• 12 3 459
  • Page
  • Text Only
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.

But when someone shows up at an ER needing treatment, without the insurance or large sum of money needed for emergency life saving surgery - it is ok for the rest of us to pay their costs?
If I'm going to be 'fined' I'd rather be fined directly for my lack of responsibility, not indirectly for others...

They should do a blood test before quoting rates. Glucose over 100, 10% more premium, Cholesterol over 200, 25% more premium, triglycerdies over 200, 25% more. If I workout and eat right, WTF I pay for others.

steve1jr said:   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.

But when someone shows up at an ER needing treatment, without the insurance or large sum of money needed for emergency life saving surgery - it is ok for the rest of us to pay their costs?
If I'm going to be 'fined' I'd rather be fined directly for my lack of responsibility, not indirectly for others...

That's irrelevant to Delzy's very accurate point. He claims that it is something forced upon him. It is.

Whether or not the threat is justifiable is another story. If we are all forced to have insurance, it is quite possible that the rest of us will still pay for those people's costs.

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.


Without any type of health screen, this is exactly how it pans out...yet the government that is "allowing" insurance companies to charge smokes more is the same government that won't allow the insurance company to further screen....and further screen can simply mean the company can't call Jim and ask "did you use to smoke heavily?". So Jim can slide through. Charlie could state a case and maybe the insurer might not up charge him.

Pretty sure states will cry when they cannot up the cig tax another buck here and there because nobody will buy. Good thing and all about stopping but bad because they will just tax something else for no good reason.

mattun said:   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.


Ha, in 20 years, there will be pundits saying xx% people don't pay enough in premiums ("fair share"). :/
Though, I love point 6. That should be implemented retroactively to beginning of this year.

in the 60s, the idiots complained when the government mandated desegregation and we couldn't have "whites only" clubs.
in the 60's we also heard backlash over medicare, for the exact same reasons people complain about obamacare.
in the 90s, the idiots complained when the government mandated smaller toilets to save water; the big poopers cried "foul, tyranny"
today the idiots are complaining about congress promoting the general welfare by making healthcare available to more people.
the tyranny of the past is no longer talked about, since most can agree progress was a good idea back then. similarly, someday soon no one will talk about today's progress in delivery of healthcare.
but when that day comes, there will still be idiots, i just can't wait to find out what they will be complaining about then.

king0fSpades said:   They should do a blood test before quoting rates. Glucose over 100, 10% more premium, Cholesterol over 200, 25% more premium, triglycerdies over 200, 25% more. If I workout and eat right, WTF I pay for others.

Good idea. But how are you going to differentiate people with certain genetic disposition that would show an increase in the parameters you quoted, but does not affect them adversely?

Veeekay said:   king0fSpades said:   They should do a blood test before quoting rates. Glucose over 100, 10% more premium, Cholesterol over 200, 25% more premium, triglycerdies over 200, 25% more. If I workout and eat right, WTF I pay for others.

Good idea. But how are you going to differentiate people with certain genetic disposition that would show an increase in the parameters you quoted, but does not affect them adversely?


This. I have "high cholesterol" for whatever reason, but I'm a pretty fit fellow (six-pack, former college athlete, etc.). Not to mention, the demonizing of cholesterol might not even be accurate: (http://njms2.umdnj.edu/hwmedweb/archives/CholMortality_archive.h...

Having said that, I think high glucose in universally recognized as bad news, so I support you there. But you see it can get messy quickly.

Mickie3 said:   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?


20K matches 2010 estimates (http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm)

I was thinking more along the lines of lorena bobbit or something strange like that. 20K of those cases seemed unimaginable and/or painful to 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.


Except Charlie, who is in perfect health, has to have a double knee and hip replacement. This was caused by his love of running 50 miles a week to stay in shape to run marathons.

What about those who are high risk from criminal activity? The person shot from a drug deal or a drug user. Good chance neither will have insurance or even pay the penalty. We will still be footing their ER costs.

What about Obama himself? A smoker who won't see rate increases because, I believe he is on the fed employee's plan.

As said many times before, there is nothing in Obamacare that will contain healthcare costs. It's just another revenue producer and a social engineering program.

No one seems to have mentioned that we are ALL discriminated against in regards to insurance prices. Part of the way that they calculate prices is to look at total costs for "people like you". If you work for a company, then the insurer will look at that company's healthcare costs over the last year in order to determine rates for the next year. IF you don't, then they compare you to other people in the same pool. If you have ever worked at a place with low pregnancies, then you probably have seen lower rates as a consequence. The same thing is true with ANY thing that increases medical costs. The only change is that this allows them to legally divide each group into smokers and non smokers. One more level of resolution.

Also, to all of the people talking about how smokers are cheaper because they die earlier: Show me the info on how much each person has paid in vs paid out on insurance. Everyone dies, but if the non smoker lives 15 years longer then they are probably more profitable (and therefore have room to lower their rates). If dying early was the goal, then insurers would really love infant mortality...

All or nothing, all or nothing, all or nothing... I freaking hate seeing these in arguments. Sure some runners blow out there knees. Sure some fat smokers live to 90. The whole point of doing massive group plans is to bet against the average and lower the cost overall by using the weight of that group to negotiate a lower rate from the insurer. With National Heath Care, either we ALL absorb the costs and give dirty looks to the smokers and fatties (and they deserve it since they're getting discounted health care on our dime) or we somehow draw a line and break the groups into higher/lower risk categories and adjust their taxes. I prefer the latter, but don't wouldn't go with nothing at all if it's the former since instead we just get nailed with Emergency Room bills (the highest rate of all Health Care) rolled into our taxes when the fat out of work smokers swing into the ER to treat their annoying seizures.

I believe the penalties (from private insurers) for a 55-year old smoker are already what the article suggests.

A 2-pack a day smoker can finance the penalty by cutting consumption in half.
A pack a day smoker can finance half the penalty by cutting consumption in half.

But what about someone who smokes a couple a day or once a week when drinking? I'm sure once Obamacare has labelled you a smoker, it will take a lot (i.e. multiple checks which cost money) to get off the list.

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?

You do understand that the law does not offer that option.

You better hope for a bigger backlash then.

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.

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.


Fatties never trip and tear their MCL/ACL.. injure their back... fall on small children... become melded to their favorite chair... etc. Just a horrible argument. Horrible.

soxfan2004 said:   Honestly, I may catch hell for this, but when did we start accepting government to get involved with EVERYTHING? I quit smoking over 5 years ago (not for bragging rights) so this will not affect me at all (at least...I hope, yes we can, yes we can...control your lives)

Well, crazy tea party people want less government... except when it comes to abortion, then they want more government.

mattun said:   Fatties never trip and tear their MCL/ACL.. injure their back... fall on small children... become melded to their favorite chair... etc. Just a horrible argument. Horrible.

Not saying they don't, although his risks for such injury are far greater.

But all the ones out there that smoke pot are shot up will have problem at all after all that is an addiction because they don't pay the government all the taxes smokers do.

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.BamBam0099 said:   And as far as age discrimination, at least once a week (if not more), senior citizens get 10+% discounts...is that not an "accepted" age discrimination?Age discrimination laws pertain only to the workplace (hiring, firing, promotions, etc) (1) (2). Age is not a protected class when it comes to senior discounts and insurance pricing.

soxfan2004 said:   Honestly, I may catch hell for this, but when did we start accepting government to get involved with EVERYTHING?The government steps in when the private sector fails.

And "the government" is not some independent entity you make it out to be.

Veeekay said:   king0fSpades said:   They should do a blood test before quoting rates. Glucose over 100, 10% more premium, Cholesterol over 200, 25% more premium, triglycerdies over 200, 25% more. If I workout and eat right, WTF I pay for others.

Good idea. But how are you going to differentiate people with certain genetic disposition that would show an increase in the parameters you quoted, but does not affect them adversely?


Having a genetic predisposition to higher cholesterol still results in the same health consequences. Smoking also has genetic elements to it - one instance of this is being genetically predispositioned to metabolizes nicotine faster makes one more addicted to cigarettes (there are other links as well). I don't think there is a need to differentiate people based on genetic predisposition. Were all dealt our genetic hand at birth, whether I'm a obese because of being genetically predisposed to being addicted to food or due to a metabolic disorder, the fact is it will tend to cost the taxpayers more then if you were not obese.

If the costs of being fat, smoking cigarettes or having high cholesterol is not at least somewhat put back on the individual, then they are much less likely to change their behavior because they don't have to bear the consequences of it. Its a classic economic free rider problem. I think health insurance should be more of a public good then it traditionally has been, but individuals should still have to bear the burden of the healthcare cost that are controllable by the individual so as to dissuade the individual from incurring the cost on the public otherwise.

As far as the smoking issue here goes, I find it purely political to only make smokers pay. There are plenty of other lifestyle choices that are just as well correlated with increased healthcare cost, the only one you can single out though are the smokers because there is such a negative stigma attached to it. If you tried to get people classified as overweight to pay a little and those classified as obese to pay a little more, you would be telling 70% of america you think they are fat - good way to lose a lot of votes. Obesity also adds more to average healthcare cost then smoking does - they should be singling out all of us for our various behaviors that result in negative health consequences instead of just the smokers.

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.


Not, I am not fat! I am healthy and responsible

fat people should pay more as well.

masher4077 said:   sunspotzsz said:   great, why should I subsidize the stupid people who smoke. let them pay their fair share.

How about if you get skin cancer should we have to pay for it? Since your name is Sun Spots I am assuming you hang out in the sun a lot. Which is stupid because it increases your chances of skin cancer. Is it fair for people to have to pay for that? Everyone does stupid things that increase there risk of having to use health care the point is we all do it but to increase the cost on one type of people who actually are subsidizing you(see my previous post) more then you are them is stupid.


If I do something that increases my chance of incurring significant medical costs, I should and will be happy to pay for my own risky behaviors.

masher4077 said:   sunspotzsz said:   great, why should I subsidize the stupid people who smoke. let them pay their fair share.

How about if you get skin cancer should we have to pay for it? Since your name is Sun Spots I am assuming you hang out in the sun a lot. Which is stupid because it increases your chances of skin cancer. Is it fair for people to have to pay for that? Everyone does stupid things that increase there risk of having to use health care the point is we all do it but to increase the cost on one type of people who actually are subsidizing you(see my previous post) more then you are them is stupid.


10% federal tax on indoor tanning started back in 2010 as part of the healthcare reform - I know it was just an example and it doesn't make your point any less valid, but it does serve as an example of the randomness in who they chose to penalize.

If they worry so much about our health, why not just ban smoking? yes, ok, profit and taxes.

What about obese people? They should pay more too, and I can tell you that smoking is not as bad as being overweight. Are they trying to say that driving without seatbelt is more dangerous than riding a bike? Oh, but you can give tickets for seat belts.

.

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.

I need health care, not insurance

depalma13 said:   mattun said:   Fatties never trip and tear their MCL/ACL.. injure their back... fall on small children... become melded to their favorite chair... etc. Just a horrible argument. Horrible.

Not saying they don't, although his risks for such injury are far greater.


I really think you're waaaay off on that. I'd be curious if anybody has done a study on knee injuries of fat inactive people vs. healthy active people. Just my anecdotal example, this year my overweight sister-in-law developed runner's knee (doesn't run) and I got tennis elbow (don't play tennis) and have run all my life. Human joints aren't meant to handle being three bills.

This is all a little scary to me. The government is forcing people to buy health insurance and then is going to allow people to be charged more based upon personal behavior. That gives the government too much power over our personal lives.

This is very different than charging people different amounts based upon actual risks.

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.

BrodyInsurance said:   This is all a little scary to me. The government is forcing people to buy health insurance and then is going to allow people to be charged more based upon personal behavior. That gives the government too much power over our personal lives.

This is very different than charging people different amounts based upon actual risks.


please dont be frightened. if/when we move to a single payer/public option system, things will be better and less frightening. this system that is being put into place is a product of compromise between the rational and the crazy. so one should not be surprised if the new system seems half crazy.

My employer already started charging a premium for people who smoke. They also made you go in and say you weren't a smoker, or assumed you were.

Aren't smokers charged $9 a pack? Where is that money going? How about basing insurance on education or IQ?

Do the smokers get a piece of the Social Security payments and other entitlements they forfeit by dying younger on average?

Smokers are the lepers of today even though there is evidence that obesity and inactivity kill more.
http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/18/lack-of-exercise-as-deadly...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2010/01/06/obesity-smoking-p...
http://shine.yahoo.com/vitality/obesity-overtaking-smoking-top-c...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100104192029.htm

I thought big government Libs liked science. Looks like to me science says fat people are the biggest drag on health care, not smokers. BTW I am not a smoker or fat.

stomie said:   Aren't smokers charged $9 a pack? Where is that money going? How about basing insurance on education or IQ?

Ask your state AG. She/he is in charge of wasting that money.



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