Nanny State: Fort Worth To Ban The Hiring Of Smokers?...

[Sunshine]

I thought Fort Worth was a city?

If a limited liability corporation were to decide not to hire smokers, you'd be jumping in to defend their rights, and I probably wouldn't give you any crap about it. Can a city government do the same? What do the taxpayers of Fort Worth think about the city trying to reduce costs?

You mean the taxpayers who must pay 75% of the person's insurance premium and underwrite the cost of medical care. Would THOSE be the taxpayers about whom you refer?

 

[inALIENable]

Smoke? Fine with me but I am not hiring you because my insurance policy says NO SMOKERS allowed on my policy.
As free market as it gets.

I always vote for freedom, even if it means the death of me. In fact, the first primary reason I own a large caliber handgun is to make it easy and convenient to END ME if and when I ever become a burden upon another. In other words, if I get lung cancer for smoking whatever, I can blow a huge hole in my head so nobody needs to wish I would. Should. Consequences makes life exciting.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Any employer should decide not to hire smokers. Smokers are pooreer workers, sloppier in their habits, and are costly to ensure.

Sometimes, Jokey, you really make it hard not to call you a ******* moron.

what's moronic about that, chica? i mean, i disagree with him, but...

as an ex-smoker, (one who still misses a cigarette and a cup of coffee in the morning), i can tell you that a) it costs more for medical insurance for smokers; b) smokers are out sick more than non-smokers; and c) smokers' have lower productivity than non-smokers because they're outside smoking all the time. now, that's largely due to an intentional effort to get them out of the work place and isolate them in the street where they have to smoke so they CAN'T work while they're smoking... but that's the reality of the situation.

there is something interesting though, in realizing under circumstances like that, edward r murrow would have been fired from his job.

California Twit is merely being twitty. Those who smoke are a sad joke, and they know it. I am not being mean. I make sure we don't hire smokers here, always have, always will.

 

[Gadawg73]

Real easy to be a liberal.
You want to do as you want at anytime and force others to pay for the consequences of it.

 

[auditor0007]

Personal antecdote here:

My father, a smoker, died two weeks ago at the age of 76 of a massive heart attack. Most likely, the cigarettes contributed to his death (although heart disease runs in his family).

Let's just say that our family took comfort in the fact that he died so quickly. He was not the type of man who wanted to live to 85 in a nursing home with a colostomy bag. That is not what he considered "living".

Is this where we're headed? Do we really want to live to be 100? Is that the government's goal? Smokers die early. Believe it or not, THEY SAVE THE GOVERNMENT MONEY!

I want to go the same way as my dad. Good grief.

First of all, my condolences. Losing someone we love is never easy.

I am not certain that smokers actually do cost us more money when it comes to healthcare, because they do die sooner. On a personal note, I quit smoking a little over eight months ago, after smoking for over 30 years. Not only did I stop smoking, but I started working out and running. I lost 12 pounds after quitting due to getting into shape. I just ran a 5K in under 24 minutes. My weight is great, I have more energy, I can breath normally, my blood pressure is now around 110/65, and my resting heart rate is down to 45.

When I decided to finally quit smoking, I did it for a number of reasons. One was that I simply was having trouble breathing. I couldn't even play a game of basketball with my boys. Do I want to live to be 85 or 100? Hell yes, if I am in good health. If I am not in good health, than I'm with you, get it over with. My biggest motivation for quitting was not wanting to spend the last ten years of my life carrying around an 8 pound canister filled with oxygen and having to have tubes stuck up my nose 24/7. That to me would be worse than dying. So I get the argument about not wanting to extend someone's life just for the sake of extending it, but when a person can have control of all their faculties and remain in relatively good health, why not live to 100?

BTW, my father turns 75 this year. He still works 40 hours per week and lives life to the fullest. He quit smoking when he was 30 and he is doing great.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Personal antecdote here:

My father, a smoker, died two weeks ago at the age of 76 of a massive heart attack. Most likely, the cigarettes contributed to his death (although heart disease runs in his family).

Let's just say that our family took comfort in the fact that he died so quickly. He was not the type of man who wanted to live to 85 in a nursing home with a colostomy bag. That is not what he considered "living".

Is this where we're headed? Do we really want to live to be 100? Is that the government's goal? Smokers die early. Believe it or not, THEY SAVE THE GOVERNMENT MONEY!

I want to go the same way as my dad. Good grief.

First of all, my condolences. Losing someone we love is never easy.

I am not certain that smokers actually do cost us more money when it comes to healthcare, because they do die sooner. On a personal note, I quit smoking a little over eight months ago, after smoking for over 30 years. Not only did I stop smoking, but I started working out and running. I lost 12 pounds after quitting due to getting into shape. I just ran a 5K in under 24 minutes. My weight is great, I have more energy, I can breath normally, my blood pressure is now around 110/65, and my resting heart rate is down to 45.

When I decided to finally quit smoking, I did it for a number of reasons. One was that I simply was having trouble breathing. I couldn't even play a game of basketball with my boys. Do I want to live to be 85 or 100? Hell yes, if I am in good health. If I am not in good health, than I'm with you, get it over with. My biggest motivation for quitting was not wanting to spend the last ten years of my life carrying around an 8 pound canister filled with oxygen and having to have tubes stuck up my nose 24/7. That to me would be worse than dying. So I get the argument about not wanting to extend someone's life just for the sake of extending it, but when a person can have control of all their faculties and remain in relatively good health, why not live to 100?

BTW, my father turns 75 this year. He still works 40 hours per week and lives life to the fullest. He quit smoking when he was 30 and he is doing great.

Glad to hear you are enjoying life more fully, and your dad, too.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Real easy to be a liberal.
You want to do as you want at anytime and force others to pay for the consequences of it.

Non sequitur.

 

[chanel]

Personal antecdote here:

My father, a smoker, died two weeks ago at the age of 76 of a massive heart attack. Most likely, the cigarettes contributed to his death (although heart disease runs in his family).

Let's just say that our family took comfort in the fact that he died so quickly. He was not the type of man who wanted to live to 85 in a nursing home with a colostomy bag. That is not what he considered "living".

Is this where we're headed? Do we really want to live to be 100? Is that the government's goal? Smokers die early. Believe it or not, THEY SAVE THE GOVERNMENT MONEY!

I want to go the same way as my dad. Good grief.

First of all, my condolences. Losing someone we love is never easy.

I am not certain that smokers actually do cost us more money when it comes to healthcare, because they do die sooner. On a personal note, I quit smoking a little over eight months ago, after smoking for over 30 years. Not only did I stop smoking, but I started working out and running. I lost 12 pounds after quitting due to getting into shape. I just ran a 5K in under 24 minutes. My weight is great, I have more energy, I can breath normally, my blood pressure is now around 110/65, and my resting heart rate is down to 45.

When I decided to finally quit smoking, I did it for a number of reasons. One was that I simply was having trouble breathing. I couldn't even play a game of basketball with my boys. Do I want to live to be 85 or 100? Hell yes, if I am in good health. If I am not in good health, than I'm with you, get it over with. My biggest motivation for quitting was not wanting to spend the last ten years of my life carrying around an 8 pound canister filled with oxygen and having to have tubes stuck up my nose 24/7. That to me would be worse than dying. So I get the argument about not wanting to extend someone's life just for the sake of extending it, but when a person can have control of all their faculties and remain in relatively good health, why not live to 100?

BTW, my father turns 75 this year. He still works 40 hours per week and lives life to the fullest. He quit smoking when he was 30 and he is doing great.

Thank you. And hopefully my mother will do the same.

But that will be her choice; like yours. My father was different. He spent his golden years traveling, golfing, and gambling. At 85, I don't think those would be an option. My mother in law is 86 and can no longer drive or keep down food. It's nice that we still have her around to visit, but she is terribly depressed.

To each his own; and that should not be the government's responsibility.

The government does have the right to prevent others from second hand smoke. They have no right to control it first hand - unless they just want to outlaw it period. But then they couldn't get the tax money. They can't have it both ways.

 

[Sunshine]

Personal antecdote here:

My father, a smoker, died two weeks ago at the age of 76 of a massive heart attack. Most likely, the cigarettes contributed to his death (although heart disease runs in his family).

Let's just say that our family took comfort in the fact that he died so quickly. He was not the type of man who wanted to live to 85 in a nursing home with a colostomy bag. That is not what he considered "living".

Is this where we're headed? Do we really want to live to be 100? Is that the government's goal? Smokers die early. Believe it or not, THEY SAVE THE GOVERNMENT MONEY!

I want to go the same way as my dad. Good grief.

Actually, there is a Vanderbilt study that shows smokers cost less in the long run than non smokers. Few live to be 76, though, as most die in their 50s. I don't think I have a smoker over 65 in my patient population. However, I will add that a person's employer provided insurance would not be paying for anything beyond retirement, so end of life care is moot. Nursing home is moot anyway because long term care is a separate option in cafeteria plans. Lung cancer, however, would not be moot. My husband died of cancer , but not lung cancer. His was still smoking related. He was 38, employed, and his employer provided health care paid out big bucks. He didn't live long enough to lose the insurance as would have happened if he had been diagnosed sooner. So smoking IS relevant to the employee/employer health care scene for the 40 - 50 year old crowd.

 

[Sunshine]

Personal antecdote here:

My father, a smoker, died two weeks ago at the age of 76 of a massive heart attack. Most likely, the cigarettes contributed to his death (although heart disease runs in his family).

Let's just say that our family took comfort in the fact that he died so quickly. He was not the type of man who wanted to live to 85 in a nursing home with a colostomy bag. That is not what he considered "living".

Is this where we're headed? Do we really want to live to be 100? Is that the government's goal? Smokers die early. Believe it or not, THEY SAVE THE GOVERNMENT MONEY!

I want to go the same way as my dad. Good grief.

First of all, my condolences. Losing someone we love is never easy.

I am not certain that smokers actually do cost us more money when it comes to healthcare, because they do die sooner. On a personal note, I quit smoking a little over eight months ago, after smoking for over 30 years. Not only did I stop smoking, but I started working out and running. I lost 12 pounds after quitting due to getting into shape. I just ran a 5K in under 24 minutes. My weight is great, I have more energy, I can breath normally, my blood pressure is now around 110/65, and my resting heart rate is down to 45.

When I decided to finally quit smoking, I did it for a number of reasons. One was that I simply was having trouble breathing. I couldn't even play a game of basketball with my boys. Do I want to live to be 85 or 100? Hell yes, if I am in good health. If I am not in good health, than I'm with you, get it over with. My biggest motivation for quitting was not wanting to spend the last ten years of my life carrying around an 8 pound canister filled with oxygen and having to have tubes stuck up my nose 24/7. That to me would be worse than dying. So I get the argument about not wanting to extend someone's life just for the sake of extending it, but when a person can have control of all their faculties and remain in relatively good health, why not live to 100?

BTW, my father turns 75 this year. He still works 40 hours per week and lives life to the fullest. He quit smoking when he was 30 and he is doing great.

Thank you. And hopefully my mother will do the same.

But that will be her choice; like yours. My father was different. He spent his golden years traveling, golfing, and gambling. At 85, I don't think those would be an option. My mother in law is 86 and can no longer drive or keep down food. It's nice that we still have her around to visit, but she is terribly depressed.

To each his own; and that should not be the government's responsibility.

The government does have the right to prevent others from second hand smoke. They have no right to control it first hand - unless they just want to outlaw it period. But then they couldn't get the tax money. They can't have it both ways.

Insurance is not generally employer provided beyond retirement age. Some work for the government long enough to keep it as secondary to Medicare when they retire, but it doesn't cover long term care. Old age is a moot point in a discussion about an employer hiring non smokers.

 

[paulitician]

So many Goose Steppers these days. And that really is very sad. Corporations and Government are clearly over-stepping and encroaching into Citizens' personal lives more than ever before. I'll never understand why so many dutifully defend them. So how much more will the People take? I guess we'll see.

 

[Douger]

Nazi empire.....falling empire...=M-pyre.
Be patient. It'll pass.

 

[Greenbeard]

What's really offensive is government intruding into our private lives and dictating what we can and can't do. Now we can't make an honest living for doing something perfectly legal, like smoking?

Do you work for the city of Fort Worth?

 

[Gadawg73]

So many Goose Steppers these days. And that really is very sad. Corporations and Government are clearly over-stepping and encroaching into Citizens' personal lives more than ever before. I'll never understand why so many dutifully defend them. So how much more will the People take? I guess we'll see.

If you smoke I will fire your ass.
Just accept it and get used to it.
Cry like a baby about it with your phony claims that I am "encroaching" into your life but I am the boss and I pay the salaries.
That is the problem with Americans today. They want to do their own thing and have someone else be responsible for the consequences.

NO CRY BABIES.

 

[inALIENable]

If you smoke I will fire your ass.

Good! I smoke, but I'll be the first to step forward to support your right to hire or fire whomever you please and for whatever reason(s) you can dream up.

 

[saveliberty]

My experience finds hiring an ass is asking for trouble.

 

[Gadawg73]

My experience finds hiring an ass is asking for trouble.

Correction: The ass IS doing the hiring!

 

[saveliberty]

My experience finds hiring an ass is asking for trouble.

Correction: The ass IS doing the hiring!

If I'm the boss, I got a few folks who will agree with you.

 

[BlindBoo]

Personal antecdote here:

My father, a smoker, died two weeks ago at the age of 76 of a massive heart attack. Most likely, the cigarettes contributed to his death (although heart disease runs in his family).

Let's just say that our family took comfort in the fact that he died so quickly. He was not the type of man who wanted to live to 85 in a nursing home with a colostomy bag. That is not what he considered "living".

Is this where we're headed? Do we really want to live to be 100? Is that the government's goal? Smokers die early. Believe it or not, THEY SAVE THE GOVERNMENT MONEY!

I want to go the same way as my dad. Good grief.

Actually, there is a Vanderbilt study that shows smokers cost less in the long run than non smokers. Few live to be 76, though, as most die in their 50s. I don't think I have a smoker over 65 in my patient population. However, I will add that a person's employer provided insurance would not be paying for anything beyond retirement, so end of life care is moot. Nursing home is moot anyway because long term care is a separate option in cafeteria plans. Lung cancer, however, would not be moot. My husband died of cancer , but not lung cancer. His was still smoking related. He was 38, employed, and his employer provided health care paid out big bucks. He didn't live long enough to lose the insurance as would have happened if he had been diagnosed sooner. So smoking IS relevant to the employee/employer health care scene for the 40 - 50 year old crowd.

Holy shit. My grandfather died at the age of 81, smoked since he was 12. My father is now 79, he did take about 15 year off of smoking when he started the family but always smoked a pipe. Then switched back to cigarettes after the kids grew up. I have no plans of giving anything I smoke up. I excersise, eat right, get plenty of sleep, held the same job for 15 years. I'm gonna die someday but at least I've enjoyed the ride.

 

[catzmeow]

Many Republicans support the Big Government Nanny/Police State. There are no real differences between Socialists/Progressives & Neocons. They're both Big Government Globalists.

Actually, isn't it the right of any organization or business to have some degree of freedom in selecting employees?