Ravenwood - 01/26/05 06:00 AM
If this is what the world is coming to, I want to go back to paying for my own health care.
Four employees of a health care company have been fired for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke cigarettes.I've always believed in right to work laws, and this company is free to discriminate and hire all non-smokers if it wants to. I would never work for such a horrible company any way, and let's face it, any company that worries about what you are doing on your own time is a horrible place to work.Weyco Inc., a health benefits administrator based in Okemos, Mich., adopted a policy Jan. 1 that allows employees to be fired if they smoke, even if the smoking happens after business hours or at home.
Company founder Howard Weyers has said the anti-smoking rule was designed to shield the firm from high health care costs. "I don't want to pay for the results of smoking," he said.
The rule led one employee to quit before the policy was adopted. Four others were fired when they balked at the smoking test.
But this is an ever increasing trend and should not be taken lightly. This is what happens when you insist on relying on employers to cover your health care.
Health care coverage is supposed to be a company provided benefit that helps employers recruit good employees. I don't mind paying for my own health care, but I am going to demand a higher salary to cover the cost. If my employer throws that in as a benefit to get me to come on board, than that's great too.
A good benefits plan is a wonderful recruiting tool. But that shouldn't give my employer the right to delve into my private life. They don't own me or my body, even if they do pay for my health insurance. Sure, today they are picking on smokers, but tomorrow it will be over-eaters. What's to stop a company from measuring your body mass index or making you step onto a scale before coming in to work? The answer is nothing, except of course market economics. You push too far, and narrow your talent pool. When you can't attract top talent, you suffer in the marketplace.
Besides, group health insurance is just that. It spreads the risk over a large group, allowing you to take advantage of the savings. I tell you what, I have zero chance of getting pregnant. So why then, do I pay for insurance that includes pregnancy benefits? Perhaps my company should fire all the fertile women, who have a high chance of having a costly pregnancy. Whats more, I'd be willing to bet that we can demonstrate that pregnant women need more time off (for doctor's visits and the like) and are much more likely to interrupt their career (or quit outright) after the baby is born. You could make the same argument for any insurance you aren't likely to need, whether it be pregnancy, substance abuse, or day care.
Smokers are a minority, so they are likely screwed on this one. Over-eaters are more protected because there are so many of us out there. You discriminate too much and there'll be nobody left to hire. But my point is that while your employer may be writing the check to your insurance company, you are the one paying the bill. You are just accepting a lower salary in exchange for those group benefits. Perhaps it's time to change all that. Maybe instead of having your employer (or God help us, the government) provide your health care, we should simply demand more money to cover the costs ourselves. (Independent contractors already do this.)
The only downside is that personal responsibility is becoming rare and people are likely to just blow the money and go without insurance. Maybe a voucher system would be better, whereby companies provide you with a list of preferred health care vendors and a monthly voucher.
Remember, this doesn't stop with smoking and even eating. What about those motorcycle riders? That looks both scary and dangerous. Then there is skydiving, or mountain climbing. Both are risky activities and make you more likely to cash in your company life insurance policy. When companies start using such a weak justification to control your private life, there is no end in sight.
I'll repeat something I first said back in October 2002. Under the guise of decreasing insurance premiums, here are some other regulations they should impose:
No skydiving, water-skiing, motorcycling, hang gliding, or bungee jumping.Anyone caught participating in the listed activities should be fired on the spot.
No reading or watching TV in the dark.
No going to loud rock concerts.
No running with scissors.
No burning candles after 9 PM.
Employee's homes must be properly equipped with bath mats.
No electrical outlets without a safety cover.
Employees must always use the handrail on the stairs.
Employees must wash hands, regardless of whether or not they are returning to work.
No frayed extension cords.
No answering the door without knowing who it is.
No talking to strangers
Related articles:
All your vices are belong to us-- 01/08/2004
The Unprotected Minority -- 08/19/2003
Pleasure Police, literally -- 10/22/2002
Category: Pleasure Police
Comments (7) top link me
Health insurance denials are all too common for motorcyclists, who have been pigeon-holed as a "high risk" group by the insurance industry.
There is progress being made.
Note: Said progress is only because riders have organized themselves and fought back.
Posted by: Steve Scudder at January 26, 2005 11:55 AMThe only downside is that personal responsibility is becoming rare and people are likely to just blow the money and go without insurance.
Too true. My son (22 months old) got his finger caught in a door at daycare on Monday. These things happen. We were at the emergency room of two different hospitals for over 11 hours before he could get the surgery he needed to reattach the portion of his finger that was cut off. We were sent to the second hospital, a very prestigious childrens hospital in Dallas, since that was where the neccesary suregon was. Simple, no?
Two BIG problems. First, we couldn't take our own vehicle (which would have gotten us to the second hospital a hour or so earlier) without ending up at the back of the 6 hour backlog of 'emergeny' patients waiting for care. We had to wait on an ambulance to get through 40 miles of Dallas traffic and then 40 miles back to the second hospital.
Second, the aforementioned backlog. These were not all ture emergency cases (some were, which is not the problem), but mostly sniffles, sneezes, and sore throats-- NOT emergency situations, but these children's parents bring them to the ER anyway to get 'free' care. This takes vital resources away from true emergency cases and only hurts the people the ER is there to help.
What does this have to do with the quote above? The state of Texas makes health insurance available to all children in Texas with costs depending on income. At 200% of the federal poverty level, insurance is 25 dollars per month with office copays of 10 dollars-- make an actual appointment at a real doctor's office. Few people take advantage of this service, however, since there is cash involved out of their pockets. They contribute to the problem by defraying their healtcare costs to paying customers which only componds the problem.
If we can't expect people to do this simple thing, pay this small amount of money, how can we get them to spend their own money on insurance?
That isn't my problem. This is an available service that they choose to not take part in, but their choice not only affects their children, but mine as well. It affects all of us in the form of higher healtcare costs and delays of vital emergency services.
We can debate the need to provide healthcare for the indigent and the payment structure for everybody ad nauseum, but we must reframe the debate first. We must understand that most people do not see their healtcare (and that of their families) as their responsibility...the problem will not be solved untill that is changed.
Posted by: MMW at January 26, 2005 12:45 PMMMW makes an excellent point in that last paragraph...people see the providing of healthcare coverage as something that should be done by someone else. This is (IMO) the result of a couple of factors: one is the fact that the tax laws favor employer provided insurance. You, as an employee, do not pay taxes on the value of any insurance coverage you might receive from your employer. If your employer instead just paid you more and let you get your own insurance, you would be taxed on the increased salary. Also, IIRC, healthcare costs are deductable for employers.
The other problem is that the Collectivoleftists have by and large succeeded in defining, in the public mind, healthcare as a right, rather than what it really is, an economic good. Medicine is a good, medical care is a service. Both must be provided by somebody, somebody who must be paid in order for one to receive the goods and/or services.
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian at January 26, 2005 1:24 PMJust some (vague) background. I believe the whole employer-pays-for-health-insurance idea started just after World War 2. The IRS was already getting into the business of defining policy even back then. They wanted to do something about to sort-of minimize the effect of the income tax without, like, lowering taxes.
They put in the rules that exempted health benefits from taxation as income, and that started the whole deal of employers' provision of coverage.
Until a much greater number of citizens are paying for their own health insurance, the ideas described above will be tried by companies that buy their plans for large groups. Of course, they want to keep their premium expenses down. It seems there would be a way to make co-payments, or some type of employee cost, change depending on the employees' habits - those described above.
When individuals pay, you also see that they take it easy on the trips to the emergency room for stomach aches and that kind of crap.
Me, I've been on the Don't-Get-Sick plan for quite a while. Works pretty good, too.
Posted by: Jimmy Antley at January 26, 2005 6:31 PMActually, the "no skydiving" clause is fairly common in entertainment and high-level corporate "keyman" contracts. They are called something like "unapproved high-risk activities" and it means that the person under that contract can't do things like skydiving or racing cars or even flying private general aviation planes without corporate approval.
Posted by: Phelps at January 28, 2005 12:14 PMYou forgot "no drinking." Alcohol has the highest risk factor for injury and death.
Posted by: Kevin Baker at January 31, 2005 8:16 PMAlright Kevin, lets not demonize alcohol. What'd it ever do to you that you weren't askin' for?
Posted by: Ravenwood at January 31, 2005 9:49 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
