Smokers

[Pacridge]

Your overdramatizing something you don't agree with is typical of conservatives. Not all of us smokers are quivering nicotine junkies, Fantasea. Just like not all drinkers are skid row bums with the DTs.

And personally, I do not smoke at work and, with the exception of one job I had where everyone smoked, my supervisors don't even know I am a smoker. Pac & Contrarian, I say if you don't want your smoking employees to take too many smoke breaks, then limit their smoke breaks to the normal 10 mins. in the morning, lunch & 10 mins. in the afternoon. If they can't hack it, then perhaps they need to find other employment.
And I still do not agree w/ the health insurance angle. Heart disease caused by bad diet & too little exercise is the number one killer in America. You simply cannot regulate people's behavior to make insurance premiums lower, otherwise you would have to ban employees from doing MOST of the things that they currently do. Including driving a car. Very dangerous that.

Mixed I tried that. Honestly. I found that, for whatever reason, they would constantly revert back to longer more frequent breaks. So the "other employment" seems to be mine and their only option. And again this was a larger problem for the non-smoking employees then it was for me. In a way I thought the non-smokers were being kind of big babies about it.

As for your take on the health insurance I would agree with your position but it's not the small employer that's calling the shots on that. It's the insurance companies. As I stated I don't provide health insurance. But when I looked into it I know one of the first questions the insurance company wanted to know is whether I employed smokers. They made it very clear that the insurance would be more costly if I did. Much more costly.

But I think you're right in that people should be taking responsibility for their own behavior. But it's probably just around the corner and insurance companies will want to know the weight and eating habits of employees too.

 

[mixedmedia]

As for your take on the health insurance I would agree with your position but it's not the small employer that's calling the shots on that. It's the insurance companies. As I stated I don't provide health insurance. But when I looked into it I know one of the first questions the insurance company wanted to know is whether I employed smokers. They made it very clear that the insurance would be more costly if I did. Much more costly.

But I think you're right in that people should be taking responsibility for their own behavior. But it's probably just around the corner and insurance companies will want to know the weight and eating habits of employees too.

Aha, then perhaps it is time to turn the issue to one of national health care. "Socialized medicine" to the knee-jerks out there.

I realize that premiums are too high for both small business employers & workers.

 

[Fantasea]

Same thing happens to me if I don't get my coffee in the morning, but the moment I get my ristretto, it's sheer pleasure.
I think the difference between us is that I don't judge, and I wouldn't stoop to calling them fools. I'm not averse to namecalling when the occasion calls for it, but this wouldn't be one of them, and you who decried namecalling in another thread, should practise what you preach.

Along with being non-judgmental, it would seen that you also appear to be non-responsive. You didn't address a single point. Just ignored them all and went off on a tangent.

However, your confession of a caffeine addiction adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[RightinNYC]

Same thing happens to me if I don't get my coffee in the morning, but the moment I get my ristretto, it's sheer pleasure.
I think the difference between us is that I don't judge, and I wouldn't stoop to calling them fools. I'm not averse to namecalling when the occasion calls for it, but this wouldn't be one of them, and you who decried namecalling in another thread, should practise what you preach.

Speaking of practicing what you preach...

Weren't you telling me in another thread that you think that smoking should be illegal in all public places, and that parents shouldn't smoke in front of their kids?

Now you're saying that you don't have a problem with it, and saying that you "don't judge."

 

[Fantasea]

Mixed I tried that. Honestly. I found that, for whatever reason, they would constantly revert back to longer more frequent breaks. So the "other employment" seems to be mine and their only option. And again this was a larger problem for the non-smoking employees then it was for me. In a way I thought the non-smokers were being kind of big babies about it.

As for your take on the health insurance I would agree with your position but it's not the small employer that's calling the shots on that. It's the insurance companies. As I stated I don't provide health insurance. But when I looked into it I know one of the first questions the insurance company wanted to know is whether I employed smokers. They made it very clear that the insurance would be more costly if I did. Much more costly.

But I think you're right in that people should be taking responsibility for their own behavior. But it's probably just around the corner and insurance companies will want to know the weight and eating habits of employees too.

If a person seeks to purchase individual life insurance, the insurance company bases its decision on whether to accept the risk and to set the premium on the basis of a number of factors which, over time, have proven, on an actuarial basis, to effect the outcome of their gamble.

Where a group is involved, they simply apply similar criteria. Does anyone see anything wrong with that?

In very many ways, cigarettes cost more than the price of a pack. Why should non-smokers subsidize smoking?

 

[shuamort]

In very many ways, cigarettes cost more than the price of a pack. Why should non-smokers subsidize smoking?

A better question may be, why is the United States subsidizing tobacco production? 1999's $8.7 billion emergency agriculture aid package included $328 million to compensate tobacco growers for declining cigarette sales.

Two provisions in the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill (H.R. 4461) expanded existing subsidies to tobacco farmers. The first allows holders of tobacco quotas to receive program payments even if they transfer their rights to produce the crop to other farmers. This provision will cost taxpayers $3 million.

The second provision allows tobacco cooperatives to buy low quality tobacco (called Burley tobacco, which is grown in Kentucky) that has not been bid on by cigarette companies and then sell this inferior tobacco to the government at inflated prices. This measure waives the no-net cost provisions for tobacco for the 1999 crop and will cost the government $100 million for each of the next five years during which a tobacco crop is marketed, for a total of at least $500 million. Moreover, the provision blocks the government from selling the tobacco in the United States, for fear of displacing sales by private farmers. Thus, taxpayers will be left with an expensive, useless investment in a product that the federal government is actively discouraging the use of for health reasons.

 

[Fantasea]

A better question may be, why is the United States subsidizing tobacco production? 1999's $8.7 billion emergency agriculture aid package included $328 million to compensate tobacco growers for declining cigarette sales.

Two provisions in the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill (H.R. 4461) expanded existing subsidies to tobacco farmers. The first allows holders of tobacco quotas to receive program payments even if they transfer their rights to produce the crop to other farmers. This provision will cost taxpayers $3 million.

The second provision allows tobacco cooperatives to buy low quality tobacco (called Burley tobacco, which is grown in Kentucky) that has not been bid on by cigarette companies and then sell this inferior tobacco to the government at inflated prices. This measure waives the no-net cost provisions for tobacco for the 1999 crop and will cost the government $100 million for each of the next five years during which a tobacco crop is marketed, for a total of at least $500 million. Moreover, the provision blocks the government from selling the tobacco in the United States, for fear of displacing sales by private farmers. Thus, taxpayers will be left with an expensive, useless investment in a product that the federal government is actively discouraging the use of for health reasons.

I would have preferred an answer to the question. However, I believe that any involvement by the government in the production of tobacco is lunacy.

 

[shuamort]

In very many ways, cigarettes cost more than the price of a pack. Why should non-smokers subsidize smoking?

You have a good point (sorry if I skipped over it, tho). The problem is where can the line be drawn? Should companies alter insurance prices for people who have more health problems such as obesity, high blood pressure, bad genetics, etc? A big part of buying insurance for employees is to buy in bulk, it gives you a better rate. I'd be willing to be that it raises the curve to have smokers involved in a group health plan.

Here's a little thing from yahoo:
http://health.yahoo.com/health/centers/insurance/1 which doesn't mention smoking, but notes costs are different based on a couple factors:

If you do need to purchase individual health insurance, it will be expensive. Unlike group plans, in which the costs and risks associated with health care are spread among many, individual health policies are "medically underwritten" to take into account your personal health history. Any "pre-existing" condition such as heart disease, diabetes, and even pregnancy, can nix your chances of acceptance, or boost your premiums.

The interesting thing for an employer to do would be a CBA (cost/benefits analysis) to weigh the pros and cons of lumping smokers vs. non-smokers into different buckets and buying group rates for each. The problem is that you'd also have to weigh in the facts that you'd be buying rates for a smaller group and then see if the cost of having all non-smokers in a group is cheaper or more expensive than having a larger number with smokers in it. (On top of that, having employees who have insured spouses that smoke with the employee doesn't).

 

[Fantasea]

The problem is where can the line be drawn? Should companies alter insurance prices for people who have more health problems such as obesity, high blood pressure, bad genetics, etc? A big part of buying insurance for employees is to buy in bulk, it gives you a better rate. I'd be willing to be that it raises the curve to have smokers involved in a group health plan.

It's just a reversal of the old saw, "You get what you pay for." If you want coverage for a group that includes 'higher risk' types, there is a commensurate higher cost.

The interesting thing for an employer to do would be a CBA (cost/benefits analysis) to weigh the pros and cons of lumping smokers vs. non-smokers into different buckets and buying group rates for each. The problem is that you'd also have to weigh in the facts that you'd be buying rates for a smaller group and then see if the cost of having all non-smokers in a group is cheaper or more expensive than having a larger number with smokers in it. (On top of that, having employees who have insured spouses that smoke with the employee doesn't).

Employers come in all sizes. Major companies with tens of thousands of employees can afford to be considerably more liberal in their benefit packages than can the smaller employers.

So, it would seem that in these companies, the smokers are causing non-smokers to suffer things besides second-hand smoke.

 

[shuamort]

It's just a reversal of the old saw, "You get what you pay for." If you want coverage for a group that includes 'higher risk' types, there is a commensurate higher cost.Employers come in all sizes. Major companies with tens of thousands of employees can afford to be considerably more liberal in their benefit packages than can the smaller employers.

So, it would seem that in these companies, the smokers are causing non-smokers to suffer things besides second-hand smoke.

Yeah, I work for a large insurance company (not health insurance), 30K+ employees. Our company went from having a choice of three different health carriers, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Health Partners, and Allina down to one. Allina. At the same time, premiums went up, deductibles went up, and prescription pricing was outsourced to Express Scripts that usually has higher patient costs. Last year I paid almost $1000.00 out of pocket in premiums with no dependents. The nice thing about that is that my age and the fact that I don't smoke are taken into account for my out of pocket contributions. The problem is that the group rate is based on smokers being included.

It would seem that health care costs are a bit out of control. The factors aren't just related to smoking however, obesity and the need for tort reform take a big part of the crisis right now as well.

What it could come down to is the fact that at some point, companies may decide that it's not in their best interest to give health insurance as a benefit for their employees. They are not obliged to do so right now, so a market trend could change that as companies start to look closer at their bottom line.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

Along with being non-judgmental, it would seen that you also appear to be non-responsive. You didn't address a single point. Just ignored them all and went off on a tangent.

However, your confession of a caffeine addiction adds nothing to the discussion.

It was a comparison to the scenario of nicotine addiction you portrayed, and hence, relevant to the discussion. The person going off at a tangent is you. You are avoiding the the fact that it has been pointed out that you decry namecalling in other threads but do it yourself in this one. I think that makes you a hypocrite.

 

[Fantasea]

It was a comparison to the scenario of nicotine addiction you portrayed, and hence, relevant to the discussion. The person going off at a tangent is you. You are avoiding the the fact that it has been pointed out that you decry namecalling in other threads but do it yourself in this one. I think that makes you a hypocrite.

And the name you were called is?

 

[Pacridge]

And the name you were called is?

I missed this as well. Who called who what name? I've gone back through the thread and can't find anyone calling any one else any names.

As for a post you made earlier:

If a person seeks to purchase individual life insurance, the insurance company bases its decision on whether to accept the risk and to set the premium on the basis of a number of factors which, over time, have proven, on an actuarial basis, to effect the outcome of their gamble.

Where a group is involved, they simply apply similar criteria. Does anyone see anything wrong with that?

In very many ways, cigarettes cost more than the price of a pack. Why should non-smokers subsidize smoking?

Yes, I agree with this. Insurance companies are like any other company or business. They have to be able to asses their cost and their income. Knowing what the risk is would be a major factor in the insurance game- right? Would any one expect the insurance company to write a life insurance policy for a stunt man or cliff driver and have that policy cost the same as one for a book keeper?

 

[Urethra Franklin]

Cigarette: A fire at one end, a fool at the other, and a bit of tobacco in between.

Are you deliberately playing stupid? :screwy

Above you refer to smokers as fools. This came very shortly after you chastised me for namecalling in another thread. I beieve that's known as hypocrisy :naughty

 

[RightinNYC]

Are you deliberately playing stupid? :screwy

Above you refer to smokers as fools. This came very shortly after you chastised me for namecalling in another thread. I beieve that's known as hypocrisy :naughty

Hmmm, last I checked, you said you're not a smoker. So he's not actually calling you a fool, just a non-specific group of people. That's not namecalling.

You call Americans stupid in just about every thread you post in.

Whatever you condemn, you have done yourself. -Georg Groddeck

 

[Urethra Franklin]

Hmmm, last I checked, you said you're not a smoker. So he's not actually calling you a fool, just a non-specific group of people. That's not namecalling.

You call Americans stupid in just about every thread you post in.

Whatever you condemn, you have done yourself. -Georg Groddeck

You miss the point - true to form.

Firstly I never claimed he namecalled ME (learn to read).

Secondly I've openly stated I'm not averse to namecalling when the situation calls for it. That doesn't make me a hypocrite when I do it, unlike Fant who dislikes it when it's convenient, but can do it himself when he sees fit. Hypocrite.

 

[RightinNYC]

You miss the point - true to form.

Firstly I never claimed he namecalled ME (learn to read).

Secondly I've openly stated I'm not averse to namecalling when the situation calls for it. That doesn't make me a hypocrite when I do it, unlike Fant who dislikes it when it's convenient, but can do it himself when he sees fit. Hypocrite.

Facts and reality just don't faze you, do they?

 

[Urethra Franklin]

Facts and reality just don't faze you, do they?

Come back to us when you've learned the meanings of those words.

 

[RightinNYC]

Come back to us when you've learned the meanings of those words.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

Reduced to pictorial reptresentations only. That's about your mark.
Hurry now, you're missing "Sesame Street"

 

[Fantasea]

Are you deliberately playing stupid? :screwy

Above you refer to smokers as fools. This came very shortly after you chastised me for namecalling in another thread. I beieve that's known as hypocrisy :naughty

I cannot help it if you choose to take offense at such things. I simply gave you a widely accepted definition of a cigarette.

Perhaps you might find some humor in an old, old country & western hit which immortalized that definition.

Cigarettes, Whiskey and Wild Wild Women
(Tim Spencer)

cho: Cigarettes, whiskey and wild wild women
They'll drive you crazy, they'll drive you insane;
Cigarettes, whiskey and wild wild women
They'll drive you crazy, they'll drive you insane;

Once I was happy and had a good wife
I had enough money to last me for life
Then I met with a gal and we went on a spree
She taught me smokin' and drinkin' whiskee
(CHORUS)

Cigarettes are a blight on the whole human race
A man is a monkey with one in his face;
Take warning dear friend, take warning dear brother
A fire's on one end, a fools on the t'other.
(CHORUS)

And now good people, I'm broken with age
The lines on my face make a well written page
I'm weavin' this story -- how sadly but true
On women and whiskey and what they can do
(CHORUS)

Write on the cross at the head of my grave
For women and whiskey here lies a poor slave.
Take warnin' poor stranger, take warnin' dear friend
In wide clear letters this tale of my end.
(CHORUS)

note: Record was titled Cigareets, Whuskey and Wild Wild Women
recorded long ago by Red Ingles and the Natural Seven RG
SW, RG​

 

[RightinNYC]

Reduced to pictorial reptresentations only. That's about your mark.
Hurry now, you're missing "Sesame Street"

How do you know the Nualas?

 

[Urethra Franklin]

I cannot help it if you choose to take offense at such things. I simply gave you a widely accepted definition of a cigarette.

Perhaps you might find some humor in an old, old country & western hit which immortalized that definition.

Cigarettes, Whiskey and Wild Wild Women
(Tim Spencer)

cho: Cigarettes, whiskey and wild wild women
They'll drive you crazy, they'll drive you insane;
Cigarettes, whiskey and wild wild women
They'll drive you crazy, they'll drive you insane;

Once I was happy and had a good wife
I had enough money to last me for life
Then I met with a gal and we went on a spree
She taught me smokin' and drinkin' whiskee
(CHORUS)

Cigarettes are a blight on the whole human race
A man is a monkey with one in his face;
Take warning dear friend, take warning dear brother
A fire's on one end, a fools on the t'other.
(CHORUS)

And now good people, I'm broken with age
The lines on my face make a well written page
I'm weavin' this story -- how sadly but true
On women and whiskey and what they can do
(CHORUS)

Write on the cross at the head of my grave
For women and whiskey here lies a poor slave.
Take warnin' poor stranger, take warnin' dear friend
In wide clear letters this tale of my end.
(CHORUS)

note: Record was titled Cigareets, Whuskey and Wild Wild Women
recorded long ago by Red Ingles and the Natural Seven RG
SW, RG​

Thank you Fant. Those lyrics have left me feeling truly uplifted.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

How do you know the Nualas?

Erm, could it be something to do being well travelled? Or with not living in a place that thinks it's the centre of the universe and isn't closed to outside events and cultures?

I've seen them in London and in Dublin. They were wonderful on both occasions.

 

[RightinNYC]

Erm, could it be something to do being well travelled? Or with not living in a place that thinks it's the centre of the universe and isn't closed to outside events and cultures?

I've seen them in London and in Dublin. They were wonderful on both occasions.

Is virulent Anti-Americanism just part of your daily life or what? I'm beginning to think you're a little bit bigoted...