Fla. hospital won't hire smokers after Jan. 1

[Villages PL]

That's a smart move, good for them. Although, this rule does not apply to medical staff. They claim they want to be a role model, so why wouldn't it apply to medical staff? Who wants to be treated by medical workers that don't know enough to stop smoking?

I would take it one step further and not hire anyone who's overweight. If they want to be a role model, wouldn't that be the next logical step? Of course, they may already be doing this but just haven't announced it.

What about TV hospital? What's their policy?

[ajbrown]

I went to read link and it was broken.

NEW SMYRNA BEACH, Fla.: Fla. hospital won't hire smokers after Jan. 1 - Business Breaking News - MiamiHerald.com (http://tinyurl.com/no96z8g)

Will have to read more about that. It is interesting it is just smoking. I may be wrong as I only read the first bit....

[Villages PL]

I went to read link and it was broken.

NEW SMYRNA BEACH, Fla.: Fla. hospital won't hire smokers after Jan. 1 - Business Breaking News - MiamiHerald.com (http://tinyurl.com/no96z8g)

Will have to read more about that. It is interesting it is just smoking. I may be wrong as I only read the first bit....

Thanks for the link, I'm not very good at it. :)

[asianthree]

many hospitals have had this policy for more than 2 years

[JP]

That's a smart move, good for them. Although, this rule does not apply to medical staff. They claim they want to be a role model, so why wouldn't it apply to medical staff? Who wants to be treated by medical workers that don't know enough to stop smoking?

I would take it one step further and not hire anyone who's overweight. If they want to be a role model, wouldn't that be the next logical step? Of course, they may already be doing this but just haven't announced it.

What about TV hospital? What's their policy?


What else do you want to control.

How about the color of peoples eyes or the color of their skin.

I know I don't want anyone with blonde hair especially if it is long.

I thought this was a free country.

Who gets to decide what freedoms are taken away.

I know, let's start controlling peoples thoughts. I don't want you working on me if you are thinking that.

[manaboutown]

What wonderful news. It is about time!

[billethkid]

On the application all one has to do is state.....non smoker.

Like too many rules/laws/regulations the intent gets applause....the practice doesn't seem to matter.

Enforcement = impossible = nobody pays attention to the rules/laws/regulations.

Btk

[Easyrider]

That's a smart move, good for them. Although, this rule does not apply to medical staff. They claim they want to be a role model, so why wouldn't it apply to medical staff? Who wants to be treated by medical workers that don't know enough to stop smoking?

I would take it one step further and not hire anyone who's overweight. If they want to be a role model, wouldn't that be the next logical step? Of course, they may already be doing this but just haven't announced it.

What about TV hospital? What's their policy?




What do you want to wager they also won't hire anyone over 70 years old either, how dare those overweight smokers keep messing things up for the rest of us!

[Golfingnut]

A move in the right direction.

[Biker Dog]

Obese people should also not be hired. That condition is just as bad as smoking.

Rules should apply to all employees.

[Golfingnut]

Obese people should also not be hired. That condition is just as bad as smoking.

Rules should apply to all employees.

Not to the patients it's not. Smokers carry a nasty smell around with them, overweight people do not.

[DaleMN]

Fat smokers need not apply!!! :doh:

[pooh]

Let he/she who is without sin, cast the first stone.

[graciegirl]

Obese people should also not be hired. That condition is just as bad as smoking.

Rules should apply to all employees.

hmmm. I am not allowed to ask if you are skinny, but I am wondering...in a kind and not hateful way.

[billethkid]

and obesity is pretty hard to fake/lie about on an application.

btk

[Biker Dog]

hmmm. I am not allowed to ask if you are skinny, but I am wondering...in a kind and not hateful way.

No I am not skinny. I am 6'1" tall and weigh 190 lbs.

[Campbell soup]

I agree with smokers not being hired.

[Patty55]

From the OP's link I got the impression that this was only for non-medical personnel. Why would anyone care if a clerical worker smoked?

As far as the medical staff, I still don't care if they smoke or are fat. The only thing I care about is getting good care.

[zcaveman]

I would prefer a smoker or an over-weight person as my nurse that someone with enough hardware in their face to make an MRI machine go bonkers.

Z

[Bavarian]

What else do you want to control.

How about the color of peoples eyes or the color of their skin.

I know I don't want anyone with blonde hair especially if it is long.

I thought this was a free country.

Who gets to decide what freedoms are taken away.

I know, let's start controlling peoples thoughts. I don't want you working on me if you are thinking that.

Right on!

[Bavarian]

No I am not skinny. I am 6'1" tall and weigh 190 lbs.

That is skinny!

[graciegirl]

I would prefer a smoker or an over-weight person as my nurse that someone with enough hardware in their face to make an MRI machine go bonkers.

Z

and skull tattoos peeking out the top of their uniform...around the neck.

Angels would be o.k. kinda.

[jblum315]

Have you ever watched the TV show "Nurse Jackie"? Jackie (played by Edie Falco) is a drug addict but she is a top notch nurse, caring and efficient. She doesn't use drugs while she is on duty, she only smuggles them out of the hospital pharmacy. I don't see what difference it makes what people do when they're off duty?

[Suzi]

Have you ever watched the TV show "Nurse Jackie"? Jackie (played by Edie Falco) is a drug addict but she is a top notch nurse, caring and efficient. She doesn't use drugs while she is on duty, she only smuggles them out of the hospital pharmacy. I don't see what difference it makes what people do when they're off duty?

There is so much wrong with this: drugs are illegal; she is stealing; what about the lingering effects of morphine, demerol or whatever she is stealing? Would anyone like to be the recipient of her care if your blood pressure is falling and she has a drug hangover? How about the acceleration in the amount of drugs she needs to get the same result?

As far as the smoking and/or obese (I'm NOT saying "overweight") being not hired: smoking and obesity lead to increased illness - more than other employees. That leads to staff shortage which theoretically could impact someones life or death. We have all read about doctor and nurse shortages but until you personally need that doctor or nurse you don't think much about it. Staffing is a problem in critical areas and more sick time can result in severe consequences.
Most hospitals have "zero" tolerance for alcohol consumption and on-call.
Even cannabis stays in the blood stream for many, many days.
If I'm in critical condition in the hospital fighting for my life, if I had a choice, I would like a "healthy" person taking care of me - thank you!

[Golfingnut]

As long as she don't stink of tobacco.

[Patty55]

There is so much wrong with this: drugs are illegal; she is stealing; what about the lingering effects of morphine, demerol or whatever she is stealing? Would anyone like to be the recipient of her care if your blood pressure is falling and she has a drug hangover? How about the acceleration in the amount of drugs she needs to get the same result?

As far as the smoking and/or obese (I'm NOT saying "overweight") being not hired: smoking and obesity lead to increased illness - more than other employees. That leads to staff shortage which theoretically could impact someones life or death. We have all read about doctor and nurse shortages but until you personally need that doctor or nurse you don't think much about it. Staffing is a problem in critical areas and more sick time can result in severe consequences.
Most hospitals have "zero" tolerance for alcohol consumption and on-call.
Even cannabis stays in the blood stream for many, many days.
If I'm in critical condition in the hospital fighting for my life, if I had a choice, I would like a "healthy" person taking care of me - thank you!

Well, it looks like the same old smoking fat person would be taking care of you. The decision to not hire smokers DOES NOT apply to medical staff.

Good news (I guess?)is that the billing department, the janitor and the cooks will be in shape.

[CFrance]

I wonder if it's a financial decision... smokers cost more to insure.

[Villages PL]

I wonder if it's a financial decision... smokers cost more to insure.

Yes, the link stated: "...the decision was made in part because of the high health care costs and lost productivity associated with smoking."

That's why I agree with their decision.

[CFrance]

Yes, the link stated: "...the decision was made in part because of the high health care costs and lost productivity associated with smoking."

That's why I agree with their decision.

Me too. Plus it would be nice not to have to walk through the staff outside at the entryways who are puffing away. But I know that has been banned at a lot of hospitals.

[Monkei]

What else do you want to control.

How about the color of peoples eyes or the color of their skin.

I know I don't want anyone with blonde hair especially if it is long.

I thought this was a free country.

Who gets to decide what freedoms are taken away.

I know, let's start controlling peoples thoughts. I don't want you working on me if you are thinking that.

It is a free country and they are free to look for other jobs.

[Monkei]

Have you ever watched the TV show "Nurse Jackie"? Jackie (played by Edie Falco) is a drug addict but she is a top notch nurse, caring and efficient. She doesn't use drugs while she is on duty, she only smuggles them out of the hospital pharmacy. I don't see what difference it makes what people do when they're off duty?

From what I remember working in a Medical Center, if drugs are missing from the pharmacy, SOMEONE is going to get fired.

[KARENNN]

The problem is that smoking is legal. They can forbid smoking on their property, but should they really dictate what people do at home, if it is legal? They should not hire people who drink alcohol either for that matter then. Now, if tobacco and alcohol were to become illegal, that is another story. I would like to see that happen in my lifetime.

[Easyrider]

Originally Posted by CFrance View Post
I wonder if it's a financial decision... smokers cost more to insure.


Yes, the link stated: "...the decision was made in part because of the high health care costs and lost productivity associated with smoking."

That's why I agree with their decision.

High health care costs and loss of productivity are also associated with old people too especially those over 70.
Do you agree with that too? :a040:

[Villages PL]

High health care costs and loss of productivity are also associated with old people too especially those over 70.
Do you agree with that too?

You mean regarding health care costs to the employer? I don't see that as a big problem because there are not many people over 70 seeking employment. And we already have age discrimination in hiring so I wouldn't worry about it.

Ever been around a really smelly old person, I'll take the smoker or an overweight person that showers regularly anytime.

But what if the person is a smoker, overweight and smelly? ;)

[buggyone]

There are some very strange replies to this thread. The hospital in question has the legal right to hire only non-smokers. It has to do only with the health insurance issue.

My health insurance offers free "quit smoking" assistance programs as well as reduced costs for health clubs in order to promote a healthy lifestyle. It helps to keep rates low for all the insured people.

Hats off to businesses that do not hire smokers.

[Pturner]

I agree with smokers not being hired.

I do too.

p.s. :wave: Cambell Soup. Long time. Nice to see you back on TOTV.

[Easyrider]

You mean regarding health care costs to the employer? I don't see that as a big problem.

No, health care costs in general. Old age and the age related problems it brings is by far the largest contributor to health care costs. Too many self righteous people want to point a finger and talk about certain groups and say they are the problem. Overweight people and smokers are such an easy and popular target to bash while wearing a crown of self righteousness. I don't know even one smoker or overweight person that is happy they have this addiction or problem just as a lot of other people are not happy they have many other problems.



What is driving health care spending?
While there is broad agreement that the rise in costs must be controlled, there is disagreement over the driving factors. Some of the major factors that have been discussed in cost growth are:
Technology and prescription drugs– For several years, spending on prescription drugs and new medical technologies has been cited as a primary contributor to the increase in overall health spending; however, in recent years, the rate of spending on prescription drugs has decelerated.[1] Nonetheless, some analysts state that the availability of more expensive, state-of-the-art medical technologies and drugs fuels health care spending for development costs and because they generate demand for more intense, costly services even if they are not necessarily cost-effective. [6]
Rise in chronic diseases – Longer life spans and greater prevalence of chronic illnesses has placed tremendous demands on the health care system. It is estimated that health care costs for chronic disease treatment account for over 75% of national health expenditures. The changing nature of illness has sparked a renewed interest in the possible role for prevention to help control costs.
Administrative costs – At least 7% of health care expenditures are estimated to go toward for the administrative costs of government health care programs and the net cost of private insurance (e.g. administrative costs, reserves, taxes, profits/losses).[1] Some argue that the mixed public-private system creates overhead costs and large profits that are fueling health care spending.[8]

From Health Services Research:

Principal Findings

Per capita lifetime expenditure is $316,600, a third higher for females ($361,200) than males ($268,700). Two-fifths of this difference owes to women's longer life expectancy. Nearly one-third of lifetime expenditures is incurred during middle age, and nearly half during the senior years. For survivors to age 85, more than one-third of their lifetime expenditures will accrue in their remaining years.

Conclusions

Given the essential demographic phenomenon of our time, the rapid aging of the population, our findings lend increased urgency to understanding and addressing the interaction between aging and health care spending.

The distribution of health care costs is strongly age dependent, a phenomenon that takes on increasing relevance as the baby boom generation ages. After the first year of life, health care costs are lowest for children, rise slowly throughout adult life, and increase exponentially after age 50 (Meerding et al. 1998). Bradford and Max (1996) determined that annual costs for the elderly are approximately four to five times those of people in their early teens. Personal health expenditure also rises sharply with age within the Medicare population. The oldest group (85+) consumes three times as much health care per person as those 65–74, and twice as much as those 75–84 (Fuchs 1998). Nursing home and short-stay hospital use also increases with age, especially for older adults (Liang et al. 1996).

[buggyone]

The above poster says that age related health issues take up most health costs. Of course they do - but the issue of the thread is that smokers will not be hired in a hospital. It is not that old people will not be hired in that hospital.

Their issue is that generally smokers are a bad health insurance risk based on actuarial tables. Old people are, too, but they are not applying for jobs! We are retired!

[JP]

It is a free country and they are free to look for other jobs.

Its just the beginning in this overly politically correct society.

Don't kid yourself, these people want these rules applied to ALL jobs.

STOP THE MADNESS!!

[CFrance]

The above poster says that age related health issues take up most health costs. Of course they do - but the issue of the thread is that smokers will not be hired in a hospital. It is not that old people will not be hired in that hospital.

Their issue is that generally smokers are a bad health insurance risk based on actuarial tables. Old people are, too, but they are not applying for jobs! We are retired!

Good point. And not only that, you can't prevent getting old or the breakdown of the body that comes with it, and the increased health care costs. You can prevent the breaking down of the body that's caused by smoking.

[janmcn]

Good point. And not only that, you can't prevent getting old or the breakdown of the body that comes with it, and the increased health care costs. You can prevent the breaking down of the body that's caused by smoking.


Totally agree, and would add you can prevent obesity.

[graciegirl]

Totally agree, and would add you can prevent obesity.

umm. Maybe you can. ;)

[Villages PL]

The above poster says that age related health issues take up most health costs. Of course they do - but the issue of the thread is that smokers will not be hired in a hospital. It is not that old people will not be hired in that hospital.

Their issue is that generally smokers are a bad health insurance risk based on actuarial tables. Old people are, too, but they are not applying for jobs! We are retired!

Good post. I couldn't have said it better. All the other stuff could be a topic for another thread.

[Villages PL]

Its just the beginning in this overly politically correct society.

I wouldn't use your phrase, "politically correct society". I would call it, "economically correct". That means if some people decide to engauge in risky behavior, whatever it may be, they shouldn't be accepted into the same risk pool as others who are living healthier lifestyles?

[Russ_Boston]

Florida Hospital Waterman has had this policy for over 2 years already. I know because I applied there in 2011. And they require a blood test at hire and randomly to enforce their policy. Applies to all new hires including medical.

Check out their careers page: Careers (http://www.fhwat.org/Careers.aspx)

[Villages PL]

Florida Hospital Waterman has had this policy for over 2 years already. I know because I applied there in 2011. And they require a blood test at hire and randomly to enforce their policy. Applies to all new hires including medical.

Check out their careers page: Careers (http://www.fhwat.org/Careers.aspx)

Fla. hospital won't hire smokers after Jan. 1. That was the headline in the Daily Sun article that appeared just a few days ago. But in the link that was provided above (second post), the hospital is called "Bert Fish Medical Center". I get it now. The headline refers to a hospital in Florida. But the name of the hospital is "Bert Fish Medical Center".

[rubicon]

I happen to agree with JP concerning infringing on people's rights. I also agree with Easyrider's explanation concerning driving health care costs.

While I understand the concern for health it seems our nanny government is infringing on the rights of smokers and has stigmatized anyone who they deem to be obese. We can argue that point perhaps in another thread but l do not want to lose sight of the subject matter here.

Hospital won't hire smokers. Really! The government is going to discriminate against smokers. Even more maddening is that states such as Oregon that have made marijuana legal begs to ask this question. We are penalizing punishing and stigmatizing smokers and now denying them employment because of health reasons yet we are making it easier for people to do dope which has many side effects emotionally physiologically and psychologically . Would you trust a medial person who was doing dope over one who was a smoker?

This country is upside down and the reason is simply we have gone from a country where the rule of law prevailed to one of rights. Everyone has rights no one has responsibilities.

FYI: I quit smoking on my own in 1973 but I always felt smokers were treated badly.

[Villages PL]

I happen to agree with JP concerning infringing on people's rights. I also agree with Easyrider's explanation concerning driving health care costs.

Is it in the Bill Of Rights?

Hospital won't hire smokers. Really?

I assume the hospital is providing insurance and smokers drive up the cost of premiums. So the hospital has a right to try to control costs. And these are costs that ultimately get passed on to hospital patients. So you're saying that smokers have a right to increase costs for others?


This country is upside down and the reason is simply we have gone from a country where the rule of law prevailed to one of rights. Everyone has rights no one has responsibilities.

If I'm not mistaken, when this country was founded, most people didn't have health insurance. Most people were farmers. They took their risks and had to live with the results. Now we're all tied together by health insurance premiums.

[Russ_Boston]

Fla. hospital won't hire smokers after Jan. 1. That was the headline in the Daily Sun article that appeared just a few days ago. But in the link that was provided above (second post), the hospital is called "Bert Fish Medical Center". I get it now. The headline refers to a hospital in Florida. But the name of the hospital is "Bert Fish Medical Center".

Sorry, I wasn't trying to correct you. Just pointing out that other hospitals have had this policy for awhile now.

[rubicon]

[QUOTE=Villages PL;736766]Is it in the Bill Of Rights?



I assume the hospital is providing insurance and smokers drive up the cost of premiums. So the hospital has a right to try to control costs. And these are costs that ultimately get passed on to hospital patients. So you're saying that smokers have a right to increase costs for others?




If I'm not mistaken, when this country was founded, most people didn't have health insurance. Most people were farmers. They took their risks and had to live with the results. Now we're all tied together by health insurance premiums.[/QUOTE


Hi villages PL: Obviously there are many issues not specifically addressed in the Bill of rights but based on its reading which encompass the first 10 amendments along with the US constitution and the Declaration of Independence the founders sought to free citizen from government interference.

Secondly, if society is going to be picking on smokers concerning increased hospital costs then where should we stop? Shall we deny coverage to people with genetic disabilities? Obesity? Old age? risky job occupations ?
How about those living in Chicago vis a vis The Villages based on safety issues?

Sometime shortly after WWII corporation began to offer hospital benefits and then it fell apart. Instead of pointing fingers let's say organization/individuals got greedy and like programs that involving money people abused it and committed fraud and corporations began backing away.

The Unaffordable Act may well make the denial to smokers moot because everyone must be covered....except congressmen and women and unions

My comments concerning freedoms go beyond this thread. Its getting scary out there

[graciegirl]

[QUOTE=Villages PL;736766]Is it in the Bill Of Rights?



I assume the hospital is providing insurance and smokers drive up the cost of premiums. So the hospital has a right to try to control costs. And these are costs that ultimately get passed on to hospital patients. So you're saying that smokers have a right to increase costs for others?




If I'm not mistaken, when this country was founded, most people didn't have health insurance. Most people were farmers. They took their risks and had to live with the results. Now we're all tied together by health insurance premiums.[/QUOTE


Hi villages PL: Obviously there are many issues not specifically addressed in the Bill of rights but based on its reading which encompass the first 10 amendments along with the US constitution and the Declaration of Independence the founders sought to free citizen from government interference.

Secondly, if society is going to be picking on smokers concerning increased hospital costs then where should we stop? Shall we deny coverage to people with genetic disabilities? Obesity? Old age? risky job occupations ?
How about those living in Chicago vis a vis The Villages based on safety issues?

Sometime shortly after WWII corporation began to offer hospital benefits and then it fell apart. Instead of pointing fingers let's say organization/individuals got greedy and like programs that involving money people abused it and committed fraud and corporations began backing away.

The Unaffordable Act may well make the denial to smokers moot because everyone must be covered....except congressmen and women and unions

My comments concerning freedoms go beyond this thread. Its getting scary out there


You make so much sense, Rubicon. Please come to the cocktail party tomorrow night at Tierra Del Sol at five. I want to shake your hand and Mrs. Rubicon's too.

Now we have to get back home in time to go.

I am great fun at a cocktail party. I drink diet coke and I have never broken a gate arm either.

[gomoho]

I don't understand how they can apply this policy and only have it apply to certain employees. If the cost of insurance is the issue why wouldn't it apply to everyone?

[Parker]

Have you ever watched the TV show "Nurse Jackie"? Jackie (played by Edie Falco) is a drug addict but she is a top notch nurse, caring and efficient. She doesn't use drugs while she is on duty, she only smuggles them out of the hospital pharmacy. I don't see what difference it makes what people do when they're off duty?

A TV show character is not representative of real life. Believe me, an addicted nurse/doctor is irritable, distracted, stressed-out, and overwhelmed with their problem. It isn't pretty, and it isn't safe. We'd better all care about that. As far as smoking and obesity, I don't personally care but do understand about the costs of healthcare to the employer. And, as others have stated, where does it stop?

[Russ_Boston]

I don't understand how they can apply this policy and only have it apply to certain employees. If the cost of insurance is the issue why wouldn't it apply to everyone?

At Waterman it does apply to all.

[asianthree]

in 1969 you could be smoking in the OR lounge as the patient was wheeled by to the OR...funny how things have changed

[buggyone]

in 1969 you could be smoking in the OR lounge as the patient was wheeled by to the OR...funny how things have changed

When I first started working at a VA Hospital (Gainesville), the patients could smoke cigarettes on the wards. Lots of them had emphysema or other forms of COPD but smoking was still allowed. Later, smoking inside was forbidden but covered smoking huts were placed about 100 feet from the entrances to the hospitals so patients (still with chronic breathing problems) could smoke. Those are still in place.

Last week, I saw a man who had a hard time walking to his car (breathing and wheezing); get into his car and light up a cigarette. Oh yeah, he had a portable oxygen unit he was sucking oxygen from! I imagine (but not sure) he turned off the oxygen when lighting his cigarette.

[Easyrider]

Is it in the Bill Of Rights?

[quote=rubicon;736860]
Secondly, if society is going to be picking on smokers concerning increased hospital costs then where should we stop? Shall we deny coverage to people with genetic disabilities? Obesity? Old age? risky job occupations ?
How about those living in Chicago vis a vis The Villages based on safety issues?

Sometime shortly after WWII corporation began to offer hospital benefits and then it fell apart. Instead of pointing fingers let's say organization/individuals got greedy and like programs that involving money people abused it and committed fraud and corporations began backing away.

The Unaffordable Act may well make the denial to smokers moot because everyone must be covered....except congressmen and women and unions

My comments concerning freedoms go beyond this thread. Its getting scary out there


:BigApplause:


Very good points made rubicon. Guess we are somewhat lucky what is said on here really doesn't make 2 cents worth of difference about what really happens. Gets really ridiculous to continue to pick on only 2 particular groups when there are so many more never mentioned. Drinking and all the related costs for one...

Once our new medical law is totally implemented we will see certain benefits restricted to those over a certain age as part of the program whether they admit it or not so we can all get ready. We should be worrying about the Medicare cuts being made rather than what employers are doing or not doing on their plans since basically none of us are employed anymore.

[Easyrider]

The above poster says that age related health issues take up most health costs. Of course they do -



Good point. And not only that, you can't prevent getting old or the breakdown of the body that comes with it, and the increased health care costs.

Very true you cannot prevent the breaking down of the body that comes with getting old. Apparently at least one poster might not be able to grasp this.

With that said, how will you feel once the breakdown and the problems start if there are those saying: it's your fault, you should have done something different, you didn't eat right, you didn't exercise enough, you didn't rest enough, you didn't take vitamins as you should have, you didn't, you didn't, you didn't, and now you are costing the system way too much money! How will you feel then?

[graciegirl]

There are some wonderful human beings who smoke and now they are "our" age. I think when you have smoked for a very long time it is nigh impossible to stop because the addiction is so great. I have seen treasured friends who are very intelligent continue to smoke in the face of being warned of great danger and who have had heart attacks and the onset of serious breathing problems and even financial problems.

I am glad I stopped before it was pretty close to impossible to stop. It obviously becomes MORE addictive as time progresses.

I still love my smoking friends.

[PaPaLarry]

There are some wonderful human beings who smoke and now they are "our" age. I think when you have smoked for a very long time it is nigh impossible to stop because the addiction is so great. I have seen treasured friends who are very intelligent continue to smoke in the face of being warned of great danger and who have had heart attacks and the onset of serious breathing problems and even financial problems.

I am glad I stopped before it was pretty close to impossible to stop. It obviously becomes MORE addictive as time progresses.

I still love my smoking friends.
I couldn't agree more!!! Have very special friends also, that just can't kick the habit, but they are still very special to us. Just wish I could help

[CFrance]

I couldn't agree more!!! Have very special friends also, that just can't kick the habit, but they are still very special to us. Just wish I could help

I thought I would be one of those people. I started smoking on a bet in college. Quit four times over the years, and it would last two years, and then bam! the craving would come over me again, so badly that I would start again.

Finally what did the trick was being able to buy patches over the counter. I scheduled a two-week trip with a group where I knew I couldn't smoke, and used the patches. And I do mean used. Don't bash me--I wore them for a year. After a few months I was cutting them into little pieces, but I kept at it until I finally lost the urge and the mindset.

It was hard. But in some ways, I thought it was easier than dieting, because you never have to learn moderation--you never have to pick up another cigarette in your life. You DO have to continue to eat, so you are constantly surrounded by that which you wish to overindulge in.

[JP]

I remember reading an article about a 51 year old woman that had breast cancer.
At the end of the article she said, "I don't know how I got it. I did everything right."
This always sticks in my mind when people say you should and shouldn't do this and that so you will live longer and happier(?).
Nobody is alike. Some will be effected more from doing certain activities some will not be effected at all or minimally.
We are supposed to be living in a free society.
Stop telling me what to do.

[CFrance]

I remember reading an article about a 51 year old woman that had breast cancer.
At the end of the article she said, "I don't know how I got it. I did everything right."
This always sticks in my mind when people say you should and shouldn't do this and that so you will live longer and happier(?).
Nobody is alike. Some will be effected more from doing certain activities some will not be effected at all or minimally.
We are supposed to be living in a free society.
Stop telling me what to do.

I don't think they're telling you what to do. They're just saying if you do certain things, they won't hire you. Yes it's a free society, and they are free not to hire you if you are going to cost them a bundle in health care due to smoking. The "Free Society" thing works both ways.

[JP]

I don't think they're telling you what to do. They're just saying if you do certain things, they won't hire you. Yes it's a free society, and they are free not to hire you if you are going to cost them a bundle in health care due to smoking. The "Free Society" thing works both ways.

I think telling me I can't smoke or be fat if I want a certain job is telling me what to do.
It's restricting my freedom of choice for what kind of job I may want.
It's not a "for sure" thing that I am going to cost them a bundle in health care if I smoke or am fat.
With this kind of thinking we should check everybody genetically and charge those people with bad DNA more for health care.
What about people with a history of heart disease or cancer, shouldn't they pay more for health care. They're going to use more of it.

[CFrance]

I think telling me I can't smoke or be fat if I want a certain job is telling me what to do.
It's restricting my freedom of choice for what kind of job I may want.
It's not a "for sure" thing that I am going to cost them a bundle in health care if I smoke or am fat.
With this kind of thinking we should check everybody genetically and charge those people with bad DNA more for health care.
What about people with a history of heart disease or cancer, shouldn't they pay more for health care. They're going to use more of it.
I think your right to choose what kind of job you want shouldn't supersede their right to hire whomever they want based on their bottom line. They are the ones with the jobs. You are the one with the resume, looking for a job.

[janmcn]

I think telling me I can't smoke or be fat if I want a certain job is telling me what to do.
It's restricting my freedom of choice for what kind of job I may want.
It's not a "for sure" thing that I am going to cost them a bundle in health care if I smoke or am fat.
With this kind of thinking we should check everybody genetically and charge those people with bad DNA more for health care.
What about people with a history of heart disease or cancer, shouldn't they pay more for health care. They're going to use more of it.


I agree. Smokers should be able to smoke in restaurants, in movies, in church, or anywhere they please. If a surgeon wants to puff on a cigarette while performing surgery, so be it. The state should not be telling us what to do. We, the people, need to march on Tallahassee and get this no-smoking law repealed.

And while we're at it, let's do away with the driving while drinking law, and the seat belt law, and toss all the kid's car seats out.

We already have a 'right to kill' law, but we have to make sure felons and terrorists have the right to buy guns. They can't tell us what to do. Get ready to rumble in Tallahassee.

[Steve & Deanna]

Smoking is a bad habit and not only will shorten a life by many, many years, it dries your skin, constricts blood vessels, can ruin your gums and it stinks; besides, it seems a bit silly to accelerate death. The absolute last thing I would want would be in a hospital environment and treated by a smoker. The smell is nauseating (spelling??). You can smell it on their clothes, their hair and themselves. I say good for the hospitals that are championing smoke free zones. By the way, I am an ex-smoker for well over twenty years. Years ago, my wife's physician said it would be a good idea to avoid cigarette smoke due to a health reason. I 'manned up' and tossed them. It wasn't easy but we're both all the happier for it.

[Russ_Boston]

It's not a "for sure" thing that I am going to cost them a bundle in health care if I smoke...

Ummm, yes it will. They pay premiums based on criteria. When they rate a 'group' they consider average age of group, smokers vs. non-smoker %, etc. etc. Smoking is the number ONE rating criteria for pricing life or health insurance. I was in the insurance industry for over 30 years.

[Bay Kid]

Smoking waste much time at work, you know smoke breaks. Then you must wash up so you don't smell like smoke. Then wonder when can I do this again. I know because this was me.

[JP]

I agree. Smokers should be able to smoke in restaurants, in movies, in church, or anywhere they please. If a surgeon wants to puff on a cigarette while performing surgery, so be it. The state should not be telling us what to do. We, the people, need to march on Tallahassee and get this no-smoking law repealed.

And while we're at it, let's do away with the driving while drinking law, and the seat belt law, and toss all the kid's car seats out.

We already have a 'right to kill' law, but we have to make sure felons and terrorists have the right to buy guns. They can't tell us what to do. Get ready to rumble in Tallahassee.

I agree with car seats and seat belts.
I use/used both but it should be my choice not the governments.
Same with smoking.

[CFrance]

I agree with car seats and seat belts.
I use/used both but it should be my choice not the governments.
Same with smoking.

When "you" don't use seatbelts and car seats, it raises the cost of my health care.

From 2004 statistics:

Over the past five years, the number of motor vehicle occupants killed in crashes has risen each year. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), seat belts save 13,000 lives each year, but 7,000 people die because they do not use seat belts. In 2001, 73 percent of restrained passengers involved in fatal crashes survived, compared to 44 percent of unrestrained occupants. The deaths and injuries that result from non-use of safety belts cost society an estimated $26 billion annually in medical care, lost productivity and other injury-related costs.

[Villages PL]

I remember reading an article about a 51 year old woman that had breast cancer.
At the end of the article she said, "I don't know how I got it. I did everything right."
This always sticks in my mind when people say you should and shouldn't do this and that so you will live longer and happier(?).
Nobody is alike. Some will be effected more from doing certain activities some will not be effected at all or minimally.

When the average person says they did everything right, what does that mean? It usually means "moderation" and we should all know that moderation is meaningless.

We are supposed to be living in a free society.
Stop telling me what to do.

No one has told you what to do, have they? Give me an example. What have you been told not to do? Oh, yes, I forgot, you can't drive your car at excessive speeds (over the posted speed limit) on public roadways. Darn those police, they think they can tell us what to do!

[Villages PL]

I don't think they're telling you what to do. They're just saying if you do certain things, they won't hire you. Yes it's a free society, and they are free not to hire you if you are going to cost them a bundle in health care due to smoking. The "Free Society" thing works both ways.

Great answer. I couldn't agree more.:clap2:

[graciegirl]

I hope you will live to be 145 Villages Pl.

You will miss us though.:1rotfl:

[CFrance]

I hope you will live to be 145 Villages Pl.

You will miss us though.:1rotfl:

Yes, but he will have a fresh batch of conversion possibilities! :BigApplause:

[Steve & Deanna]

and skull tattoos peeking out the top of their uniform...around the neck.

Angels would be o.k. kinda.

You mention that but I had a phlebotomist come in my hospital room a 5AM to draw blood, tats, piercings, etc......and I could've done a better job myself ....and that was yeas and years ago.

[Villages PL]

I hope you will live to be 145 Villages Pl.

You will miss us though.:1rotfl:

145? Gosh, I'll settle for 125. That would give me 53 more years! :thumbup:

Just about everyone living in the villages today would be gone by then. And the historic section would grow to encompass all the villages homes. :smiley:

[Villages PL]

Yes, but he will have a fresh batch of conversion possibilities! :BigApplause:

That's why I have to stick around; I have a job to do. :D

[JP]

I hope you will live to be 145 Villages Pl.

You will miss us though.:1rotfl:

They all think they will as long as they follow all the rules!
"I'm from the government, I'm here to help you." YIKES

[Villages PL]

They all think they will as long as they follow all the rules!
"I'm from the government, I'm here to help you." YIKES

I follow all the rules in order to lower my risk for disease, but there's no guarantee. I have said that many times on this website, but perhaps you weren't here when I said it. And I'm not from the government; to me, being healthy means not having to rely on government at all, or not as much. The sicker people get, and the more expensive health care gets, the more likely it is that more and more people will end up relying on government.