mwa423 said: pietromoon said: I need health care, not insurance
You're so wrong I don't know where to start. A healthy person really doesn't need a lot of healthcare. Eat well, exercise, it kept civilization going for thousands of years (generally anyway). If you needed to see a doctor, pay a hundred or hundred fifty cash and move on with life. What you need insurance against is being diagnosed with a lifelong illness or an extremely expensive injury.
He could have wrote that comment 5 minutes after breaking his leg.
My employer hired company to test for smoking . they stick cotton stick behind your chick , to get some saliva .. Then they send it to a lab , they test saliva for nicotine (I guess )
At any rate . I have few options to earn money employer pays towards my insurance
Flu shoot - 150 Physical (draw blood , smoking test ) - 400 Non Smoker - 400 Not Obese - 300 Some exercise crap - 200
BrodyInsurance said: depalma13 said: BrodyInsurance said: Jim, John, and Charlie are 40 year old triplets.
Jim is an ex-smoker who has both emphysema and lung cancer. John is a 400 pound diabetic alcoholic. Charlie is a marathon runner in perfect health. He smokes a cigar now and then.
Charlie will get charged 50% more than Jim and John. This isn't charging people based upon running up health care costs. This is charging people based upon personal behaviors.
A marathon runner is as much a high risk as the other two. One bad step and he tears his MCL and ACL. Surgery plus a year of rehad will not be cheap.
First of all, you are wrong. There is a reason why insurance companies, prior to Obamacare, would have no problem insuring Charlie, but would not insure John or Jim unless they are forced to do so.
Secondly, the point is that this has nothing to do with risk.
Third of all, no marathon runner would take a year off of running for rehab...seriously??? that would have to be one bad step to tear MCL/ACL running
Fourth, having worked in the industry, as an underwriter, I would have had to be under the influence of some good meds to charge higher for Charlie. I would have been fired the next day. Like stated above the insurer isn't' going to charge for the possibility that Charlie could possibly run on a slippery morning a twist his knee.
FrugalFreak said: I wish to see this thread deleted, that is my hope that will not happen BUT
I hate busybodies I do smoke will continue to smoke will make an extra effort to smoke around people who push the issue
see the long thing in middle of my hand pointing upwards? it's not a cigarette.
SMOKERS UNITE! let's push big tobacco to push their lawyers to amend and lobby against it.
I'm sorry but I don't understand. Who's a busybody? And if you want to smoke and endanger your health that's your right as an adult, but why would you want to go out of your way to harm others?
I have one argument for the people complaining about too much govt interference. Why do we spend so much on military equipments and activities? We are not surrounded by hostile countries. These are the same people supporting big military and we know which party they vote for.
gendos said: My employer hired company to test for smoking . they stick cotton stick behind your chick , to get some saliva .. Then they send it to a lab , they test saliva for nicotine (I guess )
At any rate . I have few options to earn money employer pays towards my insurance
Flu shoot - 150 Physical (draw blood , smoking test ) - 400 Non Smoker - 400 Not Obese - 300 Some exercise crap - 200
issue with that is nicotine is prescribed to some people as a medicine for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's Disease and Depression. If they raise premiums based on treatment from your doctor, sounds like a lawsuit. so whats to say you smoked or used a patch?
EndlessKnight said: FrugalFreak said: I wish to see this thread deleted, that is my hope that will not happen BUT
I hate busybodies I do smoke will continue to smoke will make an extra effort to smoke around people who push the issue
see the long thing in middle of my hand pointing upwards? it's not a cigarette.
SMOKERS UNITE! let's push big tobacco to push their lawyers to amend and lobby against it.
I'm sorry but I don't understand. Who's a busybody? And if you want to smoke and endanger your health that's your right as an adult, but why would you want to go out of your way to harm others?
because people who PUSH the issues is reason we are where we are today. people who were more concerned with what they didn't like and wanted to ban. ad spot's in movies, etc ways they have pushed it. they are busybodies, same people who banned happy meals in CA and banned some foods in NY. They are not happy until they can make Us carbon copies of them.
FrugalFreak said: EndlessKnight said: FrugalFreak said: I wish to see this thread deleted, that is my hope that will not happen BUT
I hate busybodies I do smoke will continue to smoke will make an extra effort to smoke around people who push the issue
see the long thing in middle of my hand pointing upwards? it's not a cigarette.
SMOKERS UNITE! let's push big tobacco to push their lawyers to amend and lobby against it.
I'm sorry but I don't understand. Who's a busybody? And if you want to smoke and endanger your health that's your right as an adult, but why would you want to go out of your way to harm others?
because people who PUSH the issues is reason we are where we are today. people who were more concerned with what they didn't like and wanted to ban. ad spot's in movies, etc ways they have pushed it. they are busybodies, same people who banned happy meals in CA and banned some foods in NY. They are not happy until they can make Us carbon copies of them.
So basically people who take an opposing political view to your own? And because you don't like their point of view you're going to purposely endanger their health? Brilliant!
How is this any different from car insurance companies charging bad drivers (excessive tickets, multiple accidents)more for car insurance?
It's very different. Let me try an analogy. Let's look at Jim and Sam.
Jim has been in 11 accidents and has been arrested 6 times for DUI. He has never had a speeding ticket. He has full coverage on a $250,000 car.
Sam has never been in an accident. He has never been arrested. He has one ticket for speeding when he went 40 in a 35 MPH zone. He has a $5,000 car.
Sam's car insurance is 50% more expensive than Jim's because car insurance has become guaranteed issue and they can only charge more for speeding tickets.
Jim has cancer and is 400 pounds overweight and three times his DUIs have caused accidents that have landed him in the hospital. He smokes crack on occasion.
Sam has no health problems. He smokes a cigar at his monthly poker game with his friends. Sam's health insurance is 50% more expensive than Jim's because they only charge more based upon tobacco use.
EndLessKnight, it would be the same if health insurance companies could underwrite the policies like they do for auto insurance. They can't.
NorthStar2020 said: I have one argument for the people complaining about too much govt interference. Why do we spend so much on military equipments and activities? We are not surrounded by hostile countries. These are the same people supporting big military and we know which party they vote for.
Can you please explain the connection. I complain about too much government interference in the lives of individuals. This has nothing to do with my feelings about the Government's appropriate/inappropriate role in the defense of our country.
BrodyInsurance said: EndlessKnight said: Is this really an issue?
How is this any different from car insurance companies charging bad drivers (excessive tickets, multiple accidents)more for car insurance?
It's very different. Let me try an analogy. Let's look at Jim and Sam.
Jim has been in 11 accidents and has been arrested 6 times for DUI. He has never had a speeding ticket. He has full coverage on a $250,000 car.
Sam has never been in an accident. He has never been arrested. He has one ticket for speeding when he went 40 in a 35 MPH zone. He has a $5,000 car.
Sam's car insurance is 50% more expensive than Jim's because car insurance has become guaranteed issue and they can only charge more for speeding tickets.
Jim has cancer and is 400 pounds overweight and three times his DUIs have caused accidents that have landed him in the hospital. He smokes crack on occasion.
Sam has no health problems. He smokes a cigar at his monthly poker game with his friends. Sam's health insurance is 50% more expensive than Jim's because they only charge more based upon tobacco use.
EndLessKnight, it would be the same if health insurance companies could underwrite the policies like they do for auto insurance. They can't.
I'm sorry but I don't really agree with that analogy but I humbly concede that you possess far more knowledge on this subject than I. That said I still don't have a problem with charging smokers a premium nor would I with charging extra for the over weight.
The yearly tax of 500 and change is nothing compared to what cancer and other diseases could end up costing. there's a very simple solution if you don't want to be penalized. Stop smoking. Insurance is figured by statistics and it makes sense to charge smokers or others more likely to cost more to cover. Now, here's where universal healthcare would come into play...everyone would pay what they can and then be covered.
Why not raise insurance on people who talk on their cellphone and drive, people who drink at bars, etc?
And about the motorcycles...if you get a sportbike, insurance is higher than a small bike. The vehicle insurance is there for vehicular related injuries as well as damage to the vehicle. Now, as a rider, I know there's more risk, but there's a reason for gear and education. Smoking on the other hand...you can't smoke without taking in bad stuff, there's not a safe way.
I need to be clear that I do not have expertise on this subject. My expertise is with life and disability insurance.
Why do you disagree with my analogy? The simple factually correct point of it is that automobile insurance companies can use risk factors to underwrite their policies while health insurance companies are losing that ability.
Does it really make sense to you that it's ok to charge cigarette smokers more, but not crack smokers?
Does it really make sense to you that it's ok to charge a big healthy person more, but not the "proper weighted" person who lives on sugar and salt already has hypertension and diabetes?
soundtechie said: corpse101 said: I still wonder how they are going to determine "smokers"
Man: I dont smoke Insurance: You have black lungs Man: I used to smoke, quit before you changed the law Insurance: You smell like smoke and came in with a cloud of smoke Man: Damn smoker out there, musta got on me when I came in. Insurance: You teeth are yellowed with tar Man: Must be the old remnants, please pay for whitening treatment so this misunderstading doesnt happen Insurance: OK, we will pay for whitening (which may never stop as man keeps smoking) and your health care from your smoking past without increase.
Insurance: We have here your checkmark on a paper saying you do not smoke. Since you are smoking at this very moment, this nice police officer would like to speak to you briefly.
police has no business being in the story, smoking is legal.
thumpergeek said: The yearly tax of 500 and change is nothing compared to what cancer and other diseases could end up costing. there's a very simple solution if you don't want to be penalized. Stop smoking. Insurance is figured by statistics and it makes sense to charge smokers or others more likely to cost more to cover. Now, here's where universal healthcare would come into play...everyone would pay what they can and then be covered.
Why not raise insurance on people who talk on their cellphone and drive, people who drink at bars, etc?
And about the motorcycles...if you get a sportbike, insurance is higher than a small bike. The vehicle insurance is there for vehicular related injuries as well as damage to the vehicle. Now, as a rider, I know there's more risk, but there's a reason for gear and education. Smoking on the other hand...you can't smoke without taking in bad stuff, there's not a safe way.
But, thumpergeek, this isn't about statistics. It stopped being about statistics when it became guaranteed issue.
BrodyInsurance said: I need to be clear that I do not have expertise on this subject. My expertise is with life and disability insurance.
Why do you disagree with my analogy? The simple factually correct point of it is that automobile insurance companies can use risk factors to underwrite their policies while health insurance companies are losing that ability.
Does it really make sense to you that it's ok to charge cigarette smokers more, but not crack smokers?
Does it really make sense to you that it's ok to charge a big healthy person more, but not the "proper weighted" person who lives on sugar and salt already has hypertension and diabetes?
My problem with your analogy is that you are introducing far to many new and unnecessary variables.
The only issue at hand is whether insurance companies should be able to charge smokers more than non-smokers, thus you should hold everything else constant and only compare smokers to non-smokers. This is commonly referred to as the ceteris paribus assumption. Hence compare two people who are exactly the same in every way expect one smokes and the other doesn't.
Therefore the proper car insurance analogy would be two drivers of the same age, drove the same car and were the same in every way except one of them had a clean driving record and the other hard multiple speeding tickets. I think you would agree that the driver with the tickets should pay more.
All the issues about "crack" and weight are totally separate from the issue of smoking tobacco and should be looked at on their own.
EndlessKnight said: FrugalFreak said: EndlessKnight said: FrugalFreak said: I wish to see this thread deleted, that is my hope that will not happen BUT
I hate busybodies I do smoke will continue to smoke will make an extra effort to smoke around people who push the issue
see the long thing in middle of my hand pointing upwards? it's not a cigarette.
SMOKERS UNITE! let's push big tobacco to push their lawyers to amend and lobby against it.
I'm sorry but I don't understand. Who's a busybody? And if you want to smoke and endanger your health that's your right as an adult, but why would you want to go out of your way to harm others?
because people who PUSH the issues is reason we are where we are today. people who were more concerned with what they didn't like and wanted to ban. ad spot's in movies, etc ways they have pushed it. they are busybodies, same people who banned happy meals in CA and banned some foods in NY. They are not happy until they can make Us carbon copies of them.
So basically people who take an opposing political view to your own? And because you don't like their point of view you're going to purposely endanger their health? Brilliant!
I won't be endangering their health, surely they will have sense enough to move or not come around being I am as right to occupy the space and air and pursuit of happiness as they are.
FrugalFreak said: EndlessKnight said: FrugalFreak said: EndlessKnight said: FrugalFreak said: I wish to see this thread deleted, that is my hope that will not happen BUT
I hate busybodies I do smoke will continue to smoke will make an extra effort to smoke around people who push the issue
see the long thing in middle of my hand pointing upwards? it's not a cigarette.
SMOKERS UNITE! let's push big tobacco to push their lawyers to amend and lobby against it.
I'm sorry but I don't understand. Who's a busybody? And if you want to smoke and endanger your health that's your right as an adult, but why would you want to go out of your way to harm others?
because people who PUSH the issues is reason we are where we are today. people who were more concerned with what they didn't like and wanted to ban. ad spot's in movies, etc ways they have pushed it. they are busybodies, same people who banned happy meals in CA and banned some foods in NY. They are not happy until they can make Us carbon copies of them.
So basically people who take an opposing political view to your own? And because you don't like their point of view you're going to purposely endanger their health? Brilliant!
I won't be endangering their health, surely they will have sense enough to move or not come around being I am as right to occupy the space and air and pursuit of happiness as they are.
Depends on if its public space or not. You do not have the right to harm others just because you are pursing happiness. Your right to swing your arms ends at another mans nose.
EndlessKnight said: FrugalFreak said: EndlessKnight said: FrugalFreak said: EndlessKnight said: FrugalFreak said: I wish to see this thread deleted, that is my hope that will not happen BUT
I hate busybodies I do smoke will continue to smoke will make an extra effort to smoke around people who push the issue
see the long thing in middle of my hand pointing upwards? it's not a cigarette.
SMOKERS UNITE! let's push big tobacco to push their lawyers to amend and lobby against it.
I'm sorry but I don't understand. Who's a busybody? And if you want to smoke and endanger your health that's your right as an adult, but why would you want to go out of your way to harm others?
because people who PUSH the issues is reason we are where we are today. people who were more concerned with what they didn't like and wanted to ban. ad spot's in movies, etc ways they have pushed it. they are busybodies, same people who banned happy meals in CA and banned some foods in NY. They are not happy until they can make Us carbon copies of them.
So basically people who take an opposing political view to your own? And because you don't like their point of view you're going to purposely endanger their health? Brilliant!
I won't be endangering their health, surely they will have sense enough to move or not come around being I am as right to occupy the space and air and pursuit of happiness as they are.
Depends on if its public space or not. You do not have the right to harm others just because you are pursing happiness. Your right to swing your arms ends at another mans nose.
I won't be harming them, they will be the ones to step into and around the space I occupy and am smoking. They have a choice too.
BrodyInsurance said: TheDealMaker said: yeah, insurance should charge more for people who have bad habits like smoking, drinking, etc.
Why charge people more for habits as opposed to charging based upon health?
Silly and you know it.
All insurance is about the future and the current price is based on the predicted future payout. People who drive reckless today have a high probability of an accent in the future this high insurance cost, smokers have a high probably of health problems in the future and thus should pay high premiums now.
FrugalFreak said: EndlessKnight said: FrugalFreak said: EndlessKnight said: FrugalFreak said: EndlessKnight said: FrugalFreak said: I wish to see this thread deleted, that is my hope that will not happen BUT
I hate busybodies I do smoke will continue to smoke will make an extra effort to smoke around people who push the issue
see the long thing in middle of my hand pointing upwards? it's not a cigarette.
SMOKERS UNITE! let's push big tobacco to push their lawyers to amend and lobby against it.
I'm sorry but I don't understand. Who's a busybody? And if you want to smoke and endanger your health that's your right as an adult, but why would you want to go out of your way to harm others?
because people who PUSH the issues is reason we are where we are today. people who were more concerned with what they didn't like and wanted to ban. ad spot's in movies, etc ways they have pushed it. they are busybodies, same people who banned happy meals in CA and banned some foods in NY. They are not happy until they can make Us carbon copies of them.
So basically people who take an opposing political view to your own? And because you don't like their point of view you're going to purposely endanger their health? Brilliant!
I won't be endangering their health, surely they will have sense enough to move or not come around being I am as right to occupy the space and air and pursuit of happiness as they are.
Depends on if its public space or not. You do not have the right to harm others just because you are pursing happiness. Your right to swing your arms ends at another mans nose.
I won't be harming them, they will be the ones to step into and around the space I occupy and am smoking. They have a choice too.
If its your private home or land you own you are correct, if its a public place they, the non-smoker, has as much right to be there as you and you are the one causing harm therefore the burden is on you to more or stop.
EndlessKnight said: BrodyInsurance said: I need to be clear that I do not have expertise on this subject. My expertise is with life and disability insurance.
Why do you disagree with my analogy? The simple factually correct point of it is that automobile insurance companies can use risk factors to underwrite their policies while health insurance companies are losing that ability.
Does it really make sense to you that it's ok to charge cigarette smokers more, but not crack smokers?
Does it really make sense to you that it's ok to charge a big healthy person more, but not the "proper weighted" person who lives on sugar and salt already has hypertension and diabetes?
My problem with your analogy is that you are introducing far to many new and unnecessary variables.
The only issue at hand is whether insurance companies should be able to charge smokers more than non-smokers, thus you should hold everything else constant and only compare smokers to non-smokers. This is commonly referred to as the ceteris paribus assumption. Hence compare two people who are exactly the same in every way expect one smokes and the other doesn't.
Therefore the proper car insurance analogy would be two drivers of the same age, drove the same car and were the same in every way except one of them had a clean driving record and the other hard multiple speeding tickets. I think you would agree that the driver with the tickets should pay more.
All the issues about "crack" and weight are totally separate from the issue of smoking tobacco and should be looked at on their own.
You are the one who already added the other factors by comparing smokers (regardless of their health) to drivers who have already done things to increase their claims (had accidents).
The issue is not whether insurance companies should be able to charge smokers more. The issue is whether Obamacare should single out smokers. If insurance companies could fairly underwrite policies and people could make their own decision on whether to buy coverage or not, I would have no problem with an insurance company deciding to charge a smoker more. When the government is forcing people to buy coverage and then basing price upon one specific habit instead of health, it changes the picture.
EndlessKnight said: BrodyInsurance said: TheDealMaker said: yeah, insurance should charge more for people who have bad habits like smoking, drinking, etc.
Why charge people more for habits as opposed to charging based upon health?
Silly and you know it.
All insurance is about the future and the current price is based on the predicted future payout. People who drive reckless today have a high probability of an accent in the future this high insurance cost, smokers have a high probably of health problems in the future and thus should pay high premiums now.
Can they charge the 600 pound crack smoker more? If not, how can you argue that it is about predicted future payout?
BrodyInsurance said: EndlessKnight said: BrodyInsurance said: I need to be clear that I do not have expertise on this subject. My expertise is with life and disability insurance.
Why do you disagree with my analogy? The simple factually correct point of it is that automobile insurance companies can use risk factors to underwrite their policies while health insurance companies are losing that ability.
Does it really make sense to you that it's ok to charge cigarette smokers more, but not crack smokers?
Does it really make sense to you that it's ok to charge a big healthy person more, but not the "proper weighted" person who lives on sugar and salt already has hypertension and diabetes?
My problem with your analogy is that you are introducing far to many new and unnecessary variables.
The only issue at hand is whether insurance companies should be able to charge smokers more than non-smokers, thus you should hold everything else constant and only compare smokers to non-smokers. This is commonly referred to as the ceteris paribus assumption. Hence compare two people who are exactly the same in every way expect one smokes and the other doesn't.
Therefore the proper car insurance analogy would be two drivers of the same age, drove the same car and were the same in every way except one of them had a clean driving record and the other hard multiple speeding tickets. I think you would agree that the driver with the tickets should pay more.
All the issues about "crack" and weight are totally separate from the issue of smoking tobacco and should be looked at on their own.
You are the one who already added the other factors by comparing smokers (regardless of their health) to drivers who have already done things to increase their claims (had accidents).
The issue is not whether insurance companies should be able to charge smokers more. The issue is whether Obamacare should single out smokers. If insurance companies could fairly underwrite policies and people could make their own decision on whether to buy coverage or not, I would have no problem with an insurance company deciding to charge a smoker more. When the government is forcing people to buy coverage and then basing price upon one specific habit instead of health, it changes the picture.
BrodyInsurance said: EndlessKnight said: BrodyInsurance said: TheDealMaker said: yeah, insurance should charge more for people who have bad habits like smoking, drinking, etc.
Why charge people more for habits as opposed to charging based upon health?
Silly and you know it.
All insurance is about the future and the current price is based on the predicted future payout. People who drive reckless today have a high probability of an accent in the future this high insurance cost, smokers have a high probably of health problems in the future and thus should pay high premiums now.
Can they charge the 600 pound crack smoker more? If not, how can you argue that it is about predicted future payout?
They should be able to, but just because they currently can't doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to charge smokers more. It just means that the law should be changed such that they can charge the over-weight crackheads (oxymoron?) more.
The problem with arguing just that one issue is that it doesn't take place in a vacuum. It's not as if an insurance company can charge me more and I can decide to buy insurance or not. The government is mandating that I buy it. When the government allows pricing discrimination based upon our habits and not our health, it gives them a tremendous amount of extra control of our lives.
BrodyInsurance said: The problem with arguing just that one issue is that it doesn't take place in a vacuum. It's not as if an insurance company can charge me more and I can decide to buy insurance or not. The government is mandating that I buy it. When the government allows pricing discrimination based upon our habits and not our health, it gives them a tremendous amount of extra control of our lives.
I agree. But that just means we should focus our efforts or fixing/changing the laws and not get bogged down by the issue of smokers, justly in my opinion, being charged more.
EndlessKnight said: BrodyInsurance said: The problem with arguing just that one issue is that it doesn't take place in a vacuum. It's not as if an insurance company can charge me more and I can decide to buy insurance or not. The government is mandating that I buy it. When the government allows pricing discrimination based upon our habits and not our health, it gives them a tremendous amount of extra control of our lives.
I agree. But that just means we should focus our efforts or fixing/changing the laws and not get bogged down by the issue of smokers, justly in my opinion, being charged more.
It's not the issue of smokers. It's the issue of trying to control us. If we don't fight it on behalf of smokers, they will start going after the foods that we eat and what we drink, etc.
BrodyInsurance said: EndlessKnight said: BrodyInsurance said: The problem with arguing just that one issue is that it doesn't take place in a vacuum. It's not as if an insurance company can charge me more and I can decide to buy insurance or not. The government is mandating that I buy it. When the government allows pricing discrimination based upon our habits and not our health, it gives them a tremendous amount of extra control of our lives.
I agree. But that just means we should focus our efforts or fixing/changing the laws and not get bogged down by the issue of smokers, justly in my opinion, being charged more.
It's not the issue of smokers. It's the issue of trying to control us. If we don't fight it on behalf of smokers, they will start going after the foods that we eat and what we drink, etc.
In general I agree with you about government infringing on personal liberty but for me this is not a issue in which to take a stand over. To each their own, every man much draw their own line in the sand and this isn't it for me.
Don't know why people keep bring up the crack. I don't know the number, but i doubt crack kills as much people as smoking and obesity per year. Plus. Do crack addicts utilize healthcare that much?
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.
One-time set up
Avoid the hassle of entering your information every time you buy.
•
Instant Cash Back tracking
Since we complete the purchase, we can credit your Cash Back immediately.
•
Buy with just two clicks
One click begins checkout and another confirms your purchase.
Once set up, making a purchase with FW checkout is a breeze. FatWallet Checkout confirms the after-tax
price plus shipping and, after you confirm, completes your purchase for you.
Shopping
Earn Cash Back while you shop - just 3 simple steps.
1. Sign Up so we know who to pay! (It's FREE.)
2. Shop through FatWallet for deals from your favorite stores. Your online purchases earn Cash Back that builds in your FatWallet account.
3. Get Paid by requesting a payment via check or PayPal.
FatWallet coupons help you save more when shopping online. Use our Coupons Search to browse coupons and offers from thousands of stores, gathered into one convenient location.
Forums
As part of our FatWallet Community, you can share deals with almost a million shoppers in our forums. Forum content is generated by consumers for consumers. Share deals, money-saving tips, and more. It's FREE, fun, and addicting.
Support
Our customer experience team is here around the clock - real people ready to assist.
