Calvin Coolidge - What a guy !!
Hey Folks -
The Dispatch has a long editorial history of opposing the "Nanny-State." They don't like the government "intruding" into “private” matters. They resent such things as the government increasing the minimum wage or requiring sick leave days for workers. Decisions on matters purported to helping the people are best left to business.
To that end, however, they have lately shown support for what might be called "Nanny-Capitalism." Business, it seems, can help the people by coercing, punishing, or even firing workers who - the employer believes - are not healthy or might become less than healthy. Business could make greater profit if none of their workers ever got sick; so, for the good of the worker, companies are refusing to hire smokers, firing current employees who won’t quit smoking, checking for nicotine via enforced urine testing, and – apparently – looking for the next, new group of workers to “help.”
This is all with the blessings of the Dispatch. The paper has previously editorialized in favor of the Scotts company which first instituted the no-smoking, “help-the-worker” program. In their Nov. 11 editorial they go further, praising companies that penalize workers whose spouses smoke. Moreover, they write:
“Smokers aren't the only people who will be targeted. Policies that provide incentives and disincentives for certain behaviors will become more prevalent as health-care costs continue to rise. People who are overweight, for example, might have to pay more for insurance than people who are not, because obesity and poor health go hand in hand.”
The editorial justifies it this way:
“Because health-care costs are so painful, some companies are adopting drastic measures in an attempt to reduce expenses. One of the latest is refusing to employ smokers.
That might seem harsh, because smoking is legal, but it makes economic sense.”
Although not mentioned in the editorial, handicapped workers, elderly workers, workers with “pre-existing conditions,” workers who develop “conditions,” women of child-bearing age, and others can increase medical expenses too. Getting rid of these workers might seem harsh, but it makes economic sense.
Yes, and as with the Scotts’ program, those who refuse to starve themselves, heal their disability, rejuvenate themselves, cure their “condition,” avoid “conditions,” or have their tubes tied can – and should - be fired.
So, that’s what we can look forward to: economic sense.
Instead of incompetent government screwing things up trying to “help” people, business will be set free to dispense its grace upon us.
It makes economic sense.
I have only one question.
We live – we are told – in a “democracy,” and the government, for all its incompetence, was elected by the people.
Who elected business?
Even so, I guess it's true, as good ol' Calvin Coolidge said, "What's good for the Dispatch is good for America."
- Uke Man
The Dispatch editorial:
Smokers need not apply
Companies can't be blamed for trying to make health-care plans affordable
Saturday, November 10
Because health-care costs are so painful, some companies are adopting drastic measures in an attempt to reduce expenses. One of the latest is refusing to employ smokers.
That might seem harsh, because smoking is legal, but it makes economic sense. It's a sign of the times that companies are looking under every rock for ways to stretch their health-care dollars.
Smokers cost employers more than nonsmokers do. Smokers take more sick days. They have higher medical bills. Companies' bottom lines would be a lot healthier without them.
Other companies have instituted fees for employees who smoke or even for those whose spouses smoke. Some aren't just taking their workers' word for it; they are testing their workers for nicotine, just as they can do for illegal drugs and alcohol.
Smokers aren't the only people who will be targeted. Policies that provide incentives and disincentives for certain behaviors will become more prevalent as health-care costs continue to rise. People who are overweight, for example, might have to pay more for insurance than people who are not, because obesity and poor health go hand in hand. Similarly, people who are in good health might be offered free or reduced-cost medical benefits.
Everyone knows that smoking is bad. And many smokers want to quit. But many people will not change their ways until it hits them hard in the wallet. The carrot-and-stick approach will be good for them as well as their employers.
If incentives are successful in pushing people in the right direction, everyone's health-care costs will go down.
The Dispatch has a long editorial history of opposing the "Nanny-State." They don't like the government "intruding" into “private” matters. They resent such things as the government increasing the minimum wage or requiring sick leave days for workers. Decisions on matters purported to helping the people are best left to business.
To that end, however, they have lately shown support for what might be called "Nanny-Capitalism." Business, it seems, can help the people by coercing, punishing, or even firing workers who - the employer believes - are not healthy or might become less than healthy. Business could make greater profit if none of their workers ever got sick; so, for the good of the worker, companies are refusing to hire smokers, firing current employees who won’t quit smoking, checking for nicotine via enforced urine testing, and – apparently – looking for the next, new group of workers to “help.”
This is all with the blessings of the Dispatch. The paper has previously editorialized in favor of the Scotts company which first instituted the no-smoking, “help-the-worker” program. In their Nov. 11 editorial they go further, praising companies that penalize workers whose spouses smoke. Moreover, they write:
“Smokers aren't the only people who will be targeted. Policies that provide incentives and disincentives for certain behaviors will become more prevalent as health-care costs continue to rise. People who are overweight, for example, might have to pay more for insurance than people who are not, because obesity and poor health go hand in hand.”
The editorial justifies it this way:
“Because health-care costs are so painful, some companies are adopting drastic measures in an attempt to reduce expenses. One of the latest is refusing to employ smokers.
That might seem harsh, because smoking is legal, but it makes economic sense.”
Although not mentioned in the editorial, handicapped workers, elderly workers, workers with “pre-existing conditions,” workers who develop “conditions,” women of child-bearing age, and others can increase medical expenses too. Getting rid of these workers might seem harsh, but it makes economic sense.
Yes, and as with the Scotts’ program, those who refuse to starve themselves, heal their disability, rejuvenate themselves, cure their “condition,” avoid “conditions,” or have their tubes tied can – and should - be fired.
So, that’s what we can look forward to: economic sense.
Instead of incompetent government screwing things up trying to “help” people, business will be set free to dispense its grace upon us.
It makes economic sense.
I have only one question.
We live – we are told – in a “democracy,” and the government, for all its incompetence, was elected by the people.
Who elected business?
Even so, I guess it's true, as good ol' Calvin Coolidge said, "What's good for the Dispatch is good for America."
- Uke Man
The Dispatch editorial:
Smokers need not apply
Companies can't be blamed for trying to make health-care plans affordable
Saturday, November 10
Because health-care costs are so painful, some companies are adopting drastic measures in an attempt to reduce expenses. One of the latest is refusing to employ smokers.
That might seem harsh, because smoking is legal, but it makes economic sense. It's a sign of the times that companies are looking under every rock for ways to stretch their health-care dollars.
Smokers cost employers more than nonsmokers do. Smokers take more sick days. They have higher medical bills. Companies' bottom lines would be a lot healthier without them.
Other companies have instituted fees for employees who smoke or even for those whose spouses smoke. Some aren't just taking their workers' word for it; they are testing their workers for nicotine, just as they can do for illegal drugs and alcohol.
Smokers aren't the only people who will be targeted. Policies that provide incentives and disincentives for certain behaviors will become more prevalent as health-care costs continue to rise. People who are overweight, for example, might have to pay more for insurance than people who are not, because obesity and poor health go hand in hand. Similarly, people who are in good health might be offered free or reduced-cost medical benefits.
Everyone knows that smoking is bad. And many smokers want to quit. But many people will not change their ways until it hits them hard in the wallet. The carrot-and-stick approach will be good for them as well as their employers.
If incentives are successful in pushing people in the right direction, everyone's health-care costs will go down.
1 Comments:
Hi Tom,
I HATE the Dispatch and I HATE the businesses who want to destroy people. They call this a free country. hahahahahah Sondra
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home