Tuesday, January 25, 2005

No smoking.. at work or at home

What do you think of a firm refusing to hire employees who smoke in their free time? The company wants to keep its health care costs to a minimum.

I saw people can hire whomever they darn well please. If you agree, just keep in mind that people could use the same health-cost argument to avoid hiring gay men, among other groups. Now that would cause an outcry -- but smokers aren't protected by political correctness.


Dan said...

I can't really see how a company could objectively use a health cost minimization policy to keep out gay men. If anything, it would lower their costs, because gay partners aren't recognized and don't receive health care benefits with most companies, so that's fewer people to cover.

Adam Scavone said...

But what about when a community college discriminates against smokers with your tax dollars?

To the first point, I don't have time to put forward a coherent, well thought out argument, but the regulatory system that encourages employer-based coverage is at the heart of the matter. Think in terms of "defined benefits" versus "defined contributions." I'm sure a visit to Cato would shed light on the subject.

I don't know if anybody caught it, but there was a daily show last night (rerun i do believe) and they had a lady on trashing Tonik, a new health insurance program for young people that is made affordable by doing things like not covering pre-existing conditions.

For an old bag like her, yeah, that might be a problem. For healthy people 19-29 years old, though, a plan that includes dental for $73 a month with a $3,000 deductible might not be a bad idea.