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.
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.