Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Which anti freeze in Massachusetts? | General | |||
Smoking Diesel | General | |||
Mike B, Your smoking some good stuf | Power Boat Racing |