Posted on 07/20/2006 4:35:25 AM PDT by rdax
No. In an ideal world, smokers would "pay" by having their benefits cut or their insurance premiums raised.
What do estimate the chances of this happening are, vs smokers ending up paying the cigarette taxes and higher insurance premiums?
Agreed, however here's a better question. What do you think are the chances that Mr Brightside will get a reduction on his health insurance vs Mr Brightside paying the same amount of money, and the unhealthy folks paying more and the insurance companies pocketing all of the money?
Not to mention some extremely LIBERAL posts, made by supposed "conservatives".
If in fact you are an American living in Tokyo and you have job, then it is obvious you don't mind the rest of us taxpayers subsidizing your life there. Am I correct thinking that $60,000+ of your income is exempt from US income tax while you work overseas? That seems like a huge subsidy from the rest of us, maybe you should pay the same taxes as the rest of us. You are hypocrite.
Oh, there are lots more: There are the "provider groups," like chiropractors, "behavior health" counselors, etc., who lobby insurance commissions to require things like inpatient alcoholism treatment. Then there are the ideology groups, who insist every policy cover birth control pills, abortion, AND infertility treatment. There's the gay pressure groups, who don't want underwriters to know whether an applicant is HIV-positive.
About a year ago Rush Limbaugh had a congressman on as a guest. He explained the same as you. That people are forced to pay insurance for services or procedures they'll never use. Forced by politicians colluding with businesses and special interest groups.
An adjunct to the title of the article that started this thread would read (if most Americans were aware of it to the same extent they have been made aware of politically incorrect lifestyles that are unhealthy -- reality is not that some lifestyles are less healthy than others -- true -- but the political expediency of retaining political power/seat and gaining unfair competitive advantage for businesses) adjunct title reads: Most Americans Back Not Pay For Procedures They Know They'll Never Use.
The congressman also noted another cause of high health insurance premiums. I think it was New Jersey he was describing. He equated it to where some states have a policy of obtaining immediate homeowners fire insurance when a fire breaks out regardless of the homeowner not having fire insurance prior to the fire. New Jersey legislatures were trying to pass a bill that would do the same for health insurance. Break a leg, get insurance on your way into the hospital.
Insurance premiums would sky rocket. Plus, many NJ residents -- at least those that still bothered to buy insurance -- that live neighboring Pennsylvania would get a mailing address there to buy less-costly insurance in PA. Thus further increasing the NJ insurance premiums.
Employee A is hired at $25,000 per year plus insurance to do a job.
Employee B comes along and is offered the same package, $25,000 plus insurance. He/She decides that because their spouse has better insurance they don't need it. The employer doesn't give him/her any additional money for not taking the benefit.
Who paid? The employee. They're doing the exact job as Employee A but being compensated less for it. Notice I didn't say salary was less, but total cost to employer (salary + insurance).
Hmmm, well I consider myself more conservative than libertarian, but I can see why you'd say that.
Overweight? Nah, the body of a god. Well, *maybe* not a god, but at least I'm not overweight (and I have all my hair).
Ok. Sounds cool.
Get your facts straight, got it? (And for starters, educate yourself by reading my profile. You will see where I am not. That will start you on the road to truth). "Hypocrite?", my that was a good one. Thanks.
Reminds me of something I heard once that illustates the logical outcome of socialism. When asked about the difference between liviing in Russia and living in the US, a Russian expatriot explained:
"In the US, if a farmer's neighbor gets an new tractor, and the farmer is jealous he'll start figuring out how he can get a new tractor, too. In Russia, he'll start trying to figure out how to get his neighbor in trouble with the KGB so they'll take it away from him."
Thanks for the ping. Saving for later.
I agree. I'm sure there are some who would like to use the system to penalize people they disapprove of, but most, if they realized how counterproductive government involvement is, would agree to a system where coverage and cost were negotiated between a willing buyer and seller.
I'm not, there appear to be far too many folks here of late that agree with that kind of nonsense.
sky divers already pay extra. Insurance policies routinely exclude sky diving.
This is about "sin taxes" again.
The democrats want to tax happiness.
How about we pass a law that say all people must find happiness in the exact same place.
In the US, if a farmer's neighbor gets an new tractor, and the farmer is jealous he'll start figuring out how he can get a new tractor, too. In Russia, he'll start trying to figure out how to get his neighbor in trouble with the KGB so they'll take it away from him."
Good one.
I don't recall whom Milton Friedman was quoting when he replied: "elections are a kind of futures market in stolen property."
Prostituting power in collusion with special interest groups representing most industries and buying votes -- with stolen tax dollars -- has been SOP for a long time.
:-)
Snort.
I have an accounting and business background. Read your post again. I understand the point you are trying to make, but it's not the point you expressed.
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.