[Sounds fair doesn't it, but, "only" smokers pay a surcharge for their "unhealthy" lifestyle. And since smokers will be covering the cost of their unhealthy lifestyle, I would expect the company to be more accommodating, not less. I mean if fat folks would cover the cost of their unhealthy lifestyle, I think they have coming due at least a few extra candy machines on every floor. Remember, this is all about fairness.]



"Gannett Will Sock Smoking Employees With Annual $600 Health Surcharge"

By Mark Fitzgerald

Published: October 19, 2005 9:03 AM ET

"CHICAGO The Asheville Citizen-Times is located in the traditional heart of North Carolina's tobacco-growing country, but the newspaper has been a smoke-free workplace for the past five years.

"We're trying to become what we call the healthiest community in our region of North Carolina," Citizen-Times President and Publisher Virgil Smith said in a telephone interview Wednesday afternoon.

If Gannett Co. corporate headquarters gets its way, all of its newspapers, TV stations and other media businesses will ban smoking by Jan. 1, 2007.

And to prod smoking employees to give up the habit, Gannett is forcing them to make a decision starting this January: Enroll in a smoking cessation program -- or pay $50 extra for health insurance every month.

Gannett began notifying its 40,000 U.S. employees of the new policy over the past two weeks. During the insurance enrollment period, employees will be asked if they use tobacco products even occasionally. Those who say they smoke or chew tobacco will be given the choice of enrolling in a stop-smoking program at the company's expensive, or paying the surcharge.

The Washington Times first reported the surcharge plan Wednesday in an article by Marguerite Higgins.

Gannett spokespersons were not immediately available to comment on the policy, which Citizen-Times Publisher Smith confirmed.

"We are a smoke-free company already, so it's not an issue for us," Smith said.

The Citizen-Times went smoke-free gradually, Smith added. The newspaper first banned smoking in work areas, but created a smoking lounge inside the building. "Then we stopped smoking in the building, and created a smoking area behind the building with ash [receptacles]," he said.

"The next step is to ban smoking around the building, and by 2007 we may be ready to do that," Smith said. Area hospitals, schools and some businesses have already taken that step, he noted.

Among Gannett's 99 newspapers is The Leaf-Chronicle in Clarkesville, Tenn., which was created in 1890 by the merger of The Chronicle and the newspaper Tobacco Leaf. Phone messages seeking comment on the Gannett smoking policy from the Leaf-Chronicle's publisher, human resources manager, and executive editor were not immediately returned."

Editor and Publisher

This message has been edited. Last edited by: John L,

<vomit>

I am selfemployed and do not have health insurance.

I feel employees should have an option to opt out of health insurance and take the money.

I feel that when you are quoted a salary for a job it should be what you expect to leave the building with each pay period, not the fictional gross quoted. If I can't spend it I don't earn it.

The high cost of medical care is first because of insurance paying the bills, much like the government buys $ 500.00 hammers. Second it is because if you have insurance you feel secure in consuming whatever and exposing yourself to whatever because if something happens someone ELSE will pay for your mistakes.

If doctors didn't kill and maim so many of their patients their malpractice insurance premiums wouldn't be so high.

If patients paid for their own care, doctors office wouldn't be full of accountants having to deal with insurance companies. Patients would also ask about fees before asking for care.

Some of us start off life with inferior bodies and do nothing to try to rectify the situation.

Most parents feel the need for health insurance because of their children. Before and after that most of us could care less.

If someone has a serious health condition they usually become the pet project of the medical profession to prove their GOD like powers over life and death, or become guinny pigs for someone's great product to cure the masses.

I currently do not feel the need for health insurance. I may change my mind whenever I get seriously ill, by then it may be too late. If my health care costs exhaust my ability to pay for it, I have no one to blame but myself, but it is my decision.

Here is why I am strongly opposed to this specific policy, as well as to these types of "health surcharges" in general.

Smokers are already paying a "health surcharge" when they buy cigarettes, isn't that what the master settlement agreement is all about? I feel cigarette smokers deserve FREE health care from their state governments based on this settlement.

quote:

Originally posted by Bruce:
Smokers are already paying a "health surcharge" when they buy cigarettes, isn't that what the master settlement agreement is all about? I feel cigarette smokers deserve FREE health care from their state governments based on this settlement.

This health surcharge is for private coverage. The MSA and (some) states excise taxes are for costs incurred from gov't plans.

Gov't should be kicking in some of that money towards private and employer group 'excess' costs that - per gov't lawsuit logic - is incurred due to smoking tobacco & on which gov't is collecting serious income for 'health care'.

Or that would be the way if it were an honest deal.

Quite frankly I have enjoyed government health care and feel I deserved it based on the tobacco settlement. I had my appendix removed and didn't pay a dime in costs, including insurance premiums.

I felt guilty continuing the coverage though when they talked about all the people who needed it and couldn't get it, so I let the coverage expire.