Skip to comments."Fair Health Insurance Premiums" Won't Be Fair For Smokers
Posted on 03/19/2010 11:38:01 AM PDT by fruser1
Sec 2701 allows an extra 50% on premiums for smokers. I'm sure there's a bunch of smoke-nazi's out there that love this, but isn't this discriminatory? What's the surcharge for other risky behavior? There's probably just as much in medical expenses spent on sports injuries, considering that there are so many of them compared to cancer cases. Why not surcharge those folks?
Considering you'd HAVE to carry a policy, this is a defacto tax on a legal activity/lifestyle, hence my opinion that it's discriminatory.
And how do you enforce that anyway? If someone hands out cigars at the office because they're having a baby, does that mean everyone who takes a puff pays higher rates for a year?
Any lawyers out there willing to represent smokers in these cases?
How about a 50% premium for homosexuals?
Anybody got a light?
How about a 50% premium for the overweight?
My friend’s young son who didn’t know better went out the night before he had to take a blood test for a new job. Not a smoker, but has a few “socially” when out. It showed up on his bloodtest and was included in his health report for the job, which classified him as a “smoker”. My guess is that is how they will police it—if anything shows up in a routine medical test.
Always some pond scum sucker out there to represent ya if he can make a buck!
What about drug addicts and alcoholics?
Most sports injuries don’t require long term care like cancer or heart disease or kill you like cigarettes.
I was *just* going to say that!
Pile ‘em on.
This is one surtax and aspect of ObamaCare that many Freepers will correctly agree with.
Bad idea,, Remember when the CDC started calling gunshot injuries a “disease”?? Wait till the surcharge hits for gun owners.
Homosexuals and women of childbearing age.
Childbirth is consistently the largest expense on our company plan.
Single straight men (and infertile women) bear the costs of others.
Smokers shorten their life by about 7 years ...
Homosexuals shorten their life by about 35 years.
(This is based on actuarial science!)
So ...smokers should get some surcharge ...legitimately - but homosexuals should have a MUCH HIGHER charge. Note that smokers tend to be active/productive members of society, and, when they die - there is actual savings on Social Security payments, etc.
On the other hand - homosexuals pay into the system far less ...and start the big draw out (HIV/AIDs drugs and special care) when they should still be contributing. So theoretically ...a smoker surcharge might be 10%, and a Homosexual Surcharge should be about 150% to 250%!!
But this administration and Congress has already proven that actual Science and facts won’t influence their actions!!
AMEN! But I think the Extra Premium for GAYs should be OBAMA’s now famous 3000%, only this time a PLUS 3000%, because for years we were lied to and told AIDS was a Disease that didn’t discriminate, but it does and they Know they are doing a very high risk action.
Fat people will be next.
Fat people are in trouble too. Obama will determine who is fat.
Starvation, to get healthcare.
How about we don’t fall for their divide-and-conquer tactics? Truth is, more people die before their time from high-pressure office jobs than anything.
Take it from me, there’s nothing more stressful than laying off 100 people in one day.
When was anything on this planet ever supposed to be “fair”?
Oh, when the government regulates it, owns it, distributes it; then it must be “fair”.
In the open market it is only RATIONAL that smokers pay higher prices, they incur a greater risk.
But when government gets involved, suddenly the actuarial tables are thrown out in favor of or condemnation of certain behaviors and/or groups.
Then it has to be “fair”.
Silly argument to make. But it is the basis for how Socialism destroys the cohesiveness of a society. Instead of people being your fellow citizens and neighbors, they are competitors for government largess, counted as co-owner of everything you have, and everyone has their eye on who is getting the “sweet” deal and if everything is “fair”.
Under capitalism “fair” means that you get the APPROPRIATE price for the service rendered. And the APPROPRIATE price to cover a smoker is necessarily higher.
If smokers die early, don't they save money? i.e. less years on Social Security or Medicare. If you get lung cancer, you tend to die in a year or so. You don't lay around in a nursing home for ten years having someone changing you diapers every couple of hours. Plus, smokers already pay heavy taxes for their vice.
I really would like to see an accounting on that some day.
Smoker? Nope not me doc... Never touched the stuff
Simple as that. I dont take tests to prove myself either.. never EVER admit it to a doctor
Eat meat? That's a tax
Eat sweets? That's a tax.
Ride a cycle? That's a tax.
Drive a truck? That's tax.
Own land? That's a tax.
Drink beer? That's a tax.
Like fried food? That's a tax.
Get ready, this is going to be a very rough year.
This is a tough one to enforce, but if they want to give you a bllod test every time you see a doctor, it can be detected.
Smokers already pay more tax than anyone else, so why not.
I’m sure Obama bums his smokes!
How about a 50% surtax on grossly overweight WIC recipients who waddle home with 10 times more cheese and milk than an average family could possibly consume in a month? Cholesterol, fat, you name it. And, all gubmint-subsidized too.
I’ve said in the past that a great debt is owed to smokers for the advancement of medical knowledge due to the range of ailments that are a consequence of smoking. It would be interesting to see what a full accounting would reveal.
Dear smoke nazis-
The appropriate price for someone who participates in sports should be higher then also, right?
Just the military spends over a Trillion a year on such injuries, far more than smoking (see link)
A smoker is likely to incur smoking related expenses about 30 years from now.
An athelete, professional or otherwise is likely to incur a sports injury this year, and the next year, etc..
If the rationale for charging smokers more is their “expense”, then it is rational to charge more for ANY activity that incurs medical expenses.
So if you want to “punish” smokers because you don’t like it, at least admit that.
Just don’t try to justify it on a cost rationale, because there isn’t one.
My point is where do we draw the line? A premium for people who get speeding tickets?
Godwins law first off.
Secondly, it is the MARKET that should determine who pays what for insurance, not government, not you, not me.
The insurance market scoffs at your notion that sports participants are equally as costly to cover as smokers.
They hire professionals to assess their amount of risk, and these experts have, using relevant data, determined that your idea is a farce.
I don't want to “punish” anybody, idiot.
I like smokers, love smokers (when cute gals who smoke give me the opportunity), have friends who smoke, and even allow people to smoke in my new truck!
I want to curtail the idea, among conservatives, that things need to be “fair”, or that government enforcing what you perceive to be “fair” is, in any way, a rational argument for a conservative to make.
The free market will determine the APPROPRIATE costs to cover a smoker, and the market agrees that smokers should have to pay more, because it costs more to cover them.
Do you think that your habit should be subsidized by governmental decree that smokers cannot be “discriminated against” and by law must be offered the same rate as nonsmokers?
“Sec 2701 allows an extra 50% on premiums for smokers”
But if you’re Puerto Rican and smoke, then what?
The Latino Caucus has been paid off to vote for Obamacare...FREE for Puerto rico, more government medical clinics for ‘latino’s......
Yesterday the Hispanic Caucus threw its support behind Obamacare for a trade off of amnesty and insuring every latino enclave everywhere. Keep in mind, Medicare payments for those of us who have paid in our entire lives, will be cut.
[snips]I am so pleased that the reconciliation bill released today provides fair and just treatment to the 4.4 million Americans living in Puerto Rico and its sister territories, who have been treated unequally under federal health programs for too long, said Rep. Pedro Pierluisi (D-Puerto Rico).
Todays bill constitutes a remarkable reversal from where we stood just a few weeks ago. The bill will provide $6.3 billion in new Medicaid funding for the territories in the form of an estimated 182% increase to their current federal funding caps. This represents nearly a tripling of the total Medicaid funding the territories would receive under current law. In addition, whereas the Senate bill strictly limited how new Medicaid funding could be spent, the reconciliation bill gives Puerto Rico and the other territories flexibility to determine how best to use this funding to expand coverage and improve services. Finally, while the Senate bill excluded the U.S. citizens in the territories from the Health Care Exchange, the bill released today provides our constituents with access to the Exchange and $1 billion to offer subsidies to individuals and families of modest means who participate in an Exchange. I am so grateful to the leadership and the members of the CHC for their unstinting support for fair treatment for Puerto Rico and the other territories.
Members of the Caucus also noted that the legislation makes significant investments to expand community health centers throughout the nation. By directing funding to health care services and for the operation, expansion, and construction of community health centers nationwide, the bill will improve care for all Americans, but be particularly beneficial to Latinos and those living in underserved communities.
Is it “not fair”? Are they being “discriminated against”?
By suggesting that it is only appropriate that those with multiple speeding infractions pay more for auto insurance, am I a “anti-speeding Nazi”?
- or - they’ll have mandatory random urine testing - some nicotine nazis will come to your place of employment, and if you test positive, it will be over for you.
My guess is that they will charge the smokers the higher premiums, but then when smokers need medical care, they will be denied due to being smokers. Just another revenue source, more than likely.
Do you have any vices?
If so pile’em on.
Fair is fair.
Do yoou speed? I think you need a surtax when you get caught. If you get in an accident you will cost us when your car insurance doesn’t pay.
The government doesn’t want to get rid of smokers. Cigarettes are taxed heavily, and out of sync with any other product on the market.
They make a TON of money on the addictions of those who smoke.
And I’m a smoker.
Knowing this administration, they’ll set up a 311 hotline so we can drop dimes on our fellow Americans.
Sorry, I’m typing this while smoking and salting a hard-boiled egg that I’m washing down with a double Laphroig on the rocks. Hold on a minute, I need this hand to grab the bacon.
they check carbon dioxide in the blood i believe.
The problem with pointing fingers at people you believe will eventually cost the insurers a lot of money is that they often go on forever with no health problems while the finger-pointer gets cut down in midlife by diabetes or lymphoma or some other long-lasting expensive disease.
If only they’d just drop dead jogging by the side of the read. Oh right, they often do.
When I was in the work force, my company required a hearing test every year. One of the questions asked was, "Do you smoke"? I always told the administrator, no. She said, "You have a pack in your shirt pocket"!
I told her they weren't mine, that I was just holding them for a friend.
I honestly did quit about 17 months ago, after nearly 50 years of smoking.
I preach to nobody about smoking.
I seriously injured my shoulder wrestling in college. That was over 30 years ago. Every few years i have to get physical therapy. Sports related and i suspect (tho hope not) that i will be back for more therapy at some point.
Everybody dies. Smokers tend to die from quick-killing, relatively inexpensive stuff. Non-smokers tend to linger and linger, racking up one expensive debilitating condition after another, while the meter keeps running. They use up their assets, and end up on the dole, financed by the taxpayer. Truth be known, smokers are probably saving us money, not costing us.
How about a 50% premium for those that eat fried chicken?
That should take care of some of his base.
Smokers don’t all die early. Smoking contributes to high blood pressure and to strokes. Those people are the ones who lay around nursing homes needing 24 hour a day care for years, my mother was one of them. COPD also requires expensive long term care my father was one of those.
We have a WIC office in my neighborhood. Can’t find a parking space because of all their patron’s SUV’s.
LOL - next they will be coming for your bacon!
"There's a tax for that!"
People pay a higher auto premium for tickets because ALL traffic tickets, speeding or otherwise, are risky behaviour with a higher liklihood of incurring expense (accidents).
Hence, for health insurance, wouldn’t ALL risky behavior with a higher liklihood of incurring medical expenses be charged appropriately?
I have no problem w/the market deciding, even if they want to single out smokers.
However, the health care bill will REQUIRE everyone to have it. As of today, if my health insurance wants to charge me more for smoking, I can decide whether or not I want to keep the policy. With this law, I won’t, so I’ll be in court (or jail).
Well I hope some of those idiots in Congress die from the stress of Obama. Preferrably before 2PM Sunday!!
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.