• Text Only
i3ighead said:   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?

I'm bringing up crack simply to point out the lunacy of singling out one behavior. It doesn't matter how many people obesity kills or what it does to health care costs because being obese will have no impact on rates.

BamBam0099 said:   BEEFjerKAY said:   caterpillar123 said:    Insurers have always charged more based on risk

Yup.

Of course, one alternative would be to not charge smokers for the costs of treating the proven consequences of their intentional self-destructive behaviorText.

Or, in other words, tax non-smokers.


So what is the definition of "self-destructive behavior"? Unsafe sex? Alcohol? Over eating? Sky diving? Driving over the speed limit? Driving a motorcycle? Skiing? Hand gliding? etc. etc. What about driving over X miles per week? Don't you increase your chance of getting in an accident? In fact, why not punish those that choose to drive and are a higher risk versus those that take mass transit? Once these types of laws start, it only gets worse.

I hate being around smokers but it is a legal product...outlaw cigarettes if they are so bad.

Why are we wasting our time going after guns? Let's outlaw or penalize EVERYTHING that is deemed "self-destructive behavior"!

"The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435,000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400,000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85,000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were microbial agents (75,000), toxic agents (55,000), motor vehicle crashes (43,000), incidents involving firearms (29,000), sexual behaviors (20,000), and illicit use of drugs (17,000)."


I disagree with you BamBam. Insurance companies have to charge more for people who are at a higher risk of costing them money. You said it yourselve. The leading cause of death was tobacco smoking. They get to pay more. Overweight people come next. People who drink follow, etc. If you want a lower premium, don't do any of these, simple. Now, the government is not in the business of telling citizens what to do. They are not your parents, and they should not be. Citizens should be free to smoke if they choose to, drink if they want to. But let's not make this thread about politics. It is what it is. If you were in the business of insuring people, you would manage the business the same way. Let's be honest here.

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.

I only see this affecting future smokers who will have no excuses. LOL


On more serious note, I understand insurance charging more for risky behavior but where does it stop?

How about they start charging people extra for having the risky behavior of working a menial job since it involved risk to back strain etc. Those construction workers breaking there backs building the insurance CEOs new condo is an added risk to health cost. Charge them more! After all he is making the choice to work construction!


The same way I got my life insurance coverage. They drew blood, I showed nicotine in my blood. Game over. They better start hiring lots of these people to make home visits for people.

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.


Difference is nobody is banning tobacco. Smoking is bad for you. You are free to do it. You are not allowed to do it in places like a park, or a restaurant, because doing so endangers the health of other people against their wish. How can anyone argue with this is beyond me. Second, insurance cost more for people at higher risks. It works that way with all types of insurance. You smoke, fine. Your rates are higher sir Don't like it, go somewhere else.

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.


I doubt the price is based only ONE factor: Smoker or Non-smoker. Let's have an honest discussion here.

noelandres said:   

against their wish.


So, what about people who choose to live with smokers? If second hand smoke is as dangerous as smoking (which is the reason for the added stigma), then those who cohabit with smokers should pay an additional cost as well, right?

OliverQuackenbush said:   is it just me or does everyone here have a strong desire to hold down "fuglyfreak troll ride" and poo on his face
(he has a choice, he can decide to not be near me when i have this desire)


LoL I have the same desire too!

It is guaranteed issue with no pre-existing conditions. Health is irrelevant. This is an honest discussion.

infogirlgeek said:   noelandres said:   

against their wish.


So, what about people who choose to live with smokers? If second hand smoke is as dangerous as smoking (which is the reason for the added stigma), then those who cohabit with smokers should pay an additional cost as well, right?


In theory yes. But that is not practical. Just imagine being a non-smoker, living with a smoker, and receiving your insurance renewal papers with a new "Living with a smoker fee". What would you do? Exactly. I'm pretty sure insurance companies use margin of safety adders to account for things like this in the low down.

BrodyInsurance said:   It is guaranteed issue with no pre-existing conditions. Health is irrelevant. This is an honest discussion.

If you smoke, chances are really high you will have lung problems, throat problems, etc. This is not debatable. Now, let's say we are in the business of insuring people. The reason of the business existence is to make a profit. At worst break even. Never lose money. If a smoker wants insurance from me, I know chances are high that he/she will cost me a lot of money down the road. So I have to charge a higher rate. It is the same principle with cars. You get a DUI, your rates goes through the roof. The same with credit cards. You default on a debt, you rates goes through the roof. Why are we having this heated discussion about something like this is beyond me.

Wouldn't it be more efficient to just charge more taxes for cigarettes?

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 )

What kinda place do you work for?
What kinda chicks do you date?
My employer hardly ever sticks cotton in my chicks behind, and even if they did, my saliva would have been washed off long before the test.

I think a lot of you have missed a very important point in this law. The government has chosen to punish individuals not just for behavior but also age with this law.

They are not only charging smokers more, they are seperating smokers into different classes. The unemployed old smoker is being singled out and forced to pay the 50% higher premiums. They are paying these premiums for behavior that occurred before the law took effect and they are not giving them the opportunity to change their behavior and save money while they do so (no break for cessation programs). They are being punished simply because they happened to be a certain age when this law took effect. Age discrimination may only be in the workplace, but there is something seriously wrong with this.

By not giving them an incentive to change their behavior, the government is in essence writing them off as a lost cause and confiscating their lifetime of acquired wealth. They are doing so simply because of their age. How can you tell, say a 55 year-old man who is in good health but has been a smoker for 20 years, that we are going to confiscate your money and give you no incentive to change your behavior so you can keep some of that money?

Meanwhile employed younger smokers who are going to be a burden if they continue the habit, after the law has changed, are not faced with the same price structure. I tried to hint at that point with the marathon runner, but it didn't come across as I thought it might. That eventually something may happen that the public in general may not face, and they are not being charged a premium for that possibility. Something may happen to the young smoker eventually, but he is not being charged for that possibility.

The government, through this law, has decided that elderly unemployed smoker is a burden. Their wealth belongs to the government for health care programs, simply because they chose to smoke over the last x number of years of their life before this law was enacted. The younger smoker (employed or not) does not face that hefty burden, yet will he not still get the same diseases the older smoker will get?

If they change the law and allow the elderly smoker an opportunity to save money by trying to quit, just as they allow the young smoker, wouldn't that at least be better? Or does the elderly smoker get punished for his age and either pay the higher premium or pay the fine? If he has no health insurance at all, won't he still become a burden to society when he shows up in the emergency room with lung cancer? He of course can than purchase his health care with his pre existing condition.

noelandres said:   BrodyInsurance said:   It is guaranteed issue with no pre-existing conditions. Health is irrelevant. This is an honest discussion.

If you smoke, chances are really high you will have lung problems, throat problems, etc. This is not debatable. Now, let's say we are in the business of insuring people. The reason of the business existence is to make a profit. At worst break even. Never lose money. If a smoker wants insurance from me, I know chances are high that he/she will cost me a lot of money down the road. So I have to charge a higher rate. It is the same principle with cars. You get a DUI, your rates goes through the roof. The same with credit cards. You default on a debt, you rates goes through the roof. Why are we having this heated discussion about something like this is beyond me.


Because you are missing the point. Nobody is arguing that smoking doesn't increase the risk that one might get sick later in life. It makes sense that an insurance company should be able to underwrite people so that the premiums are in relation to the expected costs. That isn't what is happening here. The insurance companies with Obamacare have lost their ability to medically underwrite the policies.

Here is the equivalent with cars:

"The Biden Car Insurance Bill"
Insurance companies can no longer charge different rates based upon driving records. Rates can't be changed due to number of accidents or moving violations including DUIs. Additionally, they can't charge more based upon number or amounts of claims. There is only one exception. Drivers who frequent bars can be charged 50% more since they are more likely to drink and drive.

BrodyInsurance said:   i3ighead said:   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?

I'm bringing up crack simply to point out the lunacy of singling out one behavior. It doesn't matter how many people obesity kills or what it does to health care costs because being obese will have no impact on rates.


It would be cool if they passed something about obesity also.

BrodyInsurance said:   Hypersion said:   If I get charged more for having Asthma than I think it's only fair that smokers who helped cause my Asthma get charged more.

The point is that you won't get charged more for your asthma. The cost isn't based upon health. Healthy people subsidize the unhealthy people.


Exactly! so, this is what I fail to grasp. Now, is the Obama administration is really wanting to head toward nationalized health, why in the world would it begin with a higher price for smokers, why isn't it the same price for everyone? for a president that is so much about spreading the wealth, how about spreading the risk? I mean, that is the control that the government had on insurance carriers. In order for the company to sell in a state, it had to go by that state's regulations. many years ago, FL said "no denials". Insurance carriers pulled out fast. The company that I worked for, decided to stay and pick up a lot of new policies. I can't tell you how many applications I got the next month with people with AIDS. The only underwriting I could do was check to make sure they had a full-time job. Now, don't get me wrong, I think smoking is a nasty habit...but I just don't see how charging more is NOT discrimination.

Nm

depalma13 said:   
If they change the law and allow the elderly smoker an opportunity to save money by trying to quit, just as they allow the young smoker, wouldn't that at least be better? Or does the elderly smoker get punished for his age and either pay the higher premium or pay the fine? If he has no health insurance at all, won't he still become a burden to society when he shows up in the emergency room with lung cancer? He of course can than purchase his health care with his pre existing condition.


The elderly smoker is not being punished for age but for the amount of pack-years he has compared to a younger smoker. Pack-years has a direct correlation with disease risk. If an elderly person quits smoking, it would do very little to reduce his risk of disease since the damage has already been done.

EndlessKnight said:   @FrugalFreak

Dude how childish are you? You can't refute my argument so you just give me red?


potato or potatoe, your opinion of harm from second hand smoke is debatable and your opinion is not fact same as mine. public place is owned by all, not just nazi non-smokers.

noelandres 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.


Difference is nobody is banning tobacco. Smoking is bad for you. You are free to do it. You are not allowed to do it in places like a park, or a restaurant, because doing so endangers the health of other people against their wish. How can anyone argue with this is beyond me. Second, insurance cost more for people at higher risks. It works that way with all types of insurance. You smoke, fine. Your rates are higher sir Don't like it, go somewhere else.


not for lack of wishing it, trust me, it is goal number one for those people. all the restrictions in between is just to keep hope alive.

infogirlgeek said:   noelandres said:   

against their wish.


So, what about people who choose to live with smokers? If second hand smoke is as dangerous as smoking (which is the reason for the added stigma), then those who cohabit with smokers should pay an additional cost as well, right?


same as those that have been around smokers, 2nd hand is deadly right? include them too.

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.


Nobody is mandating to joining the insurance provided by govt. Go with a private insurance that's going to charge you 2x or 3x the regular insurance and in addition, may drop you off completely when you end up with lung cancer due to the decades of smoking. Where do you go next? To the govt sponsored medicare....

NorthStar2020 said:   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.


Nobody is mandating to joining the insurance provided by govt. Go with a private insurance that's going to charge you 2x or 3x the regular insurance and in addition, may drop you off completely when you end up with lung cancer due to the decades of smoking. Where do you go next? To the govt sponsored medicare....


You are missing the fact that private insurers won't be able to individually underwrite the policies. They can't drop you when you have lung cancer. In fact, they have to insure you at the same rates as everyone else even when you have lung cancer.

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.



I disagree FF. I've had a number of similar experiences where I'm in a public place and a smoker comes along and lights up right in my face. I move away more than once and the next thing you know he/she is pacing and back in my space puffing smoke in my face.

In 2014 the Government will be sending me a check for around $15k to help pay my insurance, and that check will get bigger every year as insurance goes up. So I'm ok if I have to give $5k back in penalties. Or who knows maybe this will be the year I quit smoking, but it will not be the Government that makes that decision for me

avalon6 said:   soundtechie said:   Step 1: government is given a new power
step 2: governement uses that power for a purpose other than what it was intended for.


You do realize smoking was considered a pre-existing condition before the healthcare law? They would have just refused to cover you or drop you from their coverage once you became a burden.


Where I work, it's an irrelevant condition. People that don't smoke are in the same insurance pool, paying the same rate as people that smoke their brains out all day long. It's about time people that engage in activities like train dodging, asbestos huffing, ect. pay more.

cows123 said:    It's about time people that engage in activities like train dodging, asbestos huffing, ect. pay more.
Don't forget gay guys, they are at much higher risk to get aides and that is very costly. So they need to pay through the butt

ChemElady said:   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.



I disagree FF. I've had a number of similar experiences where I'm in a public place and a smoker comes along and lights up right in my face. I move away more than once and the next thing you know he/she is pacing and back in my space puffing smoke in my face.


Or you're waiting in line, and they don't give a crud that you have no choice but to assaulted by their smoke or leave. Or you have to get in or out of a building, and you have to pass through the cigarette smoking gauntlet blockading the entrance.

cows123 said:   avalon6 said:   soundtechie said:   Step 1: government is given a new power
step 2: governement uses that power for a purpose other than what it was intended for.


You do realize smoking was considered a pre-existing condition before the healthcare law? They would have just refused to cover you or drop you from their coverage once you became a burden.


Where I work, it's an irrelevant condition. People that don't smoke are in the same insurance pool, paying the same rate as people that smoke their brains out all day long. It's about time people that engage in activities like train dodging, asbestos huffing, ect. pay more.


People who train dodge and huff asbestos will still be paying the same rates as healthy people. In a group policy, I am pretty sure that smokers will still be paying the same rate as non-smokers.

BrodyInsurance said:   EndlessKnight said:   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.
Ah the slippery slope argument. You can take that approach with any discussion. It's no more valid here than elsewhere. Soon you'll be referencing Hitler and Stalin. The fallacy with that argument is that the US is not a dictatorship. Our government is a liberal democracy and that's not changing anytime soon. Expecting our government to turn into a totalitarian regime is politically no more likely than an asteroid strike. Yes such circumstances have occurred in the past, yes it's possible, but there's so many steps between now and then, and health insurance is not one of them.

peas said:   BrodyInsurance said:   EndlessKnight said:   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.
Ah the slippery slope argument. You can take that approach with any discussion. It's no more valid here than elsewhere. Soon you'll be referencing Hitler and Stalin. The fallacy with that argument is that the US is not a dictatorship. Our government is a liberal democracy and that's not changing anytime soon. Expecting our government to turn into a totalitarian regime is politically no more likely than an asteroid strike. Yes such circumstances have occurred in the past, yes it's possible, but there's so many steps between now and then, and health insurance is not one of them.


Forget about referencing Hitler and Stalin. I can reference Bloomberg. They are already trying to control what we eat in the name of health.

peas said:   Ah the slippery slope argument. You can take that approach with any discussion. It's no more valid here than elsewhere. Soon you'll be referencing Hitler and Stalin. The fallacy with that argument is that the US is not a dictatorship. Our government is a liberal democracy and that's not changing anytime soon. Expecting our government to turn into a totalitarian regime is politically no more likely than an asteroid strike. Yes such circumstances have occurred in the past, yes it's possible, but there's so many steps between now and then, and health insurance is not one of them.If you're going to bring up fallacies, you might not want to use one in the same post. Your totalitarian argument is a red herring. Nobody said that our government is turning into a totalitarian regime. Brody said, "they will start going after the foods that we eat." Mayor Bloomberg and the New York City Council have already gone after our food.

So what happens to my 86 year old mother who smoked up until 5 years ago?? Are her rates increased?? My father quit 20 years ago, he smoked but he never puts that down on medical forms, come to think of it, my mother also considers herself a non smoker. So supposedly they are non smokers but not really.....corner your doctor and try to get a straight answer, once you have smoked its always there.....forever and ever and ever.

It is my understanding that once you have smoked the damage is done, stopping will prevent further damage but will not fix or change what has been done. So, how will previous smokers be charged???? If you notice, the question about smoking is always asked whenever you have to go to ER. They don't say you are a non smoker once you have smoked.

If I smoke a pack a day and quit tomorrow. In 2014, will I be considered a non smoker or a smoker??

I'm also curious about pre existing conditions. If one has pre-existing condition, will they have to pay so much more.

How about pot smokers...non smokers???

Years ago, I read something about Hilary C. investing in a tobacco company that shipped this new tobacco that had more nicotine in it to foreign country to propogate it as it was illegal in the US. Well supposedly they cloned it and this modified tobacco is now back in the US being grown. This modification enabled tobacco to be classified as a drug (increased nicotine). Since the modified tobacco had higher levels of nicotine, the physicians could now charge for drug addiction and drug addiction modification. It also allows for goverment interference cause its now a drug......Don't remember all the details and I know I've simplified it so I could understand it but its someplace here on the internet...I think it was in the NY Times or Post.

RS4Rings said:   cows123 said:    It's about time people that engage in activities like train dodging, asbestos huffing, ect. pay more.
Don't forget gay guys, they are at much higher risk to get aides and that is very costly. So they need to pay through the butt


What type of aides are you stating gay guys are at a much higher risk to get. Aides who are assistants, because gay guys are in a higher income group and can afford to hire them? Perhaps the thing in the butt is your brain.

tedteddy said:   sharky1985 said:   Interesting. I vaguely recall receiving an email from my employer a few weeks ago stating they would no longer be hiring smokers at all soon.

I remember reading that Henry Ford had a similar requirement for his workers early last century. It's interesting that this idea fell out of favor and is now coming fashionable again.


FrugalFreak said:   EndlessKnight said:   @FrugalFreak

Dude how childish are you? You can't refute my argument so you just give me red?


potato or potatoe, your opinion of harm from second hand smoke is debatable and your opinion is not fact same as mine. public place is owned by all, not just nazi non-smokers.


Unfortunately, tedteddy, FrugalFreak seems to support your theory. Since Henry Ford was a Nazi, and FrugalFreak indicates the non-smokers are Nazis.

Churches don't pay taxes so just smoke in a Church.

Oh, the hypocrisy!

If you are a man, car insurance companies will charge you more, because you are in a higher risk group.

Joe2836 said:   If you are a man, car insurance companies will charge you more, because you are in a higher risk group.
That's because men receive more tickets than women. Male cops have a hard time giving a ticket to a crying woman, and female cops aren't attracted to men.

avalon6 said:   The elderly smoker is not being punished for age but for the amount of pack-years he has compared to a younger smoker. Pack-years has a direct correlation with disease risk. If an elderly person quits smoking, it would do very little to reduce his risk of disease since the damage has already been done.

It would do very little? Than please explain this scenerio.

John is 60, retired and pays for his own health care. He smokes a half a pack a day. The new law allows his insurance company to charge a 50% penalty for his coverage. He has no way to offset that penalty, other than not obtaining coverage.

Jack is 60, works for a large corporation that provides his health care. He smokes to two packs a day. The new law allows Jack to take a cessation program to lower his insurance cost and avoid the penalty.

So if the damage is already done as you say, than why does one elderly person get a benefit simply because they have a job? Does having a job mean you won't get a disease no matter how many "pack years" you've smoked?

avalon6 said:   God forbid we starting charging people responsible for driving up healthcare costs.

Sweet. Had no idea scumbag lawyers were going to start paying my premiums for me!



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.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014