Via Romenesko a blog posting at the Sun-Sentinel :
I don’t smoke, and neither does my wife or 22-month-old daughter, but I was completely shocked when I got the letter yesterday from Tribune Company (corporate parent of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel) outlining the changes to our 2008 health plans:
“Tobacco use fee – Tribune employees who use tobacco products (or have covered dependents who do so), will pay a $100 per month fee (per family) in addition to their medical premium. Smoking cessation programs will be offered to assist those who use tobacco in leading a smoke-free lifestyle. The fee will be waived upon completion of the program.”
Naturally, this makes me wonder what other unhealthy sins will be surcharged in coming years. Will there be fees for alcohol use? Eating fast food? Having high cholesterol? Not adhering to proper weight/body mass guidelines?
The other thing that gets me is that there’s no reward for not being a smoker. If the company imposed a surcharge on smokers and then gave a proportionate break to all the non-smokers I could maybe be a little more positive about the whole thing.
That Sun-Sentinel blog posting contains over 20 comments. Here are a few of them :
1. :
Smoking is NOT the same thing as drinking, drinking in moderation can even have some health benefits. No smoking at any amount has any health benefits and even the relatively low levels of second hand smoke have been shown to have very negative effects. There is no reason at all for any person in the world to think otherwise, they put the surgeon generals warning on cigarettes when I was in the first grade fourty some years ago.
I think smokers in general are rude and think it is their right to polute my air, the smoking areas for most buildings are right at the front door, where I have to pass thru going in and out of the building. The elevator Stinks when they return from outside, especially in a crowd. And most are litterbugs, dropping the butts on the ground where they will remain for years for everyone else to enjoy. About time they paid to play.
2. :
How about kissing ass on the job? It can lead to a lot of mental strain, but can be good for your job future. What to do?
3. :
I am an overweight Tribune employee who has wasted endless time and money on "weight management" programs over the years and it is clear, my body wants no part of it; the end result is always, the 10 pounds lost over six arduous months comes back as 20 new pounds in six painful weeks. I quit smoking cold turkey long ago - that is a clearcut 'you can do it, or not do it' thing. If they decide to start charging extra for those of us who are overweight, I for one will raise holy hell.
I have probably saved the company a ton of money over the years because I am extremely healthy (counter to the public perception of overweight-ness), never go to the doctor, take one sick day at the most a year (the usual bad cold) ... I also am parent to an extremely healthy -- but overweight, it's in the genes -- child. If they decide in a year or two to surcharge for weight, I want that to apply to the underweight as well as the overweight.
4. :
Alcohol,ETOH,BOOZE!, is directly responsible for more than 50% of ALL hospital admissions. Be it accidents, violence, liver disease etc. etc. But you see, it's "cool" to drink, it's ok to drink, have a bud while you watch the game. Drop your panties if you've had too much to drink, blame it on the booze, not that your a slut. Slap your wife or kids around, blame it on the booze.
Give me a bleeding break. The amount of money spent by hospitals on "indigents" who are drunks , or for that matter private citizens on booze and the health problems caused by booze is crazy. Yet because it's now "PC" to tell a private citizen they can't or "shouldn't" smoke is hypocritical. You should fine the booze companies first, then the cig companies second.
Then after that is done we can talk about raising the already high private insurance premiums for smokers. Problem is, the booze companies and cig companies have all the politicians in their pockets, while regular people just keep getting screwed.
5. :
Great idea! They should charge $100/month for folks who don't floss too!
6. :
Gannett, publisher of USA Today and many other papers, did the same thing a couple of years ago. I think it is more indicative of the withering health of the newspaper industry than anything else. Rather than give discounts for healthy lifestyle choices they gouge people who don't adapt. I just hope the newsroom will still spring for pizza on elections nights and of course the ever-increasing "good-bye" cakes.
7. :
I say: it is about time. Don't like it? Then go live in North Korea. That's the only country for you.
I've read several articles where companies have taken similar actions, and my question is, Is this a company trying to take away rights, or is it a company trying to protect jobs, by keeping costs medical insurance costs down. Does the company get charged more to insure smokers than non smokers? I believe very often the companies take the brunt of the objections, when its the insurance companies putting the hammer down. Maybe the company should have said we either curtail smoking by anyone under our health insurance, or we all assume the costs for those who do smoke, and oh yeah if we have to absorb those costs instead of charging everyone for the cost, were just going to fire "X" number of people.
posted by roygbiv on Oct 10, 2007 at 04:03:15 pm #