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.
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.