My company is going to fine tobacco users 500 bucks

[Chaotic42]

We should absolutely make that hypothetical person pay (unless there is a valid medical condition that compels the person to do it against his/her will and there is nothing you can do to get rid of that urge). The reason why it hasn't happened yet is because this doesn't happen enough to make a difference for the major health care payers (i.e. the government and employers)

So then following from that, why shouldn't people who smoke or inhale triple Big Macs pay extra? Clearly these things are destructive. How much self-damaging enjoyment is "okay" before we as a society feel the need to have them pay extra for it? If the answer is little or none, are we really comfortable with the implications of having people pay for falling out of line?

This is why I hate finance and politics.

 

[natto fire]

This is why I hate finance and politics.

Being compassionate and rational at the same time will do that. Most parlay their disability to an addiction of some sort, but some just go full blown psychopath and pursue a career in politics. They then blend the two and think there is no difference between the two fields.

 

[boomhower]

I don't see this flying in court. I don't see how they can decide what behaviors to fine for. Smoking, over weight, alcohol, among other things drive up insurance costs.

If it was about health they wouldn't be "fining" for nicotine. In and of itself in moderate use it's not any worse than other stimulants. Gum, patches, ecigs etc.

May as well fine for everything and get the death panels up and running. People make stupid decisions the rest of us pay for. DUI is a "victimless" crime gets bantered around quite a bit but the millions upon millions paid out to those victims certainly run up your rates.

 

[natto fire]

This is why I hate finance and politics.

Being compassionate and rational at the same time will do that. Most parlay their disability to an addiction of some sort, but some just go full blown psychopath and pursue a career in politics. They then blend the two and think there is no difference between the two fields.

 

[Doppel]

owned. Smoking is a laughable and humiliating habit and smokers should be reminded of this at all possible times.

 

[SSSnail]

So is your company going to fine fatties too?

 

[Pr0d1gy]

In Nazi America, cigarette smokes YOU!!!!

 

[natto fire]

owned. Smoking is a laughable and humiliating habit and smokers should be reminded of this at all possible times.

Now that smoking is less common and is definitely a more shunned habit, is that why we have moved on to new habits that are more taboo and gaining traction? Or is smoking the red herring to the destruction of the human virus?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Are they going to fine fat people too?

Not so sure that they can select which bad behaviors they need to "fine" people for. Smoking is not illegal behavior (yet)

always some idiot throwing nonsense into the issue...

 

[natto fire]

always some idiot throwing nonsense into the issue...

The only thing that is nonsense is pretending obesity is much more healthy than smoking. Both have varying severity, one is a guaranteed death wish relatively quickly, the other brings failing health in a much more slow manner. Simple logic.

 

[JEDIYoda]

The only thing that is nonsense is pretending obesity is much more healthy than smoking. Both have varying severity, one is a guaranteed death wish relatively quickly, the other brings failing health in a much more slow manner. Simple logic.

The issue in this thread is smoking NOT obesity.....always those who like to change the subject...

 

[Chaotic42]

The issue in this thread is smoking NOT obesity.....always those who like to change the subject...

Seriously? You can't see how a discussion about fining people for other unhealthy activities would arise from a discussion about fining people for tobacco use?

 

[natto fire]

The issue in this thread is smoking NOT obesity.....always those who like to change the subject...

Yeah, because passing the buck is unheard of in corporate America...

You called it "nonsense" when clearly it isn't. Maybe if you limited your mind to only discuss smoking, but on the bigger scale of employers being able to charge you for unhealthy activities, it is absolutely a valid argument.

 

[akahoovy]

Ugh. Fuck insurance. What a scam.

 

[Phoenix86]

The issue in this thread is smoking NOT obesity.....always those who like to change the subject...

You're an idiot if you can't see the common denominator. This is very, very, very far from a slippery slope argument, just want to preempt your next reply.

 

[postmortemIA]

My ER insurance has 3 penalties
1. For smoking
2. For being too fat - bmi over 30 or cholesterol over 250
3. For insuring spouse and/or kids if spouse is eligible to other insurance.

So yeah 3. Is biggest BS. Beats everything else.

 

[SparkyJJO]

They are not going to piss-test.

On a side note, what Obamacare is all about is forcing young and healthy people, who generally do not care about buying insurance, to be added to the risk pool to lower costs across the board. That is why you will pay a fine if you do not have insurance next year.

Except it isn't doing that. Costs are going UP.

 

[JEDIYoda]

how dare they pick on smokers....

 

[sourn]

What about idiot tax. I've know far more people that did stupid shit and had to go to the doctors, even though they were otherwise healthy (non-smoker/drinker and skinny). How about those people. Fucking tired of this shit. Idiots is what cost people.

Hey look a saw I think I'll have my hand/fingers in front of it while cutting. I could go on and on with stupid shit like this that actually happened.

But then again I'm sure you idiots would be against this, because that means charging people more that actually use the insurance more. Fuck common sense though can't have that.

 

[OverVolt]

Agreed, tax idiots. Alky would be shocked when he opens his paycheck.

Opens up the stub, "hey why is the idiot tax on there? This must be a mistake!!"

 

[Murloc]

sounds reasonable to me.
It's not a fine anyway, more like an incentive for non-smoking.
Plus they offer free programs, just enroll in one and you don't lose the 500$.

Anyway private insurances also make you pay different rates depending on your health or the car you drive, so I don't see why the workplace insurance should be any different.

 

[Engineer]

Because that is the nature of insurance. Good drivers pay for bad drivers, healthy people pay for unhealthy, etc. I'm not saying it's right - and I agree with you that non-smokers should no pay for smokers. I 'm just saying that's how insurance works in general.

Not true. Get a speeding ticket or crash a few times and see what happens to your rates.

 

[Newbian]

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.

That's one of the reasons a women gets paid on average less then a man and while maybe not a factor for health care in some jobs as they don't have it for their employees but also because of the time they have to take off.

 

[JTsyo]

Is $500/yr anything compared to the cost of cigarettes?

 

[bignateyk]

Ours is $900/year premium increase for tobacco users.