Smoking Is a ‘Preexisting Condition’ — D.C. exchange board bans “discrimination” against smokers.

DC joins several states classifying smoking as a “pre-existing medical condition” under ObamaCare

“Under ObamaCare, insurers have the option of charging smokers up to 50 percent more to cover the associated higher costs of providing them with health care — but the District of Columbia, along with several other states, have decided that any plans being sold within their exchange are prohibited from adding tobacco surcharges. That simply wouldn’t be fair, you see.”

How long till smokers — with their sad pre-existing condition which they are obviously helpless to do anything about — are deemed “disabled” and any employment discrimination against them made illegal?

I am a freedom-loving kind of person who absolutely believes that as long as smoking is legal, free adult citizens have the right to smoke… but I also believe that anyone who stands to lose money because of a smoker’s habit has the right to mitigate those costs & consequences however they see fit.

Bloody hell.

Your “freedom” to do as you please ended the second you punched in, with someone else signing the paycheck.

Newsflash, it’s been like that – I’m spitballing here – at least since the first guy got hired to help thresh wheat in Babylonia 6000 years ago.

So I’m thinking the case law on this isn’t going to favor nicotine addicts. Before anyone starts storming the beaches on some employer’s doorstep, maybe start storming the beaches at the public library, if not the law library.
Just saying.

So please, spare the false dichotomy between demanding any job, or reverting to robbing banks. Somewhere a lot closer to common sense is working somewhere else, or even just kicking your “lifestyle” habit. BTW, heroin is a “lifestyle habit too. So is child molesting. This can get as ridiculous as necessary to make the point, but the simple fact is, you have no inherent right to MY money, just because I hang out a “help wanted” sign. I’m hoping that concept was covered for you once, somewhere prior to right now on a blog.

And what of an employer’s freedom to hire whomever he or she wants? Did your forefathers envision a world where an employee’s (made-up) “right” to force someone to hire them and thus fill their wallet trumps an employer’s right to freely choose who they do and do not wish to employ?

Your freedom to earn a living does not equate with forcing someone who does not want to hire you to fill your wallet. They are the ones risking the capital for their business, they should get to decide whom they want to risk it on.

This is not a “Nazi” concept; it is a very Libertarian one.

Can’t you people see that this isn’t about safety, this is about taking your individual rights to chose your lifestyle. You are not allowed to live a certain way now, lest you have to resort to crime so that you can afford to live how you want to live.

Where do we draw the line??? This is getting ridiculous! I’m so close to saying screw America, I’m starting to think there is no turning back; it died when the forefathers did. In this little NAZI utopia, there will be a massive amount of people who will be forced to collaborate and destroy the government and businesses that dictate how we are suppose to live our lives.

The forefather’s would be rolling in their graves if they knew that you people hated freedom so much; they’d be rolling in their graves as they find out slowly that liberty has taken a back seat to bottom-line profit. This country is capitalism first (greed), then maybe the Constitution (freedom). That’s funny, I kind of figured the forefather’s thought that my freedoms trump your wallets.

…

Silly me.

You have no “right” to a job with me or anyone else.
If I’m an employer, I can refuse to hire you because you’re ugly and your mother dresses you funny. Or because you shake hands like your hand’s numb, or you have dirty fingernails, or ride a unicycle, or play the accordion. Or whatever else I deem a good reason why I don’t want to hire you, provided I’m not enforcing a policy in direct opposition to EEOC guidelines about race, sex, age, etc.

If you’re quite a catch, someone else will hire you. If you’re not, they won’t. And if times are tight, you’ll adapt, or you’ll starve.

And if I’m out of pocket for health coverage for your spouse and kids, and they’re both at risk for additional health problems, by either or both adults smoking, you’re SOL. Because it’s my nickel, so it’s my party.

Don’t like it?
Find an employer who doesn’t cover your health care, or your spouse, or your children’s, and therefore doesn’t care what you do.
If they suck up all the excellent employees who smoke, maybe they’ll run me out of business. That’s a risk I take in making my policy.
Only if I demanded you financially subsidize my stupid business policies even if I didn’t hire you would you have any grounds for whining.

Welcome to life in Grown Up Land.

No one’s taking anything away from applicants.
They can freely smoke. They can freely apply for and hold down a job.
But they can’t do both.

Both of which are independent choices, requiring a simple decision on the applicant’s part. Telling you there’s a cliff on your right, and a bridge on your left, isn’t the same thing as pushing you off the cliff, nor forcing you at gunpoint to cross the bridge. You can choose to do neither, or one, or the other. Just not all of the above.

That this discussion is even necessary argues for flogging educators from K-PhD for dumbing down the critical thinking standards once common among middle-schoolers.

Eventually, we’d have people living longer healthier lives, which could potentially cost more than it did with smokers dying early- according to the new England Journal of Medicine. But, the simple solution to this is to raise the retirement age.

That mutation in your 14th chromosome is NOT your fault, but your habit is.

And, no, it does take quite a while for coal dust to kill you, as well as Asbestos- which second hand smoke does as well.

The bartender? Well, I’d hope he’s not drunk on the job, most employers wouldn’t stand for that. But just because someone gets drunk doesn’t mean they will hurt someone, but there’s no safe way to expose someone to second hand smoke.