Posted on 01/24/2013 11:25:58 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
You really need to stay away from topics for which you have no knowledge. And this is obviously one such topic.
What is alarming is the number of FReepers who actually support government dictating to businesses and individuals what they can and can not do.
So your all for empowering the insurance companies to use the full force of the law to force someone to purchase their product. They have governed you well Comrade.
You’re =your
Why are alcoholics left out of this? They are more dangerous than guns or cigarettes. They can kill others. Discrimination between liver and lungs.
Meanwhile, one can get cancer from other stuff besides inhaling cigs.
No, you’ve got a little more learnin’ to do there, Lurkina.
I’m for having the government out of health insurance options and decisions—including allowing insurers to price by risk if they want.
You apparently are the one looking for government to still further constrain free trade.
When did “Mandate” equate to Free Trade?
I agree. I’m against mandates—including those that cap smoker surcharges at 50% of premiums.
You keep saying that, but you offer no argument. Weak.
I need not make an argument to nonsensical personal opinion.
Yes, it’s despotic to allow a few conditions like smoking to be accurately priced yet not allow many, many conditions- demonstrably more costly - to be so priced.
Some conditions are more equal than others...
Smoking, of course, is a behavior, not a condition. But the right direction to go in is more freedom of pricing, not less.
Not ACCURATE? Since when did smokers otherwise live as long as non-smokers? Prove your own contentions maybe? Your words & opinions sound like common "anti" smoker diatribe, looking to charge them more, in effect subsidizing those who live longer, since one cannot incur additional costs once deceased.
Unless, oh, wait, smokers can get a subsidy from nonsmokers by keeping a cap on their permitted health insurance costs! Once again, Freepers come out in favor of any subsidy of which they are the beneficiaries
Your premises are faulty from the beginning, then just get worse. It reminds me of listening to Obama.
Aren’t you a sweetie!
Yeah, smokers die earlier, which saves the government some old-age entitlement costs, but they are still very expensive, despite their short lives, as far as healthcare is concerned. And if insurance companies can’t price by cost that is far more government intrusion than letting them charge as they’d like.
While I agree with your premise of leaving the insurance companies alone on this, the rest of your premise is wrong. Smokers pay in far more than they ever use and this has been proven over and over again.
“If that’s what their habit costs, that’s how it should be priced—and they could always quit.”
“And when they came for me, there was nobody left”.
So you would tell health insurance companies that they can’t price their coverage for risk?
It seems pretty selective to me. Why only raise prices on smokers when the entire country is composed of fat, sugar, salt and junk food addicts. How fair is it for Obamacare to authorize charging more for smoker policies but not allow rates to go up on millions of others whose unhealthy addictions costs are as massive.
Where did you get that from? I’d let insurance companies price theor own products—including coverage for smokers.
Where did you get that from? I’d let insurance companies price theor own products—including coverage for smokers.
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.