Scott's Miracle-Gro Co. to prevent employees from smoking at home

Scotts tries to make work force healthier, smoke-free

Created: 12/9/2005 12:17:07 PM
Updated:12/9/2005 12:29:47 PM

MARYSVILLE, Ohio (AP) -- The chief executive of Scotts Miracle-Gro admits it's an "in-your-face approach" to employee health care.
The Marysville-based lawn-care products company is asking workers to take a health survey, have a doctor make recommendations and then follow them. Employees who don't will pay more for their health insurance.

Also, starting in October, Scotts won't let its employees smoke -- even when they're away from work.

CEO James Hagedorn (HA'-guh-dohrn) says Scotts is being as aggressive as the law allows to keep its health-care costs in line.

http://www.wkyc.com/health/health_article.aspx?storyid=44533

no longer purchasing anything Scotts makes. :mad: :smoke: :grr: :banghead:

Do you think that people with poor driving records shouldn't pay more for the liability portion of their auto insurance ?

Brain damage, liver damage, drunk driving, etc.

heart disease, diabetes...

Is he doing his job? If not, have him seek help. If not, have him seek help anyway.

very ineffective workers. The show up late, they are unproductive, lazy, etc... I would give him/her one chance to shape up, but after that I would have little tolerance.

It's an old, bankrupt argument ... morally and factually.

The issue here is insurance costs and the effects on utilization of services compared to an avergae not including smokers.

Granted, they die younger and leave their potential retirement benefits for the non-smokers but that's not really the same thing.

The economic argument is just pure bullshit. If you believe otherwise, provide a reputable source. The State of California contracte with the Rand Corporation to do a comprehsnsive study about 10-15 years ago, iirc. It wasn't even close. Since then tobacco taxes have gone up enormously -- far, far more than inflation or any other costs.

which has nothing to do with your tax issues that you've tangent-ed off on.

Do you believe that smoking doesn't increase the health risks, both present and future for smokers and make them bigger consumers of health services and causes of disease-related productivity losses.

If insurance companies set rates based upon such factors and the profile of a company's employees, shouldn't that employer have a way of mitigating the financial effects ?

... of what the label is on the account. Insurance companies have large risk pools ... PUBLIC. So the PUBLIC pays more for insurance but GETS paid more in taxes. That's just a specious distinction between one pocket and another pocket. Bookkeeping, not net cost/benefit.

Read how Weyco rationalizes the same policy ...

Why: WEYCO, Inc., is in business to help other companies improve employee health and save money through innovative benefit plans. The health plans we create offer hundreds of options—and our approach to tobacco use may not be for everybody—but it's natural for us to take a leadership position on this issue. We encourage every employer to take a hard look at managing health costs related to smoking and other tobacco use.

There is no longer any question about the devastating effects of tobacco use on our society, or why it must be eliminated. Tobacco is a major killer and drain on health-care resources.

* Michigan's smoking-related health-care costs amount to $2.65 billion a year.
* Lost employee productivity due to smoking totals another $3.4 billion.
* Every Michigan household pays $557 in taxes for smoking-related illnesses annually.
* Each smoker costs his employer more than $4,000 a year in absenteeism, medical benefits, and earnings lost to sickness or premature death, etc.
* Smoking kills 4.9 million people worldwide each year.
* In Michigan, the smoking death toll is 16,000 a year—more than alcohol, AIDS, car crashes, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined.

http://www.weyco.com/web/company/news/012520050001.jsp


This is propagandistic deceit! Just WHERE the FUCK do tobacco taxes go??? The only thing anyone can validly discuss is the TOTAL cost TO/FROM the smokers/public. It's deceit of the worst kind to attempt to pretend that taxes paid don't offset health care costs because they're somehow "separate". They aren't. Money is fungible.

Notice how Weyco talks about the tax "costs" of $557 without talking about the off-setting tax collections due to tobacco taxes? That's called a "half-truth" - i.e. a LIE.

The only people who buy into this crap are people eager to participate in the deceit or utter fools. This has been 'discussed' for damned near two decades and the numbers are known. So are the specious, bullshit arguments.

Everything would be integrated and everything would be allocated and balanced off against everything else in a fair and rational way.

I don't live in that world, you don't live in that world, and employers don't operate in that world.

They have to operate in the world they're in under the rules there are. And in that world, they have a right to mitigate their risks and cost with the reasonable cooperation of employees also taking responsibility for those things under their control and accepting some of the costs for those they are unwilling to.

And using language like 'bullshit' does not turn a discontent with the way the world is into a valid argument.

By the same logic, all employers should move away from Southern California, where breathing the air is tanamount to smoking a pack or so a day.

I've experienced it at its worst and it's toxic for sure.

It has to do with the fact that their costs are disproportionate.

off-hours activities of their employees, generally speaking.

and I don't think it should be cause for termination - unless it is a impairment-oriented behavior such as drug-using in high-risk, high-responsibility jobs - but I think it a reasonable thing for behaviors that increase the benefits costs to be considered and passed on to the employee.

Correspondingly, lying about it should be cause for termination and the employee should be allowed to decline the benefit, receive a credit on the employer's contribution, and seek their own coverage.

smoke even when they're away from work. I don't think it's any of my employer's business what I do when I'm not on the clock, simple as that.

a benefit whose costs are dependent upon those choices you make about what you do.

should the employer be allowed to ban the use of motorcycles by employees while away from work? The pursuit of potentially dangerous leisure activities like skydiving, rapelling, mountain climbing, etc.?

unless its a contractual issue which is job related (including athletes involved in things outside teir sport).

But if one engages in high-risk activities or consumptions which have a known, high-risk health consequence, there should be an obligation to reveal it as condition of receiving health insurance from the employer and pay for excessive premiums that result from that. Conversely, if one declines to reveal it, or just out of choice, the employee can be granted a stipend that represents a basic plan for a non-risk-taker and allowed to shop for their own insurance.

If you read the entire article you will find out that he is going to fire people if they continue to smoke. So....

Let's fire the fat people. And if you read on you will see that you MUST go work out at least 120 days a year in the Scott's health club.

So gee.... I get my exercise by riding a bike down a country road, or backpacking and hiking in the woods. So if I want to work at Scott's then he gets to tell me how, when and how much I exercise.

This is bull shit!

cause I see nothing about forcing people to work out..

Is anyone else not seeing this?

which specificly says they WILL fire you if you smoke and they WILL fire you if you do not go to their health club.!

My bad.

A little organized labor involvement could be all that is needed.

The fitness center carries a fee of $10 per month, but that money is refunded if an employee uses the center 120 times per year. For those who signed up before the gym opened in November, the first five months were free.

I cant view the first article, but the second one doesnt seem to say anything of the sort.

And any others whose habits may be deemed harmful?

to the feds. Regardless of test results - and they do ask if you're gay or not.

Alcohol leads to many problems and should be discouraged, hence why we tax it. I think liquor taxes should be increased substantially. We have far too many problem drinkers in this country.

Because these people have ingested enough miracle gro doing there jobs, the prospective cancer they might get would grow at amazing rates :sarcasm::crazy:

I guarantee you will change your opinion.
See post 39 above.

":sarcasm:"

Maybe companies should pre-screen for genetic likelihood of breast cancer too, or high blood pressure, or other anomalies that put a person at risk of health issues. Then force the employees to eat a salt free diet.

Fuck You Scotts

One day I'll tell you how the vicious circle these fuckers use to illegitimately ramp up costs too.

I strongly believe that people who take unnecessary risks to their health should not expect the help of society when it comes to bite them in the ass, whether it be something as simple as not wearing a seatbelt or something as illegal as using meth.

you what you can and can't do? Think about your own behavior. Is there something you do that could fall into this category?

gets to call the tune. If you don't like what your employer does with your health insurance, then leave, I can be a libertarian as the next to make a point.

All of this would be moot in a single payer system. Remember, we're the only country that does health insurance and health care this way.

I'm disappointed to read that you are banning workers from smoking at home. Are you kidding me? What a person does in their home, as long as it's legal, is nobody's business. I have used Scotts products for years, but no more. I will spend my money elsewhere.

Here is how to contact them.

http://www.scotts.com/index.cfm/event/ContactUs.showForm/cid/11E7D31B-65BF-F00C-0E6D-767753667901/tkn/63157763

This would not be necessary if we had govt sponsored single payer healthcare

It would be like the Godzilla vs Ghidorah of corporate battles.

Maybe they'd destroy each other. :shrug:

The World Health Organization (I believe it was) just the other day announced something similar with their hiring practices.

Their job applications now ask if you smoke. If you don't smoke, your application goes through.

If you answer yes, you are then asked if you are willing to stop smoking. If you then answer no (meaning, you are not willing to stop), your application gets tabled.

Their (controversial) standpoint is that since they spend their time trying to advocate not smoking, that it'd be hypocritical to hire smokers, and so they want all their employees to be non-smokers.

Existing employees who smoke are grandfatherered (e.g.: policy only applies to new hires).

Obviously this raises issues regarding privacy, civil liberty, etc. What you do in your own time, as long as it's legal, should be of no relevance to your employer. I don't smoke myself, and would be happy if nobody smoked, but I can't really defend the insistence that you can't get a job if you smoke privately.

It's none of an employer's business if an employee smokes at home. Or WHAT they smoke, for that matter, as long as they don't do so on the job.

As for smokers paying higher costs for healthcare.... that might well be reasonable, since they are higher risk. But it's not going to do so well connected with a violation of privacy issue such as this.

likely to have already left the workforce...There are few plans that cover people once they leave the company..

Most smokers I know, are no less healthy than most other people.. In fact the least healthy people I know, are the ones who pop vitamins like candy, and are always on some "new" diet. They are the ones who seem to always be sick..


It's time to remove employer-provided health care from the mix.. If everyone who currently has it, all of a sudden lost it, there would be an outcry for nationalized health care..

The whole issue of employer provided health care was because of wage freezes.. The workers wanted raises, so the employers started adding perks , to get around the wage freeze..

Employer-provided health care is like a noose around your neck..It prevents people from leaving jobs they hate, because they fear loss of medical coverage.. It has made us indentured servants

It's absolutely absurd to say smoking isn't harmful to your health.



http://healthproject.stanford.edu/koop/dow/documentation.html

Cigarette Smoking

Smoking is the single, most preventable cause of illness and premature death in the United States. Employers are faced with higher health care claims among smokers, as well as lower productivity, increased absenteeism, and other costs. With 1990 Michigan and Texas smoking rates of 29.1% and 22.9% respectively as a reference, Dow employees in this study lowered their smoking prevalence from 18.3% to 15.7%. Those employees that utilized Up With Life resources who were initially smokers were 1.62 times more likely to quit than non-participants. Up With Life participants who did continue to smoke reduced the number of cigarettes smoked by 6% more than did non-participants.


The lifespan of a smoker is on average twenty years shorter than that of a non smoker:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=9703

Effect of Smoking on Life Span
Category: Smoking News
Article Date: 20 Jun 2004

“Action on Smoking and Health” tells us that a 30-year-old smoker can expect to live about 35 more years, whereas a 30-year-old nonsmoker can expect to live 53 more years. The children of a parent or parents who smoke may be at risk from the genetic damage done to the parent before conception (because of their previous smoking), the direct effects to them in the womb, and the passive smoke they are exposed to after they are born.

I said that most of the illnesses manifest themselves AFTER a person has left the workforce, so employers are not that seriously "affected"..

It's actually a cruel irony.. A guy who smokes, and puts in 30 years on a job..retires with no health care. gets sick and dies before he even collects social security.. The employers should be seeking out smokers:)

I have smoked for over 50 years. I work with a program for seniors. My work is quite physical - lifting heavy objects & lots of running around -on my feet for about 4 or 5 hours at a stretch. Most of my clients are sedentary, overweight & on way too many prescription drugs. They're always running to one doctor or another; have had every test known to man at least twice; and would be hard put to tell you who Donald Rumsfeld is. If they expanded their horizons instead of their waistbands,maybe their 'health' would improve and they'd cost you taxpayers less money.

“Action on Smoking and Health” tells us that a 30-year-old smoker can expect to live about 35 more years, whereas a 30-year-old nonsmoker can expect to live 53 more years. The children of a parent or parents who smoke may be at risk from the genetic damage done to the parent before conception (because of their previous smoking), the direct effects to them in the womb, and the passive smoke they are exposed to after they are born.

Really? I should have been dead 8 years ago. Instead, I was working 14 -16 hour days on a film set - and though I have slowed down, it's a result of those years of 80 hour weeks - not my smoking. Sp please - stop generalizing and condemning. It's most annoying.

Gotta go now. I have several large containers of Miracle Gro to dump - and then it's cocktail time.

quantify the damage you've done. Great you are still active, but lets put to rest that this is a harmless activity.

Just that LOTS OF THINGS can and do contribute to one's overall health,m and SOMETHING will definitely do you in..From what I have seen of an average 100-yr old's life, I'll forego that last 25-30 years:)

A non smoker who spends their life eating pizza, donuts & cherry cokes, all while breathing in city-fied air, might be just as unhealthy as a smoker..

so back off. And I've been to the pulmonary lab, thank you. I'm doing just swell.

I'm sick and tired of sweeping declarations of doom and disaster that rather conveniently support someone's private angst or prejudices and/or sense of moral superiority.

Why don't we put to rest the notion that smokers need to be lectured, villified and generally annoyed?

hey, anything to save a buck . . . maybe they should also target people who jaywalk on the theory that they might get hit by a car . . .

Health insurance portability and accountability act, if you are joining the company from another employer based health plan.

if so, wouldn't be hypocritical not to support one's customers?

I don't smoke, don't like the smell, don't allow it in my house and am in favor of smoking bans in public indoor spaces. But what people do in their own space should be their own business.

Scott's is not in the agriculture business.

This could be entertaining. Everyone here who's an American lives in a county/parish with an annual fair...and every one of those fairs has agricultural exhibits. Grow some tobacco. It's easy and fun to do. Fertilize your tobacco with Scott's Miracle-Gro. Then enter the tobacco in the fair. On the exhibitor tag, write "this tobacco was grown using Scott's Miracle-Gro fertilizer. If anyone who works at Scott's Miracle-Gro were to smoke any of this tobacco, they'd be fired."

a say in how their employees maintain their health. This is total BS but it is being forced upon the employer by Republicans who fight Universal Health Care provided by the Government. Republicans seem to forget that preventative maintenance is better than major repair. Instead of a government of the people for the people it is government of Republicans for Big Business. People are never even given a thought...

What were the tobacco lawsuits about?

You don't think a govenrment would be able to have a say in how beneficiaries maintained their health?

That logic is exactly why I to some degree I fear universal health care.

2nd, voters wouldn't either.

in the much feared "universal health care." Its called medicare. And before your knee jerks, keep in mind that medicare is a plan that provides more choice, more accessability, fewer restrictions, than your employer provided HMO or PPO. The overwhelming preponderance of physicians, and nearly every hospital in the US are available for use. The rates are the same for everyone, though it is arguable that there should be needs testing, that is should a retiree with earnings of $200K get the same medicare benefit pricing as someone on $12K? I think the proposition that a single payer plan would be more invasive is conjecture at best. In fact, if we had one risk pool, the population of the US, the rates would drop and risk would be less of an issue.

Hire tobacco police to spy on people through their windows? Encourage employees to rat-out their co-workers on a "confidential" form?

This is a slippery slope. Away from the job and on their own time, people should have the right to be left the hell alone.

Acidic nicotine metabolizes to cotinine in the body, and cotinine is excreted in the urine. If you can detect cotinine over a certain level in the urine, the testee is a cigarette smoker.

Alkaline nicotine also metabolizes to cotinine but not at such a high rate--a moderate cigar smoker and someone who is exposed only to environmental tobacco smoke will excrete about the same amount of cotinine.

You guys want to bitch about random urinalyses? Start here. Because this, ladies and gentlemen, is a load of crap.

Nobody said anything about what you can and can't do to quit.

I'm pretty certain that ol' dipshit over there at Scott's is gonna piss everyone after the first of the year, then piss everyone two months later. Anyone who shows cotinine on the second test is gone.

Let me ask you something: would you rather quit smoking, or quit working at Scott's? Depending on the number of people affected and the number of openings in the local area, the second path may be chosen by many of Scott's employees.

"worried" about their people's health:eyes:

People & pets have DIED from exposure to their lawn chemicals, yet they are going after tobacco..

for posting the obvious irony.

You see, one of the biggest expanses for any company is employee health insurance. Dont jump to hasty conclusions that companies actually value people over dollars. All they are concerned about is a healthy profit margin.

Scott's is to lawns as cigarettes are to a tobacco addict.

Putting Scotts on your lawn is a sure way to get hooked into a cycle where you have to pay Scotts every year for a green, thick lawn. How it works is that the fertilizer has very high levels of nitrogen, potassium and phosphorous. It acts like "speed" for your lawn.

Once you get your lawn hooked, you have to keep up with Scotts, otherwise your lawn goes into a "funk." It can come out of it, but like a recovering cigarette smoker, it takes awhile to get back to normal.




Cher

Just refusing to pay for their health insurance if they don't follow the doctor's recommendations, right?

My husband just had a physical for a new life insurance policy and they tested him for nicotine, cocaine, and a bunch of levels of things like cholesterol and indicators of heavy drinking, kidney disease, liver damage, etc. so they may do the same types of tests for their employees.

I think this issue is more about the problems with the health care system, than with employers. In this case, if rates weren't so high, the employers would be more likely to provide health insurance.

More reason to get control of the health insurance companies or have some version of Universal Health care.

people. Will try to get a link to it.

Someone let me know if they work. It is usually a pay to view subscription for the dispatch. Since I get the paper at home I can view it.

http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2005/12/09/20051209-A1-01.html&chck=t

In less than a year, Scott's Miracle-Gro plans to start firing employees who light up — even at home
Friday, December 09, 2005
Monique Curet and Ken Stammen

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Beginning in October, smoking will be significantly more expensive for employees of Scotts Miracle-Gro Co.
Lighting up, even at home, will cost them their jobs.
http://www.dispatch.com/health/health.php?


story=dispatch/2005/12/09/20051209-G1-01.html

Getting tough on health
Scotts takes ‘in-your-face’ approach to cut costs
Friday, December 09, 2005
Monique Curet
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
James Hagedorn, a former fighter pilot, describes his company’s new approach to health care using a military expression: "forward edge of the battle area."
Hagedorn, chairman and chief executive of Scotts Miracle-Gro Co., recently opened a $5 million fitness and medical center at his company’s Marysville headquarters

snip>

In October of 1939 amid the turmoil of the outbreak of war Hitler ordered widespread "mercy killing" of the sick and disabled.

Code named "Aktion T 4," the Nazi euthanasia program to eliminate "life unworthy of life" at first focused on newborns and very young children. Midwives and doctors were required to register children up to age three who showed symptoms of mental retardation, physical deformity, or other symptoms included on a questionnaire from the Reich Health Ministry.

A decision on whether to allow the child to live was then made by three medical experts solely on the basis of the questionnaire, without any examination and without reading any medical records.

Each expert placed a + mark in red pencil or - mark in blue pencil under the term "treatment" on a special form. A red plus mark meant a decision to kill the child. A blue minus sign meant meant a decision against killing. Three plus symbols resulted in a euthanasia warrant being issued and the transfer of the child to a 'Children's Specialty Department' for death by injection or gradual starvation. More...

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/euthan-bio.htm

How long will it be before they come after even the cold and the hungry too? *

Beware OF The BeanCounters, in the I got mine club!

From the S&S archives:

Reagan honors war dead in visits to Bergen-Belsen, Bitburg cemetery

BITBURG, Germany — President Reagan honored Jewish victims of the Holocaust and German war dead Sunday in his effort to celebrate 40 years of peace between the United States and Germany despite protests from Jewish and American veterans' groups.

Reagan, with German Chancellor Helmut Kohl by his side, laid a wreath at the military cemetery In Bitburg, where 49 Waffen SS soldiers are buried among 2,000 German war dead from two world wars.

Police in riot gear charged into a group of Jewish demonstrators who surged forward as they waited for Reagan's return from the Kolmeshoehe cemetery.

"Never again," chanted the demonstrators, many of them wearing yarmulkes and yellow stars similar to those Jews were forced to wear during Adolf Hitler's Third Reich.MORE......

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=17397&archive=true

...have a doctor make recommendations and then follow them. Employees who don't will pay more for their health insurance.

How can Scotts ensure the doc's orders are being followed? Will they be tested for a toxic body-load (that means toxins in their bodies)? Can that data be used against the company when they sue for medical coverage after workers get cancer?

The ins. companies have gotten so greedy that they will squeeze out every dime. I'm a non-smoker, but I think this stuff is BS and yet more proof of why we should have single-payer government care rather than private health insurance with its wasteful spending and multiple layers of bureaucracy.

First they will come for the smokers, then those of us who like to eat beef, then those who like extreme sports, then those of us who like to sleep around...


This is supposed to be FUCKING AMERICA. We should not belong to our employers when we are OFF THE DAMN CLOCK!

Look, if I put a metal roof on my house, I save $500 a year over composite shingles, and nearly $2000 if I had cedar shake shingles. Why should I pay for someone to choose make their house a fire trap? They can if they want to, but I'll take my discount and go down the road.

Human beings are individuals with different desires and passions. Forcing everyone to live the same way just to be able to get a damn job is totalitarianism.

I get rated for having teen drivers, or a ticket, or too many wrecks. Why should I bear an "equal" burden of someone's choice to lead an unhealthy life?

Should people of different 'races' pay different rates?
Should people who snow ski pay more?
Should people who eat poorly pay more?

Are we libertarian, let the individual do whatever they want? Or do we want the employer to be beneficiant and provide us with great health coverage regardless of cost, in essence underwriting our lifestyle choices? What I hear is both, by god we hate them bastids, the bosses and owners, but by god they owe me my health insurance, I depend on it, my kid needs it.

If Scotts is stepping over the frickin line, UNIONIZE and negotiate! But I think we are being disingenuous when we think the employer should be the health insurance fairy, they are capitatlists.

If we had health care as an entitlement in this country rather than under the control of the capitalists this would not be being discussed.

the majority would vote to outlaw smoking, as well as other 'unhealthy' lifestyle choices.

Unfortunately, our tax laws very nearly dictate that our employers will be the healthcare provider.

I'd rather see healthcare and employment separated, and have insurance companies compete for individual customers. I'd make it compulsory (because we give a good bit of it away anyway) and use the MC money to assist those who's insurance & medical costs become unaffordable.

Then, at least some of the unhealthy choices could be taxed such that those who use them more than pay for their additional costs.

I've always thought it idiotic to pay for schools with tobacco taxes.

I mean, do tobacco taxes pay for schools?

If that's the case, why are schools experiencing such an economic crunch? Three or four years ago
my carton of cigarettes cost just under $18 - today it's just under $42.(That's ALL taxes - not an increase in the cost of the product itself). The local state pre-school is getting less funding...as are the rest of our schools.

I'd just as soon see healthcare separated from employment too - but I have neither love, hope or faith in leaving it to insurance companies. To do so is to be naive in the extreme. Better a national sales tax - anything that changes the balance we have today where it's expedient to let people die or children go without immunization, etc. so the stockholders can manage to buy a 3rd McMansion somewhere.

Bottom line - any country that can't provide education, healthcare, jobs and affordable housing to it's own people is not a country that should be crowing about how damned wonderful they are while saying they are determined to bring their version of 'democracy' to anyone else. There are something like 37 other countries who are ahead of us in quality of healthcare; a number who have a lower infant mortality rate - and still more who have better working conditions.

http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/view/columns/2207600.shtml

And I trust insurance companies that must compete with each other as much as I'd trust 'elected' officials and civil servants that don't.

Or rather I don't see much difference between Big Business and Big Government.

Medicare recipients don't. The competition for insurance coverage as a free market competitive model is what we are seeing with the medicare drug plan, a fricking disaster, designed by and for the insurance companies and is IMHO a totally republican idea. Are we now pro-insurance companies? How have they been our friends? Why should we trust them, they never have to open their books for public scrutiny. They are in the hands of the repugs.

Is paying for schools with tobacco better or worse than with gambling? We're doing it because our elected officials will not support the schools through general fund (tax) necessary. Or are we now against supporting public schools and the taxes needed there?

I take it they will be forced to diet?

And the pregnant ones will be forced to have abortions?

And the ones who have children with disabilities? Are they just going to shoot those kids? Cause we all know THEIR medical costs are horrendous.

that they are at significantly greater risk for because they eat three cheeseburgers a day for lunch while I run 5 miles and eat an apple for lunch? Having a kid with a disability is not a choice.
We're talking of preventable diseases, not those acts of fate. Smoking is not an act of fate, its a choice with documented health costs.

and for kids with disabilities. It is well documented that older mothers are at higher risk for giving birth to children with disabilities. Women who drink are at high risk for babies with fetal alcohol syndrome. So is this company going to forbid women over 40 and women who drink from becoming pregnant?

Universal health care is a progressive ideal. I don't begrudge anyone for their health care needs. My bro in law never smoked a cigarette or overate and he jogged every day. Then he dropped dead of a heart attack at 43. You just never know . . .

The penalty of ill health isn't enough - 'liberals' want even greater punishment for the victims of their own behavior.
The benefits of good health aren't enough - 'liberals' want even greater rewards for the beneficiaries of their own good choices.

Let's just think about how that applies to the rich and the poor ... and we gain an even greater understanding of why we're all headed toward the medieval sewer. It's exactly the same 'argument'; why 'penalize' the wealthy for being wealthy? Didn't they earn it? After all, the poor are more easily penalized - since it's really their fault they're poor. Why? Because everyone knows that hard work assures wealth, right?

Cheezus freaking keeerryst on a krutch! :puke:

Doesn't mean a person should be forced into either choosing to be married, or have a hike in their company life insurance payment(after all, married folks live longer). Or forcing women to forego birthcontrol, or pay higher health care costs(since most hormone based BC raises the woman's chance of heart attack, especially after 35). Or forcing people into abstinence, or at least monogamy(since multiple partners people are more liable to contract STDs). One can continue this breakdown of choices all night long, up to and including age, do you really think that we should have a sliding scale place on us due to the ultimate uncontrolable, age?

This is really a precedent setting issue, this is where we start really deciding how much control a corporation is going to have over our body. Our body, our choice, yeah, that is what is at stake here for all of us.

Corporate America already has enough control over our lives, now is not the time to be handing over even more. Our society is turning into a plutocracy before our eyes, and now it appears that we're to become corporate serfs, handing both life and livliehood over to the tender mercies of corporations that have ravaged the people of this country time and again. No thank you, not for me.

Besides, if you really take a good look at that Turf Builder Plus, you'll quickly realize that smoking is probably the least of what is contributing to Scott employees ill health.

healthcare coverage to corporations rather than as a society taking the position that it is a right and available to all citizens. We are on the corporate tit for healthcare and all we do is bitch about it when they act like corporations. They are there to maximize their profits, not make us healthy or happy, and the tiny fraction who do care are just that, a tiny fraction. It just isn't going to happen that business all decide to be kind and caring and not care of the costs of health care. Its only going to get worse as medical inflation continues in double digits.

It seems problematic to on the one hand query how much we are going to let a corporation control our bodies, yet at the same time demand they pay for our health insurance. These people are not on our side.

Just an apple for lunch? :wow:

We are expecting employers to be compassionate and caring, generous and accepting. Since when does that happen? Only rarely does the corporation feel that way about employees, because they exist to maximize shareholder wealth and workers are just a commodity on the expense side of the income statement, and our health as a liability on the balance sheet.

We are posting comments about how to fix a corrupt and broken method of providing health care. All these actions by employers are symptomatic of our failure as a society to have the strength and determination to see that health care should not be a privilege, but a right, and entitlement of being a citizen. That is what is needed, this bickering about Scotts is a distraction from the real issue: Single payer health care, accessible and affordable for all in this country. Surely our membership in the USA ought to bring us that.

trying to dictate healthy lifestyles? At least at the employer level, there is the potential opportunity to find another employer.

Better than that, how about FULL EMPLOYMENT - so employers have to compete for employees rather than the other way around?

I would suggest that our current system, unique among all, dependent upon the largesse of empolyers, is flawed. I just doesn't work, and that opinion comes after 30 years in hospital administration, so I do have a little background. The expectation of employers "competing" for workers through wages and benefits is fun to think of, but does not address the long term, does not address economic fluctuations, does not address universality. All it does is make us dependent upon the employer.

I see an underlying delimna in this thread, we want to be able to do whatever we want without penalty, but we want the employer to pay for it. We're libertarian in our personal lives, but dependent upon the capitalists to take care of us. That just does not make sense to me.

When they can get them all from coming to work?

I'd boycott them, but I wouldn't use their shit products on my lawn or in my garden on a bet!

If you engage in actions that are universally accepted as harmful to your health, you should have to pay more for health care.

Which is going over the line IMHO

But they should definitely be charged more for their health care.

casual refer smokers?

It is a serious question. Were you outraged?

Fuck you, Hagedom.

You gonna forbid your employees from walking the first time one of them needs hip or knee replacement? Forbid them from fucking the first time someone has insurance claims for a really rough "Problem Pregnancy"?

No, and you still suck down that Aussie Shiraz with a smile, even though Alcohol takes a heavier toll on Innocents than that "second hand smoke" does.

Fusk you, asshole. Nitrogen and Phosphorus are Nitrogen and Phosphorus even if it doesn't come in that green and yellow box.