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

To: Max McGarrity
One of the worst things that's happened in this War on Smokers is the apparent inability to compromise, to work out a problem, to stop short of zero tolerance in an effort to accommodate everyone.

It's not about banning together. Statistics show that smokers as a group are more proned to (insert any limited number of diseases here) and companies who provide health insurance are unwilling to burden the costs of rising insurance rates. If they can keep their employees healthier, then their bottom line is also more healthy. Turner Broadcasting banned smoking of all employees years ago. You can't smoke at home. You can't smoke on the weekends. You can't smoke.

63 posted on 11/25/2002 5:50:54 PM PST by PistolPaknMama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: PistolPaknMama
"Statistics show that smokers as a group are more proned to (insert any limited number of diseases here) and companies who provide health insurance are unwilling to burden the costs of rising insurance rates."

Why did my company go after smokers last year but allow brand new benefit coverage for "domestic partners"?

What does it cost to treat an AIDS victim?



70 posted on 11/25/2002 6:15:41 PM PST by Milwaukee_Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

To: PistolPaknMama
It's not about banning together. Statistics show that smokers as a group are more proned to (insert any limited number of diseases here) and companies who provide health insurance are unwilling to burden the costs of rising insurance rates.

Actually "statistics show that smokers as a group" are no less productive, take no more days off, are no more sickly, and are therefore no more costly than other workers. The only people who disagree are anti-smokers, and if they're talkin' they're lyin'. Obesity costs companies more, as does poverty. One of the major British insurance actuaries recently broke the story that they overcharge smokers since there's no difference in smokers and nonsmokers, statistically, at least until age 40.

If they can keep their employees healthier, then their bottom line is also more healthy. Turner Broadcasting banned smoking of all employees years ago. You can't smoke at home. You can't smoke on the weekends. You can't smoke.

Just one more reason I wouldn't work for Ted Turner in ANY capacity, and it's Turner's loss, not mine.

88 posted on 11/25/2002 7:51:53 PM PST by Max McGarrity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

To: PistolPaknMama
Statistics show that smokers as a group are more proned to (insert any limited number of diseases here)

Would you care to post a link to these statistics.
I don't want to call you a liar but I think you're either mistaken or someone has fed you a line of anti-ism.
Studies that I have seen actually point to the fact that smokers take no more sick days, take no more time off, and have no more 'diseases' than nonsmokers, at least until later in life.

96 posted on 11/26/2002 6:12:17 AM PST by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

To: PistolPaknMama
Fat people cost allot more than smokers in both health care and overall space taken. Many smokers already pay the higher premium themselves, unless the company covers the entire cost it has no bearing on the employer. Beside fat people bother me when I am eating.

I propose a 200% tax on all men's pants larger than 31" waist and women's pants larger than size 8.
124 posted on 11/27/2002 4:49:12 PM PST by CyberCowboy777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

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