Tobacco Cessation Program and a Rant.

[warren]

Rather than mix in all sorts of irrelevant material, speed cameras and the lot, let's just stick to the original post. No need to high jack the post with unrelated observations.
First, the job is your employer's. Within certain legal and labor agreement constraints the employer can do as he sees fit. You have no right to work there. You may certainly question certain employment rules and regulations, even discuss them with your employer. Bitching and moaning about them is counterproductive, your employer becomes disenchanted with you and you resent your employer. Bringing your complaints to the forum, seeking sympathy and etc, of no benefit to either of the two parties involved. It's just the "Oh! Woe is me. I need some pity." response.
You did correctly title the thread as a rant and we should simply take it in the manner it was offered. No advice was solicited but, we members simply cannot resist. You were simply whinging and really, no comments from us were needed. Or, most importantly, solicited.
plugugly: If security is of real concern to you, disengage your computer from the net. A computer hooked up to the "net" or other any other type of network is simply asking for an invasion of your privacy. You are simply scattering the crumbs for the vultures to follow to your computer. By and large "computer security" is reactive not, proactive.

 

[aldecaker]

As always, I'm enjoying your usual high-handed, sanctimonious. lecturing tone, Warren. I know it breaks your old copper's heart, but you're not the forum police. People can feel free to mix in whatever "irrelevant" material they feel the discussion calls for, and tough shit for you. No one is attempting to highjack the post.
This forum is the exact right place for Hakchuma, or anyone else, to discuss these topics. Relating an experience you are having at work regarding tobacco policies is not whining, it is discussing the current and evolving state of affairs. This is part of why I am a member of this forum. Seems to me you could take some of your same old standard advice - if you don't like the way something is, just shut up about it, pack your bags, and hit the bricks. Why you don't just quit and go away like you advise everyone else to do when they're dissatisfied is beyond me.
Yes, the job is your employer's. And when people started noticing a lot of employers wouldn't hire blacks, hispanics, homosexuals, the handicapped, or anyone else they didn't like, laws were changed. It was because people BITCHED and WHINED about it, although I'm sure you would have counseled them to just go find that job that's right for them. Hell, why would you want to work for someone you don't agree with 100% anyway, right? Unlike you, who seems to positively revel in it, some of us don't like being singled out, harassed, and discriminated against for being tobacco users. That may be why we're on a pipe smokers' forum, not a "you should be a slavish masochist for your omnipotent employer" forum.

 

[mcitinner1]

:nana: OH Boy! This is gonna be a good one!

 

[jefff]

Comparing race, creed, sexuality and or disability to smoking seems like a false equivalency.

 

[aldecaker]

Yeah, it may be a false equivalency. But I don't like being discriminated against in the workplace for being a tobacco user any more than anyone else likes being discriminated against in the workplace for anything else. I wasn't trying to form an equivalency, just pointing out that if everyone would have shut up and walked away, that wouldn't have changed either. It was more about the "the boss is always right, like it or lump it" mentality than anything else.

 

[warren]

The "false equivalency" is indeed the refuge of the uniformed.
alde: I'm just not a fan of the whine. And to answer your retort, "It was because people BITCHED and WHINED about it ..." No, it was because people had their complaints adjudicated and had the laws enforced. It was because people did not whinge, they acted. Some put their well being on the line and more than a few were hanged, char broiled, assaulted, and etc. Hardly a relevant observation on your part.
I certainly did not write that employers are omnipotent. I'm not sure where you inferred that. The bulk of your screed speaks for itself. There is room for your opinions and others but, not for mine? It's very obvious why you would like to see me disappear. All the more reason for me to stay, you need my counsel.

 

[aldecaker]

There is no false equivalency, as no equivalency was proposed. While I can in no way be nearly as well informed as such an august personage as yourself, I do not need, nor do I seek, a refuge. You can be as disingenuous as you like regarding "equivalencies".
I don't care if you're "a fan of the whine" or not. You dismissed someone's communication as a "whine", I feel you're full of horseshit to do so, and I told you so. Very simple.
My use of "bitching" and "whining" was sarcastic in that context, hence the capital letters to emphasize the words. As you are not the only person in the world who has a primary-school education and basic literacy skills, let me assure you that I am familiar with a rough outline of the Civil Rights Movement.
Of course you did not write that employers are omnipotent. If you are not sure where (I believe you may mean "why") I inferred that, there is no point even attempting to explain it to you. There is room for your opinions; I simply reacted to them.
Why would I like you to disappear? I'd like you to explain the obviousness of that to me. And if you would indulge me further, I'm very interested in the counsel I need so badly.

 

[warren]

No, I meant "where". As in, where in my words was the basis laid reaching for such a conclusion.
I believe the words "pack your bags and hit the bricks" were how you so quaintly requested my departure. Also, and I quote, "just quit and go away." I do not believe there was any other way to read those words. I can't go though, too little time and so much to add to the discussions. Besides, being here is educational, entertaining and assists in keeping my mind agile. There is also the fleeting satisfaction of knowing that certain people are sometimes uncomfortable with my responses.
As for further counsel, observations, witticisms, etc. just keep reading the various threads to which I post a response.
I should have kept my earlier responses shorter. Boiled down I said, "One should ride for the brand." If you can't do that, you are a thief. That's what I was raised to believe. And, I've not seen evidence to make me change my belief.

 

[plugugly]

I have to re-join this discussion to say that I agree with both aldercake and warren. Warren's point that you do as the boss man says - is valid. Aldercake's point that people can (politically) control what the boss man (or anyone else) tells them to do is also valid. My point is that, because generally American law tells you what you CANNOT do as opposed to what you can; that technology is giving employers - and others- the ability to do tons of new things to all of us all the darn time and, Poof!, bit by bit, there goes your liberty. I don't like it - and there ought to be a law against it!
Plugugly

 

[pipesmokingtom]

Seems moot, since this has to do with the pricing of an insurance product. Smoke, it costs 99 dollars more. Don't smoke, it costs 99 dollars less.
Crash your car or get DUIs a bunch, your car insurance will be more expensive, too. Higher risk people pay more for insurance.
No one is being repressed here.

 

[andrew]

Perhaps I’ll tell them I smoke a pipe for spiritual reasons as did my Choctaw ancestors and tell them I am offended that I am subjugated to this offensive invasion of my privacy. I’m sure if I do then they will just not give me an option to gain the $99 credit at all.

You could actually do this and sue them, as most native american rituals involve smoking the peace pipe, filled with tobacco.

 

[pipesmokingtom]

No, he couldn't. No one is forcing him to not smoke. They are charging him different rates for insurance based on being a tobacco user, which is perfectly legal, and fiscally prudent.

 

[aldecaker]

@pipesmokingtom- This type of discussion has come up before. What shook out of it is two basic opinions- penalizing me for risky behavior and giving the next guy a pass is discrimination, or giving the next guy a pass is not discrimination.

 

[jefff]

I once had an employee who was 5'5" and weighed 390 lbs. His insurance came at a much higher premium. The company I worked for made him pay the difference.
For what that is worth.

 

[conlejm]

Hakchuma my employer (a health insurance company) has the same health program in place. Like your employer, they don't penalize "bad" behavior; rather they reward "good" behavior. If you don't smoke or are in a cessation program, you get $X in medical credits. If your BMI is below 30 (or you are in a weight management program) you get more credits. If your blood pressure is below some threshold (or under a physician's care for HBP) you get even more credits. And if you get an annual flu shot, you get more credits still.
I don't have a problem with this method of medical underwriting; using a carrot and not a stick to induce healthy behaviors. Technically I am not paying any more for smoking; I am just not paying any less. If they decide to charge me more for smoking (as does the ACA), I would weigh the additional cost versus my enjoyment of the pastime. I understand that smoking is a voluntary unhealthy hobby that across a broad population will over time result in dramatically higher health costs. So does aging, which is an involuntary pastime, and insurance companies charge more the older you get.
My employer will also pay some portion of a gym membership, but I do not go to a gym as I have one in my home. However I don't feel like I am losing out for not going to a gym.

 

[pipesmokingtom]

This type of discussion has come up before. What shook out of it is two basic opinions- penalizing me for risky behavior and giving the next guy a pass is discrimination, or giving the next guy a pass is not discrimination.

Except with insurance, it's a risk-sharing pool. We all put our money in so there is enough to pay when claims happen so the stricken party doesn't have to pay the whole thing.
OP is factually more likely to draw from the money pool as a smoker, so he is required to pay more in to it. I realize that smoking a pipe isn't the same as smoking cigarettes, but there is no efficient way for an insurance company to differentiate, and doing so would end up costing more than it would be worth. Even as "just a pipe smoker" the risk goes up, anyway.
I'm not clear on how there could be a different opinion that doesn't just boil down to "well, it's just not fair." It is fair.

 

[warren]

Aldecaker: You may wish to pass over this response. Early apologies if it gets your dander up again.
I wonder if the OP has the option to renegotiate his terms of employment and purchase his own insurance? Thus freeing the employer from that cost. Ideally the employee might also persuade the employer to pay him what the company spends on his insurance as a raise in pay. That would seem to solve the conflict.
Or, the OP could elect to become self-employed and not be under anyone's rules except his own and the various governments rules. Then there would only be the loyalty to the selected customer with no owing of any fidelity to an employer who pays you a salary and sets certain conditions in return for such wages. This way the OP would be free of any employer conditions and free to make as much money as abilities permit, purchase only the insurance desired (within the confines of the current laws), handle all of the various taxes, work as many or as few hours as wanted, etc. This was my solution when I tired of working for others and chafed at the rules.

 

[newbroom]

These constant employee tests reek of control, distrust, and intimidation.

Health insurance is supposed to be to offset medical expenses.

In fact,insurance drives medical expenses, imho, more than any other of its functions, and becomes the arbiter of and impediment to interaction between medical providers and consumers.

A facilitator provides a valuable service for justifiable compensation.

A middle man may start as a facilitator, but in the case of private insurance companies, they become the commodity rather than the service and control both the Medical Profession AND the consumer.

Medical science may be able to prolong life, but is it worth it?

 

[warren]

For me? On balance, I would say yes.

 

[plugugly]

Newbroom, over the past several years, insurance has been a big topic of national debate. Think-tank experts, journalists, talk show hosts and politicians of all stripes really have gone on - and on - on the subject. And in all that verbiage, I've never seen such a concise rendering of the power relationship involved in the health insurance contract as I see in your post. You add great clarity to the debate sir!
Plugugly