As with so many Antismoking initiatives (even though this is within a private company I'd still count it as such) the true nature of the motivation can be seen once one looks below the surface a bit.
While it could be argued that there's reasonably widespread support in the medical community for cigarette smokers having increased health care costs, and it could perhaps also be argued that these amount to an average of $600 per year, I do not believe there is any such support for a similar level of costs with regard to pipe smokers or people who like using chewing tobacco or snus.
But, since the activists within the company who push this policy are probably Antismokers rather than simply actuaries, any tobacco use at all gets dumped in the pot together and the occasional snus'er gets treated the same as the two pack a day Marlboro man.
Legally of course the company can probably get away with it, and legally they could probably get away with doing the same thing to the porkers out there. Should they?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
While addiction to smokeless tobacco poses far fewer morbidity and mortality risks (and almost certainly fewer healthcare costs) than addiction to cigarettes, punishing nonsmokers and employers by forcing them to continue subsidizing the healthcare, lost productivity and absenteeism costs imposed by cigarettes would be irresponsible health, fiscal and employment policy.
Bill, but if we take as a given (which is not unreasonable if I correctly perceive the science out there) that the costs of something like snus are probably less than the costs of irresponsible eating, would it then be fair to say:
"punishing (thin and health vegans) and employers by forcing them to continue subsidizing the healthcare, lost productivity and absenteeism costs imposed by (porkers) would be irresponsible health, fiscal and employment policy."
And while you're responding to that, would you also feel that it's punishment to smokers when they are forced to pay extra into social security and pension programs to subsidize the longer lives of nonsmokers? Or does the pie only get eaten if you can't have it?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
For two decades, I've been advocating behavioral risk rating in health insurance policy premiums (e.g. charging higher premiums to cigarette smokers, alcoholics, obese, etc).
But most health insurance policies are purchased by employers (or pools of employers) whose premiums are community rated based upon the number of covered employees and families, with higher rates for those filing more expensive claims in the past.
So unlike life, auto or other types of insurance policies purchased by individuals, which are risk rated,
community rated health insurance policies require those with low risk lifestyles to subsize the excess costs of those with high risk lifestyles.
For employers to feasably risk rate health insurance for employees, they need to have more than 1000 employees or be self insured.
Most pension plans are also community rated because they too are primarily purchased by employers.
By federal law, Social Security has always been community rated (as opposed to risk rated), with payments based upon wages and number of quarters of payments.
I agree employers should be able to charge more to smokers for health insurance as it does increase health premiums.
Many companies do punish smokers on health insurance as it can lead to an unhealthy life.
If the smokers really live shorter lives, they are subsidizing the medical expenses ("health care" is a BS phrase attending to the vanity of he who utters it) of the non-smokers.
All of this is about punishing smokers.
In a truly free country, the rights of the anti-smokers end here: "I don't like smoking; you can't do it on my property." A tax of no more than 10% of the retail cost of the product would not be inappropriate.
Everything else the anti-smokers do is criminal activity, and they should all be in jail, with a perpetual loss of the right to vote.
Think about it. The only true accomplishment of the movement has been to violate the rights of their fellow citizens with impunity. That result is the real aim.
I agree with Brett . If a company does not want smoking on the property , then just make a policy on that and stay OUT of the employees private lives .No one has any right to tell anyone "if you smoke and want to work here you must pay us $50.00 a month ".
Commenting by HaloScan
