• 1 2 3459
  • Page
  • Text Only
avalon6 said:   God forbid we starting charging people responsible for driving up healthcare costs.


You do of course realize that a smoker pays several dollars tax per pack. They are not only covering their extra care cost, they are covering many children's programs courtesy of that Tobacco ruling. And you STILL say this?

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.

Bagofchips said:   How does it get determined that you're a smoker if you say you're not?

Current employer requires a yearly blood test. If you don't take the test, then must pay at the higher smoker rates. Guilty until proven otherwise.

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

But they are saving us money by dying earlier.

For some reason we insist on spending even more money trying to prevent the inevitable...

masher4077 said:   
God forbid we actually fix the problems in health care rather then make up excuses for the way things are.


But...but...but... If you have health insurance it pays for your health care - so giving everyone health insurance will obviously solve the problem of how much health care costs.

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

You hit upon the point of socializing something. Cost becomes a prime excuse to use the force of law to control adult activity.

In the early 20th century Germany and the state government of California led the world in controling people in the name of community health.

I'm not a smoker. I have lung issues. Smokers bother the crap out of me. That said...

- Smokers are mandated to get insurance.
- Insurance costs are going up
- Insurance companies will have a more difficult time raising rates for standard users.
- Insurance companies may increase the rates of smokers without as many hurdles.
- Insurance companies can now apply a heavier fee to smokers than can simply be justified by risk.
- Smokers have no input on the situation

It seems to me that they can be unfairly targeted and gouged.

Anyone can be unfairly targeted by insurance companies, but this one is pretty easy to justify.

lray said:   Don't smokers already pay heavy taxes for smoking?

Yes, but it's not used to reimburse the Insurance companies that pay for smoking related issues.

That money is misused for other non related stuff. Whenever the state needs more money for something, it can increase the smoking taxes.

Still see no problem with charging more for choice driven unhealthy condition if they want a free ride with health care. Tax the fatties and smokers. Even the Conservatives should be on board with that due to personal responsibility alone. If you want to be fair about it (since there's clearly a ton of both.. hehe), tax them only if they don't prove they're making real efforts to change their lifestyle. Maybe we could rebuild the economy by building giant human hamsterwheels to power cities that these two groups have to run in for 10 hours a week. Mix in a reality show (maybe throw a bear on the wheel with them and pits of piranaha on each side), and you have the American Dream.

dewolfxy said:   masher4077 said:   avalon6 said:   God forbid we starting charging people responsible for driving up healthcare costs.
Except they should be charged less. Non-Smokers drive up health care costs more then smokers. Health Care costs of smokers vs non smokers

God forbid we actually fix the problems in health care rather then make up excuses for the way things are.


That's potentially interesting, but the non-smokers also presumably paid more taxes over their life. And contributed economically in other ways. Was that taken into account?

Yes it has. Since smokers die earlier they don't collect as much in social security and save us even more money.

Some preventive medicine doesn't save any money either. If someone has a terminal illness it is cheapest if they die as quick as possible.

Give me my Running Man TV show with terminal fatties and smokers. Throw in annoying Prius Drivers too, just because.

Mickie3 said:   sunspotzsz said:   great, why should I subsidize the stupid people who smoke. let them pay their fair share.

are you by any chance obese? If so, I hate to be subsidizing YOU as well.


That would be a hard one to pass as that is...50% of America?

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

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)."


LOVE YOU! Exactly!!!!! Personally, I think self-destructive behavior is allowing them to get away with this crap.

A lot of problems could be solved if we moved all the fatties, smokers, old people, and gun enthusiasts to the South, make them secede from the Union, and let them hunt Prius owners.

mattun said:   Still see no problem with charging more for choice driven unhealthy condition if they want a free ride with health care. Tax the fatties and smokers. Even the Conservatives should be on board with that due to personal responsibility alone. If you want to be fair about it (since there's clearly a ton of both.. hehe), tax them only if they don't prove they're making real efforts to change their lifestyle. Maybe we could rebuild the economy by building giant human hamsterwheels to power cities that these two groups have to run in for 10 hours a week. Mix in a reality show (maybe throw a bear on the wheel with them and pits of piranaha on each side), and you have the American Dream.

The problem is that they become a targeted minority group.

Here's a scenario with made up numbers:
Assume:
- It costs $125 per month for the average healthy person
- It costs $150 per month for the average smoker
What if:
- They charge $75 per month to the average health person
- They charge $200 per month for the average smoker

Is the above scenario fair?

I'm down with that higher rate. Like I wrote, if there's any backlash just give the option of proving they're attempting to quit smoking and they get the normal rate. That's more than fair considering the damage they likely already did to their bodies. Why should the $75 a month healthy person have to pay an extra $50 a month because some stranger got hooked smoking thinking it'd help them get laid?

riznick said:   [
The problem is that they become a targeted minority group.

Here's a scenario with made up numbers:
Assume:
- It costs $125 per month for the average healthy person
- It costs $150 per month for the average smoker
What if:
- They charge $75 per month to the average health person
- They charge $200 per month for the average smoker

Is the above scenario fair?


I'd say it depends on what their healthcare costs are.
If the statistics suggest that it's a 75/200 split, then yes, it's absolutely fair..

Is it fair to subsidize them?

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: Sure, no problem. Could you please just stop at the lab and get a Cotinine test?

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 forgot the step where the government contributes to the problem by providing cigarettes as standard issue for GI's.

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.

The goverment made me smoke. McDonalds made me fat. Toyota made me a slow annoying driver.

mattun said:   I'm down with that higher rate. Like I wrote, if there's any backlash just give the option of proving they're attempting to quit smoking and they get the normal rate. That's more than fair considering the damage they likely already did to their bodies. Why should the $75 a month healthy person have to pay an extra $50 a month because some stranger got hooked smoking thinking it'd help them get laid?


If you include the obese, the ones who engage in risky sex, the ones who have hobbies where they can be possibly hurt, etc., I'll buy in, otherwise, its penalizing the all new, government sanctioned hated minority group. Its now illegal to discriminate against, black, orientals, women, everyone EXCEPT smokers and majorities have always wanted a hated minority group they could look down on, makes them all feel so damned superior. Now, having smokers be the new minority its ok to HATE is whats in vogue, just like the drinkers were in the 20s, and the racial minorities in the 50s (and earlier.) Who is next? The next group I am in favor of is looking down on the obese, cause I will never be that (due to winning the gene lottery in that area.)

Don't worry. In less than 10 years, all health insurance companies will be nationalized and everyone will have the exact same medicare coverage. Welcome to your death panel. 60 YO and need brain surgery? Sorry! 50 YO and need a new knee? Amputation and crutches will suffice.

You wanted it? You got it. Suckle on your government and they will be sure to care for you by taking everything you have and then eating you.

howie888 said:   BamBam0099 said:   
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)."


blah blah blah "sexual behaviors (20,000)" blah blah blah

WHAT?!



Ever heard of AIDS?

depalma13 said:   The law allows for what looks like age discrimination as insurance companies will be allowed to charge more for older smokers than younger ones. Also, those that do not belong to a company sponsored insurance plan, might not have the benefit of taking a cessation program.

It's not discrimination when it's based on a very real cost.

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

But they are saving us money by dying earlier.


If the smokers had never smoked they would have lived longer and contributed to the premium, hence would have reduced the premium for themselves and for others. So are they really saving us money by dying earlier?

LorenPechtel said:   depalma13 said:   The law allows for what looks like age discrimination as insurance companies will be allowed to charge more for older smokers than younger ones. Also, those that do not belong to a company sponsored insurance plan, might not have the benefit of taking a cessation program.

It's not discrimination when it's based on a very real cost.


Except for the fact that we aren't charging people based upon cost.

Mickie3 said:   mattun said:   I'm down with that higher rate. Like I wrote, if there's any backlash just give the option of proving they're attempting to quit smoking and they get the normal rate. That's more than fair considering the damage they likely already did to their bodies. Why should the $75 a month healthy person have to pay an extra $50 a month because some stranger got hooked smoking thinking it'd help them get laid?


If you include the obese, the ones who engage in risky sex, the ones who have hobbies where they can be possibly hurt, etc., I'll buy in, otherwise, its penalizing the all new, government sanctioned hated minority group. Its now illegal to discriminate against, black, orientals, women, everyone EXCEPT smokers and majorities have always wanted a hated minority group they could look down on, makes them all feel so damned superior. Now, having smokers be the new minority its ok to HATE is whats in vogue, just like the drinkers were in the 20s, and the racial minorities in the 50s (and earlier.) Who is next? The next group I am in favor of is looking down on the obese, cause I will never be that (due to winning the gene lottery in that area.)


Yeah sure, whatever. If you're dumb enough not to wrap it up and/or are an XTREME young kid on my lawn doing stunts and listening to the rap music, you pay more too. Smokers still pay more however because they think they're a singled out minority and should get a double penalty for that.

lottathought said:   avalon6 said:   God forbid we starting charging people responsible for driving up healthcare costs.
You do of course realize that a smoker pays several dollars tax per pack. They are not only covering their extra care cost, they are covering many children's programs courtesy of that Tobacco ruling. And you STILL say this?

No one forces you to smoke cigarettes, or pot, or take drugs, or gamble. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Smoking is a conscious choice. Wanna smoke? Fine, pay up. Otherwise stop smoking or STFU.
Sure there will always be gaps between who is identified as a smoker or whatever, but ya gotta start somewhere. If smokers would capture 100% of the smoke inside their lungs, I wouldn't mind quite as much. But spewing it everywhere injures others. The negative health effects of 2nd hand smoke are well documented.

mattun said:   If you include the obese, the ones who engage in risky sex, the ones who have hobbies where they can be possibly hurt, etc., I'll buy in, otherwise, its penalizing the all new, government sanctioned hated minority group. Its now illegal to discriminate against, black, orientals, women, everyone EXCEPT smokers and majorities have always wanted a hated minority group they could look down on, makes them all feel so damned superior. Now, having smokers be the new minority its ok to HATE is whats in vogue, just like the drinkers were in the 20s, and the racial minorities in the 50s (and earlier.) Who is next? The next group I am in favor of is looking down on the obese, cause I will never be that (due to winning the gene lottery in that area.) That's a strawman argument. Smoking is a choice, you can choose to stop. Ethnicity and gender are not (setting aside the extreme cases of MJ and transvestites). It's not illegal to discriminate based upon someone's choices. Even obesity is as much environmental as genetic. What you eat has far more impact than your genes.

delzy said:   Don't worry. In less than 10 years, all health insurance companies will be nationalized and everyone will have the exact same medicare coverage. Welcome to your death panel. 60 YO and need brain surgery? Sorry! 50 YO and need a new knee? Amputation and crutches will suffice.

You wanted it? You got it. Suckle on your government and they will be sure to care for you by taking everything you have and then eating you.


No they won't.

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


You do of course realize that a smoker pays several dollars tax per pack. They are not only covering their extra care cost, they are covering many children's programs courtesy of that Tobacco ruling. And you STILL say this?

No one forces you to smoke cigarettes, or pot, or take drugs, or gamble. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Smoking is a conscious choice. Wanna smoke? Fine, pay up. Otherwise stop smoking or STFU.
Sure there will always be gaps between who is identified as a smoker or whatever, but ya gotta start somewhere. If smokers would capture 100% of the smoke inside their lungs, I wouldn't mind quite as much. But spewing it everywhere injures others. The negative health effects of 2nd hand smoke are well documented.


Per a professor I had in grad school, its mob mentality and saying something without basis enough times and lemmings will think its the truth.

Exactly please find and provide a citation for a single second hand smoke study. Just one. (Hint: you will not find one, because a STUDY has never been done.)


Disclaimer: I do not smoke or own any stocks in any tobacco related business or insurance businesses.

We're looking at it the wrong way. It should be a positive, not a negative. Reward tax payers with good habits. Everybody taxed equally with DEDUCTIONS.

Don't Smoke or in program : Deduction
In Shape : Deduction
Not currently participating in the Winter X-Games: Deduction
Own less than 5 guns: Deduction
Less than 5 partners and/or purchase $1000 in Trojans: Deduction
Drive your Prius in the fast lane under the speed limit: Death

Roll the responsibilities on checking on these into the audit process.

Mickie3 said:   peas said:   lottathought said:   avalon6 said:   God forbid we starting charging people responsible for driving up healthcare costs.


You do of course realize that a smoker pays several dollars tax per pack. They are not only covering their extra care cost, they are covering many children's programs courtesy of that Tobacco ruling. And you STILL say this?

No one forces you to smoke cigarettes, or pot, or take drugs, or gamble. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Smoking is a conscious choice. Wanna smoke? Fine, pay up. Otherwise stop smoking or STFU.
Sure there will always be gaps between who is identified as a smoker or whatever, but ya gotta start somewhere. If smokers would capture 100% of the smoke inside their lungs, I wouldn't mind quite as much. But spewing it everywhere injures others. The negative health effects of 2nd hand smoke are well documented.


Per a professor I had in grad school, its mob mentality and saying something without basis enough times and lemmings will think its the truth.

Exactly please find and provide a citation for a single second hand smoke study. Just one. (Hint: you will not find one, because a STUDY has never been done.)


Disclaimer: I do not smoke or own any stocks in any tobacco related business or insurance businesses.

Seriously? Are you just trolling for the sake of trolling?

First couple links here

peas said:   ...No one is forcing anyone to do anything...This is incorrect. Someone is forcing me to buy insurance by levying a fine against me if I don't.

ds394 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: Sure, no problem. Could you please just stop at the lab and get a Cotinine test?


"Cotinine is used as a biomarker for exposure to tobacco smoke and has also been sold as an antidepressant under the brand name Scotine. [...] However, some smoking cessation programs contain Nicotine which will result in a positive for Cotinine presence. Therefore, the presence of Cotinine is not a conclusive indication of tobacco use." -Wiki quote

Man: Since you mention that, I do take Scotine.

Or better scenario:
Man: Since you mention that test, I should tell you that I am on a smoking cessation plan.

delzy said:   peas said:   ...No one is forcing anyone to do anything...This is incorrect. Someone is forcing me to buy insurance by levying a fine against me if I don't.

where do you people get this from? i know a guy who talks in exactly this same manner. since these views are horsehockey claptrap, i suspect that some shadowy leader is feeding the irrational masses this banter. its unlikely that two people can independently form the same irrational views, since reason and logic can't get you there. so where do you get these talking points from, that zerohedge website??? tell me.

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.


This is the single most insightful post in the entire thread. Can we pin it as a sticky at the top?

caterpillar123 said:   BamBam0099 said:   If smoking is so bad then outlaw it, don't penalize those that use a LEGAL product just to finance other social programs or to make insurance companies richer.The law allows insurers to charge higher rates for smokers. It's not a mandate. Insurers have always charged more based on risk so I don't see a problem with this.

Right. Plus the law doesn't change anything. Currently insurers can charge higher premiums for individual policies. The law allows them to continue doing so for individual policies.

I don't see any change here...

dcg9381 said:   riznick said:   [
The problem is that they become a targeted minority group.

Here's a scenario with made up numbers:
Assume:
- It costs $125 per month for the average healthy person
- It costs $150 per month for the average smoker
What if:
- They charge $75 per month to the average health person
- They charge $200 per month for the average smoker

Is the above scenario fair?


I'd say it depends on what their healthcare costs are.
If the statistics suggest that it's a 75/200 split, then yes, it's absolutely fair..

Is it fair to subsidize them?


How is a 75/200 split fair in the above scenario?

Subsidizing would be a split where the smoker pays less than 150.



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