U-Haul

[RodnJen]

and capitalism. Is this your idea of freedom? What’s next, people who smoke meats?

https://fortune.com/2020/01/02/u-haul-bans-hiring-smokers-21-states/

 

[94Nautique]

Perfect example of capitalism. They govt is not mandating it, a private company is choosing to differentiate itself. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Rather, they are choosing to exclude a rather noxious habit from entering their workforce by their workers.

I'm about as free market as they come, this is totally cool with me.

With regard to the meat smokers, if they are found to stink and have greeeeeeezy fingers, that may be a thing to also exlcude.

Bet you'd be cool if they did not hire the folks that never wash their hands after they take a deuce, eh????

 

[Angler]

OP, Why should a company have to pay higher medical insurance for one's bad habit?

 

[RodnJen]

OP, Why should a company have to pay higher medical insurance for one's bad habit?

So you are for legislating choice, good to know.

 

[Angler]

So you are for legislating choice, good to know.

LAME as your usual responses.

Smokers cost more to insure and smokers spend lots of time smoking.. Both bad for Business.

 

[530RL]

OP, Why should a company have to pay higher medical insurance for one's bad habit?

Fair point.

Following that point, should employers be allowed to not hire those who have a high BMI as they eat too much and higher BMI is proven to have higher health costs.

Or maybe those who are not vegetarians as they have higher health costs.

Or anyone who drinks alcohol? They are proven to have higher health costs.

How about those who have a genetic disposition to cancer. Why not test for the cancer gene and deny employment to them as they have higher health costs?

 

[Angler]

Fair point.

Following that point, should employers be allowed to not hire those who have a high BMI as they eat too much and higher BMI is proven to have higher health costs.

Or maybe those who are not vegetarians as they have higher health costs.

Or anyone who drinks alcohol? They are proven to have higher health costs.

How about those who have a genetic disposition to cancer. Why not test for the cancer gene and deny employment to them as they have higher health costs?

Fat people don't raise the cost of a premium last time I had to renew..

 

[530RL]

Fat people don't raise the cost of a premium last time I had to renew..

Anyone who incurs higher health care costs on the pool ends up raising premiums for everyone else in the pool. Whether they are smokers, obese, pre-disposed to cancer or any other higher health care demand risk.

That is the fundamental concept of pooling risk, aka insurance.

 

[Angler]

So you answered you own question..

 

[530RL]

So you answered you own question..

This place truly is a giant circle.....

 

[Angler]

This place truly is a giant circle.....

Why do you think there are such high deductibles for healthcare 530?

 

[RodnJen]

Why do you think there are such high deductibles for healthcare 530?

Because insurance is prescribing care.

 

[530RL]

Why do you think there are such high deductibles for healthcare 530?

Separate issue than this thread.

But to stay on topic.

I agree with your original point which is why should those who smoke, increase the costs on the pool for those who do not.

Equally true however is that applies to tons of other conditions. I don’t care if employers are allowed to exclude smokers from employment for the reason of health care cost as you pointed out.

I’m just pointing out that once one does that, it is rational to also allow employers to exclude all types of other objectively measurable risks from employment due to increased health care costs from obesity to genetic predisposition to cancer.

And that is an interesting debate as who gets to choose?

 

[Angler]

Because insurance is prescribing care.

Wrong!
It's because all the smokers, fat people and of no fault of their own, sick people. Healthy people should pay less.

 

[Angler]

Separate issue than this thread.

But to stay on topic.

I agree with your original point which is why should those who smoke, increase the costs on the pool for those who do not.

Equally true however is that applies to tons of other conditions. I don’t care if employers are allowed to exclude smokers from employment for the reason of health care cost as you pointed out.

I’m just pointing out that once one does that, it is rational to also allow employers to exclude all types of other objectively measurable risks from employment due to increased health care costs from obesity to genetic predisposition to cancer.

And that is an interesting debate as who gets to choose?

No, that is the topic...

 

[530RL]

No, that is the topic...

Fair enough.

Insurance is the pooling of risk. You want healthy people to pay less, have a pool of healthy people.

But insurance has to renew, it is not done in perpetuity.

So once a healthy person is no longer healthy for whatever reason, they fall out of the healthy people pool and can no longer afford health care.

 

[Angler]

Fair enough.

Insurance is the pooling of risk. You want healthy people to pay less, have a pool of healthy people.

But insurance has to renew, it is not done in perpetuity.

So once a healthy person is no longer healthy for whatever reason, they fall out of the healthy people pool and can no longer afford health care.

Try to follow the thread.

 

[Angler]

Fair enough.

Insurance is the pooling of risk. You want healthy people to pay less, have a pool of healthy people.

But insurance has to renew, it is not done in perpetuity.

So once a healthy person is no longer healthy for whatever reason, they fall out of the healthy people pool and can no longer afford health care.

That's why the high deductibles.. Last I looked, there were no healthy people's pool.. LOL

 

[530RL]

Try to follow the thread.

I think I lost the plot.

Is it smokers are bad, fat people are good?

 

[530RL]

That's why the high deductibles.. Last I looked, there were no healthy people's pool.. LOL

But there is and that has been the decades old debate in health insurance.

Without young healthy people subsidizing old less healthy people in the risk pool, the rates for the old are so high that it is unaffordable.

If you want a less expensive insurance pool, actuarial you put only young people in it. Even young smokers.

This goes back to the concept of insurance and risk pooling. it also goes back to why single payer insurance, Medicare, was introduced for old people.

 

[Angler]

But there is and that has been the decades old debate in health insurance.

Without young healthy people subsidizing old less healthy people in the risk pool, the rates for the old are so high that it is unaffordable.

If you want a less expensive insurance pool, actuarial you put only young people in it. Even young smokers.

This goes back to the concept of insurance and risk pooling.

Talk about circle jerking... I live in the real world, I have employees that I pay insurance for.
I really don't know why you bring up stuff that is off topic.

 

[530RL]

Talk about circle jerking... I live in the real world, I have employees that I pay insurance for.
I really don't know why you bring up stuff that is off topic.

So why is insurance so expensive compared to the rest of the world?

 

[Angler]

So why is insurance so expensive compared to the rest of the world?

Again not on topic...

 

[530RL]

Again not on topic...

I was trying to have a rational conversation. You lost me.

What do you believe the topic is and I will answer the question directly.

 

[Angler]

Rational conversation?
You want the Government to tell us what medical procedures we can have.
I want the medical procedures as per my own medical policy. Non Government.

With you, there can never be a rational discussion about healthcare. Just sayin...

 

[530RL]

Rational conversation?
You want the Government to tell us what medical procedures we can have.
I want the medical procedures as per my own medical policy. Non Government.

With you, there can never be a rational discussion about healthcare. Just sayin...

Fair enough. No reason to agree with you. I’d just be wrong.

 

[94Nautique]

So you are for legislating choice, good to know.

where was the legislation? where was the call for the govt to intervene?

The comment was as free market as they come. Health insurance costs are mainly covered by employers, its their option to do this. Plain and simple.

Tell ya what, you should use Avis when you need to finally pull up the tent from CA and infect some other state with your liberal taint.

 

[94Nautique]

I think I lost the plot.

Is it smokers are bad, fat people are good?

You have to stop boozing long enough to think, you ignorant pretzel maker. That way you can understand you have no sense of humor, and you economic logic is probably the most twisted of all your brain injured thought.

 

[Old Texan]

and capitalism. Is this your idea of freedom? What’s next, people who smoke meats?

https://fortune.com/2020/01/02/u-haul-bans-hiring-smokers-21-states/

In case the news hasn't reached you in your small utopian world, this has been going on for years. Most if not all healthcare plans have incentives for not using tobacco and aids to quit.

UHaul is just making a business decision to help the bottom line and health of their work force in doing so. Their legal right.

 

[pronstar]

While smoking is a choice, it seems like a slippery slope to me.

Drinking booze is a choice...if insurers start dropping drinkers, this entire forum would be in trouble LOL

But seriously here’s where I’m going with this:

Eating red meat increases the risk of cancer.
You choose to eat red meat, no insurance for you.

Broke your leg in a water skiing accident?
You chose to partake in a dangerous activity, no insurance for you.

Leukemia?
You chose to live under those power lines, no insurance for you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[RodnJen]

If we could get past the name calling and finger pointing, it is easy to see it is about rights and freedom. The balancing act between the two is not so easy.

There is also a drastic difference between incentivizing “good”behavior and denying employment or insurance coverage.

 

[Old Texan]

If we could get past the name calling and finger pointing, it is easy to see it is about rights and freedom. The balancing act between the two is not so easy.

There is also a drastic difference between incentivizing “good”behavior and denying employment or insurance coverage.

So where is UHaul's right as an employer to hire who meets the criteria they have for an employee? Why must they hire someone not within their standards?

Most every job has rules and specifics required to gain employment. Not hiring tobacco users is just an other example.

No balancing act at al. It's cut and dried. You use tobacco, you don't work for UHaul. You don't use, you're considered a candidate and may get hired if you meet other criteria in the application.

What's so new that you bring this deal up?

 

[Gelcoater]

On a lighter note.

Is this your idea of freedom? What’s next, people who smoke meats?

/

I was at the OC Fair a couple of years ago.
I thought it was comical they had no smoking signs up all over the place, one was right next to a giant BBQ pit smoker the size of a pontoon boat.
Billowing Carbon and red meat cancer all over the place!
That was one of about 9 scattered around the fair.

I honestly don’t think anyone would have noticed a few cigar or cigarette smokers among it all.
It all took place a stones throw from the 55 freeway

 

[94Nautique]

While smoking is a choice, it seems like a slippery slope to me.

Drinking booze is a choice...if insurers start dropping drinkers, this entire forum would be in trouble LOL

But seriously here’s where I’m going with this:

Eating red meat increases the risk of cancer.
You choose to eat red meat, no insurance for you.

Broke your leg in a water skiing accident?
You chose to partake in a dangerous activity, no insurance for you.

Leukemia?
You chose to live under those power lines, no insurance for you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

At a certain point companies will slide down the slope (Dicks sporting goods) and will self correct due to shortage or abundance of labor with the desired set of attributes. I wouldn’t worry too much.

I do when the govt mandates stuff like that, since it’s usually non elected govt drones doing that bullshit.

 

[RodnJen]

So where is UHaul's right as an employer to hire who meets the criteria they have for an employee? Why must they hire someone not within their standards?

Most every job has rules and specifics required to gain employment. Not hiring tobacco users is just an other example.

No balancing act at al. It's cut and dried. You use tobacco, you don't work for UHaul. You don't use, you're considered a candidate and may get hired if you meet other criteria in the application.

What's so new that you bring this deal up?

Well it’s timely, relevant and it’s an election year.

 

[Kachina26]

OP, Why should a company have to pay higher medical insurance for one's bad habit?

Or genetic predisposition to disease...
My company tried to require DNA screening a couple of years before I got there. The courts shut them down. While one can choose whether or not to smoke and not their genetic predispositions, I think it's a bit of a slippery slope. I don't smoke, never have and think it's nasty as hell. But, it's legal for the time being. I'm all for banning it on/in the workplace, but what you do on your off time should be up to you.

 

[Classic Daycruiser]

LAME as your usual responses.

Smokers cost more to insure and smokers spend lots of time smoking.. Both bad for Business.

Next, companies will ban soda and fat people... It only makes sense. Right?

In some parts of the United States U-Haul will have trouble finding someone to install trailer hitches.

 

[Old Texan]

Or genetic predisposition to disease...
My company tried to require DNA screening a couple of years before I got there. The courts shut them down. While one can choose whether or not to smoke and not their genetic predispositions, I think it's a bit of a slippery slope. I don't smoke, never have and think it's nasty as hell. But, it's legal for the time being. I'm all for banning it on/in the workplace, but what you do on your off time should be up to you.

All the talk about Free Enterprise, the point I'm not hearing is one that to me is most important to the US business model success. DO NOT limit a privately owned business their rights to hire, fire, and "discriminate" on whom they hire based on their personal preference. The Big Government part I've yet to hear from up on the mount to this point, is the clear cut non-negotiable rights of private business, to not be dictated to on those rights. The direction the left prefer will bankrupt small business......

The US citizen with talents, should be able to sell those talents freely, and the business that buys them needs to have the same rights as the individual. If that individual lacks the initiative to work properly, out the door and move along. Minimum wage is the wage a person/employer work out.

 

[Old Texan]

Next, companies will ban soda and fat people... It only makes sense. Right?

In some parts of the United States U-Haul will have trouble finding someone to install trailer hitches.

C'mon.....There's an Ap for everything. 10 min hookup service anywhere in the continental US