[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

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=rubicon;736860]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

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

Originally Posted by rubicon

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

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]

Originally Posted by buggyone

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

Originally Posted by CFrance

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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