Anti-Smoking Gone Too Far
 

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. Who is next, people that are 20 pounds overweight? 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.

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.

Lonny Bruce
--
Enjoy my new sailing web site
http://sail247.com

"Lonny Bruce" wrote

Who is next, people that are 20 pounds overweight? 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.

Those are some great ideas Lonny, I'll bring them up at the next board
meeting.

SV

Lonny Bruce wrote:


Good points Lonny,

However this is a private company, not a govt group, cheese factory.

If the owner does not want to hire any smokers... than that is his
right.

If I hire people I will set whatever restrictions or requirements I
want on who I hire. And I will fire whoever I feel needs to be fired.

It would have nothing to do with smoking, but it might have something
to do with not hiring slobs, non-producers, idiots, ect..

But then perhaps.. when you become a big corporation with bean counters
it might be smart to only hire 6' blonde hair 185 pound slim blue eyed
salesman with no known genetic defects or heath risks.

If we can get this stem cell and cloning stuff up to speed I see the
perfect workforce of the future. Yes... I could make a good profit with
all the right clones. That way I can afford to grow some spare body
parts for old age replacements.

Slippery slope my ass... ISO 9000 certification used to be the thing,
perfect worker certification will be next, lets get rid of human
errors.

Joe













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. Who is next, people that are 20 pounds overweight?
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.

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.

Lonny Bruce
--
Enjoy my new sailing web site
http://sail247.com

On 26 Jan 2005 12:25:51 -0800, "Joe" wrote
this crap:

it might be smart to only hire 6' blonde hair 185 pound slim blue eyed
salesman with no known genetic defects or heath risks.


Seig Heil, mien Fuherer.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Well, you nailed that one about the overweight part...Just tonight on the
national news they're touting a program in Texas to not only grade kids on
their schoolwork but to grade them on their weight. One mother from
Arkansas, where they already do this (her kid was 12 and 100 lbs overweight)
said she was glad for it and wished it had been done sooner so she would
have been aware of the problem...For God's sake, did she never look at her
child and see a problem???? Problem with the smoking thing is that people
will buy into it. It's pure economics and really has nothing to do with
smoking. Health insurance companies are offering smoke-free packages to
corporations that will comply at great discounts. With the cost of health
insurance skyrocketing and double-digit increases every year, companies will
go for this.
"Lonny Bruce" wrote in message
news:wGQJd.21$u45.10@trnddc08...
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. Who is next, people that are 20 pounds overweight? 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.

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.

Lonny Bruce
--
Enjoy my new sailing web site
http://sail247.com

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

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 04:47:13 -0800, Frank Boettcher
wrote this crap:



Who is next, people that are 20 pounds overweight?

Certainly the unhealthy obese, if they are not willing to do
something about it.


I've always thought that if we refused food stamps to people over 200
lbs., we would save hundreds of millions on welfare.






Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

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?

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.

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?

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?
--
Enjoy my new sailing web site
http://sail247.com


"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

"Horvath" wrote in message ...
I've always thought that if we refused food stamps to people over 200
lbs., we would save hundreds of millions on welfare.



But, Bobsprit would go hungry . . .

CN

What they should do is limit what can be bought with food stamps...it galls
me when someone in the grocery line has snack food and prepared frozen
dinners and that type of thing piled on the belt and then whips out the food
stamps...

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 04:47:13 -0800, Frank Boettcher
wrote this crap:



Who is next, people that are 20 pounds overweight?

Certainly the unhealthy obese, if they are not willing to do
something about it.


I've always thought that if we refused food stamps to people over 200
lbs., we would save hundreds of millions on welfare.






Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!