Tennessee: bill about to punish tobacco product and e-cig use by state employees

[Tom09]

State Rep. Mike Turner, a Democrat from Old Hickory, has introduced a plan to prohibit any new state employee who is hired from joining the state health care plan if they use tobacco products.
"People who use tobacco products are risking their health and causing more expense to the plan, so this is the attempt to try and hold down some of those costs," said Turner.

source: WSMV-TV Nashville
video: Denying Health Insuramnce

And here is the introduced bill HB2477:

[...] Section 1. Beginning November 2, 2010, no newly hired, appointed or elected state officer or employee shall be eligible for state group health insurance if such state officer or employee uses tobacco products. “Tobacco products” means cigars, cheroots, stogies, beedies, bidis, cigarettes, electronic cigarettes, manufactured tobacco and snuff. [...]

source: HB2477

 

[ladysolitary85]

That is crazy! and judgmental and not fair!

Someone needs to fight this because this is BS

 

[SteveMcCleen]

The public needs to be educated. And whomever talks the loudest seems to be heard.

Ecigs are not the same as regular cigarettes. We need to bring the message to the people.

Turner is an alarmist!

 

[cochese86]

Won't the current version of the health care bill do away with this as tobacco dependency could be a pre-existing condition?

 

[TropicalBob]

Hard to believe a state legislative body would approve such a measure. But the reality is that tobacco users are almost the last minority where it remains legal to subject them to blatant, ignorant, biased discrimination. It masquerades as "concern"; it is an unwarranted intrusion into what should be a personal choice matter.

There are some seriously misinformed and misguided "public servants" out there!

 

[ladyraj]

This is a civil service issue and that lobby will never allow this to happen. It sounds like grandstanding in my opinion.

With the Healthcare Reform plans being debated to cover the uninsurable...it makes no sense to remove all "users" in civil service from coverage.

Edit: Even consultants and temporary positions/employees have rights to benefits.

 

[DaBrat]

Way to go on the way to helping that state's unemployment rate! The fact of the matter is that more people in the south smoke than anywhere else. I guess the quality of employee doesn't matter in this case. Oops forgot, we ARE talking about state employees after all.

Wonder if they will disallow employees with pre-existing conditions which also drive up costs?

 

[Territoo]

What's next? Excluding smokers from Medicaid? Medicare?

 

[Mac]

What's next? Excluding smokers from Medicaid? Medicare?

It wouldn't surprise me one bit..

 

[AlexTM]

Funny, especially since in the long run, smokers are rather cheaper - they die quicker and from illnesses that don't last overly long.
Of course, even cheaper if you don't insure them at all.

 

[sherid]

Ironic on so many levels in this age of "health care for everyone" I see this bill as the same grandstanding effort by a Mississippi legislator who proposed a bill banning sales of fast food to obese people.

 

[Cielo]

If they include electronic cigarettes then they must also include nicotine patches, gum, and nicotrol inhalers, and chewing tobacco.

We all know that drinking is also harmful to our bodies. In fact, they should also include anyone who drinks liquour, wine, or beer.

Better yet, we all know that eating fast food causes obesity and high cholesterol so the bill should also include everyone that eats fast food.

This bill must be stopped because what bill will be next?

 

[Kimber]

Won't the current version of the health care bill do away with this as tobacco dependency could be a pre-existing condition?

HIPAA should do away with tobacco dependency (or as it's called in the medical field "tobacco use disorder") being a pre-esisting condition provided you have had health insurance coverage within the past 62 days.

 

[Kempton]

If it is about saving money and lowering premiums then the smokers should be first on the list for health care plans. As sooner than later they end up on the expensive machine that goes beep but usually only for a short time then they're .... up in the ground. But those brocolli eating, selfish, walk 2 miles a day octogenerians that bleed off the Canada Pension (or social security) for decades on end, untold amounts of smaller medical bills over the course their gradual decades long demise, uncountable prescriptions subsidized, they are the expensive ones, the ones that really cost the most. Smokers pay all those taxes to the government for a legal product then the same government is trying to deny them benifits?

 

[ladysolitary85]

Smokers pay all those taxes to the government for a legal product then the same government is trying to deny them benefits?

Ironic isn't it?

 

[The Mosh]

I subcontracted at a tech company called [name omitted because they'd sue me] in Ft. Wayne Indiana a few years back. They had a no tobacco policy in place for all of their current employees. At the time I thought it was absolutely absurd. Still do. Thankfully, that rule (at the time anyway) didn't apply to contracting entities.

Of course, that didn't really stop anyone from smoking, they just became really secretive about it. Since then, I've worked for three other companies that have had similar policies, where the employees exhibited similar behavior. So the thing I wonder about all of them... you're not going to keep people from smoking, but why on earth would you want to force people to lie to you? Is it somehow worthwhile or necessary to build a corporate culture of deceit and dishonesty?

When you force people to lie about one thing, all you've succeeded in doing is creating a work environment where it's okay, even necessary to lie to your employer. One minute your accountant is lying about being a smoker. The next, he's on a cruise to Barbados... and you'll never see him, or the corporate checking account again. And something like that doesn't just affect smokers. Once it's part of the culture... it affects everybody.

Seems to me that there is nothing else you could possibly do on your own time that would prevent you from being being hired, or allow you to be fired from a job for behavior that has nothing to do with your actual work. Can any of you think of anything else think of anything where a similar rule (outside of street drugs) where something like this would apply?

I'm curious.

 

[ChipCurtis]

So the thing I wonder about all of them... you're not going to keep people from smoking, but why on earth would you want to force people to lie to you? Is it somehow worthwhile or necessary to build a corporate culture of deceit and dishonesty?

For rank-and-file staff, no. But for upper level management, absolutely -- that's how they operate. See movie: Office Space. Hardworking, play-by-rules types lose their jobs. Self-interested, everybody-else-go-to-hell ...... get promoted.

This kind of corporate environment serves two mutually-reinforcing purposes: to perpetuate a "trapped rat" syndrome in the smoker, and to establish a "gotcha" on your personal credibility/record should it become known that you've broken their rules by sneaking smokes on-site.

 

[The Mosh]

For rank-and-file staff, no. But for upper level management, absolutely -- that's how they operate. See movie: Office Space. Hardworking, play-by-rules types lose their jobs. Self-interested, everybody-else-go-to-hell ...... get promoted.

This kind of corporate environment serves two mutually-reinforcing purposes: to perpetuate a "trapped rat" syndrome in the smoker, and to establish a "gotcha" on your personal credibility/record should it become known that you've broken their rules by sneaking smokes on-site.

Yeah, but then what? They did a study recently, I don't recall the details; but it focused on the statistics that you don't hear about in corporate america. Things like, the really interesting things that happen when you fire people with loose or non existent pretenses.

The jist of it is that the more responsibility someone has, the more dangerous they are if you piss them off. Office Space is a great example. Remember the computer program that sucked money out of the system? That kind of thing happens every day. Programmers especially are brilliant, and have a tendency towards the diabolical (as a programmer, I know this mentality well. Even though I've never intentionally hurt a former employer for revenge; I can't say I haven't day dreamed about it).

But it's not just programmers. The study said something to the affect of hundreds of billions of dollars are lost every year simply because people get fired every year. The actual number was astronomical! And that's just the companies that are willing to talk about it.

Even among the rank and file rule followers, you can't fight human nature. And humans have this weird sense of justice to them. It boggles me as to why anyone would want their workers, the people who are their livelihood to feel slighted before they even work for the company.

My theory is that corporations don't actually understand finances. They're always looking at short term savings over and instead of the long term ramifications of what they do (think about how unexpectedly costly outsourcing has turned out to be over the last decade, when looking at it in hindsight).

You can see the mindset on WallStreet, and mid sized companies across America. Their mentality is live and die by the quarter, or the fiscal year. But in reality... that's kind of like living paycheck to paycheck. Sure, if you have to do it, it's one thing. But honestly, I can't see anyone advocating it as a lifestyle choice.

 

[rothenbj]

I subcontracted at a tech company called [name omitted because they'd sue me] in Ft. Wayne Indiana a few years back. They had a no tobacco policy in place for all of their current employees. At the time I thought it was absolutely absurd. Still do. Thankfully, that rule (at the time anyway) didn't apply to contracting entities.

Of course, that didn't really stop anyone from smoking, they just became really secretive about it. Since then, I've worked for three other companies that have had similar policies, where the employees exhibited similar behavior. So the thing I wonder about all of them... you're not going to keep people from smoking, but why on earth would you want to force people to lie to you? Is it somehow worthwhile or necessary to build a corporate culture of deceit and dishonesty?

When you force people to lie about one thing, all you've succeeded in doing is creating a work environment where it's okay, even necessary to lie to your employer. One minute your accountant is lying about being a smoker. The next, he's on a cruise to Barbados... and you'll never see him, or the corporate checking account again. And something like that doesn't just affect smokers. Once it's part of the culture... it affects everybody.

Seems to me that there is nothing else you could possibly do on your own time that would prevent you from being being hired, or allow you to be fired from a job for behavior that has nothing to do with your actual work. Can any of you think of anything else think of anything where a similar rule (outside of street drugs) where something like this would apply?

I'm curious.

Yes. Playboys spread of "Girls of the Firestation" will get you fired every time.

 

[rothenbj]

Yeah, but then what? They did a study recently, I don't recall the details; but it focused on the statistics that you don't hear about in corporate america. Things like, the really interesting things that happen when you fire people with loose or non existent pretenses.

The jist of it is that the more responsibility someone has, the more dangerous they are if you piss them off. Office Space is a great example. Remember the computer program that sucked money out of the system? That kind of thing happens every day. Programmers especially are brilliant, and have a tendency towards the diabolical (as a programmer, I know this mentality well. Even though I've never intentionally hurt a former employer for revenge; I can't say I haven't day dreamed about it).

But it's not just programmers. The study said something to the affect of hundreds of billions of dollars are lost every year simply because people get fired every year. The actual number was astronomical! And that's just the companies that are willing to talk about it.

Even among the rank and file rule followers, you can't fight human nature. And humans have this weird sense of justice to them. It boggles me as to why anyone would want their workers, the people who are their livelihood to feel slighted before they even work for the company.

My theory is that corporations don't actually understand finances. They're always looking at short term savings over and instead of the long term ramifications of what they do (think about how unexpectedly costly outsourcing has turned out to be over the last decade, when looking at it in hindsight).

You can see the mindset on WallStreet, and mid sized companies across America. Their mentality is live and die by the quarter, or the fiscal year. But in reality... that's kind of like living paycheck to paycheck. Sure, if you have to do it, it's one thing. But honestly, I can't see anyone advocating it as a lifestyle choice.

A true student of corporate America I see. Having retired over seven years ago, I can't say I miss all that you speak of. But one thing is certain, there is very little independent thought. It's basically follow the leader.

Everyone was outsourcing when I left. Anyone that couldn't understand how expensive that would be obviously wasn't in the decision process.

I had to laugh about your programmer statement. I had a job years ago where the company was acquired by a national corp. I had to build a system for them in two weeks that normally would take months. didn't get much sleep during that period.

My reward was to be offered a job out of state at a larger company for the same pay. Plus they had me shown around by the guy they were going to fire!

After I informed him of what was happening I started looking for new employment. Before I left I added a yearly renewal to my subscription which remained good for six years. That happened to coincide with when the big Corp. sold off the little company. I felt entitled, plus my other thoughts could have led to jail time.