View Single Post
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 01-26-2005, 01:25 PM
SedyAlpha's Avatar
SedyAlpha SedyAlpha is offline
Commentator
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: second front ; Mexico
Posts: 1,091
SedyAlpha is on a distinguished road
Credits: 17,139
Send a message via ICQ to SedyAlpha
Default I see your point but

Quote:
Originally Posted by The12thMan";p=&quot View Post
Sedy,
I understand what you mean. But my point was not about choosing or causing high risk behavior. High insurance costs was the excuse/reason for the policy. What if the company did cholesterol testing?

I don't believe that the real reason was high insurance costs. They could have easily passed the higher rates on to the employees.

And, I wouldn't dream of firing my diabetic employee. I would have a very hard time finding someone as competent and trustworthy to replace her.
But people are already screaming about the cost number 1.

second, only if they passed it on to the ones causing the increase by their own choice.

Same should go for cholesteral testing IMHO.
I guess I am just nit picky
__________________
"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.]
(from Lucius Annaeus Seneca, "the Younger," circa 4 BC-65 AD
Reply With Quote