Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (96840)	1/26/2005 1:01:53 AM
From: Lady Lurksalot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793728

KLP, I see some irony in this being an insurance company doing these firings. Smokers should be working towards getting themselves reclassified as a handicapped class (most ARE addicted), and thus be given protection against such capricious firings, fines, taxes, etc. I could go on. <g> - Holly

To: KLP who wrote (96840)	1/26/2005 2:45:18 AM
From: Lady Lurksalot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793728

KLP, "Another reason we need to have the Insurance Companies have huge risk pools of people, and have small companies (under 500 employees) be eligible to join one of those pools..." Companies (and individuals) must be really, REALLY careful re joining an insurance pool, as some pools can be so esoteric as to preclude coverage after the fact and even leave the hapless subscriber uninsured and uninsurable with other companies. Unless things have changed since I read of this unsavory practice by some insurance companies, extreme caution is in order. Many professional and trade organizations and local Chambers of Commerce offer comprehensive insurance at group rates and may be worth looking into. Beyond that, I hesitate to comment further. - Holly

To: KLP who wrote (96840)	1/26/2005 9:11:24 AM
From: Volsi Mimir	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793728

Canning the smokers- There was a lively discussion on Dori Monson yesterday--- He is for it.... taking his usual Libertarian stand- if you have a private company and are in control, one has the ability to limit anything that is not regulated by fed, state law. One is smoking and health insurance because the company has the policy and pays the premiums- and since smoking is a choice and does not have ANY health benefit (even drinking alcohol has some), not a health defect, pregnancy or being fat and many other 'if's that was thrown at Dori, AND also the company announced this over a year ago and helped in stop smoking-- he felt it was a correct justification. I agree. If you don't follow the rules that could be applied to all equally, then leave. (maybe a contract says more clearly, the sports stars have clauses what they can't do in their free time) The company's benefit-- lower cost, healthier folk, less missing days by employees (something about a study that showed smokers had more absent days-- dont know--there's studies for everything with a rainbow of results) ----------- The race question? if it isn't so important to list or not 'ethical'or PC then why does the Fed's Census includes it, asking multiple Q's about it and slice and dice it in many different views. ----------- The social security Q and the Dems plan: yes they have one-- do nothing (let their kid's kid's worry about it and what ever is presented, take the opposite position. (if it does cost a trillion dollars in 10yrs to overhaul the system, I am against it....). I do not believe it cost the taxpayers that much to set up Keogh's, IRA, SEP and MSA's. There is got to be something simpler, less costly. We do have a 'canary in the mine' though, Europe and their social system is estimated to break down in 15 years not 40 like ours.