Alabama fines "fat" workers
#41
cgraye,

I think you're wrong.  You think I'm wrong.  We're at a stalemate here.  But having relatives who live with the reality of socialized medicine I see any attempt to move the US in the direction as a very bad idea.   This, and several other recently proposed ideas are indeed trying to move us in that direction.  The more freedoms and privacy we willingly surrender the more and more likely we are to end up with a "Big Brother" socialist state.

Reply
#42
SouthernCatholic Wrote:cgraye,

I think you're wrong.  You think I'm wrong.  We're at a stalemate here.  But having relatives who live with the reality of socialized medicine I see any attempt to move the US in the direction as a very bad idea.   This, and several other recently proposed ideas are indeed trying to move us in that direction.  The more freedoms and privacy we willingly surrender the more and more likely we are to end up with a "Big Brother" socialist state.
No, I agree; I don't want to see invasion of privacy or socialized medicine or the government taking more control.  Nor would I want to see anyone forced to live a healthy lifestyle if he didn't want to.  I just don't think that's what this is.  Let me ask you, if this were a private company instead of the state government, would you still have a problem with it?
Reply
#43
cgraye Wrote:No, I agree; I don't want to see invasion of privacy or socialized medicine or the government taking more control.  Nor would I want to see anyone forced to live a healthy lifestyle if he didn't want to.  I just don't think that's what this is.  Let me ask you, if this were a private company instead of the state government, would you still have a problem with it?

Yes.  I absolutely would.  Particularly if, as in this case, so many of the particulars (like the definition of non-compliance) are left undefined and open ended.  I think this is an invasion of employee privacy.

Not unlike a policy when I worked for a certain beverage manufacturer that had a policy where you could be fired for being seen to purchase beverages made by a competitor.

I believe that this is a slippery slope.  You may believe that since this is "just" risk factors that it is a reasonable thing.  But what about when your employer decides that in spite of your good health, regular exercise and healthy diet the fact that your wife has had three children makes her a "high risk" for pregnancy complications and demands that you adhere to a contraceptive protocol or be assessed higher premiums?

Or when you're deemed to be a high risk of lost production time and you're fired because you might cost the company too much money in sick days?  You say, "There are laws to protect you against that."  Yes.  For now.  But in a nanny state (which we are headed toward) there need not be any such protections.

If we continue to surrender our freedoms and our privacy at this absurd rate we may as well sign on to being secular atheists because it won't be long before our rights to hold many Catholic positions will be gone as well.
Reply
#44
SouthernCatholic Wrote:Yes.  I absolutely would.  Particularly if, as in this case, so many of the particulars (like the definition of non-compliance) are left undefined and open ended.  I think this is an invasion of employee privacy.
So would you have the government force the company to follow standards for this?  I don't really like the idea of the government telling businesses what to do anymore than I like the government telling individuals what to do.

Quote:But what about when your employer decides that in spite of your good health, regular exercise and healthy diet the fact that your wife has had three children makes her a "high risk" for pregnancy complications and demands that you adhere to a contraceptive protocol or be assessed higher premiums?

Of course adhering to a contraceptive protocol would be out of the question, but higher premiums seems fair.

Quote:Or when you're deemed to be a high risk of lost production time and you're fired because you might cost the company too much money in sick days?  You say, "There are laws to protect you against that."  Yes.  For now.  But in a nanny state (which we are headed toward) there need not be any such protections.

It actually comes back to what I was saying before.  Should the government have the right to tell a private company that it cannot hire or fire anyone it wants to for any reason or set any standard it wants for its employees?  Certainly it would be wrong for a company to discriminate based on race, for example, but should the government be the one to enforce this?  Either they are telling the businesses what to do or they are telling the individuals what to do.  If they are going to force businesses not to discriminate based on age, then isn't it fair that they force individuals to take care of themselves?  Or should the government stay out of it completely?  That sounds good, but then it paves the way for things like monopolies, which is also harmful.

The government simply has to regulate some things for things to run as well as they can, but they can also screw it up with too much regulation.  It's a hard balance to find.
Reply
#45
The US government has two, and only two, jobs:

1) Defend the boarders,
2) Maintain the road network.

That's it people. NOTHING ELSE! NOTHING ELSE! NOTHING ELSE!  
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)