Posted on 02/11/2006 8:17:46 AM PST by SheLion
DENVER -- 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.
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.
Oh really? Spew MORE lives why don't you RINO!
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.
I did a search but didn't see a thread like this.
Thanks for the ping!
You bet. If they get to be too much, just let me know. :)
Besides. What are all the extra 'taxes' for?
Government lying again!
Just like the 'lotto' was supposed to be for 'education'.
right!
Hi SheLion
Would you re add me to your ping list, thanks!
As to these RINO's, why don't they address coverage for people who actually DO cause the most health care problems by their behavior?
With all the press about the bird flu, and how it mutates, and will infect people causing a pandemic, when will they address AIDS mutation? Or the transmission of other things that now can be passed through the air?
What about ex post facto legislation? This penalizing people after the fact reeks far worse than any cigarette.
Next on the "hit list" should be fat people.
A definite heath risk.
Next, how about all those with an IQ of less than 100.
No doubt about the fact that stupid people are a liability.
Motorcycle riders should get in there somewhere.
Dangerous folks.
People over 55.
No need to have old folks around. No insurance for them.
How about those that jog on city streets, sucking up all the carbon monoxide.
Yeah ... dump them also.
The idiots that are in public office is only exceeded in number by the members and officials of the NEA.
On another note gay State employees have been polled regarding their sex practices. Bareback cowboys, at the highest risk for a new strain of Chlamydia and HIV, have been informed that they are at risk of losing their health benefits. And finally the State has informed those employees who are poor drivers, habitual overeaters, motorcycle riders, skydivers, jaywalkers, alcoholics, skiers, and gun owners that their health benefits are in jeopardy unless they abide by the State-Approved lifestyle.
A State bureaurat was quoted as saying that "to keep the plan viable we have to remove anyone from the system who may actually use the health benefits." (;^D)
How about one legislative member somewhere, anywhere, coming forward and saying the state should not be paying for AIDS cases where people were infected by having unprotected sex or IV drug abuse?
Seems to me that's just as "compassionate" as knocking smokers off the list of people that should or should not receive health care.
I mean, after all, I think gays, bisexuals, permiscuous individuals and drug abusers should take some responsibility for their health care issues.
Teck, you grandstanding [*@#^!@$%@#(_!(!!!*#&#*#)_] RINO!
First of all, smokers ALWAYS took responsibility for their actions until states and the feds decided to hijack individual responsibility for healthcare.
Get out of the health care business and costs would plummet, and your high horse would be dead and buried!
Second, it would be a non-issue, if at the very minimum, all lifestyle choice risks, including AIDS, rock-climbing and mountain biking, for instance, were excluded. ALL of them...
Well, maybe not exactly free...
It'll only cost you a quadrupling of the cost of routine medical care...
...and we get to run your life!
Such a deal!
The list for this putrified, unadulterated diseased thinking would be endless.
I have come to believe that like a forest needs fire for re-birth, a nation needs revolution and herd thining to revitalize itself.
We are dying because we allow those that are mental genetic misfits to call the shots.
Ted Kennedy being elected is but one perfect example.
My circle of friends and acquaintances are already getting pretty testy over this and related witch hunts.
"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."
Thank you. This is one subject where absoloutely false propogansa rules the day. It's the same with second hand smoke "health issues". If second hand cigarette smoke is adveresly affecting the health of so many people, how come none get addicted to the cigarette smoke? Because it's just a lie.
Additionally, I am curious what a "smoking-related illness" is. I'm betting it's pretty much any illness you have if you are a smoker.
That's why it's important to get the word out, how the lawmakers are making scapegoats out of smokers. Even if you do not smoke and are dead set against it, you surely can't believe in what is happening to people who use a still legal product.
It's just a down right sin the way smokers are being treated today and yet they are being bled to death on taxes. Its got to stop somewhere!
Got you added. :)
As to these RINO's, why don't they address coverage for people who actually DO cause the most health care problems by their behavior?
With all the press about the bird flu, and how it mutates, and will infect people causing a pandemic, when will they address AIDS mutation? Or the transmission of other things that now can be passed through the air?
Also, the Surgeon General already said that obesity has passed smoking for the nation's number one health care expense. I also doubt that BS. You have to know that most of these people HAVE their own insurance.
Just more lies to bleed more money out of us.
Just like this t shirt:
And a lot of them are alcoholics, I hear!
And don't forget the MSA money..............
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.