And yet there are those who expect that the Federal government should
institute health insurance so that everyone who makes bad lifestyle choices
is covered...and then we all pay for those bad choices. It is now a proven
fact that companies that gear their health care programs to "well-being" and
provide support groups such as Weight Watchers, AA, and smoke-free programs
have happier and healthier employees. Happy, healthy employees are a
companies best investment. Retention rates are higher, turn-over is lower
and experience rates lower. Too bad so many are blind to that fact.

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:45:00 GMT, "Lonny Bruce"
wrote:

Neal was wrong, once again, when he brought attention to the wacky way
smokers are being treated in Michigan in the Thread "Getting Tough on
Cigeratte Smokers". This is directly due to the fact that Michigan has a
liberal democrat woman governer, who was not even born in the USA. Here
is
another result of the liberal attitudes here in Michigan:

http://www.mlive.com/news/kzgazette/...7362399290.xml

Just to be clear, I am not a smoker, and I don't condone smoking in any
way,
however we seem to be going down this slippery slope when it comes to
smokers. I see them as simply a convenient target as a group of peeps not
fit for hiring.

Absolutely! I'm in the process of closing a factory and sending the
jobs to the far east. You want to know the only cost I couldn't
control? Health care costs. Up double digits every year. And I know
that a helluva a lot of the cost is related to smoking and other
"lifestyle" issues. However, now that the HIPPA privacy laws have
passed, I don't even have the right to know what I'm paying for. I
applaud the company that is breaking ground and doing something about
this. I wanted to for a while but was advised against it for "legal"
reasons.


Who is next, people that are 20 pounds overweight?

Certainly the unhealthy obese, if they are not willing to do
something about it.
Why
not? The same arguements can be made that peeps that are overweight take
too much time off, and add to the overall cost of health care, therefore
no
one should hire them. Then who will be next, peeps who are genetically
disposed to certain diseases? Yes, it would take genetic profiling, but
why
not? I mean the same arguements could be made that no one should hire
women
who's mother has contracted breast cancer, for instance, as there is a
risk
that they may contract it too, causing an employers health insurance
claims
to go up.

There is a big difference between behavior and status. very easy to
define.



It is a dangerous, slippery slope. And brought to you by the liberal
political party who claims to be for the little guy, the most vulnerable
in
society. And apparently improperly supported by Captain Neal.

And well advised support ( boy it hurt to say that)

As far as I'm concerned people can do whatever in hell they want that
is not against the law. However they should not expect their behavior
to be subsidized by their fellow workers group insurance ( which means
the company they work for because most are self insured with a third
party administrator) or my tax dollar transfers in the form of
government aid. Expecting that subsidy is the liberal position, not
dropping the hammer on those who expect it.

Lonny Bruce