On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:22:13 GMT, "Lonny Bruce"
wrote:

Frank wrote:

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


That is an interesting comment. It made me think.

So, are you saying, in principle, that you could agree with discrimination
based on a persons choice of smoking, or discrimination based on a persons
choice of being 20 lbs overweight, but not agree, in principle, with
discriminating against those who are in bad health situations (or even
potential bad health situations) due to genetics or environment?

Discrimination? I guess you could call it that and yes I think that as
an advanced society we have an obligation to continue to make progress
but to bring along those who for no reason that they can control would
be left behind. But those that make choices to cause scarce resources
to be used to offset the results of those choice should not be
accommodated.

I am not trying to put words in your mouth, I am trying to understand what
you mean by that statement.

I cannot tell the difference between someone who is overwieght because they
eat Krispy Kreme donuts for breakfast and someone who is overweight because
gaining weight might be a side effect of medications they are taking for an
inherited illness. How am I, as an employer, supposed to know or find out
the difference? And what is the difference to me, in the end, if my
business goals are to control costs? There is no difference. Cause doesn't
matter. The cost is what I am trying to control, and an overweight person
is going to cost me more, no matter the cause.

Third party health plan administrators design plans and make those
distinctions all the time. If my business goal is to make sure that
my employee turnover is low and that my employees are invested in the
benefits provided for them, I would expect some responsibility for
those benefits.

And does this attitude towards the overwieght then open the door for an
employee to sue the employer over the fact that he is now 20 lbs overweight
because donuts were served at sales meetings every morning? Who's fault is
it, then, that he is no longer desirable as an employee?

My post talked about the "unhealthy obese" . Twenty pounds does not
necessarily qualify. And by the way, I subsidize 60% of the cost of a
local wellness center health facility that is less than a half mile
from the facility. About 10% take advantage of it. I also provide a
confidential Employee Assistance Program for those with any type of
problem that requires a program or counseling (drug and alcohol,
eating disorders, marriage and family issues, etc.). I believe that
if an employee refuses any type of help and just wants the outcome to
be paid for, I should be able to terminate them. May be radical, but
once all value added jobs are gone and we are trying to maintain an
economy based on selling each other food, suing each other and paying
government workers from tax dollars we'll be sorry we didn't consider
the radical.

BTW, I used to own a successful construction company, was even involved in
developing some islands in the Caribbean (my sister still is helping to
develop in Honduras, El Salvadore, and Granada), and the one and only cost I
could not control was health care. We experienced 20% annual increases no
matter what we did to try to control it. Well, you don't have to be a
business genius to realize that I could not sustain those kinds of increases
and remain profitable. We fired all the employees, and hired some back as
sub contractors, paying them more money for the work they did, but without
health benefits. At least this way I knew what the cost of doing business
was going to be from year to year.

Lonny Bruce

BTW, you wouldn't be related to some Boettcher's in Nebraska, would you?

Not to my knowledge. My family (post Germany) originated in the East
Port/Annopolis area. Most of my branch are now on the Gulf Coast in
Mississippi and Texas. I'm in Mississippi and (in the spirt of on
topic content) that is where most of my sailing is done.