area. Have an 80% policy and the average rate in your area for a doctor visit is 30 bucks the insurance company pays you $24 when you see a doctor, even if you and the doctor have agreed on a rate of $25. Free market forces would eventually force health rates down, or at least slow the growth significantly. The same market forces would act on the insurance rates. The government would be involved only to the extent of preventing fraud, helping to set the “average” rates by zip code or some other geographical area and ensuring that providers rate cover the same thing so comparison shopping is easier.

One laudable goal of the first HMO type systems was to reduce health care costs by increasing the amount of preventative care. (It is cheaper to immunize 1000 people for the flu than pay the health care cost associated with those out of that 1000 who would have gotten the flu without the immunization.) So one way to reduce health care overall is to increase this type of preventative care. In this fashion I think the government should also be involved. NOT AS a PROVIDER or MANAGER of some new system but by promoting preventative care. The benefits of preventative care as so large to society as a whole that I think that some of the cost should be born by society has a whole though an increased child tax credit, earned income credit, standard deduction or some new deduction or credit.

Just my two cents or so.

Our Health is affected by the choices we make in food, smoking, hobbies, work. It is the freedom of choice that we enjoy in the good ole USA.

If I choose to not better myself, not read, eat poorly, smoke, and be essentially a burden on society, a 'low life', why does society have an obligation to pay my way and save me from self destruction?

I have the same freedom of choice not to employ such a person, and if I do employ someone who later chooses the 'low life ' path in life, then they need to accept the consequences of being out of work. I pay for non smoking classes, diet plans , for my employees, etc but very few (like only one) has ever taken advantage of them. After awhile, I lay them off. They are a negative effect on the other folk who care about themselves. There are many others, especially in Michigan, that really want to work and be heathy too. I hire many who work out of their homes. As long as the work is quality and doesn't smell like a smoke house or brewery, that's fine.

National Health care.....

One third of the nurses in Detroit area hospitals come from across the border from Canada. Why? More money, less waiting, better heath care.

A National Health care system in this country would just add more restrictions by the government on our personal freedom. More taxes( a lot more!!), long waits, (in Canada the average wait for a basic test is 16 weeks), and less options of treatment. I don't particularly want to support the 'low lifes' by govt force, that is why charities exist and one can donate to the cause of choice.

Govt is needed to protect our feedoms, not restrict them. Does Irag now have National heath care courtesy of the USA??

Regards, diecuts
Who makes the decision about what categorizes a low life?

Is it only cigarette smokers?
How about overweight people?
Underweight anorexics?
Folks who engage in indiscriminate sex and may get an STD, even including AIDS?
How about folks who may have a "time bomb" disease lurking like Huntington's Chorea - do we subject everyone to genetic testing and discard guys like Arlo Guthrie, whose dad died of Huntington's?
What if you once lived near Three Mile Island and may [emphasis is "may"] have cell mutations causing cancer?
What if you have siblings with Down's Syndrome? Is there a possibility your own children may have this, entailing expensive health care?
For my part, employers who have no empathy for folks who aren't exactly like themselves (same health, race, gender, religion, pasttimes, etc.) are MUCH scarier than the diseases and economic impact of pooling my health care money with the diseased [or possibly diseased.]

Why is it some folks only worry when their OWN privacy is invaded and can't see that (like a teacher from 2,000 years ago) "if you do it unto the least of these, you do it also unto me."?

So, is all these things about health going to extend our lives to what age?
How long do we want to live here? What are we going to do if we all live to be 120 years old? I don't want to be here that long.
"How then shall we live"?

So, is all these things about health going to extend our lives to what age?
How long do we want to live here? What are we going to do if we all live to be 120 years old? I don't want to be here that long.
"How then shall we live"?
I'm more than halfway and looking forward to the second half. There's a wonderful poem with the tagline "Grow old along with me, the best is yet to be." Penned in 1864 by Robert Browning, John Lennon wrote an interesting song based on the poem.

FWIW:
Challenger, Gray, a Chicago outplacement firm issued this press release:

2005 MOST UNBELIEVABLE WORKPLACE EVENTS
Global outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc., released the following ranking of The Most Unbelievable Workplace Events of 2005. These are the stories that are most likely to make you ask, “What was that person/company thinking?” or “Can a company actually do that?”

• The Whine-Free Policy. A German company initiated a strict no-whining policy. Negative Nellies and other boat rockers are under a two-moans-and-out rule. According to the company, several workers have quit and two others have been fired for violating the whine-free policy.

• We Are Family, Only. DaimlerChrysler’s transmission plants in Kokomo, Indiana, have designated 80 percent of their employee parking as reserved for Chrysler vehicles only. Any non-Chrysler vehicle parked in a reserved area will be towed to Indianapolis, 50 miles away, where the employee will have to pay $200 to get his or her car back.

• No Slack For War Wives. A Michigan woman was fired from her part-time receptionist job after failing to show up for work the day after seeing her husband off to war as a National Guard member.

• Rescue Squirrels On Your Own Time. A woman says she was suspended from her job for spending too much time trying to rescue a squirrel trapped in the ceiling of the library where she works.

• Executive Whipped Into Shape. An executive for a foundation that funds heart disease research was accused of embezzling more than $237,000 and using some of the money to pay for the services of a dominatrix.

• Anyone Desperate For A Job? The National Labor Relations Board refused to strike down a security company’s rule that prohibits employees from getting together away from work. The policy forbids workers from going to lunch together, attending each other’s weddings, or doing anything else they might want to do with each other outside of work.

• Productivity vs. Religion: And the Winner is… 30 Muslim workers were fired from a major computer manufacturer’s Nashville plant for adhering to religious doctrine that requires them to pray daily at sunset.

• Forgot To Wrap That Can! A worker with a good record and no problems with his supervisors was unexpectedly fired from his job with a beer distributor. While no reason was given, the firing occurred on the same day a picture of the worker drinking a competitor’s beer appeared in a local newspaper.

• No Hablas Español. Two Spanish-speaking hair stylists in Chicago claim in a federal lawsuit that the company they worked for strictly banned the use of Spanish, even when employees were on their breaks. A sign at the establishment read, “Speaking a language other than English is not only disrespectful, it’s also prohibited.”

Source: Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc.©
# # #

Wes,

You ask what the definition of a 'low life' is.

It is someone who makes a concious choice, the keyword here is 'choice', to repeatedly, as a way of life, (not occasionally as we are all human), chain smoke, eat all the wrong foods, thinks potato chips and a beer for breakfast, lunch and dinner is normal, steals toilet paper, forgets personal hygiene, and resents the notion of actually caring about anything and anyone. I know folk like this and they are very content. Not sure where tomorrow's food will come from but hey! Life is the here and now. It's all a matter of luck. Can't read? Not your fault... must be society for not making the schools interesting enough. Just bad luck I guess that the job goes to someone else that has those skills. Don't worry, your luck will change.

I met Arlo's daughter and they are great folk. What happened to Arlo was not his doing, and certainly not a choice. He was creative and made the most of life. Ditto for your other examples where choice is not part of the equation. It is what you do as part of society to live the best that you can, instead of being a burden on society.
Check out the 'Dawin Awards' via Google. At least these quasi low lifes had the decency to improve the human gene pool by eliminating themselves as a direct result of their stupidity, thus making it better for the rest of humankind.

Check out the 'Dawin Awards' via Google. At least these quasi low lifes had the decency to improve the human gene pool by eliminating themselves as a direct result of their stupidity, thus making it better for the rest of humankind.

And a very Merry Christmas to you, too!

Of course, whether we are low lifes or high lifes, it's really just a matter of perspective. As long as each is happy and content in there own life and has the freedom of choice to live it as they choose, then we will have World Peace. Merry Christmas!!

As long as each is happy and content in there own life and has the freedom of choice to live it as they choose, then we will have World Peace. Merry Christmas!!

And, at the very least, be content to accept the consequences that are a result of their actions and choices. In the case of Darwin Award winners, they don't have any choice but to accept the results.....:bonk:

Wayne