Obamacare to impose 50% increase to smokers

[jgoose71 0]

Do you think that these extra costs will be put on pot smokers too? Fair is fair....

A 20 year old walks into an insurance office.
"Do you smoke?"
"Cigaretts? No......"

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[champu 1]

Quote

Boo hoo.

There is NOTHING good that comes from cigarette smoke. Nothing. For the vast majority of users it is beyond simply being detrimental to their health and the health of others, it is a menace and all too frequently a death sentence.

Fuck the tobacco industry.

"Absolutism is for the weak minded." -Unknown

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

First smokers

then the obese

then overweight people

whats next...morbidly tall people?

Probably when tall people start affecting the rest of us in this way:

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says smoking also kills more than 440,000 people in the U.S. annually while costing the economy more than $193 billion each year in lost productivity and health care expenditures. And it says secondhand smoke costs -- from healthcare expenditures as well as illness and premature death -- amount to another $10 billion. "

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

Quote

First smokers
then the obese
whats next...morbidly tall people?

And somewhere along the way they'll go after those who participate in high-risk sports, who use emergency rooms more than the couch potatoe population. Folks like skydivers.

Health Care based on private insurance already did / does that.

Universal Health Care doesn`t...


Cheers!
Shc

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

Drinking is a known health risk and the policies for drinker of more then two glass of wine per week should have to pay the same as smokers.... I think thats also fair... I don't smoke and don't drink... Why should I be paying for you drunks that are costing millions in extra health care costs... A weekly blood test should be used to make sure no one is drinking or smoking ....

Killler...

There is no ongoing burden of proof.

You just wouldn't be covered when you got lung cancer from smoking after claiming you don't smoke.....

They aren't coming around doing lung tests.

If you want to add drinking to the list go for it. People who claimed they didn't drink wouldn't have their liver transplants covered when they drink it to death....that's all it means.

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

Quote

Premiums correlate to risk.

In a market.

Obamacare destroys that market. It will now choose itself who to favor. Maybe if all smokers start voting Democrat they won't be hit as hard.

Obamacare is a market-oriented Health Care; probably more so than the previous health care system.

See Massachussets health care- its definitely more market oriented.

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Boo hoo.

There is NOTHING good that comes from cigarette smoke. Nothing. For the vast majority of users it is beyond simply being detrimental to their health and the health of others, it is a menace and all too frequently a death sentence.

Fuck the tobacco industry.

"Absolutism is for the weak minded." -Unknown

Fair enough. Now prove where I'm wrong.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

charging more for unhealthy activity makes a lot of sense

private insurance can take of it, no need for government health insurance to do it. no need for government insurance at all. Seems that gov insurance would ignore differences like this.

I'd think the issue will be them picking and choosing based on politics, not actuarial tables

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,406]

>I understand general commerce doing as they please, we can change businesses.
>NOW, it's the government.

No, it's still general commerce. Read it again.

[airdvr 198]

How nice it must be to live in your black/white world. ACA was touted as insurance for everyone. Those pesky private insurance companies aren't allowing some folks access to insurance.

Meet the new boss...

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Hmmm....wondering if the penalty for not submitting to the gooberment will be double the non-smoker penalty.

Unfair treatment of one group is unconstitutional.

I would have to think about the constitutional issue, but it's hardly 'unfair' (hate any use of the word fair).

In fact, it was predictable. I predicted it in posts before Obamacare was passed. I was hardly alone or the first to think of it. The French floated a measure to tax fat people years ago to prop up socialized medicine. It just makes sense. If you give the government responsibility for your health, you give them authority. They can tell you what you can or can not eat, drink, smoke, etc. They can require you to take an annual physical complete with drug test similar to annual tax returns. They can require you to participate in approved physical fitness programs.

Seriously...if I had to pay for your health insurance, I would have something to say about your health habits. Would you not be the same? Why should the government be different?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

Drinking is a known health risk and the policies for drinker of more then two glass of wine per week should have to pay the same as smokers.... I think thats also fair... I don't smoke and don't drink... Why should I be paying for you drunks that are costing millions in extra health care costs... A weekly blood test should be used to make sure no one is drinking or smoking ....

Killler...

There is no ongoing burden of proof.

You just wouldn't be covered when you got lung cancer from smoking after claiming you don't smoke.....

They aren't coming around doing lung tests.

If you want to add drinking to the list go for it. People who claimed they didn't drink wouldn't have their liver transplants covered when they drink it to death....that's all it means.

Actually, it would be quite easy. Add a small hair sample to a physical and you can say whether the person smokes, drinks, is a heavy coffee drinker...most anything. Once your tests show your habits, your rates go up accordingly.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[babz 0]

Seems fair to me.. In the UK we tax cigarettes are a ridiculously high level (around $10 for pack of 20).

End of the day, if people smoke they stand a much higher chance of needing expensive medical care. The options are either recoup this from the smokers directly through higher premiums, higher prices on packets of cigarettes or higher prices for all.. Take your pick.

Should we tax morbidly obese people more? Probably a similar argument could and should be made (exemptions for those with underlying medical conditions which cause it could be made).

I think in a universal healthcare system, you need to either charge everyone a flat rate and adjust that to be Medical cost / number of people = premium or bring in supplements for certain activities..

The right / wrong side of the line for supplements for me is choice.. If you choose to do be in the risk category through lifestyle choices then you pay, if you don't have a choice through underlying medical issues (Type 1 diabetes / thyroid issues et al.) then its unjust to charge more.

[davjohns 1]

The interesting part is doctor integrity. Some will start certifying obesity as a condition when it is not. And then, when obesity leads to diabetes, what do you do? Pretend the diabetes caused the obesity?

My father is a type 1 diabetic. Thin as a rail.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[babz 0]

Yeah, sadly we all susceptible to greed / manipulation so no system which involves people is going to be 100% at drawing lines.

I'll admit I thought type 1 was genetic and type 2 was from lifestyle choices - my knowledge is very thin on it

[davjohns 1]

Type 1 is insuline dependent. Type 2 can be controlled by diet and exercise. Both are influenced by diet, lifestyle, heredity, and health issues like pregnancy.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

jarts

You'll put your eye out, kid.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Hmmm....wondering if the penalty for not submitting to the gooberment will be double the non-smoker penalty.

Unfair treatment of one group is unconstitutional.

I would have to think about the constitutional issue, but it's hardly 'unfair' (hate any use of the word fair).

In fact, it was predictable. I predicted it in posts before Obamacare was passed. I was hardly alone or the first to think of it. The French floated a measure to tax fat people years ago to prop up socialized medicine. It just makes sense. If you give the government responsibility for your health, you give them authority. They can tell you what you can or can not eat, drink, smoke, etc. They can require you to take an annual physical complete with drug test similar to annual tax returns. They can require you to participate in approved physical fitness programs.

Seriously...if I had to pay for your health insurance, I would have something to say about your health habits. Would you not be the same? Why should the government be different?

To an extent, that already happens in The Land Of The Free, and it's really nothing new. Medical exams for life insurance have been the industry standard since just about forever. Auto insurance companies often check existing policy-holders' driving records at renewal time; and now companies like Progressive and others want to install thingies in your car to monitor your driving habits. Property insurers often do spot-checks of existing policyholders' premises; and health insurers not infrequently raise your rates or dump you when you have a serious illness or injury. So this really isn't something new, it's just another twist of the old.

[normiss 622]

Thanks for explaining exactly why I don't want the government THAT deeply involved in my life.
I'd rather run my own life than be a government sheep in all aspects.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Thanks for explaining exactly why I don't want the government THAT deeply involved in my life.
I'd rather run my own life than be a government sheep in all aspects.

Awwww....why not? You get your required shots and they are already fleecing you with taxes. Go ahead. Make a sheep sound. You know you want to. lol

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Thanks for explaining exactly why I don't want the government THAT deeply involved in my life.
I'd rather run my own life than be a government sheep in all aspects.

Then move out into the deep wilderness, live entirely off the land, effectively opt-out of all taxation, and never consume another commonly-shared resource again.

Frankly, even that won't be 100% possible, for even out in the wilderness, the tax-funded US military still provides the security umbrella over your head; and if your hut is in a forested area, the tax-funded US Forest Service and/or some other public agency might still provide Normiss Gulch with fire protection.

[davjohns 1]

It's all a matter of degree, isn't it? Personally, I prefer the scenario Andy picks to the Brave New World we seem to be entering.

Mandatory birth control, anyone?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[normiss 622]

Man I sure hope I adhere to the approved meal list today.
Being my "Birthday Extravaganza Week" (copyright Andrea), I'm not really eating nor drinking healthy and I plan on continuing my celebratory misbehavior well into the weekend as a sweet nearby DZ.
LOTS of fun tasty food, snacks, and adult beverages.
Do I have to pay a penalty to have fun now?

[davjohns 1]

Risky recreational activity? You think that shouldn't effect your health insurance premiums? Come on...

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[normiss 622]

We need to safely place ALL humans in a protective tubular chamber where they cannot injure themselves or others, nor would they be able to commit crimes.
Fully administered diet and brainwave manipulation.