Jump to content


Photo

Smokers to pay 50% more under Obamacare.


  • Please log in to reply
103 replies to this topic

#16 dena

dena
  • Way too many!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,905 posts
  • Joined: Dec-07 2006

Posted November 25 2013 - 8:27 PM

How much more should married homosexuals pay then single gays?
Same for straight folks.
If you drive to work, vs public trans, who should pay more?
We can break down society into any number of ways.
I think jetty fisherman should pay more than sand anglers, and boaters the most of all.
Yakkers get off scott free.


  • 0
  • -
There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of curious idiots out there.

#17 saltydawg

saltydawg
  • Way too many!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,368 posts
  • Joined: Oct-10 2003

Posted November 25 2013 - 8:37 PM

I would think single gays would pay more since they have the highest rate of HIV as a group.


  • 0
  • -
-

#18 DarterMan

DarterMan
  • Way too many!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,207 posts
  • Joined: Jul-11 2003

Posted November 25 2013 - 8:48 PM

Everything in the last several posts I agree with,

But what does it have to do with Obamacare?

Other risk factors/pre existing conditions impacted your rates before Obamacare. Women paid more. Those rates were higher because risk of illness/anticipated cost of care is higher for those people. Why remove the insurance industry's ability to insulate from risk on those issues, but not smoking?


Are you mad because women are no longer paying higher rates, but smokers still are?

Would it make you feel better if women's rates were raised back up again?


  • 0
  • -
"Why are you such a monumental dickhead?"- skiddd

"you still suck on a planetary level" - skiddd

#19 Nessmuk

Nessmuk
  • Way too many!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,893 posts
  • Joined: Jan-20 2000

Posted November 25 2013 - 9:15 PM

The Obamacare travesty aside, seems like health premiums certainly should be based on risk factors, among other business realities. They're either based on those realities, or based on entitlement.


  • 0
  • -

#20 DarterMan

DarterMan
  • Way too many!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,207 posts
  • Joined: Jul-11 2003

Posted November 25 2013 - 9:18 PM

The Obamacare travesty aside, seems like health premiums certainly should be based on risk factors, among other business realities. They're either based on those realities, or based on entitlement.


Agreed.


  • 0
  • -
"Why are you such a monumental dickhead?"- skiddd

"you still suck on a planetary level" - skiddd

#21 Roadrunner

Roadrunner
  • Way too many!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,922 posts
  • Joined: May-08 2007

Posted November 25 2013 - 9:32 PM

I would think single gays would pay more since they have the highest rate of HIV as a group.


Pervs are a protected class. Smoking schlong & weed is good, ciggies are bad.

In time, the State will try taxing everything they construe as 'bad'; guns, ammuntion, meat, 'carbon', etc. But not to worry. You can still have all the deviant sex, drugs, and tofu your little heart desires.;)


  • 0
  • -
"I think, that all right thinking people, are sick & tired of being told that they're sick & tired of being sick & tired. I, for one, am not. And I'm sick & tired of being told that I am."

#22 jkrock

jkrock
  • 5,000 Post Club!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,461 posts
  • Joined: Oct-01 2006

Posted November 25 2013 - 9:55 PM

Agreed.


SO DM, are agreeing that the law you own, enacted by your party should be based upon entitlement, as it currently is, or based upon risk factors, among other business realities?


  • 0
  • -

#23 kyle241

kyle241
  • 1,000 Post Club!

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,075 posts
  • Joined: Nov-12 2006

Posted November 26 2013 - 7:51 AM

Facts are smoking and obesity lead to more health issues plain and simple. Those people should pay more. Why should I pay extra for people who choose not to take care of themselves? While some will argue certain individuals cannot control their weight due to medical reasons, that is a valid argument for a minority of overweight people. Too many people are overweight today because they choose to be, re. lifestyle. And smoking is choice by an individual, there are risks and they are well documented so it should not be a surprise if they have to pay more for health insurance.


  • 0
  • -

#24 Surf Hunter

Surf Hunter
  • Way too many!

  • 17,289 posts
  • Joined: May-05 2005
  • LocationThe Land of Fruits and Nuts

Posted November 26 2013 - 8:13 AM

Facts are smoking and obesity lead to more health issues plain and simple. Those people should pay more. Why should I pay extra for people who choose not to take care of themselves? While some will argue certain individuals cannot control their weight due to medical reasons, that is a valid argument for a minority of overweight people. Too many people are overweight today because they choose to be, re. lifestyle. And smoking is choice by an individual, there are risks and they are well documented so it should not be a surprise if they have to pay more for health insurance.


The same reason you pay more to cover prenatal care child birth?


  • 0
  • -
Be the chimp, not the frog.....

#25 Gotcow?

Gotcow?
  • Way too many!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,459 posts
  • Joined: Mar-15 2008

Posted November 26 2013 - 8:30 AM

So, if smoking is so harmful to ones health and costs so much more in heathcare costs why don't they make smoking illegal?


  • 0
  • -

#26 kyle241

kyle241
  • 1,000 Post Club!

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,075 posts
  • Joined: Nov-12 2006

Posted November 26 2013 - 9:14 AM

The same reason you pay more to cover prenatal care child birth?


Don't understand your point. Smoking and pregnancy are a tad different. Agree both are a choice but one is the intake of smoke into ones lungs that was designed for respiratory function (bring oxygen into the bloodstream) while the other is the development of offspring. Hate to tell you but one is not natural and one is, take a guess which.


  • 0
  • -

#27 Surf Hunter

Surf Hunter
  • Way too many!

  • 17,289 posts
  • Joined: May-05 2005
  • LocationThe Land of Fruits and Nuts

Posted November 26 2013 - 1:45 PM

Don't understand your point. Smoking and pregnancy are a tad different. Agree both are a choice but one is the intake of smoke into ones lungs that was designed for respiratory function (bring oxygen into the bloodstream) while the other is the development of offspring. Hate to tell you but one is not natural and one is, take a guess which.


If you are male, why are you paying for prenatal care and childbirth for women. that is my point.


  • 0
  • -
Be the chimp, not the frog.....

#28 kyle241

kyle241
  • 1,000 Post Club!

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,075 posts
  • Joined: Nov-12 2006

Posted November 26 2013 - 2:16 PM

If you are male, why are you paying for prenatal care and childbirth for women. that is my point.


Your point is irrelevant based on the topic of this thread which is smokers are going to pay a lot more health insurance. It's about time.

Actually had to add an agreement to what you're posting. I agree with your point however that should be a separate thread or may already be? There is enough of them on healthcare. My issue is smoking and then obesity related to healthcare, just not sure which is worse. Both cause numerous health related issues. As for paying for the 'extras' you point out, that's valid, I would prefer not to pay or have choice to pay if I want.


  • 0
  • -

#29 DarterMan

DarterMan
  • Way too many!

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,207 posts
  • Joined: Jul-11 2003

Posted November 26 2013 - 2:21 PM


If you are male, why are you paying for prenatal care and childbirth for women. that is my point.


Your point is irrelevant based on the topic of this thread which is smokers are going to pay a lot more health insurance. It's about time.


It’s funny,

all the hackers and wheezers are up in arms because they’ll have to pay more,

yet they were OK with women paying more for years.


The misogyny runs deep on the right.


  • 0
  • -
"Why are you such a monumental dickhead?"- skiddd

"you still suck on a planetary level" - skiddd

#30 kyle241

kyle241
  • 1,000 Post Club!

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,075 posts
  • Joined: Nov-12 2006

Posted November 26 2013 - 2:28 PM

It’s funny,

all the hackers and wheezers are up in arms because they’ll have to pay more,

yet they were OK with women paying more for years.


The misogyny runs deep on the right.


DM, I agree and disagree. The problem right now is that due to mandatory covering of various items that generally most people did not pay for previously (or did not have a policy to include them) are now faced with having to have them as part of their policy. This type of thing will bother many who will never use it and/or people who think they are immune to health issues (which nobody is). Bottom line is insurance companies are out to make money and they are going to charge dollars no matter whether you use something or not. There are no perfect solutions, there truly aren't. Insurance in general is crap as you pay for every type: car, house, life, health, travel, etc. and you pray you never have to use it but it costs a lot of money. I've paid out $18000 in car insurance over the last 10 years and have never use it. I've paid another $15000 for house insurance over 10 years and have never used it. It sucks but I have to have it like health insurance.


  • 0
  • -