quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Diogenes
Wrong!
Employees who smoke, present a burden to the cost of doing business ( the ' game ' we are discussing ) and is unfair to employees who don't smoke ( the ones who follow the rules )...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a lie that you're regurgitating.
From the other thread (LadyHawk):
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good point, Joshua, however, here's a little more data on the whole topic....
I personally knew Howard Weyers (President of Weyco). Weyco isn't a "health care firm". They're a third party administrator; that is, they process medical claims for self funding employers. They don't have health care providers or clinics or anything of the sort.
I can tell you that Mr. Weyers is a hard working, personable guy...and that the real reason behind this whole not smoking thing has very little to do with looking out for his employees' health. What it does have a lot more to do with it is the fact that Howard's father (or was it his uncle?) died of lung cancer from smoking and he's had a hard-on for the tobacco companies and smokers ever since. He mentioned this to me and several others on many an occasion...years ago. I knew several months ago that he was planning to do this.
True, he's given employees 18 months to comply. Problem is, he's lost 4 talented individuals over his decision. Further, he's not determined how he's going to handle employees' who are exposed to 2nd hand smoke from friends, relatives, etc. He has also stated that he has no intention (currently) to go after those who drink to excess unless they're drunk at work.
In short, the "I'm doing this to improve my employees' health and lower health care premiums' is a smoke screen. Howard just doesn't like smokers. Period.
I'm a reformed smoker but I have a problem with Howard's tact. He's basically changed the rules on his employees. It doesn't seem fair to suddenly come to work one day and find out that your job is on the line for something other than your performance . This is just one of many pet peeves I have with Corporate America lately. Seems it's all about looks and being politically correct rather than attracting and keeping the best talent you can. What's sadder is that Okemos isn't exactly a burgeoning metropolis. It's about as "Green Acres" as you can get. So, to those who say that the Weyco employees have the "choice" to go somewhere else, rest assured...they don't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More from LadyHawk:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok. Forgive me, but this is going to be a little lengthy. I've been in the health care industry for over 2o years. Time for a little Insurance 101 training here.
First off, most employee benefit enrollment forms don't even ask if a person smokes. And, it doesn't matter if it does, because most people lie about their smoking, anyway. Ok? So, how does an insurance company determine what the employer's insurance premium payment should be? There are several factors, two of the most important of which are: demographics and actual experience.
To wit: if an employer has 100 employees, 50% of whom smoke, their premium will be raised based on a.) the likelihood that a %age of those 50% will develop lung cancer or other respiratory diseases and b.) the actual number ($ amount) of claims filed by the employer's personnel over the last benefit year....regardless of the condition behind the claim. With me so far? Ok...
So, in summary, an employer pays increased premiums based on the actual claims submitted by its employees (claims experience) than on what a given subset of individuals within the employee base does. That's why actuaries have jobs, folks. If employees quit smoking, they may not develop lung cancer or other respiratory diseases. But, if the remaining population delivers a lot of premature babies, or experiences heart attacks, then the health insurance premium is still going to increase.
Please don't misunderstand me, here. Having quit smoking myself some years ago, I would be the first to tell anyone the benefits of quitting. BUT....I was successful only because I was ready and willing to quit. Mandates from friends and close family had not been successful and only left me resentful and spiteful.
If we hand over the reins to employers to be the moral compass of each of us, look out! How far will we be from having employers mandate other behaviors outside of work? Think about it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, but that it were that easy! See, you can't segregate a group within a group and charge them a different rate than the rest of the group. Why? Because the employer already gets a "group discount" from the insurer.
Insurers are in place to bear risk. Risk is the name of the game. Now, one can certainly attempt to lower risk in an effort to lower premiums and many employers are trying to do this in a more motivational and educational way. But, you must understand that there is no guarantee that the premium will decrease. You can get every employee to quit smoking and still pay a rate hike and the hike will have nothing to do smoking. The employer may not have had a single claim submitted related to lung disease and still pay a substantial increase due to one AIDS or premature birth claim....what do you do? Charge the increased premium to the AIDS victim or the mother?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
