diesbudt
Diamond Member
- Jun 1, 2012
- 3,393
- 0
- 0
I see this as no different as an employer saying we won't hire you if you decide to use cyanide daily
This is so unfair!!!
I see this as no different as an employer saying we won't hire you if you decide to use cyanide daily
I own a gym. I will give you one example. We have a married couple that are members, both in their mid sixties. Both very fit, both work out 5 days a week. He is about 6'2". I don't know his weight but nobody would ever in a million years look at him and think he's overweight or even carrying an extra few pounds. He's not muscular per se, just very fit looking.
According to the charts he's obese. When bureaucrats start making decisions on coverage, copays and premiums, he's going to be an unhappy camper. He knows this. We've talked about it. What will his recourse be? Some schlub sitting at a desk is going to make the determination. With a population as large as we have, I just don't envision an appeal process.
no company wants to pay the medical benefits for a smoker. It can also show bad judgement about the person and little self control to continue smoking (with all the info we know about smoking and 2nd hand smoke). Plus smoking outside the door does actually affect other employees walking in and out, sitting next too etc.. Mostly a bottom line decision, I'm sure they've run all the numbers, figured how much smokers are costing them in sick days, productivity, current healthcare, their families exposed to 2nd hand smoke and their healthcare, future healthcare for pensions etc.
Well here's to hoping the gub'ment doesn't use BMI. BTW, his Doctor is the one that told him he's obese. Let's hope Doc gets some leeway in making his determination when push comes to shove.BMI is widely regarded as horribly inaccurate for anyone who is athletic. Anyone who uses purely BMI as a measure of obesity or health is delusional.
BMI can quickly and easily be countered and modified with waist size and body fat percentage measurements being added into the equation and it would balance things out for those people who aren't fat but will always be measured as "obese" because of muscular build.
I think it's bullshit, and is an overreach of corporatised America. This country's going to shit, and the only bright spot is I'm closer to death than birth...
That's fine. Company property and time are theirs, and they can set the rules for THEIR property. That doesn't extend to my house.
Oh and I forgot to mention I want to see the look on everyone's face when employers ask someone get on a scale to verify their BMI information. I'd bet there are plenty of fat bastards on these boards.
I disagree on this one. Companies are forced to pay for health insurance, so they should have a right to turn away people who are going to drive up the cost of health care.
not with you here think about it, fine to turn away someone who has a birth defect, or previously had a heart attack? Think twice what you wish for. how about limits on Polynesians because they have poor diets?
they ARE setting the rules for THEIR property, and that rule is if you are a smoker, you won't be hired.
i see nothing wrong with that as well. if you don't like it, look for a job elsewhere.
I disagree on this one. Companies are forced to pay for health insurance, so they should have a right to turn away people who are going to drive up the cost of health care.
They should give the employee the option to waive their healthcare coverage if they detect nicotine.
Fanatical Meat said:not with you here think about it, fine to turn away someone who has a birth defect, or previously had a heart attack? Think twice what you wish for. how about limits on Polynesians because they have poor diets?
That's fine as long as they turn away blacks, people that eat cured meat, alcohol users, and people that eat sugar. They all raise health care costs, so they shouldn't be hired either. Anyone who disagrees can fuck themselves. Discrimination is wrong and immoral. The fact that some classes are "protected"(which is wrong in itself) has zero bearing on matter. That's the brain dead asshattery I was ranting about a couple weeks ago, where the stupid get their ethics from a law book, because they don't have the mental faculties to parse right and wrong themselves.
I don't understand how existing smokers could be forced to quit or be fired, smoking is not illegal and yes, it's bad for you as are a LOT of things that are perfectly legal as smoking. I can see it coming, BMI indexing, blood-work draws then the holy grail, DNA testing, "I',m sorry Mr Smith, we see a prevalence in yo genetic makeup that gives you a very high preponderance to pancreatic cancer, we can't use you, bye.."
How is it wrong to tell someone there are consequences for making terrible life choices (smoking, drinking, being obese)?
But you wonder where it ends. Could companies require physical exams that include blood-work for a lipid panel?. Sorry Mr Smith, your HDL/LDL is WAY out of whack not to mention your triglycerides, you test out like a bacon freak Mr. Smith, I'm sorry, we can't use you..
I think it's bullshit, and is an overreach of corporatised America. This country's going to shit, and the only bright spot is I'm closer to death than birth...
I disagree on this one. Companies are forced to pay for health insurance, so they should have a right to turn away people who are going to drive up the cost of health care.
They should give the employee the option to waive their healthcare coverage if they detect nicotine.