1 posted on
03/16/2011 11:01:15 AM PDT by
yorkie
To: yorkie
I am an ardent non-smoker but this seems way over the line to me.
2 posted on
03/16/2011 11:03:18 AM PDT by
NWFLConservative
(The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government......Tommy J)
To: yorkie
How about testing for drugs? And test county politicians also.
3 posted on
03/16/2011 11:03:51 AM PDT by
RC2
To: yorkie
Test ‘em for Big Mac-itine too.
4 posted on
03/16/2011 11:13:58 AM PDT by
Steely Tom
(Obama goes on long after the thrill of Obama is gone)
To: yorkie
Information sent to county workers says the test results will be shared with the county’s employee-benefits division but will be kept confidential by staff trained in patient confidentiality.
This is local beurcracy. Shine the light on this person and repeat the name often.
6 posted on
03/16/2011 11:17:38 AM PDT by
PeterPrinciple
( getting closer to the truth.................)
To: yorkie
Nicotine doesn’t cause cancer. (It’s true — look it up.) They should be swabbing for tar and other burnt particulates found in carcinogenic cig smoke if they insist on being a nanny state. The e-cig users and nicorette gum chewers are going to be pissed.
7 posted on
03/16/2011 11:19:36 AM PDT by
Semper911
(When you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the support of Paul.)
To: yorkie
Having been addicted to nicotine via cigarettes, I’m wondering why cannabis via a joint is illegal.
8 posted on
03/16/2011 11:20:05 AM PDT by
OldNavyVet
(One trillion days, at 365 days per year, is 2,739,726,027 years ... almost 3 billion years)
To: yorkie
Big brother government! Too expensive, too intrusive, too damn big.
I say, instead of testing for nicotine, they all be fired, recalled or demoted for such a stupid hair brained scheme to save the county a few bucks on a healthcare plan.
To: yorkie
Testing workers-even though they are government— is OK yet test a few welfare mothers for crack and one is labeled a NAZI!!
To: yorkie
Testing for a legal product? Wonder what’s next?
12 posted on
03/16/2011 11:23:09 AM PDT by
animal172
(Does anyone even remember the USA of old?)
To: yorkie
Some Maricopa County workers are burned up about a new health-plan requiring them to submit saliva for nicotine analysis.
This is the test. At what point do people stand up to an oppressive govt?
This is local govt...............................
13 posted on
03/16/2011 11:26:55 AM PDT by
PeterPrinciple
( getting closer to the truth.................)
To: yorkie
The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog is -— G. K. Chesterton
17 posted on
03/16/2011 11:41:37 AM PDT by
tx_eggman
(Liberalism is only possible in that moment when a man chooses Barabas over Christ.)
To: yorkie
I get a discount on my employer provided health insurance if I attest that I am a non-smoker. I dont have to answer the question but I don’t get the discount unless I claim to be tobacco free. I don’t see a provision for testing my claim but I can imagine a plan that would include such a provision.
22 posted on
03/16/2011 12:06:07 PM PDT by
muir_redwoods
(Obama. Chauncey Gardiner without the homburg.)
To: yorkie
The Massachusetts Hospital Association announced nicotine testing for all employees.
Even those indulging at home after work will not be allowed to do so.
When asked about his new ordnance, the head of the Massachusetts Commission against Discrimation replied, “Smokers are not a protected class”.
Welcome to the Landofhtefre......never mind.
Land of the Classes, Protected.
23 posted on
03/16/2011 12:18:34 PM PDT by
swarthyguy
(KIDS! Deficit, Debt,Taxes! Pfft Lookit the bright side of our legacy -America is almost SmokFrei!)
To: yorkie
I expect to see more of this. With the health insurance being covered by government, they will try and reduce costs by seeing to it that people change their habits. Yes, people should change bad health habits, BUT that's not government's job. It's the individuals' job.
If everyone could have their own health savings/high deductible plan, then they could tailor the plan to their needs. But we have so many state mandates, that they increase the cost of insurance.
My health plan covers alcoholism and drug addiction. They are forced to because the state makes them do this. Since I don't use any non-prescription drugs or drink, the likelihood of me needing these services is approaching zero. But I cannot opt out of these features and get a cut rate. If we opened up the market to competition, people would pay different rates according to their health risk. It would work like auto insurance. So there would be a bigger premium for those who smoke, drink, or use illegal drugs. The smoker would be free to smoke but they must pay for their health insurance with a higher premium. Free markets work. People would see an immediate financial reward in taking better care of their health and their lifestyle choices. That's what I'd like to see.
24 posted on
03/16/2011 12:25:47 PM PDT by
truthguy
(Good intentions are not enough.)
To: yorkie
I know two ex-smokers who chew the nicotine gum. Although you are suppose to wean yourself off the gum, their doctors recommended that they chew a piece here or there (they are very high stress type of people). One has been cigarette free for four years and the other ten years. They will still chew a piece anywhere from once a week to once a month. My point is nicotine can be in your system other ways than direct smoking.
To: yorkie
Once again, kiss more freedoms goodbye. Let them try that with me.. how long does nicotine take to get out of the body? Sure I can wait that long for a smoke.
Its time to lie and make these police state tactics into the jokes that they are.
27 posted on
03/16/2011 1:14:51 PM PDT by
eXe
(Si vis pacem, para bellum)
To: yorkie
when we had individual health insurance more than 10 years ago, a blood test was required - and if you said you were a non-smoker, they checked. Premiums were higher for smokers. I do believe that people who were obese (medically) were charged a higher premium also.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson