Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Unhealthy Choice [Walmart should hire sick people]
Fairfield County Weekly (CT) ^ | November 3, 2005 | by Alistair Highet

Posted on 11/03/2005 5:33:03 AM PST by TaxRelief

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 next last
To: sandbar
What evidence do you have to support this?

...Without protease inhibitors or other new drugs, the average cost of care for a persons with AIDS exceeds $20,000/year in many locations. - aids.org

When you add the inhibitors and new drugs, the costs go through the roof, but are not included, so they can hide them in other appropriations for "programs".

21 posted on 11/03/2005 6:10:53 AM PST by pageonetoo (You'll spot their posts soon enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
A big part of that won't be paid...the hospitals/doctors and insurance companies all play a game....they charge X amount of dollars (what you saw on the bill) BUT the insurance company will only pay Y amount of dollars--the doctors know that they have to charge way more than they expect to get paid to cover cost. So if something cost a doc 100 bucks they charge 175 hoping to get paid 90.....one big problem: under Clinton it became insurance fraud on the part of the doc to charge anyone who doesn't have insurance what the insurance company actually pays...so the doctor can't say--"I'll charge you 90 b/c that is what I get reimbursed by insurance" instead he has to charge you the inflated amount that he charges the insurance company or risk jail and 100K fine. again the average Joe gets...well, you know.

I agree something has to change...a three pronged approach that includes medical facilities, insurance AND Tort reform! Socialized medicine (the writers real agenda here) is not the answer!
22 posted on 11/03/2005 6:20:01 AM PST by socialismisinsidious (Liberals are all about choice UNTIL you choose differently than them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

To: sandbar
>>>What about homofaggots, whose healthcare costs far outstrip every other know classification. >>>

What evidence do you have to support this? Or is this just justification to support your obvious anger issues?

You seriously doubt that a high-risk group like homosexuals could have a comparable health care cost to the non-high-risk population?

Things like rampant meth use, unprotected sex with multiple anonomous partners, fisting, felching, foreign body insertion, feces consumption etc probably would have no affect on healthcare costs in your estimation, right? Yikes!

We'll skip the anger issue portion as it is not applicable, joiky.

24 posted on 11/03/2005 6:28:06 AM PST by A-10 (Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration, don't fail us now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief

My husband is covered under my family policy at work. Two years ago my parent company requested his life time medical records. I was told they were considering a new insurance company and needed to see information on his cancer prognosis and treatment. I was the only one in our office of 30 people to be required to do this - also the only one with a covered person having a serious disease. I called my lawyer thinking they had violated my privacy by looking at my Dr. bills to know he had cancer and that I surely couldn't be required to give them more than 50 years of his medical files. I was told I didn't have to give them the records but that to be realistic, if I didn't, they would find a way to get rid of me. I compromised and gave only the records since the onset of his cancer. Still tics me off.


25 posted on 11/03/2005 6:35:51 AM PST by Garden Mama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief


Why have health care provided by a company at all? There is only one reason: Because, having hired and trained a worker, it is helpful to the company if that worker stays healthy and shows up for work.

So, if the only reason to provide health care is to keep your workers healthy, why wouldn't you start by hiring people that will stay healthy?


26 posted on 11/03/2005 6:42:23 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pageonetoo
When I had an MRI (for migraine), the test cost $3000. But I paid a 10% co-pay, $300. So I don't think what's driving medical costs is the notion that the one who decides what proceedures to purchase is not the one paying for it. The health insurance companies ride herd on doctors nowadays anyway: there are long schedules for proceedures and when they are allowed, and how much the insurance company will pay for them.

I'm sure the real problem with health care in this country will be revealed by Michael Moore when his new movie comes out. <laughing>

27 posted on 11/03/2005 6:43:18 AM PST by megatherium (Hecho in China)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief

In my experience, bad health or medical problems is NOT a good filter. The majority of the chronically absent are absent for headaches, colds, hangovers, or just plain don't-feel-like-it.


28 posted on 11/03/2005 6:46:34 AM PST by Seamoth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A-10
Things like rampant meth use, unprotected sex with multiple anonomous partners, fisting, felching, foreign body insertion, feces consumption etc probably would have no affect on healthcare costs in your estimation, right? Yikes!

You love thinkin' about this stuff, huh!

~rolls eyes~

29 posted on 11/03/2005 6:47:35 AM PST by HairOfTheDog (Join the Hobbit Hole Troop Support - http://freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net/ 1,000 knives and counting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: EBH
If I were under the ADA, I'd be very conscientious that I'll cost my employer a lot more, and work at least twice as hard as other employees.
30 posted on 11/03/2005 6:48:50 AM PST by Seamoth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: A-10
Okay, let's deprive "homofaggots" of their livelihood.

And while we're at it, let's keep the smokers out of our workplaces too, since as it happens, smokers and homosexual men lose a similar amount of life expectancy: On average, homosexual men die 8 to 20 years prematurely, while smokers die 13 years prematurely on average.

Actually employers are already barring smokers and it's completely legal for employers to do so. They can actually fire you for smoking at home not just at work. Companies are doing this because they don't want to bear the costs of smokers on their health plans.

31 posted on 11/03/2005 6:50:32 AM PST by megatherium (Hecho in China)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
Wal-Mart, like every other company can't discriminate in their hiring based on someones sexual choices.

In many places, employers can discriminate based on sexual orientation. In Louisville Kentucky a few years ago, they were debating a gay rights ordinance (for employment), and its opponents kept saying the homsexuals didn't need "special rights," that there wasn't discrimination on sexual orientation. Then some Baptist relief organization (that operated on city contracts) fired a lesbian when she was inadvertantly outed. It became clear they had every right to do that, she had no grounds to sue. So suddenly the "special rights" argument fell apart. The gay rights ordinance passed (ironically including a clause allowing religious employers to discriminate, so that the lesbian wouldn't have been protected by the new law). Many jurisdictions now have similar laws -- but most jurisdictions do not.

32 posted on 11/03/2005 6:56:53 AM PST by megatherium (Hecho in China)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog
You love thinkin' about this stuff, huh!

Really, no, I do not like to think of stuff like that. I was merely trying to provide examples of why healthcare costs would likely be far higher than for the general population.

Thruth be told, I have no problems with homosexuals. If they weren't so In-Your-Face about their own private lives and in the schools pushing their agenda, there wouldn't be much to discuss, would there? I am not anti-gay, but I do oppose their anti-normal agenda.

33 posted on 11/03/2005 7:08:33 AM PST by A-10 (Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration, don't fail us now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: megatherium

Smokers have to pay a higher premium for life insurance. Would itnot be fair to so the same for gays?


34 posted on 11/03/2005 7:09:32 AM PST by A-10 (Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration, don't fail us now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: A-10

I oppose people bringing up x-rated topics on threads that have absolutely no call for such discussion.

Especially when they (you) are the types who screech about homos being 'indecent'.

Well, darling, you've been cruder this morning than any homo I've ever talked to, you've brought up acts that aren't typically mentioned in polite society, and I don't see any homos around.

So I can only think you just love talking about it.


35 posted on 11/03/2005 7:12:57 AM PST by HairOfTheDog (Join the Hobbit Hole Troop Support - http://freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net/ 1,000 knives and counting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
Wal-Mart, like every other company can't discriminate in their hiring based on someones sexual choices.

It depends on the state. In Delaware they are perfectly able to do just that - as much as there have been battles going on to change that.

36 posted on 11/03/2005 7:20:20 AM PST by Gabz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: megatherium
Many jurisdictions now have similar laws -- but most jurisdictions do not.

They have been debating similar legislation in Delaware for a number of years. Interestingly enough, because of an Executive Order issued some years back by a former Governor only people applying for or with state jobs are protected from discrimination including sexual orientation or tobacco use among other things.

Honestly I don't think the government should be telling private sector employers who they can or can not hire.

37 posted on 11/03/2005 7:28:00 AM PST by Gabz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: A-10

No, I'm not easily offended at all. I just don't understand the need for such language. Do you have to put others down to increase your self-esteem?


38 posted on 11/03/2005 8:12:19 AM PST by Veritas et equitas ad Votum (If the Constitution "lives and breathes", it dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: pageonetoo
IMHO, Health insurance is the biggest single contributing cause to the cost of our health care.


And it could be addressed simply by making health benefits taxable as income. Employees (even the fat union ones) would generally prefer a slim catastrophic plan to a fat Cadillac that costs them hundreds of dollars a month out of pocket in taxes.
39 posted on 11/03/2005 8:39:32 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Veritas et equitas ad Votum
Yea, but I think the 5th amendment protects the employer and his property. If he wishes to hire based on a person's weight, tobacco use, apparent medical condition, or any other reason, he should be perfectly within his right.

Corporations are a creation of, and exist at the sufferance of, government, and in exchange for various tax and operational boons from the government, they are subject to various restrictions and regulation.

40 posted on 11/03/2005 8:48:11 AM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson