Getting fired for being fat or smoking is becoming reality

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Hacp
Another reason why we should have universal health care. Why would employers need to worry about your health when they don't need to foot the bill.

As Shakespeare said "...aye, there's the rub."

Someone has to foot the bill. Taking that burden from the employer places it on the taxpayer. Not only do we shoulder the burden that those of us with insurance already bear, we will pay for the employer portion as well. Not to mention the additional burden of shouldering a portion of the costs of those who currently don't have insurance but will be covered under UHC.

There are not merely pennies involved in that burdening. May our shoulders be stout.

You already bear the burden of those who don't have insurance, except you are paying for them to be treated at the most expensive place possible, the ER, and at the most expensive time, too late for prevention. Now you can pay with your taxes for them to see a regular doctor early on when it can be treated or prevented cheaply and successfully with them picking up some of the burden in their taxes, or you can pay for them to be treated at the ER later, much more expensively, and with worse outcome with the doctor sticking paying customers like you with all of their unpaid bills on top of your own. There is a reason we are spending more than anyone else and getting mediocre results. The saying "penny wise and pound foolish" comes to mind.

How many uninsured people that end up at the ER are there for reasons that could have been prevented? No doubt it happens quite often, but I can think of plenty of reasons a person would go to the ER that preventative medicine wouldn't address.

ER's are full of poor people getting care for all sorts of issues that should be treated at a clinic or with a primary care physician. If they need any care at all, they go to ER, where it costs 10x more.

And right now doctors are sticking me and my insurer, of which my employer pays a goodly chunk of that insurance, with the bill which includes costs padded in for the uninsured. All we will be doing with UHC is lifting that burden from employers to foot part of that bill and placing on our own shoulders.

Employers are dumping this burden whether you are lifting it or not. And as more of them dump it and costs increase on the ones who don't, it's only going to accelerate.
Plus the burden is ultimately passed on to workers and consumers anyways, as Republicans love to tell us about corporate taxes.

As to the expense of health care in the US, some or much of that is due to the extraordinary and highly advanced medical treatments offered in the US. The development costs alone of medical treatments is staggering. In the early/mid 90s I wrote documentation for companies developing new products in the medical industry (LASIK equipment and Cath Lab equipment) and both were going through the FDA approval process. A process that was drawn out and outrageously expensive to support while a company (hopefully) successfully jumped through all the FDA required hoops. For the LASIK company I helped author two of their FDA submissions, a paperwork circus that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. With those regulatory requirements the government is already adding significantly to the cost of health care. I doubt it will become any cheaper if the government manages to bury its nose even deeper into the health care business.

That is total baloney. LASIK is actually one of the more affordable treatments out there, because it's generally not supply constrained, and because it's discretionary, so markets have a chance to work.
But for necessary treatments, the hospitals know you'll pay whatever it takes, so the markets are broken. That's why even long established treatments whose regulatory cost has been amortized long ago are incredibly expensive, especially if done at the ER. If one of these uninsured goes to the ER for a cold, that's $2000 a pop that you are getting saddled with as consumer, instead of $200 a pop that you would be saddled with as taxpayer to provide for them to see a primary care doctor.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: bctbct
This is just a way for some people with authority to stick their nose where it doesnt belong.

QFT

Since smoking isn't illegal they have no right to fire you for doing it on your own time. I'm not even sure they should be able to keep yopu from doing it on your breaks and/or lunch as long as you went outside to do it.

I have a hard time believing how opininated some of you youngsters are. It seems more like a brainwash job then an opinion?? What's next then, nobody who ever has a drink can get a job, then eliminate anybody who engages in anything remotely dangerous, all to save some rich guys a couple of bucks?? Only idiots would think allowing an employer to dictate which LEGAL activities an employee can engage in is a good idea.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

So you think that employers should be able to fire people with cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, etc.

In South Dakota (a "right to work state") I've already seen those things happen. They never list that as the "reason", but they don't legally need to give you a valid reason to fire you in a state like this.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So you think that employers should be able to fire people with cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, etc.

I think the issue focuses more on the people who continue to put their lives in danger, which actually makes sense.

I'm not going to hesitate hiring a woman who lives a healthy life style, but is then afflicted with Breast Cancer. Unfortunately, these things happen, but there's little she can do to avoid this.

I am going to hesitate hiring an obese man who smokes, because he's continuing to put his life in danger, and increasingly so. Because of his life choices, he becomes an increased liability, and we can assume that statistically, he is more likely to cause serious financial stress on my company if we need to support him as he goes to the hospital for a heart-attack or lung cancer.

Think of it like car insurance - the more expensive and fast a car is, the more money it is to insure. The younger the driver, the more expensive it is to insure. Simply put, this makes sense from a logical standpoint, as younger drivers tend to speed more and crash more, and faster, more expensive cars cost more to repair in the event of an accident.

I'm not saying I would support this type of policy in a business model, but I certainly understand it. If you keep putting yourself in danger, why would someone want to cover you under the same health care policy that everyone else is on?

Perhaps instead of denying their employment, have separate health plans....I dunno.

Don't forget old people.

You know, I bet thats why Wal-Mart doesn't offer better benefits because of those darn expensive old people they hire.

 

[rchiu]

I personally don't smoke, but I hope all those people fired bring a big fat lawsuits against those companies. Any firing not directly related to the ability to perform the job is discrimination. Period.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: senseamp
ER's are full of poor people getting care for all sorts of issues that should be treated at a clinic or with a primary care physician. If they need any care at all, they go to ER, where it costs 10x more.

According to the following link, 20% of the uninsured use the ER as their primary care facility.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

Maybe it's just a matter of education to get the word out that there are cheaper alternatives?

Employers are dumping this burden whether you are lifting it or not. And as more of them dump it and costs increase on the ones who don't, it's only going to accelerate.
Plus the burden is ultimately passed on to workers and consumers anyways, as Republicans love to tell us about corporate taxes.

Maybe so, but the simple fact is that we are carrying nowhere near the burden now that we will be carrying if employers dump that respnsibility.

That is total baloney. LASIK is actually one of the more affordable treatments out there, because it's generally not supply constrained, and because it's discretionary, so markets have a chance to work.

But for necessary treatments, the hospitals know you'll pay whatever it takes, so the markets are broken. That's why even long established treatments whose regulatory cost has been amortized long ago are incredibly expensive, especially if done at the ER. If one of these uninsured goes to the ER for a cold, that's $2000 a pop that you are getting saddled with as consumer, instead of $200 a pop that you would be saddled with as taxpayer to provide for them to see a primary care doctor.

So refuse them at the ER and redirect them to a primary care physician or walk-in clinic instead, at least when it's not a dire emergency.

btw, what I explained is not baloney at all. I was directly involved in the process. Are you in the medical industry or have you worked in that industry in any capacity to understand what is involved to bring new technologies to market? I've had the LASIK done as well as did my wife. It ran a little over $7000 for both of us and insurance doesn't cover it at all. I don't think all that many would claim it is affordable, though it's probably some of the best money you'll ever spend for a doctor, imo.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: senseamp
ER's are full of poor people getting care for all sorts of issues that should be treated at a clinic or with a primary care physician. If they need any care at all, they go to ER, where it costs 10x more.

According to the following link, 20% of the uninsured use the ER as their primary care facility.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

Maybe it's just a matter of education to get the word out that there are cheaper alternatives?

Employers are dumping this burden whether you are lifting it or not. And as more of them dump it and costs increase on the ones who don't, it's only going to accelerate.
Plus the burden is ultimately passed on to workers and consumers anyways, as Republicans love to tell us about corporate taxes.

Maybe so, but the simple fact is that we are carrying nowhere near the burden now that we will be carrying if employers dump that respnsibility.

That is total baloney. LASIK is actually one of the more affordable treatments out there, because it's generally not supply constrained, and because it's discretionary, so markets have a chance to work.

But for necessary treatments, the hospitals know you'll pay whatever it takes, so the markets are broken. That's why even long established treatments whose regulatory cost has been amortized long ago are incredibly expensive, especially if done at the ER. If one of these uninsured goes to the ER for a cold, that's $2000 a pop that you are getting saddled with as consumer, instead of $200 a pop that you would be saddled with as taxpayer to provide for them to see a primary care doctor.

So refuse them at the ER and redirect them to a primary care physician or walk-in clinic instead, at least when it's not a dire emergency.

btw, what I explained is not baloney at all. I was directly involved in the process. Are you in the medical industry or have you worked in that industry in any capacity to understand what is involved to bring new technologies to market? I've had the LASIK done as well as did my wife. It ran a little over $7000 for both of us and insurance doesn't cover it at all. I don't think all that many would claim it is affordable, though it's probably some of the best money you'll ever spend for a doctor, imo.

Obviously it didn't take as you are still Myopic.😉

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: senseamp
ER's are full of poor people getting care for all sorts of issues that should be treated at a clinic or with a primary care physician. If they need any care at all, they go to ER, where it costs 10x more.

According to the following link, 20% of the uninsured use the ER as their primary care facility.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

Maybe it's just a matter of education to get the word out that there are cheaper alternatives?

Employers are dumping this burden whether you are lifting it or not. And as more of them dump it and costs increase on the ones who don't, it's only going to accelerate.
Plus the burden is ultimately passed on to workers and consumers anyways, as Republicans love to tell us about corporate taxes.

Maybe so, but the simple fact is that we are carrying nowhere near the burden now that we will be carrying if employers dump that respnsibility.

That is total baloney. LASIK is actually one of the more affordable treatments out there, because it's generally not supply constrained, and because it's discretionary, so markets have a chance to work.

But for necessary treatments, the hospitals know you'll pay whatever it takes, so the markets are broken. That's why even long established treatments whose regulatory cost has been amortized long ago are incredibly expensive, especially if done at the ER. If one of these uninsured goes to the ER for a cold, that's $2000 a pop that you are getting saddled with as consumer, instead of $200 a pop that you would be saddled with as taxpayer to provide for them to see a primary care doctor.

So refuse them at the ER and redirect them to a primary care physician or walk-in clinic instead, at least when it's not a dire emergency.

btw, what I explained is not baloney at all. I was directly involved in the process. Are you in the medical industry or have you worked in that industry in any capacity to understand what is involved to bring new technologies to market? I've had the LASIK done as well as did my wife. It ran a little over $7000 for both of us and insurance doesn't cover it at all. I don't think all that many would claim it is affordable, though it's probably some of the best money you'll ever spend for a doctor, imo.

Obviously it didn't take as you are still Myopic.😉

I fid it most odd that those accusing me of that in here are often the very same folks who seem to be staring directly into the walls of their colon. 😛

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: sandorski
If the Government was to do such a thing you'd probably be jumping up and down outraged, but because it is a Business Owner or Employer of some kind it is ok?

And there in lies the hypocrisy.
:thumbsup:

 

[First]

Originally posted by: rchiu
I personally don't smoke, but I hope all those people fired bring a big fat lawsuits against those companies. Any firing not directly related to the ability to perform the job is discrimination. Period.

Pretty much. You'd have to be a complete half-wit to think otherwise.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Fern
Yup, they outta be fired. Of course then they'll be on Medicaid (free health care) paid for by the government. But wait! Has the cost been reduced, or merely shifted to another payor?

If merely shifted, what's the point from the macro-view? A transfer of wealth from the gov sectore to the private sector. Is that worthwhile and justified?

Don't expect someone like him to think that far ahead into the future...

Fat slobs leeching off medicaid with our tax dollars because they were fired/denied employment for smoking or just being "fat" (even when they're still capable of doing work) rather than employers covering some costs like they're already doing now?

Of course Shivetya is for the former...

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: rchiu
I personally don't smoke, but I hope all those people fired bring a big fat lawsuits against those companies. Any firing not directly related to the ability to perform the job is discrimination. Period.

So? If I run my own business and I don't want you working their why shouldn't I be able to fire your ass for any damn reason? It's my fucking business!

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: rchiu
I personally don't smoke, but I hope all those people fired bring a big fat lawsuits against those companies. Any firing not directly related to the ability to perform the job is discrimination. Period.

So? If I run my own business and I don't want you working their why shouldn't I be able to fire your ass for any damn reason? It's my fucking business!

lmao. Sarcasm or no?

 

[nonameo]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Fern
Yup, they outta be fired. Of course then they'll be on Medicaid (free health care) paid for by the government. But wait! Has the cost been reduced, or merely shifted to another payor?

If merely shifted, what's the point from the macro-view? A transfer of wealth from the gov sectore to the private sector. Is that worthwhile and justified?

Don't expect someone like him to think that far ahead into the future...

Fat slobs leeching off medicaid with our tax dollars because they were fired/denied employment for smoking or just being "fat" (even when they're still capable of doing work) rather than employers covering some costs like they're already doing now?

Of course Shivetya is for the former...

What? Are you sure he doesn't want to do away with medicaid, too? In that case, if you smoke, you're poor and can't afford health insurance. You'd just have to go without care or go to the ER. Either way you'll probably wind up in debt for life(bankruptcy doesn't clear medical debts) and lose all motivation to even try to find a job since you'll probably always be poor anyways.

The problem isn't the government, it's the people. People think that they have to work through the government to change things, but this just isn't true. People could opt to boycott businesses that refused to hire smokers, but we're all too apathetic to do so. It's much easier to just pass a law.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: rchiu
I personally don't smoke, but I hope all those people fired bring a big fat lawsuits against those companies. Any firing not directly related to the ability to perform the job is discrimination. Period.

So? If I run my own business and I don't want you working their why shouldn't I be able to fire your ass for any damn reason? It's my fucking business!

lmao. Sarcasm or no?

Heh. No, funny as I maybe... I agree with what I said...

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: rchiu
I personally don't smoke, but I hope all those people fired bring a big fat lawsuits against those companies. Any firing not directly related to the ability to perform the job is discrimination. Period.

So? If I run my own business and I don't want you working their why shouldn't I be able to fire your ass for any damn reason? It's my fucking business!

lmao. Sarcasm or no?

Heh. No, funny as I maybe... I agree with what I said...

If you want slaves you might want to move someplace else. All people are free in this country, not just business owners.

Try mainland China.

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: rchiu
I personally don't smoke, but I hope all those people fired bring a big fat lawsuits against those companies. Any firing not directly related to the ability to perform the job is discrimination. Period.

So? If I run my own business and I don't want you working their why shouldn't I be able to fire your ass for any damn reason? It's my fucking business!

lmao. Sarcasm or no?

Heh. No, funny as I maybe... I agree with what I said...

If you want slaves you might want to move someplace else. All people are free in this country, not just business owners.

Try mainland China.

There is no such thing as a "right to work". Smoking is a silly a reason to fire somebody but if they were fired for that reason, it certainly doesn't equate to slavery.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Money gives me the right to tell everyone else how they have to live, even off the clock.

It's good to be rich. And it's moral too. Money is the answer to everything.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: rchiu
I personally don't smoke, but I hope all those people fired bring a big fat lawsuits against those companies. Any firing not directly related to the ability to perform the job is discrimination. Period.

So? If I run my own business and I don't want you working their why shouldn't I be able to fire your ass for any damn reason? It's my fucking business!

lmao. Sarcasm or no?

Heh. No, funny as I maybe... I agree with what I said...

If you want slaves you might want to move someplace else. All people are free in this country, not just business owners.

Try mainland China.

There is no such thing as a "right to work". Smoking is a silly a reason to fire somebody but if they were fired for that reason, it certainly doesn't equate to slavery.

If they fire people for legal activities they engage in when they are not at work, then they are taking a step in making slaves out of their employees.

Wake up people, employers don't own you, they only rent you.... and they can only tell you what to do while you are "on the clock".

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: rchiu
I personally don't smoke, but I hope all those people fired bring a big fat lawsuits against those companies. Any firing not directly related to the ability to perform the job is discrimination. Period.

So? If I run my own business and I don't want you working their why shouldn't I be able to fire your ass for any damn reason? It's my fucking business!

lmao. Sarcasm or no?

Heh. No, funny as I maybe... I agree with what I said...

If you want slaves you might want to move someplace else. All people are free in this country, not just business owners.

Try mainland China.

There is no such thing as a "right to work".

Smoking is a silly a reason to fire somebody but if they were fired for that reason, it certainly doesn't equate to slavery.

If they fire people for legal activities they engage in when they are not at work, then they are taking a step in making slaves out of their employees.

Wake up people, employers don't own you, they only rent you.... and they can only tell you what to do while you are "on the clock".

Thank you

This is why I call the U.S. going to a Feudal Society.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
If you?re in love with unhealthy foods or other unhealthy things such as smoking you may just find yourself out of a job. A sweeping trend is creeping up on America through employers and insurance companies. The cat is out of the bag, if you?re a smoker you have a target on your head for being unhealthy and are at risk of losing your job or paying steep monthly fines and penalties.


I support this. Why? Because its not a right to have a job. You have to earn it. If an employer wants healthy employees why should they not have that right? What right is it of yours to impose your unhealthy lifestyle on an employer, LET ALONE fellow employees?


I guess in the future these people will seek government protection and get it. Can you imagine the audacity, selfishness, that will occur when these people petition Congressmen for protection. Can you imagine the insult to the rest of us when it happens? We will not only be forced to pay their medical bills but suffer through every associated illness they bring along.

I can see it now, indirect support of smoking by the government. Then again we already have it don't we?

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Too many childern taking offe3nse to what in reality is a very real issue that has nothing to do with anybodys 4th amemdment rights.
It has everything to do with the emplyers rights to hire whoever he wants!
If your we already hired and your emplyer then decided to go over the deep end on several of these issues then you can cry that your being targeted.

But to cry because somebody refusesd to hire you because your fat or you smoke is just stoopid!
That enplayer has rights also and one of those rights is to hire whoeve he pleases!
If he will only hire non smokers then if you want to work for him you stop smoking permanently!


He hired you because you were a non smoker! He didn`t hire you because yuo said you would not smoke at work!

Those are 2 different things!
Shivetya is 100% correct@!!!

Wow... no matter how jaded I get, every day there's something I see - on these forums - that manages to startle me.

Gentlemen... you are no longer human beings in my eyes. May whichever deity you worship have mercy on your soul, admitting that you had one to begin with.

 

[CPA]

Employers already have the right:

- Many athletes/entertainers have clauses in their contracts that forbid the use of motorcycles or performing dangerous activities (skydiving, etc)

- Employers can fire you if you have cancer or other illnesses if it impedes on your work. FMLA was to help assist folks who are impacted with these scenarios, but it is not a cure-all. If you take off more than the max allowed under FMLA, then your company can fire you.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: CPA
Employers already have the right:

- Many athletes/entertainers have clauses in their contracts that forbid the use of motorcycles or performing dangerous activities (skydiving, etc)

Show me a athlete or celebrity contract that has a no smoking clause in it.

- Employers can fire you if you have cancer or other illnesses if it impedes on your work. FMLA was to help assist folks who are impacted with these scenarios, but it is not a cure-all. If you take off more than the max allowed under FMLA, then your company can fire you.

Now show me how not smoking at work impedes your work?

Now go sell out someone else's rights.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: CPA
Employers already have the right:

- Many athletes/entertainers have clauses in their contracts that forbid the use of motorcycles or performing dangerous activities (skydiving, etc)

- Employers can fire you if you have cancer or other illnesses if it impedes on your work. FMLA was to help assist folks who are impacted with these scenarios, but it is not a cure-all. If you take off more than the max allowed under FMLA, then your company can fire you.

The difference would be that they read the contract and agreed to the terms.

 

[Brovane]

So using the logic that I am seeing being talked in this thread. If I was female and became pregnant it would be ok for my employer to terminate me. Is this what people are saying?