Posted on 03/19/2010 11:38:01 AM PDT by fruser1
Sec 2701 allows an extra 50% on premiums for smokers. I'm sure there's a bunch of smoke-nazi's out there that love this, but isn't this discriminatory? What's the surcharge for other risky behavior? There's probably just as much in medical expenses spent on sports injuries, considering that there are so many of them compared to cancer cases. Why not surcharge those folks?
Considering you'd HAVE to carry a policy, this is a defacto tax on a legal activity/lifestyle, hence my opinion that it's discriminatory.
And how do you enforce that anyway? If someone hands out cigars at the office because they're having a baby, does that mean everyone who takes a puff pays higher rates for a year?
Any lawyers out there willing to represent smokers in these cases?
I seriously injured my shoulder wrestling in college. That was over 30 years ago. Every few years i have to get physical therapy. Sports related and i suspect (tho hope not) that i will be back for more therapy at some point.
Everybody dies. Smokers tend to die from quick-killing, relatively inexpensive stuff. Non-smokers tend to linger and linger, racking up one expensive debilitating condition after another, while the meter keeps running. They use up their assets, and end up on the dole, financed by the taxpayer. Truth be known, smokers are probably saving us money, not costing us.
How about a 50% premium for those that eat fried chicken?
That should take care of some of his base.
Smokers don’t all die early. Smoking contributes to high blood pressure and to strokes. Those people are the ones who lay around nursing homes needing 24 hour a day care for years, my mother was one of them. COPD also requires expensive long term care my father was one of those.
We have a WIC office in my neighborhood. Can’t find a parking space because of all their patron’s SUV’s.
LOL - next they will be coming for your bacon!
"There's a tax for that!"
People pay a higher auto premium for tickets because ALL traffic tickets, speeding or otherwise, are risky behaviour with a higher liklihood of incurring expense (accidents).
Hence, for health insurance, wouldn’t ALL risky behavior with a higher liklihood of incurring medical expenses be charged appropriately?
I have no problem w/the market deciding, even if they want to single out smokers.
However, the health care bill will REQUIRE everyone to have it. As of today, if my health insurance wants to charge me more for smoking, I can decide whether or not I want to keep the policy. With this law, I won’t, so I’ll be in court (or jail).
Well I hope some of those idiots in Congress die from the stress of Obama. Preferrably before 2PM Sunday!!
You do pay more for health insurance if you are overweight, or undertall, and if you have a family history of certain illnesses. Same thing for life insurance.
It’s a little tedious to mince words online, but I think my use of the word “fair” needs some elaboration.
As far as I know, I can start a private “guys only” club as long as it remains “private”. If I get public money, I cannot exclude women, i.e., I can’t discriminate, I have to be “fair”.
Per this post, by “fair” I mean that if the government REQUIRES an insurance policy AND the policy charges more for one type of behavior that MAY lead to increased expenses, then it should not discriminate and charge more for ALL such behaviors to be “fair”.
I hope that explains my intent w/that one.
Since some don’t like the sports analogy, consider this, heart disease has ALWAYS been the #1 killer. While this category does include smokers, most are not. So how about having your doctor calculating your ideal weight and then you get charged a few bucks per pound per month for which you are overweight. (The natural question here is, are you filet mignon or ground chuck?)
On another point, consider this: it’s not just smokers who will be “paying” for that extra 50% premium.
Since there’s a higher proportion of smokers in the lower income brackets, guess what - their increased policy cost is going to be SUBSIDIZED.
That means that EVERYONE pays it one way or another. Higher income folks will be subsidizing poorer smokers through their taxes and lower income folks, not paying taxes, will be paying via lower wage jobs if they get a job at all. Of course, if they don’t, everyone else will pay for that too.
Fair enough?
Just the start:
Eat meat? That’s a tax
Eat sweets? That’s a tax.
Ride a cycle? That’s a tax.
Drive a truck? That’s tax.
Own land? That’s a tax.
Drink beer? That’s a tax.
Like fried food? That’s a tax.
Drink sody pop? BIG tax
So do potato chips and chicken wings.
Should we double the price of those with axes as well?
I was replying to you, not the article. What do axes have to do with anything?
We already have fees on insurance for years if you are caught speeding in this state.
What price America’s health, sir.
Fair is fair.
Don't do it. Those Itsaboy cigars are horrible.
I was driving around downtown and uptown Denver yesterday afternoon. It was a beautiful day and all the outdoor patios at the bar/grills were full. Young libs (most young folk in Denver are libs) drinking beer and smoking, enjoying their freedom. I just laughed bitterly. Little do these morons know what they are about to get hit with.
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.