Posted on 12/10/2014 7:38:58 AM PST by servo1969
From Arizona: The Pima County Board of Supervisors will vote later this month on a measure to ban smokers from being hired by their local government. Those smokers who already work for the government will face a 30 percent health-insurance surcharge.
Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry says the county will save lots of money if employees who smoke can be “replaced” over time with healthier workers. Huckelberry says this is all being done for the taxpayers: “Anything we can do to reduce [insurance] cost is beneficial.” said ol'Huck.
You Pima County government workers who smoke had better beware. There’s a target on your back. The dedication, loyalty, commitment you bring to your job – the quality of your work, doesn’t matter. The Pima County Administrator has let it be known he wants you gone, because you happen to use a legal product in your personal life and are supporting children health care with your taxes.
Liberals can make pot smoking legal in some cities, even though federal laws prohibit it. That’s okay. But if you use tobacco products, which are legal, it’s okay for liberals to discriminate against you in hiring and target your jobs for elimination.
In New York City, cigarettes cost up to 13 bucks a pack, thanks to liberal-imposed taxes. The poor can’t afford packs, so they buy “loose” cigarettes. Called “loosies.” Police were trying to arrest Eric Garner for tax avoidance by selling “loosies.” That led to his death.
Our freedom is being targeted, and country is being torn apart, by liberalism.
“AMEN! To discriminate against people for doing something that is 100% LEGAL is sheer stupidity.
What about those who:
drink alcohol?
ride motorcycles without a helmet?
skydive?
The list can go on and on and on....”
Or vote Democrat.
My company's heath provider is pushing this "Wellness" crap where they want you to complete a health 'questionnaire' for prizes so they can "help" you track your health online. This is really just a way to get information to use against you.
I have refused to participate and will continue to do so.....
Remember when there were actually "Smoking Sections" on airplanes? This is how it goes when you let one stupid group (liberals) control the agenda.
“replaced” over time with healthier workers.
Gays drinkers drug users M/F sluts yeah a lot of logic going on.
Exactly, while we're at it we could charge females more. Statistically they live longer, and use more medical services. If we're charging people for medical insurance the way an insurance co charges for life and auto, liberals should be ready to see a lot of their protected groups get penalized.
Healthier government hirelings retire at age 50 and use their gold-plated Cadillac health care plans to age 100. The only thing this is going to "save" the taxpayers is from having to lug around any money anymore.
While it varies, some government bureaucracies are filled with the fattest people you will ever see together under one taxpayer funded roof. Most modern diseases are related to obesity but it would be impossible to go after the government fatties as they are often the vast majority.
Hmmm. While I believe people are free to smoke if they want to and that their cigarettes should not be taxed so high that a black market is created...well;
Making smokers pay accordingly for the actual cost of their health care is pragmatic. I also think it’s fair to have people who are overweight pay for the actual costs of their health care.
We all make choices and if people have to bear the consequences of those choices they’ll usually choose different.
What you said, plus I assume they are also going to fire everyone who is over 30 lbs overweight, those who drink alcohol over a certain number of ounces daily, and all who engage in any other activities with elevated mortality, such as foreign travel, car racing, mountain climbing, etc. And while they are at it, should also fire everyone who lives in “high crime” areas if the murder rates exceeds a certain # per hundred.
I hate this. I work for an institution that makes it “optional” to submit to a physical that looks at a variety of factors such as weight, blood sugar, BMI, health habits involving eating and smoking, etc.
If you submit, you get $500 off your insurance plan.
That is all fine and dandy, and completely an independent observation from the concept of what is being done with the information.
But having observed human behavior, it is inevitable that at some point, the “discount” (having $500 lopped off for participating) is going to turn into a penalty (having $500 added on for NOT participating)
To my wife’s irritation, I refused to accept going through the “physical” to get the $500 off. They can do what they like, I was just not going to submit to it and legitimize the activity.
My wife loves me, but we don’t see eye to eye philosophically on this, and she was not pleased when the deadline passed.
You forgot running with scissors. I always run with scissors. :)
And those who engage in risky sports/activities, and those with any history of DUI arrests, and so on. And we wonder why unions still hold some attraction for many people? When employers are arrogant, condescending and abusive to their employees, people look to anything that they think might defend their interests. Of course these days even unions probably won’t go to bat for smokers, who are total pariahs in much every venue these days. Except when it comes to fleecing them with cigarette taxes way out of proportion with any costs that smokers really impose on the public purse (in the big picture, over a lifetime).
Let’s say I agree with your logic, which is not without some merit. Why not allow smokers (including new hires) to make up the difference in higher medical insurance premiums, rather than banning them altogether. Seems more like a control-freak “for your own good” thing than anything truly financially motivated. And again, why single out smokers?
First they came for the _____ . . .
Smokers are being singled out because their habit often impacts other people. Smoking doesn’t bother me but I have seen some of my non-smoking friends have problems around certain brands of cigarettes.
This may sound funny but I personally love the smell of Dunhill cigarettes and I can understand why someone might smoke them. But Merits? Gack.
My point is that no one ever got fat from second-hand donut eating. You can get ill from second-hand smoke. Thus there’s a bit more social gravitas for restricting smoking.
And with the US moving to nationalized health care (after Obamacare collapses) I expect tobacco smokers to really get screwed over.
My advice? If you have to smoke then smoke pot. For some reason the liberals are a-okay with it.
For now.
I'm old enough to have smoked on airplanes. But I can't smoke a cigarette on the beach in Oregon if I want to. Nor will I be able to smoke weed in public after it's "legalized" on July 1.
Are you saying they'll hike everyone's cost by $500? Because in and of itself, whether the difference of $500 is called a "discount" for one group or a "penalty" for the other matters not a lick. (Kinda like the claim that my employer pays half my Social Security tax ... they pay out money, some comes to me and the rest to the SSA, whether they say it's all paid by me or all paid by the employer or any point in between.)
On the plus side, it’s fun to watch smokers snivel and gnash their teeth. Good Times.
I quit 20+ years ago. Still reward myself once in awhile with a toy bought with the saved money. That said, I may stroll down the beach smoking a cigar next tourist season, just to tell some busybody to get f*cked.
Yes, we already know you’re an a-hole, no need to reconfirm it on every smoking-related thread.
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.