• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Boycott Scotts Due to Smoking Policy

Jump to latest Follow Reply
plum diamonds buckeye planet
Sort by date Sort by votes
I'm curious as to just how much they expect to save due to this plan, even though that number is irrelevant to this particular debate. Just for the record, their net after-tax profit for fiscal year ending 9/30/04 was over $100 million on about $2 bllion in sales. It's tragic to see a company struggle so mightily.:roll1:

An issue I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that certain people go in for medical procedures and check-ups more than other people. Do hypochondriacs have higher premiums than people who only go to the doctor when they are really sick?

Back to your regularly scheduled debate. :p
 
Upvote 0
Bucky Katt said:
I'm curious as to just how much they expect to save due to this plan, even though that number is irrelevant to this particular debate. Just for the record, their net after-tax profit for fiscal year ending 9/30/04 was over $100 million on about $2 bllion in sales. It's tragic to see a company struggle so mightily.:roll1:

An issue I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that certain people go in for medical procedures and check-ups more than other people. Do hypochondriacs have higher premiums than people who only go to the doctor when they are really sick?

Back to your regularly scheduled debate. :p
Click to expand...

Only if they smoke. :p
 
Upvote 0
BUCKEYESTUCKNGA said:
then they should fire everybody. ya never know who may end up smoking...:shake:
Click to expand...

Apparently you underestimate how anal retentive actuaries for health insurance companies can be. If there's a shred of data that can influence rates or actions one way or another (such as the number of smoker not currently covered by a plan who may potentially be insureds in the future) it will be factored into the overall rates. That's why good ones who agonize over the smallest items get paid very, very good money.
 
Upvote 0
StooGrimson said:
Apparently you underestimate how anal retentive actuaries for health insurance companies can be. If there's a shred of data that can influence rates or actions one way or another (such as the number of smoker not currently covered by a plan who may potentially be insureds in the future) it will be factored into the overall rates. That's why good ones who agonize over the smallest items get paid very, very good money.
Click to expand...

Exactly the point I was making earlier. Since they have all the data, they can simply charge smokers higher premiums. No worries. That's a lot better than firing any non-conformist, don't you think?
 
Upvote 0
marlboro_menthol_lights.gif
mmmm...smoky treat.
 
Upvote 0
All this pissing and moaning is irrelavent anyway. I haven't used any scotts product for the better part of a decade. If they really want to improve the health of americans and anyone else who uses their product they will switch to an organic method of lawn and garden maintenance. Stop poluting the eaerth with all these chemicals. I don't see them advertising that they had to strip and resoil one side of an entire freeway off ramp. I am sure that was REALLY healthy for anyone who has to make use of the groundwater in that area.

There are many just as useful organic alternatives to the bullshit they use be it nematodes for grub control. Organic fertilizers such as Milorganite, or Ringers for lawn/garden fertilization. They are slower release and lower nitrogen, so there is a much less risk of burning your lawn. They feed the roots instead of just causing spurt growth and having to mow your grass three times a week after application. Making your lawn dependent upon chem sources of N instead of taking advantage of the natural way of renewing it and boosting/adding only when needed or benificial.

I am stepping off of the tree hugging soapbox, don't make me get back up here!
 
Upvote 0
Guy Incognito said:
what specious reasoning. All those things have positive uses. There is nothing useful or positive about cigarettes.

Nice try. :roll1:
Click to expand...

*ponders* skinny chicks that are willing to stick nasty things in their mouths on a consistent basis isn't a positive...?

heres some food for thought. with the ungodly amount of taxes lumped on smokers... if people start quitting... us NON smokers are going to have to start footing the bill people! let them buy their $900 carton of cigs. ill tell you all right now, i want no part of the taxes they pay.

mr. incognito, who are you to tell me i can not kill myself with a legal product so long as i am harming noone else. you point to my medical insurance and i point to the impossible to count immagrants coming into the country getting FREE medical coverage. you wanna reduce insurance premiums... you don't start with the smokers. THEY ARE ATLEAST CONTRIBUTING TO THE FUND!
 
Upvote 0
GoBucks89 said:
Exactly the point I was making earlier. Since they have all the data, they can simply charge smokers higher premiums. No worries. That's a lot better than firing any non-conformist, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Don't mistake my defense of Scotts as completely agreeing with their policy. As an insurance person, I can completely understand Scotts' position, and if that's their stance...hey, good for them. Personally, I would handle it if as you suggest it were my company, and I'd also have other incentives for lower premiums like gym memberships and high deductibles (which some companies and plans do...not enough in my opinion). The only question would be the amount of a surcharge which could be extremely high depending on how many smokers you have and how your company is insured. My guess is, the surcharge would be much, much higher than most smokers could afford (consider that they'll not only be subsidizing their own increased chances of needing health care but probably the methods used to ensure everyone is being honest when they say they're nonsmokers) leading some to opt out of coverage entirely or do the bright thing and quit smoking.
 
Upvote 0
StooGrimson said:
Don't mistake my defense of Scotts as completely agreeing with their policy. As an insurance person, I can completely understand Scotts' position, and if that's their stance...hey, good for them. Personally, I would handle it if as you suggest it were my company, and I'd also have other incentives for lower premiums like gym memberships and high deductibles (which some companies and plans do...not enough in my opinion). The only question would be the amount of a surcharge which could be extremely high depending on how many smokers you have and how your company is insured. My guess is, the surcharge would be much, much higher than most smokers could afford (consider that they'll not only be subsidizing their own increased chances of needing health care but probably the methods used to ensure everyone is being honest when they say they're nonsmokers) leading some to opt out of coverage entirely or do the bright thing and quit smoking.
Click to expand...

At least in your scenario you're giving them choices. Other than the choice to be fired, that is.

I'm still wondering about spouses and other dependants covered under the insurance plan. Does anyone know what Scotts actual policy is? Are they also saying "Make your wife quit smoking, or you're fired?"
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top