Thread Rating:

Poll

29 votes (64.44%)
4 votes (8.88%)
9 votes (20%)
3 votes (6.66%)

45 members have voted

tringlomane
tringlomane
Joined: Aug 25, 2012
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 6054
July 12th, 2013 at 7:53:57 PM permalink
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?
Calder
Calder
Joined: Mar 26, 2010
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 451
July 12th, 2013 at 9:11:29 PM permalink
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.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 219
  • Posts: 11213
July 14th, 2013 at 4:23:42 AM permalink
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.
Tolerance is the virtue of believing in nothing
boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5988
July 14th, 2013 at 2:32:10 PM permalink
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.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
slyther
slyther
Joined: Feb 1, 2010
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 691
July 14th, 2013 at 3:02:00 PM permalink
Boeing is now charging $50/month extra to smokers for their health policy
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 264
  • Posts: 14156
July 14th, 2013 at 3:18:52 PM permalink
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.
hwccdealer
hwccdealer
Joined: Jun 4, 2013
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 365
July 14th, 2013 at 5:01:28 PM permalink
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.
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 1323
March 28th, 2014 at 7:53:08 PM permalink
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....
98Clubs
98Clubs
Joined: Jun 3, 2010
  • Threads: 52
  • Posts: 1728
March 28th, 2014 at 9:04:04 PM permalink
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.
Some people need to reimagine their thinking.
RS
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8623
March 28th, 2014 at 9:14:20 PM permalink
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.

  • Jump to: