# Obama Care will target cigarette smokers.....



## LoudMcCloud (Mar 22, 2013)

Thin Red-Line News


Obama Care will target the unhealthy groups like cigarette smokers, drinkers, and over weight persons.  Unhealthy folks will get the short end of the stick.


----------



## Noomi (Mar 22, 2013)

Good. That is the way it should be.


----------



## LoudMcCloud (Mar 22, 2013)

They are also putting fluoride in tap water to dumb down the population.  We are just domesticated animals.


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 22, 2013)

someone said that's how it should be

they will be coming after the food you eat next, oh wait, they are already trying to tell you what size soda's you all should have

so much for being a free country eh


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 22, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Good. That is the way it should be.



It's no one's business if a person smokes, drinks, eats too much.

What particular pathology of yours compels you to try to control everyone?


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Good. That is the way it should be.



These threads really bring the fascists out of the woodwork.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 22, 2013)

LoudMcCloud said:


> They are also putting fluoride in tap water to dumb down the population.  We are just domesticated animals.



I have never been happier to have a private well for my H2O.


----------



## editec (Mar 22, 2013)

> Obama Care will target cigarette smokers.....



Of course.

They are already targeted, but piling on still more is highly likely, too.


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 22, 2013)

don't worry, you fatties out there your day for targeting  is coming under ObamaCare

you voted for it


----------



## jon_berzerk (Mar 22, 2013)

LoudMcCloud said:


> Thin Red-Line News
> 
> 
> Obama Care will target the unhealthy groups like cigarette smokers, drinkers, and over weight persons.  Unhealthy folks will get the short end of the stick.



while smugglers will enjoy the profits of their untaxed products 

--LOL


----------



## Defiant1 (Mar 22, 2013)

LoudMcCloud said:


> Thin Red-Line News
> 
> 
> Obama Care will target the unhealthy groups like cigarette smokers, drinkers, and over weight persons.  Unhealthy folks will get the short end of the stick.




I thought Obamacare was supposed to cover pre-existing conditions.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2013)

Stephanie said:


> don't worry, you fatties out there your day for targeting  is coming under ObamaCare
> 
> you voted for it



Don't forget the daredevils. All the extreme sports enthusiasts are bound to get their share of 'targeting'.


----------



## LoudMcCloud (Mar 22, 2013)

Look up wellness programs


----------



## Esmeralda (Mar 22, 2013)

LoudMcCloud said:


> Thin Red-Line News
> 
> 
> Obama Care will target the unhealthy groups like cigarette smokers, drinkers, and over weight persons.  Unhealthy folks will get the short end of the stick.



And so they should.  If people were monetarily rewarded for living a healthful lifestyle, more people would do so, saving money for everyone.


----------



## uscitizen (Mar 22, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Good. That is the way it should be.
> ...



Whatsa diff private insurance companys penalize smokers now and overweight is on the way.
It is one of the things the ins co lobbyists wanted in "Obamacare".


----------



## jon_berzerk (Mar 22, 2013)

Stephanie said:


> don't worry, you fatties out there your day for targeting  is coming under ObamaCare
> 
> you voted for it



since about half the country is on the foodie stamps 

perhaps it is time to cut the ability of the user 

to buy sugary or fatty foods


----------



## Esmeralda (Mar 22, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Good. That is the way it should be.
> ...



People who smoke, drink excessively and are obese bring up health care costs for everyone.  If being unhealthy didn't effect others, it would be a different matter, but it does.  And then there is having to sit next to a walrus on a airplane. They should have to pay for first class and sit there where the seating gives them more room to spread out.


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 22, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> LoudMcCloud said:
> 
> 
> > Thin Red-Line News
> ...



holy cow, I thought we were a free county..
now we get to have the Government reward or punish people for how they live
what a utopia


----------



## jon_berzerk (Mar 22, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



the biggest driver of higher health costs 

is cost shifting


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 22, 2013)

They need ways to make money.

so they need a way to push the costs off onto the people who are sick.

Ciggy smokers are far more likely to be sick huh.

Its better than making people who are sick and didnt do things to make themselves sick  the target of these rules.


I personally think they should not be allowed to shift the costs like this and merely make their money by insuring more people and accepting a certain level of profit INSTEAD of always trying to increase the profit margin on the backs of sick people they do business with


----------



## Esmeralda (Mar 22, 2013)

Truthmatters said:


> They need ways to make money.
> 
> so they need a way to push the costs off onto the people who are sick.
> 
> ...



Don't insurance companies adjust your health insurance rates according to your lifestyle, i.e., charging higher rates for people who smoke and take other risks with their health?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Mar 22, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > They need ways to make money.
> ...



the medical field adjusts its prices 

to compensate for insurances that reimburse at low rates


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 22, 2013)

LoudMcCloud said:


> Obama Care will target the unhealthy groups like cigarette smokers, drinkers, and over weight persons.  Unhealthy folks will get the short end of the stick.



Rating premiums on tobacco use is already allowed in the individual market in 45 states + D.C.. What's changing is that now there will be federal restrictions on how much health insurers can vary those premiums (no more than 1.5:1 for a smoker's plan).

This at the same time that rating on any number of other factors will no longer be allowed.

In other words, insurance companies' ability to "target" anyone via higher premiums is being restricted here, not expanded.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > They need ways to make money.
> ...



Yes they do. But, before PPACA at least, if you don't like how an insurance company does its 'adjusting' you can stop doing business with them. You can't decide to 'stop doing business' with government. If we set the state up as our insurance company, or worse mandate that we buy insurance from an insurance cartel, we're stuck.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> LoudMcCloud said:
> 
> 
> > Obama Care will target the unhealthy groups like cigarette smokers, drinkers, and over weight persons.  Unhealthy folks will get the short end of the stick.
> ...



It's being standardized and converted to a state decision, rather than a market decision. Which means government regulators (ideally representing the will of the majority) decide, and the rest of us are stuck with their preference.


----------



## Esmeralda (Mar 22, 2013)

dblack said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Well then, I suggest you stop smoking, begin drinking moderately, lose weight, exercise regularly, and make sure you have safe sex.  Then you won't be targeted for high cost health care.  Oh, and don't forget to wear your seatbelt.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> Well then, I suggest you stop smoking, begin drinking moderately, lose weight, exercise regularly, and make sure you have safe sex.  Then you won't be targeted for high cost health care.  Oh, and don't forget to wear your seatbelt.



Wow... at least you wear it proud!

Kudos on your honesty.

And, oh yeah, go fuck yourself.


----------



## Esmeralda (Mar 22, 2013)

dblack said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > Well then, I suggest you stop smoking, begin drinking moderately, lose weight, exercise regularly, and make sure you have safe sex.  Then you won't be targeted for high cost health care.  Oh, and don't forget to wear your seatbelt.
> ...



And I'll be the one laughing all the way to the bank because my health care costs will be lower, not to mention saving hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars a year by not having to buy cigarettes.  And feeling about ten times better than the average obese smoker as I go through my daily life.


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 22, 2013)

If you want all people to have healthcare you have to have a system with all people in it.
EVEN people who have NO money.


Insurance companies should have to serve all people and use the large numbers who can pay something to gleen their profit from.

If they can not do it strictly on BIG numbers of clients then it will HAVE to be made public.


You can not opperate a decent healthcare system where you have a whiole class of people who cant get any care.


You will end up with the poor sick making the paying people sick.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Esmeralda said:
> ...



I can hear the sadistic cackling now.

I know 'fascist' is an inflammatory term, and perhaps to vague for fruitful discussion. So let's just call people who support these kinds of measures "authoritarian jerkoffs who want to use government to tell other people how to live".


----------



## Intense (Mar 22, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> LoudMcCloud said:
> 
> 
> > Thin Red-Line News
> ...



What's next? Gays? Drug Users? Extreme Athletes? Motorcycle Riders? Emergency Responders? Surfers? Climbers? Military Personnel? Golfers? that's high risk, right? Why stop there. There's meat eaters? How about those that consume genetically modified foods. How about those on dangerous prescription drugs? How about those that don't brush and floss every day? How about those that don't practice daily hygiene? Those that don't chew enough before swallowing? Those that drink through straws? Those that refuse to drink through straws? How about those that eat other peoples french fries, I hate that. Shit, that should be taxed. Pavlovian Response can be fun, huh. Why not buy it, take it home, and fuck up your kids heads with it, so that they can spend the rest of their lives in therapy. Good for the economy.


----------



## Esmeralda (Mar 22, 2013)

dblack said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I don't care how you live as long as it doesn't affect me. But if someone is unhealthy because of poor lifestyle choices, and that poor health makes my health care cost more, it affects me.  Surely you can put that two and two together.  As well, people who smoke in enclosed places affect me.  Huge people who sit next to me on airplanes and take up more than their alloted space affect me.  If none of that affected me, I wouldn't care at all.  So it is not about wanting to dictate to others just because I like to dictate to others; it is because the things they do affect me in a negative way; therefore, I am justified in having an opinion about it and wanting something to be done about it.  And before you go there: I don't drive a car; I car pool and use mass transit.


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 22, 2013)

well lets just hope our daddy government decides abortions aren't good and they should be banned or taxed  so people will stop having them


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 22, 2013)

the right has forced this country to avoid what it will have to do eventually anyway.


Universal care.

healthcare cant be left to chance.


You cant pretend sick people dont make other people sick.

You cant pretend only people with healthcare get hit by trucks


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Esmeralda said:
> ...



It _doesn't_ affect you unless your insurance companies covers the people in question. If you don't like that your insurance company covers smokers, or anyone else on your shit list, I'd suggest you find another insurance company.

Or, create a government agency that will force everyone else to conform to your idea of a clean and virtuous life...

Or, the aforementioned fucking yourself should always be considered as an option.


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 22, 2013)

there are two choices.

You allow people to die in the streets for lack of care


or


You craft a way for all to pay for everyone to get care.


The right will have to proclaim they want children dying in the street so they can have cheaper health care.

You are the sociopathic party


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 22, 2013)

Truthmatters said:


> the right has forced this country to avoid what it will have to do eventually anyway.
> 
> 
> Universal care.
> ...



yeah sure, wanting to be free from government and be responsible and make your own decision for your life, is now called being forced


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2013)

Truthmatters said:


> there are two choices.
> 
> You allow people to die in the streets for lack of care
> 
> ...



I've sort of learned to discount any screed that starts with 'there are only two choices'. It's almost always a con.


----------



## slackjawed (Mar 22, 2013)

At present a couple I know have not been sober for several years. They both smoke cigarettes and pot, but the real damage comes from each of them drinking at least one bottle of cheap whiskey every day. Based on the fact that they can't work, because they drink so much, they both get disability. Whether this is how it is supposed to work or not I have no idea. But they are disabled because they are drunks according to them. They each get social security disability every month. 

While some who work and do pay for their insurance under the new rules, many will fall into the group that is too poor to pay, like the drunks I speak of. 
Then all it means is that they will be on the dole and the government will pay those higher rates.

win-win for the insurance companies


----------



## Esmeralda (Mar 22, 2013)

dblack said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I believe  you are the one who is expressing anger that the government is providing health care insurance and they will be targeting unhealthful lifestyle choices for highe premiums. Therefore, I'd be happy with staying with them. As you are the one who is unhappy with how the government will run things, it would make more sense for you to seek  out and sign up with an alternative program. BTW, I lived and worked in the EU for 4 years.  I paid taxes, a very high rate, and I assume much of that went to the universal health care program, of which I was able to avail myself if I needed it.  In four years, I saw a doctor 3 or 4 times for minor problems, such as the flu, shots for traveling, and check ups.  In other words, I didn't need it and didn't use it while I paid for other people to use it. And I didn't bitch about it once because I believe in universal health care.  Still, the point is valid that if people live a more healthful lifestyle, they use health care less and bring everyone's costs down.  If I were seriously injured in an accident or were to get seriously ill, I would use such a program and would appreciate that it existed. That is why I don't complain: it is INSURANCE.  That is what insurance is for: in case you need it.  I'd be happy paying for life insurance for 400 years and never needing it.


----------



## Papageorgio (Mar 22, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Esmeralda said:
> ...



So, people that have multiple sex partners would drive up health care, also the government should test for drugs on those using government assistance, because this drives up the cost welfare, which I pay taxes on and affects me. People on food stamps should not be allowed to purchase any fatty, sugary foods, in fact maybe the government needs to enact a safe foods list, again health care costs would drop, and I'm paying for it. Also we need to limit the number of children in families, as we all pay for the cost of education, we need to cut the cost. People in prison drive up costs, how should we handle them. 

You can make an endless list. Where do we stop once we begin?


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 22, 2013)

I don't have a problem with insurance companies charging higher premiums for smokers, obese, diabetics, etc.  They are a higher risk ... don't you think they should pay more than someone who is a healthy weight, doesn't smoke, isn't diabetic, etc.?  The problem is with _the government_ being the one who is setting these decisions, t_he government_ being in the health insurance industry at all.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 22, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



It doesn't effect you.  They pay a higher premium for their insurance you don't.

Do you make the same argument with life insurance?

It is none of your business how another chooses to live their life.  Period.


----------



## editec (Mar 22, 2013)

The BIG LIE that you guys are being told is that SMOKERS cost more HC than non smokers.

That is exacly the opposite of the truth.

In aggregate smokers cost HC less money than non smokers.


----------



## BillyV (Mar 22, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Esmeralda said:
> ...



I am happy to pay whatever additional amounts are necessary to cover the costs of my bad health habits, as soon as you are willing to pay more for the Social Security and Medicare costs that those with unhealthy habits will either never get to use or will use significantly less. Most obese alcoholic sedentary smokers that have unsafe sex and don't wear seatbelts will not live to be 65. Fair is fair, right?


----------



## Esmeralda (Mar 22, 2013)

BillyV said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Your complete lack of logical reasoning is astounding.


----------



## BillyV (Mar 22, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> > Esmeralda said:
> ...



Really? How so?


----------



## uscitizen (Mar 22, 2013)

dblack said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



yeah you can stop doing business with them and get another policy that will not cover pre-existing conditions for a year.  Big win for you?


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2013)

uscitizen said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Esmeralda said:
> ...



Could be, yeah. But the freedom to deal with it as we see fit is essential. There's no need to force once solution on everyone.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 22, 2013)

Stephanie said:


> don't worry, you fatties out there your day for targeting  is coming under ObamaCare
> 
> you voted for it



Who is a fattie will be decided in the courts, by judges.   A man who is 5'10" and weighs 225 pounds is fat?   Really?   Suppose he has only 3% bodyfat.  Is he still fat?


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 22, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > don't worry, you fatties out there your day for targeting  is coming under ObamaCare
> ...



ObamaCare bureaucrats will be the one deciding that ..aren't we lucky


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 22, 2013)

Stephanie said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Yeah when the sheep want the fucking government to control their lives they think it's permission to control everyone.

Hell they'll probably ban weight lifting because it fucks up the body mass index scales.


----------



## lynn63 (Mar 22, 2013)

The real question here is does the government want all of us to live controlled healthier lifestyle habits so we don't add up medical cost so we live well into our 90's where they will spend more in social security to beneficiaries?

Or do they expect us not to conform to healthy lifestyle control in order to increase premiums and costs to the individual knowing they will die before they can get social security?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 22, 2013)

lynn63 said:


> The real question here is does the government want all of us to live controlled healthier lifestyle habits so we don't add up medical cost so we live well into our 90's where they will spend more in social security to beneficiaries?
> 
> Or do they expect us not to conform to healthy lifestyle control in order to increase premiums and costs to the individual knowing they will die before they can get social security?



This is the problem.

The fucking government wants to punish people for their personal choices.  it's an overstep of authority to do so.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> lynn63 said:
> 
> 
> > The real question here is does the government want all of us to live controlled healthier lifestyle habits so we don't add up medical cost so we live well into our 90's where they will spend more in social security to beneficiaries?
> ...



I'm always a little stunned by how many people actually do want to government telling them how to live.


----------



## Noomi (Mar 23, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Good. That is the way it should be.
> ...



Yes it is the governments business if you smoke. They are wasting millions treating these people who choose to smoke. The premiums for a smoker should be double those for a non smoker.


----------



## LoudMcCloud (Mar 23, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Are you a Eugenicist?


----------



## Noomi (Mar 23, 2013)

LoudMcCloud said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



A few people here would probably say that my opinions on a few issues would make me one. But that has nothing to do with the subject.


----------



## LoudMcCloud (Mar 23, 2013)

I am not trying to be mean.  My dad is a eugenicist and i see his reasons.  He thinks logically where I think in idealistically.


----------



## Noomi (Mar 23, 2013)

LoudMcCloud said:


> I am not trying to be mean.  My dad is a eugenicist and i see his reasons.  He thinks logically where I think in idealistically.



I think that some people are better off dead, but only if they are severely physically and/or mentally disabled. Not sure if your dad thinks the same as I do.


----------



## LoudMcCloud (Mar 23, 2013)

What is the word for people who are agaist fat people?  Anyways.  Hes a related link.Obama-Care Report: Cigarrette Smokers May Pay More


----------



## jon_berzerk (Mar 23, 2013)

lynn63 said:


> The real question here is does the government want all of us to live controlled healthier lifestyle habits so we don't add up medical cost so we live well into our 90's where they will spend more in social security to beneficiaries?
> 
> Or do they expect us not to conform to healthy lifestyle control in order to increase premiums and costs to the individual knowing they will die before they can get social security?



it is about control nothing  more nothing less 

or and how it can be taxed


----------



## editec (Mar 23, 2013)

The continued BIG LIE that smokers' HC cost MORE than non smokers is the rationalization given for why smokers are being taxed so heavily.

Smokers die faster and younger and cost the commonweal less both in HC costs, and in SS costs than nonsmokers do.


----------



## LoudMcCloud (Mar 23, 2013)

Obamacare will make us a nation of part-time employees


----------



## jon_berzerk (Mar 23, 2013)

LoudMcCloud said:


> Obamacare will make us a nation of part-time employees



having advance knowledge that  insurance rates may go up as 116 percent 

the prezbo felt the urge  to talk minimum wage increases


----------



## tap4154 (Mar 23, 2013)

editec said:


> The continued BIG LIE that smokers' HC cost MORE than non smokers is the rationalization given for why smokers are being taxed so heavily.
> 
> Smokers die faster and younger and cost the commonweal less both in HC costs, and in SS costs than nonsmokers do.




But they still have very expensive care at the end. You don't just die suddenly from smoking. It leads to many kinds of cancers, lung disorders, and coronary disease that can linger for many years or decades.


----------



## t_polkow (Mar 23, 2013)

tap4154 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > The continued BIG LIE that smokers' HC cost MORE than non smokers is the rationalization given for why smokers are being taxed so heavily.
> ...



Bingo, You hit the nail on the head,the cost go up as it is a long term problem.


----------



## BillyV (Mar 23, 2013)

tap4154 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > The continued BIG LIE that smokers' HC cost MORE than non smokers is the rationalization given for why smokers are being taxed so heavily.
> ...



And yet, studies indicate that over a lifetime, the obese and smokers cost less, as has already been said. From an article in Forbes:



> Its a common enough argument around the world at the moment, that various unhealthy behaviours increase the costs to health care systems. Thus those unhealthy behaviours should be taxed more heavily so as to pay for the costs to those health care systems. The only problem with the argument is that it is entirely gibbering nonsense, unhealthy behaviours reduce costs to health care systems: if we are to accept the initial logic then we should subsidise them, not tax them.
> 
> The actual numbers for lifetime from 20 years old medical costs were:
> 
> ...



This also does not take into account the reduced amounts of social security and/or pension payments required for their shortened lifespan. As the author above states, "if we are to accept the initial logic then we should subsidise them, not tax them."


----------



## tap4154 (Mar 23, 2013)

BillyV said:


> tap4154 said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



Do you have any stats related to American costs, and American patients?

I don't give a fuck what happens in the UK NHS. They probably put a pillow over smokers faces while they sleep,  to off them.


----------



## dblack (Mar 23, 2013)

BillyV said:


> tap4154 said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



I wonder, why is this an important point to either side? If it _could_ be proven, for example, that smokers and the obese cost less overall, would advocates of penalizing them drop their case? Would they offer 'incentives' to get people to smoke instead? to save medical costs!? Of course not, because the costs imposed on the system aren't the real concern here. That's just an argument they throw out there to mess with people who lean conservative. They think framing it as a 'fiscal responsibility' issue will convince/confuse them into giving up their opposition to big government.

On the other hand, if it's clear that smokers and the obese cost more, would limited-government conservatives cheer for laws dictating all our personal health habits in the name of fiscal responsibility?

Just seems like an irrelevant point that either side would discount if it didn't support their cause.


----------



## BillyV (Mar 23, 2013)

tap4154 said:


> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> > tap4154 said:
> ...



The study was done in the Netherlands; the author happened to be British and therefore the references to NHS. If you want to look for more studies, be my guest. This was peer-reviewed and is well accepted; I see no reason why it would apply differently to any other health system. The fact is, smokers and the obese don't live long enough to become a burden on society. But please feel free to continue holding your unsupported opinion.


----------



## alan1 (Mar 23, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Good. That is the way it should be.



Why do you think that?


----------



## BillyV (Mar 23, 2013)

dblack said:


> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> > tap4154 said:
> ...



It's an important point if it leads to public policy which puts financial penalties on behavior based upon additional costs incurred. If these kinds of policies are to be instituted, at least they should tell the truth about why they are doing it; it's not to save money, but to regulate free individuals who should have the right to make these decisions for themselves.

If there was an additional financial risk borne by the system for these behaviors, I would think a limited-government conservative would not have a problem with having to pay more to indulge in them, whether to the government or a private insurer. However, since we're talking about Obamacare, it's pretty clear that limited-government conservatives are not in the driver's seat, anyway.


----------



## dblack (Mar 23, 2013)

BillyV said:


> It's an important point if it leads to public policy which puts financial penalties on behavior based upon additional costs incurred. If these kinds of policies are to be instituted, at least they should tell the truth about why they are doing it; it's not to save money, but to regulate free individuals who should have the right to make these decisions for themselves.



Right, I was just thinking that proving it one way or another wouldn't really be persuasive for either side - because, as you say, it's not the real issue. But on second thought, the argument may sway many conservatives who don't lean libertarian.



> If there was an additional financial risk borne by the system for these behaviors, I would think a limited-government conservative would not have a problem with having to pay more to indulge in them, whether to the government or a private insurer. However, since we're talking about Obamacare, it's pretty clear that limited-government conservatives are not in the driver's seat, anyway.



I think that assumption misses the point of limited government. I can't speak for conservatives, or all libertarians, but in my perspective, it's a simple matter of "two wrongs don't make a right". If we must be saddled with a government that actively redistributes income, giving up fundamental freedoms, in a token effort to un-redistribute it, is foolish.


----------



## BillyV (Mar 23, 2013)

dblack said:


> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> > It's an important point if it leads to public policy which puts financial penalties on behavior based upon additional costs incurred. If these kinds of policies are to be instituted, at least they should tell the truth about why they are doing it; it's not to save money, but to regulate free individuals who should have the right to make these decisions for themselves.
> ...



Well, in a completely libertarian world (as I understand it), you would expect companies in the business of accepting the transfer of risk (which is all insurance does) would charge more for more risk; therefore, if someone's bad health habits imposed more risk of additional costs, the insurer would charge more. You could refuse to contract with them, but all things being equal, they will always charge less for the lower risk individual. Since we don't have "limited government", the only option is to fight public policy which, by it's simple discriminatory nature, seeks to charge more for what appears to be less risk because someone has decided that those are "undesirable" behaviors.

 At the same time, they are charging the same amount for retirement insurance (Social Security) despite the fact that the same behaviors in question will severely limit the risk to the insurer (US government) of paying out anything near what was paid in. It's twisted logic.


----------



## American76Pride (Mar 23, 2013)

In order to get people off of unhealthy habits they'll need more support in order to kick it off. This'll increase their live spans, and inevitably cause them to live healthier lives, which in turn helps the nation by cutting off unhealthy habits which combined with promotion of healthy lifestyles would result in a healthy and physically competent population with less health problems.

Also, those who cry "Taxes will get higher", they will at first, but then gradually as our nation's population becomes more healthy we won't have to spend so much money on medical infrastructure and supplies for said infrastructure, and we'd be able to cut back taxes on hospitals and emergency services since they won't be used as often because the population would be healthier and less suspect to diseases and ailments which require hospital stays, which means less taxes will be spent on said hospitals. 

Which means eventually taxes will be lowered to the same rates as before because hospitals will not be used as much, which means we won't need to spend so much money on medical supplies and building new facilities.


----------



## boedicca (Mar 23, 2013)

dblack said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > don't worry, you fatties out there your day for targeting  is coming under ObamaCare
> ...




I'm guessing that ObamaCare will eventually target everyone when we stop paying taxes.   Once they no longer can tax our feudal labor, we will become surplus population, and any and all excuses will be made to deprioritize us for treatment.


----------



## boedicca (Mar 23, 2013)

American76Pride said:


> In order to get people off of unhealthy habits they'll need more support in order to kick it off. This'll increase their live spans, and inevitably cause them to live healthier lives, which in turn helps the nation by cutting off unhealthy habits which combined with promotion of healthy lifestyles would result in a healthy and physically competent population with less health problems.
> 
> Also, those who cry "Taxes will get higher", they will at first, but then gradually as our nation's population becomes more healthy we won't have to spend so much money on medical infrastructure and supplies for said infrastructure, and we'd be able to cut back taxes on hospitals and emergency services since they won't be used as often because the population would be healthier and less suspect to diseases and ailments which require hospital stays, which means less taxes will be spent on said hospitals.
> 
> Which means eventually taxes will be lowered to the same rates as before because hospitals will not be used as much, which means we won't need to spend so much money on medical supplies and building new facilities.





You don't understand economics much, do you?


----------



## American76Pride (Mar 23, 2013)

boedicca said:


> American76Pride said:
> 
> 
> > In order to get people off of unhealthy habits they'll need more support in order to kick it off. This'll increase their live spans, and inevitably cause them to live healthier lives, which in turn helps the nation by cutting off unhealthy habits which combined with promotion of healthy lifestyles would result in a healthy and physically competent population with less health problems.
> ...



I understand that healthier people means less people in the hospital, less people in the hospital means less money needed to spend on hospitals and other associated costs.


----------



## boedicca (Mar 23, 2013)

American76Pride said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > American76Pride said:
> ...





A big part of ObamaCare is free preventative care.  The longer someone lives the more of such care they will consume.    Also, considering that the majority of an individual's lifetime health care costs occur during end of life care, the Panel will inevitably deny such care in favor the most minimal palliative care possible (even when the person is not terminal).


----------



## American76Pride (Mar 23, 2013)

boedicca said:


> American76Pride said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Oh I see now. I'm guessing I agree with taking care of smokers and unhealthy people and not ObamaCare then. Very well, I was wrong, but still support the idea of helping people in unhealthy habits kick them off.


----------



## LoudMcCloud (Mar 23, 2013)

This is just the beginning of Death Panels.   Listen to bill gates talk about death panels.


----------



## Noomi (Mar 23, 2013)

tap4154 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > The continued BIG LIE that smokers' HC cost MORE than non smokers is the rationalization given for why smokers are being taxed so heavily.
> ...



True, and if the taxpayer has to pay for it, it can run into the hundreds of thousands.


----------



## Noomi (Mar 23, 2013)

American76Pride said:


> In order to get people off of unhealthy habits they'll need more support in order to kick it off. This'll increase their live spans, and inevitably cause them to live healthier lives, which in turn helps the nation by cutting off unhealthy habits which combined with promotion of healthy lifestyles would result in a healthy and physically competent population with less health problems.
> 
> Also, those who cry "Taxes will get higher", they will at first, but then gradually as our nation's population becomes more healthy we won't have to spend so much money on medical infrastructure and supplies for said infrastructure, and we'd be able to cut back taxes on hospitals and emergency services since they won't be used as often because the population would be healthier and less suspect to diseases and ailments which require hospital stays, which means less taxes will be spent on said hospitals.
> 
> Which means eventually taxes will be lowered to the same rates as before because hospitals will not be used as much, which means we won't need to spend so much money on medical supplies and building new facilities.



The problem is that there are many smokers out there who simply refuse to quit, and they are the very people who would expect to get 'free' medical treatment when they became ill. How do you suggest getting them to kick the habit?

I suggest tough love - raise their taxes through the roof so they have a choice of either starving to death, or stopping smoking.


----------



## dblack (Mar 23, 2013)

Noomi said:


> The problem is that there are many smokers out there who simply refuse to quit, and they are the very people who would expect to get 'free' medical treatment when they became ill. How do you suggest getting them to kick the habit?
> 
> I suggest tough love - raise their taxes through the roof so they have a choice of either starving to death, or stopping smoking.


Fuck man. Have the courage of your convictions.  Just kill them.


----------



## Noomi (Mar 23, 2013)

dblack said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is that there are many smokers out there who simply refuse to quit, and they are the very people who would expect to get 'free' medical treatment when they became ill. How do you suggest getting them to kick the habit?
> ...



Let them kill themselves.


----------



## dblack (Mar 23, 2013)

Noomi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Hell yes! Social Darwinism for the new world order.


----------



## American76Pride (Mar 23, 2013)

Noomi said:


> American76Pride said:
> 
> 
> > In order to get people off of unhealthy habits they'll need more support in order to kick it off. This'll increase their live spans, and inevitably cause them to live healthier lives, which in turn helps the nation by cutting off unhealthy habits which combined with promotion of healthy lifestyles would result in a healthy and physically competent population with less health problems.
> ...



Yeah, you're right. The generation already smoking probably won't budge since they've been doing it for so long, and they probably want the free healthcare, but we can work on the young, so we can eventually kill off smoking by a significant percentage in about twenty-fifty years.

I like your idea of tough love. If you're going to kill yourself, do it faster.


----------



## Noomi (Mar 23, 2013)

American76Pride said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > American76Pride said:
> ...



The majority of people over here (Australia) don't smoke, so I imagine the same can be said for the US. More and more young people are choosing not to take up this deadly habit, because they have grown up knowing the risks - the people who do smoke are usually the elderly, who were smokers back when the health risks were only starting to be realised.

There can be exceptions made for the elderly folk who smoke, but there is no reason at all why a young person of 20, say, should be smoking.


----------



## dblack (Mar 23, 2013)

Kill them.


----------



## LoudMcCloud (Mar 23, 2013)

The thing is.  Cigarettes have poison.  Our water has fluoride, most of our food is GMOs or full of pesticides.  Look up natural flavors, your not gonna like what you hear.  Look up cornsyrup or cornstarch, you wont like what you see.  Eat all this crap and you wont like how you feel.


----------



## Noomi (Mar 23, 2013)

LoudMcCloud said:


> The thing is.  Cigarettes have poison.  Our water has fluoride, most of our food is GMOs or full of pesticides.  Look up natural flavors, your not gonna like what you hear.  Look up cornsyrup or cornstarch, you wont like what you see.  Eat all this crap and you wont like how you feel.



The difference is that smoking can have a direct effect on the people around you. Drinking something full of cornsyrup isn't going to have an effect on the person standing next to you.


----------



## LoudMcCloud (Mar 23, 2013)

You can't smoke in public in very many areas of the United States.  2nd hand smoke isn't the debate anymore.  Its eugenics.  Democide is the #1 killer of injury related death.  You are being depopulated slowly with unhealthy products.  Studies on rats show that after 3 generations of poor poor diet they become retarded.


----------



## Papageorgio (Mar 24, 2013)

Noomi said:


> LoudMcCloud said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is.  Cigarettes have poison.  Our water has fluoride, most of our food is GMOs or full of pesticides.  Look up natural flavors, your not gonna like what you hear.  Look up cornsyrup or cornstarch, you wont like what you see.  Eat all this crap and you wont like how you feel.
> ...



I'll accept the smoking factor, but then we need to get rid of processed foods, soda, sex with more than one partner, having more than one kid in a family, any extreme sports, all pot, all alcohol, reduce all speeds on vehicles to 25-30 mph, make every person work out every day, close all tanning salons, shut down all fast food restaurants, make sure all businesses close by dusk. All these will eliminate risk factors so no one gets stuck pay for others decisions.


----------



## LoudMcCloud (Mar 24, 2013)

everyone should have to grow mustaches too.


----------



## Noomi (Mar 24, 2013)

Papageorgio said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > LoudMcCloud said:
> ...


----------



## LoudMcCloud (Mar 24, 2013)

no more two ply toilet paper either.


----------



## Papageorgio (Mar 24, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



So you just want to attack the issue, you feel is the most important. Other people have differing opinions, so if we take ones opinion, why would you not take them all? Are they all not beneficial to a healthier lifestyle, a less costly lifestyle.

You claim it's about the money but you aren't willing to look at all the other bad health choices that cost all of us. AIDS and STD's, all preventable, however you choose cigarettes? Just read an article today on consuming processed foods and the affects on our kidneys. Yet, you think that is escalating to quickly. Tanning salons have a connection with cancer, why are you willing to pay they high cost of skin cancer but not health issues of cigarettes? 

You claim it is shared risk and cost, yet you seem to not think of other health risks and costs? Why is that?


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 24, 2013)

Let's target the ones who have indiscriminate sex.   Stop paying for treatment for STDs and abortions.  Stop wasting money on AIDS research.   If they want to kill themselves let them.


----------



## Meister (Mar 24, 2013)

Noomi said:


> American76Pride said:
> 
> 
> > In order to get people off of unhealthy habits they'll need more support in order to kick it off. This'll increase their live spans, and inevitably cause them to live healthier lives, which in turn helps the nation by cutting off unhealthy habits which combined with promotion of healthy lifestyles would result in a healthy and physically competent population with less health problems.
> ...



Let's just encourage the smoking of pot by legalizing it.  
It's just a bunch of hypocrisy


----------



## LoudMcCloud (Mar 24, 2013)

Meister said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > American76Pride said:
> ...



Watch out. The pot from Mexico is bad for you.  Only buy from local markets.


----------



## Bill Angel (Mar 24, 2013)

American76Pride said:


> In order to get people off of unhealthy habits they'll need more support in order to kick it off. This'll increase their live spans, and inevitably cause them to live healthier lives, which in turn helps the nation by cutting off unhealthy habits which combined with promotion of healthy lifestyles would result in a healthy and physically competent population with less health problems.
> 
> Also, those who cry "Taxes will get higher", they will at first, but then gradually as our nation's population becomes more healthy we won't have to spend so much money on medical infrastructure and supplies for said infrastructure, and we'd be able to cut back taxes on hospitals and emergency services since they won't be used as often because the population would be healthier and less suspect to diseases and ailments which require hospital stays, which means less taxes will be spent on said hospitals.
> 
> Which means eventually taxes will be lowered to the same rates as before because hospitals will not be used as much, which means we won't need to spend so much money on medical supplies and building new facilities.


Google is working on self driving automobiles:
See: Google driverless car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
The idea is that self driving cars are safer than cars with human drivers. If such cars on the roads reduce the number of auto accidents that occur each year, that decrease will also have a beneficial effect in reducing America's health care bill.


----------



## LoudMcCloud (Mar 24, 2013)

Good point.  Did anyone see the news about Z packs?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 24, 2013)

LoudMcCloud said:


> Thin Red-Line News
> 
> 
> Obama Care will target the unhealthy groups like cigarette smokers, drinkers, and over weight persons.  Unhealthy folks will get the short end of the stick.



Smokers, drinkers and fatsos are already "targeted" by health and life insurance companies. Most of the rest of that article is horse shit too. 

Katzenstupid





> Let's target the ones who have indiscriminate sex. Stop paying for treatment for STDs and abortions. Stop wasting money on AIDS research. If they want to kill themselves let them.



We can always count on you to stay the stupidest things. Thanks for not disappointing me.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 24, 2013)

LoudMcCloud said:


> They are also putting fluoride in tap water to dumb down the population.  We are just domesticated animals.



Fluoridation by Public Water Systems

You might want to check a few FACTS before you post about fat smokers and/or fluoride. 

And, please don't insult the intelligence of domestic animals.

Being a kneejerk rw'er, looks like you'll fit right in here. Welcome.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 24, 2013)

dblack said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Its their choice.

Are you saying we should not allow people to choose to smoke?

I disagree.


----------



## LoudMcCloud (Mar 24, 2013)

The painful fact is that we can't make our own vices.  We can't grown our own tobacco plants, we can't brew our own beer or liquor, we can't grow our own pot, and soon your job will tell you what you can and can't consume.  The mega corporations run our government.  The people in government own the mega corporations.  If people don't start see this, we'll free speech in a forum will doomed as well.


----------



## American76Pride (Mar 24, 2013)

Bill Angel said:


> American76Pride said:
> 
> 
> > In order to get people off of unhealthy habits they'll need more support in order to kick it off. This'll increase their live spans, and inevitably cause them to live healthier lives, which in turn helps the nation by cutting off unhealthy habits which combined with promotion of healthy lifestyles would result in a healthy and physically competent population with less health problems.
> ...



That could work in lowering our bill too, but that could take years to get auto-driving cars, not to mention people are going to be skeptical with those things since the software might go bust and then they'll ram into the other lane. Not to mention such cars would be expensive, and there'd have to be opportunities to institute new upgrades, but I'm digressing.

Either way, I'm for nationalized healthcare, but not under Obama's terms or during a recession/depression.


----------



## LoudMcCloud (Mar 24, 2013)

LoudMcCloud said:


> Thin Red-Line News
> 
> 
> Obama Care will target the unhealthy groups like cigarette smokers, drinkers, and over weight persons.  Unhealthy folks will get the short end of the stick.



This is the article we are discussing.    

I don't drink, smoke, or cuss.  But, after you Im givin it up.  --  song lyric


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 25, 2013)

LoudMcCloud said:


> The thing is.  Cigarettes have poison.  Our water has fluoride, most of our food is GMOs or full of pesticides.  Look up natural flavors, your not gonna like what you hear.  Look up cornsyrup or cornstarch, you wont like what you see.  Eat all this crap and you wont like how you feel.



No one is forcing anyone to each processed shit. I agree that R-owned big corporations are more interested in their own bottom line than in producing a healthy product. We don't just vote at the polls. We also vote with our consumer dollars. Vote against what you hate by not buying it. 



> This is the article we are discussing.



Its not an article. Its an op/ed from a very biased source. 



LoudMcCloud said:


> no more two ply toilet paper either.



Now THAT is really going too far.


----------



## LoudMcCloud (Mar 25, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> LoudMcCloud said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is.  Cigarettes have poison.  Our water has fluoride, most of our food is GMOs or full of pesticides.  Look up natural flavors, your not gonna like what you hear.  Look up cornsyrup or cornstarch, you wont like what you see.  Eat all this crap and you wont like how you feel.
> ...



They are forcing you to believe you know what your talking about.  Your biast because you dont know the truth.  You believe the government loves you.  lol.  boot lickers


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 25, 2013)

LoudMcCloud said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > LoudMcCloud said:
> ...



a) Its obvious you have not read very many of my posts. If you had, you would not say something as stupid as _"You believe the government loves you"_. Just like you and everyone else, I am indeed "biast" (sic) but, from reading your posts, I really doubt you know much of anything.

b) If you know the "truth", tell it and back it up with facts. Don't post idiotic op/ed blogs that even rw's wouldn't believe. "Death Panels"? Even rw's knows that was a lie. And, even rw's know that _ "Obama Care will target cigarette smokers....."_ is pretty stupid because life and health insurance companies have been "targeting" sick, fatty's, obese people for as long as there has been insurance. In point of fact, ObamaCare makes it illegal to disallow on the basis of preexisting conditions so your statement, _"Obama Care will target the unhealthy groups like cigarette smokers, drinkers, and over weight persons. Unhealthy folks will get the short end of the stick"_ starts out with an incorrect premise.  If you are open to reading facts about the ACA, there's a link in my sig or do a search. If you don't want to read facts, that's okay too. Its your choice.

c) Since you are unable to write intelligently, its unlikely you can read any better. If English is not your first language, I apologize but, if it is your first language, for Christ's sake, learn to spell and or use a spell checker. And, while you're at it, learn basic punctuation.


----------



## lynn63 (Mar 25, 2013)

Obama in 2009 raised taxes on the tobacco companies, it is now twice the amount than the alcohol taxes and this money is used to pay for Medicaid.  State taxes on tobacco also mainly funds Medicaid.

Do you really think that they want smokers to quit smoking?


----------



## Papageorgio (Mar 25, 2013)

lynn63 said:


> Obama in 2009 raised taxes on the tobacco companies, it is now twice the amount than the alcohol taxes and this money is used to pay for Medicaid.  State taxes on tobacco also mainly funds Medicaid.
> 
> Do you really think that they want smokers to quit smoking?



No more than the American Cancer Society wants a cure for cancer.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 25, 2013)

Or the heart assoc wants an end to heart disease. 

But, I'd like to see proof that 





> Obama in 2009 raised taxes on the tobacco companies, it is now twice the amount than the alcohol taxes and this money is used to pay for Medicaid. State taxes on tobacco also mainly funds Medicaid.



I thought Congress voted it in and the president signed it. 

Please post proof to the contrary. 

Thanks.


----------



## LoudMcCloud (Apr 12, 2013)

LoudMcCloud said:


> Thin Red-Line News
> 
> 
> Obama Care will target the unhealthy groups like cigarette smokers, drinkers, and over weight persons.  Unhealthy folks will get the short end of the stick.




» Obama Blowing Smoke Up Our Butts With Proposed New Cigarette Tax Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!


----------



## jon_berzerk (Apr 12, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Or the heart assoc wants an end to heart disease.
> 
> But, I'd like to see proof that
> 
> ...



exactly 

saying the democrats raised cig taxes on the poor is a better way to put it


----------



## jon_berzerk (Apr 12, 2013)

Papageorgio said:


> lynn63 said:
> 
> 
> > Obama in 2009 raised taxes on the tobacco companies, it is now twice the amount than the alcohol taxes and this money is used to pay for Medicaid.  State taxes on tobacco also mainly funds Medicaid.
> ...



only thing is

"they" dont quit smoking 

"they" go underground for cheaper smokes 

--LOL


----------



## jon_berzerk (Apr 12, 2013)

LoudMcCloud said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > LoudMcCloud said:
> ...



as in any state controlled economy 

when the state does not offer things like 2 ply toilet paper 

it can be found  in the black market


----------



## LoudMcCloud (Apr 12, 2013)

Rage against the machine!


----------



## Antares (Apr 12, 2013)

That's the way it always been, they cost more to insure so they are charged more.





LoudMcCloud said:


> Thin Red-Line News
> 
> 
> Obama Care will target the unhealthy groups like cigarette smokers, drinkers, and over weight persons.  Unhealthy folks will get the short end of the stick.


----------



## FireFly (Jul 24, 2014)

It's awesome how cigarette companies got cancer causing chemicals put into all furniture, carpets, bedding, clothes, etc. Thanks for higher medical cost for everyone. Idiots believe corporations have their best interest at heart.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 24, 2014)

FireFly said:


> It's awesome how cigarette companies got cancer causing chemicals put into all furniture, carpets, bedding, clothes, etc. Thanks for higher medical cost for everyone. Idiots believe corporations have their best interest at heart.



Just like the idiots believe government has our best interests at heart.

Sent from my iPad using an Android.


----------



## dblack (Jul 24, 2014)

Noomi said:


> Good. That is the way it should be.



Hehe... yeah. They'll use this to do all kinds of nasty arm-twisting. Arguably, that's the whole point. Basically anyone who doesn't toe the line will have their health care hanging in the balance.


----------



## FireFly (Jul 24, 2014)

Papageorgio said:


> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> > It's awesome how cigarette companies got cancer causing chemicals put into all furniture, carpets, bedding, clothes, etc. Thanks for higher medical cost for everyone. Idiots believe corporations have their best interest at heart.
> ...



It was & is corporations who gets government to harm people. It is best to limit the size & power of corporations to prevent them from influencing small government.


----------



## NLT (Jul 24, 2014)

Noomi said:


> Good. That is the way it should be.



Obama care targets the ugly and stupid as well, noomi is fucked.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jul 24, 2014)

FireFly said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > FireFly said:
> ...



Government works_ for us_ but they choose to cave to corps ... yet you blame, and want to reign in, the corps alone.  We don't have small government, another part of the problem.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jul 24, 2014)

LoudMcCloud said:


> Thin Red-Line News
> 
> 
> Obama Care will target the unhealthy groups like cigarette smokers, drinkers, and over weight persons.  Unhealthy folks will get the short end of the stick.



Uh, no.  People with p/e's don't have to pay more, even though they're a higher risk to insure and should pay more.  obamacare says they get to pay the same as those without p/e's ... cause according to the knucklehead-in-chief, that's fair.

Except for smokers ... smokers still have to pay more (they should, they're a higher risk to insure) because they're evil or something.  But not fat people.  Or drunks, addicts, or those who have eaten themselves into a diabetic state., etc.


----------

