The city of Melbourne (Florida) is considering adding its name to the growing list of employers who refuse to hire smokers. According to a proposal the City Council is now considering: "Applicants would be asked about tobacco use during pre-employment screening -- and smokers would get dropped from further consideration."

The purpose of the policy is to prevent nonsmoking employees from having to offset the health care costs of smoking employees.

According to the City Manager: "I think it's a good path to explore, and it makes a lot of sense. It is very odd that -- 50 years after the surgeon general said, 'smoking's bad, don't do this, smoking's bad, it's not healthy,' -- that we're still having that conversation."

Well we've known for more than 50 years that obesity is unhealthy. Is it also odd that we're still having a conversation about whether obese people should be allowed to apply for jobs?

My commentary on Melbourne's proposed policy explains why this policy represents discrimination and why that discrimination is wrong.

I have urged my fellow anti-smoking advocates and anti-smoking organizations to speak out against such policies, because I think that's the only thing that will stem the dangerous tide of these intrusive and discriminatory policies that threaten to make smokers second-class citizens who are not able to obtain gainful employment.

Unfortunately, not a single group has spoken out yet. I suspect I may be waiting a long time.

And here in Colorado a state rep is going to propose denying Medicaid benefits to certain smokers. He admits he doesn't think the measure will get anywhere but believes the dialogue should be started.

The intended purpose of the Master Settlement Agreement was to compensate the states for their Medicaid costs in treating smokers. Therefore in my view, smokers should be getting the best of care from Medicaid. Just because the state has wasted the money on other pork barrel projects and smoking bans legislation and enforcement does not mean they can ignore where the money comes from and what it is intended to do. I would think it would be a case for the ICLU.

In the context of the 'insurance' cost of smokers, note that MSA money is not used to pay costs for folks with so-called 'smoking related' illnesses who have private insurance. Nor is MSA money used to compenstate insurance companies for their 'excess' costs.

Maybe there should be a push to get states to use MSA $ to keep premiums down so that private business wouldn't have that excuse to discriminate against workers who smoke & even workers with family members who smoke.

Just makes sense. Not that sense matters when it comes to $ or politics.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Siegel:
The purpose of the policy is to prevent nonsmoking employees from having to offset the health care costs of smoking employees.

I received junk mail today from Blue Cross Blue Shield (health insurance company). Smokers would be down on my list as to whom not to hire.

Assuming these same rates would apply to an employer:
For 18-29 year olds the monthly premium is:
Male: $60.
Female $73.
Husband and wife: $126. (Remember, only one actually works there)

Now, let's say the husband and wife have two kids. The premium goes up to $231. That's almost 4 times the cost of a single male with no kids.

Skipping ahead, a husband/wife age 60-64: $454. If they still have children at home, let's say three, the premium is $603. That's more than 10 times 18-29 year old males with no kids.

They didn't have a chart for tobacco use premiums, but I'll bet my house a 29 year old smoker doesn't cost anywhere near what a nonsmoking old fart with kids costs a company.

Great point Squeezer. That is, in part, why I don't really believe the true motivation behind Action on Smoking and Health's call for employers worldwide to not hire smokers is purely a concern for the financial well-being of employers. The same arguments made by ASH would certainly lead us to recommend that companies fire anyone with young children, older people, and fat people. And smoking would not necessarily be an important factor, except in older people. A young smoker most certainly could cost far less than an older non-smoker who is fat, has high blood pressurer, diabetes, and high cholesterol.

But remember Dr. Siegal the person with high blood pressure, diabetes, and high cholesterol id also the person who selects the insurance carrier and pays the employer's portion of the premiums.

Insurance companies have always pointed out to their insureds who is costing them the most money in premiums. That is why a they investigate the driving records of anyone who drives a company's vehicles. That is why malpractice premiums are what they are.

An employer has to look at the years of service an employee has devoted to the company and what their current and past contributions have been and are now. It is the MBAs and PHDs who only look at the numbers, never looking at the individuals involved.

People are not machines, each has his/her own set of values and contribute to society in their own ways. What is a parent to do when there are no bad examples to point to anymore when trying to raise their children. If individuals are never to be allowed to make mistakes where are they and the rest of us going to learn anything new about what it means to be human?

Just as a prolifer points to the potential destroyed during an abortion, what potential will be lost if smokers are religated to the trash heap. Where would we be toady without smokers like Edison, Churchill, Einstein, or FDR?

quote:

Originally posted by Bruce:
What is a parent to do when there are no bad examples to point to anymore when trying to raise their children.

They'll just mention the law their kid would be breaking if they did something.

That reminds me of something which might or might not pertain to this subject: Telling people what not to do without saying why not.

In 7th grade in science class we burned magnesium. The teacher said, "Don't look at it while it's burning." He never said why we shouldn't look at it so I watched it burn. I mean, what a worthless experiment if you're not going to see what happens.

Like I said, I don't know if that has anything to do with this, but I thought I'd share anyway.

Children start experimenting in the hospitol nursery - most parents comments are after the fact. That is why children are educated about sex at the earliest grades, after they have already done most of what they are taught is wrong. For most kids their parents advice is like closing the barn door after the horse has left the property. Many times the advice merely creates further curousity about what ehy might be missing and on the premise they never experience any consequences for their actions which side of their brains will decide what to do?