Posted on 02/05/2006 3:53:28 PM PST by dware
(AP) DENVER With health costs rising, one state lawmaker thinks it's time to start discussing whether the state can afford to pay to treat smokers who get lung cancer, heart disease and other diseases linked to tobacco.
Sen. Ron Teck, R-Grand Junction, wants to put people who continue to smoke despite the health risks on notice. Under a proposal set to be reviewed Wednesday at the state Capitol, people who started smoking before 1975 would still be eligible for Medicaid payments to treat smoking-related illnesses.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbs4denver.com ...
That's called discrimination .. Watch the lawsuits that will come if he gets that passed
I don't know about that. The anti-smoking nazis will argue that it can't be discrimination. After all, we CHOOSE to smoke.
Agreed. Socialized medicine is a huge mistake, that few people understand.
They'll give healthcare to illegals but not to US citizens that smoke??
Yep ... the law suits will be a flying
I wonder what will next be no more treatment for obese people..at least people who smoke pay a hugh tax, that the government would not like to lose...
Smokers pay their way through the taxes they pay. Why don't we exclude health care for homosexuals with AIDS. They don't pay any additional taxes and they're a drain on the system and AIDS is preventable.
I wonder if after they cut benefits for smokers, they will then proceed to cut benefits for those who engage in high-risk sexual practices? Drug users? Skydivers, etc?
...it'll be called "discrimination" the minute some minority smoker gets the bad news...
Have to wonder how much the smokers save SS?
"Socialized medicine is a huge mistake, that few people understand"
===
How right you are.
First they came for the smokers and diabetics, then ....
See this article:
New York City Starts To Monitor Diabetics
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1555802/posts
New York City is starting to monitor the blood sugar levels of its diabetic residents, marking the first time any government in the United States has begun tracking people with a chronic disease.
Under the program, the city is requiring laboratories to report the results of blood sugar tests directly to the health department, which will use the data to study the disease and to prod doctors and patients when levels run too high.
Some public health experts, ethicists and privacy advocates, however, say that the initiative raises serious concerns about confidentiality and is an alarming government intrusion into people's medical care.
But the New York effort marks the first time any government has required routine reporting of laboratory test results for a major chronic, noninfectious disease so that government officials can scrutinize how well doctors and patients are treating it.
The plan has alarmed privacy advocates, particularly because the information is being collected without first getting patients' consent.
"It's an incredible invasion to privacy to have your sensitive medical information grabbed by the city of New York," said Robin Kaigh, a New York lawyer who opposes the effort. "It shocks the conscience that they are not even required to tell you this is happening."
However, should our tax dollars be spent bailing out or healing those who take avoidable risks with their health?
Kind of a personal responsibility thing.
Employers are making such decisions, and have every right to do so. Why should not government do the same?
Yep .. they'll be after them also .. because they aren't perfect
Can we drop coverage for gays who get aids ?
Goody, let's deny treatment for lung cancer to those who smoke, let's deny treatment for heart disease to those who are overweight, let's deny medical care to those who get into accidents that are their fault, etc. but let's keep paying for the healthcare of the illegals.
What's wrong with this picture?
The whole point of insurance is that you have a large group who is insured, some of them almost never need medical care, others do.
And note the article I posted a couple of posts back about NY having the labs send results of blood sugar tests directly to the government, because the government wants to monitor diabetics.
Maybe next time they are going to withhold treatment from diabetics, because their chances of recovery are less than those who don't have diabetes.
Where will it stop?
I am amazed at people who cite privacy and get terribly upset when the government monitors communications with known terrorists, but who think it's perfectely fine for the government to keep track of your personal habits and illnesses and make decisions on whether or not you get treated.
Medicaid, however, is welfare. Generally speaking, those eligible are net recipients of tax money.
"But those who started after 1975 would see the amount the state picks up drop 5 percent every year after that. And those people who picked up the habit in 1996 or later wouldn't get any help."
===
This very clearly states that they will refuse treatment.
Someone has gone off the deep end here.
===
The smokers pay their taxes, but they shouldn't benefit from it, because the government says so. This is worse than pathetic and I am ashamed a Republican would propose to withhold treatment from sick smokers, after they have been paying the taxes for such purpose for years.
Which costs the most : Paying for a person with lung cancer to receive treatment for a couple of years and die at 60 or waiting for him to reach 65 paying his Social Security for 20 years and then 8 years of nursing home care?
Hey, if the rest of us can subsidize AID treatments then you can subsidize people who smoke.
Does this idiot realize that lung cancer isn't reserved for people who smoke?
Geesh!
Here's my thing. They institute the HMO Act, which favored a few corporations...years later they repeal it, but they still have many legislative favors for these few companies--prevent real competition. Then it's all blamed on the free-market, as though that's really the free-market.
Ultimately both parties are full of people that either like the status quo of half-ass control or there super crazy and want full control. So the handful of geniune (free-market) people are left with little or no support.
It's eventual that medicare will die. Medicaid is a separate issue in itself, and I think the state government can properly debate over this, but most likely won't agree over it. I adhor conservatives that think small government is good, but 'maybe medicine should be socialized'...that sort of thinking is absolutely silly. Let's just say I don't see that often, though.
Why is that?
None of you Senators drink, do you?
I agree with your comment, however the article was about state run Medicaid. People that can't afford health care shouldn't be smoking and expect the state (me) to pay for it when they get sick. The same goes other risky behaviors.
Wtach what happens if he tries to deny help for AIDS sufferers.
Like people who refuse to wear helmut when they ride bikes?
I think it may get to the point that if you choose to smoke, eat a lot and get fat, or catch AIDS through the choice of homosexual behavior, you may be expected to pay more for coverage. You might not be able to get coverage because of the great risk you could be.
You can either not go with coverage, pay through the nose for coverage or change your behavior and be covered at regular prices.
Make your choices and get the consequences of the good or bad choices.
You make an interesting point, but it's apples & oranges.
A better idea would be to charge extra for healthy people who smoke, or at least reduce the state medicare tax burden for non-smokers.
And as for illegal aliens, it's illegal, end of story. If they want to become citizens of the U.S., they should do it through legal means.
Good evening, ladies. Get a load of this article.
Insurance carriers already charge more for smokers
And if the government wants to do this .. they best tax more to fat people, gay people and folks who have a high ricks of any kind of cancer in their family
oh and the government already taxes the heck out of smokers
Where's the tax on fat people ???
"A better idea would be to charge extra for healthy people who smoke, or at least reduce the state medicare tax burden for non-smokers"
Make all those so called "smoker diseases" non eligable for coverage for everyone!
Solves the dicrimination problem and lowers public health care costs.
Better than that eliminate all public health care including Medicare that I was forced into 3 years ago.
Lord, save us from these dumb politicians. Exclude one group and you will end up having to exclude them all.
Say goodbye, Ron.
Someday it will happen to everyone. I haven't even scrolled through to read the comments. Medicare seems poised to act on all patients whom they deem incurable, or that ever popular PVS diagnosis.
At the same time, they will raise taxes on tobacco products, because they NEED smokers to continue smoking!
Double Jeopardy
will i be exempt if i gamble & smoke in atlantic city, nj...
Um...I think the states and feds would have to give up the TAXES they GET on tobacco, first.
then we should do the same with drinking, drug use, etc. Who is going to keep track of everybody.
added "puff list" to the key words.
Another lie. It is proven that taxes derived from the purchase of tobacco products, are invariably used for other purposes than the altruistic ones used as the excuse.
What would they do if everyone stopped smoking?
It's funny. I guarentee you that at least half of the senators who will vote for measures like this are obese. The machine they are building will certainly turn on them. Obesity is rapidly gaining ground on smoking for health care costs.
They're already trying that in Britain. Next will be Canada, then the dems will start mewling about it here. I believe in France, if you are 20% overweight you can't even get a mortgage.
Only partly true. The idea of insurance is to pool SIMILAR risks. It isn't to have low-risk people subsidize high-risk people.
As examples, fire insurance premiums vary with the riskiness of house construction, the nearness to a fire department/hydrant, etc.; auto insurance premiums vary with age and previous accident experience (mine went up when I had an accident); life insurance premiums go up if you already have a chronic disease at the time you apply (I got hit with that when I bought insurance for my first wife, after she was diagnosed with kidney problems).
It's entirely reasonable for insurance companies to demand higher premiums for people who belong in higher-risk pools. The idea that they may be denied insurance completely is simply a red herring. They may find the higher premiums unaffordable, but that's not the same as being told they're absolutely uninsurable.
I have been smoking for 37 years, and have yet to be treated for any smoking related illness. Am I just not inhaling deeply enough?
I hear you drive too fast, eat too much at lunch, DON'T have oatmeal for breakfast, and seem to like to have too much beer while sitting on your couch watching football hour after hour.
(In the voice of the Soup Nazi)
NO INSURANCE FOR YOU!
NEXT!
Ex-smoker here, but it seems to me before penalizing smokers the government ought to consider making tobacco a controlled substance. Oh, wait a minute, too much tax revenue and lobby money involved. I forgot for a moment and thought we might someday govern again on principle instead of principal.
ABSOLUTELY, give discounts to people who are monogamous, people who aren't heavy drinkers,people who drive the speed limit, discount people who exercise...wow, we could get some real cheap rates!! etc. Right now if a person is overweight the insurance rates go up? Why, because there is more proness to disease and health care. So, let it all go to FREE regulations, and let insurance companies drop rates for people who AREN'T COUCH POTATOES AND WORK.Especially quiers who are probably end up with AIDS.
and they CHOOSE to be gay.
I agree that smokers are being maligned everywhere, but remember that Medicaid and is a socialist program.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.