Lies about smoking burn workers

[being real]

quoting our founding fathers in context with tobacco is an insult to all americans.

[Freedom]

being real wrote:

quoting our founding fathers in context with tobacco is an insult to all americans.

You obviously know nothing of our history.

What cash crop largely built our nation?

Could we have gained our independence without it?

You really do not get it do you...but then again you see the world through the eyes of a socialist so this goes right over your head....

The Declaration of Independence:

"He ( King George III ) has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance .... He has combined with others to subject us,... imposing taxes on us without our consent."

[Sobi]

Don wrote:

Boycott Whirlpool if you value your personal freedoms.

Agreed!

[Sobi]

Vinny wrote:

<quoted text>Hey moron, read the article. The program was VOLUNTARY. That sounds pretty "free" to me.

It was only voluntary in the sense that public relations demanded it be called that.

It is a discount from one point of view and a penalty from another.

It isn't voluntary in the sense that you could make your own choices and not pay an extra $500 a year.

When 80% pay one thing, and 20% pay another, the base rate is what 80% pay.

It was a penalty.

[being real]

Freedom wrote:

<quoted text>
You obviously know nothing of our history.
What cash crop largely built our nation?
Could we have gained our independence without it?
You really do not get it do you...but then again you see the world through the eyes of a socialist so this goes right over your head....
The Declaration of Independence:
"He ( King George III ) has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance .... He has combined with others to subject us,... imposing taxes on us without our consent."

your a fear monger the screams and stomps his feet when he can not get his way.All the bravo sierra you cut and paste has alot to do with nothing.

[KHartman]

Sobi wrote:

<quoted text>
It was only voluntary in the sense that public relations demanded it be called that.
It is a discount from one point of view and a penalty from another.
It isn't voluntary in the sense that you could make your own choices and not pay an extra $500 a year.
When 80% pay one thing, and 20% pay another, the base rate is what 80% pay.
It was a penalty.

Many auto insurance companies give discounts for good driving history. They also charge teenagers more for the same coverage. Bu these are not "penalties" or "rewards" --- they are just insurance companies adjusting their premiums based on risk.

It's the same thing with health insurance. They know that smokers (as a group)will cost them more, and so they adjust the price of coverage appropriately.

Whenever you lie to your insurance company, there are consequences. If they find out, they may deny your claim. If you ride a motorcycle and sign a insurance contract that says you will always wear a helmet, you are screwed if you have a bad accident and you weren't wearing one.

This deal may seem unfair to risk-takers of all stripes, but that's because they would prefer that the "risk-adverse" subsidize their risky lifestyle.

There's nothing wrong with engaging in risky activities, but shouldn't you pay more for insurance than one who refrains from those activities?

[captain obvious]

Sobi wrote:

<quoted text>
It was only voluntary in the sense that public relations demanded it be called that.
It is a discount from one point of view and a penalty from another.
It isn't voluntary in the sense that you could make your own choices and not pay an extra $500 a year.
When 80% pay one thing, and 20% pay another, the base rate is what 80% pay.
It was a penalty.

Are you suggesting that the dishonest smokers lied involuntarily? Or that they were forced to lie because an extra $500 per year is wholly disproportionate to the extra health care services that smokers undeniably need, relative to non-smokers, such as would constitute a fine (i.e., penalty) for smoking? If you believe so, then what if the discount were $400? Would the program still be less than voluntary in your eyes simply because there are still consequences for making one choice over another? Or does your idea of free choice mean that one can do whatever one wants without consequences, or more precisely, bad consequences?

Whirlpool's program was to provide incentives not to smoke (or to quit smoking), which is also to say disincentives -- not penalties-- for smoking.

[Sobi]

captain obvious wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you suggesting that the dishonest smokers lied involuntarily? Or that they were forced to lie because an extra $500 per year is wholly disproportionate to the extra health care services that smokers undeniably need, relative to non-smokers, such as would constitute a fine (i.e., penalty) for smoking? If you believe so, then what if the discount were $400? Would the program still be less than voluntary in your eyes simply because there are still consequences for making one choice over another? Or does your idea of free choice mean that one can do whatever one wants without consequences, or more precisely, bad consequences?
Whirlpool's program was to provide incentives not to smoke (or to quit smoking), which is also to say disincentives -- not penalties-- for smoking.

I am essentially pointing out that they were screwed from either side. Tell the truth, pay a penalty. Avoid the truth, pay a penalty.

When that is the reality, voluntary is not the proper word.

I will repeat that when 80% pay one rate, and 20% pay another, it is proper and logical to say base rate is what the majority pay.

Discount my butt.

There is no ethical way to exclude a segment of the population from health care. Whether it is done by taking their money, refusing them jobs, or attitudes like yours, it doesn't matter. It all ends up the same.

Smokers do not cost more long term. We cost less. Based on your logic we earned a discount below base.

[Sobi]

KHartman wrote:

<quoted text>
Many auto insurance companies give discounts for good driving history. They also charge teenagers more for the same coverage. Bu these are not "penalties" or "rewards" --- they are just insurance companies adjusting their premiums based on risk.
It's the same thing with health insurance. They know that smokers (as a group)will cost them more,

Smokers do not cost more. We cost less. We die earlier. Health care for the very old is the highest ticket item on the insurance bill.

The car insurance rates are also unjust. I am not criminal because I look like, live with, or am the same age, and any premium directed at me personally that says I am by placing me in a high risk group is unjust.

Insurance companies are economic parasites. They suck as quick and as hard as they can to get as much as they can until someone puts up a winning fight.

They bill more for smokers because that fight hasn't hit yet.

[KHartman]

Sobi wrote:

<quoted text>
Smokers do not cost more. We cost less. We die earlier. Health care for the very old is the highest ticket item on the insurance bill.

Of course, we are talking about health insurance provided through an employer, so end of life issues really aren't relevant.

Smokers use more health care during their working years, when the employer provides health insurance.

http://www.alliedquotes.com/Resources/Health-...

"When the Union Camp Corporation evaluated the health costs of 700 of their employees in 1992, they discovered that nonsmoking employees cost the company $462 less in health care costs than smoking employees. Among 400 production employees for whom there was absenteeism data, each nonsmoker saved the company $284 of sick pay.

And, a study of 2,500 postal employees published in the American Journal of Public Health found that the absentee rate for smokers was 33% higher than for nonsmokers."

[roffle]

khartman, you know very well that was just a study funded by RWJF.

[Cynthia Miranov]

Curt in Homer Illinois wrote:

I will be surprised if they don't hire a lawyer.
After all, smoking is an addiction. And addicts are protected under the Americans with Disabilities act. Drug addicts get a second chance (or maybe many second chances), so why are folks using a legal product being penalized?
The whole point of group insurance is that it is a GROUP.
Sure, they shouldn't have lied, but they shouldn't have been penalized $500 a year, either. And before all you righteous non-smokers start yelling about being tired of paying bills for the smokers behavior, how many of you engage in 'risky' behavior? Unprotected sex, multiple partners, drink a little too much, maybe do the occassional recreational drug, drive too fast, ski, hang glide? The list is endless.... So before pointing a finger, think about your own behavior and whether you should be paying more for your insurance.

Very well put!

[Cynthia Miranov]

I assume non of you called in and lied about being sick,are you had sick children you had to miss work for....a lie, A LIE IS A LIE PERIOD! The owner would have to close his business if he fired all that told him a lie. Remember God said judge not?

[run rabbit run]

smoking without aa doudt shortens your life and causes serious health issues,knowing this and contito smoke you should pay more.nueing

[Honest Abe]

Freedom wrote:

<quoted text>
Quoting the founding fathers to a bunch of socialistic control freaks only seems to confuse the antis. They only comprehend doublespeak.
They simply do not comprehend the wisdom of the founding fathers.
Since you obviously understand the foundations of our nation I think you will like these...
:-)
John Adams
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God ... anarchy and tyranny commence. PROPERTY MUST BE SECURED OR LIBERTY CANNOT EXIST"
James Madison
"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort .... This being the end of government, that is NOT a just government,... nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has ... is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest."

Slaves were considered "property" too. Should we still have slavery in the world?

[John]

Honest Abe wrote:

<quoted text>
Slaves were considered "property" too. Should we still have slavery in the world?

Of course not. Humans are not property. That was disgusting and morally reprehensible - slavery an racism cost us dearly, and the effects linger with us today.

But we SHOULD have liberty. I am pretty liberal but I will agree with the libertarians on this point. Government doesn't have a place in our private lives - and neither do employers, or group insurers for that matter. Maybe I am an old-fashioned liberal...I don't know what has happened to people on the left or the right, but we seem to be willing today to toss aside most of our freedoms and privacy, no matter who wants access to it. It is sad. No one stops and THINKS anymore, no one questions authority. The media just totes the line and does not push it too far - they are more interested in making money than they are in actually uncovering anything or in getting real social conversation going. Democracy is becoming a joke. Democrats and Republicans are both responsible...sigh.

[John]

Freedom wrote:

<quoted text>
You obviously know nothing of our history.
What cash crop largely built our nation?
Could we have gained our independence without it?
You really do not get it do you...but then again you see the world through the eyes of a socialist so this goes right over your head....
The Declaration of Independence:
"He ( King George III ) has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance .... He has combined with others to subject us,... imposing taxes on us without our consent."

Well, I am fairly liberal and I get it! Liberty is valuable. Too many people don't see that anymore - on either side. Due to fear, we are willing to give it up. Whether it is fear of terrorists, fear of illness, fear of costs of insurance,- we will do whatever we are told. We are like sheep and easy to manipulate for others' gain, whether that be Democrats, Republicans, or private business. We don't question - we just do what we are told and march along.

George Orwell, anyone?

[Stina]

Cynthia Miranov wrote:

I assume non of you called in and lied about being sick,are you had sick children you had to miss work for....a lie, A LIE IS A LIE PERIOD! The owner would have to close his business if he fired all that told him a lie. Remember God said judge not?

I haven't. I still hold that it is an incentive to not smoke and they lied. And it's just not lying about being sick and taking a sick day (that was likely earned anyway), but it's considered a fraud by law. And smokers DO tend to work less if they take 3 or 4 10-15 minute smoke breaks a day. Non-smokers don't get those breaks and are left to pick up the slack of the missing co-worker. And I know this from both ends of the spectrum (as a smoker and a non-smoker). When I used to smoke I would sometimes ask non-smoking co-workers to take a walk with me so they could get away, too.

[Evansville indiana]

So easy to point a finger at these people---I guess you never did anything wrong--But lets not kick them while they are down---They do have family and kids---Did you ever think ???? What if this was me for taking a screw from work--Tape--any thing--Have you done this--Let God be the JUDGE --Make sure your plate is clean then you can mouth off

[captain obvious]

Sobi wrote:

<quoted text>
I am essentially pointing out that they were screwed from either side. Tell the truth, pay a penalty. Avoid the truth, pay a penalty.
When that is the reality, voluntary is not the proper word.
I will repeat that when 80% pay one rate, and 20% pay another, it is proper and logical to say base rate is what the majority pay.
Discount my butt.
There is no ethical way to exclude a segment of the population from health care. Whether it is done by taking their money, refusing them jobs, or attitudes like yours, it doesn't matter. It all ends up the same.
Smokers do not cost more long term. We cost less. Based on your logic we earned a discount below base.

Insurance companies are for-profit enterprises, not a social service agency. If you owned a restaurant, should you be required to feed a starving person on the corner for free? Yes, it would be "ethical" for you to do so, but there is no legal obligation.

Choices have consequences. If you think that $500 as a consequence for behavior over which you have control -- smoking --(or that getting suspended for another action over which you have control -- lying and essentially stealing from the company and the honest employees) is so severe as to nullify free choice, then smoking must cause brain damage as well.

Take responsibility for your actions instead of blaming others. Nobody forced those lying smokers to smoke, lie, or even work at Whirlpool. If they don't like Whirlpool's health insurance program, they are free to shop for a individual policy and see how much that costs them.