Comments on: County Won’t Hire Smokers Under New Policy; Insurance Changes Coming

By: Brady M

Brady M — Wed, 20 May 2009 18:38:06 +0000

Absolutely ridiculous. This is discrimination. What about those who go out drinking on the weekends or during the week. I think alcohol is a bigger concern, not only directly putting yourself and others at risk (car accidents, violence, etc) but also putting your employer at risk. The government are the ones who put this product in our hands, accepted it, marked it with their seal and taxes so they could make more money off of us… and now that people are hooked on it, they try to keep them from getting jobs. Absolutely the wrong way to go about this. It’s disgusting to me to read this… If they really care, they’d pull cigarettes off the shelves and stop making money off them and they’d put their money into helping people get better. Our government is the most ridiculous system. If you disagree, then you better be 100% healthy… because it could be you next, who doesn’t have a job.

By: Peggy Rowley

Peggy Rowley — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:10:52 +0000

I think it is a great start. To all the smokers, if you can figure out a way to smoke your cigarette and keep the smoke away from others, go ahead and smoke. Non-smokers also have rights. We have the right to breathe clean air and not have to smell like a stale cigarette. You know the risks, if you want to still smoke do it but keep innocent adults and children from having to breath the second hand smoke. Maybe they should have everyone that smokes put on a helmet that will keep the smoke in their face and let them breathe it . Just a thought.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 01:15:42 +0000

You guys are missing the point. They aren’t making the new policy to stop people from doing nasty habits or to mess with people’s rights!!! UNHEALTHY LIFESTYLES cause health problems that the insurance companies are tired of footing the bill for. Like John says above, you have a right to keep on smoking and coughing your lungs up, but if you want in on one of the last stable jobs in Pensacola, then you should understand their right to be picky about who works for them. Stop getting so defensive and get on the train. It will make the world a better place.

By: Trish

Trish — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:32:29 +0000

I am all for saving money and I have never smoked. It is easy to point your finger and say someone is bad for costing more in healthcare. BUT WAIT, what will be next? Diabetes runs in your family – to bad, won’t hire you. Cancer runs in your family or even worse you have had cancer and survived (how dare you). Oh what if it comes back. Maybe we should not hire you either. Getting older, oh my, that means more dollars in health cost. Maybe we should only hire young people because they should be healthier. Maybe we should fire everyone by the time they turn 50! The sky is the limit!

By: Steve Musgrave

Steve Musgrave — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:46:32 +0000

Yes, the employer may save a few hundred dollars, but the employee who quits gains 5 to ten years of life. I assume the union who agreed to it is not for early death. When it comes to healthcare cost, the employer should give everyone insentives to change their lifestyle. Those who do not smoke, exercise 30 minutes a day and have their numbers in control, are paying for those who do not.

By: victor mena

victor mena — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:40:18 +0000

I believe its a good idea plus who doesn’t want to live a bit longer to reap from all the years of hard work you invest at a company. With insurance premiums going up every year a smoking person could quit smoking and use that money and put it to work on a 401or a deferred comp.at the place of employment and have a bigger nest egg for retirement or a smoker can keep smoking and retire and pull and oxygen bottle behind and have someone push them around in a wheelchair.

By: David Bowles

David Bowles — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:32:01 +0000

The county is doing what is best for its employees and residents. The county is reducing costs. I assume the county’s taxes contribute to the premiums that cover the employees’ health insurance. I assume employees pay a portion of the premium for their health insurance. If the health insurance premiums are lower for the employees and tax payers due to the smoking ban then it is the right thing to do. A non-smoking employee should ask why someone else’s nasty habit should cost the non-smoking employee more of his/her hard earned money. The research is clear connecting smoking to dramatic health problems. You’re still free to smoke… but not on someone else’s dime.

By: Chris Maloney

Chris Maloney — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:29:20 +0000

your right smoking isn’t healthy but neither is eating fried foods, over eating. I suppose b/c heart problems and diabetes run in my family that i wont be able to get a county job.

Regardless, lets say the government gets more Americans to stop smoking and they all live 10+yrs longer than if they would of smoked. Thats a big chunk of social security and medicare that will be spent than letting people have the right to choose to smoke and possibly die from it.

I do agree with what John said, its the employers right to pick and choose their employees. There just has to be a limit on how far the insurance companies will go. Nobody wants to be singled out for a nasty habit, a lil fun having a drink, or something as silly as the genes that run in your family.

On another hand, i come from a family of nurses so if you want to smoke… Thank you for keeping my family employeed.

By: Deni Deron

Deni Deron — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 20:21:10 +0000

It’s all about HEALTH yall. Smoking is not healthy for ANYONE.

By: Bill

Bill — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 20:10:38 +0000

Smoking is not illegal. We can prohibit smoking in areas that endangers others. How can we not hire them just because they smoke? Is that legal? We can not discriminate due to race or gender. This is not private business, it is county government. Poor eating habits and inactivity are unhealthy as well. Mabe we shouldn’t hire the fat and lazy.