2

12/31/2011 5:11:54 PM

Quote :

"Isn't it their problem if they're losing talent? Why the fuck would you have a problem with it if they are the ones making a poor decision? Now, what about when they get older and they have lung cancer, are out more because they're sick, and all that other shit that smoking leads to? Paying someone to not be there is money right down the drain. Or when all the smokers are going to the doctor more often and the insurance company wants to hike up the insurance rates? The raise in rates is passed on to the company and the employees. It's not exactly fair that non-smoking employees have to pay more to cover the ass of the smoking employees, not to mention all of the extra little breaks they get throughout the day. Seriously, smokers are the biggest bunch of fucking whiners in the world. Their sense of entitlement drives me fucking crazy. They get pissed if you tell them to knock off all the breaks they take, and they get upset if you tell them to knock the bullshit off. Smoking isn't a right, faggots. Get over it."

Nothing is more whiny than someone complaining about someone's behavior in private.

To be clear, the hospital can do what it wants. I just care when people make irrational decisions, like this hospital. You know what costs more than all of those *possible* costs you mentioned? Losing top talent.

That should be the #1 concern of any well run organization. When losers nitpick people's lifestyles, that causes them to make suboptimal decisions. If a smoker is better at their job than you, even if they may cost more healthcare-wise, then they are still more valuable.

Old people, women, and handicapped people are extremely expensive in terms of healthcare. Why not just get rid of them for the same reasons? Because they still get the job done and make up for their extra costs.

The first concern is whether the person is doing their job. All this other shit is irrelevant and really shows that the hospital really has its priorities in the wrong place and it is run by idiots. Anyone who makes this kind of blanket policy is an idiot.



[Edited on December 31, 2011 at 5:52 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2011 5:39:14 PM

Not sure if bigman is trolling or not but I totally agree

I'm Krallum and I approved this message

12/31/2011 5:44:52 PM

Quote :

"I smoked for approximately 5 years. The smell even gets in your skin. It can be pretty bad. You would have to be extremely fastidious about not smoking in your house or your car or in the clothes you wear to work and bathing before going into work and not having a cigarette between showering and work. Most smokers have something like a pack a day habit. That's just not going to happen. "

Yes... because all smokers are chain smokers...

Most smokers I know usually smoke 1-4 times a day with an average of 3. Probably only 10% of them actually smoke a pack or more a day. If your clothes and skin smells like smoke then you are really fucking chain smoking, smoking in a small enclosed area with poor ventilation or never take a shower and wear the same clothes for a few days straight. Even among my friends who smoke a lot, they really don't smell like smoke unless I'm right next to them, but that's usually way well within their personal comfort level.

And seriously... just like someone else said, if you work where smoking is banned, don't smoke there... there are patches, candy, gum and ecig's avaliable for those who need their nicotine.

Quote :

"if you're a massage therapist, smelling like smoke affects your job. If you want to be a massage therapist and also smoke, you have to be diligent about it. Just like if you're a doctor on call, you can't drink. Plenty of people are capable of smoking and not smelling like it all the time."

This.

Quote :

"Now, what about when they get older and they have lung cancer, are out more because they're sick, and all that other shit that smoking leads to? Paying someone to not be there is money right down the drain. Or when all the smokers are going to the doctor more often and the insurance company wants to hike up the insurance rates? The raise in rates is passed on to the company and the employees."

You do realize that the rates of smokers is higher than non's right? that's why its one of the first main questions you answer on page one with any health insurance. Not everyone from the same company is going to pay the same amount for insurance for the same coverage.


And honestly, the healthy lifestyle incentives that some companies use as part of their health insurance is a great way to push people to treat their body's better and reduce overall insurance cost.

12/31/2011 6:36:06 PM

Of all places to screen for this, a hospital makes the most sense...but will they eventually start screening and denying applicants jobs for testing positive for caffeine? How about people who eat meat? They're at higher risk for heart disease, therefore they inherently raise healthcare costs too, right? How about people that exact hospital misdiagnoses, that the drug companies then force prescriptions down their throats to continue their multi-billion dollar placebo scams? But I digress.

The main problem i have is that corporate health insurance is such a fucking scam anyway. The difference in a company paying for 10 peoples' health insurance in one group plan, versus those 10 employees paying for their own individual health insurance (and being reimbursed by the employer), can be huge. When I switched to an individual plan for just myself, and told the same Blue Cross Blue Shield that covered my company's insurance that I was a smoker, my individual plan was cheaper than my portion of the company's insurance costs before I was a smoker.

In other words, screening smokers at a hospital is a great way to decrease health insurance costs. But cost-wise, imagine you paying $20k for a car with an ash-tray, versus your company buying 10 cars at $40k apiece with no ashtray. I would think to myself, "fuck a corporate fleet plan, what a ripoff"

If you don't believe me, ask your employer how much 1 month of health insurance for you costs on their plan. Call that same insurance company and get them to quote you a price for an individual plan just for you. You'll be amazed at how much cheaper they'll quote you.

12/31/2011 6:56:25 PM

Quote :

"And honestly, the healthy lifestyle incentives that some companies use as part of their health insurance is a great way to push people to treat their body's better and reduce overall insurance cost."

For one, didn't you just note that unhealthy habits like smoking carry a premium that the employee has to pay. So who's business is this? Between the employee and the insurance company or between the employee and the company? Or do we get to have our privacy invaded and judgements made twice for all the same things? Oh joy.

Second, to what extent do insurance payouts affect the premiums? If a company is justifying healthy lifestyle incentives, the only way they're doing that is to argue it directly to the insurance company and get prices reduced directly because of the effort, unless the company is self-insured or something like that.

12/31/2011 7:00:42 PM

For a lot of people, employer and insurance company are pretty much the same thing.

(but that's another thread)

12/31/2011 7:02:12 PM

Quote :

"Of all places to screen for this, a hospital makes the most sense...but will they eventually start screening and denying applicants jobs for testing positive for caffeine? How about people who eat meat? They're at higher risk for heart disease, therefore they inherently raise healthcare costs too, right? How about people that exact hospital misdiagnoses, that the drug companies then force prescriptions down their throats to continue their multi-billion dollar placebo scams? But I digress. "

I was waiting for this argument...

But not everything is a slippery slope like you are describing. It's obvious that theyre not going to start testing for meat or caffeine, that's a ridiculous argument. Smokers are a shrinking minority, and this is just one more step to push a disgusting habit further out of the mainstream.

It's the same way people predicted a collapse of the restaurant industry because of the smoking ban, when the only outcame of that has been cleaner, healthier eating/drinking environments for everyone.

12/31/2011 7:03:48 PM

Quote :

"It's obvious that theyre not going to start testing for meat or caffeine, that's a ridiculous argument."

some specialized government jobs already do

why not eventually a hospital?

Quote :

"people predicted a collapse of the restaurant industry"

i, too, love completely fabricated exaggerations

12/31/2011 7:05:52 PM

Quote :

"Most smokers I know usually smoke 1-4 times a day with an average of 3. Probably only 10% of them actually smoke a pack or more a day."

Have you ever LIVED with a smoker?

Back when I quit smoking, the CDC's average smoker consumed just under a pack a day (20 cigarettes are in a pack). The people I smoked with at Cup a Joe would smoke several cigarettes just in the time that we were there. I don't know anyone who considers their self to be a smoker who smokes as little as 3 times a day. Everyone I know who still smokes has one when they get up, after meals, every time they get in a car... and that is not considered chain smoking.

[Edited on December 31, 2011 at 7:14 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2011 7:12:30 PM

Quote :

"I, too, love completely fabricated exaggerations"

considering your coffee/meat testing fear, its clear you do.

12/31/2011 7:19:10 PM

Quote :

"some specialized government jobs already do"

link please

12/31/2011 7:21:28 PM

I don't know of any jobs where meat eaters are discriminated against (yet) unless you count a coworker at Whole Foods talking shit to you

but in many jobs (doctors, air traffic controllers, etc), they're encouraged to get rest as opposed to coffee/soda/caffeine so they can do their job without "jitters"...the NCAA has a limit on how much caffeine an athlete can have...caffeine can cause birth defects if pregnant women consume it

just because caffeine (or meat, sodium, etc) don't emit smelly smoke, doesn't mean this isn't a slippery slope, with the continued rising costs of health care

and since drinking a lot of caffeine or eating a lot of red meat can increase health risks, testing for things like this would indeed theoretically decrease health care costs for an employer

but i still don't recall anyone predicting "the collapse of the restaurant industry" during the smoking ban debates

12/31/2011 7:35:52 PM

No examples of meat testing or meat eater discrimination?

With respect to caffeine, you cite two specialized, high-risk jobs and then state that workers are encouraged to minimize caffeine in favor of sleep. Is any caffeine testing performed? Should the FAA be prohibited from testing pilots for color-blindness?

The NCAA is not the government and, in any case, the NCAA's limit is based on limiting performance enhancing effects and address medical concerns for high level athletes. Not at all unlike all the other drug testing sports associations perform. Should these other tests be prohibited as well?

This sounds a lot like you're just making shit up.

12/31/2011 8:01:22 PM

i'm asking why things like caffeine couldnt be the next drugs an employer focuses on to minimize their health insurance risks

care to address that?

and one of those specialized, high-risk jobs I mentioned...works in a hospital, you guessed it, the same place the OP's article addresses in the first place

12/31/2011 8:05:38 PM

You made a specific claim that "some specialized government jobs" test for meat and caffeine.

I asked you to provide examples of that claim.

You failed to provide any examples.

I pointed out that you failed to provide any actual examples of meat and caffeine testing for government jobs.

Now you're back-pedalling.

No, I don't care to address anything with you.

12/31/2011 8:31:53 PM

i never specified any jobs tested for meat eating

but if thats enough to make you take your ball and go home, nobody is stopping you

i'd expect this bullshit in the soap box, but not chit chat

12/31/2011 8:37:04 PM

First:

Quote :

"some specialized government jobs already do"

Second:

Quote :

"i never specified any jobs tested for meat eating"

That's the problem. And you're too big a dumb fuck to realize it.

Go pick up a penalty flag or something.

12/31/2011 8:42:50 PM

no my problem is you're dissecting a reply i made to somebody else, and refusing to address anything else

i should've said "some government employers already address caffeine use" but i didn't think you were gonna play Syntax Nazi instead of discussing the fucking topic when I elaborated on it

12/31/2011 8:45:11 PM

Quote :

"I said "some specialized government jobs already [test for meat or caffeine]", but what I really meant was "some government employers already address caffeine use"."

That's not called Syntax Nazi. That's called you're a fucktard.

12/31/2011 8:52:45 PM

when you have to amend my quotes, i'm pretty sure thats being a syntax nazi

what i'm even more sure of, is you have zero intention of discussing the issue i'm presenting, so go fuck yourself and have a happy new year, asshole

12/31/2011 8:54:41 PM

You have no issue. You have some stupid slippery slope shit with no basis in reality, as evidenced by our whole exchange.

12/31/2011 9:01:49 PM

for someone who doesn't care to address anything with me, you sure are replying to me a lot

12/31/2011 9:03:45 PM

12/31/2011 9:04:56 PM

Quote :

"To be clear, the hospital can do what it wants. I just care when people make irrational decisions, like this hospital. You know what costs more than all of those *possible* costs you mentioned? Losing top talent. That should be the #1 concern of any well run organization. When losers nitpick people's lifestyles, that causes them to make suboptimal decisions. If a smoker is better at their job than you, even if they may cost more healthcare-wise, then they are still more valuable."

If the top talent is doing something that shortens their lifetime, increases the risk of being sick or could end their life while still employed with the company, then according to you, shouldn't that company get them to quit smoking?

And if a smoker is better at their job than I am but they cost the company more money than I do, then no, they are not more valuable.

If I am paid 45K/year and they are paid 50K/year and they are out of work 10 days of the year compared to my 0 days (excluding vacation) and their unhealthy habits costs the company an additional 5K/year, they would be worth less than me, as they are paying an additional 5K/year but they're losing another 5k/year for their unhealthy habits and losing 10 days/year of work out of them. They might be better at their job, but they cost the company more.

[Edited on December 31, 2011 at 9:27 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2011 9:26:54 PM

Quote :

"didn't you just note that unhealthy habits like smoking carry a premium that the employee has to pay. So who's business is this? Between the employee and the insurance company or between the employee and the company? Or do we get to have our privacy invaded and judgements made twice for all the same things? Oh joy. Second, to what extent do insurance payouts affect the premiums? If a company is justifying healthy lifestyle incentives, the only way they're doing that is to argue it directly to the insurance company and get prices reduced directly because of the effort, unless the company is self-insured or something like that."

It all depends on where you get your health insurance from and what policy you have (if you get it from your company). It used to be where most companies would have a set cost per person, disregarding any actual medical history of the employee's, usually at medium to large businesses with a much bigger insurance pool. I don't know of any business that still practices this, but then again I haven't asked or looked around about it.

I know that at BBT, you still pay a certain amount per period, but then you are refunded x amount back from insurance if you meet certain stipulations such as being a non-smoker, eat proper meals regularly (have to meet with nutritionist) and do physical workout at a gym or club. You don't have to meet all necessary quality living standards if you don't want to, but its a nice incentive, plus BBT will actually pay you too (well with gift cards, gym passes and such) if you do follow them since you are also saving them money by completing the stipulations.

In terms as when insurance payouts dictate premiums isn't exactly a public knowledge item. Usually premiums, at least for companies, would be locked in for a year or 6 months then adjusted after that based upon what was used or not used within your insurance pool. If everyone in your insurance group got knee surgery last year, prime premiums would go up, but if only half used their dental work, you even could see premiums go down. It really depends on how big your group is, this is why large companies have their own group like bbt and they really want everyone to try to be healthy.

I have my policy with BCBS in NC so my group is huge and is dependent on the health of the whole system. I only pay like $140 every 6 months for full coverage and I'm in relatively good health, I eat proper meals, I exercise, I'm within by bmi, non-smoker and don't drink. My only down side is my poor vision and the fact that I spend too much time in office settings.


And yes bottombaby, I have lived with a smoker, I never could tell when or if he smoked and he went through packs a day. Most smokers tend to hang with smokers so its a bit bias of you to say all smokers smoke a pack a day, when in fact not all smokers do.

[Edited on December 31, 2011 at 10:05 PM. Reason : ]

12/31/2011 10:02:05 PM

Also...

Gattaca

[/thread]

12/31/2011 10:05:48 PM

We should reform the tax code to eliminate the tax advantage toward including health insurance as part of employee cOmpensation. Then companies cOuld just elect not to provide health insurance, and you could get it on your own just as well. Then your decision to smoke would hurt the company's bottOm line

12/31/2011 10:26:16 PM

If you don't want to be screened then start your own damn company

I'm krallum and I approved this message

12/31/2011 10:57:29 PM

http://www.facebook.com/pages/My-own-Damn-Company-Kennix-Consulting/214475008601330

12/31/2011 11:11:12 PM

if they dont like it, why dont they just stop smoking, its that simple, and live longer

1/1/2012 2:05:08 AM

great idea

1/1/2012 2:34:10 AM

honestly, I kind of wanted to hear McDanger's take on all of this.

1/1/2012 7:50:23 PM

Quote :

"If the top talent is doing something that shortens their lifetime, increases the risk of being sick or could end their life while still employed with the company, then according to you, shouldn't that company get them to quit smoking? And if a smoker is better at their job than I am but they cost the company more money than I do, then no, they are not more valuable. If I am paid 45K/year and they are paid 50K/year and they are out of work 10 days of the year compared to my 0 days (excluding vacation) and their unhealthy habits costs the company an additional 5K/year, they would be worth less than me, as they are paying an additional 5K/year but they're losing another 5k/year for their unhealthy habits and losing 10 days/year of work out of them. They might be better at their job, but they cost the company more."

Aw yea merbig ITT with common sense.



[Edited on January 1, 2012 at 8:11 PM. Reason : v]

1/1/2012 8:10:21 PM