How in the hell can people just keep stomping on others freedoms!!! Smoking on the job may be one thing, but to forbid tobacco use on personal time is another. And smokers just keep rolling over. It's absurd how deeply imbedded the anti forces are.
I see Sherid is reading this...I'll be interested to see what she has to say.
Kind of an off note...I used to live in a small town and there was a restaurant named "Taylor's". Police cars could be seen there just about any time day or night. We called the force the SWAT team..."Sorry, We're at Taylor's"...
I actually had an email exchange with the person in charge of the policy for the tax assessor's office in FL. It centered around a column on
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary when Dr. Siegel pointed out that the policy would prevent Obama from being hired since he admits to smoking in the past year. The exchange went on for several days. Here it is.
Me
Although he is the chief executive of the nation and is ultimately responsible for the collection of taxes from every individual and corporation in the country, the Palm Beach County tax collector's office has decided that President Obama is not qualified to serve as a tax collector in Palm Beach.
>
> Why? Because President Obama has used tobacco products on a regular basis during the past 12 months.
>
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary
Her
> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 08:36:41 -0400
> Subject: RE: Customer Contact Form
>
> Yes, we have developed a policy and implemented it. By the way the Sheriff has the same policy and so does St. Mary's Hospital (and they test their employees).
>
> The public pays the majority of our health care costs and I believe we should be responsible Stewarts of our bodies. You may disagree and that is your right.
Me>
>Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 10:45 PM
Subject: RE: Customer Contact Form
Thank you for reassuring me that I still have the right to disagree. So, if the President came to you looking for a job, I guess you would have to turn him away as would the sheriff and the hospital. Such a pity to lose such a great mind because his lifestyle doesn't fit with your employment policies. Only in America .
Her
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 09:28:09 -0400
Subject: RE: Customer Contact Form
Yes, you are right.
Me
On Oct 11, 2009, at 9:34 PM,
Interesting. Which part am I right about? You see I have served my community well and long as an educator. My claims for insurance have not even reached our family deductible of $500 for 17 years and the birth of my son. I have no medical conditions and take no prescriptions. YET, you would turn both me and the president away from a job in your county because both of us are smokers. The president stops short of denying it, but we know that he is hedging. I don't deny it. So, I'm wondering why the President and I are not good enough to work in your office. The fact that it appears sensible to those who make that policy is particularly disturbing.
Re: Customer Contact Form
From:
Her
Sent:
Tue 10/13/09 12:14 AM
To:
Yes, I would because both of your health costs charge everyone in out agency more and we Save 3 percent on our costs per year on our health care costs. And by the way we are the public Option and the public is paying our agency portion. Did you vote for the property tax reform? If so, you told me to explore all options to cut costs. 95 percent of our agency costs are personnel related. Do you have ideas about where to cut costs?
Me
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 11:17 AM
Subject: RE: Customer Contact Form
Rather than totally eliminating smokers from the job, why did you not simply charge them a higher premium if they do indeed cost you 3% more. It was my understanding that the cost of unemployment insurance and payments to the unemployed cost well over that amount Contrary to the anti-smoking/smoker denormalization program, forcing up to 25% of the public out of a job or the possibility of finding one is not cost effective. Neither does it force smokers to quit smoking. So, as a member of the public, I question the long term savings you quote.
On a further note... So, how far has this slippery slope of exclusion of smokers really traveled so far? The obesity campaign is well under way. A doctor at the Cleveland Clinic who started its policy of not hiring smokers now says that he would like to include fat people in that policy. Yesterday, a baby made headlines when the 4 month old was denied insurance coverage for being a fatty. The coverage put a black eye on the insurer who turned down the baby, so the company did some spinning and recanted its policy....but the stage is set, and the slope is rolling.
So, Anne, in the end, who is left? Is it the fit and toned non-smoker, non-drinker and none of the others of us who are left? It will be a poorer world we leave are children when diversity and lifestyle are diminished by a government. I believe the losses perpetrated under the guise of saving money will backfire on the very people who set the stage. I have to believe that we are better than that.
RE: Customer Contact Form
Me
Sent:
Tue 10/13/09 2:06 PM
To:
We are doing that. We have employees who do smoke and they have 9 months to stop and if they dont they will be charged a higher premium.
]
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 5:26 PM
Subject: RE: Customer Contact Form
Me
So, why was that not enough? Why, other than making a political statement of discrimination against hiring smokers, did you not just stop with forcing higher premiums on one group while ignoring the risk factors of other employees with high risk lifestyles? If it is about getting that 3% higher insurance rate, then that should have been enough. Frankly, I am fed up with such policies as I watch my own non-smoking peers bilk the insurance companies for tests they do not need and prescriptions they should not be taking. Smokers are not causing rate increases during their working years. If the statistics are to be believed, smokers die earlier, avoiding that major cost in old age: long term assisted living or nursing home care. Smokers, if the statistics are true, get sick in late life, generally after retirement. Studies prove this is so, despite the propaganda of ASH and the drug companies. How then, does that affect your medical costs?
RE: Customer Contact Form
Her
Sent:
Wed 10/14/09 9:08 AM
To:
Sorry, but they continue our insurance in later life because they have chronic illnesses and the Medicare drug plan has the doughnut hole where their coverage is not adequate to treat those illnesses.
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 2:21 PM
Subject: RE: Customer Contact Form
I do appreciate your continuing responses and thank you for the dialogue. I am sorry that you have enacted a policy that discriminates against one group and their lifestyles while ignoring others who run similar risks and costs to your organization. Of course, if you did include those people , you would eliminate about 75% of the population instead of just people like President Obama and myself. For example, in the past 18 months, there have been multiple motorcycle accidents on the two lane highway in front of my home. Some were fatal; others "just" head injuries that involved lengthy ICU hospitalization and continuing medical bills. Can you imagine the cost of that? So, do you include any motorcyclists or sports car drivers in the list of exclusions from employment? The quality of your work would be severely compromised when left with the 20-25% of the population who devotes itself to healthism, but the policy would more fairly target those who actually use their insurance coverage.
RE: Customer Contact Form
Her
Sent:
Wed 10/14/09 3:31 PM
Bob, think about this. The legislature allows motorcycle riders to get the minimum coverage. If they are injured because they dont wear a helmet or have enough insurance we all get to pay through the increased health insurance or when we check into a hospital and actually have health insurance.
RE: Customer Contact Form
Me
Thu 10/15/09 7:47 AM
Umm...not the same. Those motorcyclists still have jobs. I don't see why you would go this route for a comparison since the motorcyclists, the fatties, the hypochondriacs, the diabetic, etc: all of which are costly to the health system can still find employment. The smoker is the only one ostracized by the nanny society. Personally, I think health insurance should be structured like auto insurance. If you are a heavy user, the rates increase. To set a precedent where 25% of the population is "punished" by denial of the ability to get work is wrong on so many levels that it boggles the mind. The health professions, the drug companies, and the insurance industry are bloated with greed. Before you deny employment to a quarter of the American population, perhaps you should demand investigation of the frauds they inflict on society. We all make choices in life that many will shun. In the past, we used race and sexual preference to satisfy that sick need that some possess to satisfy their thirst for scapegoats. Now, it is the smokers. I am thankful that I am at the end of my career so that I do not have to participate in this sick social engineering experiment. At the same time, I am very worried at the kind of society left for my children.
Where does it end?
