A broken leg = couple thousand at max, possibly more if compound. Cancer from smoking costs millions. Emphysema, COPD, and heart disease, and other smoking related diseases all cost more than a broken leg and all are more likely to occur to a smoker than someone playing sports.
George Burns begs to differs.
broken legs are easy, destroyed knees . . . not so much
A lot of ski accidents are head trauma with ongoing problems and possible coma
If they can quit, the healthcare costs for the whole company goes down, and everyone profits.
Instead of punishing everyone, smokers and fatties should just have to pay more for insurance. If they want to keep smoking or stay fat, they can, they just have to pay more, meanwhile the ones that don't smoke and don't eat 389486948 calories per day can benefit from lower costs.
Seems absurd to be fining people for a life decision. It's their life, if they want to smoke off the job, they should be able to. I can see restricting on the job smoking, but off the job, they should not be allowed to touch. I hate how companies control people's lives. Once you're off the clock companies should not be allowed to dictate what you can and cannot do. On that same subject, conflict of interest stuff pisses me off too. What I do on my own time should not be of their concern as long as I'm showing up and doing my job.
A broken leg = couple thousand at max, possibly more if compound. Cancer from smoking costs millions.
Its called actuary science people.
Smokers and obese people cost way more money than those stupid "high" risk activities people brought up.
the health costs of thin and healthy people in adulthood are more expensive than those of either fat people or smokers
Yes because those smokers are always running up company health bills.
how about this then, no pregnancies.
no pregnancies, health care costs for the whole company go down.
also, no fat people, nobody over 50.
so now you're comparing the cost of one person vs the cost of lots of people?
illogical
Then show me the actuarial studies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html?_r=2&
In a paper published online Monday in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that the health costs of thin and healthy people in adulthood are more expensive than those of either fat people or smokers.
Van Baal and colleagues created a model to simulate lifetime health costs for three groups of 1,000 people: the "healthy-living" group (thin and nonsmoking), obese people, and smokers. The model relied on "cost of illness" data and disease prevalence in the Netherlands in 2003.
The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.
Jesus tap-dancing christ, you are an idiot. Quote more next time to give everyone the full context.
There's no way to argue with you if you think people dying sooner is a valid point.
There's no way to argue with you if you think people dying sooner is a valid point.
This is why slippery slope arguments are retarded. Every issue can be handled individually.
Pregnancy - required for the survival of the human race. You are a dumbass.
No fat people - as a previously fat person, this is perfectly fine with me. I'd gladly pay a fine if it drove down the cost of those people who remained healthy. Now that I'm healthy, I support this even more.
Nobody over 50 - not optional. You are a dumbass.
In the context of whether to charge them more for their supposed 'burden' on society, it's perfectly valid
they don't cost more. get over it.
I thought we were talking about employers/companies here
Heck even for the society - do you really want people to die prematurely?
People who would otherwise have been at their prime and starting to repay/contribute back to society?
There's no way to argue with you if you think people dying sooner is a valid point.
In the context of whether to charge them more for their supposed 'burden' on society, it's perfectly valid
they don't cost more. get over it.
Heck even for the society - do you really want people to die prematurely?
People who would otherwise have been at their prime and starting to repay/contribute back to society?
Aren't people 65+ the biggest drains on society? social security + healthcare costs = holy shit that's a lot of money.
I'm pretty sure my grandma doesn't pay shit for taxes.
I don't smoke but if I think that's a pretty stupid policy. If you're going to charge people for smoking, what's next - charging employees for being overweight?
As a contrived devil's advocate type example, what about someone who smashes and breaks their arm with a brick every three months because they enjoy it? Should we have to keep paying for X-rays and casts?