[Orange1998]

I thought the benefit of Obamacare everyone premiums would be the same regardless of condition. The people have fooled once again. Who in their right mind is willing to pay 24 PERCENT of income for health coverage.

After you pay Federal Income Tax, State Income Tax, Social Security Tax, Medicare Tax, Property Tax, Sales Tax, Medical Device Tax you will be at poverty collecting Food Stamps.

Welcome to the USSR of America. One Nation under Obama.

[OrangeHoof]

They came for the smokers but I wasn’t a smoker so I didn’t say anything.

Then they came for the gun owners but I didn’t own a gun so I didn’t say anything.

Then they came for the obese but I am not obese so I didn’t say anything.

Then they came for me and there was no one to speak in my defense.

[Rusty0604]

And all these years smokers have been paying high taxes on the cigarettes because of their healthcare.

[OrangeHoof]

I’m guessing somehow that potheads and meth heads will still be fully covered...

[Logical me]

Welcome to the USSR of America. One Nation under Obama.

You got that right! The communists network is expanding.

[Brad from Tennessee]

“Interdisciplinary research in pharmacology, psychology, physiology and neurobiology is just beginning to shed light on the incredible hold that tobacco has on people. Scientists have found, for instance, that nicotine is as addictive as heroin, cocaine or amphetamines, and for most people more addictive than alcohol. Its hooks go deep, involving complex physiological and psychological mechanisms that drive and maintain smoking behavior and that even produce some ‘’good’’ effects, such as improved performance on intellectual, computational and stressful tasks.”

—New York Times, 3-29-87

Nicotine addiction should be classified and treated the same way other forms of chemical dependency are approached in ObamaCare.

Again, it's evident that this law was written by people with no knowledge of how health care works in the real world.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/magazine/nicotine-harder-to-kickthan-heroin.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

[buckalfa]

Is not one of tenants of conservatism the idea of personal responsibility for your actions? Yes, Obama lied, but personal choices have consequences.

[Mr. Bird]

So, smokers should just pay the “penalty” and then obtain insurance only after they get cancer, because cancer is a pre-existing condition that cannot be refused.

See the looking glass yet?

[Envisioning]

Oh boy! For later.........

[digger48]

what about the osmokers that are already on Medicaid and SSDI.

Any requirements or restrictions on them?

Percentage wise, I would wager that there are more smokers on government assistance than not.

[Marcella]

If you don't smoke, just forget this. /s

However, where is this going: Guns are a health risk to everyone, so if you have guns, you will pay a 50% penalty to have health insurance. Now, are you interested? Can you forget this one?

Give up your guns and your insurance policy will be low enough you can buy it - keep your guns and you don't have enough money to pay for healthcare due to your penalty for having a gun.

What will you do?

[Mike Darancette]

I thought the benefit of Obamacare everyone premiums would be the same regardless of condition. The people have fooled once again. Who in their right mind is willing to pay 24 PERCENT of income for health coverage.

Surprise!!! One of many to come

[randita]

I’m going to be a lone dissenter here, but I don’t care.

You get charged more for insurance if you drive recklessly and get tickets or have accidents that are your fault.

You get charged more if you have a lot of homeowner claims resulting from negligence or disrepair.

We decry that hospital cost shifting occurs and people who have insurance and are of some means are charged exorbitant amounts to subsidize the care given those who have no insurance.

Personally, I don’t give a whit whether someone smokes or eats like a horse or engages in all sorts of risky and unhealthy pursuits, but why should others who try to stay as safe and healthy as possible have to pay for it?

We might as well demand that we can consistently drive 20 miles over the speed limit and dodge and weave in heavy traffic and expect to be charged the same for car insurance as the most conscientious defensive driver.

A person’s freedom to live his/her life any way he/she wants should stop when they reach into my wallet to pay for their poor choices.

[txrefugee]

So, with millions of potential customers, there will surely be some large company that will cater to this group’s insurance needs. Because of sheer volume, they will probably have to pay lower premiums than the poor saps forced into CommieCare, and they will get better treatment. Another case of unintended consequences caused by the most feckless government in recorded history.

[Wuli]

Insurers who provide health insurance have always had the right to charge “smokers” and others with self-inflicted health risks more for an insurance policy and some employer health plans have done the same by way of offering discounts to those who don’t smoke (which over time produces increases on those who do, as the plan’s experience dictates).

Either the health non-reform law is limiting what those increases may be, or it is allowing such increases to be “after the fact” - after someone was already previously allowed into a plan, when the person was not asked if they smoked and/or without previously charging higher premiums for smokers.

I do not oppose health care insurers charging more for smokers (many life insurance policies do as well - the average smoker dies sooner, having paid premiums a shorter time), but I would oppose such penalties against someone who had already been accepted into a plan without penalties against smoking assessed from the beginning. Looking ahead, yes; retroactive, no.