Posted on 07/20/2006 4:35:25 AM PDT by rdax
A new WSJ.com/Harris health-care poll indicates growing U.S. support for charging higher insurance premiums or out-of-pockets medical costs to people with unhealthy lifestyles.
The online survey of 2,325 U.S. adults found that 53% of Americans think it is fair to ask people with unhealthy lifestyles to pay higher insurance premiums than people with healthy lifestyles, while 32% said it would be unfair. When asked the same question in 2003, 37% said it would be fair, while 45% said it would be unfair. Healthy lifestyles were described as not smoking, exercising frequently and controlling one's weight.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
The Big Brother group would receive the same welcome at my house.
Good one. You're right about that being one of the greatest pieces of exercise equipment...
My only problem with these types of stories is the only people they want to hit up for higher insurance rates are the "non-liberal groups". I don't mind sharing the burden, but I don't want to have it all while unhealthy liberal practices are too politically incorrect to even mention. They can raise my rates when gays and criminals are paying more...
I'll add a $10 long-handled hoe to it as well. LOL!!!
I don't mind sharing the burden, but I don't want to have it all while unhealthy liberal practices are too politically incorrect to even mention.
I agree.
I don't agree with your standard. For example, skydiving deaths may be uncommon, but the issue IMO is whether the death rate among skydivers is statistically different than non-skydivers.
Of course, I understand the difference between health care and health insurance. I don't smoke or skydive, but I am overweight and I think it's appropriate my rates reflect that.
Good one - you're right too!!
Your logic is flawed. Of course it will help the system, just as many other changes would help the system. If insurance companies were truly able to compete, rates would drop for many, increase for some.
I don't mind sharing risk; I see the difference between sharing risk and subsidizing those who flirt with it.
Beacuse they would be arrested "for their own good?"
Those are called mandated coverage. Politicians buy votes with other people's money.
A tax should be imposed on obese people who are determined to be in that state not because of a proven pre existing medical condition (gland problem, etc), nor genes, but simply because they had stuffed their faces too much at the Denny's and McDonalds day and day out, and on top of that refused to exercise. It is a terrible drain to our national health infrastructure, and people should be penalized and charged more if they incur more cost to the system. Same for smokers, alcoholics, drug addicts. The state of obesity in the United States is reprehensible. It is a fine libertarian issue when it does not effect anyone else, however it does effect the national health care system, insurance, costs, premiums, and many other factors. Also, if a person--again due to their own lack of self control re: food and exercise, cannot fit into one single airline seat, they should be charged for two seats and given a safety belt extender. End of story. No debate.
I would say the fact that it's a non-market system drives all other variables.
Another little hitler joins in. A tax should be imposed on anti freedom loving people, pseudo gestapo's and arrogant putz's. Your tax bill will be huge.
I would agree consider any factors that are within a person's comtrol. Getting old certainly isn't, smoking is.
It's actually the truth. Just because people choose to do some things, smoking, drinking, eating junkfood, that others don't choose does not mean one is unhealthy. And I sure don't need some expensive gym or workout equipment to stasy in shape........gardening and chasing an 8 year old do just fine :)
When my husband had to take me to the emergency room last summer, the admitting person asked if I smoked. I looked at her and asked "What does smoking matter when I'm here because I believe I broke my ankle?" I cut her a bit of slack when she said it was necessary info if I did and then needed surgery. When I wound up needing surgery, the people doing the necessary testing for the anaesthesia, etc were shocked to find my paperwork stated I was a smoker.
IOW, one size does not fit all.
Thank you. Much appreciated. I like your seasoned reasoning with facts, and avoiding ad hominems and irrelevant matters, but debating this on its merits. We need more freepers like you. :-)
Who's going to pay for your long stay in the old folks home since I guess you're never going to die or get sick?
What a lovely attitude.
Same for smokers, alcoholics, drug addicts.
Smokers already pay more than their fair share in cigarette taxes, and higher insurance premiums. There are also extra taxes on alcoholic beverages that are not on other beverages. As to drug addicts, which ones do you propose your taxes on, the addicts of legal drugs or illegal drugs?????
What is it with people that want taxes put on things other people do that they don't?????
If I was a proponent of targetted tax increases or new taxes, I would be all for the ones you mention.
Hard to waste time debating anything with someone who lectures and then declares "No Debate". We certainly don't need more Freepers like you.
I am amazed at how many people on FR believe in targeted taxes. I agree with you that if we have targeted taxes these are groups that should be hit hard!!!
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.