[Zeeb]

Here is a very interesting article on CNN. It details the postive effects of wellness programs that many companies offer but it appears that some workplaces are now firing workers--or refusing to hire them -- even if they smoke at home and never on company property.

While I believe its the right of an employer to ban smoker on any property it owns, the fact they are also banning smoking at home is a growing trend. Employees have to take nicotine tests. There are now 20 states which allow this policy--amazing.

Some overweight employees are afraid similar policies might be on the way for them. Imagine being forced into a certain way of eating--even at home.

Is this going too far or a necessary step to combat increasing health care costs?

Can your company force you to be healthy? - CNN.com

[Dakar the Fourth]

Capitalism at work, I suppose.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Capitalism at work, I suppose.

No. Capitalism would employ the most productive employee, even if he turned up stinking drunk every day and sat at his desk smoking crack.

This is puritanical socialist BS. Seriously.

[design219]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Seriously.

Seriously, it's not the same without your sig.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

No. Capitalism would employ the most productive employee, even if he turned up stinking drunk every day and sat at his desk smoking crack.

This is puritanical socialist BS. Seriously.

Companies have been focusing on cutting their health care costs by keeping healthy employees. Since smokers tend to have health problems later in life, enter the nazi-like intrusion into home life. It has nothing to do with "puritanical" leanings.

Also, some companies do knowingly employ drunks, and don't care for just that reason that they are effective.

[design219]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Also, some companies do knowingly employ drunks, and don't care for just that reason that they are effective.

Yes, and I'm so thankful.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by design219 

Yes, and I'm so thankful.

I also know someone who failed their drug test repeatedly for weed, but still has a job. Because he's good and it's weed for ****'s sake.

[Zeeb]

It just seems (in some cases) more and more people are losing the ability to choose how they want to live if it doesn't hurt anyone else. I suppose in other areas the opposite is true however.

Luckily, alcohol gets flushed out of your system pretty quick or else they'd start cracking down on happy hour.

[turtle777]

I'm not saying what the companies are doing is right, but it's about darn time that people that live unhealthy lifestyles get a wake up call and realize that their lifestyles DO affect others as well.

E.g. insurance cost, cost of treatments, lost time at work and low productivity etc...

-t

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

It just seems (in some cases) more and more people are losing the ability to choose how they want to live if it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Without a doubt. Unless you're in a very high position the company's influence should end at it's doors.
(I'm sure someone will point out how this is misguided or naive, but I'll take the chance for time being)

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by design219 

Seriously, it's not the same without your sig.

Can't do it. Someone asked nicely if I'd remove it 'coz it was basically NSFW for them. So being the gent I am, I gave my word.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

No. Capitalism would employ the most productive employee, even if he turned up stinking drunk every day and sat at his desk smoking crack.

This is puritanical socialist BS. Seriously.

No, the puritanical socialist BS is that people who are overweight pay the same health insurance premiums than people who are in great shape.

-t

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Can't do it. Someone asked nicely if I'd remove it 'coz it was basically NSFW for them. So being the gent I am, I gave my word.

Wow, two (or more) years of history, dead.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Companies have been focusing on cutting their health care costs by keeping healthy employees. Since smokers tend to have health problems later in life, enter the nazi-like intrusion into home life. It has nothing to do with "puritanical" leanings.

Nahhh, it's puritanical.

CEO Doof would say to smoking employee:
"Listen, the health care costs are killing me so you have two choices:
1) Give up smoking and stay on the company health care plan or
2) Continue smoking and we'll take you off the company plan but increase your salary by what the plan was costing us so you can go get a private one.
Now crash me a fag 'coz I left my pack in the ladies' washroom when I was showing that hot new secretary the ropes. Thanks."

Easy. If one isn't a puritanical donkeyhole like most people seem to be becoming these days, that is.

[MacosNerd]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not sticking up for companies but smokers, and obese individuals do need more healthcare and that is getting expensive. At some point they may want to do DNA tests to see if you're a cancer risk. All of this stuff is downright scary.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

At some point they may want to do DNA tests to see if you're a cancer risk. All of this stuff is downright scary.

Sounds like an argument for universal healthcare.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not sticking up for companies but smokers, and obese individuals do need more healthcare and that is getting expensive. At some point they may want to do DNA tests to see if you're a cancer risk. All of this stuff is downright scary.

I think these types of policies clearly demonstrate that when it becomes more feasible companies are more than willing to conduct DNA tests to determine employment and/or what premiums you pay.

The future, ala Gattaca.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not sticking up for companies but smokers, and obese individuals do need more healthcare and that is getting expensive.

Do you ever ask why insurance cost got expensive in the first place ?

-t

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Sounds like an argument for universal healthcare.

I'm not making an argument for or against. Just stating a point, that folks who smoke have more health issues then those that don't that translates into $$$. The same goes for obese people.

[Atheist]

I say give a financial reward for healthy employees. Incentives work best when it comes to altering human behavior.

[MacosNerd]

One more point I do want to make. I live an in Massachusetts that does have universal healthcare. IT is costing a lot of money, much much more then the state legislature ever dreamed. That's including getting more medicare money on a special waiver from the feds.

So don't think that getting universal healthcare is a panacea that will decrease premiums because they won't.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Sounds like an argument for universal healthcare.

Give up or we won't operate, smokers told | Mail Online

Smokers will be denied life-changing operations unless they agree to kick the habit, it was revealed today.

Cash-strapped hospitals say patients will not be given treatments such as hip and knee replacements until they try to give up. Those who fail could be denied treatment all together.

My local hospital is mentioned in that piece. So much for universal health care.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Give up or we won't operate, smokers told | Mail Online



My local hospital is mentioned in that piece. So much for universal health care.

Not that the US isn't capable, but the UK does all sorts of things we haven't even dreamed of yet here.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

I'm not making an argument for or against. Just stating a point, that folks who smoke have more health issues then those that don't that translates into $$$. The same goes for obese people.

I realize that. It was more of a general observation.

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I say give a financial reward for healthy employees. Incentives work best when it comes to altering human behavior.

But not human DNA.

[::maroma::]

<RANT> I'd just like to add how much I love walking through "The Gauntlet of Second Hand Death" on my way in to work each morning. They pushed all of the smokers outside, but they're all too damned lazy to walk more than 5ft away from the front door so I get to enjoy a little early morning treat.</RANT>

But I don't really much care if fellow employees are smokers or obese or whatever. Sure, overall it drives up health care costs and the like, but if it wasn't them it would be something else. As others have said, companies would drill down from smoking and obesity to asthma and diabetes to force people to change their lifestyles, or force them to pay a higher premium.

I'm waiting for total U.S. health care reform. Its coming (it has to), and it will hopefully help those of us who don't go to the doctor often. At the least, I hope it makes the paperwork that we have to fill out every year less confusing. I get more stressed about that then I do about my actual job.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

<RANT> I'd just like to add how much I love walking through "The Gauntlet of Second Hand Death" on my way in to work each morning. They pushed all of the smokers outside, but they're all too damned lazy to walk more than 5ft away from the front door so I get to enjoy a little early morning treat.</RANT>

Tough titties. You could have given us a smoking room at the back of the building, well away from you sensitive folks. But no, you force us outside.

[sek929]

I never understood smoking indoors, even as a smoker.

I grab any chance I can get to take a stroll outside and have myself a smoke. Smoke indoors creates a horrible stale smell after a while.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I never understood smoking indoors, even as a smoker.

Heh. You would if you lived in the UK.

I've sort of banned myself from smoking in the new house (due to lots of lovely new gear which really doesn't want smoke particles in it), but it's a real pain when it's raining. Which is twice an hour.

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Tough titties. You could have given us a smoking room at the back of the building, well away from you sensitive folks. But no, you force us outside.

What you guys really need is a smokers platform, high enough above ground level so you don't cause nausea to passersby. Plus, how cool would it be to have your own platform outside your work building? Pretty damn cool, that's how cool.

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I never understood smoking indoors, even as a smoker.

I grab any chance I can get to take a stroll outside and have myself a smoke. Smoke indoors creates a horrible stale smell after a while.

I remember when I used to fly as a kid (I'd fly at least once a year alone to my Dad's) and they still had a smoking section on planes. Which made no difference whatsoever as you can imagine. Spending 4 hours on those planes was like spending 4 years in a smoker's home. Them were the days I tell ya.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

What you guys really need is a smokers platform, high enough above ground level so you don't cause nausea to passersby. Plus, how cool would it be to have your own platform outside your work building? Pretty damn cool, that's how cool.

As long as it's higher than the fat people's platform so we don't have to watch them eat, count me in. Can we take guns up there or what?

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

As long as it's higher than the fat people's platform so we don't have to watch them eat, count me in. Can we take guns up there or what?

Dude, that would be a free zone where anything goes, IMO. I say if you're crazy enough to go up there in the first place, go nuts!

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

No. Capitalism would employ the most productive employee, even if he turned up stinking drunk every day and sat at his desk smoking crack.

This is puritanical socialist BS. Seriously.

Sorry. This is the capitalist and libertarian idea. If I don't want to hire you if you smoke, I don't have to. Buh-bye!

[Randman]

If the job market weren't so piss poor, employers wouldn't get away with this kind of draconian measure since people would leave.

Sometimes, good intentions get pushed too far.

[lexapro]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=re...LBaGCgYo0ssi8w

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

...when it becomes more feasible companies are more than willing to conduct DNA tests to determine employment and/or what premiums you pay.

Well, I believe Congress passed legislation making it illegal to use the results of genetic testing to discriminate against something when it comes to employment or insurance purposes.

[Uncle Doof]

This does bring about an interesting dilemma.

On what moral ground should I, with basically the constitution of a lump of granite, have to pay the exact same health insurance premiums as someone who's family history is chock full of heart disease, cancer and what not? I know it's not their fault that they're weak, but it's not my fault that I'm strong either.

This is not my personal stance - it's just an interesting thought.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

On what moral ground should I, with basically the constitution of a lump of granite, have to pay the exact same health insurance premiums as someone who's family history is chock full of heart disease, cancer and what not? I know it's not their fault that they're weak, but it's not my fault that I'm strong either.

No, but it's a lot like presuming someone guilty before innocence.

I have plenty of patients with sh*tty family histories as you cite who, with foreknowledge of what *COULD* be in store for them successfully avoid having ANY problems that their families had. And these are people who have lived into their 70s, with mothers and fathers who both died in their 40s from heart attacks and had diabetes and aunts and uncles with colon cancer.

These patients of mine have not had a heart attack nor have they gotten cancer.

To deny employment because one *could* have a heart attack is absurd. There are people in their 20s who can lead perfectly healthy lives and still die of a heart attack.

The problem with insurance companies is that they would raise the rates to such high levels that the person wouldn't be able to afford it and as such would forego basic preventive health care (it happens already) and then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Part of the problem here in the U.S. is that insurance companies don't want to pay for preventive visits. I have patients with insurance through their employer that only pays for five office visits a year *for the entire family.* Once those five visits are used up the patient has to pay the whole cost of the office visit. The insurance will still pay for a hospital visit and blood tests, though. This is stupid and short-sighted. Human nature dictates that people who need the preventive care the most will forego it as "unnecessary" and then something major happens and they end up in the hospital.

Part (and I mean *part*, and by no means the only reason-- there is a huge number) of the reason health care here is so expensive is that the insurance companies are more focused on short term profit rather than long term. If there is a medicine that costs $200 a month that keeps 50% of the patients on it out of the hospital and a medicine that costs $10 a month that only keeps 5% of the patients on it out of the hospital (assuming the same medical condition), the insurance company will prefer the cheaper medicine all the time, never mind the fact that in the long run, they pay MORE with using the cheaper drug because of increased hospitalizations at $50,000 or more a pop. Don't get me started.

But, some companies are starting to catch on. One insurance company started an incentive program for their diabetic patients such that, in exchange for the patient getting called every three months by a nurse from the insurance company to check on them and my sending in regular reports to show that they are doing well, the patient gets their blood sugar testing supplies for free, and a small discount on their rates. Glucometer companies have the exact same racket going that inkjet printer manufacturers have going. The meters cost next to nothing (hell, our office GIVES them away) but the strips cost upwards of $50 for 50 of them.

When that program started, I noticed that some of my more marginal patients (ones that weren't well-controlled and didn't come to the office regularly) started coming in regularly and making a real effort to get under control and succeeding at it. The most dramatic example is the young lady with type 1 diabetes who was in the hospital almost every other month with diabetic ketoacidosis because of poor control who got under control to the point that she hasn't been in the hospital for a whole year since the incentive program started. I wish more insurance companies would catch on to this.

Another way to curb costs would be to make patients pay full cost for an emergency room visit that was not necessary. Going to the emergency room at 3 am for a cold will cost at least $200 or more when waiting until 9 am to see the GP for the same cold costs $50. Make people pay the extra money and soon the unnecessary trips will go away.

Before penalizing people for things they can't control (genetics) insurance companies need to take common sense steps like the above first, otherwise the situation only gets worse, not better. Of course, the problem with the above is that it makes *too much sense* to work.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

What you guys really need is a smokers platform, high enough above ground level so you don't cause nausea to passersby. Plus, how cool would it be to have your own platform outside your work building? Pretty damn cool, that's how cool.

maroma you are a genius!

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Tough titties. You could have given us a smoking room at the back of the building, well away from you sensitive folks. But no, you force us outside.

my work doesn't allow it on the property. Smokers have to walk to the edge of the property or cross the street. Some smoke in their cars.

We have excellent health insurance.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

No. Capitalism would employ the most productive employee, even if he turned up stinking drunk every day and sat at his desk smoking crack.

Agreed. I've worked with some guys like that. Lots of fun for a while, but then the drama tends to take over.

[auto_immune]

Originally Posted by lexapro 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=re...LBaGCgYo0ssi8w

so....did he win?