Posted on 02/09/2006 3:36:33 AM PST by SheLion
A Senate panel killed a proposal to cut off state health care to smokers on Wednesday, with some members worried that it could create more problems than it would solve.
With the state being squeezed to spend more and more money on health care, Sen. Ron Teck, R-Grand Junction, said it's time for smokers to take responsibility for their actions and not rely on the state to pay for smoking-related illnesses.
"I don't know if we can afford to be everything to everyone," he said.
His proposal (Senate Bill 101) would have barred the state from spending money to treat head, neck and lung cancer on smokers who took up the habit after 1996. Those who started between 1975 and 1996 would only get partial coverage/
Sen. Kiki Traylor, R-Littleton, said lawmakers need to address the problem but said an approach as simple as Teck's would cause more harm.
What would happen, she asked, if an X-ray for a pneumonia patient turned up a lung tumor?
"It's way more complex than something like this could ever address," said Traylor, a pediatrician appointed to replace Sen. Norma Anderson, who resigned.
Others questioned why Teck was targeting smokers, instead of others who were also at risk for health problems, such as those who are overweight.
Sen. Paula Sandoval, D-Denver, wondered what would happen if a woman who was married to a smoker got cancer even though she never smoked herself. Sen. Deanna Hanna, D-Lakewood, said smokers would still seek health care, possibly through emergency rooms, and that cost would have to picked up by someone.
The Senate Health and Human Services Committee voted 6-1 to kill the bill. Sen. Steve Johnson, R-Fort Collins, was the only member to support it.
Heres a couple of guys who wouldn't vote for that:
i often wonder why we dont deny health care for people who damage themselves. for example, abortions are linked to breast cancer, drug users get very ill, gays have a propensity to aids, blacks have terrible diets, fat people are susceptible to health problems, drivers who overspeed get in more accidents, old folks forget to take their medicine, children play in unsafe ways. this list is just a small sampling of behavior related to health issues that i know of studies have been done on and will back up my assertions. so yea, lets start with smokers and work our way down the list.
How about people who contract melanoma from excessive tanning?
Skydivers?
People who walk on the wrong side of the road?
Unattended children in grocery carts?
Homosexuals who have unprotected sex in bathhouses?
Crosseyed lumberjacks?
The list is endless...and so are the nannies....
I'm moving to Russia. I hear it's freer now...
I would to if Putin didn't cut off supplies, electricity and heating! ack!
Absolute. Teetotal. Dumbass!!!!!!!!!
Are you being sarcastic?
Instead of putting this revenue into States general budgets, put it towards health costs of smokers. I don't see any other "high risk" activities being taxed so excessively, except for maybe alcohol.
I noticed that the "Republican" had no philosophical objection to socialized medicine.
I see, they want to cut my health benefits because I smoke, but expect me to pay taxes so they can give helath benefits to people with aids, people that take drugs, abuse alcohol, etc..
Screw them.
This is all BS sponsored by a mean little man who thinks he is being cute but looks like an intolerant idiot. The state does not pay for the health care of most smokers, anyway. The way to save money on health care for the state is to deny benefits to illegals but that would be too risky for this petty dictator. Even better, let the State get out of the health care business.
Ping!
HA! I clicked "Post Reply" based on the title alone! Priceless!!!
A bill refusing tax benefits because of smoking would, on its face, be unconstitutional because it denies equal treatment.
In 1964 when the Surgeon General Terry said that cigarettes are a "causal" factor in lung cancer, heart diseases etc. almost everyone smoked cigarettes.
Anyone who did not smoke was considered "queer." (No Virginia, I mean strange, odd). Now after almost a half century of anti-smoking jihad cigarette smoking has been significantly reduced to probably 3 in 10. Smoking is no longer glamorous, socially acceptable, convenient or cheap.
Question: Now that the smoking war has been won and fewer people smoke, how come the incidences of death by lung cancer, heart diseases have increased, adjusted for population growth? Huh? Huh?
Maybe we owe Joe Camel an apology.
for your viewing, im not being sarcastic. for everyone elses, duhhhhhhhhhh. why dont you just quit reading my posts? you always seem to have issues with me, you should move on.
If smoking makes health care more costly then health care cost should be at their lowest historical rates since the 50's, since smoking has decreased per capita since then.
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.