Mercnbeth
Posts: 11766
Status: offline
|
I'm hoping to come across as neutral and pragmatic.
There is a factor not highlighted in either link but very important. The only clue about what is behind this movement is contained in this quote from the 2nd link; "An official of the company -- which administers health benefits."
Health benefits is the key. A new, strict, health benefit program spearheaded by a health benefit company means this experiment and legal process will be used a precedent for future pricing policies by the health company and as a legal case for other companies to point to when they implement similar programs.
It's the un-talked about but one of the key reasons behind the government anti-gay marriage stand. By expanding the definition of spouse to cover same sex partners health and other spousal benefits would be required. There may not be many viable unions left in the US, but those that are have spousal coverage in their contracts. The cost to employers is huge. The largest employer in the US is strong and has great spousal benefits for their employees, in lieu of competitive pay. The largest employer? Not Walmart, but government is the largest employer; federal, state, county, and local civil employees. Now they may not make up a large part of the gay community, but getting married doesn't mean you have to have physical relationships or be in love. It can mean you want to help out a friend without insurance. At least that's the thought that goes through the head of anti-gay marriage people, not anti gay, but anti expansion of the definition of dependent, or spouse. It would cost employers money. Just have that in mind when you get into the anti-gay marriage argument and you're lucky enough to argue with someone who is willing to discuss the practical beyond the emotional.
Back to these trial balloons. This is a test. If this company can initiate insurance programs and rates excluding smokers, and/or the overweight they will by definition be cheaper for the employers. Employers will use them. It's beyond discrimination because it's your choice to work there. If you want to work there you have to not smoke or be fat. In "right to work" states, you'll have no appeal if you take up smoking or get overweight and get fired. Of course, liberal grass roots movements could start and get smoking and obesity to be defined as handicaps. In that event employers will have to accommodate them. That should be amusing, a movement on the 'rights' for smokers to be employed. Some current "Freedom Fighters" may have a problem with that, but that's what happens if you only use your personal preferences to define "freedom".
Consider this, if as an employer I instituted this program and put an ad in the paper announcing paid medical benefits to new hires, under the condition that they were non-smokers, height weight proportionate, subject to periodic testing, I could spin that as being a hero in a market where you don't have access to benefits, let alone get company paid benefits. The beauty is the cost of those benefits would be less than what I am paying now for my employees. (Yes - I pay 100% of all employee coverage)
Social issues and emotional issues usually have economical issues behind them. That is what this is all about. The rest is a 'smoke' screen.
< Message edited by Mercnbeth -- 8/6/2006 8:08:36 AM >
|
Smoker Descrimination - 
Profile
RE: Smoker Descrimination - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread