Employers hit smokers in the wallet

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/02/16/smokers.insurance.ap/index.html

Smokers squeezed by soaring cigarette costs and workplace smoking bans are increasingly being hit with another cost increase -- this time for health insurance.

A growing number of private and public employers are requiring employees who use tobacco to pay higher premiums, hoping that will motivate more of them to stop smoking and lower health care costs for the companies and their workers.

Meijer Inc., Gannett Co., American Financial Group Inc., PepsiCo Inc. and Northwest Airlines are among the companies already charging or planning to charge smokers higher premiums. The amounts range from about $20 to $50 a month.

"With health care costs increasing by double digits in the last few years, employers are desperate to rein in costs to themselves and their employees," said Linda Cushman, senior health care strategist with Hewitt Associates, a human resources consulting and services firm.

[Wickerman]

1. This is news?

Even when I worked in Texas I worked 2 places that had that kind of provision in the health contract. And, it's reasonable. Study after study shows that smoking increases healthcare costs. And yes, I was a smoker until about 5 years ago and paid those costs.

[Gormy Cuss]

5. I used to think so too until I realized it's an encroachment on privacy.

If you never smoke at work, the only way your employer is aware of this habit is either by requiring you to sign an affidavit or by requiring you to release your medical records for this purpose. Smoking isn't much by itself, but now that we're used to it as a provision, what next? Drinking? Diet or weight? Sexual practices? Lifestyle choices? Married people live longer and in better health than singles. Should we be willing to pay more just because we're not married? Breeders cost more than nonbreeders. Should we agree to limit family size to keep down insurance costs for the company?

Just how far should we go?

[Child_Of_Isis]

10. Drinking? Diet or weight? Sexual practices? Lifestyle choices?

All of the above.

[mongo]

29. Another blue nose nanny statist

perfectly comfortable giving up control of every aspect of our lives.

[Child_Of_Isis]

33. Not only comfortable,

but most seem to agree with it.

[katty]

102. Didn't UK just pass NO SMOKING in pubs?

[BootinUp]

27. "Just how far should we go?"

Some kind of cost/benefit analysis is the only way to answer that. If smokers are costing enough to the system to justify such a policy than so be it. (Jim4Wes is a 6 month ex smoker).

[Gormy Cuss]

32. Sure. Then let's talk about other costs to health plans.

Smoking is not the only behavior where a cost/benefit analysis shows that certain employees are indulging in behaviors that increase health costs.

Kids, for one. On a cost/benefit basis there is no reasonable return by subsidizing the costs of health care for employees' families. Young kids in particular have immunizations that eat up a lot of health care dollars. Some employers have figured this out and offer health care to the employee only. But even for those who do offer dependent coverage, shouldn't the rate change based on number of children? If one employee has one child and another has four, shouldn't they have different co-pays?
After all, the number of children one has is voluntary to a large degree. Should employees be asked to refrain from breeding or adopting while they work for the employer? That way they are doing their part to keep costs down.

I think cigarette smoking is a vile habit and I wish people would stop smoking. I support employer efforts to convince employees to quit but only when the approach is a carrot, not a stick.

[mondo joe]

50. Actually, kids are the cheapest and easiest to treat.

Immunizations are a very minor expense relative to adult care.

And if you think lost productivity due to employees caring for sick kids isn't a return on investment, you might reconsider. And that's to say nothing of the employer being more competetive thanks to more appealing benefits package.

[Gormy Cuss]

127. I don't think it, but apparently some employers do.

I used kids as an example on purpose. Employees without children cost the company health plan the least.
There are a growing number of employers who don't provide dependent coverage at all or making it prohibitively expensive. This is one of the criticisms leveled at Walmart but they aren't the only employer doing this. Apparently their bean counters have decided that it saves them money, contrary to the conventional wisdom on lost productivity related to sick kids or worrying about sick kids.

Remember, I think all these punitive approaches to curtailing health plan costs are wrong.

[niallmac]

130. and heck, here in Idaho having kids is not synonomous with

giving immunizations. Our fundy neighbors don't bleev innem. I bet they will bleev in terpussis when it hits.

[NashVegas]

28. The Whole Point of "Pooling"

Is to create a mean insurance cost for all employees. That's why I think this is a scam. What's the point of creating a pool if you're going to charge some more than others?

[Tesha]

46. Perhaps because some members of the pool *CHOOSE*...

Perhaps because some members of the pool *CHOOSE*
to be much more expensive than others?

Tesha

[NashVegas]

51. That's Not the Point

There is no way of predicting precisely how and when someone will become injured or ill enough to file a claim.

Let's pretend you're a smoker. You've been doing so for 20 years, missed perhaps 8 days of work in those 20. Meanwhile, your non-smoking, vegetarian co-worker rides his bike into work everyday, regularly engages in all manner of sports where injuries can and do come into play.

If a company is going to take one person's risky behavior into consideration for insurance rates, they have to take everyone's equally risky behavior. Otherwise it is pure discrimination against someone whose habit you just plain don't like.

And the thing is, insurance pools *are there in the first place* to account for everyone's risky behavior.

[Tesha]

52. I'm okay with accounting for everyone's risks.

I'm okay with accounting for everyone's risks.

But it's almost a dead-bang (you'll forgive the phrase)
actuarial certainty that the smokers in your cohort will
suffer much more morbidy and earlier mortality than the
non-smokers.

Among everyone in the pool, they're probably the highest-
risk group aside from (perhaps) the alcoholics and the
mostly-now-protected-by-law HIV+ folks.

Tesha

[sandnsea]

90. The fatsos are just as bad

Go take any of those longevity tests. Fiddle with smoking and weight. You'll find every time that losing weight will calculate a longer life than quitting smoking. And, if you go in any ER, they'll tell you incidents related to drinking and drugs use up more of their services than any other too. Smoking is a scapegoat. I think it's to hide the real cause of cancer, vehicle and factory fumes.

[bettyellen]

120. but that is impossible without following everyone home....

people aren't going to admit to drinking much, let alone DUI.... or just driving too riskily, eating nothing but MC Donalds, etc.
People aren't very good at accurate self reporting when there's no downside for them to do so, if they know it'll cost them, they just won't even try. And the bottom line is there are some smokers who get away with it and live to be 100, and some very ligh drinkers who get chirosis of the liver, genetics and luck play a huge part too, that's why risk pooling is important. Like it or not, they couldn't have the means to do an accurate risk assesment on everyone. Let's not encourage them to try.

[fishwax]

121. yes, the pool, exactly

and one wonders where the extra premiums go ... do they really offset costs for other employees, or merely hedge the companies' bets?

[Tesha]

45. "Breeders" as you so delicately put it, *DO* pay more.

> Breeders cost more than nonbreeders.

"Breeders" as you so delicately put it, *DO* pay more.
Many companies offer a three-tiered health plan:

1. The employee
2. The employee plus one other (often, but not always, must be
a spouse or civil union partner)
3. A family

Each tier costs more.

Smoking is a poor lifestyle choice and it's really in
society's interest in discouraging smoking using every
tool available.

(And if you'd like to argue that "so's obesity!", you
probably won't get an argument from me.)

Tesha

[Gormy Cuss]

128. I used the term for effect.

to distinguish people who are still making the choice to add children from those who have already had them. I've yet to run into a corporate plan where the number of children or other dependents determines the rate of the family plan.

Yes, there are two or three tiers of plans with most employers now based on family composition. I'm old enough to remember when most plans had only two: single or married. Now the three tier system is common. What's next other than charging more based on the number of children? Currently, one child or ten, your contribution is the same. If we're talking about charging differently based on lifestyle choices, penalizing employees for adding children is to me the most over-the-top way of making the case that all these punitive health plan programs to coerce employees to behave in a certain way are wrong-headed.

I'm all for supportive efforts, like smokefree work places, on site gyms,and cafeterias with healthful food options. I just don't like the idea of employers mandating behavior away from the job unless there is a compelling reason connected to job duties.

[catabryna]

8. But, the question is...

did you believe it was reasonable when you smoked?

I am one of those still-trying-to-stop smokers, and I am glad you quit, but was your mindset the same before you put these nasty things down?

[Wickerman]

9. yeah, I knew it was unhealthy, I knew I was wasting money

and I knew my employer wasn't forcing me to smoke. I accepted responsibility for my habit and paid the piper. I wasn't happy when I had to check htat box each year, but I did it. I continued to check it for another year after I quit, since I knew that it typically takes several attempts to kick. Now, I get great satisfaction knowing I don't have to check that box.

I wish you well in your attempts - don't give up, its worth it - I feel so much better.

[LostinVA]

23. Cold turkey for me -- 11 years April 1

I knew tapering or the patch wouldn't work for me.

[TheDebbieDee]

13. If you are still trying to quit, I recommend

that you give hypnosis a try. I tried it and I haven't smoked since May 17, 2003.

Good luck!

[katty]

105. maybe the bush oil patch family can stop polluting TX air as well

I mean, it is amazing how big corporations that rape, dump and pollute EVERYWHERE in the world have been hounded to stop their bad evironmental habits...yet they keep doing biz as usual.

[Endangered Specie]

2. uh oh, another cigarrettee flamewar

[onehandle]

15. Yep. Here come the addicts.

Anything that helps kill the cigarette industry (and Republican party pocketbooks) is fine by me.

Cigarettes should be just as expensive as illegal drugs.

[High Plains]

26. They already are.

I can buy a "dime bag" of heroin in the Northeast for less than the price of a pack of cigarettes.

Of course, the state doesn't get to reap the profits off the heroin.

[jayfish]

42. What's Next? Chocolate? -NT-

Jay

[Tesha]

47. When chocolate becomes a significant factor...

> What's Next? Chocolate?

When chocolate becomes a significant factor in determining
who is using a larger share of the health-care dollars, you
bet! But right now, smoking is way higher on the list than
Hershey bars.

Tesha

[jayfish]

54. How Do You Know It's Not A Significant Factor Now?

This:

http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/faculty/pbird/keepingfit/ARTICLE/CHOC.HTM

Leads to this:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/01/30/1043804464977.html

Leads to this:

http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r021231.htm

Leads to this:

http://www.diabetesaustralia.com.au/conquest/0301-diabetes-stroke.htm

How much does this cost? :shrug: I'm not saying we should ban chocolate anytime soon though. What I am saying is that smoking, like eating chocolate, like watching tv, like drinking alcoholic beverages, like playing video games, like a million other things people do are are recreational activities and are not, physically, good for you. Should people be charged extra on their insurance premiums for participating in recreational activities? Before long your day would consist of waking-up, going to work, coming home, running on a treadmill and going to bed.

Jay

[Tesha]

55. Most people's dosage of chocolate appears to be "sub-clinical"

Most people's dosage of chocolate appears to be "sub-clinical";
you certainly can't make this claim about tobacco.

Tesha

[jayfish]

57. Most People Don't Smoke.

But that misses the point.

Jay

[Tesha]

65. And those that do commonly die of it.

I'm not sure I take the point you're trying to make.

Tesha

[jayfish]

66. The Point Is;...

where does it stop? It's a slippery slope argument.

[Tesha]

71. I don't know, but cigarettes are *FAR* from chocolate on the slope.

We should be doing everything we can to discourage everyone from smoking.
At this moment, the same is not true of eating the ordinary amounts of
chocolate that most people eat.

Tesha

[jayfish]

80. I Agree 100%

We should do everything we can short or discrimination.

Jay

[toopers]

62. I have never heard a doctor say the following,

"Smoking in moderation is ok". However, there are studies citing the health benefits of chocolate and alcohol, in moderation.

[jayfish]

64. Check This.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_096.html

Dear Cecil:

We all know smoking cigarettes can kill you, but it seems to me that, as with most vices, there's a difference between use and abuse. People who drink too much destroy their livers, but people who have one drink of red wine per day actually help their hearts. I'll gladly accept the fact that smoking several packs a day is harmful, but what about having only three cigarettes a day, one after every meal? Does it really do any harm? Is there any chance it's actually good for you? --Michael Dare, Hollywood, California

Dear Michael:

Well . . . I hesitate to mention this. But after years of research saying that smoking was the worst threat to public health since the plague, several recent studies suggest it may have at least one health benefit: it prevents or at least slows the onset of Alzheimer's disease. For obvious reasons these reports have been accompanied by a certain amount of embarrassed hemming and hawing. From a big-picture standpoint smoking is definitely bad for you, and nobody wants to give people an excuse to do more of it.

Jay

[toopers]

69. Ok, so you will remember dying from emphysema

I would rather live a "healthy" smoke free life and take my chances with Alzheimer's than smoke and die a smoker's death.

[jayfish]

70. Then Don't Smoke.

But since you've decided to not to take up smoking, should you pay more for your insurance because you may have a better chance of dying (yes you do die eventually)from Alzheimer's. BTW, I wouldn't consider Alzheimer's any more a walk in the park than cancer.

Jay

[toopers]

73. Unfortunately, I have watched family members die from both . . .

and I agree neither are a walk in the park. However, watching my Grandfather die from alzheimer's and being completely out of it was much better than watching my aunt die/waste away from cancer and emphysema, and her asking us to remove her oxygen mask so she could die quicker.

[toopers]

74. As well, it is a little early to determine that smoking

reduces the risk of alzheimer's. Plus the fact that you know if you smoke long enough it will kill you. You won't die from "not smoking".

[Exiled in America]

58. What about fat people?

Should the pay more insurance?

Should people be required to disclose other parts of their perosnal lives - what about their choice of personal recreational activity? Some are more injury-prone than others you know?

This is not about whether or not smoking is bad. This is about whether or not our privacy should be protected and about whether or not corporations should be able to have this much control over our lives.

[pitohui]

75. you would go after thin people first actually

since i am thin i am sorry to say that the evidence is that thin people are a higher risk group than fat people -- anorexics die of heart disease in their 20s and 30s, hell, i heard of a 14 yr old a couple yrs ago who died of a heart attack, an obese person at the earliest is going to develop heart disease in her 40s but more realistically in her 60s

also thin women are much more at risk for osteoporosis, i've already had to have expensive bone density scans and all that good happy crap, a fat woman doesn't have this worry for decades more

you just can't win

life itself is a 100 percent guarantee that one day you will get sick or have an accident and die!

[harpboy_ak]

135. The morbidly obese should pay more, too.

Yep, insurance should be more expensive for those that continue to engage in high risk behavior by continuing to smoke, not exercising, and not changing eating habits.

Unless they have an injury, disorder, disease, or disability that totally prevents exercise or metabolic control, the morbidly obese should pay higher premiums, with a reduction for enrollment in monitored exercise and diet programs, and for losing weight.

Smokers *should* pay higher premiums because of the much increased cost of their care. My late mother's insurance companies could have paid a lot more if my mother hadn't decided to stop eating when her cigarette-caused emphysema & heart disease required her to go on oxygen and move to a nursing home.

I don't have a problem with higher health insurance premiums for folks engaged in high risk sports or jobs as long as it can be justified actuarily.

Those that engage in high risk behavior should pay the cost, not all of us.

[gizmo1979]

104. Who pays all the taxes

collected from us smokers.10's of billions of dollars a year.Where are you going to replace that.It all works out in the end I'm sure we more than pay our own way.

[napi21]

3. I listened to an interview with the owner of thecompany who

told all his employees that they had a certain # of months to quit smoking, and if they didn't they would be fired. I think it was a Dateline interview. They asked him, after this had been effect for about 1 1/2 years now, did he see reduced health care costs? His answer was NO, but I'm still hoping.

This is yet another way to eliminate expenses for companies and push them off on the employee, wether it makes any difference or not!

[sui generis]

6. but if an employee didn't want to take the insurance

would he still have a legal basis for firing them?

Isn't that the same as requiring them to carry health insurance, and wouldn't that be a significant invasion of privacy to do so?

There is a reason he has a tiny little going-nowhere company - it's because he has tiny little vision, and he treats his employees like chattel.

[mondo joe]

40. It would more typically be a requirement of employment take the insurance.

It would typically be in the insurance vendors contract that X% of employess are covered in the plan, as well as in the employer's interest, thus it would be in the employer's policies and non-optional.

[northzax]

132. and I have issues with that, as well

what If my employer mandates insurance, but my partner's employer provides better insurance for my needs? tough call.

make no mistake about it, folks, this is what's coming, smoking is the low hanging fruit, next up is BMI.

[gizmo1979]

16. That's fine if they provide

all the quit aids for free.nicorette gum etc.I wouldn't mind it then.

[thinkingwoman]

19. the "quit aids" are just a substitution

Here, get your nicotine from this new source and pay through the nose for it.

Just quit. Seriously. It can be done. It HAS been done, quietly, by people of all ages and situations.

If you want to quit. Quit.

If you don't want to quit, then pay the higher prices and premiums and deal.

[Le Taz Hot]

22. What an absurd thing to say!

It's whatever works for the indivual. The patch DID indeed work for me and that's after smoking for 35 years. For others it will be cold turkey, gum, hypnosis or whatever other gizmo is out there to aid in your stop smoking efforts. Unless you've been a REAL addict (not just the occasional cigarette with a cocktail) you've no idea what you are talking about. I've known heroin addicts who have told me they could (and have) quit heroin but they can't quit cigarettes.

To those of you trying to quit, use whatever means you feel you need to accomplish it. It IS worth it.

[thinkingwoman]

36. right, I have no idea what I'm talking about

I watched my husband quit a 3 pack a day habit 10 years ago cold turkey, but I don't know what I'm talking about. I posted word for word the advice I've heard him give people repeatedly over the last decade, but I'm absurd. Whatever. :eyes:

[Le Taz Hot]

37. And I posted what *I* went through

and have watched others go through. Telling people "just do it" or whatever inane "advice" you gave is irresponsible, insensitive and unproductive. "Watching" your husband quit is not the same as going through it yourself and each addiction is different -- some more intense than others -- which you would KNOW if you had ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED IT YOURSELF.

Again, to those of you who are trying to quit or plan on trying to quit, use WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY to achieve that.

Now, I'm done with this idiotic pissing contest.

[thinkingwoman]

44. It was a contest of one

You're pissing in the wind.

I don't need your approval.

[gizmo1979]

78. You're awfully crabby.

For a liberal woman!I'm also a recovering alcoholic,I quit that addiction 15 years ago.You would think that would give me insight into breaking another.Ah that's where it gets complicated,every addiction is different it works on the brain in different ways alcohol for me was easy,but i have seen literally thousands of people not make it.Nicotine for me is a much deeper addiction.

[BiggJawn]

84. Yeah, maybe she's Jonesin' for a Smoke....

<giggling as he ducks>
March 18 will be 3 years smoke-free for me.

[thinkingwoman]

109. Congrats on your 3 years!!

No need to duck. I'm not a nicotine fiend.

I do have vices...just not that one. :evilgrin:

[thinkingwoman]

85. What's crabby

about not needing approval from a stranger?

I stand by my opinion, based on my life experience. Everyone else is free to stand by theirs.

[gizmo1979]

77. Just because one person does it that

way doesn't mean everyone can.What's your addiction?Everyone has one coffee,chocolate,sex.Now give that up cold turkey.See it's not as easy as it sounds.Sometimes people have an epihany and they can do miraculous things.Some of us need our epihanies handed to us in small doses.Of corse if you offered me alot of money that may be enough to straighten me out.

[thinkingwoman]

89. a lot of money?

:rofl:

That says it all.

[gizmo1979]

101. Money talks

bullshit walks.You are still a crab at least I can become a non-smoker you will always be a crab.

[thinkingwoman]

103. A crab?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Reminds me of a bumper sticker:

I may be fat but you're ugly and I can diet.

Have a nice day.

[gizmo1979]

108. you too!

See ya later.

[gizmo1979]

76. Thankyou.

I was going to ask what kind of torture the person was into.I've tried cold turkey and you don't want to be around me in that state of being.Cranky .

[ScreamingMeemie]

81. Shame on you for posting this. My husband is going on two months

without SMOKE IN HIS LUNGS thanks to a quit aid. He tried cold turkey and it didn't work. I would like him to live, whatever it takes. Good for your husband, but many CAN'T. Attitudes like this blow me away.

[thinkingwoman]

88. Shame on you

for negating my husband's life experience and trying to dictate what I get to say.

Believe in free speech much?

[ScreamingMeemie]

93. The shame on you part comes from looking down your nose at those

who can't. Like I said, good for your husband. My shame on you comment stands.

[thinkingwoman]

94. oh wow...

where did I look down on anyone?

[ScreamingMeemie]

95. Talk of substitutions. "Want to quit? Just quit." Easier said than done

for some. My husband used to smoke two packs of camel unfiltereds now he's smoke free and chewing the gum.

[thinkingwoman]

96. let's go back to my entire post

and see what I said, in context.

My subject line was:

"the 'quit aids' are just a substitution"

This is a fact. The addiction is to nicotine. Changing from cigarettes to the patch or gum does not break an addiction. It simply substitutes a new method of delivery.

"Here, get your nicotine from this new source and pay through the nose for it."

This is a repeat of the same fact. Same addiction. New source. Same financial drain.

"Just quit. Seriously. It can be done. It HAS been done, quietly, by people of all ages and situations."

Some people find these statements empowering. All too often we (all of us) are made to feel that we are victims of our addiction(s). AA takes the stance that nobody can quit drinking without first recognizing they are powerless and then asking some higher power/god/etc. to help them out of their predicament.

I think we humans are incredibly powerful and can do unbelievable things all by ourselves. I'm not the only person on this planet that feels this way.

Several posters have read emotions and feelings into my posts on this subject that simply are not there. I commend your husband on being smoke free and hope he continues to be so, if that's what he wants. However he achieved that is his business (and yours), not mine. I also wish him well in breaking his nicotine addiction. Nothing in my posts on this subject denigrate his experience in any way. However, his is not the only way, and quitting cold turkey is the only thing that works for some people.

There are people who want to be victims of their addiction(s). They are free to do so. This is still America.

"If you want to quit. Quit."

Restatement of previous empowering statment. Feel free to disagree.

"If you don't want to quit, then pay the higher prices and premiums and deal."

The logical conclusion in a free society.



edited to correct terrible spelling

[Centered]

125. That's because

the next arguement will be if you used to smoke you will need to maintain the higher costs because of smokings long term effects on the body which may never be healed so that could mean for as long as you are on the plan... and I bet they might not grandfather people who they know used to smoke but quit before there were restrictions.

You will never see reduced insurance costs (insurance not health care... employers don't pay for health care only insurance)
Why are people so blind to see that you can't encourage these types of policies because you may like this one... but the next one might be coming for you.

[sui generis]

4. yeah, next you high skiers and rugby players

are on the menu.

Here's one:

Why don't we charge FAT people more for their premiums?

DISCLAIMER: being rhetorical, not provocative. Charging anyone at perceived greater risk more for their premiums means it's no longer "insurance", unless you do it uniformly to everyone in a perceived risk group.

[napi21]

7. Yes, and does that mean if an employee already has diabetes, or heart

problems, or high blood pressure, they are also going to be charged higher? After all, those folks are ALREADY costing more in health care! No guessing required!

[azurnoir]

14. Already happening

I work for a major hospital in my area. A couple of days after I started I and 3 others that were hired for the same position (CMA), same clinic were asked to go to "employee health services, we were given TB tests and any immunizations we needed but also asked to fill out a "standard" health form that asked about what prescription drugs we took on a regular basis. I asked if this was for a drug test and was no they just "needed" to know. I am on blood pressure meds but being paranoid listed none, as did 2 of the others the third was a type2 diabetic (who did list her meds) to make a long story short guess who did not make it through the 90 day probation. Her performance was found below par (despite not missing any time, not being late, and volunteering for extra duties) in fact the clinic directer brought everyone who had contact with her in to question them about this womens job performance (myself included) this was kind of unusual in the number of people questioned as it is customary to only rate the new employee on the basis of the person training them.
I wonder if I had admitted to being on blood pressure meds would I too have been found below par.

[Child_Of_Isis]

12. Why don't we charge FAT people more for their premiums?

If they get by with smokers, you just know this is coming next.

[Contradistinction]

17. Why don't we charge FAT people more for their premiums?

....because there wouldn't be enough of a workforce! (sarcasm). Seriously though, being overweight does pose serious health risks, as does smoking. I quit last December (smoking, not being overweight) & feel great. I'll be dammed though if my employer tells me what to do on my own time.

What we should all understand is insurance coverage is a separate entity from the company you work for. That's how they get away with this shit. The insurance company tells ABC company that they will lower their rate by "whatever" if they get their employees to do this or that. It's basically the same for any insurance if you were to buy it off the street, on your own. Insurance costs have skyrocketed for my employer. It wouldn't surprise me to see many companies drop it altogether....

[Centered]

126. Let's charge women more money

because they are 1000% more likey to be at risk of being pregnant then men. Also since women tend to live longer let's hit them up for after retirement care by paying more Social Security taxes.

Walking a thousand miles starts with one small step so for those who like this idea just wait till the finger is pointed at you then have a nice tall refreshing cool glass of STFU while you pay the insurance comanies more money to reimburse them for doing what you pay them to do in the first place.

[MadMaddie]

11. This argument really blows my mind....

If someone smokes a cigerette they don't immedietly die do they? It's usually over a long period of time before they start suffering from the ill effects of a very bad habit.
You don't see advertising on TV, you see some print ads but for the most part you don't see it.

On the other hand..
Drunk Driving in America Killed 42,636 people in 2004. That was immediate death. If you watched the super Bowl you saw an average of 1 to 3 beer commercials, that's while children were watching. You are starting to see some liquors and beer advertised during prime time.


According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2004, 16,694 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes - an average of one almost every half-hour. These deaths constituted approximately 39 percent of the 42,636 total traffic fatalities.

This is a two percent decrease from 2003, when 17,105 people were killed in alcohol-related traffic crashes, representing 40 percent of the 42,884 people killed in all traffic crashes.

I don't see the comparison...If people want to smoke that's their business, I don't have to be around it. But if I am driving on the highway and somebody crosses the median because they are drunk I don't have the choice but to be in the wrong place at the wrong time....

I like a drink or two but I don't get on the road..

[napi21]

18. I agree with you, but I'm going to say something very mean and

not compassionate at all, but:

When heath insurance actuaries do their analysis, they look at their history of where the costs were, and how they can reduce the high ones. They DO NOT care about those who died in car accidents, because THEY didn't cost THEM any $$!

[dmallind]

21. no it didn't

On the other hand..
Drunk Driving in America Killed 42,636 people in 2004. That was immediate death. If you watched the super Bowl you saw an average of 1 to 3 beer commercials, that's while children were watching. You are starting to see some liquors and beer advertised during prime time.


No it didn't. "Alcohol related fatalities" include pedestrians, passengers, cyclists and other drug users (EDIT - yes that sounds weird - I mean it includes people using drugs other than alcohol - not that pedestrians passengers and cyclists are classes of drug user :-) Sorry about that). They are collected from FARS data where the "HBD" box is checked. (Had been drinking/taking drugs). Looking at the raw FARS about 25% of recorded HBD fatalities had no alcohol check performed at all - a bottle of pills or booze in the car and being on the road at 1am would get this box checked. If I have a couple of beers and decide to walk home tonight in the snow and ice, and a vanload of 12 strict Baptist teetotalers on their way home from a church choir concert rolls over and ploughs into me, going over the highway bridge and killing all concerned boom you have 13 "drunk driving" deaths. Don't believe me? read the small print at the NHTSA website. Think that's a silly example? Sure it is to make a point - now how many folks with a wine at dinner in them get broadsided at an intersection by a dumbass blowing a stop sign? Guess what that;'s called? Drunk driving death.

That number also includes participants with mere trace amounts of alcohol - far below the current BAC threshold and way WAY below any reasonable definition of drunk - a chocolate liqueur, a squirt of Cloraseptic or a couple of O'Doul's registers just fine - any positive BAC (if tested at all) gets the check box.

The number also includes accidents where the person with any positive BAC was not at fault even if they were driving. Taking the silly propaganda numbers at face value, even the most ardent prohibitionist will quote a 41% "drunk driving" fatality rate - even though it's neither drunk nor driving in many cases. So what causes the other 59%? Inattentive driving, poor weather conditions, ill-maintained cars, just flat out bad luck, Anything that stops any of those from happening to people who've had a beer or two? Obviously not.

Now it goes without saying (or should - but if I don't point it out the flamers will pile on. Even if I do they'll ignore this part just watch) that people who are actually drunk should not drive. People who cannot drive safely and competently for WHATEVER reason should not drive, and getting a skinful of 15 kamikazes then driving is pretty damn stupid and certainly should be criminal. There's a big difference between that and current "drunk driving" hysteria though, and we should at least use accurate numbers and definitions, otherwise we end up with silly laws and misdirected efforts.

Sorry for thread hijack.

[Daphne08]

20. The real question to ask is, "Who will they punish next?"

People who eat too much? People who eat the "wrong" foods? People who drink? People who have "bad" genes?

Why can't Americans see where this is heading?

[Redstone]

24. Let's pick on the smokers! It's easy and profitable!

Redstone

[Child_Of_Isis]

35. Plus they have put a lot of money and effort

into turning the populace against smokers. I can recall when they put the same time and money into making smokers look cool.

[cassandra uprising]

43. When ever a smoker apologizes to me for smoking my reply is

No, don't apologize, I should be thanking you for balancing my state's budget.

[SoCalDem]

25. People have forgotten how insurance is supposed to work

A LARGE pool of "clients", ALL pooling equal amounts of money to insure in case SOME of them get sick/hurt/have a fire/an accident/whatever.

The companies USED to use the premiums to invest conservatively, and took their profits from that, and any money not paid out, but always reserving enough to cover the times when more than the norm might be needed..

Somewhere in the 70's-80's, things changed..BIG TIME..

The companies were no longer satisfied to take a reasonable profit, and provide decent coverage. Look at the grand buildings they build, all the sporting events they sponsor..They are BIG TIME gamblers investors in the stock market...they carefully choose their "clients", and routinely eliminate the possibility of any risk, if they can do it.

This is the wave of the future unless we get national health care coverage.

[enlightenment]

30. nice summary. thank you. n/t

[NashVegas]

31. I Just Posted the Same Thing

But you said it so much better.

[toopers]

79. I think a fairer statement would be . . .

A large pool of clients, all pooling equal amounts of money to insure in case some of them are hurt by an unplanned accident or illness. Based on the numbers, you could argue that a smoker is planning their own death.

[SoCalDem]

107. You "could" argue the same for people who:

gobble fast food like it's going out of style
drive too fast in snazzy cars
have oodles of children too close in age
drink too much beer while watching too much tv-sports
go rock climbing
...

Insurance plans with a broad base of participants has no problem handing all contingencies, IF the money is not GUTTED by the CEOs as "slush funds", or if it's not dumped into multi-million dollar glass towers, or gambled in the stock market.

HEALTH insurance that all could afford, might actually get people to GO to the doctor regularly, and develop a relationship with a doctor...That alone, could be the impetus for people to start living a healthier lifestyle..and would allow diseases to be caught in early stages.. A patient getting a 'wake-up' call before it's too late might change a lot of people's lifestyles..

[suffragette]

91. Part of the move from the social insurance model

which is what you described above and is what Medicare is and National Health would be.
Now, companies and the administration are pushing to the actuarial, HSA's being a prime example of this,first in limiting or charging extra for care, then ultimately pushing the cost of health care onto individuals. See http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050829fa_fact for a great article on this.

I see this as being similar to the intentions revealed in the recent Walmart memo which suggested managers "dissuade unhealthy people from coming to work at Wal-Mart."

But things like this can't be implemented right away because of the outrage that would stir. As you note, this shift has been occurring for quite awhile.

The easiest way to lay the groundwork is to first target the ostracized or the other. Who better to go after first then the smokers since they fit the bill.

If people think that's where it stops, they're deluding themselves.

[susanna]

122. This is a very insightful post.

Obviously, I agree. Slippery slopes are called that for a reason. I liken it to the lobster that is started in cold water. By the time they register the change in temp, it is over. Corporate America wins again...

[suffragette]

136. And they're gradually turning the temp up where they can at first

By the time everyone's in the pot and boiling, it will be too late.

edited for typo

[ConcernedCanuk]

34. I would LOVE to quit smoking - but consider this

.
.
.

I will type verbatim what is written on my cigarette package here . . .
___________________________________________________________

CIGARETTES ARE HIGHLY ADDICTIVE

Studies have shown that tobacco can be harder to quit than heroin or cocaine.

Health Canada
_________________________________________________________________

NOW

Just so you know my situation/perspective

I am a recipient of Ontario(Canada) social assistance (welfare)

If I was addicted to cocaine or heroin I would have numerous programs available to help me "kick" the habit

My worker (who I believe and trust) has told me that SA (Social Assistance) has no programs for "smokers" - but LOTS of programs for "drug" abusers -

But the government gets mega taxes off of nicotine

So where is the REAL incentive for the government to get me off my nicotine

THEY'D LOSE ALL THAT TAX MONEY !!

Cuz we all know they sure don't get any taxes offa heroin and cocaine . .

And I could sure use my nicotine $$ to feed/house/clothe myself better . . .

(sigh)

[Coventina]

38. I am a non-smoker and I am AGAINST this.

Yes, smokers are more likely to have health problems, etc. But tobacco use is legal, and it therefore should not be a reason to discriminate.

But where would such a policy lead?
What about people with athsma? Should they pay more?
Diabetes?

The bottom line is, Western civilization made the choice that tobacco use was okay a long time ago. It's a monkey on our back, but one we've got to live with.

[mondo joe]

39. That's cool - I just hope you don't complain when your premiums go up

because of who's in your pool.

[Coventina]

41. Premiums are going to go up no matter what.

There are a LOT of problems with our healthcare system. Lots of waste and corruption.

IMHO, we should be looking for a universal system that actually works, rather than looking for ways to make it harder for people to get the healthcare they need.

Just my liberal opinion.

[mondo joe]

49. They'll be yet higher when the smokers are in the pool too.

I'm not necessarily advocating this sotr of split. But I do think it's worth recognizing that this is one way some employers try to minimize the impact of premium increases on some or most of their employees.

And while we should be working toward universal healthcare, employers still need to sign contracts now with vendors under the existing system. They can't just say "oh we should have universal care so I just won't think about benefits for my employees right now".

[Coventina]

100. I don't give a fig for what the companies are allegedly trying to do for

their employees.

Do you think the CEOs are going to pay more for their insurance because they or their family members enjoy tobacco products? Do you think they aren't going to be smoking their cigars while knocking back their old fashioneds?

Corporate America is nothing but a clever scam against the working man. They are NOT trying to nobly reduce costs to their employees on health insurance. If that really mattered to them they would not award themselves the astronomical salaries they take and would plug some of that into the insurance and pension plans.

[mondo joe]

113. You must think every company is Walmart or Halliburton.

There are companies of all shapes and sizes - including thousands of non profits - struggling with the dramatic escalation in premiums.

And trying to reduce premiums isn't even necessarily "noble" -- it can just part of trying to be a competetive employer.

You should get over your class warfare imaginings.

[Coventina]

129. Well, I can see we are never going to agree on this.

Our value systems are worlds apart.

[mondo joe]

131. No, not our value systems - just our understanding of reality. n/t

[noonwitch]

48. It's ironic on Meijer's part, as they sell cigarettes in their stores

So are fat people and those with family histories of heart disease and cancer also going to have to pay higher premiums?

[susanna]

123. That's an excellent point.

Stop selling the stuff if you're going to discriminate against your employees for its use. Interesting...

[jseankil]

53. Good! Why should I pay for someones sick healthstyle when it's a choice?

People choose to smoke so they should pay more.

Warning: Smoking Will Cost You More Money!

[ripple]

56. Why should I pay for someone's food addiction? n/t

[jseankil]

60. If someone chooses an unhealthy lifestyle then they should paymore

for health insurance, I agree.

[ripple]

67. Ok, then please tell me:

Exactly how far are you willing to go to determine if an individual is living an "unhealthy lifestyle"? Would they need to complete a calorie consumption chart? Weigh-in once a month? Would you check their thyroid to rule that out as a consideration?

And where would you draw the line with determining what constitutes an "unhealthy lifestyle"?

Drinking? Promiscuous sexual activity? Living in a more industrialized (heavily polluted) area of a city? Drinking caffiene? Sunbathing? Skiiing? Driving a sportscar? Eating too much red meat?

I guess I'm wondering just how much privacy you are personally willing to forfeit, since you seem so comfortable with chipping away at the privacy of others. Even if you don't engage in any of the above lifestyle choices, I'm sure you engage in some sort of behavior that could be considered unhealthy. I don't think many of us could legitimately claim otherwise. Where do you draw the line?

[megatherium]

68. Perhaps we can sort unhealthy behaviors by magnitude

of risk. Pretty much none of the unhealthy lifestyles you list compare in danger to cigarettes. Does driving a sportscar or skiing cut 14 years off your life (on average), the way smoking does? (See http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/economics/mm5425_highlights.htm). Merely being overweight doesn't compare (although morbid obesity would). (About the only thing on your list that might compare is sexual promiscuity.)

[ripple]

72. If you factor in magnitude of risk,

you would need to also factor in pre-existing conditions that might contribute to a higher risk if a certain behavior is involved. A person does not need to be morbidly obese to have high blood pressure and high cholesterol. If a person with both of those conditions chooses to drink heavily and eat high fat, high cholestoral foods, I would contend that their risk of developing a life-threatening illness is far greater than such a risk in a person who smokes, but has no other pre-existing condition.

My point is that factoring lifestyle choices into basic health care coverage is an incredibly slippery slope.

It irritates me to no end that the same people who will argue vehemently against violations of our civil liberties when it comes to domestic spying, seem to take no issue with the invasion of privacy and discriminatory practices in the workplace. It's kind of like taking the "well, if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't be worried about it" argument and putting it into the context of "well, if you don't engage in unhealthy behavior, you have nothing to worry about". Like the spying issue, an invasion into the privacy of one person, or a group of individuals is an invasion of privacy for all of us.

[megatherium]

82. I would question your assertion that a bad diet in a person

with high cholesterol or blood pressure is a "far greater" risk than smoking in a person with no pre-existing condition. (Smoking is usually identified as the single biggest risk factor to health that a person can control. It really is dangerous independent of other risk factors.)

But you do have a good point -- should we allow discrimination based on pre-existing behaviors or conditions, in health insurance? I would argue that to a point, yes! I think it is reasonable to charge smokers, or people who indulge in other risky behaviors, more for insurance. I do not think they should be denied insurance, or be charged exorbitant amounts, however. The surcharge should be proportional to the increased costs to society or the health care system of the excess morbidity of the behavior in question.

And there is a big logical difference between being charged more for health insurance, and being spied upon. The spying is illegal, and unfair in that you have no control over whether you are spied upon. Being charged more for insurance because your BMI is 31 or because you smoke -- you can do something about it.

[ripple]

87. It's a privacy issue

I'm not in the medical field, so this is pure speculation, but I do believe it is possible for a person with pre-existing risk factors, such as high blood pressure or high cholesterol (and to add a few, a history of stroke or heart attack, diabetes, lymphoedema, heart murmur, etc.) to have a greater probability of experiencing life-threatening health conditions if they make poor dietary choices. Think about it: the majority of studies on smoking deal with the long-term effects of the activity, not necessarily with people who have smoked, say, five or ten years. I'm not saying that smoking doesn't pose significant health risks- I agree that the risks are well-documented. I'm simply asserting that people engage in other, less under the microscope, forms of high-risk behaviors that are often compounded by pre-existing risk factors. And sometimes, these behaviors are equally as dangerous as smoking, depending on the individual's propensity to acquire certain diseases or illnesses.

And there is a big logical difference between being charged more for health insurance, and being spied upon. The spying is illegal, and unfair in that you have no control over whether you are spied upon. Being charged more for insurance because your BMI is 31 or because you smoke -- you can do something about it.

I'm not comparing charging more for insurance and spying. Instead, I am comparing the invasion of privacy that would be required to accomplish either objective. And before you say that a person has a choice of where they wish to work or what insurance plan to purchase, I want to point out that once the standard for insuring people (or charging higher fees for insurance)crosses over into lifestyle choices, the precedent has been set and other insurers will follow suit. Why? Because higher premiums make them more money. That is the same reason that even people who believe smokers should pay a higher premium should be alarmed at the precedent this sets for insurance companies to also become involved in other areas of personal choice. Believe me, if they can justify higher premiums, they will do so. In the end, all but a few of us could eventually be marginilized out of the lowest premiums. Similar to the spying vs. security issue, to assume that if we hand over our privacy rights, we will somehow benefit from it financially strikes me as naive. It isn't an either/or proposition and it shouldn't be presented as such.

Actually, that last bit made me think of the implications for this if we did have a national health care system. What if the government were to start monitoring lifestyle choices and charging accordingly? Would you be concerned about privacy issues if that were to happen?

[megatherium]

112. I of course support a true universal health care system.

My comments were predicated on the current system. But you do raise a very good point, I think I understand your concern now.

So may I suggest a different solution: raise taxes on cigarettes. Enough to discourage kids from starting to smoke (most smokers begin in their early to mid teens, and the earlier you start, the harder it seems to be to quit later in life). Then direct the revenue towards smoking cessation/prevention programs, and make these as aggressive as possible (a few million dollars against the billion-dollar marketing budgets of the tobacco majors isn't enough). I am convinced we can reduce smoking by 50% or more in just a few years if this were done. California reduced teen smoking a lot some years ago by running a hard-hitting ad campaign directed at teens -- but the state legislature cut back funding for this after having been worked on by the tobacco companies.

I am convinced that many if not most smokers do not really comprehend the magnitude of the dangers of smoking; I suspect they lump smoking together with having a few drinks, or not wearing a seatbelt, etc. The warning labels on cigarette packs mention various risks from smoking, but do not give the magnitude. As I mentioned in an earlier post, smoking reduces the life of the average smoker by 14 years. How many smokers know that?

Maybe 15 years ago, I saw a communications professor from University of British Columbia give a lecture on tobacco marketing. It was eye-opening. He said that Carltons were marketed as being very low in tar and nicotine, but this referred to Carlton softpacks. But 90% of Carltons were actually sold in softpacks -- and these had much higher tar and nicotine. He also described a Canadian brand of cigarettes that ran ads showing teenagers on skateboards, but were surprised that the target audience (teenagers, of course) didn't respond to the campaign. They did a market study and found that kids weren't interested in being like kids, they smoked to be grown-up. So they ran a seemingly innocuous campaign showing adults doing vigorous outdoorsy things like sailing. The kids immediately responded, and the brand's market share in that age group jumped up.

[ripple]

133. I agree with you, but

I do have some reservations about simply raising taxes on cigarrettes. I worry that such taxes would unintentionally wind up being regressive taxes that would negatively impact the poor. I've read statistics showing that lower-income people are more likely to smoke than those considered middle or upper class. I'm guessing level of education might play a role, as well. I don't know how to get around that, though.

I like your idea of putting some real dollars towards smoking awareness to counter the marketing campaigns of tobacco companies. Perhaps tobacco companies should be required to provide free smoking cessation education and products to those wishing to quit. Of course, they would probably pass the cost on to smokers, which would amount to the same thing as a tax.

Hell, maybe insurers, including Medicaid, should be required to provide full coverage for smoking cessation products. I don't know the answer, but I think we agree that something needs to be done to counter the weight of big tobacco in the marketplace.

[Exiled in America]

59. I shouldn't have to pay for somone's fat ass then, either.

[jseankil]

61. I agree! /nm

nm

[mondo joe]

63. It will all always come down to a balance of the most widespread

risk. Most Americans have poor diets and fat asses - hence the risk is equal across most of the group in any workplace.

When smoking was more widespread the same was true of it.

[Occulus]

134. Both my parents smoked a pack a day from the time I was an infant

until I was about 14 or so.

"We know" secondhand smoke is bad for you... right?

I'm not saying "I can't quit", but your proclamtion that "people choose to smoke" doesn't mean everything to some people that you would appear to have it mean.

(Just exactly what are the effects of repeated nicotine exposure on an infant/child, for many many years- other than "parents who smoke have children who smoke"? Have any studies on that been done?)

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

83. Here's what should be done

Leave the insurance alone. BUT charge $10.00 per pack...$5.00 to cigarettes and $5.00 to a special insurance plan.

[BiggJawn]

86. I really hate seeing my health insurance go up because of all those...

...aging boomers out there pounding their knees and hips into suet doing that silly jogging and needing Titanium replacement parts.

They should cycle, like I do. Less stress on the hinges.

And if you think they'll come after drinkers soon, faggedaboughtit. Too many Scotch bottles in too many CEO officies in this country.

[suffragette]

92. Umm - Pepsico?

But no increase for consumers of their product, right?
And of course, there's no health implications associated with drinking quantities of high-fructose or artificially sweetened soda.

Edited since I can't type quickly and accurately, just one or the other.

[ripple]

97. Just another thought re: life expectency

Since smokers have an overall shorter life expectancy than non-smokers, wouldn't they actually save insurance companies money in the long run?

Granted, there are some health conditions a person can receive treatment for and live with for a long time before they die, but I still wonder if it balances out in the long run. Have there been any actual studies of the amount insurance companies pay out for smoking-related illness and disease vs. the amount the insurer saves when smokers don't live to the average life expectancy? Excluding life insurance, of course.

[WinkyDink]

98. Better get rid of the snack machines! And hey! Step away from the

caffeine, Buddy!

When's Happy Hour?

[ripple]

99. I'll drink to that!

:toast:

[katty]

106. NWO Edict to the Masses: Do As We Say-Not as Have Done and

Continue to do

[Centered]

110. Amazing

Never would I have ever imagined that I would come to DU and see people agreeing with INSURANCE COMPANIES who only want more money...


Do you honestly think that when everyone quits smoking they will turn around and say "Wow great job folks... insurance will now be 70% cheaper starting next paycheck"

how is the Kool Aid???

[PVK]

111. This is B.S. Why not charge the fatties and the drunks?

They KNOW that smoking is nearly impossible to quit so all they are doing is getting extra money from them for the insurance companies.

They should require employees to weigh in and to get their blood tested for BAC if they want to SERIOUSLY curb abuse that causes health problems.

HYPOCRITES and THIEVES.

[mondo joe]

114. Two likely reasons why not:

#1: The most widespread factors will always need to be neutral by merit of covering so many members of the pool - smoking once would have fit that bill. Now it no longer does.

#2: Some people are additionally predisposed to weight gain. Some drinking and some eating is good for you. No amount of smoking is.

[PVK]

115. Moderation in EVERYTHING, friend.

Even fat people with so-called "hereditary fat-gaining propensities" can do things to control this, such as stapling and exercise, not to mention diet. Did you notice how few people in the "old days" before TV, etc. weren't fat in this country? Take a look at old WWII footage.

If the people in Europe had grown up in China with plenty of non-fat foods and hard daily work in the rice fields, only a few of them would be overweight or fat. It is lifestyle which determines how the genes develop. The fact that the existence of obesity has increased by five times since the Second World War, is hardly due to a change of our genes. On the contrary, our lifestyles have changed rapidly.

Some people can enjoy a cigarette a day--without consequence. And lots of people smoke a LOT and live a very long time in good health.

[Centered]

116. I can see it coming

People who live with smokers also have increased risks so now you will be charged.

People sometimes forget when you get in bed with the devil... you are gonna get fucked.

[PVK]

117. Exactly. Where will it end? n/t

[mondo joe]

119. Really? Try dry cleaning fluid in moderation and tell me how it

works for you.

And I notice you jumped on the most minor and arguable point in my post.

The fact is if you exclude people with the MOST widespread risks - like weight - there is no savings to be had. So it's a non issue.

And your understanding of genetics is woefully inadequate. I suggest you not try that tact again.

[SoCalDem]

118. The whole IDEA of this is to further split the populace

Good/bad
fat/thin
smokers/non-smokers
healthy/not healthy
married/single
childless/parents


Nationalized health care takes the WHOLE populace and leverages the risk, psread across a very WIDE base..

Private lives should be PRIVATE...

This whole issue is a PRIVACY issue, folks.. Do you want your employer telling you what to do or NOT do in your private life..Do you want your employer knowing what meds you take, what you weigh..

Why is it anyone's business but your own??

This whole issue coming up at this particular time is no accident.. It's just another ploy to set people "off" against "others" who do not measure up to arbitrary standards that you have no control of.

carry this down the line a bit.. What happens when employers have the ability to cherry pick even more than they do now?

What happens when even MORE 40 & 50-somethings lose coverage or get laid off as they enter the 'chronic illness' phase of their lives? Without nationalized care, their families enter POVERTY..their kids don't get college..they stop buying stuff.. If they are POOR enough, THEY will get medical care..but TOTALLY on YOUR dime..

[depakid]

124. ANYONE who was OK with random drug testing

when Nancy Reagan, et al brought that travesty to bear on society HAS ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO BITCH.

If you were too narrow minded to see where that would lead, then you've well earned this- and all the rest that's coming down the pipeline-

[Beelzebud]

137. This crap is UN-AMERICAN. And I'm a non-smoker!

What's next?

No fatty foods in resteraunts?

No sugary drinks in vending machines?

Take your nanny-state, and shove it up your ass!!!