smokers employed by Wal-Mart

Some smokers employed by Wal-Mart are required to pay $2,000 surcharge to cover higher health care costs. Other companies, including PepsiCo, Safeway, Lowe's, and General Mills have similar policies for unhealthy employees, including obese workers with high cholesterol.

What does walmart get for these workers under their Dead Peasants policies?

This sounds like a move away from group policy to individual policies where most everyone will be changed extra for something. What does Wal-Mart pay back to the employee for being healthy? Or is the new policy pricing all increases with no offsetting decreases?

My approval of this policy depends on what happens to the "healthy" employees. Are their rates reflective of a fully healthy pool? Or do they pay the average amount for the whole pool, regardless of the surcharge assessed to the "unhealthy?"

Edit: Nice post KP! That's what I get for leaving things sit for a half hour:-)

I have voted for unreasonable, but maybe i do not know the whole story. Does walmart help the employees to become healthier anyhow?

Why not add drinkers? And fat people? And athletes? And inner city youth? And motorcylists? And meat eaters? And lazy people? And gun owners? And Jews? And guys named 'Steve' who were born between March and August?

To hell with that. I know people don't like smoke, and may downright hate an inconsiderate smoker, but is anyone else concerned with this constant persecution of smokers?

Thank a smoker today. They pay for a pant load of the health and education through taxes, and most will die early, leaving their social security funds to YOU, He of Long Life.

My company has a similar policy but has it set up to be more palatable. Instead of being charged a surcharge for smoking, employees who certify that they are smoke free receive an extra credit for use in offsetting their portion of the medical premiums. There is supposedly random testing via a breathalyzer type machine up to twice a year. (I've never been tested in the past 2 years.)

In addition, employees who take annual health assessment surveys and attend 'know your numbers' screenings receive additional reductions in there premiums. It's all an attempt to get employees to cut down on habits that are known to be detrimental to your health and to encourage habits that promote healthier lifestyles.

It makes business sense - preventing one employee heart attack could save $50,000+ in medical claims.

I say in the long run it will not work, smoking is only one factor, albeit a large one. If they want to use a proven way to lower costs, go the Whole Foods model and just put most in the HSA. Then the employee shops for what they want or need, lowering costs.

Given that I work for a company that does not hire smokers and will literally fire me if I test positive for nicotine or am caught smoking (fortunately I don't smoke,) I understand three things.

1. What Walmart is doing is definitely legal.
2. These employees are getting off easy.
3. Walmart is a bunch of jerks.

Obviously legal and in my opinion acceptable in terms of charging smokers more. Weight/cholesterol kind of has me apprehensive though, for a lot of people it comes down to genes and has the potential to be discriminatory in nature. Yes, people can be highly disposed to getting addicted to nicotine, but it doesn't compare to... you know... being Samoan.

In truth? Give me an ultra high deductible plan with an HSA any day.

Quote: hwccdealer

Given that I work for a company that does not hire smokers and will literally fire me if I test positive for nicotine or am caught smoking (fortunately I don't smoke,)

I understand that Ohio casinos are non-smoking (hallelujah!), but this didn't Penn Gaming policy nationwide, right? Either way, it's fairly ridiculous. Charging higher insurance is one thing, but forbidding employment is another.

Edit: I noticed this post wasn't bumped up on the recent list, which I use way too much to post search. Is that a product of being in the "Free Speech Zone" forum?

I had this discussion with someone who thought this kind of thing was a good idea, right up until I asked whether those who engage in high-risk sexual practices should also pay more.

Quote: ahiromu

Obviously legal and in my opinion acceptable in terms of charging smokers more. Weight/cholesterol kind of has me apprehensive though, for a lot of people it comes down to genes and has the potential to be discriminatory in nature. Yes, people can be highly disposed to getting addicted to nicotine, but it doesn't compare to... you know... being Samoan.

In truth? Give me an ultra high deductible plan with an HSA any day.

+1

It is supposed to be health INSURANCE, not a health-care-club where you pay for managed services.

Here's a thought. Let's free capitalism entirely. Have the individual pay for everything on their own -- their own health insurance, their own 401(k), and cancel social security and medicare, and return all the premiums to the employee.

The employers can take all of that money not being paid in health insurance and benefit matching and pay it to the employees so that they can pay for their own stuff. Yeah, because that's what employers will do.

Personal responsibility.

Boeing is now charging $50/month extra to smokers for their health policy

Doesn't it make economic sense for walmart to hire smokers? They take out Dead Peons insurance on all their employees don't they?

Note: Dead Peasants is an insurance term for insuring clerks rather than merely key executives.

Quote: tringlomane

I understand that Ohio casinos are non-smoking (hallelujah!), but this didn't Penn Gaming policy nationwide, right? Either way, it's fairly ridiculous. Charging higher insurance is one thing, but forbidding employment is another.

Edit: I noticed this post wasn't bumped up on the recent list, which I use way too much to post search. Is that a product of being in the "Free Speech Zone" forum?

I don't know if PN has a no-smoking policy nationwide, but I know it does in OH (and probably in some other places that don't allow smoking.) Frankly, it's nice to go into non-smoking casinos such as the ones in PR; the dealers are surly and disaffected, but at least I won and breathed clean air.

I am not a smoker nor do I work at Walmart.
But to me from my perspective this seems reasonable. If a company wants to charge people who are potentially riskier, heavy drinkers, smokers, obese people, etc..... more money to balance the risk that seems very fair. In a sense if a company does not charge riskier people more than that just punishes the people who are safe and healthy because everyone will end up having to pay more eventually.

But 2000 extra does sound like a lot though for smoking, is that a year? Because there is no way that could be monthly?

*edit- just noticed you say "some smokers", is there more qualifiers that we are not aware of, perhaps additional behaviors or smokers at a high level of use? Because if only "some" have to pay 2000 that may be the people who smoke ridiculous amounts of cigarettes a day and are also heavy drinkers etc....

I do smoke, and I do not work at W-Mart.
Boeing's plan sounds a bit reasonable ($50x 12 months), as many employees earn quite a bit per hour.
Take the Boeing rate of pay and divide it by 5. Does that seem to be a reasonable W-Mart wage?
The W-Mart $2000/year looks quite greedy/excessive. In round figures Boeing $600/$80000... W-Mart $2000/$16000.

Quote: Calder

I had this discussion with someone who thought this kind of thing was a good idea, right up until I asked whether those who engage in high-risk sexual practices should also pay more.

Both should pay more.

Quote: RS

Both should pay more.

Why in the hell would you tell your employer that you smoke if they are going to charge you more for it?

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Why in the hell would you tell your employer that you smoke if they are going to charge you more for it?

I would imagine you would have to pass a cotinine test to avoid being charged more.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Why in the hell would you tell your employer that you smoke if they are going to charge you more for it?

Probably because most insurance companies that have strict tobacco policies test you for nicotine in your system.

Also, if they later realize that you lie (like you say you are a nonsmoker and you really smoke 3 packs a day) and you get sick or get lung caner or something they can just drop you and you are on your own.

Quote: Gandler

I am not a smoker nor do I work at Walmart.
But to me from my perspective this seems reasonable. If a company wants to charge people who are potentially riskier, heavy drinkers, smokers, obese people, etc..... more money to balance the risk that seems very fair. In a sense if a company does not charge riskier people more than that just punishes the people who are safe and healthy because everyone will end up having to pay more eventually.

But 2000 extra does sound like a lot though for smoking, is that a year? Because there is no way that could be monthly?

*edit- just noticed you say "some smokers", is there more qualifiers that we are not aware of, perhaps additional behaviors or smokers at a high level of use? Because if only "some" have to pay 2000 that may be the people who smoke ridiculous amounts of cigarettes a day and are also heavy drinkers etc....

sOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT.

do people who live in highly wooded area pay the same for fire insurance than a person who lives in a non wooded area. Or a home near the beach pay more for homeowners insurance than someone inland? The higher the risk...the more you should pay to cover that risk.

After the riots in Newark, in the 60s...the insurance rates went skyhigh due to the risk.

Can insurance companies monitor all risks? Like risky sex, or sky diving recreationally? Nope. But that doesnt mean they have to throw up their hands and give up monitoring SOME high risk factors.

I refuse to work at Walmart until they lower my premiums for autoerotic asphyxiation.

Quote: djatc

I refuse to work at Walmart until they lower my premiums for autoerotic asphyxiation.

Back in a previous life, I worked in the bankrupt/deceased department of Citibank Visa. I was surprised at the percentage of death certificates that listed cause of death as "autoerotic asphyxiation". I would guess it was 1-2%, about the same rate as open heart surgery. I'm just sayin....

I know my views of smoking upset certain people, and for that I was banned for a few days. I did learn that SARCASM is tolerated from axiom and is not trolling, but sarcasm by vlad is an offense, and listed in the explanation of punishment. So the double standard is clear, and I personally applaud it. I agree the double standard should exisit , continue and thrive. And as a gesture of good faith in supporting the actions of the mods, I will issue an apology to axiom to prove my sincerity.

When I was banned for 7 days on a smoking topic thread, I told my wife, and she read what I wrote…and was upset with me and yelled at me. I told her that her comments were not true, nor were they accepted by me or anyone I know..She said what she said WAS true and indeed WAS accepted by everyone. Her response that followed still haunts me……



“A statement accepted as true….you are an idiot

A statement accepted as true, you are a pompous oaf

A statement accepted as true, you obviously were raised by wolves

A statement accepted as true, your elevated opinion of yourself boarders on insanity

A statement accepted as true, your lack of fundemental education is only exceeded by your lack of real intellect and common sense

A statement accepted as true, your view of the world is that of a mentally handicapped slug

A statement accepted as true, by appearing in public or on a message board, is a form of self humiliation for you

A statement accepted as true, you are a backwards and awkward dullard when it comes to life experience

A statement accepted as true, your mental illness needs to be addressed

A statement accepted as true, you need to dwell in an area where people share your same values , intelligence and maturity…like the playground.

A statement accepted as true…..you are inadequate in bed”





And after she finished ripping into ME with those words….I gathered myself together…..and said the following

“ after a thoughtful review…..I agree”

And then we ordered a pizza.

And she made me promise to apologize to axiom for making him feel foolish and uncomfortable.

For which I do now

I apologize axiom. That was uncalled for and I deserved to be suspended. I still dissagree with your view on smoking, but thats life.

Quote: LarryS

I know my views of smoking upset certain people, and for that I was banned for a few days. I did learn that SARCASM is tolerated from axiom and is not trolling, but sarcasm by vlad is an offense, and listed in the explanation of punishment. So the double standard is clear, and I personally applaud it. I agree the double standard should exisit , continue and thrive. And as a gesture of good faith in supporting the actions of the mods, I will issue an apology to axiom to prove my sincerity.

I wasn't being sarcastic

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

I wasn't being sarcastic

mission says you were......so have it out with him...'axiom"

Quote: beachbumbabs

Back in a previous life, I worked in the bankrupt/deceased department of Citibank Visa. I was surprised at the percentage of death certificates that listed cause of death as "autoerotic asphyxiation". I would guess it was 1-2%, about the same rate as open heart surgery. I'm just sayin....

Don't think it's a long enough discussion to start another thread even on DT -- but the combo of distraction and strangulation seems ripe for inducing accidental death. (Distraction being a polite description of other activity)