President Obama's health care--

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Joe

McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King, KFC - They're profiting off contributing to heart disease and diabetes while not offering health care to most of their employees. This is where many of the 50 million without health care are working. The uninsured eventually get sick and the taxpayers pick up the bill. The profits and the jobs are outweighed by the social liabilities they incur. So F-them - they're one click above tobacco companies.

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.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I don't need the government to tell me what's good for me, and what's not good for me.

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?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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.

[Joe]

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.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Employers are being allowed to discriminate against smokers, why should the military?

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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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

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

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.

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.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

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.

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.