Are you advocating putting them all out of business? That's a great idea.:smash: Then, the former employees can all go work for convenience stores for minimum wage. Oops, have to close them too because they sell tobacco products. How about supermarkets? Sorry, they sell unhealthy food and cigarettes. Liquor store? How about Walmart? Where do you want to end? Are you going to hire all these people to come and work for you making t-shirts? Will you provide them with a decent wage and benefits?

Think about the people who work at fast food restaurants and retail stores. Most of the employees are younger and work part-time. They don't need health insurance because they are covered by their parents. Many of the older ones have a spouse who has insurance or are on a program like Rite Care. They don't have to go without insurance in most cases. Don't blame an industry for the countries problems.

If your argument is just that the food is unhealthy, you're right. But there are alternatives for people. No one is forced to go to a fast food restaurant. Just like no one is forced to smoke or drink or do drugs. Clearly many people don't want to take personal responsibility for their own actions or their health.

Good luck to you if you feel that the governement is best equipped to decide what's best for you and your family when it comes to your health.

I'm not advocating putting them out of business, but I don't think you can have a discussion about health care without incorporating the causes.
I don't want them slobbering grease over my tee shirts. Plus I've noticed a lot 2X & 3X sizes going out the door - that can't be good for my customers. Fat fishermen dropping dead from heart attacks don't come back in the fall to buy a hoodie.

There are just way too many causes nowadays. Also, people just don't care about their health as much because they are raised to be selfish gluttons. It's o.k. in society to be fat and out of shape. There will always be someone there to tell you that you look great.

People have to decide that they want to live a healthy lifestyle. Most private pay health plans incorporate incentives for people to get in and stay in good shape. My company's plan offers money off gym memberships for employees. Wanna guess how many people take advantage of it? Out of 85 people in our BCBS plans, 4 people use the fitness reimbursement (and that includes me).

Now I see your agenda against fast food. If one of your customers dies from a heart attack, you lose sales. If you can keep em' healthy and alive, you get repeat business. It's harder to get new customers than it is to keep current customers, correct?

Well, I have a great idea for you, Joe. "Fish Hard, Live Short" tee's with a picture of a cheeseburger on the front. Only sell them in double and triple XL and charge a premium. For the rest of your customers, start selling "Fish Hard, Live Long" Muscle shirts for men and sports bras for women. It's a win-win situation for you.

This isn't an issue about Fast Food joints making people fat. It's an issue of fat people making themselves fatter.

In this day, there is no scarcity of evidence that fast food in excess is terrible for you. That going to any of the above mentioned locations for meals regularly is putting you on the fast track to heart disease.

However, people need to take responsibility for their own actions. People know the food is bad for them. For example, I was at a Wendy's once and the guy in line in front of me was easily tipping 300+ on the scale. He ordered 2 large-sized Value Meals, then asked for a diet coke with each. After laughing about the diet coke, I assumed he was ordering for someone else. Until he sat down with both and finished them within 5 minutes.

I don't need the government to tell me what's good for me, and what's not good for me. All I need is the government to regulate companies so that they cannot be deceitful as to the contents of their food. *Then* I can make decisions for myself.

This is like the person who successfully sued McDonald's after she spilled coffee on herself because it was too hot.

:agree: But big government is going to tell a lot of us what we can and cannot
do when Health-Care is approved.

The Pentagon is already saying that military personnel should not be allowed
to smoke. Like that is dangerous compared to training for battle and being
in an active military zone.

Where is the freedom of choice?

Could be when you consider the respiratory ramifications that come with smoking and the decreased oxygen uptake capable by the lungs. I'd prefer our soldiers to be of the utmost physical capabilities and smoking with prevent that.

Not to mention that the military is their employer and pays the bills for their medical. Employers are being allowed to discriminate against smokers, why should the military?

There is no freedom of choice in the military.

My father was a lifer in the Navy. He saw some bad stuff even in peacetime - lots of training deaths and severe injuries.
There's a big tobacco culture in the military, it's going to be a tough one to break. I think if you can serve, you should be able to have a beer and some cigarettes regardless of your age, or whether or not it pisses off the Muslim population.
The Pentagon should concentrate on making sure all humvees are armored and that each serviceman has adequate body armor before dictating lifestye.
Let the military provide services to help vets quit after their tours are over if, they're still alive - active servicemen have more immediate concerns.

I agree, Joe. If a guy who volunteers to go overseas and protect me and my family from people who want us all dead decides he wants to smoke a cigarette, by all means smoke up buddy! Any little enjoyment they can get while out on the front lines is o.k. by me. They have the most important job I can think of.

JD, correct me if I'm wrong, but i thought employers required their employees to smoke outside, not require them to quit?

Joe i agree. While I'm not a smoker, i believe that as an American putting your life on the line for your country you should have the choice.

If employees of the military are not allowed to smoke for health reasons, then people signing up for Govt. Health Care shouldn't be allowed either for the same reason.

The Govt. taking away choices, with the coming of Health-Care, and deciding what is good for you ,is just beginning.


Make sure you wear your mittens in the winter. ;)

An employer can fire you for just about anything, as long as it is not directly related to you being in a protected class. In Massachusetts, if they fire you within 90 days of being hired, an employer can fire someone without having to worry about paying for Unemployment benefits.

Here's a story from 2006. Nothing has changed since then:
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news...91/detail.html

I completely agree. I don't care what people do in their private lives, until it affects my wallet or quality of life. Now, considering the long-term health care costs for smokers, people smoking in the military or any other government job is costing me money in increased health insurance costs for those people.

And I still believe soldiers smoking can become a possible risk due to respiratory issues.

The 90 day period is called "Employment at Will" and it's true that an employer can terminate an employee for any reason or no reason at all during that period. But, a person can still be eligible for unemployment benefits. The first 90 days is for all intents and purposes a "probationary period". If someone leaves a job for a new one and then gets laid off by the new employer after 60 days, they can collect unemployment benefits.

The smoking thing is becoming more popular with employers, especially cities and towns. Firefighters in many towns aren't allowed to smoke because being exposed to toxic substances and smoke as part of someone's job raises the risk of lung disease. Insurance for risky jobs is more costly than insurance for some lazy goof sitting at a desk visiting fishing forums all day.

This is the only part I think you are off on. My understanding of the law is if a person *leaves* their job, they are not eligible for unemployment from that employer in the future. Also, if they are laid off by their next employer within 90 days, the new employer is not on the hook for the unemployment either.

I have won 3 different unemployment appeals based on the above experience.
One said "I'm outta here. I don't have to take this," when a customer complaint was brought to his attention. I told him fine, I accept your resignation, at which point he tried to double back. The arbitrator stated his exclamation was essentially an "I quit".
Second was for a person rightfully fired within 90 days. I had proof he had stolen something and the arbitrator basically said it didn't matter because he was a probationary employee.
Third, the person quit their job with us for another job, was then fired 30 days later from that job and tried to file for unemployment from us. Arbitrator stated that because he quit, he wasn't eligible.

Now, that is all from an employer's standpoint. A person very well may be able to collect unemployment benefits if they leave a job and then are laid off after 60 days. But I know neither of those two employers are liable to pay for it.

Johhny, I'm about 99.9% sure on this since it's my job to be sure about it. Check the Mass DOL website. I terminated a manager after 7 weeks on the job and he was able to collect unemployment from our account. It was a percentage of what he got and the rest came from the "balancing account". The balancing account is just what they call the pool of money collected from all employers for unemployment insurance. So even when a company is not the chargeable employer, they really are still paying a small amount into it.

Did you appeal it?

My appeal came at the advice of our lawyer and resulted with a decision in our favor.

However, this wouldn't be the first time MA DOL made a decision that went against current regulations. So maybe I just lucked out. I do know that I never paid an additional cent for it.

I called someone at DOL and they said it was unlikely it would get reversed because it the termination was not for "disqualifying reasons". I don't really have the time to go to appeals anymore and when I send Mangers or Operations Managers, they usually lose because they don't know what to say.

Makes sense. Even my business partner was somewhat useless at one of the meetings and initially, I wasn't going to go. A good thing I had gone because I'm sure we wouldn't have won the decision.

The only reason any other country's medical systems still work is because of the US medical system and profitable research. If the US goes to a government-controlled system, research will die, and so will billions around the world.

0bamacare may appear to be a decent short-term solution 9if you are a commie) but it is certainly not a long term solution.

the 19 TRILLION price tag isn't doable either unless capitalism is crushed.

What part imagination land did you get your "facts" from?

Looks like the Congressional Budget Office disagrees with Obama's costs
saying the current plans would add to the nation's long term Health Care costs rather than reduce them.

A bi-partisan group of Governors are not to happy saying the plan would call on their state Medicare plans to pick up 30% of the costs.

I wish something like this was being handled by a more bipartisan Congress.

we have a super computer
or two...

why are they not being used ?

to help us Mortals... with these grand decisions

I agree JD.
This is a far reaching issue that deserves a well thought out program rather than
a one party push for political reasons.

These Programs keep growing in time until there is nothing left to fund them.

Pushing 30% of the cost of Health Care on the States, a plan originally meant to
help women with children making less then $10,000/yr, is a typical example of how these programs grow.

Meantime, the Social Security Program, the biggest Ponzi Scheme ever put over
on the American People, has grown close to extinction.

Super computers, don't get votes, Rav. :)

If Obamacare comes to be, how long before the government starts to dictate the other parts of our lives ?

You can't smoke (it is hazardous to your health).

You can't drink alcohol (it hurts your liver).

You are overweight, so no more McDonalds

No more fossil fuel powered vehicles

no more,no more......

Let's hope this hits a wall.

I do agree that healthcare costs are spiraling out of control. But Obamacare isn't the solution.

How about we DO AWAY with ambulance chasers who advertise on TV...

Limiting these types of law suits would go a long way in making health care more affordable IMHO.

The problem isn't in the foundation of the health care system. It's a broken implementation at the state level.

What's the difference if people are getting government subsidized health care or the current system where the feds pay a hospital direct for taking care of people without health care?

you are what you eat
 

preservatives and additives have created poor health in this country..... we call the USA

We have the highest level of agriculture
and yet the lowest level of Nutritional health
with our citizens ....

health care:

it didn't get done during the Clinton Administration
or the Bush Administration

So i don't expect it to get done now........
going on vacation is much more important.

Bingo Mac, pass Tort reform to limit malpractice law suites which will
eliminate unnecessary medical tests and reduce the cost of medical malpractice insurance and you'll lower medical costs immediately.

JD, if i am reading your question right, here in lies the rub.

We don't know what is in the current bill so we can't compare the cost
of the two. Which is the least costly, what is the scope of the plan, how
will we pay for the plan, what will be the effect on current private plans,
will companies do away with their plans to their employees?

We were promised transparency and yet the only thing we
have to go on is Obama's word that this is another emergency and
you will be able to keep your own current plan if you choose.

Not for nothin, but even he doesn't know everything that's in the plan.

No axe to grind here, but this is Obama's plan and it is ALL of us who will end up paying for it. I just want a fair shake with knowing as much
as my senators do before a vote is taken.

What's the rush. :huh:

I can alleviate much of the costs for health care.

My friends know me as a calloused bastard when it comes to my opinion of people who are a waste of life and have/will never contribute to society. 4 years working 911 in Hartford, CT and 2 years in the Boston area give you an insight to the medical field that many haven't a clue about.

I have two proposals:
First the "If you did it to yourself, I'm not helping you" proposal. People in the hospital due to drug abuse, alcohol abuse, "attempted" suicide, effects from smoking and other self-inflicted "medical" conditions get one shot at assistance. Reform yourself or you get nothing. This way, good money isn't thrown at people who have no ambition of improving their lives.
You smoked for 50 years and now you have lung cancer but no insurance? Sorry, game over.
Instead of getting a job, you sat at home putting back a fifth of vodka every day and now your liver doesn't work, sucks to be you.

This has a two-fold benefit. Decreased costs for hospitals serving the uninsured (thus decreased reimbursements from the feds) and a possible decrease crime for obvious reasons.

Second the "We're not paying for your drugs" policy, mandatory drug testing for every person on Welfare, Medicaid or any other government assistance, be it subsidized diapers for your baby or free prescriptions. Fail two drug tests in a 12-month period - Game Over. Why should I pay to help people that refuse to help themselves?

The rush is that unless Obama can do this this year it probably won't get done. Considering it's going to take a decade to roll out, he can declare success moving forward simply because something has been done about the situation.

I agree with the above that this should be a bi-partisan bill simply because of how important it is. While I think a lot of what I'm hearing about the plan from the usual pundits is a lot of fear mongering, there does appear to be a lot in it that's not very desireable.

I don't think tort reform is the magic bullet, but it's a necessary component. There has been some constructive talk in the Senate about working towards rewarding doctors on the quality of care rather than the quantity of care. This is a good model that they should play out.

If Obama is smart he'll put Pelosi in a box on this one and look towards the Senate to find common ground with the GOP. He's already stretched with independent voters on the stim bill and this has the possibility to just kill the Dems in the 2010 cycle as I've mentioned before.

-spence

Your probably right, what he wants may not get done, but when it is properly
thought out, debated with both parties on board it will be a better plan for the American people.
Tort is one of the few things that can be done to save $ immediately imho.