(Untitled)

[benchilada]

Cleveland Clinic will no longer hire smokers
By Phil Galewitz
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 29, 2007
The Cleveland Clinic, which runs a hospital in Weston and a new outpatient health center in West Palm Beach, will no longer hire smokers, the company announced today.

The world famous health institution

Comments

non-smoker, if it matters

[ikichi]

That... doesn't seem like that should be legal. Maybe they "should" be, but medical professionals aren't required to live by example (how many seriously overweight cardiologists have we met?). I could see not being allowed to smoke on the property (even outside)/ during your hours, but this seems extreme.

[petalsandflames]

This really rubs me the wrong way. :(

I can understand it to some degree, but I think it could be a dangerous precedent to set.

Hmmm...

its food for thought. its kind of chewy and piquant...and I'm not sure I like the taste.

[petalsandflames]

ALSO! Pollution causes more cancer and other health problems than most of the actions of individual people, so why isn't there more focus on that? Just a side matter. In Chicago there will be no smoking in any public building in 2008. They say its for the health. Fine, dandy. But what about the factories spewing hellfire and brimstone into the air? Let's just gloss over that....right.

Sorry. Not to get on a soap box. -_-

[petalsandflames]

Hey, no need to get feisty. I see your point...I guess my frustration lies in the fact that while this federal agency exists, and we have these "agreements on acceptable levels of pollution we can tolerate," many of those rules aren't actually enforced, or they are minimal monetary fines that are simply easier to pay than to fix the problem. And things are getting worse in many places, not better. And by saying what I'm saying, I'm not proposing that there shouldn't be regulations on where smoking is allowed. All I mean is that there was a huge to-do about smoking in this city, and all the while there are severe problems that aren't being addressed in the realm of air pollution. And there is very little choice for anyone to avoid something that affects everyone equally, regardless of choice of workplace or personal habit. That's all I was intending to say. In reality, that's a whole different ball of wax, and it’s quite messy

[el_jake]

If the true issue is the company wanting to save health insurance money, I think there are much better ways to get people to stop smoking... nothing was mentioned about the current employees that are getting grandfathered in on this. When I worked at the hospital, my boss had a very well known policy that he would hand out a $300.00 bonus to anyone who quit smoking for 6 months. There were no urine tests, it was just on the honors system, and to my knowledge no one ever bullshitted their way into that cash

[nyhamsterhouse]

I really like your carrot instead of stick idea regarding smoking and insurance (and of course I realize that we are both totally making up why this company has this new policy--maybe it's for some freaky religious reason, who the hell knows

[nyhamsterhouse]

1) Because the default in humans is not smoking. Smoking is the choice, not not smoking. I was speaking for myself there (ie, I don't want to be the patron at the bar next to you while you smoke), but the larger picture would be that I don't want to the the waitress who HAS to serve you and stand within feet of you while you smoke. Which brings us to

why not?

[rick_day]

specifically: every employer has the right to demand a 'drug-free' employee both in the workplace, and off-work-lace as well. ref- marijuana

generally: the more the government allows business to treat nicotine and alcohol as a prohibited consumable by the average user, the faster overall drug prohibition will topple by revolt of the populus.

I've always been of the opinion that cannabis, tobacco and spirits should be equally regulated under the law.

[kali921]

I'm not opposed to this emotionally, to be honest. I'm not sure if it will stand up in court, of course, and since tobacco is still legal in the United States I'm not sure if it's legal to incorporate a hiring practice specifically banning use of a legal substance like tobacco, which isn't a psychotropic or psychoactive drug or NSD to the degree that, say, alcohol is. There's also the disturbing thought that if this does stand up in court, if its challenged, it sets a precedent for health insurance companies to deny coverage to smokers, which I think would be tragic.

I'm an ex-smoker, and I bitterly regret the years that I wasted on compromising my own health. I live in one of the most anti-smoking cities in the world - that being San Francisco - and I'm damn glad I do. About the only place you can smoke in San Francisco is in your own home and in public places, and even then, there are restrictions at some buildings on how close you can get to them with a cigarette in your hand. It's not uncommon to see people get bitched out in a

[kali921]

Health insurance companies can deny you coverage for pretty much any reason they want to. And why shouldn't they? The whole point of insurance is to pool risk. If you dirty that pool by constantly allowing people who (e.g.) on average cost 3x more than others, you're doing a disservice to EVERYONE.

I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree with you here - I think that healthcare is a right, not a privilege, and I'm a strong believer in universal healthcare. Until American society gets enlightened enough to take care of its own in terms of healthcare, we are dealing with a deeply, deeply flawed insurance system. I don't think it's right to deny ANYONE health insurance coverage; I don't think that type of "your life is worth less than my bottom line" bullshit has a place in a civilized First World democracy that purports to be the Greatest Nation on Earth.

However, given that, since smoking is so specifically a destructive behavior that impacts others than the smoker his or herself, I don't think *I* should have to pay extra. But I do

[nhyrvana]

"As an aside to your story, this is why I am pro a public-places smoking ban, but think it should be left to the private home or business owner to decide for their own. Also, I abhor smoking."

I second this 100%

-emily