smoker discrimination: company fires all smokers

[bryanthompson]

http://www.wral.com/news/4126577/detail.html

The jist of the story is that a company in Michigan fired 4 employees for not subjecting to tests to see if they smoke--14 smokers quit before the policy went into effect. The insurance company apparently lowers costs for businesses who have smoke-free employees.

I wonder if that insurance company lowers costs for businesses who have no obese workers... can the company fire fat people also?

[Drago]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
I wonder if that insurance company lowers costs for businesses who have no obese workers... can the company fire fat people also?

If they could there would be virtually no one left where I work!

[tabs]

More PC BS....It's your Gawd given right to kill yourself if your of the mind to....I don't need no su(k a$$ Liberal to look after me....I am RESPONSIBLE for myself....and I take umbridge when I am obliged to look after my neighbor to see that he doesn't do anything that can be construed as being anti social...and in this case an INSURANCE company is proclaiming how much they care about these peoples social welfare...since when has an insurance company cared about anything but money, that they don't have to pay out because of the increased risk that goes with smoking...

[tabs]

Ohhh well with my new status as a Demigod I get to rant and rave a bit now and then....I do think that perhaps a better solution to firing those people would be to have them pay for the increased portion of their health insurance due to their smoking....then they would be shouldering the responsibility for their own bad habits...instead of having a company dictate social mores...

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Wanna smoke? Pay a higher premium.

Seems fair to me.

[84porsche]

The company should only have the right to stop people from smoking on the premises of the company, however the insurance company can raise the premiums for those who smoke due to increased health care costs. My belief is that if people would like to smoke, let them as long as it doesn't affect me in any way. I live close to LA so our air is already polluted.

[ubiquity0]

They're free to find employment at another company. The company is free to choose to not employ smokers. Isn't this a free market dream?

[JavaBrewer]

Originally posted by BlueSkyJaunte
Wanna smoke? Pay a higher premium.

Seems fair to me.

Isn't that already the norm when shopping for life insurance policies? I seem to recall that the state put a helmet law into effect to try and limit the medical costs of caring for nearly brain dead motorcyclists who were too cool to ride with a helmet. If they can limit damage from dying smokers the same way then I have no problems letting people smoke theirselves into an early grave.

[turbo6bar]

smoking and having a fat arse are not protected classes.

[304065]

Actually, both, depending on their clinical progression, could be considered to be "disease states" which are protected under the ADA.

[stomachmonkey]

Phillip Morris got blasted a year or so ago.

One of the former Soviet bloc countries, (sorry I can't remember which one rifght now) was on an all out anti-smoking campaign to try and cut government health care costs for lung cancer and emphysema sufferers.

PM funded a study and the startling outcome was it would cost MORE money if people quit.

The jist of it is, if they smoke they die sooner and the cost of caring for sick smokers was less than long term geriatric care.

I'll see if I can dig up the study.

Scott


edit: Did not find the PM study but I did find this one which is even more credible.

Check it out.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/15/1052

[Paco Anton]

Originally posted by stomachmonkey
Phillip Morris got blasted a year or so ago.

One of the former Soviet bloc countries, (sorry I can't remember which one rifght now) was on an all out anti-smoking campaign to try and cut government health care costs for lung cancer and emphysema sufferers.

PM funded a study and the startling outcome was it would cost MORE money if people quit.

The jist of it is, if they smoke they die sooner and the cost of caring for sick smokers was less than long term geriatric care.

I'll see if I can dig up the study.

Scott


edit: Did not find the PM study but I did find this one which is even more credible.

Check it out.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/15/1052

The study was conducted in the Czech Republic by the international consulting firm Arthur D. Little

I worked for that company here in Spain when the scandal broke out. We had to endure a lot of media bashing for a while.

The study was purely economic in nature and was based on the facts that smoking generated a lot of tax revenues and, since smoking shortens lives, less pensions and social security have to be paid by the government, offsetting the medical costs of dealing with increased lung cancer.

Here you are the link to the report

[350HP930]

Originally posted by tabs
More PC BS....

PC? Sounds more like the right wing 'war on drugs' and 'corporations can do no wrong when maximising profits' mentalities at work.

PC involves pandering to hypersensitivies concerning gender, race, religion and/or political affiliation.

[Oh Haha]

That is my wife's insurance carrier!!
This could get interesting.
Wayne

[stomachmonkey]

Paco, thanks for the link and clarification.

Regards,
Scott

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by stomachmonkey

The jist of it is, if they smoke they die sooner and the cost of caring for sick smokers was less than long term geriatric care.

A similar study was written up in a big US business mag about 5 yrs ago. Death by cigs was much quicker than the slow death from old age.

I would figure that any serious insurance co issue would take root in NY due to their extremely strong political power here. NY insurance regs are probably the model for the whole country.

[VaSteve]

I haven't read all the responses, but Turner Broadcasting (owner of TBS, CNN, etc) used to have a form you signed when you worked there saying you wouldn't smoke while employed.

[Robert Coats]

The main problem with the "firing smokers" concept is where do you draw the line?

Well, generally, "the line" is drawn by laws. For example, I think most life insurance companies will not pay in the case of suicide, since it is an illegal act.

This legal-line was also the basis of another case where a company that declined health insurance claims to any employee who was injured while riding a motorcycle without a helmet, even though the state had no law required helmet use. Like the smoking case, it was a policy developed in cooperation of the insurance company and the employer. However, it was eventually changed, when the company realized it's not fair to deny health insurance benefits based on legal lifestyle choices.

So smokers and non-helmet-wearing motocyclists are either denied health insurance or required to pay more? On the surface, it sounds pretty fair, but again, where do you draw the line?

Suppose the insurance company expanded the list, with surcharges based on every aspect of your lifestyle:

Smoker? Oh, that's bad for you. $200 more each year in health insurance please.

Motorcyclist? Oh, "organ donor" eh? You pay $500 more each year.

Red meat eater? Whoo-eee! That's really bad. You pay $1000 more each year.

Drinker? Hey, that's gonna be an extra $750 each year.

Family history of heart disease? Okay, you have to pay $2000 more a year, pal.

Bicycle rider? Hey, you get a credit of $50 each year for exercising. But wait, you ride on public roads? Ooops. Sorry. "Risky lifestyle" makes that -$200 instead.

See? Start by penalizing smokers, and pretty soon, you'll find that "owning a Porsche" is consider "risky" and you too, will be paying more for employer-provide health insurance than your co-worker who drives a Saturn.

[RickM]

Here's a recent phenomenon, not be allowed to smoke in your own home:
http://www.no-smoking.org/dec04/12-27-04-1.html

NJ Manufacturers insurance is next door to my office. The entrance is a common driveway for about 40 feet where it then splits. During the day you'll see smokers from NJM walking across the drive (or should I say border) to have a smoke. There's no smoking allowed anywhere on their property...not even in your car.

[VaSteve]

There is an Insurance Company in Stone Mountain, Ga that advertises "Non-Drinkers Insurance".

It right on the office door, I think t hats all they offer as far as policies.