These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE
Next: You may be fired because your BMI is not in proper range |
|
|
Paolo Portocarrero
Puritanical Hedonist
Join date: 28 Apr 2004
Posts: 2,393
|
01-25-2005 15:40
I pretty much agree with Chip on this (though I hate "where do you draw the line" and "slippery slope" arguements). If I get my work done It shouldn't matter what I do in the privacy of my crackhouse. Yup, my "green" friend articulates my position far better than can I! And, I don't even hate the "where do you draw the line" and "slippery slope" arguements!  _____________________
Facades by Paolo - Photo-Realistic Skins for Doods
> Flagship store, Santo Paolo's Lofts & Boutiques > SLBoutique |
|
Devlin Gallant
Thought Police
Join date: 18 Jun 2003
Posts: 5,948
|
01-25-2005 18:41
I'm of two minds here. I hate the fact that they are trying to enforce what a person does on their own dime, in their own house... But I can also symapthise with not wanting to foot the potential medical bills for such a habbit. That's HABIT, rabbit. _____________________
I LIKE children, I've just never been able to finish a whole one.
|
|
Cross Lament
Loose-brained Vixen
Join date: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 1,115
|
01-25-2005 18:47
*chuckle* My employer is more than welcome to run a drug test on me... just as soon as they let me require a drug test from everyone in upper management.
_____________________
- Making everyone's day just a little more surreal -
Teeple Linden: "OK, where did the tentacled thing go while I was playing with my face?" |
|
Devlin Gallant
Thought Police
Join date: 18 Jun 2003
Posts: 5,948
|
01-25-2005 18:53
I find it despicable that companies feel they have the right to invade people's privacy like this. -Ghoti This particular aspect of people's privacy cost billions of dollars in health care a year, most of which is absorbed by companies and the government. I find it depicable that companies and taxpayers should be forced to pay for the damages people inflict on their own health, not to mention the possibility they are physically harming others. _____________________
I LIKE children, I've just never been able to finish a whole one.
|
|
Devlin Gallant
Thought Police
Join date: 18 Jun 2003
Posts: 5,948
|
01-25-2005 18:56
Smokers already pay so much extra tax that the healthcare system would collapse without them. They also already pay higher insurance premiums so any arguments about their disproportionate burden on healthcare and insurance are specious at best. I believe the health care costs far outweigh the amounts taken in by taxes and higher premiums, but I am too lazy to look it up. _____________________
I LIKE children, I've just never been able to finish a whole one.
|
|
Devlin Gallant
Thought Police
Join date: 18 Jun 2003
Posts: 5,948
|
01-25-2005 18:58
Nope, he said "I don't want to pay for the results of smoking." He said nothing regarding an inability to pay, or an inability to have smokers pay a higher co-pay. This is pure and simple moralizing and denying people employment based on bias. Well, that WOULD be your viewpoint being the evil rabid smoker (addict) that you are. _____________________
I LIKE children, I've just never been able to finish a whole one.
|
|
Isis Becquerel
Ferine Strumpet
Join date: 1 Sep 2004
Posts: 971
|
01-25-2005 19:04
I believe the health care costs far outweigh the amounts taken in by taxes and higher premiums, but I am too lazy to look it up. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/15/1052 From the New Englan Journal of Medicine: Results Health care costs for smokers at a given age are as much as 40 percent higher than those for nonsmokers, but in a population in which no one smoked the costs would be 7 percent higher among men and 4 percent higher among women than the costs in the current mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers. If all smokers quit, health care costs would be lower at first, but after 15 years they would become higher than at present. In the long term, complete smoking cessation would produce a net increase in health care costs, but it could still be seen as economically favorable under reasonable assumptions of discount rate and evaluation period. Conclusions If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs. Smoking is a major health hazard, and since nonsmokers are healthier than smokers, it seems only natural that not smoking would save money spent on health care. Yet in economic studies of health care it has been difficult to determine who uses more dollars — smokers, who tend to suffer more from a large variety of diseases, or nonsmokers, who can accumulate more health care costs because they live longer. The Surgeon General reported in 1992 that "the estimated average lifetime medical costs for a smoker exceed those for a nonsmoker by more than $6,000."1 On the other hand, Lippiatt estimated that a 1 percent decline in cigarette sales increases costs for medical care by $405 million among persons 25 to 79 years old.2 Manning et al. argued that although smokers incur higher medical costs, these are balanced by tobacco taxes and by smokers' shorter life spans (and hence their lower use of pensions and nursing homes).3 Leu and Schaub showed that even when only health care expenditures are considered, the longer life expectancy of nonsmokers more than offsets their lower annual expenditures.4 We have analyzed comprehensively the health care costs of smoking. In doing so we have distinguished between the assessment of differences between smokers and nonsmokers and the assessment of what would happen after interventions that changed smoking behavior. Would a nonsmoking population have lower health care costs than one in which some people smoke? Are antismoking interventions economically attractive? We sought to answer these questions and to determine the consequences for health policy. _____________________
One of the most fashionable notions of our times is that social problems like poverty and oppression breed wars. Most wars, however, are started by well-fed people with time on their hands to dream up half-baked ideologies or grandiose ambitions, and to nurse real or imagined grievances.
Thomas Sowell As long as the bottle of wine costs more than 50 bucks, I'm not an alcoholic...even if I did drink 3 of them. |
|
Devlin Gallant
Thought Police
Join date: 18 Jun 2003
Posts: 5,948
|
01-25-2005 19:12
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/15/1052 From the New Englan Journal of Medicine: So people living longer is a BAD thing?  _____________________
I LIKE children, I've just never been able to finish a whole one.
|
|
Isis Becquerel
Ferine Strumpet
Join date: 1 Sep 2004
Posts: 971
|
01-25-2005 19:17
So people living longer is a BAD thing? Not bad just expensive. So actually grandma is gonna cost you alot more than smokers ever will. _____________________
One of the most fashionable notions of our times is that social problems like poverty and oppression breed wars. Most wars, however, are started by well-fed people with time on their hands to dream up half-baked ideologies or grandiose ambitions, and to nurse real or imagined grievances.
Thomas Sowell As long as the bottle of wine costs more than 50 bucks, I'm not an alcoholic...even if I did drink 3 of them. |
|
Rose Karuna
Lizard Doctor
Join date: 5 Jun 2004
Posts: 3,772
|
01-25-2005 19:22
<----- Non Smoking Grandma - Muhahahaha
 _____________________
I Do Whatever My Rice Krispies Tell Me To
|
|
Devlin Gallant
Thought Police
Join date: 18 Jun 2003
Posts: 5,948
|
01-25-2005 19:27
Not bad just expensive. So actually grandma is gonna cost you alot more than smokers ever will. True, however, since most of these folks will be retired at that age it will still be mjorly cheaper for businesses. The government on the other hand wiil pay more. So still a good move on the corporate level. _____________________
I LIKE children, I've just never been able to finish a whole one.
|
|
Isis Becquerel
Ferine Strumpet
Join date: 1 Sep 2004
Posts: 971
|
01-25-2005 19:40
True, however, since most of these folks will be retired at that age it will still be mjorly cheaper for businesses. The government on the other hand wiil pay more. So still a good move on the corporate level. That is really dependant upon pension payouts. But since few people continue with the same corporation throughout their careers and so likely have little vested interest in the companies they work for you may be correct. Although I will add that the lengthening of the average life-span of a person would also increase the costs incurred by Social Security. Regardless of who pays the final costs, the money has to come from somewhere which means that there would likely be an increase in social security tax paid by both tax payers and the corporations. If the average age of a US citizen is now 72 years and with the cessation of smoking we saw an 8 year increase in that lifespan that would mean 8 additional years of Social Security or 4 trillion dollars not taking into account cost of living increases, the financing of medicare or pension payouts. Just a thought...I am far from being an economist. Established at the depth of the Great Depression, Social Security has grown from a relatively modest way of helping older people and the unemployed. It now is the largest single item in the federal budget, accounting for about $500 billion annually with guaranteed yearly cost-of-living increases. _____________________
One of the most fashionable notions of our times is that social problems like poverty and oppression breed wars. Most wars, however, are started by well-fed people with time on their hands to dream up half-baked ideologies or grandiose ambitions, and to nurse real or imagined grievances.
Thomas Sowell As long as the bottle of wine costs more than 50 bucks, I'm not an alcoholic...even if I did drink 3 of them. |
|
Siggy Romulus
DILLIGAF
Join date: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 5,711
|
01-25-2005 19:48
A) Breeding between any two people who have genetic disorders where the result of that coupling will be a child with a 50% chance of inheriting a costly, serious genetic disorder. The logic applies because some genetic disorders can be pre-detected and predicted as accurately as drug screening is. You'd love the movie Gattaca -- although if you're into reading the first draft of the screenplay makes its case a lot better  As for the tests -- gah! What suckage! I work in an industry where Reporters and Anchors have to approve haircuts and dress style changes through people... although they are handsomely paid for the inconvenience. Occasionally my News Director oversteps her bounds and says things like 'That hair - it's not working for me' to wit I reply 'thats fine - it works for me, and by the way you just added another 2 weeks to my next haircut and shave' Another fave : 'You're going to have a haircut on Monday aren't you... or.....' psuedo threat is another fave '....or you'll have my paycheck ready on Monday? See you Monday!'. Enforcement of unreasonable requests only has power if folks let it - and do you REALLY want to work for a place that has such control over your personal life? In my case the psuedo-threats lost their power and credibility instantly - when I let them know that the fear of being fired has zero sway over me. Siggy. _____________________
The Second Life forums are living proof as to why it's illegal for people to have sex with farm animals.
I, for one, am highly un-helped by this thread |
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
01-25-2005 19:58
Devlin, insurance costs aren't based on the employees of any given company or only people of working age. Insurance costs are averaged based on everyone using the insurance. Smokers die younger and faster, generally requring less expensive care over the long haul. The negative impact on healthcare and insurance costs by smokers is a big fat red herring.
Thanks for finding that stuff Isis! _____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight |
|
Isis Becquerel
Ferine Strumpet
Join date: 1 Sep 2004
Posts: 971
|
01-25-2005 20:33
Not a prob Chip
What is a bit odd is that the Lung Cancer Associations anti-smoking brigade picked out the information they wanted from the study and "forgot" to add the conclusion. Noone is going to say smoking is good for you but there is a fine line to be walked when it comes to legislating the health of the masses. Especially when the entire argument they use is based on a half truth convincing non-smokers that the evil smokestacks at the corner coffee shop are causing an increase in healthcosts. To be honest, I think that it would be more fiscally benificial to do away with all forms of insurance...period. The cost of healthcare is enormous in this country because the medical groups and pharmaceutical companies know that they can rape the insurance companies without guilt because the insurance companies rape the healthy citizens who rarely need extensive medical treatments but pay for it anyway. It amazes me that I can get a boob job for a couple of grand yet I could not afford to pay for chemo if I were to get cancer. Why? Because new boobs are not covered by insurance and so the cost can only as high as the market will bear. The problems with healthcare costs has nothing to do with smokers or old people and everything to do with the rape 'em while you can attitude of the health care proffessions. Smoker/non smoker doesn't really matter the only ones raking in the benefits of illnesses are the healthcare proffesionals and insurance companies: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_02/b3915436.htm All told, the U.S. will probably spend an estimated $1.9 trillion on health care in 2005, $100 billion more than the prior year. That's 15.7% of the gross domestic product. Despite such mammoth sums, hospitals will continue to struggle to stay solvent, employers will continue to face higher insurance premiums, employees will continue to shoulder a higher percentage of those premiums, and insurers -- well, insurers will continue to do very well, thank you, because they get to pass on their higher costs to the policy holders. Though not, of course, to the 45 million people who are uninsured -- 15.6% of the population. At some point, and probably in the not-too-distant future, this level of spending will almost certainly become unsustainable. Expensive new drugs and medical technologies, a growing number of uninsured, and an aging, overweight population virtually guarantee cost increases will climb back to the 12% to 13% range in a few years. By 2010, UBS Securities estimates that health care will consume 17.4% of the GDP. "In my view, the pressure is not off costs at all," says William McGeever, a UBS health-care analyst. "I see nothing on the horizon that will moderate increases." on an on topic side note: Though I disagree with the motivation behind the firings, I do believe that the owner of the company has the right to fire anyone for any reason so long as the EOE guidelines are followed. I would just hate to see this used as a litmus test to check the reactions of the masses before granting more powers to the government or the healthcare providers/insurers. I would hate to see someone denied healthcare due to the fact that they are obese, smoke, are genetically predisposed to cancer ect. _____________________
One of the most fashionable notions of our times is that social problems like poverty and oppression breed wars. Most wars, however, are started by well-fed people with time on their hands to dream up half-baked ideologies or grandiose ambitions, and to nurse real or imagined grievances.
Thomas Sowell As long as the bottle of wine costs more than 50 bucks, I'm not an alcoholic...even if I did drink 3 of them. |
|
Hiro Pendragon
bye bye f0rums!
Join date: 22 Jan 2004
Posts: 5,905
|
01-25-2005 23:48
Dictating behavior is socialism, plain and simple.
The better choice would simply be charging smoking employees at a higher premium. Duh. _____________________
Hiro Pendragon
------------------ http://www.involve3d.com - Involve - Metaverse / Emerging Media Studio Visit my SL blog: http://secondtense.blogspot.com |
|
Chase Rutherford
Oldbie Conspirator
Join date: 6 Sep 2003
Posts: 126
|
01-26-2005 08:57
I guess my point is that it's a slippery slope. If they can fire someone for even having nicotine in their blood stream (this does not necessarily consititue smoking) then they can fire them for a number of other reasons that pertain to what they do on their own time as well. How much control should a corporation have over it's workers? |
|
Mina Firefly
Tattooist
Join date: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 341
|
01-26-2005 16:17
I hate that sort of stuff anyways...
I think the way you look , and what you do outside the office hours is your bussiness and no one should have controll over that. And i also think your boss SHOULDN'T push you to change your looks or weight. A work uniform is already the limit for me. |
|
Urusula Zapata
I love my Pugs!
Join date: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 1,340
|
Next on the firing line: overweight workers
01-27-2005 04:24
CNN updated this article this morning.
CNN Article 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. _____________________
Get your decorated jeans, shorts and shirts at Jeans & Things by Urusula. Don't forget to check out Lecktor's Crappy T's while you are there. Jeans & Things by Urusula at Healy (190, 247) Shorts and shirts on SLBoutique.
|
|
Eggy Lippmann
Wiktator
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 7,939
|
01-27-2005 05:10
Why the heck should a corporation provide any sort of health care anyway?
A job is a place where I go to sell my time. I dont need a friggin spa, arcade cabinet, pool table, or doctor's office thrown into the mix. Pay me a decent salary and I will decide on my own what to do with it. _____________________
|
|
Torley Linden
Enlightenment!
Join date: 15 Sep 2004
Posts: 16,530
|
01-27-2005 05:13
Why the heck should a corporation provide any sort of health care anyway? A job is a place where I go to sell my time. I dont need a friggin spa, arcade cabinet, pool table, or doctor's office thrown into the mix. Pay me a decent salary and I will decide on my own what to do with it. Heh, well healthy workers are happy workers. I think that mixing TOO MUCH play with work is a bad idea, but at the same time, it can't hurt -- and can quite possibly help -- to give employees certain perks. There's a word for the complete antithesis of a posh working environment: SWEATSHOP. (Altho, I suppose they don't get paid a decent salary either.)_____________________
|
|
Alby Yellowknife
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Join date: 5 Jun 2004
Posts: 1,148
|
01-27-2005 05:21
I'm of two minds here. But I can also symapthise with not wanting to foot the potential medical bills for such a habbit. What if you eat too many Cheeseburgers for lunch and get fat? How about then? What if you consume too much salt and get high blood pressure? Too much sugar and get diabeties? How many more habits will be considered grounds for termination in the quest to keep from paying for medical cost? |
|
Alby Yellowknife
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Join date: 5 Jun 2004
Posts: 1,148
|
01-27-2005 05:23
Why the heck should a corporation provide any sort of health care anyway? A job is a place where I go to sell my time. I dont need a friggin spa, arcade cabinet, pool table, or doctor's office thrown into the mix. Pay me a decent salary and I will decide on my own what to do with it. They don't have too. Its a gift in an effort to obtain quality workers who are also healthy and come to work. But not every company does, thus its left to the individual to fund it themselves. |
|
Eggy Lippmann
Wiktator
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 7,939
|
01-27-2005 05:30
Torley, play is what you do outside of work. Whether I am happy or not is no one's business but my own.
Alby, companies that offer lots of perks pay for them with your salaries. Since I dont need or want those perks, I prefer to get more money for my time. Medical care sponsored by governments and corporations usually follows a cost-cutting policy. I prefer to be treated by doctors who aren't afraid of spending money on quality treatments. _____________________
|
|
Alby Yellowknife
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Join date: 5 Jun 2004
Posts: 1,148
|
01-27-2005 05:33
Torley, play is what you do outside of work. Whether I am happy or not is no one's business but my own. Alby, companies that offer lots of perks pay for them with your salaries. Since I dont need or want those perks, I prefer to get more money for my time. Medical care sponsored by governments and corporations usually follows a cost-cutting policy. I prefer to be treated by doctors who aren't afraid of spending money on quality treatments. Those same companies who offer benefits to workers for a reduced cost, also "usually" allow you to opt out and not collect those reduced benefits in exchange for a few extra dollars in your paycheck. So if you don't like what your company offers, ditch them and call Blue Cross/Blue Shield and get the top notch benefits package yourself. |
