Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Smoking Ban

Smoking Ban at work Health

  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#21 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 10:34 AM

Broph, on Oct 31 2005, 09:56 PM, said:

Actually, it's a very fair comparison. What is health insurance - $3,000 or so a year? What do they charge extra for being a smoker? Let's just say $300 a year - 10%. So in 10 years they pay an extra $3,000. If they're at the job 40 years, that's an extra $12,000 over the course of 40 years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


On this I agree with you. I do think smokers SHOULD pay more for their health coverage. But IF we do, then we shouldn't have to listen to employers and non-smokers b**ching.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#22 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 10:56 AM

LORD of the SWORD, on Nov 1 2005, 03:29 PM, said:

Broph, on Nov 1 2005, 10:18 AM, said:

^But the civil case will be groundless. It would be a waste of time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Since when are cases involving discrimination pointless?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Well, first of all, it's not discrimination. Second of all, to bring a case up in civil court, you're dealing with tort law. There still would have had to have been a breach of law. There was none here; therefore a lawsuit would be pointless.

#23 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 11:00 AM

Lin731, on Nov 1 2005, 03:26 PM, said:

Quote

Let's take something like water and electricity. Let's say that at the end of the year, we add up all the water and electricity costs, divide by the number of users and send out the bill. The guy who washes his car every day, waters his lawn 24/7, takes 6 showers a day, washes each dish twice to make sure it's really clean, etc., and leaves every light burning all the time and the stereo blaring whether someone is home or not, pays the same as the guy who is conservative in usage.

Not a good comparison. We're not talking about how often you wash your car or how many lights you leave on in your house. We're talking about your JOB, the roof over your head, your ability to provide for your family. You seemed to miss the point entirely that once you allow for this singling out of groups. IT WON'T STOP THERE, it NEVER does. Maybe you're willing to allow an employer that kind of control over YOUR life but I'm not. They rent me for 8 hours a day, they don't OWN me. Do you really believe for a milisecond that if this were allowed it would really impact your insurance premiums? I surely don't, call me a cynic. Insurance companies, healthcare providers, drug companies all charge what they can get away with and they can get away with ALOT (they have a captive market don't they)? If the idea is to only offer insurance to the healthy, than let's just do away with insurance all together. Just be aware, what you're fine with having "done unto others" will eventually be "done unto YOU".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


As I've already demonstrated, it's a completely valid comparison. If what you do affects me, then I should have a say in the matter. If you are costing me money, then it's an issue that affects me.

As far as affecting insurance premiums, well, it does, plain and simple. I just signed up for insurance for the house that I'm buying. They asked me if I smoked! To get insurance for my house, they asked if I smoked! I suppose there's a risk for smokers, leaving burning cigarettes, burning down the house, but I thought it was funny. But if a company is able to confirm that all the employees are non-smokers, then yes, they will get lower insurance premiums. Even if they are able to specify which people are and aren't smokers, they'll still get discounts on the non-smokers.

That's the way it works.

#24 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 11:01 AM

Themis, on Nov 1 2005, 03:04 AM, said:

I'm totally against smoking.  I'm allergic to tobacco smoke.  But  if an employer can restrict smoking on free time, what else can they restrict?  Blood sugar level?  Cholesterol level?  Genetic presidsposition toward cancers?  Number of sexual partners?  Number of speeding tickets?  "Dangerous" hobbies like downhill ski racing??    Nope.  If the ACLU wants to take this trend on, I'm all for them.

I think some distinction should be made between choice activities such as smoking, an non-choice ones such as having a hereditary elevated chance of cancer.

People who smoke, choose to do so at the end of the day, as to people who BASE jump and people who feel that three burgers for breakfast constitutes a valid choice.

I would distinguish between those two categories.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#25 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 11:15 AM

Themis, on Nov 1 2005, 02:04 AM, said:

I'm totally against smoking.  I'm allergic to tobacco smoke.  But  if an employer can restrict smoking on free time, what else can they restrict?  Blood sugar level?  Cholesterol level?  Genetic presidsposition toward cancers?  Number of sexual partners?  Number of speeding tickets?  "Dangerous" hobbies like downhill ski racing??    Nope.  If the ACLU wants to take this trend on, I'm all for them.

Themis

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I won't hit all of those topics, but let's take on downhill ski racing/snowboarding. Did you know that the cast of Andromeda had to refrain from such activities in their off-hours? The production company didn't want production delays due to broken bones and the like.

#26 Talkie Toaster

Talkie Toaster

    There's no Shepard without Vakarian

  • Islander
  • 1,136 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 11:31 AM

Godeskian, on Nov 1 2005, 04:01 PM, said:

I think some distinction should be made between choice activities such as smoking, an non-choice ones such as having a hereditary elevated chance of cancer.

People who smoke, choose to do so at the end of the day, as to people who BASE jump and people who feel that three burgers for breakfast constitutes a valid choice.

I would distinguish between those two categories.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Seconded.

Edited by Talkie Toaster, 01 November 2005 - 11:32 AM.

Blessed is the mind too small for doubt.

#27 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 11:39 AM

Broph, on Nov 1 2005, 10:56 AM, said:

Well, first of all, it's not discrimination. Second of all, to bring a case up in civil court, you're dealing with tort law. There still would have had to have been a breach of law. There was none here; therefore a lawsuit would be pointless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Hence my previous statement of "sexual Harrassment" even if none occured. It would be on the employer to prove that none happened.

Like I've said time and again. I'm from the old school. If you f**k with me, it's a must I f**k with you.

To me an employer firing someone because they smoke on their own time, in their own homes, in their own cars, off of company time is BS! If they want to be able to do that, then any injury that employee gets, anywhere, is the employers responsibility.

In fact, if the employer is going to try and tell them what they can and can't do when they are not at work...then technically they STILL ARE at work and the employer should pay them. If an employer wanted to pay me 24/7 plus overtime and double time for sundays...hell I just might decide to quit for that kind of money.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#28 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 11:42 AM

Quote

Actually, it's a very fair comparison. What is health insurance - $3,000 or so a year? What do they charge extra for being a smoker? Let's just say $300 a year - 10%. So in 10 years they pay an extra $3,000. If they're at the job 40 years, that's an extra $12,000 over the course of 40 years.

Once again you seem to ignore the main point. If you allow this type of singling out for one group it won't stop there. Let's take this argument a step further into homeowners insurance...Why should *I* (living in the midwest) pay higher premiums so someone in California can build a home in a mudslide zone, or on a faultline etc...? Why should *I* have to pay more because people live in Tornado Alley or along the Hurricane/Flood prone Gulf?

Let me give you something else to think about as well My father smoked, drank and was a diabetic, he died of a massive heart attack at 62, his death is in part contributed to being a smoker correct? My mom didn't drink, didn't smoke, wasn't diabetic and ALSO died at 62 from a massive heart attack. The FIRST thing my doctor asked me about my mom's death was "did she smoke"? Now if I'd said "yes" he'd have chalked up another smoking related death wouldn't he? My point being, that ANY death of ANY type that CAN be linked to smoking WILL be linked to smoking, even if it had NO impact. Just by virtue of being a smoker, any number of diseases that kill people will be attirbuted to smoking whether it really had an impact or NOT. Smoking has become the easy scapegoat/catch-all for any numbers of illnesses that they may or MAY NOT have had an impact on.

Here's another thing to think about. It's my understanding that smokers die earlier than non smokers, correct? So many smokers will pay into Social Security their entire lives and never collect a DIME of what they've contributed, correct? To draw on your logic "Is that fair?" Why should smokers pay hugely higher sin taxes than drinkers or overeaters or people that think salt it a food group etc..., pay higher life and home insurance premiums, pay into a Social Security system that a large chunk will never draw a dime from AND pay alot more for heath insurance too?

We're all going to die of something at some point. Many of us will ring up some major hospital bills in the process of dying whether we smoke, drink, eat poorly, drive stupidly, don't exercise etc...Life and death are expensive PERIOD, doesn't matter what group you fall into.

Quote

I would distinguish between those two categories


You would Gode but do you really believe that companies (if given free rein) would?
Posted Image
Posted Image

#29 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 11:49 AM

Lin731, on Nov 1 2005, 05:42 PM, said:

Quote

I would distinguish between those two categories

You would Gode but do you really believe that companies (if given free rein) would?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


oh heavens no. But then i've always been told that i just don't 'get it' when it comes to business and politics.  :cool:

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#30 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 12:00 PM

LORD of the SWORD, on Nov 1 2005, 04:39 PM, said:

Hence my previous statement of "sexual Harrassment" even if none occured. It would be on the employer to prove that none happened.

LOTS, it's still not discrimination! The employer can clearly state that they were fired for smoking and it is still not discrimination. And it would be perfectly legal, therefore no tort.

LORD of the SWORD, on Nov 1 2005, 04:39 PM, said:

Like I've said time and again. I'm from the old school. If you f**k with me, it's a must I f**k with you.

Nonsense. There's nothing that says that you have to smoke; there's nothing that says an employer must employ a smoker.

LORD of the SWORD, on Nov 1 2005, 04:39 PM, said:

To me an employer firing someone because they smoke on their own time, in their own homes, in their own cars, off of company time is BS! If they want to be able to do that, then any injury that employee gets, anywhere, is the employers responsibility.

Apples and oranges. Smoking off the worksite affects how much the employer pays for insurance. And it affects the business when the smoker calls in sick.

LORD of the SWORD, on Nov 1 2005, 04:39 PM, said:

In fact, if the employer is going to try and tell them what they can and can't do when they are not at work...then technically they STILL ARE at work and the employer should pay them. If an employer wanted to pay me 24/7 plus overtime and double time for sundays...hell I just might decide to quit for that kind of money.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


If you demand to be paid like that, then you must be ready to produce work like that. Can you sleepwork?

#31 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 12:05 PM

Broph, on Nov 1 2005, 12:00 PM, said:

Apples and oranges. Smoking off the worksite affects how much the employer pays for insurance. And it affects the business when the smoker calls in sick.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


And here I thought the employee paid for his insurance, out of his paycheck.  :sarcasm:
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#32 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 12:08 PM

Lin731, on Nov 1 2005, 04:42 PM, said:

Once again you seem to ignore the main point. If you allow this type of singling out for one group it won't stop there. Let's take this argument a step further into homeowners insurance...Why should *I* (living in the midwest) pay higher premiums so someone in California can build a home in a mudslide zone, or on a faultline etc...? Why should *I* have to pay more because people live in Tornado Alley or along the Hurricane/Flood prone Gulf?

Um, you don't. Mudslide is an act of God. But in any case, you've proven my point. Why should a non-smoker have to pay more for what a smoker does? Remember, the smoker is only paying about 10% more for their insurance. Who is paying the rest of that money? That's right - the non-smoker!

Quote

Let me give you something else to think about as well My father smoked, drank and was a diabetic, he died of a massive heart attack at 62, his death is in part contributed to being a smoker correct? My mom didn't drink, didn't smoke, wasn't diabetic and ALSO died at 62 from a massive heart attack. The FIRST thing my doctor asked me about my mom's death was "did she smoke"? Now if I'd said "yes" he'd have chalked up another smoking related death wouldn't he?

"Smoking" doesn't go on the death certificate, if that's what you mean. There wouldn't be another death "chalked up" for smoking, other than estimates. You mentioned other problems that your father had. Did the doctor ask questions beyond smoking? Do you think that if the answer was "yes" that he would stop asking questions ofter that?

Quote

My point being, that ANY death of ANY type that CAN be linked to smoking WILL be linked to smoking, even if it had NO impact. Just by virtue of being a smoker, any number of diseases that kill people will be attirbuted to smoking whether it really had an impact or NOT.

As I have said only too often on these boards, please back up your statement. Show me some proof. I'm from Missouri. Until then, it's only your opinion.

Quote

Here's another thing to think about. It's my understanding that smokers die earlier than non smokers, correct? So many smokers will pay into Social Security their entire lives and never collect a DIME of what they've contributed, correct?

Nope. You've heard of Medicare and Medicade, right? Guess who sucks money out of that system!

Quote

Why should smokers pay hugely higher sin taxes than drinkers or overeaters or people that think salt it a food group etc..., pay higher life and home insurance premiums, pay into a Social Security system that a large chunk will never draw a dime from AND pay alot more for heath insurance too?

Already answered above, thank you.

#33 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,147 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 12:09 PM

A good friend of mine died yesterday morning. He had had a heart attack just a few years ago, and he never stopped smoking. Rest in Peace Bob.

Bob had one of the earliest bulliton boards online., Closed ait just about 5 years ago.
Can't Touch This!!

#34 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,147 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 12:15 PM

LORD of the SWORD, on Nov 1 2005, 12:39 PM, said:

Broph, on Nov 1 2005, 10:56 AM, said:

Well, first of all, it's not discrimination. Second of all, to bring a case up in civil court, you're dealing with tort law. There still would have had to have been a breach of law. There was none here; therefore a lawsuit would be pointless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Hence my previous statement of "sexual Harrassment" even if none occured. It would be on the employer to prove that none happened.

Like I've said time and again. I'm from the old school. If you f**k with me, it's a must I f**k with you.

To me an employer firing someone because they smoke on their own time, in their own homes, in their own cars, off of company time is BS! If they want to be able to do that, then any injury that employee gets, anywhere, is the employers responsibility.

In fact, if the employer is going to try and tell them what they can and can't do when they are not at work...then technically they STILL ARE at work and the employer should pay them. If an employer wanted to pay me 24/7 plus overtime and double time for sundays...hell I just might decide to quit for that kind of money.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



You would never get to court. You can raise heck if you want, but no laws have been broken. There is no right to smoke and never has been. In most cases, an employer doesn't need much of a reason to fire someone. It's tougher if there is a Union, but if it is company policy, then it's going to be in the contract as well. Some Unions pay the insurance for it's members, so they will be doing the same thing before long. I have Civil Service. They can't fire us easily, but we are paying more for insurance if we smoke.
Can't Touch This!!

#35 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,147 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 12:17 PM

Quote

Hence my previous statement of "sexual Harrassment" even if none occured. It would be on the employer to prove that none happened.

No lawyer would touch it unless you could prove your case to him. Most seem to want to stay out of the work place if at all possible.
Can't Touch This!!

#36 bakuninmeow

bakuninmeow
  • Islander
  • 98 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 12:27 PM

Something I forgot to include in my little tirade of yesterday, and that is the essential point that if an employer can and will fire you for activities that you pursue in your off-work time, then essentially he or she does own you.

Quite frankly, until the American legal system is reformed to where employees have far more standing under the law than they currently do, then you are vulnerable for being fired by your employer for any interests, hobbies, and activities that you pursue in your off-work hours, and there is little in the way of legal recourse that you have to pursue, alas.

It might depend on the individual case, but, if the 60 Minutes article of Sunday last was correct, then, it's generally true, which is, I think, all the reason more for any employee to protect him- or herself as much as possible.

As much as you possibly can, please try to speak about only work-related matters in your work-place, and try to keep as much of your personal and work lives as separate as possible.

Better that your boss knows as little as possible about your off-work life, even if there's absolutely nothing objectionable about it, as possible.

Keep any non-work-related e-mail or Internet activities in your work-place to the barest of minimums possible, if you can't eschew it entirely.

Same goes for phone calls or snail-mail correspondence.

I know that this is hard advice to read, much less implement.

Still, unless you have the protections afforded by being a government employee, at whatever level, a union member, or contractual protections with your employer,
it's best to compartmentalise your work and non-work lives as much as possible.

Also, get together with your fellow workers, and start pressuring your local, state and Federal represenatives for laws that will make it harder for employers to fire their employees at will.

It will take time, effort and money, but, if successful, the outcome will be worth it.

Cheers, D.

#37 mjtian

mjtian
  • Islander
  • 897 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 12:47 PM

Quote

My mom didn't drink, didn't smoke, wasn't diabetic and ALSO died at 62 from a massive heart attack. The FIRST thing my doctor asked me about my mom's death was "did she smoke"? Now if I'd said "yes" he'd have chalked up another smoking related death wouldn't he? My point being, that ANY death of ANY type that CAN be linked to smoking WILL be linked to smoking, even if it had NO impact. Just by virtue of being a smoker, any number of diseases that kill people will be attirbuted to smoking whether it really had an impact or NOT. Smoking has become the easy scapegoat/catch-all for any numbers of illnesses that they may or MAY NOT have had an impact on.

Sorry about your parents' passings.  Heart attacks have many predisposing factors.  Smoking is one of the major causes as it stiffens the arteris and causes premature clogs.  Diabetes is another cause as it causes vaculitis and renal problems.  Obesity and genetics also plays a big part.  I think the physician asked a very reasonable question.  I would have asked the exact same question if she was my patient.  As much as it may seem that we are using smoking as a scapegoat for many diseases, the truth is that it is a very dangerous product.  Not only does it affect those that smoke, but also those that around the smokers via second hand smoke.  I am glad that in cities like New York and Los Angeles, there are smoking bans in bars.
"I have missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I have lost almost 300 games. On 26 occasions I have been entrusted to take the game winning shot... and missed. And I have failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why... I succeed" -Michael Jordan

#38 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 12:51 PM

LORD of the SWORD, on Nov 1 2005, 05:05 PM, said:

Broph, on Nov 1 2005, 12:00 PM, said:

Apples and oranges. Smoking off the worksite affects how much the employer pays for insurance. And it affects the business when the smoker calls in sick.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


And here I thought the employee paid for his insurance, out of his paycheck.  :sarcasm:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


That affected only one of the employees who got her insurance through her husband's program. But it wasn't time for him to start making exceptions. And, as I noted, there are other issues related to smoking.

#39 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 01:44 PM

Quote

Um, you don't. Mudslide is an act of God. But in any case, you've proven my point. Why should a non-smoker have to pay more for what a smoker does? Remember, the smoker is only paying about 10% more for their insurance. Who is paying the rest of that money? That's right - the non-smoker!

Ummm...do my tax dollars go to The Feds and FEMA when these fairly obvious disasters occur? I'm thinking that's YES. Don't homeowners policies "pool" resourcea to cover flood areas for those who have flood insurance...Yes they do. Do I mind paying them? Not really places like LA are vital port regions. My main point being that we share the risks for each other. Whether by virtue of where we live or what risky behaviors we engage in. This notion of singling out this group or that to "nail" IMO is assinine and can be applied in a thousand different ways to the point of distroying the social order for ALL of us

Quote

"Smoking" doesn't go on the death certificate, if that's what you mean. There wouldn't be another death "chalked up" for smoking, other than estimates. You mentioned other problems that your father had. Did the doctor ask questions beyond smoking? Do you think that if the answer was "yes" that he would stop asking questions ofter that?

It was my mothers death that my doctor asked the "was she a smoker" question and NO, he didn't ask anything else about her health history past that single question. He actually seemed semi-disappointed that he couldn't attribute her death in part to smoking.

Quote

As I have said only too often on these boards, please back up your statement. Show me some proof. I'm from Missouri. Until then, it's only your opinion.

What is there to prove? If you die from heart disease and you're a smoker, your death will become part of the stats for "smoking related illness/death". It's not a secret. My point being that unless you do an autopsy on every smoker, the stats are based on the fact you smoke, not nessesarally on proof that the smoking was a contributing factor. My doc said my dad's death was in part attributed to smoking (just because he smoked) not because of an autopsy proving that point. If my mom had smoked, he'd have made the SAME unsupported claim based on that one factor.

Quote

Nope. You've heard of Medicare and Medicade, right? Guess who sucks money out of that system!

Well to borrow a phrase from you:

Quote

please back up your statement. Show me some proof. I'm from Missouri. Until then, it's only your opinion.


Quote

Already answered above, thank you.

Sorry but no you didn't.

http://www.cdc.gov/n...astats/lcod.htm

Quote

Deaths-Leading Causes

(Data are for U.S. for year indicated)

Number of deaths for leading causes of death

Heart Disease: 696,947

Cancer: 557,271

Stroke: 162,672

Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,816

Accidents (unintentional injuries): 106,742

Diabetes: 73,249

Influenza/Pneumonia: 65,681

Alzheimer's disease: 58,866

Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 40,974

Septicemia: 33,865

According to the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/n...aag/aag_cvd.htm

Quote

Heart disease and stroke—the principal components of cardiovascular disease—are the first and third leading causes of death for both men and women in the United States, accounting for nearly 40% of all deaths. Over 927,000 Americans die of cardiovascular disease each year, which amounts to 1 death every 34 seconds. Although these largely preventable conditions are more common among people aged 65 years or older, the number of sudden deaths from heart disease among people aged 15–34 has increased.

In addition, more than 70 million Americans (over one-fourth of the population) live with a cardiovascular disease. Coronary heart disease is a leading cause of premature, permanent disability in the U.S. workforce. Stroke alone accounts for disability among more than 1 million Americans. Over 6 million hospitalizations each year are due to cardiovascular disease.

The economic impact of cardiovascular disease on the U.S. health care system continues to grow as the population ages. The cost of heart disease and stroke in the United States is projected to be $394 billion in 2005, including health care expenditures and lost productivity from death and disability.

So tell me again why my observations on other illnesses aren't germaine?

Quote

Risk Factors Must Be Addressed
Two of the major independent risk factors for cardiovascular disease are high blood pressure and high blood cholesterol.

During 1999–2000, nearly 30% of U.S. adults had high blood pressure (hypertension), and another 31% had prehypertension. In addition, the estimated direct and Percentage of People with Normal Blood Pressure, indirect cost of high blood pressure is $59.7 billion in 2005. A 12–13 point reduction in blood pressure can reduce heart attacks by 21%, strokes by 37%, and all deaths from cardiovascular disease by 25%.
 
More than 80% of people with high blood cholesterol do not have it under control. A 10% decrease in total blood cholesterol levels may reduce the incidence of coronary heart disease by as much as 30%.
A key strategy for addressing these risk factors is to educate the public and health care practitioners about the importance of prevention. Current guidelines recommend that all adults have their blood pressure checked regularly and their blood cholesterol levels checked every 5 years. Systems changes are also needed to help practitioners adhere to guidelines for treating patients with or at risk for heart disease and stroke, such as prescribing beta-blockers and aspirin. Preventive actions can help people with any level of blood pressure or cholesterol reduce their risk.

Other important risk factors for heart disease and stroke—such as diabetes, tobacco use, physical inactivity, poor nutrition, and overweight and obesity—need to be addressed through lifestyle changes and appropriate use of medications.

Edited by Lin731, 01 November 2005 - 02:01 PM.

Posted Image
Posted Image

#40 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 01:55 PM

Quote

Sorry about your parents' passings. Heart attacks have many predisposing factors. Smoking is one of the major causes as it stiffens the arteris and causes premature clogs. Diabetes is another cause as it causes vaculitis and renal problems. Obesity and genetics also plays a big part. I think the physician asked a very reasonable question. I would have asked the exact same question if she was my patient. As much as it may seem that we are using smoking as a scapegoat for many diseases, the truth is that it is a very dangerous product. Not only does it affect those that smoke, but also those that around the smokers via second hand smoke. I am glad that in cities like New York and Los Angeles, there are smoking bans in bars.


Thanks hon I appreciate it. I agree that heart attacks DO have many different predisposing factors (that was really my point). It bothered me that smoking was the ONLY factor he asked about though. Mom wasn't a drinker, smoker, diabetic, obese etc...I'm not even disputing that smoking IS bad for you. I'm disputing (and given the data I posted above, I believe rightly so) that smoking should be singled out in a way that is different from any other health risks. Obesity has become epidemic in this country and that is a leading factor in heart disease, stroke, diabetes etc...Given that those 3 diseases also constitute a large chunk of disability benefits, healthcare costs etc...Why scapegoat smoking? In the end, most of the diseases on the list are lifestyle related.
Posted Image
Posted Image



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Smoking, Ban at work, Health

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users