No-Smoke Insurance
Good old Mitch just released the new insurance plan for the upcoming year for state employees. At least most of it; it’s still a work in progress.
Most of it is just what you might expect from this type of thing, but one clause in particular stands out. It explains that all employees will be subject to a $500 deductible in the coming year on any policy they choose. Then, it goes on to say that if you are a non-smoker, or have made a commitment to quit smoking through a state-sponsored program which requires you to undergo an AA-type of treatment without the meetings, you will be granted a $500 waiver on your deductible. The way I see it, smokers must pay the deductible because Mitch doesn’t approve of smoking. What is your take on this?
I can understand how an employer can stop you from smoking at work, but when does employment begin to dictate our private lives? Once upon a time, one could be fired for being impaired on the job. Soon after that, drug testing began. Almost overnight, recreational drug use meant that you couldn’t get a job. Now its smokers. Who will be next? I don’t necessarily approve of these activities, but the point is, people should have some say over their lives.
How much power should an employer be able to wield over his employees? Total? Partial? Very little? You tell me.
Loading ...
There are 11 Comments to "No-Smoke Insurance"
As a smoker, I can affirm that it is the worst, most destructive habit that I ever picked up, and I would never recommend it to anyone.
On the other hand, it is a very difficult habit to give up, despite what the “just say no” crowd would have you believe, and I find it to be an abuse of power for one’s employer to determine how much one should pay for company insurance due to a legal addiction. Especially in this day of already ultra-high insurance.
Of course, employers will say that this is an insurance-driven measure; if so, it is a form of discrimination that an outside party should not have the power to impose. They may also say that smokers are less productive workers. This is pure crap, unless one subscribes to the outdated “time-stealing” theory. Slackers will find a way to slack, weather they smoke or not.
Could you explain exactly what you find to be hard to understand?
I know sometimes I get caught up in the moment and miss some necessary details. Sorry if that was the case. If you could clarify your difficulty, I’ll try to explain further.
Thanks Benny; I thought I explained my position pretty well, but hey, if you think that employees should be so beholden to their employers that they have no say, I can’t argue with that. Many people believe they are shit and the boss is a god who has the right to rule their life. I’m just not one of them.
I like your site. Well done!
I’ll come by again soon.
Thanks for the advice, VW. Am I really that bland? I’ll try to do better.
Thanks, Harry–I’ll keep an eye out for your blog.
Employers having control over your life outside of work is a major mistake. Just one more freedom taken away. Why did our forefathers fight and die for freedom when “we” sit back and allow people to take it away.
Smoking is definitely bad for you health but do we want to sit back and allow the health police to take over? Americans are now being treated as though we were too juvenile to make our own decissions either bad or good. That to me isn’t America.
US insurance has become, in recent years, one of the largest and most powerful of the special-interest groups. They have virtually taken control of the way business is done in America, forcing employers to offer packages that put the burden of insurance on the worker, or to outsource US jobs completely.
Conservatives like to blame “worker greed” for this problem, but the way I see it, insurance rates bear much of the blame for both falling wages and loss of profits.
Don’t expect anything to change soon if either a Republican candidate or Hilary Clinton is elected president. My vote will go to John Edwards if he is on the ballot, Barack Obama if not. Both of those candidates are making an attempt to break the special-interest grip on government. Most of the others are in favor of the status quo.
I have seen insurance in one factory (auto) change about 5 times in 5years. I understand health issues and how employers pay for unhealthy behavior, but if the top CEO’s wouldn’t take such a cut in the pay market then the workers could be put in a better light than to be ‘greedy’ as its the workers that are the heart of the company. But its the poor ‘man’ that pays with either sweat or comprimise to appease the upper administration.
Good point. And you can bet those top execs are sucking up to the big shareholders in order to keep their jobs–and their salaries.
It’s a frat club at the top, but the insurance companies are well entrenched members.
One other thing comes to mind when ever smoking is an issue. If the politicians weren’t such booze hounds that would be an issue too. I’m am far from an advocate for smoking BUT I personally would much rather meet a person smoking than to meet a drunk on the road! Of course ‘they’ wont take the stats of deaths due to alcohol and alcohol related and set them side by side, as it would make them look like the fools they believe ‘we’ are.
Sorry to twist this thread on a different subject, I personally feel that if they are going to health police the American public then they should be looking in their own back yards as I’m sure the skeletons more than likely have meat left on the bones!
Rant over…hehehe