We have to remember that health care is not a right---but a benefit given by employers. It would make more sense to hire qualified people but not offer them health care benefits if they engage in unhealthy behavior.

That's dangerous. So, you can hire whomever, but deny benefits given to everyone? So the afflicted can have a job, but not healthcare? That seems like the very definition of discrimination to me.

I'm on the extremes when it comes to subsidies for breeding. I don't think we should have tax credits for children, either. I fully believe that breeders should bear the full economic costs of their choice.

"Our children are our future" is more than just an overused slogan. Think of it as investing in a future resource for your country.

I'm curious to see how they think this will lower their healthcare costs. The price they pay is not based on who in the office smokes and who doesn't smoke. The insurance company is setting the price based on their profit targets for the year. To say that this is to lower healthcare costs is a smokescreen in order to raise productivity.

Let me just say that I don’t think that this is legitimate. Government agencies should not be allowed to impose a ban on hiring qualified individuals based on their engagement in legal activities, no matter how ill-advised.

I think you have it right here. But I'd have no problem with them banning "smoke breaks" or firing a person for slacking (i.e. heading outside and smoking) while on the job. If you can, as a smoker, be as productive as a non-smoker, there shouldn't be a blanket rule that prevents your hiring.

There's apparently not many of us that see this is potentially a good thing. The burden of covering these people falls on taxpayers or on the employer, in the case of private enterprise. It seems like they should be able to do whatever makes the most fiscal sense. It's not like they're firing someone who got skin cancer. Smokers make the choice to smoke.

Looks like the do-gooders are succeeding in controlling all of us. Of course our government made "big tobacco" an evil entity deserving of all these rules since the individuals had no choice in the matter of smoking or not.

Funny thing is people saw this coming years ago and were treated as nuts for pointing out the coming unintended consequences. Next time the American Lung Association calls asking for money think about their support and advocacy of such laws and say no.

Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Should we slap that on pregnant women, too, for volunatarily choosing an activity that will unquestionably land them in a hospital and increase the amount of health insurance they will need by virtue of having kids?

Yes. But then again, I'm on the extremes when it comes to subsidies for breeding. I don't think we should have tax credits for children, either. I fully believe that breeders should bear the full economic costs of their choice.

Mine is not a position that is likely to be adopted by anybody anytime soon.

I think it's perfectly legitimate to not hire smokers. They have that habit of stepping out for a smoke break two or ten times a day. Their person and their clothes emit an offensive odor, and they have a demonstrated self-control problem

Then fire them for lack of productivity, having poor personal hygiene, or some other legal reason. But if somebody smokes, remains productive, has excellent hygiene and no work-related self-control problems, you have no justification.

I think it's perfectly legitimate to not hire smokers. They have that habit of stepping out for a smoke break two or ten times a day. Their person and their clothes emit an offensive odor, and they have a demonstrated self-control problem

Funny, because I have several smokers who have worked for me at one time or another, and never noticed any productivity difference.

They could also add an extra assessment on the normal health care contribution for those engaged in behaviors highly correlated with expensive medical treatments (smoking, drinking, and being obese, chiefly).

Should we slap that on pregnant women, too, for volunatarily choosing an activity that will unquestionably land them in a hospital and increase the amount of health insurance they will need by virtue of having kids?

There are rather few protected categories

Actually those are just the enumerated categories. In Florida, as at-will employer, you can be fired for no reason, but you can't be fired for just any reason.

If you're fired (or not hired) because your boss doesn't like Pisces, you can sue them for it (you have to adequately prove that was the reason though).

The question is whether or not consuming a legal product that doesn't affect your performance is an adequate reason for firing (or not hiring) in the state.

Are you suggesting that smokers are in need of this special protection as well?

I would suggest that, for a government position, the participation in a legal activity should not be grounds for firing or not hiring someone unless that activity would directly impact their ability to perform their duties. Smoking does not directly impact, say, a permit officer from doing their job.

Private businesses can do as they please, as far as I'm concerned. But I certainly would object to their decisions even as I'd defend their legal right to make them.