And if we catch you smoking you'll be charge $25

Published

Recently, our hopsital made insurance adjustments which included employees having to certify that they were non-smokers or be charge $25.00 a week extra for health insurance. They have also begun to charge any employee that catch smoking on any hospital property $25.00 for every time they are caught. I'm not a smoker, but this is really taking things kinda far. I still see patients and family members smoking on benches inspite of them putting up additional signs and taking sown smoking hutts. Anyone else have this going on by them? I hear the next move similar to this is gonna be for the over-weight employees. I might have to find a new job then.

I just wish cigarettes were illegal, I would never go find a "dealer". I could quit easier that way. Why are cigarettes legal anyway? I'm totally on board with a no smoking policy, even fines for smoking on company property, but to have my supervisor drive by my home and see me smoking outside and fine me...that seems invasive.

Why should they be illegal? Because you have a problem quitting?

If we made them illegal because people abuse them and it's detrimental to their health, then we should make alcohol, any foods with little nutritional value, table salt, refined sugar, tanning beds, and watching too much TV illegal.

There is no need to create laws to protect people from themselves. People need to take responsibility for their own actions and decisions.

Employers have every right to make rules regarding what sorts of activities are or are not permitted on their property. They even have the right to discriminate against non-protected classes of citizens who do things they don't agree with.

But, in my opinion, an employer who chooses to screen what I do in my time away from work and hire or fire me based on that, is not an employer I will work for.

Personally, I think drug screens without suspicion of drug use at work or evidence of unsafe behavior at work, are too much, but whatever...

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Tele, OB, public health.
Where are they? Raising my hand ...

I wear a dress size 10. But my BMI is 29.9 (just shy of "obese")

I work with a nurse who has calculated his BMI at 36. He's a big dude. He also goes to the gym 5 days/week after a 12-hr. shift (he works 2 jobs) and does an hour of cardio. His weight is stable and labs are WNL.

The BMI is crap for a diagnostic tool.

I agree as I stated in my original

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I think we can all agree to disagree on this, can we not...while having higher insurance premiums is completely different from charging people from lighting up on campus, I do think that the latter of the two is highly un-called for. Have insurance companies of all types not raised the rates for "risky" behavior for years? Car insurance companies have the stigma of raising rates for red cars, men, all persons under 25, bad credit scores, etc. Health insurance companies have always had a higher rate for those with high cholesterol, HTN, DM--it costs them more to treat them, so it should cost you more to carry insurance. I think the same goes for smokers, if you chose to smoke (nobody is forcing you to light up), then you should suffer the consequences, even if that means higher premiums. I do think that charging the $20 to those found smoking on campus is going a little overboard--I too would want to know where that money is going...

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in LTC, MDS, Education.

Hmmm, maybe that's why I haven't found a job yet. 33 yrs experience and interviewing since December. Maybe the Febreeze isn't working. Any ideas? I know I have to quit but I can't do it now do to STRESS! I think they should pay smokers the 25 dollars if they get through a shift without taking a smoke break! :smokin: haha

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Clinical Research, Outpt Women's Health.

"But, in my opinion, an employer who chooses to screen what I do in my time away from work and hire or fire me based on that, is not an employer I will work for.

Personally, I think drug screens without suspicion of drug use at work or evidence of unsafe behavior at work, are too much, but whatever... "

I was thinking "fribbet go jump in a lake" until you stated the part above,and then I was all "sista! I agree completely" lets you and me run this country!:smokin::smokin::smokin:

Up Vote Up Vote ×
I currently work for the state (only 2 more days-woo hoo!). Our insurance just went up for smokers. In order for your insurance rate to stay the same, you must be a non-smoker or have documentation from your physician that you are involved in a smoking cessation program. The insurance company will be requiring random urine tests for tobacco. I have no idea how accurate they are, but I certainly can't afford my insurance to go from 80/20 to 70/30. Of course, that was all supposed to go into effect this month. There was talk of postponing it. They will also be forcing all state employees whose BMI is above a certain number to drop down to the 70/30 plan within the next 2 years.

Are you from NC? That's exactly what they're doing here.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Good rule.

Smokers should be charged more for insurance than non-smokers because the risk of having health problems increase if you're a smoker.

I feel every hospital in the country should be a non smoking facility for everyone.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, School Nursing, & Community Health.
Sure it's the same for smoking. A person can smoke a cigarette a few times a year with no detrimental health effects.

The health issues take effect when one becomes addicted and starts smoking everyday, many times a day.

There was a recent study that showed smoking marijuana did not put one at an increased risk for lung cancer. This was true even for those who were heavy marijuana smokers. (I don't believe this study looked at any other lung disease other than cancer. It's been a while since I read it.)

Interesting, no?

Could you please link this study because I just don't buy it. First off, many people who are heavy marijuana smokers are also cigarette smokers. How are you to determine which was the cause of the cancer, emphysema, COPD, etc? Also, how many people openly admit to their doctor that they smoke marijuana daily? That would obviously skew the results. I'm not against people doing what they like but I just don't buy this garbage that it doesn't have a detrimental effect on your body.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Just wanted to add, that I had no intent to be self-righteousness in my post. I was a smoker until very recently. I live in a state that is incredibly unfriendly to smokers, no smoking indoors anywhere, within 25 feet of doorways, on most school campuses and public beaches/parks. The most recent legislation is aimed at preventing people from smoking on their outdoor patios. Awesome. There is a culture of villainizing the smoker and I get "over the top." I am not of the mind that all smokers are smelly wretches forcing us all to inhale their poison.

I just do not see why employees insist on smoking on campus? I've done the extra walking, jumped in my car, whatever - on my 15. Some days it was worth it to me, some days it wasn't. I assumed the fines were being instituted by law enforcement, perhaps that naivete on my part? I love VivaRN's thoughts and agree that there are more constructive ways to implement policy ... I just sincerely believe that merely ignoring the limitation instead of trying to implement change only feeds into the creation of a power struggle.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Could you please link this study because I just don't buy it. First off, many people who are heavy marijuana smokers are also cigarette smokers. How are you to determine which was the cause of the cancer, emphysema, COPD, etc? Also, how many people openly admit to their doctor that they smoke marijuana daily? That would obviously skew the results. I'm not against people doing what they like but I just don't buy this garbage that it doesn't have a detrimental effect on your body.

I'd link you the study, but considering how poorly you read my post, I fear that it would be difficult for you to comprehend.

If you'd actually read my post, you would see that the study (as I remember it) looked at LUNG CANCER and not other lung diseases. I specifically stated this.

Also regarding patients not telling their MD that they smoke marijuana, I doubt any person who was afraid to tell their doctor they smoke pot would likely not have voluntarily participated in a study ABOUT SMOKING POT.

I mean, do you have any idea how research works? Seriously...

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, School Nursing, & Community Health.
I'd link you the study, but considering how poorly you read my post, I fear that it would be difficult for you to comprehend.

If you'd actually read my post, you would see that the study (as I remember it) looked at LUNG CANCER and not other lung diseases. I specifically stated this.

Also regarding patients not telling their MD that they smoke marijuana, I doubt any person who was afraid to tell their doctor they smoke pot would likely not have voluntarily participated in a study ABOUT SMOKING POT.

I mean, do you have any idea how research works? Seriously...

Another user who quotes something as fact and then can't back it up LOL. Ok please link the study where it looked at LUNG CANCER. When you state something the burden of proof is on you, my friend. BTW, my point was that if you studied everyone who had lung cancer, how many of those would admit to heavy marijuana usage? My guess is not many.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion