Legally Passing the Costs on to Smokers..
On CNN.com, I found an interesting article today about how employers can deal with providing insurance to employees who smoke. Although there are lifestyle statutes in 38 states that protect employees against discrimination based on off-the-clock activities, in New York it is legal for employers to pass along the extra cost they face by insuring smokers directly TO the smoker so long as they provide a statement detailing the amounts. If the smoker does not want to pay, he/she can quit smoking.
Read more: http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/09/magazines/fsb/AskFSB_smokers.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2007041009.
Do you think that it is fair for employers to be able to pass along the additional costs of health insurance to employees? If so, should they be able to pass along other costs as well? What are some other examples of costs that you think employers should or should not be able to pass on to employees? Do you think that New York's law allows employers too much say in employees' off-the-clock activies, or do you think it's fine because the employees could decide to work somewhere else?
Read more: http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/09/magazines/fsb/AskFSB_smokers.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2007041009.
Do you think that it is fair for employers to be able to pass along the additional costs of health insurance to employees? If so, should they be able to pass along other costs as well? What are some other examples of costs that you think employers should or should not be able to pass on to employees? Do you think that New York's law allows employers too much say in employees' off-the-clock activies, or do you think it's fine because the employees could decide to work somewhere else?
posted by mel at
5:22 PM
2 Comments:
I don't think it is fair for employers to pass along costs. While I personally believe smoking is a lifestyle "choice" that others shouldn't have to pay for, it is a slippery slope. There is a reason that statutes exist that protect off-the clock activities.
For example, if we allow this, what happens next? Do we bar alcoholics from receiving insurance? And where do we draw the line..3 drinks a day? 6? What about those that engage in extreme sports that may be more susceptible to serious injury?
Allowing employers to pass along costs gives them too much power will surely open up a can of worms.
Absolutely it is fair for employers to pass on health care costs to smokers. If employees were to purchase health insurance independetly (like self-employed individuals), the premiums for smokers would far exceed those of non-smokers. The same reasoning is true for business. Why then, should smokers receive additional benefits from their employer (in the covered premium costs) as compared to non-smokers?
Would shareholders be pleased to know that already high (and often staggering) company healthcare expenses are futher increased due to independent lifestyle choices of employees?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home