It seems personal when it is you, no? Just like your visceral reaction based on yours and your friends reaction. (my post might have seemed more angry, was supposed to be more snarky than anything...)

Everyone's situation is different ,that we can agree on
We can both probably agree on it's a matter of convenience not necessity in most cases
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bingo.

I agree, taxes should be (in part) calculated by our weight not just our income.
If you want to get the weight down and make america healthier, tax someone by the pound.

attached is a list of some of the largest, successful companies in america. Waa, waa, they're run by WOMEN! Thats right a WOMAN runs IBM. HP, PepsiCO.
WTF! So when that little girl (aka victim) whined about equal pay in the debate, one of the candidates should have said "sweetie, do you have clue how many major companies are run by women? You work hard and prove yourself and people will be fighting for you and will pay you what you're worth" End of f'in story.

America's top 10 female CEOs- MSN Money

America's 10 Most Powerful Female CEOs | InvestorPlace

Or....sweetie... do you know who the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives is? SHE has a net worth of about 58 million dollars.

They should be paid the same....as long as they are performing to the same level required by the person/company hiring them then it shouldn't matter what their weight is, or what their sex is.

Maybe Their health insurance contributions should be higher if they have high risk factors (i.e. smokers, drinkers, obesity)...but their pay should be given to them strictly on their performance. They do their job, they get paid.....

If they miss more days of work then you can fire them or dock their pay......

Muscle weighs more than fat :)

"Romney doesn't get women who work" - CNN

(Possibly, but we know Clinton did, in more ways than one!)

Maybe if he called it a little black book? Surely that would be less offensive that binder?

All I see is more waste of time and money defending an idiot attack by idiots!

Maybe after we finish with Bigbird and Binders we can tackle truly important issues....like "Is bigfoot real?" or "What is the special sauce on a Big Mac made from?"

[QUOTE=FishermanTim;964850(Possibly, Maybe after we finish with Bigbird and Binders we can tackle truly important issues....like "Is bigfoot real?" or "What is the special sauce on a Big Mac made from?"[/QUOTE]

Or let's spend 2 more years trying to find out if Obama is really a Muslim:rotf2:

Like I said above, smokers and the obese with the same skill set are statistically less productive than their healthier counterparts with the same skill set. There is a reason why many businesses (and health insurance companies) reimburse the costs of fitness club memberships - because it has been proven that people with an unhealthy lifestyle have a significantly higher costs of employment than their healthier coworkers.

"The most obese men take 5.9 more sick days a year; the most obese women, 9.4 days more. Obesity-related absenteeism costs employers as much as $6.4 billion a year, health economists led by Eric Finkelstein of Duke University calculated."
The costs of obesity cost us all | World of DTC Marketing.com

The obese are a slow-walking, heavy-breathing ticking time bomb. Statistically, it's not a matter of *if* they are going to miss work or under-perform, it is a matter of *when*.

There's a reason Obamacare allows employers to charge their employees who smoke or are obese 30-50% more for health care.
Insight: Firms to charge smokers, obese more for healthcare | Reuters

But, like I said....if absenteeism is a problem...get rid of them or dock them pay.

I am 5'11" and weigh 210 pounds...I'm classified as obese. I have missed only 3 days in the past 3.75 years at my current position and 1 day in 7 years at my last company. ....thats 4 days in almost 11 years.

and I sit next to 2 guys that are in shape and younger than me......and they have both been out sick more then those 4 days..... just this year.

yet I should should get paid less than them for doing the same job because some chart says I'm overweight and statistics say I'm prone to being out more than them.

you shouldn't pay people on statistics....you should pay them on performance. If they can't perform....lose them....that simple.

And it IS a good idea to reimburse for health club memberships because if you are leading a healthy lifestyle as opposed to a non-healthy lifestyle and should be rewarded for that because it does help with the Health benefits within a company. Like I said as well...charge them more of a contribution to their health insurance if they meet certain risk factors.

"I am 5'11" and weigh 210 pounds"

(1) you are not obese
(2) your observations of yourself and a few co-workers do not make a statistically significant sample. I flip a coin, it comes up heads, can I conculde that the coin will never come up tails? Nope.

Obesity and smoking are very expensive to business. Smoking is a personhal choice, obesity is almost always a personal choice.

Jim, dangerous terrirotry here and you sound very liberal. My personal choices are non of yours, the governmetns or my employers F'in business. fat, bald, smoker, eater, man, woman, etc. non of your business as long as I deliver.

You absolutely correct. However as a business owner, if I don't want to hire you because you're obese or a smoker and historical evidence has demonstrated that you're statistically likely to perform poorly, isn't that also my choice?

Isn't it also my choice to try and find the most affordable health care benefits for my employees and instill a surcharge on those that cause rates to be higher for people that make healthy choices in their lives? It's certainly your choice to find a new job if you don't like it.

As I stated above, smokers and the obese are ticking time bombs and copious amounts of data support that fact. With any statistically significant sample size, it is irrefutable that they cost employers more than their coworkers who live healthier lifestyles.

I dont believe that smoking or obeseity (unless a handicap?) are protected classes.

If I have anynthing more than a glass of water before the weigh in I am screwed

http://img.webmd.com/dtmcms/live/web...w/h9991023.gif

I'm not saying that people shouldn't pay for their risky lifestyle choices...I'm saying if they are going to pay for them it should be tied to what they pay in health Insurance.....not what a company pays you to do your job.

And what I've been saying is that health care costs isn't the only problem. For companies, there is a very significant Productivity Cost that come with hiring people with unhealthy lifestyles.

From the link I posted earlier:
"The very obese lose one month of productive work per year, costing employers an average of $3,792 per very obese male worker and $3,037 per female."

This thread takes a page out of the democratic play book .
What was the original posters intent? :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And Like RIJIMMY said...Then Don't Hire Them

And Like I said Fire them or Dock their pay for underperforming...

but if you hire 2 people to do the same job and they show up the same amount of time and are performing the same....you shouldn't be paying the Chubby guy less just because he's chubby.

Where does the Chub Persecution end? :hihi:

"as long as I deliver"

Thagt's my point. As a group, over time, the obese and smokers will (1) not be as productive as others, and (2) will cost the business tons of money in healthcare premiums.

I used to work as an actuary, pricing personal auto insurance. Take the group of drivers that are 18 year old boys, driving Ferraris, who have DUI convictions. The data says those are a very high risk group, so we charge them a ton for insurance. Yes, there are some exceptions...some of those kids may never have another claim. But as a group, they stink. So they all pay through the nose.

Nothing liberal about that. I'm saying that people face the consequences of the choices they make. That's about as anti-liberal as you can get.

That height-weight chart is insane. You're pretty healthy.

"if they are going to pay for them it should be tied to what they pay in health Insurance.....not what a company pays you to do your job"

That's a very compelling argument. But if I own a business, can I choose not to hire people that are in a group that's likely (not certain) to be less productive? An interesting question.

Such an interesting question that I already asked it.:cheers:

It was such a brilliant, probing question, I figured it was worth repeating.

Hope all is well.

According to that chart I'm a fatty.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Commence outrage and "left wing political attacks" comments.

http://8.mshcdn.com/wp-content/uploa...-bayonets.jpeg

http://cdn.ph.upi.com/sv/i/UPI-44113...meme-VIDEO.jpg