Whirlpool plant suspends 39 workers for lying about smoking

[Kris]

A Shame wrote :Whirlpool has a bigger problem than employees lying on their insurance.
HOW do other employees KNOW what people have put down for their insurance. Isn't that supposed to be PRIVATE?

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE HIPPA THING?

what probably REALLY happened was that these employees had bragged about getting the $500 break on the ins. premiums (which is actually how it works...the non-smokers get a $500 credit on their yearly cost) I say this because I AM a Whirlpool employee and have heard it many times. No, I have not reported anyone, though I have no sympathy for any that DO get reported...lying is WRONG...and those of you who think it (lying) is no big deal apparently have no moral ethics. This whole thing was not an attack on smokers. Just stand up and take responsibility for what YOU do.

[Uneasy Suburbanite]

I thought this was America. Last I checked smoking, drinking and having children are all legal activities.

Are we not a wealthy nation? Not every smoker gets sick, not every drinker gets sick, not every overweight person is sick, not every child is sick.

What do we value here? Do we not have enough resources to take care of everyone? At some time during our life we all need looking after. Why is that not possible?

Why are we against one another and not against the corporate greed that got us here?

[concecosmoker]

Conseco inc. has same policy. Olny diffrence we can't smoke on company property. (So I guess they won't be catching us). The new smoking guidlines in health insuranc are so dumb. How about charging by the pound for the FAT people. That would make more since.

[Stephen Hawking]

So I'm going to get busted for doing something that calms me down so I don't go postal at work - but I have to continue to pay extra for all the mommies who can't keep their legs together, the Homers who can't say no to the extra bag of chips at lunch and the addicts who need their Valium every morning. Yeah, that makes sense. That's "wellness".

[Lori_T_ Y]

And to remember a time when smoking was even allowed in the doctors offices. People still waved and said hello to one another. Oh, the world would just be so perfect if we all good be exactly the same, wouldn't it ?

[What]

Did they think they were politicians and it was OK to lie?

They were smoking mememememememe!

[captain obvious]

Fatties are next wrote:

Paul,
When the smokers are eradicated and no longer available to burden with extras levies, taxes, and surcharges, who do you think will be next?
The propaganda parade stating the links between obesity and healthcare costs are already out there. With smokers out of the way, there's gonna have to be another target.....

The people who lump "fatties" in with smokers are missing the point. The employer was not banning or even punishing smoking. The employer was punishing cheaters who were, in essence, stealing from the company as well as the honest employees (including honest smokers who paid the extra $500). If an employer offers a discount on insurance for employees who remain within a healthy (non-obese) weight range, and an employee lies, then I would have no problem with that employee being suspended, either. Of course, lying about being obese would require stupidity even greater than those lying smokers who lit up at work.

Widespread incentives based on weight very well could be next. Increasing premiums for overweight people could very well be next. Sure, at some point, health insurance for smokers, the overweight, and what-have-you, could very well be unaffordable. Maybe "universal health care," i.e., socialized medicine, is the answer. I don't know. But none of that is the point here.

It cracks me up how the sympathizers of the lying Whirlpool employees keep making this out to be a persecution issue, even invoking the Holocaust. Sheesh.

[CDM]

Missing the point wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do I have to pay extra for your healthcare? Your disgusting habit raises my rates, along with the fat man and drunk man. Lying just makes you look like an A$$

I don't smoke and I'm in perfect health. i just feel that no condition (be it smoking, obesity, or cancer) should cost a person more. This policy has opened the door for insurance companies to reject coverage when profitable. I guess the bottom line is that corporate profits are more important than covering health costs and are the reason that our life expectancy is less than other more civilized nations.

[Tim1979]

The Bulter Did It wrote:

<quoted text>
And in the end, you will have to had these costs to the price you charge for your goods or services.

Yes, you're absolutely right. But so what? Health care isn't free, and it isn't cheap. We as a society have to ask ourselves if it's something worth paying for---basic health care for all. As a nation, we went through a similar debate a century ago on education. Should there be basic public education for all, or should education only be for those wealthy enough to afford it? We made our choice, nearly wiped out illiteracy, and created a significantly better educated workforce that helped make possible the economic prosperity of the 20th century.

[Walt]

Whirlpool should just turn the whole issue over to the insurance company. Which can then have all those who lied and falsified their insurance documents criminally charged with insurance fraud.

[Missing the point]

littletroll45 wrote:

Leave them alone. They were not doing it on company time. Besides, it should be between them and the insurance co not the employer.

Get your head out of the cloud of smoke.... if you get hurt after work, doesn't your WORK insurance cover you? doen't matter about "doing it on company time". Also, why do you think you pay what you do for insurance? it's because it is through the employer. go price insurance on your own. much, much more expensive.
Just quit smoking and making us cough every time we enter a building. I vote for smoking bubbles that smokers walk around in. this way, they can save on cigarettes by inhaling their second hand smoke.

[you missed the point]

Missing the point wrote:

<quoted text>
Get your head out of the cloud of smoke.... if you get hurt after work, doesn't your WORK insurance cover you? doen't matter about "doing it on company time". Also, why do you think you pay what you do for insurance? it's because it is through the employer. go price insurance on your own. much, much more expensive.
Just quit smoking and making us cough every time we enter a building. I vote for smoking bubbles that smokers walk around in. this way, they can save on cigarettes by inhaling their second hand smoke.

If you get hurt AT work workmans comp pays for it, if you get hurt AFTER work your own insurance pays for it.
I am a nonsmoker also. I vote that ANY whiner, smoker or anti, walk around in the bubbles you mention. You can always hold your breath when you enter a building. I do sometimes.
Ask any insurance underwiter what each company demands for a profit margin before a policy is renewed. We all know why insurance costs are high.

[What]

Walt wrote:

Whirlpool should just turn the whole issue over to the insurance company. Which can then have all those who lied and falsified their insurance documents criminally charged with insurance fraud.

Could you prove - beyond a reasonable doubt - they falsified their documents? Could it be they checked the wrong box.

We had some nonsmokers check the wrong box and said they were smokers. Was that criminal? And of course they didn't get their extra money back. They also found a lady who was listed as a male and one guy entered his year of birth wrong. Were these criminal too?

[Miss Landers]

Somethins fishy wrote:

<quoted text>
Can you use the Marlboro points to pay for chemotherapy? Let's see, smoke 100 cartons and get a free oxygen tank! I'll bet you look really cool and classy in that Marlboro jacket they gave you. When you walk by people, they'll know exactly what brand you smoke and won't have to guess based on the flavor of your smoker's stench.
By the way, I know the company that administer's Lowe's plan, the incentives are all top quality items.
How is it meddling by a corportation to offer incentives to get people to quit smoking, especially when it results in cost savings?

Marlboro miles aren't even around anymore. Point is, it's really no one's business if I choose to smoke and stink (as you say). It's legal and I'm funding healthcare for the uninsured now (healthy indiana plan) thanks to our healthy governor. So we are paying our way all ready plus some.

[Walt]

What wrote:

<quoted text> Could you prove - beyond a reasonable doubt - they falsified their documents? Could it be they checked the wrong box.
We had some nonsmokers check the wrong box and said they were smokers. Was that criminal? And of course they didn't get their extra money back. They also found a lady who was listed as a male and one guy entered his year of birth wrong. Were these criminal too?

It would come down to pattern and intent. If there is evidence that for a number of years, when they make their selection for the coming year, they repeatedly, "by mistake", have checked the non-smokers box; then a pattern exists that would prove the intent to commit fraud.

[John]

What wrote:

<quoted text> Could you prove - beyond a reasonable doubt - they falsified their documents? Could it be they checked the wrong box.
We had some nonsmokers check the wrong box and said they were smokers. Was that criminal? And of course they didn't get their extra money back. They also found a lady who was listed as a male and one guy entered his year of birth wrong. Were these criminal too?

This is a civil matter. The government has not charged them with any crime. So long as it remains civil, the standard is "prepoderance of the evidence", or just 50.1%, to prove that they lied. And that won't even come up unless there is a court challenge.

Reasonable doubt only applies in criminal cases.

[What]

John wrote:

<quoted text>
This is a civil matter. The government has not charged them with any crime. So long as it remains civil, the standard is "prepoderance of the evidence", or just 50.1%, to prove that they lied. And that won't even come up unless there is a court challenge.
Reasonable doubt only applies in criminal cases.

I know and agree. I was answering a post that stated "criminal charges". Based on the $500.00 a year difference in the cost that was mentioned I can't suspect any insurance company will attempt a court case. The $19,500.00 they could recoup would not even come close to what attorneys would charge to handle the case.

[What]

Walt wrote:

<quoted text>
It would come down to pattern and intent. If there is evidence that for a number of years, when they make their selection for the coming year, they repeatedly, "by mistake", have checked the non-smokers box; then a pattern exists that would prove the intent to commit fraud.

By no stretch am I defending these folks action - so nobody needs to go there.

But, I am sure that any attorney would argue that there was or was not intent on the same mistake over a period of years. For every intentional mistake made over a 3 yera period I am sure one could find a pattern of unintentional mistakes over the same period.

I would still like to know what bean counter had nothing better to do that compare smokers in the smoking area to medical insurance applications. Somebody had WAY to much time on their hands. Perhaps a good prson to begin with the next time Whirlpool downsizes.

[pamela]

well them antis smoking nazi make something that is not their business into their business.I will be boycotting anything to do with whirlpool,anyways general electric has a better product anyway and less exspensive...whirlpool sucks.I would have just quit and then let them damn nazis have that job if they want it so badly.Why is it only smoking you antis have a problem with,but you have no problem with all them damn women who cannot keep their legs closed and have several babies and countless fathers if asked could not even tell you who the damn father to any of their children are.This country is becoming more and more communistic as we speak.

[jspicer]

Tim nailed it alot closer than i think he realizes. This precedent is going to allow insurance companies to deny you coverage for ANY unhealthy behavior. And lets face it, even the nuttiest health nuts occasionally eat some junk food. Just watch its coming that way they can collect all your premiums while you think you are covered and they just yank the rug out from under you.