This has nothing to do with Cigarettes being a legal product. The healthcare costs for smokers are considerably higher than those for non-smokers. And smoking is a voluntary activity. If the policy is preventing you from getting a job... then quit.
This is the free market and freedom of choice in action. I’m really surprised there is whining about it on FR.
The costs to WHO? Insurance is more expensive for smokers, to cover the cost. Smokers pay their insurance.
This whole 'cost to society' thing is a canard. 'Society' doesn't pay for anything, neither does government. The costs devolve to individual humans.
Besides, most smokers I know, also avoid doctors, right up until the big heart attack, die early, and actually SAVE money for the government by not living to be 90 years old on SS.
/johnny
That argument doesn't hold water.
If the reduction of healthcare costs is the impetus behind the campaign against smokers where is the movement to reduce risky behavior leading to AIDS? The healthcare costs for an AIDs carrier are much higher than for a smoker.
Where are the employers, colleges and other organizations who refuse to accept practicing homosexuals because of their high risk behavior?
In the case of Baylor: Where is the campaign against the hiring of dope smokers and drug users? Those types of behavior not only lead to higher health costs, they are also illegal.
The idea of dictating behavior as a way to reduce health care costs is hypocritical if only one type of behavior is attacked. Let's face it - this is just another facet of political correctness running amok.
I am a non-smoker but I am opposed to singling out tobacco use or any other legal behavior for discriminatory treatment when there are many other patterns of behavior just as damaging, if not more so.
Anal sex between two males is a voluntary act. It's even dignified by marriage in some states. It is also the primary means by which the AIDS virus is spread. I think you'd agree the health care costs involved are considerable.
But I'll bet plenty of gay males are employed at Baylor and any measure to discriminate against them in hiring would be met by howls of indignation by the very people who want to discriminate against smokers. So how does the free market deal with that inequity?
Anal sex between two males is a voluntary act. It's even dignified by marriage in some states. It is also the primary means by which the AIDS virus is spread. I think you'd agree the health care costs involved are considerable.
But I'll bet plenty of gay males are employed at Baylor and any measure to discriminate against them in hiring would be met by howls of indignation by the very people who want to discriminate against smokers. So how does the free market deal with that inequity?
I think the reason there is controversy about this here on Free Republic is because someone is singling out smokers, and because a bureaucracy is setting a new standard in judging people.
Others here have mentioned such cases as diabetes as being a condition in which one will have higher costs. Or cases such as paricipants in extreme sports, or homosexual sex, or drinking alcohol. There is a long list of situations in which one will have higher healthcare costs, but Baylor is not talking about any of those situations. They are just talking about smokers.
On the other hand, I think some here are concerned about taking this first step, and about where the lines will be drawn in the future on this sort of thing. I think there is concern about someone supervising every aspect of our lives to screen out some activity which is not healthy. I think there is concern that government bureaucrats at some point will be passing judgement on all of us as regards our personal activities.
Just about anything can be said to affect our healthcare costs under some insurance plan. It seems to be a slippery slope to have a mindset that they will screen out people who don’t adhere to someone’s idealized version of good health.
I think the reason there is controversy about this here on Free Republic is because someone is singling out smokers, and because a bureaucracy is setting a new standard in judging people.
Others here have mentioned such cases as diabetes as being a condition in which one will have higher costs. Or cases such as participants in extreme sports, or homosexual sex, or drinking alcohol. There is a long list of situations in which one will have higher healthcare costs, but Baylor is not talking about any of those situations. They are just talking about smokers.
On the other hand, I think some here are concerned about taking this first step, and about where the lines will be drawn in the future on this sort of thing. I think there is concern about someone supervising every aspect of our lives to screen out some activity which is not healthy. I think there is concern that government bureaucrats at some point will be passing judgement on all of us as regards our personal activities.
Just about anything can be said to affect our healthcare costs under some insurance plan. It seems to be a slippery slope to have a mindset that they will screen out people who don’t adhere to someone’s idealized version of good health.