Company fires all employees who smoke!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ming
Since gays as a group also have a higher health risk, then you are agreeing that like smokers... companies have the right to fire them too just because they fall into a higher risk category... We are talking about COST, not choice... so your whole lame choice rationalization doesn't hold true...

smoking = action
gay = not action

Learn to differenciate. It's fine to discriminate based on someone's actions, it's not okay to discriminate based on how they were born.

I realize they're both conveniently lumped as "high risk", but that's not the point. All smokers are high risk, not all gays are high risk -- which is the ponit.

[Japher]

Having sex with ppl of the same sex = action

[rah]

Those are special cases and I don't really have much issue with those. A Ship captain sinks his ship, I think a drug test might be in order.

And if I went to a company and they said we don't hire smokers, I wouldn't have as much problem with that. It would annoy me but that's about it and I would seek employment elsewhere. Or if the banned smoking on site and required new employees never to smoke anywhere. It's changing the rules for current employees that I have the problem with. (since it targeted a specific group of people)

[Asher]

Originally posted by Japher
Having sex with ppl of the same sex = action

An action that is not high risk.

It is high risk to be sexually promiscuous.

Not all gays are promiscuous, but all smokers smoke.

It's a failed analogy from the start.

[Japher]

Not all smokers die, or suffer ill effects from smoking

It's a perfect analogy

It's changing the rules for current employees that I have the problem with.

I agree with Ming

[Ming]

Originally posted by Asher
I realize they're both conveniently lumped as "high risk", but that's not the point. All smokers are high risk, not all gays are high risk -- which is the ponit.

But it is the point... you stated that if it was money issue, it was OK... and whether you want to admit it or not, gays as a group are high risk, therefore, they cost more money as well.

Not all gays get aids...
Not all smokers get cancer...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Japher
Not all smokers die, or suffer ill effects from smoking

It's a perfect analogy

No, it's not the point that they all get sick, it's that they're all high risk from their intentional action.

There is no inherent high risk in being gay, period.

There is inherent high risk in being sexually promicuous, gay or straight.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ming
But it is the point... you stated that if it was money issue, it was OK... and whether you want to admit it or not, gays as a group are high risk, therefore, they cost more money as well.

Not all gays get aids...
Not all smokers get cancer...

The problem is you're generalizing it too far to make a convenient argument.

Gays are not high risk, sexually promicuous people are high risk.

If you're going to save money that way, you shouldn't discriminate on sexual orientation, but sexual practices.

IE: Married/partnered people would cost less.

[rah]

Originally posted by Asher

All smokers are high risk

NOT ALL SMOKERS should be considered high risk


When I worked for an insurance company we did a little survey in my division. (since I had access to all those records. about 110 employees) We did the survey because we had just seen a similar article about smoker's sick time.

Over the two years we looked at.
The smokers took considerablly less sick days on average than any other group. Black females took the most sick time. They also took the most medical leave. So I guess we should have just fired all the black females. But in all fairness we should have given them access to extensive surgery to become white males in two years.

[Asher]

The analogy would be Sexually Promiscuous vs Smokers, or Gays vs Weak-willed Addicts.

Take your pick.

The former is discrimination based on intentional actions carrying high risk, the latter is an over-arching generalization based on somebody's character.

[Asher]

Originally posted by rah
NOT ALL SMOKERS should be considered high risk

Smoker = putting tar in your lungs = bad = high-risk.

Whether or not they take more sick days in the short term means nothing -- the expensive part is when they are bed-ridden with lung cancer like my grandma on my dad's side, or emphysema like my grandmother on my mom's side.

Either way, it's frickin' expensive and certainly high-risk.

[Asher]

By the way, Ming, gays don't cost any more per-person than straight people, so there goes that argument.

http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Work_Life/Get_Informed2/The_Issues/Cost/Cost.htm

In February 1999, Sally Fox, Seattle's benefits and safety director, told The Associated Press, "After nine years of doing this, I'm here to tell you it's one of the best things we did. Our health costs increased in proportion to the people we were covering, but their costs were the same as everyone else's."

While HIV infection is higher, so is the trend of higher standards of fitness and hygeine. Looks like they nullify eachother.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Asher

No, it's not the point that they all get sick, it's that they're all high risk from their intentional action.

There is no inherent high risk in being gay, period.

There is inherent high risk in being sexually promicuous, gay or straight.

Again... the choice crap... you agree that it's a money issue that gives them the right.

Let's see... one more time.

As a group, gays have a higher health risk based on insurance actuarial tables - and will cost a company more money in the long run based on these statistics.
Not all gays get sick

As a group, smokers have a higher health risk based on insurance actuarial tables - and will cost a company more money in the long run based on these statistics.
Not all smokers get sick

There is NO difference.

When it comes to money, it will cost a company more money in insurance claims if they employ smokers, gays, women who are going to have children, heavy drinkers, whatever... CHOICE doesn't change anything...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ming
When it comes to money, it will cost a company more money in insurance claims if they employ smokers, gays, women in who are going to have children, heavy drinkers, whatever... CHOICE doesn't change anything...

The above link just discredited this rhetoric -- gays don't cost any more to health insurance companies than straight people.

And choice does play a role -- it is unfair to discriminate on things beyond people's control, it is fair to discriminate on based on people's actions and choices.

[Japher]

Interesting: http://www.corporateresourcecouncil....dden_Costs.pdf

This study says that the cost is 17.1% higher to insure same sex couples vs. opposite sex couples...