General Discussion

_ed_

(1,734 posts)

109. Yes

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 11:15 AM

Jan 2012

If, as an employer, I'm required by law to provide healthcare for my employees, I think I should have the option to require my employees to try to be as healthy as possible to reduce my costs. This is the problem with the employer mandate: gov't pawns off the issue of insurance to employers.

This type of argument just shows that we need universal single payer.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

158 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"We're not denying smokers their right to tobacco products. We're just choosing not to hire them." [View all] The Straight Story Jan 2012 OP

Trying to promote a culture of wellness, but instead promoting a culture of fascism, MadHound Jan 2012 #1

I agree. It's a slippery slope! TheDebbieDee Jan 2012 #5

Which is by definition unwell Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #90

I quit smoking 8-1/2 years ago..........but I AM overweight. TheDebbieDee Jan 2012 #2

I'd be willing to bet... one_voice Jan 2012 #43

I do recall Rush Limbaugh proposing something to that affect ... zbdent Jan 2012 #55

It sort of already is Marrah_G Jan 2012 #104

Makes you want to keep smoking just to fucking spite them... SomethingFishy Jan 2012 #3

Exactly..I smoked for decades and then quit and am glad I did, but this is just fascism at work. n/t whathehell Jan 2012 #10

"It will be seen that, as used, the word �Fascism� is almost entirely meaningless." -Orwell nt Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #149

What does that have to do with my post? SomethingFishy Jan 2012 #154

Meant to reply to the poster below you. Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #155

They came for the smokers, I was not a smoker so I did not stand up for them. Vincardog Jan 2012 #4

Well one list I wouldnt object "to much" for them coming for would read like cstanleytech Jan 2012 #15

I would probably be rolling around on the floor with you in those cases however the OP Vincardog Jan 2012 #21

Health Insurance corps trying to promote a culture of wellness... SammyWinstonJack Jan 2012 #113

those have already come to pass SixthSense Jan 2012 #72

I see. It's designed to promote health. KamaAina Jan 2012 #6

Yep. It's all about the money. PA Democrat Jan 2012 #46

prohibition did not work demtenjeep Jan 2012 #7

Can't figure out how nicotine patches invade other peoples' air space eridani Jan 2012 #8

I go back and forth on the gum and it's not hurting anyone. My company has a no tobacco policy but Tunkamerica Jan 2012 #11

No, of course it isn't. Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #92

it's not about that... it's about insurance premiums. ejpoeta Jan 2012 #14

Companies will dictate this as long as they are pitching in for insurance arcane1 Jan 2012 #80

its almost like they want to punish people Mosby Jan 2012 #24

nicotine, non-addictive? emcguffie Jan 2012 #130

You're addicted to the free base nicotine in cigs Mosby Jan 2012 #148

The low levels in old-school cigs were far less addictive. Fawke Em Jan 2012 #151

This is a good argument for ending the connection between health insurance and employment. surrealAmerican Jan 2012 #9

I hate cigarettes, but this is just awful. Capitalocracy Jan 2012 #12

If the employer contributes to the cost of employees' health insurance... WillowTree Jan 2012 #13

So then when they decide that SomethingFishy Jan 2012 #16

Yes _ed_ Jan 2012 #109

Actually I Would Say That It Shows. . . ProfessorGAC Jan 2012 #116

Yep Kellerfeller Jan 2012 #119

I agree with that... Tikki Jan 2012 #18

Those employer paid premiums are, in effect, wages. Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #20

They already do Kellerfeller Jan 2012 #121

I don't see why this is wrong. Happyhippychick Jan 2012 #17

So you are in favor of choice when it comes to smoking in bars as well? The Straight Story Jan 2012 #19

If you are going to be snarky them I can't have a discussion about this Happyhippychick Jan 2012 #25

This message was self-deleted by its author Bunny Jan 2012 #98

Called 'choice' over one's own body The Straight Story Jan 2012 #128

This message was self-deleted by its author Bunny Jan 2012 #132

In that case, no one makes you work a job that won't hire you because you smoke. uppityperson Jan 2012 #137

The fallacy in your argument is that its' not your body grantcart Jan 2012 #138

Not just abortions and smoking in bars. uppityperson Jan 2012 #135

This message was self-deleted by its author Bunny Jan 2012 #144

Next thing there'll be employers who won't hire unless you smoke. Your choice. uppityperson Jan 2012 #145

This message was self-deleted by its author Bunny Jan 2012 #147

Precisely. If I choose to never bathe again, my employer and co-workers should simpl LanternWaste Jan 2012 #99

Everything you do in your "free time" is a choice. surrealAmerican Jan 2012 #26

No. And I wouldn't ban smokers either but I can't say that employees don't have that right. Happyhippychick Jan 2012 #30

Are you saying you believe an employer has the right to prohibit you from something uppityperson Jan 2012 #33

You raise good points. I guess I'm saying this: I believe employers should provide health Happyhippychick Jan 2012 #39

Which would encourage someone to stop smoking. Get fired and not be able to find a job, or working uppityperson Jan 2012 #45

Care to make any other assumptions about me? Or have you had your fill? I guess it isn't Happyhippychick Jan 2012 #50

At what point do you decide what is legally ok but a fireable offense? uppityperson Jan 2012 #51

I am answering your questions but your retorts are full of unflattering assumptions about my Happyhippychick Jan 2012 #58

since you haven't answered ANY of these questions to clarify, I am assuming from what you do write. uppityperson Jan 2012 #77

So the natural prgression of this could then lead to pre-employment screening for: bighart Jan 2012 #108

Yes. LanternWaste Jan 2012 #101

Do you mean like Kellerfeller Jan 2012 #122

This is about companies, who pay you for a few hours a day ... surrealAmerican Jan 2012 #36

Drinking coffee is a choice, it's not a discrimination to prohibit employees who drink coffee even uppityperson Jan 2012 #27

Yes I used a bad example since drugs are illegal, my wishful thinking that tobacco should be Happyhippychick Jan 2012 #34

So you believe and employer can demand anything of its employees. If they don't want to go along, uppityperson Jan 2012 #37

I'm done. It's difficult to have conversations tonight without people being rude and condescending Happyhippychick Jan 2012 #41

Not being condescending here, trying out other examples. uppityperson Jan 2012 #47

Ha ha, it looks more like you were unprepared to defend your position & bailed. U4ikLefty Jan 2012 #86

Do you agree with my edit? This is also bad for my health. SlimJimmy Jan 2012 #52

No because you can't live without food. You can live without smoking. Happyhippychick Jan 2012 #59

I didn't say food for basic sustenance, I said eating too much and being overweight. SlimJimmy Jan 2012 #61

Only if someone can scientifically prove which foods make one overweight which science has Happyhippychick Jan 2012 #100

It doesn't matter *what* makes them overweight. If they are overweight then SlimJimmy Jan 2012 #105

+1 nt Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #63

By the way, I think tobacco should be illegal, like marijuana is. uppityperson Jan 2012 #139

Try this MFrohike Jan 2012 #31

Lots of people seem to have no problem with public school teachers being fired ... markpkessinger Jan 2012 #64

As they should MFrohike Jan 2012 #73

Did you mean people should have A problem with teachers being fired over photos showing drinking? uppityperson Jan 2012 #141

Good catch MFrohike Jan 2012 #152

I have a problem with teachers being fired over fb photos showing drinking. uppityperson Jan 2012 #140

Smoking begins as a choice and becomes an addiction. Cerridwen Jan 2012 #54

You nailed it here: CrispyQ Jan 2012 #112

The ultimate problem is "health" insurance benefits... arcane1 Jan 2012 #83

Thank you! I raised this point and it is the crux of my feeling. Health care is a right and until Happyhippychick Jan 2012 #102

Because drugs are illegal and smoking is not and mrmpa Jan 2012 #94

Pregnancy Is a Choice RobinA Jan 2012 #125

I recall being askes about my reproductive plans at my first "real" job interview. uppityperson Jan 2012 #143

What if they said they wouldn't hire people who went skiing, or played softball, as suggested above? emcguffie Jan 2012 #133

DU legal minds: wouldn't the nicotine patch prohibition constitute a pretty good lawsuit? DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #22

Certainly, it is discrimination. Laelth Jan 2012 #103

All hiring decisions are inherently and unavoidably "discriminatory". Codeine Jan 2012 #120

culture of wellness my ass ixion Jan 2012 #23

I recognized this trend decades ago. Part of the reason I quit smoking. . . Journeyman Jan 2012 #28

I'm fine with this. nt Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #29

What else are you fine with them prohibiting? No fast foods or processed foods, no high fat uppityperson Jan 2012 #32

Eh. Whatever is fine. nt Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #38

An employer can dictate what you do during the time you aren't at work, even legal things. uppityperson Jan 2012 #40

But none do that. Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #57

Yeah, not yet Texasgal Jan 2012 #66

And Congress would soon remedy that. Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #67

I'm glad someone isn't. Texasgal Jan 2012 #68

But it's okay to have one as president? hughee99 Jan 2012 #87

I don't give a flying motherfuck what anyone thinks of my disregard for smokers. nt Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #88

Even your "stinking-assed, time-wasting, often-ill" President? n/t hughee99 Jan 2012 #89

I don't know if he wastes time, but if he still smokes, he fucking stinks. Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #91

Don't forget, often-ill. hughee99 Jan 2012 #95

I will broad-brush smokers as STINKY all I like, thanks. Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #111

painting LanternWaste Jan 2012 #136

No Alcohol RobinA Jan 2012 #126

+1 L0oniX Jan 2012 #85

Smoking liberals come on to the Commonwealth where smokers are a protected class TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #35

Smoking is a choice. nt bluestate10 Jan 2012 #42

Smoking during your non-work hours is legal. Eating at McD's is a choice also. Is it a fireable uppityperson Jan 2012 #49

The article was not on firing. It was on not hiring. bluestate10 Jan 2012 #65

Would eating at McD's be a non-hireable offense? uppityperson Jan 2012 #79

Exactly! The problem is not smoking, or hiring arcane1 Jan 2012 #84

Its still a problem if your taxes go to paying for.these folks' care in a single payer system stevenleser Jan 2012 #96

Based on Reliable RobinA Jan 2012 #127

If you don't want to hire mormons is that ok? Atheists? Those are choices to The Straight Story Jan 2012 #53

Smoking is an addiction. Cerridwen Jan 2012 #74

Maybe they should hire them, but not put them on the group insurance ecstatic Jan 2012 #44

Every person in this country needs to say NO to urine testing. Matariki Jan 2012 #48

What bullshit. HappyMe Jan 2012 #56

I can understand restricting smoking in the workplace, but they are treating smokers Arkansas Granny Jan 2012 #60

The criterion is clearly not law-breaking. Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #62

Maybe so, but I don't think your employer has the right to restrict your legal activities when Arkansas Granny Jan 2012 #69

They CHOOSE to hire you, you mean. nt Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #75

I believe you're completely wrong DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #70

Maybe an exception can be created for patch wearers. Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #76

As a non-smoker, I think this is wrong. PA Democrat Jan 2012 #71

Don't you think you're engaging in a little 'man on dog' hyperbole there? randome Jan 2012 #106

No. PA Democrat Jan 2012 #107

This is the kind of news that makes me really miss Bill Hicks n/t arcane1 Jan 2012 #78

High BMI will be next OmahaBlueDog Jan 2012 #81

It is disgusting to see doctors and nurses smoking outside of the hospital. i wouldn't want these Pisces Jan 2012 #82

Let's reword that a little... Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #93

I absolutely hate your argument but your logic is simply too solid!!! Zalatix Jan 2012 #97

The logic does not stand. Residual smoke and smell does affect patients with respiratory problems. Pisces Jan 2012 #124

Their fat does not affect anyone's health, unlike lingering smoke on someones clothes etc can affect Pisces Jan 2012 #114

you can't compare smoking to eating marions ghost Jan 2012 #115

It's Disgusting RobinA Jan 2012 #129

"But I was not a pot-head, so I said nothing..." nt Romulox Jan 2012 #110

K'd & R'd DeathToTheOil Jan 2012 #117

I am hoping that those same companies also do not participate in corporate softball leagues... ScreamingMeemie Jan 2012 #118

If we deny an employer the right to control their employees - whether at work or outside Douglas Carpenter Jan 2012 #123

Anarchy RobinA Jan 2012 #131

exactly - if we don't have employers or governments or landlords doing their job and controlling us Douglas Carpenter Jan 2012 #134

"Wellness" my fat ass. "Profit, bonuses, and dividends" is more like it. n/t krispos42 Jan 2012 #142

First they came for the pot smokers...but I didn't complain... Taverner Jan 2012 #146

If a company does not hire me because I refuse to sign a writing-compliance agreement... LanternWaste Jan 2012 #156

Yep Taverner Jan 2012 #157

This is exactly why health care needs to be de-linked from employment ParkieDem Jan 2012 #150

Authoritarians at it again. nt ZombieHorde Jan 2012 #153

some smokers at their jobs get more free time with all their smoking breaks firehorse Jan 2012 #158