# Should we penalize smokers and the obese?



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 4, 2013)

Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?



> ... Annual health care costs are roughly $96 billion for smokers and $147 billion for the obese, the government says. These costs accompany sometimes heroic attempts to prolong lives, including surgery, chemotherapy and other measures.
> 
> But despite these rescue attempts, smokers tend to die 10 years earlier on average, and the obese die five to 12 years prematurely, according to various researchers' estimates...



Some have said they don't like the ACA because they can no longer get their health care for free. Should the rest of us have to pay for smoker's and the obese higher health care costs? If not, how do we make them responsible for their own higher health care costs? Or, does their right to smoke and be fat negate our right to not have to pay those extra costs. 

And, yes, the extra costs do fall to the entire society to pay. 

Instead of worrying about women's health insurance paying for birth control, maybe its time we forced smokers and the obese to pay higher premiums.


----------



## RightNorLeft (Feb 4, 2013)

Some of the same people that bemoan smoking and the OBese health care costs are some of the same people that want to legalize weed. Now tell me how weed smoke is any better than cigarette smoke.
   Theres too much phony indignation as far as im concerned.


----------



## TMBJB (Feb 4, 2013)

Also higher premiums for those who do not eat at least 5 fruits and vegetables each day, sedentary  people whether thin or fat, soda drinkers, insomniacs since sleep deprivation severely affects health, those that drive recklessly, and anyone else engaging in any type of unhealthy behaviors.  Sounds fair to me. NOT!


----------



## dblack (Feb 4, 2013)

Ayup. This is exactly where the campaign to make health care a government responsibility leads us. It changes our personal health concerns into public property. Fun, fun, fun.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 4, 2013)

TMBJB said:


> Also higher premiums for those who do not eat at least 5 fruits and vegetables each day, sedentary  people whether thin or fat, soda drinkers, insomniacs since sleep deprivation severely affects health, those that drive recklessly, and anyone else engaging in any type of unhealthy behaviors.  Sounds fair to me. NOT!



.....add those without a library card, and don't read at least 10 books a year!

....and those who watch reality shows....

.....or get the Victoria Secret catalog but don't have women in the home....



Watch this space for future developments.


----------



## Papageorgio (Feb 4, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What about those that are drug users, addicted to pain killers, alcoholics, those that jump from bed to bed, skydivers, bungee jumpers motorcyclists? 

Why do we pay a higher cost for them? Shouldn't they pay higher costs?


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 4, 2013)

Now you see why the ACA was passed: More Gov't Control over our lives.

That article is a trial balloon to see how much opposition they'll get. Luddite, being an Authoritarian Tyrant, *loves* the idea I'm sure!


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 4, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> TMBJB said:
> 
> 
> > Also higher premiums for those who do not eat at least 5 fruits and vegetables each day, sedentary  people whether thin or fat, soda drinkers, insomniacs since sleep deprivation severely affects health, those that drive recklessly, and anyone else engaging in any type of unhealthy behaviors.  Sounds fair to me. NOT!
> ...



Pretty stupid to pile up straw men because you are fat or smoke and don't want to pay for your own health care. OTOH ...



> What about those that are drug users, addicted to pain killers, alcoholics, those that jump from bed to bed, skydivers, bungee jumpers motorcyclists?
> 
> Why do we pay a higher cost for them? Shouldn't they pay higher costs?



There is a case to be made that there are far more than those two lifestyle choices that could and should be considered. 

So ... Should we penalize those who choose to engage in known causes of higer health care costs and early death?

As the article asks, should we just let them die early?


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 4, 2013)

Don't go a long with the premise of what *should* gov't tax. The response should be "Don't tax anything. In fact, get rid of all the taxes we can".

God only asks for 10%. Gov't should do the same. If that's not enough for them, f*ck em!


----------



## deltex1 (Feb 4, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Screw the fat folks and the smokers....and the women who can't manage their vaginas w/o Obabble's help.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 4, 2013)

TMBJB said:


> Also higher premiums for those who do not eat at least 5 fruits and vegetables each day, sedentary  people whether thin or fat, soda drinkers, insomniacs since sleep deprivation severely affects health, those that drive recklessly, and anyone else engaging in any type of unhealthy behaviors.  Sounds fair to me. NOT!



Hikers who get lost. Skiers who break legs. Swimmers who get an earache.  The target area is rich.  It is also one of the reasons Demolition Man is my favorite bad movie.


----------



## dblack (Feb 4, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> As the article asks, should we just let them die early?



"We" shouldn't be making this call at all. "We" should mind our own fucking business.


----------



## AquaAthena (Feb 4, 2013)

RightNorLeft said:


> Some of the same people that bemoan smoking and the OBese health care costs are some of the same people that want to legalize weed. Now tell me how weed smoke is any better than cigarette smoke.
> Theres too much phony indignation as far as im concerned.





[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hSvAukUNmY]Liberal Hypocrisy - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Wry Catcher (Feb 4, 2013)

RightNorLeft said:


> Some of the same people that bemoan smoking and the OBese health care costs are some of the same people that want to legalize weed. Now tell me how weed smoke is any better than cigarette smoke.
> Theres too much phony indignation as far as im concerned.



The problem with the prohibition of MJ is simple, it's a failure.  It costs too much to enforce, it allows for a huge black market, and only the very few smoke 20 J's a day, so the health risk is not the same as with tobacco.   In fact MJ can be eaten in the form of cookies, brownies and used as a seasoning; hemp is used to make rope and clothing; it is cheap to grow and could replace tobacco as a cash crop with less risk to the population, IMO.

Tobacco too is a drug, and Nicotine is a poison.  Tobacco is highly addictive, MJ not so much.  So to compare them as similar is incorrect.  Alcohol too is addictive and has many health risks too.  Prohibition of alcohol lead to civil unrest, made generally law abiding citizens into criminals and bred gang violence.

Stand alone arguments on the merits of  MJ prohibition are worthy of debate, to attempt to lump all MJ, alcohol and tobacco along with obesity isn't productive.

Obesity is its own worst punishment - kinda like virginity.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 4, 2013)

Wry Catcher said:


> Obesity is its own worst punishment - kinda like virginity.


----------



## AquaAthena (Feb 4, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think people should live and die from their own choices. If smokers and the obese die early, in spite of herculean efforts to prolong their lives, the amount of money the taxpayers save will be little compared to how much they will get soaked for, for healthy-living non-smokers who maintain a normal healthy body weight, and live forever ( for all intents and purposes ) as we struggle to pay for their long term treatment for Alzheimer disease and other age-related diseases that go with living a long life in a nursing home paid for by the diminishing supply of wokers who pay federal income taxes. 

Did you know that the longer you live, the higher the chances of developing cancer?  How much to treat that? 

NOOO to the namby-pamby nanny state in America.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 4, 2013)

Sorry folks but it ain't none of your business if someone smokes, eats too much, drinks, or does drugs.

Mind your own fucking business will ya?


----------



## Bill Angel (Feb 4, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Obesity is its own worst punishment - kinda like virginity.


I can see an association between obesity and virginity.
I would not be surprised if these two women were virgins:




Two Women Who Were Amply Proportioned


----------



## dblack (Feb 4, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> There is a case to be made that there are far more than those two lifestyle choices that could and should be considered.
> 
> So ... Should we penalize those who choose to engage in known causes of higer health care costs and early death?
> 
> As the article asks, should we just let them die early?



So, does this thread illustrate anything to you? This particular issue is the number one reason I don't want to see government in charge of health care. It creates a strong incentive for state intrusion in our lives. Socializing personal responsibilities subjugates us to the state, making our personal decisions public concerns. With programs like PPACA, how do you prevent such intrusion? Or is the intrusion the goal?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 4, 2013)

> So, does this thread illustrate anything to you?



Yes it does.

They typical rw who posts here wants to control who one marries, all  facets of women's reproductive rights (while refusing responsibility for the inevitable children born). They want criminals and terrorists and illegals to get free health care that the rest of have to pay for as well as any and all guns and huge capacity ammo clips. They don't want to pay for their own health care, want to be able to get free health care at the emergency room (along with the aforementioned criminals and terrorists and illegals) and they want government to keep their hands off their Medicare/Medicaid/Soc Sec. They want to stuff their faces and pollute their lungs but don't want to pay for the resultant increased health care costs and throw a baby hissy fit if you tell them to exhale in their own home/car but not in mine (or any other place you wanna name). 

They say that Obama wants to give "stuff" away but they say that only because its what they were told to say. 

Fact is, its the right who wants it all for free, no responsibility for children, no responsibility for people shot dead and no responsibility for their own health care costs. The rw's don't want a nanny state but they demand exactly that.

IOW, its SSDD here at USMB.


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 4, 2013)

Ahh the fat smokers who use birth control?


----------



## Meathead (Feb 4, 2013)

I smoke and I should be spanked for it, please!


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> So, does this thread illustrate anything to you? This particular issue is the number one reason I don't want to see government in charge of health care. It creates a strong incentive for state intrusion in our lives. Socializing personal responsibilities subjugates us to the state, making our personal decisions public concerns. With programs like PPACA, how do you prevent such intrusion? Or is the intrusion the goal?



Bullshit.  I live in a country with government funded healthcare.  The state is far less intrusive in MY life as a Canadian, than your health care system is in yours.  We smoke and drink at our peril, and yes, those who get cancer, have problems with alcohol abuse, drug abuse and obesity get treatment from our health care programs the same as anybody else.

We also have state funded abortion on demand and yet we have 60% fewer abortions than you people.

YOUR government is far more intrusive and "nanny state" than ours.  Nobody tells people how to live their lives.  We're not banning sodas and transfat.  We tax the hell out of cigarettes and booze and let those who are dealing themselves health problems with their addictions, pay for it.

Every liberal idea is not so the state can take over your lives.  In fact, lots of liberal ideas are about getting the state out of your lives.  Our great Liberal Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, once said "The state has no business in the bedrooms of our nation.

In the US, Conservatives say you can't marry someone of the same sex, women can't get abortions without "informed consent" which amounts to anti-abortionist brain washing, teenagers can't get birth control without their parents' consent, and all sorts of other "nanny state" crap.  These are the self-same Conservatives who are calling for "personal responsibility".

Conservatives seemed to be trying to suck and blow at the same time, and that never works well.


----------



## Misty (Feb 4, 2013)

RightNorLeft said:


> Some of the same people that bemoan smoking and the OBese health care costs are some of the same people that want to legalize weed. Now tell me how weed smoke is any better than cigarette smoke.
> Theres too much phony indignation as far as im concerned.



Not that I disagree with you however marijuana doesn't have nicotine which is an addictive component and it also is what causes cancer. 

But I do not think people should be punished for smoking cigarettes nor for being fat. 

I don't think the government should run our lives. 

Even though i think abortion is horrible I don't think the government should encourage it or discourage it.


----------



## April (Feb 4, 2013)

Bill Angel said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Is that a diet pop and some bottled water sitting next to them? 
lol.


----------



## skye (Feb 4, 2013)

Should we penalize *smokers * and the obese?

I smoke ..and let me tell you...smokers are already penalized.


It's all about a Nanny society....getting nannier and nannier by the second....we are all living in a big Kindergarten . Coffee will be next.


----------



## Dante (Feb 4, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why not go after cigarette makers who lied before Congress and go after trans fats in foods?

Why punish the addicted? Very Judeo-Christian  take on things. 

I would think punishment would be a last resort after all else failed. Punishment is what conservatives and progressives usually advocate for societal and personal ills. Why is that?  We don't punish motorcyclists. we insist they wear helmets and it is publicized if they don't they will be fined.


----------



## Zander (Feb 4, 2013)

Authoritarians simply want to help you!  It's for your own good!!! Give up your personal liberty, you are simply not capable of handling that level of freedom...


----------



## kwc57 (Feb 4, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If the government ever decides to penalize the stoopid, you're in a world of hurt.


----------



## Dante (Feb 4, 2013)

skye said:


> Should we penalize *smokers * and the obese?
> 
> I smoke ..and let me tell you...smokers are already penalized.
> 
> ...



you stink. 

anyone who takes up smoking in this day and age is an idiot. How long have you been a slave to tobacco and the secret ingredients?


----------



## skye (Feb 4, 2013)

Dante said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> > Should we penalize *smokers * and the obese?
> ...




And who are you to tell me what to do?


----------



## Dante (Feb 4, 2013)

Zander said:


> Authoritarians simply want to help you!  It's for your own good!!! Give up your personal liberty, you are simply not capable of handling that level of freedom...



Progressives, whether of the conservative or liberal stripe...and of course populism which most here get behind...always end up advocating things that lean towards Authoritarianism


----------



## Dante (Feb 4, 2013)

skye said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > skye said:
> ...



smoking has clouded your brain.  

never TOLD you what to do. Now suck on something else besides a cig...that would be telling you what to do.

:the wave:


----------



## skye (Feb 4, 2013)

Dante said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...




 The 18th Amendment  didn't work in the 1920s.

Haven't you learned anything from History?


----------



## Connery (Feb 4, 2013)

I have a little gadget I use to tell me what the effects of not smoking has been on me  since I quit. 

Here are the latest figures:
Cigarettes NOT smoked: 176350
Lifetime Saved:  44 months, 27 days, 2 hours
Money Saved: $70,528.00 


I penalized myself enough when I did smoke. I did not need any government intervention.


----------



## skye (Feb 4, 2013)

Connery said:


> I have a little gadget I use to tell me what the effects of not smoking has been on me  since I quit.
> 
> Here are the latest figures:
> Cigarettes NOT smoked: 176350
> ...





And that is what I mean.

*It was your decision*   not a Nanny Government that made that decision  for you!


----------



## Connery (Feb 4, 2013)

skye said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> > I have a little gadget I use to tell me what the effects of not smoking has been on me  since I quit.
> ...



Exactly. Moreover, I support a person's decision to smoke if want to.  I have bought smokes for people and booze as well, not an issue for me. Smoking worked for me, then it did not, so I quit.


----------



## skye (Feb 4, 2013)

Connery said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> > Connery said:
> ...



I agree.

You could go tell that ... to the Anti-Smoking-Nazi brigade!


----------



## Dante (Feb 4, 2013)

skye said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > skye said:
> ...


No one is proposing anything like it.  grow up

and  stating the fact that "you stink because you smoke" does not make one part of any Anti-Smoking-Nazi brigade.


----------



## Dante (Feb 4, 2013)

Dante is for people smoking if they want to, as long as they do not harm others in the process

the societal costs cannot be ignored. Look at China. They had a difficult time buying enough equipment to deal with the costs of increased smoking after the Tobacco Liars left America for more ignorant shores


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 4, 2013)

skye said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > skye said:
> ...



No one HERE told you what to do. I smoked for a lot of years and there's one thing I know. Its the cig manufacturers who control you. Not the left or right. 

Blame others if you want but there is no one who does not know who really owns you.  Stop blaming others. Take responsibility for your own actions.

Having said that,


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 4, 2013)

Connery said:


> I have a little gadget I use to tell me what the effects of not smoking has been on me  since I quit.
> 
> Here are the latest figures:
> Cigarettes NOT smoked: 176350
> ...



Sounds like a great little gadget. I've kept track the hard way and have made several trips on what I didn't watch go up in smoke. 

And, I can run up hills like a youngster!
==========

Sorry folks but I just think I should havve to pay for you guzzling fatty foods, high cal sodas or puffin on your cigs. I don't care if you do it. I just don't want to breathe your shitty "air" and I sure as hell don't want to pay for it. 

So, fuck off.


----------



## dblack (Feb 4, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> > So, does this thread illustrate anything to you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, I was referring to the topic of the thread, but the petty, partisan rants are oh so charming. And persuasive.


----------



## skye (Feb 4, 2013)

Dante said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...




I didn't call you personally Anti-Smoking-Nazi Brigade.

and by the way.... there are stinks far worse than cigarette smoke...so


----------



## skye (Feb 4, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...




Both, left and right are guilty of this.  

Nothing to do with left or right or centre or any of that.


----------



## dblack (Feb 4, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > So, does this thread illustrate anything to you? This particular issue is the number one reason I don't want to see government in charge of health care. It creates a strong incentive for state intrusion in our lives. Socializing personal responsibilities subjugates us to the state, making our personal decisions public concerns. With programs like PPACA, how do you prevent such intrusion? Or is the intrusion the goal?
> ...



Exactly. Canada is not the United States. To your credit, you (Canadians) are less likely to use force to bully your neighbors, and you're less likely to sellout the public interest to corporations.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 4, 2013)

skye said:


> And who are you to tell me what to do?



There is no good reason to smoke, and don't say it's because you want to.  I can accept that you can't quit, but you smell bad, and you're going to die 10 years before you should.  Do not expect to be able to smoke in public buildings or in other people's homes.  

I'm asthmatic and cigarette smoke is a trigger.  And yes, you do stink.  If you are a non-smoker, kissing a smoker is unpleasant.  I quit going to a weekly neighbourhood get together because the hosts were smokers and there was smoking throughout their place.  I needed a shower when I got home and my clothes went straight to the laundry.

Fortunately, there are fewer and fewer smokers in the world, so this becoming less and less of a problem.  I recently returned to the weekly neighbourhood get together.  There is no longer any smoking and I can enjoy these events again.


----------



## skye (Feb 4, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> > And who are you to tell me what to do?
> ...





I respect your opinion ...I have mine.


I do not want a Nanny State telling me what to do or what not to do.


That's all there is to it.


----------



## Zona (Feb 4, 2013)

RightNorLeft said:


> Some of the same people that bemoan smoking and the OBese health care costs are some of the same people that want to legalize weed. Now tell me how weed smoke is any better than cigarette smoke.
> Theres too much phony indignation as far as im concerned.



You do know the medical benefits it can have for don't  don't you?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 4, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Life insurance industry has a ratings system that could be used
smokers pay a lot more
pounds per height and sex add more
plus if you already have a chronic illness that also adds in

or

We could just get rid of obama care and go back to what worked


----------



## Zona (Feb 4, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Sorry folks but it ain't none of your business if someone smokes, eats too much, drinks, or does drugs.
> 
> Mind your own fucking business will ya?



Then you pay for them.  I mean seriously, if you died from cancer from smoking, I could care less unless my medical goes up because so many have cancer from smoking.  Get it?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 4, 2013)

awesome, liberals want to use obamacare to rid us of that pesky right to privacy thing


----------



## dblack (Feb 4, 2013)

Two Thumbs said:


> awesome, liberals want to use obamacare to rid us of that pesky right to privacy thing



I wouldn't be surprised to see many conservatives get behind these kinds of measures.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > awesome, liberals want to use obamacare to rid us of that pesky right to privacy thing
> ...



probably not, since most if not all conservatives are against obamacare

moderates? sure.  Republican leaders love big government.  keeps them in power


----------



## Noomi (Feb 4, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Higher premiums for those people who admit to being smokers, and higher premiums for those who weigh over a certain amount.
They will not want to pay more for their insurance.

A better idea would be to just deny them any medical care at all, because they don't deserve it anyway.


----------



## dblack (Feb 4, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?
> ...



Fuck. Just shoot 'em.


----------



## Noomi (Feb 4, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Sorry folks but it ain't none of your business if someone smokes, eats too much, drinks, or does drugs.
> 
> Mind your own fucking business will ya?



Actually, it is. I don't want to be paying more taxes to cover the costs of these filthy smokers, or the fat heifers who can't stop feeding their faces. Why should my taxes have to pay for their medical treatment?

They should only be entitled to free medical treatment up to the amount of tax they have paid in their life time. If they have paid $10,000 tax in their lifetime, that's $10,000 of medical treatment they get for free, and the rest they have to cough up for.

That'll fix em.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 4, 2013)

skye said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > skye said:
> ...



No, actually that's NOT all there is to it. Nor is the "nanny state" telling you not to smoke. Others have said it but I'll say it again - Smoke and eat all you want but pay your own frickin bills. 



> We could just get rid of obama care and go back to what worked



Really? You mean that insurance companies controlling who gets treatment. Maybe the rw's don't know that your precious free treatment via EMTALA is actually only stabilization and the advice to see your own doctor. You may think you're getting free treatment but you're really not.



> awesome, liberals want to use obamacare to rid us of that pesky right to privacy thing



Yeah, like no insurance company ever asked if you smoke and they never ever weigh you. Stop trying to blame ACA for things that have been much worse in the past.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 4, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry folks but it ain't none of your business if someone smokes, eats too much, drinks, or does drugs.
> ...



Or, like auto insurance, let them show they have $X.00 in the bank and that's the amount of medical care they can have.


----------



## skye (Feb 4, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...




And who is saying the contrary???????????????? ...............WHO????????????

I pay for any possible "frickin bill" of mine


I  do not belong to the party who gives entitlements and freebies!!!!!!!


I PAY FOR MY FRICKIN BLOODY BILL!


----------



## DeeDeeJack (Feb 4, 2013)

I managed the health insurance for a small company for 13 years and I hate to tell everyone but insurance companies have looked at the life styles of everyone applying for health insurance for a long time. And, rates reflected bad behavior. So, if you smoked or drank too much or had any kind of pre-existing disease or were over-weight, you paid a higher premium than those who were considered average. And, if they found that you lied on your health questionaire, they could and did cancel your policy or increase the premium substantially. Also, they could deny coverage if they felt someone was a high risk. Remember ACA was partially written BY insurance companies.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 4, 2013)

DeeDeeJack said:


> I managed the health insurance for a small company for 13 years and I hate to tell everyone but insurance companies have looked at the life styles of everyone applying for health insurance for a long time. And, rates reflected bad behavior. So, if you smoked or drank too much or had any kind of pre-existing disease or were over-weight, you paid a higher premium than those who were considered average. And, if they found that you lied on your health questionaire, they could and did cancel your policy or increase the premium substantially. Also, they could deny coverage if they felt someone was a high risk. Remember ACA was partially written BY insurance companies.



Oh look folks, FACTS. 

Welcome to the board DeeDee and thanks for being the voice of reason.


----------



## dblack (Feb 4, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Smoke and eat all you want but pay your own frickin bills.



Exactly!  Are we actually agreeing?


----------



## Connery (Feb 4, 2013)

DeeDeeJack said:


> I managed the health insurance for a small company for 13 years and I hate to tell everyone but insurance companies have looked at the life styles of everyone applying for health insurance for a long time. And, rates reflected bad behavior. So, if you smoked or drank too much or had any kind of pre-existing disease or were over-weight, you paid a higher premium than those who were considered average. And, if they found that you lied on your health questionaire, they could and did cancel your policy or increase the premium substantially. Also, they could deny coverage if they felt someone was a high risk. Remember ACA was partially written BY insurance companies.



 Is this higher premium reflected in a group rate for the small company  or done on an individual basis for employee, in your experience.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 4, 2013)

skye said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > skye said:
> ...



Actually, it is the right that has said they do not want to pay for their own health insurance and its the right that says they want to keep EMTALA in place. 

Surely you understand why (just as with auto insurance) you should be required to prove your ability to actually pay your own bills.

If you don't understand, just look at the P&L of any hospital.


----------



## dblack (Feb 4, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



So, guilty until proven innocent? Even before you've committed any crime. Nice.


----------



## skye (Feb 4, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...




Look...you choose your poison  I choose my mine....I pay for the consequences I pay for my health if needed......that much is clear! CLEAR OK?

What I object to is a Big Brother Nanny Government telling me every step of the way  how to live my life.

I have  a   huge  problem with that.


----------



## Connery (Feb 4, 2013)

skye said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > skye said:
> ...



I agree and what bugs me is that the Big Brother Nanny Government allows this substance or behavior to be conducted then penalizing a person for doing it.


----------



## PixieStix (Feb 4, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> And, yes, the extra costs do fall to the entire society to pay.



No it doesn't.

Smokers are forced to pay a huge tax percentage on cigarettes. 

The question IS. What is the government doing with this huge tax on cigarettes? 

$30 to $35 is tax on a carton of smokes. That is more than half of the cost.


----------



## Crackerjaxon (Feb 4, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> > So, does this thread illustrate anything to you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Another wonderfully stupid post from a liberal moron.  The only thing I want from the government is to repair the roads I pay for, defend me from foreign attack, and deliver the mail on time.

Fact is anything more than that invites liberal morons to affect my life.  

The fact that an entire generation paid into social security their entire lives does nothing at all to faze a liberal moron.  If they are actually paid what is due them from the government, they seem to think they are government mooches.

Same thing with the GI Bill.  Have you ever stopped to think that the GI Bill is a perk for having done a job?

Nah, to them, it's just another handout from the government.  

They want universal health care for everyone but the sick, I guess.

The idea of fair exchange is beyond their meager comprehension.

By the way, state governments have always controlled marriage.  Of course, when the states don't see things their way, there's always a convenient judge to gainsay the will of the people.

Homosexuals have exactly the same right to marry as everyone else. If states want to expand marriage to people of the same sex, the states can.  If the states want to keep marriage between people of different sexes, they can do that, too.

Civil rights do not extend to one's choice of a marriage partner.  No, you do not have the right to marry anyone you please.  No one does.


----------



## Connery (Feb 4, 2013)

PixieStix said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > And, yes, the extra costs do fall to the entire society to pay.
> ...



The additives in cigarets have an addictive quality as well insuring repeat customers and entices new users.  "Current US-style cigarettes generally contain about a 10% level of additives according to weight, mostly in the form of sugars, humectants, ammonia compounds, cocoa, and licorice.19,20 Most other additives are used in small amounts, less than 0.01% of total weight. There is evidence that the percentage of additives by weight may have increased in the 1990s, especially the use of sweeteners (which many researchers believe were added to entice younger people to smoke)."
Pharmacological and Chemical Effects of Cigarette Additives


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > skye said:
> ...



Yep. Just like auto insurance. 

For too many years, hospitals, doctors have said, "sure, we trust you to pay your bill". The result is that we have lost most trauma and burn centers because they're too expensive to keep open while patients walk out on their bills. Hospitals are struggling to stay open and doctors are struggling to stay in business - all because "YOU" didn't pay your bill or "YOU" refuse to pay for your own health insurance. 

Do you think you should be able to pick out your groceries and then promise to come back on payday to pay for them?

Name other products and/or services you get to use and then promise to pay for later, at your convenience, because you don't like the "nanny state" charging you for what you use.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 4, 2013)

Connery said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



So, neither of you believe that Big Brother Nanny State should control your body's reproduction and who you marry.

Cool.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 4, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



what? 

you want to penalize someone for a pre existing condition?


----------



## dblack (Feb 4, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Exactly. And just as wrong. Corporations shouldn't be allowed to use government to force customers to buy their products.



> For too many years, hospitals, doctors have said, "sure, we trust you to pay your bill". The result is that we have lost most trauma and burn centers because they're too expensive to keep open while patients walk out on their bills. Hospitals are struggling to stay open and doctors are struggling to stay in business - all because "YOU" didn't pay your bill or "YOU" refuse to pay for your own health insurance.



Take your bullshit accusations elsewhere. If and when I don't pay my bills, then we'll talk. Until then, mind your own fucking business. 

I wonder if you'll ever be ready to face up to the sheer bullying at the core of your statist ideology...


----------



## Connery (Feb 4, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> > skye said:
> ...




Relevance to the OP?: Should we penalize smokers and the obese?


----------



## auditor0007 (Feb 5, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have no problem making smokers pay more.  I paid more when I was a smoker.  Six months after quitting, I was given non-smoker rates.  As for the obese, I do not like the idea of penalizing them, because some of them are obese for reasons pretty much beyond their control.  Knowing who is just overeating and fat because of it versus those with other medical reasons would cause a mess trying to figure it out.  We do need to work on reducing the obesity epidemic though.  The hardest thing to do is to get an overweight person to care enough to actually do something about it.  Most are not willing to do it the right way, which leads to constant failure every time they diet.  The bottom line is that dieting does not work.  People who are overweight must make a life change, not just go on a short term diet.  And most often, that life change must involve both eating properly and exercising.  Most Americans are a bunch of lazy shits when it comes to exercising.


----------



## auditor0007 (Feb 5, 2013)

Connery said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



People start smoking for one reason and one reason only, to be cool.  And they continue to smoke for the same reason.  Their friends smoke, so they decide to give it a try, or they are pushed into trying it.  Maybe they are really young kids and think it's cool, so they try it.  

Here's the thing; when you first start smoking for the first time, a few things usually happen.  First of all, the cigarettes taste like shit.  It's a lot like licking an ashtray clean.  It's absolutely disgusting.  The second thing that happens, is that when a person first tries to inhale, the body says "fuck you, I don't want this in me".   After finally figuring out how to inhale without completely going into a coughing frenzy, then the first time smoker gets a head rush.  If they smoke too much in the beginning, they will likely become nauseous and may well puke their guts out.  And yes, I remember all of these things happening to me when I was 14 years old and smoked my first few cigarettes. 

Bottom line, even after people have become addicted, they find ways to tell themselves that it's cool.  Since their friends do it too, they don't want to be left out, so they continue smoking.  The addiction is real, but the will to quit never comes for many, because they are afraid they will lose a part of themselves if they quit.  It truly is an odd addiction, because much of it is really psychological.  When I finally quit, after 30 years, it was pretty easy, and I quit cold turkey.  

BTW, anyone who thinks it is really hard to quit and that withdrawal is just horrible, check out a YouTube video of someone going through heroin withdrawal.  Withdrawal from cigarettes is a minor annoyance.  Withdrawal from caffeine can be much worse.  And yea, I've done that one too.  One week of a non-ending headache on top of vomiting and the dry heaves.  All that from quitting caffeine cold turkey.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 5, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> > skye said:
> ...


And you agree BB has no right to say what kind of arms I'm allowed you own.

How does that hypocrisy taste?


----------



## Dante (Feb 5, 2013)

Dante said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Dante is for people smoking if they want to, as long as they do not harm others in the process

the societal costs cannot be ignored. Look at China. They had a difficult time buying enough equipment to deal with the costs of increased smoking after the Tobacco Liars left America for more ignorant shores


bot


----------



## Papageorgio (Feb 5, 2013)

dblack said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > As the article asks, should we just let them die early?
> ...



Oh hell, why would liberals want that?


----------



## sitarro (Feb 5, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry folks but it ain't none of your business if someone smokes, eats too much, drinks, or does drugs.
> ...



Most of my property taxes go to schools, I don't have kids, don't want kids.....don't like kids.  Why should I have to pay anything for schools?


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 5, 2013)

sitarro said:


> Most of my property taxes go to schools, I don't have kids, don't want kids.....don't like kids.  Why should I have to pay anything for schools?



Do you want doctors and nurses who can look after you when you get old, since you'll have no children to do it for you?  Do you use the services of accountants, lawyers, ministers, professionals of any type?  Do you shop in stores, drive on roads, or use public transportation?  Do you keep your money in the bank?  Do you eat in restaurants, go to theatres, and live your life in the modern worlds?  

If you do any of these things, then you need educated people in your community who can provide you with the services you need, or who can create the goods or services you wish to purchase.  Just because you don't have children doesn't mean you don't need a well educated team of caregivers available to you.


----------



## zeke (Feb 5, 2013)

Having read most of the posts you all have written, I have to think that none of you understand how insurance works.

The hated government is not going to do anything about fat people and smokers.

The insurance companies are difinitely going to adjust your insurance costs based on your health profile.

One of the "great" things about digitizing medical records will be the ease of sorting through all those records to adjust your premium costs.

My wifes insurance company is willing to slow the percentage of increase on premimums, IF we are willing to do certain screenings. ie smoking, obesity, BP and blood sugar as well as colestrol levels etc.

And Obamacare allows for all this to happen. Insurance companies may not be able to deny you coverage, but they sure can make your premiums reflect your degree of health.

You all are fooling yourself. And of course the repugs don't want to pay for their selfish, unhealthy behavior. They don't believe in that "personal responsiblity" thing anymore.

I mean hell why should I, weighing three hundred pounds, smoking three packs a day, why should that person have to pay any more premium than the person that weighs what they should and doesn't smoke. Surely you don't think that heart disease, diabetes, and cancer cost very much to treat?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 5, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry folks but it ain't none of your business if someone smokes, eats too much, drinks, or does drugs.
> ...



How will your taxes go up if your neighbor smokes?

They won't.

No one here is entitled to free medical treatment. And our taxes are not earmarked for medical treatment. Besides smoker already pay extra taxes.


----------



## thanatos144 (Feb 5, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The fact that you even ask this question is why you are progressives like you are all fascists.


----------



## Connery (Feb 5, 2013)

zeke said:


> The hated government is not going to do anything about fat people and smokers.



Really? Just by way of example....

State of New York - Regulation of Smoking in Public and Work Places

§ 1399-o. Smoking restrictions.

    1. Smoking shall not be permitted and no person shall smoke in the following indoor areas:

Places of employment;
        Bars;
        Food service establishments, except as provided in subdivision six of section thirteen hundred ninety-nine-q of this article;
        Enclosed indoor areas open to the public containing a swimming pool;
        public means of mass transportation, including subways, underground subway stations, and when occupied by passengers, buses, vans, taxicabs and limousines;
        Ticketing, boarding and waiting areas in public transportation terminals;
        Youth centers and facilities for detention as defined in sections five hundred twenty-seven-a and five hundred three of the executive law;
        Any facility that provides child care services as defined in section four hundred ten-p of the social services law, provided that such services provided in a private home are excluded from this subdivision when children enrolled in such day care are not present;
        Child day care centers as defined in section three hundred ninety of the social services law and child day care centers licensed by the city of New York;
        Group homes for children as defined in section three hundred seventy-one of the social services law;
        Public institutions for children as defined in section three hundred seventy-one of the social services law;
        Residential treatment facilities for children and youth as defined in section 1.03 of the mental hygiene law;
        All public and private colleges, universities and other educational and vocational institutions, including dormitories, residence halls, and other group residential facilities that are owned or operated by such colleges, universities and other educational and vocational institutions, except that these restrictions shall not apply in any off-campus residential unit occupied by a person who is not enrolled as an undergraduate student in such college, university or other educational institution;
        General hospitals and residential health care facilities as defined in article twenty-eight of this chapter, and other health care facilities licensed by the state in which persons reside; provided, however, that the provisions of this subdivision shall not prohibit smoking by patients in separate enclosed rooms of residential health care facilities, adult care facilities established or certified under title two of article seven of the social services law, community mental health residences established under section 41.44 of the mental hygiene law, or facilities where day treatment programs are provided, which are designated as smoking rooms for patients of such facilities or programs;
        Commercial establishments used for the purpose of carrying on or exercising any trade, profession, vocation or charitable activity;
        Indoor arenas;
        Zoos; and
        Bingo facilities.
   2. Smoking shall not be permitted and no person shall smoke in the following outdoor areas: Ticketing, boarding or platform areas of railroad stations operated by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority or its subsidiaries.
   3. Smoking shall not be permitted and no person shall smoke within one hundred feet of the entrances, exits or outdoor areas of any public or private elementary or secondary schools; provided, however, that the provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to smoking in a residence, or within real property boundary lines of such residential real property. The provisions of section Thirteen Hundred Ninety-Nine-P of this article shall not apply to this subdivision.

State of New York - Regulation of Smoking in Public and Work Places

*Obesity*

"The city's Board of Health approved Mayor Michael Bloombergs ban on large sugar-sweetened drinks at its monthly meeting Thursday morning. Eight members voted for it, and one abstained; no one voted against the proposal.

Under the plan, all restaurants, fast-food joints, delis, movie theaters, sports stadiums and even food carts will be barred from selling sugar-sweetened drinks in cups larger than 16 ounces.

*This is the single biggest step any city has ever taken to curb obesity*, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said at a press conference after the vote. We believe that it will help save lives"
Ban on Large Sodas Rubber-Stamped by Board of Health - DNAinfo.com New York


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 5, 2013)

zeke said:


> Having read most of the posts you all have written, I have to think that none of you understand how insurance works.
> 
> The hated government is not going to do anything about fat people and smokers.
> 
> ...



Wow. Another FACTUAL post. 

But, reading other posts, FACTS be damned. The rw's are still gonna blame Obama. Or, stupidly, call libs "fascists", even though they obviously don't even know what the word means!


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 5, 2013)

Connery said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > The hated government is not going to do anything about fat people and smokers.
> ...



So smokers can't pollute other people's breathing space. Works for me. I would think that rw's would be in favor of not allowing one group to force another group to engage in behavior against their will but, as with other issues, I am wrong. In FACT, the rw's love nothing more than to force others to abide by their rules. (That's why abortion and marriage equality enter into it. But, you already knew that, didn't you.)

Where is the part where government charges smokers more than non-smokers. Or, did you cherry pick that one phrase so you would not have to address the actual topic of the conversation?

BTW, I really like #3 under the smoking law. I really get sick (literally) of walking through a haze of stench just to get into a building. Smoke all you want but you do not have the right to force me to smoke as well.


----------



## thanatos144 (Feb 5, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > Having read most of the posts you all have written, I have to think that none of you understand how insurance works.
> ...


We call you a fascist you fucking idiot cause you are a fascist.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 5, 2013)

> Or, stupidly, call libs "fascists", even though they obviously *don't even know what the word means!*



Please look it up.

Thanks.


----------



## thanatos144 (Feb 5, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> > Or, stupidly, call libs "fascists", even though they obviously *don't even know what the word means!*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes why dont you look it up ????? Maybe cause it would show the turth that it is you who want to control others lives?


----------



## BillyV (Feb 5, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Absolutely! Those darn smokers and fatties should pay extra for their bad habits! Why should society support them?

I also think that non-smoking, thin, "healthy" people should pay extra into social security and medicare; the societal costs of paying for them to live to 100 shouldn't be borne by those who will be lucky just to reach 65. Fair is fair, right?

The fact is that the lifetime societal costs of medical care is highest for those who live the longest; while unheathy habits may lead to expensive mid-life health issues, the long-lived actually have access to medical care for a longer period and therefore cost the most.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 5, 2013)

No individual has any additional monetary obligation to "society" than the taxes required by law.

So if you want some people to pay more than others get it passed into law and good luck with that.


----------



## BillyV (Feb 5, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> No individual has any additional monetary obligation to "society" than the taxes required by law.
> 
> So if you want some people to pay more than others get it passed into law and good luck with that.



Sarcasm is lost on you, isn't it?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 5, 2013)

BillyV said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > No individual has any additional monetary obligation to "society" than the taxes required by law.
> ...



My sarcasm detector runs on caffeine and I am out of coffee


----------



## GHook93 (Feb 5, 2013)

RightNorLeft said:


> Some of the same people that bemoan smoking and the OBese health care costs are some of the same people that want to legalize weed. Now tell me how weed smoke is any better than cigarette smoke.
> Theres too much phony indignation as far as im concerned.



Weed doesn't have tar or nicortine that cause cancer, but it does give one the munchies and makes the gordo!


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 5, 2013)

Actually, some of the by-products of combustion are just as harmful in weed as they are in cigarettes.  Using a vaporizer solves those issues.


----------



## Connery (Feb 5, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...



Cherry pick my ass pal. 

That has been addressed in the taxes that are levied upon cigarettes. 


As far as number 3 is concerned, you have been blowing smoke in this thread since inception and we tolerate your intellectual stench.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 5, 2013)

The smoking bans in public buildings, bars and restaurants have made it possible for those of use who don't like cigarette smoke to go out in public again.  I quit going to bars and restaurants completely in the 1990's because I couldn't stand the smoke.  Now eating in restaurants is pleasant again.


----------



## Connery (Feb 5, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> The smoking bans in public buildings, bars and restaurants have made it possible for those of use who don't like cigarette smoke to go out in public again.  I quit going to bars and restaurants completely in the 1990's because I couldn't stand the smoke.  Now eating in restaurants is pleasant again.



Next we have to ban cell phones, bad manners and belching as a sign it was a good meal.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 5, 2013)

Connery said:


> Next we have to ban cell phones, bad manners and belching as a sign it was a good meal.



If you want to pollute the air around you, smell like an ashtray, and shorten your life, feel free to do so, but you don't have the right to pollute MY air, and subject ME to asthma attacks and carcinogens.  So take it outside, and at least 50 feet from the front entrance to any building.


----------



## Connery (Feb 5, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> > Next we have to ban cell phones, bad manners and belching as a sign it was a good meal.
> ...



I do not smoke, but, you sure are burned up over my statement...

Also, I hope you do not wear perfume, deodorant and bathe regularly as not to stink up the area where i eat.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 5, 2013)

Connery said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Connery said:
> ...



I'll say it again - smoke all you want, eat all you want. 

The article I posted asked if smokers and the obese should be penalized for their poor choices. I don't believe they should be penalized but what I DO believe is that the smoker/fatso should have to pay for their own HIGHER health care bills that result from their lung disease, their own diabetes and any other higher health care costs you incur because of their stupid behavior.

The only way rw's will ever take responsibility for their own lives is if they are forced to and THAT is why you're pissed.


----------



## Connery (Feb 5, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



I am not pissed, I think you are a loon who is on a rant. In my state if I buy as "luxury" item I pay a "luxury" tax. That is punitive especially that I have busted my butt to get the money to pay for the item.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 5, 2013)

Connery said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Connery said:
> ...



I think you should take that up with your legislators but its an interesting point since, until the ACA, health care was a luxury to many.


----------



## dblack (Feb 5, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> The only way rw's will ever take responsibility for their own lives is if they are forced to and THAT is why you're pissed.



Again with your orwellian conception of 'responsibility'? You're trying to twist the language to twist the way people think. To be clear, regulatory schemes like PPACA don't engender responsibility, they dictate obedience. Responsibility is being free to decide what to do, and then being accountable for the results. The regulatory state takes away the freedom to decide, as well as the accountability.


----------



## thanatos144 (Feb 5, 2013)

The progressive motto is if it doesn't look like us or act like we tell it tax it and punish it...


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 5, 2013)

Whine all you want. I still believe people should take responsibility for their own health care costs. Even the whiny rw's.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 6, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Whine all you want. I still believe people should take responsibility for their own health care costs. Even the whiny rw's.



That's right they should and a hospital or a doctor should have the right to refuse care to someone who doesn't pay their bill.


----------



## gwennie (Feb 6, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes......but you forget that smokers already pay higher premiums.  They choose to smoke and smoking has been proven to cause a myriad of health problems, so the public should not have to pay for their bad choices.  Those who are obese should pay higher premiums as well, though I think there should be some cut off numbers used to determine those premiums.  Those who are considered morbidly obese should be paying higher premiums whereas those who have a BMI of 30 should not.   Barring some bizarre medical condition, no one has the "right" to weigh 350lbs+ and then expect everyone else to pay their medical bills because they now have high blood pressure, diabetes, chronic pain due to bad knees and lower back problems, heart disease, etc...  People should be required to take some personal responsibility for their health status.


----------



## gwennie (Feb 6, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Whine all you want. I still believe people should take responsibility for their own health care costs. Even the whiny rw's.



Agree to a certain extent.  Most people cannot afford to pay out of pocket a doctor visit cost of $125/visit....the office visit cost in my neck of the woods and I live in a rural area..., much less pay $50 for prescription medication.  If doctor visits were $40 and a 10 day course of major antibiotics costs only $10, then your expectation that everyone cover their own costs would be reasonable.  Hospitalization, of course, is another issue.  If you want people to take responsibility for their medical costs, then significantly reducing the cost of medical care, greatly improving the economy, and major tort reform is needed in order to accomplish that goal.  But from what I've seen no lawyer in DC is in favor of tort reform, doctors are still required to pay huge tuition bills for medical school training but at the same time accept major cuts in reimbursement rates from insurance companies, and the economy continues to tank in a major way with no end in sight.....


----------



## dblack (Feb 6, 2013)

gwennie said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?
> ...



So don't make them. 

That's the frustrating bit of chicanery at the core of this argument. If the 'stingy liberals' really think it's so unfair for them to be paying for the health care of 'deadbeats', then change the laws. If EMTALA is a thorn in your side, let's repeal it. I'm sure you'll get plenty of conservatives to join you in that effort.

But, that's not good enough, is it? Because what these laws are really about is controlling people. Fascists like luddly aren't interested in helping people, they're interested in bullying them. Forcing them to toe the line and march as ordered by the state and their corporate sponsors.


----------



## dblack (Feb 6, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Whine all you want. I still believe people should take responsibility for their own health care costs. Even the whiny rw's.



What you're advocating is the opposite of responsibility.


----------



## NoNukes (Feb 6, 2013)

RightNorLeft said:


> Some of the same people that bemoan smoking and the OBese health care costs are some of the same people that want to legalize weed. Now tell me how weed smoke is any better than cigarette smoke.
> Theres too much phony indignation as far as im concerned.



One does not generally ingest as much weed as they would tobacco.


----------



## BillyV (Feb 6, 2013)

Just wondering why those who don't smoke, drink, or become obese, exercise regularly and get regular preventive care, thereby greatly extending their lives, shouldn't have to pay a penalty to support the Social Security and Medicare systems? Their poor choices create enormous social costs that are subsidized by those making more reasonable life choices that remove them from the entitlement systems much earlier (if they survive long enough to get any advantage from the system). Should the rest of us have to pay for the long-lived's higher retirement and medicare costs? If not, how do we make them responsible for their own higher retirement costs? Or, does their right not to smoke and be fat negate our right to not have to pay those extra costs?


----------



## dblack (Feb 6, 2013)

BillyV said:


> Just wondering why those who don't smoke, drink, or become obese, exercise regularly and get regular preventive care, thereby greatly extending their lives, shouldn't have to pay a penalty to support the Social Security and Medicare systems? Their poor choices create enormous social costs that are subsidized by those making more reasonable life choices that remove them from the entitlement systems much earlier (if they survive long enough to get any advantage from the system). Should the rest of us have to pay for the long-lived's higher retirement and medicare costs? If not, how do we make them responsible for their own higher retirement costs? Or, does their right not to smoke and be fat negate our right to not have to pay those extra costs?



Those selfish pricks.


----------



## Papageorgio (Feb 6, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



I don't smoke, nor am I obese, nor do I participate in risky sexual behavior, should we charge higher premiums to those that are high risk because of their behaviors? What about drug addicts, do we charge them more?


----------



## zeke (Feb 6, 2013)

You would think that the supposed party of personal responsiblilty (repubs) would be all for the idea of risk based premimums for medical insurance.

If you have a couple DUI's, your car insurance goes way up. If you have a bankruptcy in your credit profile, you cost of money goes way up or you can't borrow money at all.

If you file too may claims on your homeowners insurance, they will cancel your policy. 

And I don't hear a single right winger complaining about that.

But weight 350 pounds, smoke two packs of cigs a day and eat nothing but McDonalds all the time......and the right wingers think those people should not pay more for their health insurance.

And what is really funny, is that so many of the people like I described above, are unable to get a job or hold a job and end up on Social Security Disability Income and Medicaid and get their bills paid by the government. 

How is it you right wingers want to slow the growth of government and private paid health coverage, but don't want people to pay penalties for unhealthy behaviour?


----------



## dblack (Feb 6, 2013)

zeke said:


> You would think that the supposed party of personal responsiblilty (repubs) would be all for the idea of risk based premimums for medical insurance.
> 
> If you have a couple DUI's, your car insurance goes way up. If you have a bankruptcy in your credit profile, you cost of money goes way up or you can't borrow money at all.
> 
> ...



That's not the issue at all. The problem is when the insurance is mandated, or when the relative 'premiums' are implemented in the form of tax penalties and fines. In a free market, if an insurance company wants to discriminate against fat people, or smokers, or bad drivers, or whatever, it's their right. And it's my right to refuse to do business with them if I think they are out of line. Or at least it _was_ my right, until PPACA came to town.



> How is it you right wingers want to slow the growth of government and private paid health coverage, but don't want people to pay penalties for unhealthy behaviour?



Not sure I fit the 'right-winger' motif, but for me it's a matter of not wanting government dictating personal health habits. Simple as that.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 6, 2013)

The ideas that people have here of government funded health insurance would be laughable, if you people really didn't believe this shit.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 6, 2013)

dblack said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > You would think that the supposed party of personal responsiblilty (repubs) would be all for the idea of risk based premimums for medical insurance.
> ...



Link please because, all your whining aside, I don't know of any "personal health habit" that is "dictated" by the government. Earlier, someone said something about smoking/huge sugary drinks being "banned". Again, I know of no place where smoking and drinking sugar has been banned.


----------



## dblack (Feb 6, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...



It's not hard to find examples of jackasses who want to use government to tell us how to live. In fact, here's a link:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...nalize-smokers-and-the-obese.html#post6769172


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 6, 2013)

As usual, when you're called on your lies, you weasel out. 

Coward.


----------



## dblack (Feb 6, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> As usual, when you're called on your lies, you weasel out.
> 
> Coward.



Name calling is awesome. Got anything else? Like a real argument?


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 6, 2013)

The whole point of health insurance is that everyone, regardless of their health, gets put in the same pool, and everyone pays the same premium for health insurance.  Otherwise people with pre-existing conditions could never find affordable coverage.  

If you start charging extra for life-style choices, what about genetic abnormalities?  What about family histories with high heart disease or cancer rates?  What about you choice of city or country living - cities are less healthy?  Should discounts be given for gym memberships?  Should hard driving business executives should pay more because they deal with a lot of stress which saps the immune system?  Where does it end?

Instead of bitching and whining about having to buy health insurance, why don't you look at the why the US spends more per capita than any other country in the world, and gets so much less for the $$$ they spend?  Or how the health care industry lies to the public to convince them that things would be worse if public health care came in.  There is some truth in what they say.  Their profits would go down.


----------



## thanatos144 (Feb 6, 2013)

Should homosexuals have to pay more for their risky sexual behavior?


----------



## jasonnfree (Feb 6, 2013)

Maybe people that live near mountain top removal sites should pay higher premiums?  Or maybe bill the extra premium money to the MTR companies that profit from blowing off the tops of mountains.

Mining: Destroying Mountains | Beyond Coal


----------



## BillyV (Feb 6, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> The whole point of health insurance is that everyone, regardless of their health, gets put in the same pool, and *everyone pays the same premium for health insurance*.  Otherwise people with pre-existing conditions could never find affordable coverage.
> 
> If you start charging extra for life-style choices, what about genetic abnormalities?  What about family histories with high heart disease or cancer rates?  What about you choice of city or country living - cities are less healthy?  Should discounts be given for gym memberships?  Should hard driving business executives should pay more because they deal with a lot of stress which saps the immune system?  Where does it end?
> 
> Instead of bitching and whining about having to buy health insurance, why don't you look at the why the US spends more per capita than any other country in the world, and gets so much less for the $$$ they spend?  Or how the health care industry lies to the public to convince them that things would be worse if public health care came in.  There is some truth in what they say.  Their profits would go down.



Except that's not how it works in Canada according to the Fraser Institute; premiums are based upon ability to pay:



> The 10 percent of Canadian families with the lowest incomes will pay an average of about $487 for public health care insurance in 2012. The 10 percent of Canadian families who earn an average income of $55,271 will pay an average of $5,285 for public health care insurance, and the families among the top 10 percent of income earners in Canada will pay $32,628.
> 
> The Price of Public Health Care Insurance: 2012 Edition | Fraser Institute



"From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs."


----------



## thanatos144 (Feb 6, 2013)

How about we tax Pot heads more???? They are a drain on our health care costs as well..... And sluts and Transsexuals and how about blacks???? With that Sickle cell anemia they get that is a drain as well! PORN STARS!!!!! they should pay triple the taxes as well as strippers.....


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 6, 2013)

BillyV said:


> Except that's not how it works in Canada according to the Fraser Institute; premiums are based upon ability to pay:
> 
> 
> 
> > The 10 percent of Canadian families with the lowest incomes will pay an average of about $487 for public health care insurance in 2012. The 10 percent of Canadian families who earn an average income of $55,271 will pay an average of $5,285 for public health care insurance, and the families among the top 10 percent of income earners in Canada will pay $32,628.



The Fraser Institute is lying.  They are a right-wing think tank with an avowed agenda to end publically funded health care in Canada.  Health care administration and funding is handled by the provinces and there are some minor differences in the funding formula from province to province

Our family has an income far above the $55,271 they are quoting and we are currently paying $2500 for our health insurance.  Our rate was $500 lower when I was working because my employer paid a portion of our supplemental insurance coverage, but my husband's does not, he just makes the group rate plan available to his employees.

In Ontario, your employer pays the Employer Health Tax at a rate of .98% on the first $400,000 of income, and 1.95% on amounts over $400,000.  So yes, if you are making $1.7 million a year in salary alone, your employer would pay $34,000 a year in health insurance premiums for you, but it would be paid by your employer, not you.  The employee would pay the same rate for supplemental insurance and individual premiums that we have, which is $25 per month per working family members, plus some amount for your supplemental coverage, not dissimilar to what we are paying.


----------



## thanatos144 (Feb 6, 2013)

We should tax Progressives more For just being ignorant fascists.


----------



## jasonnfree (Feb 6, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> We should tax Progressives more For just being ignorant fascists.



fascists lean to the right.


----------



## thanatos144 (Feb 6, 2013)

jasonnfree said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > We should tax Progressives more For just being ignorant fascists.
> ...



You can keep repeating that lie but it isn't going to make it true.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 6, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



One of the reasons why the Western powers didn't come down harder on facism in the 1930's was because facists were right wingers who were adamantly opposed to communism and Hilter, Mussolini and Franco were considered strong foes of the true enemy, communism.


----------



## thanatos144 (Feb 6, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...



they were socialists you dumbasses


----------



## Againsheila (Feb 6, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Then you have to start charging more for people with arthritis, or muscle spasms, or large boobs (which cause back pain).  Tall people have more health problems than short people, charge them more.  (gravity is not our friend) Or charge more for people with sedentary jobs, they aren't as healthy as those doing physical labor jobs.  It's a slippery slope.


----------



## BillyV (Feb 6, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> > Except that's not how it works in Canada according to the Fraser Institute; premiums are based upon ability to pay:
> ...



Well, I'm not an expert on Canadian health care nor on the political leanings of the Fraser Institute; however, the Canadian government reports spending $140 billion on its health care system, and the population is about 34.5 million, a per capita cost of just over $4,000. So if you are paying $2,500 for you and your husband, it would seem that your health care is being subsidized by at least $5,500 per year, or you are paying it through other not so obvious means (like taxes). 

The point the Fraser study was making was that, since the system is largely funded by income taxes, higher income groups pay a greater amount in funding the health system (much as under the US Medicare system). The difference in the US is that a private insurance policy premium is based only on risk and return, not ability to pay, therefore the premium for a middle income person is the same as that for a poor or rich person with the same risk profile. 

As for the Employer Health Tax, I would argue that any payment made by your employer on your behalf is money that would have been available to you in salary had the government not mandated that payment (or said another way, that your salary is determined (reduced) partly based on the additional amounts that will have to be paid under the terms of your employment, including tax payments made on your behalf). 

If you'd like to look at what Fraser has put forth and argue the contents, by all means do. Just calling them "right wing liars" is not productive nor does it help in getting to the truth.


----------



## dblack (Feb 6, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> The whole point of health insurance is that everyone, regardless of their health, gets put in the same pool, and everyone pays the same premium for health insurance.  Otherwise people with pre-existing conditions could never find affordable coverage.



No. It's not. Insurance is a hedge against risk. It invariable entails an overhead in what it covers. It isn't a club you join that magically makes health care cost less. In fact, it does the opposite. In limited quantities, this kind of coverage can be nice security for unforeseen circumstances.

But our habit of thinking of insurance as something that makes health care more affordable is delusional. And it's that delusion that's at the core of our problems with health care. Health insurance can provide a safety net against bad stuff you hope never happens and isn't likely to. For ordinary health care expense, the stuff we can all expect in ordinary life, it's utterly foolish to funnel all that money through insurance companies, with them taking their cut.



> If you start charging extra for life-style choices, what about genetic abnormalities?  What about family histories with high heart disease or cancer rates?  What about you choice of city or country living - cities are less healthy?  Should discounts be given for gym memberships?  Should hard driving business executives should pay more because they deal with a lot of stress which saps the immune system?  Where does it end?



It doesn't.



> Instead of bitching and whining about having to buy health insurance, why don't you look at the why the US spends more per capita than any other country in the world, and gets so much less for the $$$ they spend? ...



Well, I have. Which is why I'm bitching and whining about insurance. I'll be damned if I'll volunteer for a life time of "tithing" to the very same industry that's painted into this corner in the first place.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 6, 2013)

Why are the rw's ignoring the fact that high risk people are already charged more for their insurance?

Why are the rw's lying about government and/or taxes and/or ACA when its actually insurance companies who decide who gets charged a higher premium?

It would be a lot easier to discuss this issue if rw's didn't constantly make up their own reality about it.


----------



## dblack (Feb 6, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Why are the rw's ignoring the fact that high risk people are already charged more for their insurance?



Because prior to ACA we could refuse to do business with them. The individual mandate robs us of the most fundamental right a consumer has; the right to say no.


----------



## The Professor (Feb 7, 2013)

Not so fast there, Private Brown.

While no one can deny that those who are obese face health problems not encountered by those of normal weight, that does not mean that their total lifetime health costs are going to be greater.  In determining the comparative lifetime costs of the obese and  non-obese, one must also take life expectancy into account.  Since everyone knows that the obese and heavy smokers will not live as long as others, the lifetime cost of their care may be less, not more.  This is especially true considering that the  elderly consume more health care resources than younger people.  I have read  about a number of studies which have shown that those who are heavy smokers and obese  use less health care resources because of their shortened life spans.  Most of my information has come from books, but I will give you at least one link to consider:

Alcohol, Obesity and Smoking Do Not Cost Health Care Systems Money - Forbes

Personally, this is not a subject I have done a lot of research on and I  do not know enough to give an opinion as to whether total health care costs of those with certain at-risk behavior are greater or less than those who do not engage in such behavior.   I am merely suggesting that perhaps further inquiry is required.    Perhaps some of you have seriously studied the matter and can enlighten the rest of us.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 7, 2013)

BillyV said:


> If you'd like to look at what Fraser has put forth and argue the contents, by all means do. Just calling them "right wing liars" is not productive nor does it help in getting to the truth.



I have looked at the health care studies done by the Fraser Institute and have found them to be so skewed and biased as to be useless.  I have a friend who works in statistical analysis and she says that if you torture the data long enough, it will tell you anything, which makes her skeptical of all studies, but especially those coming from organizations with an agenda which affects their point of view.

I am very aware of the per capita spending on health care in Canada and that a portion of that spending comes from taxes.  We consider access to health care a right, not a privilege, but then our health care system is not spending $8000 per capita, and leaving 15% of the nation with no coverage at all.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 7, 2013)

dblack said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Why are the rw's ignoring the fact that high risk people are already charged more for their insurance?
> ...



This situation stems from equating health insurance with health care.


----------



## editec (Feb 7, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Smokers already pay high premiums in the form of taxes on cigarettes.

Sadly the money they pay isn't EARMARKED (as it ought to be) to help offset their medical expenses.


----------



## BillyV (Feb 7, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> > If you'd like to look at what Fraser has put forth and argue the contents, by all means do. Just calling them "right wing liars" is not productive nor does it help in getting to the truth.
> ...



But we're not discussing the relative merits of US vs Canadian health care; you said "The whole point of health insurance is that everyone, regardless of their health, gets put in the same pool, and everyone pays the same premium for health insurance." That isn't what happens in a socialized system; people are charged much different premiums based upon their ability to pay. And while you argue that the Fraser Institute study is biased, you have offered no evidence that their conclusions regarding the funding mechanism supporting the health system are incorrect; expressing the "skepticism" of your friend (who strangely enough "tortures" data for a living) is not a refutation.

As far as your jab at the US system, let's just say that both the US and Canadian models have their advantages and disadvantages that may not be apparent simply based upon spending; those in the US with access are generally happy with the fact that the system is profligate with resources and therefore is extremely responsive when needed, and apparently feel that makes the cost worth it.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 7, 2013)

BillyV said:


> But we're not discussing the relative merits of US vs Canadian health care; you said "The whole point of health insurance is that everyone, regardless of their health, gets put in the same pool, and everyone pays the same premium for health insurance." That isn't what happens in a socialized system; people are charged much different premiums based upon their ability to pay. And while you argue that the Fraser Institute study is biased, you have offered no evidence that their conclusions regarding the funding mechanism supporting the health system are incorrect; expressing the "skepticism" of your friend (who strangely enough "tortures" data for a living) is not a refutation.
> 
> As far as your jab at the US system, let's just say that both the US and Canadian models have their advantages and disadvantages that may not be apparent simply based upon spending; those in the US with access are generally happy with the fact that the system is profligate with resources and therefore is extremely responsive when needed, and apparently feel that makes the cost worth it.



I pointed out that the Fraser Institute's assertion that a family making $55K a year is paying over $5K per year for insurance out of their own pockets and this is patently incorrect, and I used my family, with income closer to $100K as an example of what a middle income family pays to show how far out of line those figures are.  Even if you add in another $1000 in Employer Health Tax, it still doesn't come close to the figure quoted.  And I pointed out that in our situation, we pay more of the cost of supplemental insurance than most people in our situation do.

If our family pay half of what the Fraser tells you the average family making $55K per year would pay, how far out of line are their other figures, and where the hell did the $5,500 come from?  I checked out what we would pay for supplemental health coverage if we didn't have a group plan and it would only be $2700 per year for Cadillac coverage.  Add in $300 per person for OHIP, plus 1% employer health tax and it still comes out to $4,300 for a family making $100K per year.  This premium figure is based on two adults, both over the age of 55 and my husband smokes, so our premiums are high.  If that figure is so far wrong, it calls into question whether anything else they published in this study with respect to $$$.

One only has to click on the link for the Fraser Institute to see what their stated agenda is:  "A free and prosperous world through choice, markets and responsibility".  They oppose public education and publically funded health care and provide studies which help prove their basic premise which is that all government funded programs are bad.  It is in their mission statement to promote the private options.


----------



## BillyV (Feb 7, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> > But we're not discussing the relative merits of US vs Canadian health care; you said "The whole point of health insurance is that everyone, regardless of their health, gets put in the same pool, and everyone pays the same premium for health insurance." That isn't what happens in a socialized system; people are charged much different premiums based upon their ability to pay. And while you argue that the Fraser Institute study is biased, you have offered no evidence that their conclusions regarding the funding mechanism supporting the health system are incorrect; expressing the "skepticism" of your friend (who strangely enough "tortures" data for a living) is not a refutation.
> ...



So no portion of your income taxes in Canada goes to pay for the health care system? You don't consider income and other taxes as an "out of pocket" cost?

The point of the study may be as you say, to argue against publically funded health care, but that isn't proof that their math is incorrect. They indicate that the point of the study is that "some Canadians might assume that health care premiums cover the cost of health care in those provinces that assess them. However, the reality is that these premiums cover just a fraction of the cost of health care and are paid into general revenues from which health care is funded."

The $5,500 is simply the difference between the total per capita cost of government provided care in Canada for 2 less the amount you said you paid for insurance ($4,000 x 2 - $2,500 = $5,500). These costs have to be funded from somewhere; if you aren't paying them, then they are subsidized by someone else.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 7, 2013)

BillyV said:


> The point of the study may be as you say, to argue against publically funded health care, but that isn't proof that their math is incorrect. They indicate that the point of the study is that "some Canadians might assume that health care premiums cover the cost of health care in those provinces that assess them. However, the reality is that these premiums cover just a fraction of the cost of health care and are paid into general revenues from which health care is funded."
> 
> The $5,500 is simply the difference between the total per capita cost of government provided care in Canada for 2 less the amount you said you paid for insurance ($4,000 x 2 - $2,500 = $5,500). These costs have to be funded from somewhere; if you aren't paying them, then they are subsidized by someone else.



The study says that:



> The 10 percent of Canadian families who earn an average income of $55,271 will pay an average of $5,285 for *public health care insurance*, and *the families among the top 10 percent of income earners in Canada will pay $32,628*.



Please note in the parts that I have bolded that it says Canadians will pay for "public health care insurance", not health care, but *health care insurance*, and that figure is a lie, because Canadians as individuals pay very little of their health care insurance costs as a direct expense.  So therefore these statements are flat out lies because *health care insurance* costs nowhere near what the Fraser Institute is claiming in this piece.

Even if you consider that wages may be reduced for those making over $400K per year because of the cost of Employer's Health Tax, a person in the top 10% income bracket would have to have earning of $1.7million per year for his/her employer to pay $32K per year in direct costs for health insurance.  In my experience, anyone with this level of income would have it structured so as to reduce such taxes, with a substantial percentage of this income coming in the form of performance bonuses, car allowances, club memberships, stock options, and other forms of indirect income which would not be subject to the Employer's Health Tax.

It is you who is projecting the total costs of health care into this piece.  The Fraser Institute is only talking about the costs for "health care insurance" and their figures are false.  Period.  End of Story.


----------



## BillyV (Feb 7, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> > The point of the study may be as you say, to argue against publically funded health care, but that isn't proof that their math is incorrect. They indicate that the point of the study is that "some Canadians might assume that health care premiums cover the cost of health care in those provinces that assess them. However, the reality is that these premiums cover just a fraction of the cost of health care and are paid into general revenues from which health care is funded."
> ...



You seem to want to focus more on semantics than reality. OK, let's look at the semantics. Insurance involves a "transfer of risk" from one party to another. Investopedia defines transfer of risk as follows: 


> The underlying tenet behind insurance transactions. The purpose of this action is to take a specific risk, which is detailed in the insurance contract, and pass it from one party who does not wish to have this risk (the insured) to a party who is willing to take on the risk for a fee, or premium (the insurer).
> 
> Read more: Transfer Of Risk Definition | Investopedia


In this scenario, the taxpayer is the party who is being relieved of the risk, and the government is taking on the risk for a fee (tax). As the government is assuming the risk in exchange for taxes, it is essentially the insurer, and you could consider the taxes used to pay for this as "premiums". This is the position the study has taken, I did not interject it except to compare what you are paying to what it costs. You have agreed that the cost of providing the service is more than you or the average Canadian pays for care, therefore the government must be using general tax revenues to make up the difference. Those tax revenues are paid disproportionately by individuals, therefore the percentage of those revenues used to support the shortfall between costs of care and insurance premiums you pay are also disproportionately supported by those individuals who pay the most tax.

I'm not really interested in getting this far into the weeds so that you can make your "point." All I'm saying is that the burden of supporting the Canadian health care system is not shared equally among individuals, and that therefore they are not paying equal "premiums." I understand that those in the lower and middle classes find that beneficial because their costs are subsidized by others; that is a common theme of socialized medicine. Obviously, all advanced economies subsidize medical care for the truly poor, but is it fair to subsidize those who can afford it because some can pay more? I don't know; would it be fair to charge someone in the middle class $20,000 for a BMW when someone in the top 10% paid $60,000?


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 7, 2013)

let's throw in pot smokers and drug users and drinkers and people who eat unhealthy diets and people with high risk occupations and people who live in high crime areas.   that should narrow the list of people we need to ensure down to a few thousand and that is managable


----------



## tjvh (Feb 7, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The idiot has apparently not noticed the *ridiculous Taxes imposed upon cigarettes* in the last decade.


----------



## boedicca (Feb 7, 2013)

We should neither penalize nor subsidize smokers and the obese (or anyone else, for that matter).  Let them purchase their health care in a free market.

Period.

End of story.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 7, 2013)

tjvh said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?
> ...



you think taking it from 50 cents a pack to $10 a pack is ridiculous?


----------



## thanatos144 (Feb 7, 2013)

You know what I find humorous???? id the fucking progressives expect us to ignore the fact that a good portion of the taxes in cigarettes are going for this stupid healthcare debacle....So in essence you hypocritical asshats smokers are already paying more then you stupid fucks.


----------



## dblack (Feb 7, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> You know what I find humorous???? id the fucking progressives expect us to ignore the fact that a good portion of the taxes in cigarettes are going for this stupid healthcare debacle....So in essence you hypocritical asshats smokers are already paying more then you stupid fucks.



I wish I could find the humor in it. I do see irony, painful irony, in the fact that so many of those defending PPACA still think of themselves as standing in opposition to corporate dominance - while they defend a law that serves us up to the insurance industry on a platter as mandatory customers.:


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 7, 2013)

BillyV said:


> Well, I'm not an expert on Canadian health care nor on the political leanings of the Fraser Institute; however, the Canadian government reports spending $140 billion on its health care system, and the population is about 34.5 million, a per capita cost of just over $4,000. So if you are paying $2,500 for you and your husband, it would seem that your health care is being subsidized by at least $5,500 per year, or you are paying it through other not so obvious means (like taxes).



The point the Fraser study was making was that, since the system is largely funded by income taxes, higher income groups pay a greater amount in funding the health system (much as under the US Medicare system). The difference in the US is that a private insurance policy premium is based only on risk and return, not ability to pay, therefore the premium for a middle income person is the same as that for a poor or rich person with the same risk profile. [/QUOTE]

The Fraser Institute Study said very clearly that a family earning $55K per year pays $5500 for Canadian "*health care insurance*", not health care, but health care insurance and that amount cannot possibly be correct, based on payments that our family makes, and the amount of taxes charged by the Ontario Government which constitute our health care insurance premiums, together with payments for supplemental coverages.

I even ran the numbers for my daughter's family - 2 adults, 3 children under the age of 13, and their premiums for a family of 5 are only $3600 per year, and that's paying for their own private supplemental insurance.



BillyV said:


> As for the Employer Health Tax, I would argue that any payment made by your employer on your behalf is money that would have been available to you in salary had the government not mandated that payment (or said another way, that your salary is determined (reduced) partly based on the additional amounts that will have to be paid under the terms of your employment, including tax payments made on your behals.f).
> 
> If you'd like to look at what Fraser has put forth and argue the contents, by all means do. Just calling them "right wing liars" is not productive nor does it help in getting to the truth.



While it would be reasonable to assume that yes, funds which go to Employer Health Tax might be available as additional salary, it should be remembered that Employer Health Tax is less than 1% of payroll up to $400K.  If you make $100K per year, EHT is on $980.00 which really doesn't make a whole lot of difference to an individual's salary at that level.  Whereas having access to health care with no co-pays is worth significantly more than $1000 per year in most cases, and especially in the case of those who have underage dependents or pre-existing condition.

As for those making over $400K per year, usually the contract stipulates that a portion of the those earnings are in salary, another portion in performance bonuses, club memberships, automobiles, etc., and only those payments made as payroll would be subject to EHT.  So even the guy/gal making $1.7 million would only pay the same $2500 out of pocket that we pay, or may less.  His employer's EHT on a payroll of $1.7 million would be $34,000, but the Fraser said "Canadian families" were paying this amount for "health care insurance" and that is patently false.

Even if you argue that at $4000 per capita, the figures don't add up, well those monies don't just come from income tax, they come from corporate taxes, import and export duties, provincial sales taxes, and all of the other ways the government has of making money.  Because our country believes that that the health of our people, all of our people, is important, not just individually, but as a nation.

A strong, healthy, well-educated work force with a strong work ethic is critical to the success of any nation.  Health care is our right.  People should not be bankrupted because of an illness.  Your focus when seriously ill should be on getting better, not on how are we going to pay for all this, or fighting with your insurance company over what they will or will not pay.

The Fraser hates it that Canadians never see the bills for their health care.  It bothers them no end.  But do not be mistaken, that doesn't mean we don't know how much it costs or that we think it's free.  We know what it costs and where the money comes from.


----------



## BillyV (Feb 8, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I'm not an expert on Canadian health care nor on the political leanings of the Fraser Institute; however, the Canadian government reports spending $140 billion on its health care system, and the population is about 34.5 million, a per capita cost of just over $4,000. So if you are paying $2,500 for you and your husband, it would seem that your health care is being subsidized by at least $5,500 per year, or you are paying it through other not so obvious means (like taxes).
> ...



OK, good, so you agree that coverage in Canada is not based upon "everyone paying the same premium for health insurance"; that's all I have said. No need to defend the system on moral grounds or bash the "right wing liars"; those are separate discussions.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 8, 2013)

BillyV said:


> OK, good, so you agree that coverage in Canada is not based upon "everyone paying the same premium for health insurance"; that's all I have said. No need to defend the system on moral grounds or bash the "right wing liars"; those are separate discussions.



Everyone in Ontario pays the same premium for government health insurance.  $25.00 per month as a payroll deductition.  That is what families pay for government funded health insurance.


----------



## BillyV (Feb 8, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> > OK, good, so you agree that coverage in Canada is not based upon "everyone paying the same premium for health insurance"; that's all I have said. No need to defend the system on moral grounds or bash the "right wing liars"; those are separate discussions.
> ...



OK, I give up. I can't continue to debate the same irrelevant answers over and over. I'm glad you're happy with your system and can remain blissfully ignorant of the source of funding.


----------



## longknife (Feb 8, 2013)

Put 'em all in the clink!


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 8, 2013)

BillyV said:


> OK, I give up. I can't continue to debate the same irrelevant answers over and over. I'm glad you're happy with your system and can remain blissfully ignorant of the source of funding.



No one is ignorant as to the source of the funding - I was clear on that.  

What I object to is the flat out lying by the Fraser.  Families making $55K per year are not paying *health insurance premiums *of $5500 per year.  That is false.  And if they were talking about costs per capita, those figures would not be true either.  Health care *costs* for a family of four would run $16K per year.  Even for a couple it would be $8K.

If you want to provide accurate figures to talk about, I'd be happy to, but shit coming out of the Fraser is just garbage.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 8, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> You know what I find humorous???? id the fucking progressives expect us to ignore the fact that a good portion of the taxes in cigarettes are going for this stupid healthcare debacle....So in essence you hypocritical asshats smokers are already paying more then you stupid fucks.



How much exactly?

Link please.

If you can't produce FACTS, ask dblack.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 8, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > You know what I find humorous???? id the fucking progressives expect us to ignore the fact that a good portion of the taxes in cigarettes are going for this stupid healthcare debacle....So in essence you hypocritical asshats smokers are already paying more then you stupid fucks.
> ...



The original intent of added taxes on cigarettes was to cover the added costs of healthcare and pay for smoker education. at least, that was how it was sold in. However or fearless leaders funneled off most of the money for other pet projects. then we had the $365 billion dollar master settlement agreement which was to go for the same.  but as the money was handed out to states it was left up to them how to use it.  most balanced their budgets and little to none went to the intended purpose


----------



## Connery (Feb 8, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Had that where I live back when Romney was governor. "The Massachusetts health care insurance reform law, St. 2006, c.58, informally referred to as Romneycare, is a state law enacted in 2006, signed into law by then-governor Mitt Romney. The law mandates that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a state-government-regulated minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage and provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL)"

I suggest you speak with your legislators.


----------



## Papawx3 (Feb 8, 2013)

That's what's wrong in this country.  You libs are always about penalizing someone.  You don't want to find solutions to problems that will work for everyone involved.  You have to instead focus on class warfare and penalize one group in order to benefit another.  
There are solutions available.  All you have to do is open your minds and listen to someone else who might have a better idea.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 8, 2013)

Papawx3 said:


> That's what's wrong in this country.  You libs are always about penalizing someone.  You don't want to find solutions to problems that will work for everyone involved.  You have to instead focus on class warfare and penalize one group in order to benefit another.
> There are solutions available.  All you have to do is open your minds and listen to someone else who might have a better idea.



Didn't read anything, didja.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 8, 2013)

Papawx3 said:


> That's what's wrong in this country.  You libs are always about penalizing someone.  You don't want to find solutions to problems that will work for everyone involved.  You have to instead focus on class warfare and penalize one group in order to benefit another.



Reagan started the class war with his Welfare Queen speech.  It was a lie.  No one was picking up their welfare checks in a Cadillac and pumping out kids to raise their welfare checks.  Study after study shows the poor have fewer children than the rich, but from that point on conservatives started vilifying the poor.  All of which leads us to Mitt Romney's 47% rant.  There is your class warfare.

Reagan gave tax cuts to the rich and soon there were more poor people, but those who got richer didn't care, and more and more the poor were blamed for their plight, even as the rich claimed more and more of the nation's wealth, the poor continued to be vilified.  

In the first four years of Reagan's administration, the number of people qualifying for food stamps increased by 40%, even though Reagan tightened the qualifying criteria in order to reduce the number of people receiving assistance.  

So if you want to end class warfare, you can start by ending the war on the poor.


----------



## Papageorgio (Feb 8, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



No kidding, Congress doesn't give a rip about any of us, as long as they can feel important, that is what matters.


----------



## Zander (Feb 10, 2013)




----------



## Spoonman (Feb 10, 2013)

there was a very interesting study done a number of years back that said smokers actually cost less in the long run because they die younger.  they have less years that they draw from the system


----------



## Noomi (Feb 11, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> there was a very interesting study done a number of years back that said smokers actually cost less in the long run because they die younger.  they have less years that they draw from the system



That same study was mentioned to me on a few occasions. It sounds accurate.


----------



## Papageorgio (Feb 11, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > there was a very interesting study done a number of years back that said smokers actually cost less in the long run because they die younger.  they have less years that they draw from the system
> ...



Sounds accurate? That is your basis for believing something? Lol!


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 11, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > there was a very interesting study done a number of years back that said smokers actually cost less in the long run because they die younger.  they have less years that they draw from the system
> ...



the study was very well done. I wish I could remember what it was called.  I know it was eventually used by tobacco companies in their wars with henry waxman back in the 1990's


----------



## dblack (Feb 11, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



Don't see why it matters.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 17, 2013)

If we are going to penalize smokers and the obese by denying them health care because of lifestyle choices, why can't we do the same with those who have STDs and substance abuse issues?  How much does AIDs treatment cost?   Research into a cure runs into the millions.


----------



## dblack (Feb 17, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> If we are going to penalize smokers and the obese by denying them health care because of lifestyle choices, why can't we do the same with those who have STDs and substance abuse issues?  How much does AIDs treatment cost?   Research into a cure runs into the millions.



That's what will be so fun about making health care a government responsibility. We can use it to fuck over people we don't like !

Go team!


----------



## deltex1 (Feb 17, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Only insure fit people who don't need health care or doctor visits.  Max out ins company profits...let the unfit fend for themselves.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 17, 2013)

Why should we have to pay for some kid who wants to fuck around or some druggie that gets an infection from a used needle or an overdose?


----------



## Rozman (Feb 17, 2013)

TMBJB said:


> Also higher premiums for those who do not eat at least 5 fruits and vegetables each day, sedentary  people whether thin or fat, soda drinkers, insomniacs since sleep deprivation severely affects health, those that drive recklessly, and anyone else engaging in any type of unhealthy behaviors.  Sounds fair to me. NOT!



I wanna go after people who breathe too loud,
people who are on the internet constantly and refuse to take typing lessons.
That's just for starters......I have a whole list of people that irritate the crap outta me...


----------



## dblack (Feb 17, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Why should we have to pay for some kid who wants to fuck around or some druggie that gets an infection from a used needle or an overdose?


You shouldn't.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 17, 2013)

dblack said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Why should we have to pay for some kid who wants to fuck around or some druggie that gets an infection from a used needle or an overdose?
> ...



You are already paying for these people in the most expensive ways possible.  Pay for birth control, abortions, or welfare.  Pick one.  Birth control is the cheapest, overall.  Welfare the most expensive.  Insurance companies WANT to pay for birth control.  It's cheaper than paying for a live birth.  They probably charge more when they DON'T cover it because they know what the alternative will be.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 17, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



so what are the annual healthcare costs for the non smokers and obese?


----------



## TyrealJenkins (Feb 18, 2013)

Penalizing smokers is racist.  Because all blacks smoke somethin.  I dont know of a single black man that doesnt smoke weed.


----------



## Noomi (Feb 18, 2013)

TyrealJenkins said:


> Penalizing smokers is racist.  Because all blacks smoke somethin.  I dont know of a single black man that doesnt smoke weed.



You're an idiot, mate.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 18, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



The cheapest way is really to let it go.   Stop paying for birth control, abortions or the children when born, unless they are removed.   Stop paying for the health care of drug addicts AIDS victims or alcoholics.

After all, we have 60,000 or more foreign adoptions a year in this country, we could do with a few unwanted pregnancies.  Just imagine, even insurance companies won't have to pay for a live birth.  That's the responsibility of the adoptive parent.


----------



## lynn63 (Feb 20, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> DeeDeeJack said:
> 
> 
> > I managed the health insurance for a small company for 13 years and I hate to tell everyone but insurance companies have looked at the life styles of everyone applying for health insurance for a long time. And, rates reflected bad behavior. So, if you smoked or drank too much or had any kind of pre-existing disease or were over-weight, you paid a higher premium than those who were considered average. And, if they found that you lied on your health questionaire, they could and did cancel your policy or increase the premium substantially. Also, they could deny coverage if they felt someone was a high risk. Remember ACA was partially written BY insurance companies.
> ...



They want us to believe that our bad behavior is the sole cause of the top five mortality rates while they ignore the high levels of pollutants we are exposed to on a daily basis throughout our lifetime that causes mutations in our genes for those diseases to emerge in the first place.


----------



## tunalips (Feb 20, 2013)

Do you think they will start giving smokers a handicap pass like they give fat people?


----------



## dblack (Feb 20, 2013)

tunalips said:


> Do you think they will start giving smokers a handicap pass like they give fat people?



Corporatism promises a future of special perks and favors depending on what class(es) you belong to. Choose one from column "A", or two from column "B".


----------



## KissMy (Mar 19, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A fat tax will not work at all because more fat people are poor & don't pay for their health care. Most poor people are fat because good tasting fatty & sugarier foods are cheaper than yuckier high protein foods. The only way a tax would work is to tax foods that have high processed carbs, sugar & fat. Remove tax on healthy foods. This way the poor who don't pay for their healthcare can't afford the good tasting unhealthy food that makes them fat. Give us a tax or health insurance credit for physical activity community service.


----------



## earlycuyler (Mar 19, 2013)

Papageorgio said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?
> ...



Yes all. I should not have to pay the consequences of other peoples hobbies and vices. I do find it lazy though to go directly to lardo's and smokers though. They are just easier targets, and easier to get money from.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 19, 2013)

Smokers should be forced to indulge their filthy habit hunkered down outside in the cold and rain

Fat people should be forced to wear bathing suits


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 19, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Omg, this is so funny. "how do we make them responsible for their own higher health care costs"? Seriously? How many times has the right said that exact same thing when it comes to illegal aliens, drug addicts, criminals? 

Make up your fucking minds. Though all you're doing is making evident what we've all known all along..you really don't want free health care for all. You want free health care for YOU. The rest can die and rot, for all you care.

Do you have any idea how many pregnant welfare recipients smoke through their pregnancies???? Do you have any idea how many welfare recipients are obeses?


----------



## dblack (Mar 19, 2013)

KissMy said:


> A fat tax will not work at all because more fat people are poor & don't pay for their health care. Most poor people are fat because good tasting fatty & sugarier foods are cheaper than yuckier high protein foods. The only way a tax would work is to tax *foods that have high processed carbs, sugar & fat*. Remove tax on healthy foods. This way the poor who don't pay for their healthcare can't afford the good tasting unhealthy food that makes them fat. Give us a tax or health insurance credit for physical activity community service.



Re: the bolded portion - do you realize that this sort of food is heavily subsidized by state policy? It's the impulse to use government to manipulate people and markets toward some supposed 'greater good' that creates these problems in the first place.


----------



## KissMy (Mar 19, 2013)

dblack said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > A fat tax will not work at all because more fat people are poor & don't pay for their health care. Most poor people are fat because good tasting fatty & sugarier foods are cheaper than yuckier high protein foods. The only way a tax would work is to tax *foods that have high processed carbs, sugar & fat*. Remove tax on healthy foods. This way the poor who don't pay for their healthcare can't afford the good tasting unhealthy food that makes them fat. Give us a tax or health insurance credit for physical activity community service.
> ...



Yes I know a lot of the problem is because it has been subsidized. Another problem is people demand this type of food. People prefer tender fatty steak to tough lean steak. They prefer soda pop to water. They prefer potato chips to fresh salads. Sweet fatty foods taste good & the advertising increases it's desirability. I can clip tons of coupons for unhealthy foods & take them to a store that will double them & give reward points for them. Finding ones to clip for fresh veggies, fruits & lean meats is nearly impossible.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 19, 2013)

We have more fat people today because in 1998 the standard for healthy weight was lowered.  Overnight perfectly normal people became overweight.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 19, 2013)

And because we have so many more single-parent working households, or households where both parents work, the TIME factor has become huge. You can spend 15 hours a week purchasing and preparing healthy food during the week....or you can drive through McD's and not have to do dishes.

The stuff is deadly, but it's almost impossible for working parents to resist the draw.....


----------



## dblack (Mar 19, 2013)

KissMy said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



But do you get my point though? You're proposing taxing food that is, in large part, overly cheap and plentiful because of existing subsidies. How about just remove the subsidies and leave people free to make their own decisions, unimpeded by artificial incentives or penalties?

My goal here isn't to help you solve the obesity problem, but to give you pause to consider how many of these problems are _caused_ by ill-conceived efforts to solve problems that aren't a proper concern of government. Removing bad regulations won't solve all the problems you want to solve. But it will give us a clearer picture regarding which of our problems are real, and which we are inadvertently creating with bad law. Then we can figure out how to solve them without resorting to law enforcement to tell people how to eat.


----------



## Ernie S. (Mar 19, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > TMBJB said:
> ...



Should we charge higher rates for people living in inner city ghettos?
Heaven forbid THEY die early. It's so inconvenient to get them to the polls.

They all ready cost the rest of us a disproportionate amount in health care, food stamps, housing, education and law enforcement.

Most are in that situation due to poor choices by them or their parents just like the obese and smokers.

The difference is smoking and obesity are not socially acceptable to Progressives and the poor ghetto dwellers are dependable Democrat votes.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 19, 2013)

Most ghetto dwellers smoke like fiends, and a disproportionate number of them are obese as well.

The law is discriminatory against the progressives' darlings!!! Fucking morons. Shows how little they know about the people they have created, and now protect.


----------



## Ernie S. (Mar 19, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Smokers should be forced to indulge their filthy habit hunkered down outside in the cold and rain
> 
> Fat people should be forced to wear bathing suits



And you should be forced to have a lobotomy.


----------



## editec (Mar 19, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Smokers will cost ACA less money per person than non smokers.

Just as now smokers (on average) cost less to medicade than non smokers.

Smokers tend to die fast and they also tend not to live long enough to deal with so many  long term illnesses as non smokers.


----------



## dblack (Mar 19, 2013)

Pauli007001 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > And because we have so many more single-parent working households, or households where both parents work, the TIME factor has become huge. You can spend 15 hours a week purchasing and preparing healthy food during the week....or you can drive through McD's and not have to do dishes.
> ...



Racist!


----------



## tjvh (Mar 19, 2013)

We should all get bar codes tattooed to our foreheads, that way the cashier can scan us and alert a Government agency every time we cannot control ourselves and buy a pint of ice cream. That is what progressives want.


----------



## KissMy (Mar 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> And because we have so many more single-parent working households, or households where both parents work, the TIME factor has become huge. You can spend 15 hours a week purchasing and preparing healthy food during the week....or you can drive through McD's and not have to do dishes.
> 
> The stuff is deadly, but it's almost impossible for working parents to resist the draw.....



Healthy food could be fast & easy at McDonald's. The thing is the tasty unhealthy is more desirable for eaters & profitable for sellers & costly for healthcare. After the EMTALA law the eaters & sellers could care less about the healthcare cost they no longer had to pay.


----------



## dblack (Mar 19, 2013)

KissMy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > And because we have so many more single-parent working households, or households where both parents work, the TIME factor has become huge. You can spend 15 hours a week purchasing and preparing healthy food during the week....or you can drive through McD's and not have to do dishes.
> ...



So, you're saying this problem could be solved by repealing EMTALA?


----------



## Againsheila (Mar 19, 2013)

When I went to school, there were the four food groups.  Times have changed.  I would love for our local community college to offer a nutrition course along with recipes and cooking.  I still cook things my mom used to make and that's just not appropriate anymore.  Our society is so sedentary it's not funny.   Kids don't play outside anymore, they just stay in with their computers.  I can count the number of times I've seen kids outside playing in this neighborhood in the past year on one hand (excluding my next door neighbor who homeschools).  The local baseball field where we used to go to play warm up is now locked.  There is no where for the kids to go to play football or soccer unless they are with and organized group.  It's sad really.  When I grew up all the kids in the neighborhood knew each other, that's not the case anymore.  Heck, I know most of my immediate neighbors but even some of them keep to themselves.  The America I grew up in is gone.

Instead of taxing fat people (smokers are already taxed when they buy the cigarettes), how about encouraging more activities for people outside their homes?  Stop locking the baseball fields?  Make sure there are more parks and places for kids to play and encourage them to go there.  When I was a kid, the zoo was free and we went their frequently as a family.  Now it costs money even to enter the park where the zoo is, then you also pay to get into the zoo.

And of course, make lean meats cheaper and fresh fruits and vegetables cheaper and find a way for people on foodstamps to have to buy food they cook instead of premade sandwiches or frozen pizzas?


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 19, 2013)

Our bodies are biologically designed to store fats and energy for the lean periods that hunter gatherer tribes suffer through periodically.  Our taste buds are designed to make those foods which will sustain us through the lean times, the most desireable.  It's a survival of the species thing.

Our biology hasn't kept pace with the advancements of civilization.  Hunting now means finding the nearest supermarket, and gathering involves taking your cart through check out.  There are no periods where food is not plentiful or available, but our biology is still pointing us to foods which will sustain us through the famine.

Fast food joints are simply exploiting our innate biology and giving the people what they want.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 19, 2013)

KissMy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > And because we have so many more single-parent working households, or households where both parents work, the TIME factor has become huge. You can spend 15 hours a week purchasing and preparing healthy food during the week....or you can drive through McD's and not have to do dishes.
> ...


 
And you nailed it...fresh and healthy is expensive and people don't like it. My kids came home from school starving last night...because they were served what sounded like was fajitas...with peppers, onions, tomatoes...they hate peppers, onions and raw tomatoes. They tossed their food, though it was perfectly reasonable food.

Of course they wouldn't have if it had been the only food available; we've just moved away from the entire mindset of "this is the meal, if you don't eat this, you have to wait for the next meal" that I grew up with. There was always butter and bread to fill up on...but if you didn't like dinner, there wasn't another dinner later, at Wendy's. Mom didn't rush to the kitchen to make grilled cheese sandwiches. It was eat dinner or go hungry. And kids sometimes do choose to go hungry; I can remember sitting at the table and eating just a bite or two of this or that..then eating bread and butter, drinking my milk and heading off to my room.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 19, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> We have more fat people today because in 1998 the standard for healthy weight was lowered.  Overnight perfectly normal people became overweight.



That's what all fat people say. 

That and "its glandular and I have big bones".


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 19, 2013)

Reading some of the posts ... 

You knee jerk haters better be careful. 

You're starting to sound like our First Lady.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 19, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > We have more fat people today because in 1998 the standard for healthy weight was lowered. Overnight perfectly normal people became overweight.
> ...


 
However if they were in a concentration camp setting, I promise you, those are the people who would survive. So obviously they are genetically superior.


----------



## Antares (Mar 19, 2013)

You people do realize that today smoking and obesity is cause for massive rate ups?


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 19, 2013)

Sure they are.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 19, 2013)

This is the problem when government gets involved in our lives. Now, through universal health care, the government is itching to tell us what we may do with our bodies.

That didn't take long.

What will the penalty be for disobedience, I wonder? Fines, initially. Then when that doesn't work, it's just another ploy to justify herding people into containment.


----------



## Antares (Mar 19, 2013)

LOL.....they absolutely are.

The actuaries figured this out years ago, if you go to buy an individual policy and are a smoker and obese IF can be insured you will NOT want to pay for it.





koshergrl said:


> Sure they are.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 19, 2013)

I don't want to pay for it now, dipshit.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 19, 2013)

It sounds to me like you morons are finding your sticking point too...

Eat the rates and be happy. You got what you wanted. Enjoy. You now belong to the insurance companies. And you facilitated being sold to them. Brilliant.


----------



## Antares (Mar 19, 2013)

Yo mama must be so proud of your lack of class chile...




koshergrl said:


> I don't want to pay for it now, dipshit.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 20, 2013)

Employers and insurance companies already penalize them.


----------



## dblack (Mar 21, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Employers and insurance companies already penalize them.



The question is, should the government? Which is an entirely different issue.


----------



## KissMy (Mar 21, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> This is the problem when government gets involved in our lives. Now, through universal health care, the government is itching to tell us what we may do with our bodies.
> 
> That didn't take long.
> 
> What will the penalty be for disobedience, I wonder? Fines, initially. Then when that doesn't work, it's just another ploy to justify herding people into containment.



You nailed it there. Every since EMTALA & PPACA we have to pay for others bad habits, lack of will power, addictions, sex, sedentary video games, TV, disease, etc. Banning these things sucks balls. Taxing poor fat people & smokers who have nothing to tax is useless. 

However taxing cigarettes has dramatically wiped out smokers. Taxing bad food will do the same for fat people. There are activity based video games & out door games, so taxing sedentary video games is not depriving anyone. You can still smoke, eat, drink & be merry but in moderation unless you can afford to pay the true health cost instead of burdening us with it.

It is not an undue tax on the poor because they can drink water, tea, sugar free soda, etc. They can eat good food instead of junk food. They don't have to smoke. They can do these luxury things if they have earned enough to pay the true cost for them.

If we have to choke on the neighbors smoking, tolerate being squeezed by them in ball game, bus & airline seats, pay extra to haul them around, pay for their self inflicted illness, the least they could do is pay us back some tax before they do these things.

Yes us payers have been saddled with the cost of the nanny state. There is no reason we can't make the takers pay for their excessive luxury burdens by taxing them.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 21, 2013)

dblack said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Employers and insurance companies already penalize them.
> ...



The FDA and the Meat Inspection Act, etc, are in force because they are good legislative acts.

So the question is if not if, but why?


----------



## KissMy (Mar 21, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



A tax penalty is one thing, but the FDA flat out bans things people want. They flat out ban raw milk. They should tax it if it is bad for people, but instead they will seize your operation & jail people for selling it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 21, 2013)

Producers of goods and services have no protected right to threaten the health and welfare of their customers.


----------



## AquaAthena (Mar 21, 2013)

*"Should we penalize smokers and the obese?"*

No, they will expire sooner than later, of their own choices, thus saving the taxpayer medical expenses, should that really be your main concern. The government need not take away the freedom of choice, in the interest of "saving" anyone, anything, which is my main concern.

Let life and death evolve of it's own fruition. Nature makes no mistakes, it is said, and to which I ascribe.


----------



## Queecho Feecho (Mar 21, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"We" don't need to do anything in terms of penalizing anybody.  All that "we" need to do is get the government out of healthcare and healthcare financing (aka health insurance, which is really a blend  of pre-paid medical and actual health insurance), and let people, doctors, and would-be insurers engage in voluntary transactions.

Without the government in the way, the insurer could underwrite based on peoples' healthy/unhealthy behaviors.

----edited to add----

Oh yeah, and get rid of laws that foist the costs of one person onto another person.


----------



## Againsheila (Mar 21, 2013)

KissMy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > This is the problem when government gets involved in our lives. Now, through universal health care, the government is itching to tell us what we may do with our bodies.
> ...



I do think perhaps, making lean meats and fresh fruits and vegetables cheaper would help.  Taxing fatty meats and foods might discourage the poor from buying them but then they are priced out of buying any meats and foods.  During our 3 years of hell, we went to the foodbank.  Every week, we got tons of bread an pastries.  Seldom meat, and when we did get meat, it was in a can with a whole lot of fat.  Sometimes we got fresh vegetables and sometimes a can of corn or green beans.  Hardly enough to provide for a family of 4 for a week, and certainly not a good diet.  We didn't qualify for foodstamps.  You wouldn't believe how much fattening food the food banks give out.  I never ate so many pastries in my life.  If you donate to the foodbank, I highly recommend cash with a note that it goes for food only, otherwise they can spend it on anything.  If you are donating food, I recommend canned vegetables or canned white chicken.  Something that is good for them.  I say canned because the food bank doesn't like to accept perishables, they don't have a lot of ways to store perishables.


----------



## Againsheila (Mar 21, 2013)

KissMy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I think the world's gone nuts.  If you have a cow and extra milk and your neighbors are poor and can't afford milk and you give them your extra milk, you can go to jail.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 21, 2013)

Againsheila said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Great advice.


----------



## KissMy (Mar 21, 2013)

Againsheila said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



The tax on the bad food can be used to subsidize the good food keeping it affordable. I totally agree on the food bank food. However if they don't give you enough to ever eat then it is not bad for you. Sugar & fat are energy dense & if you burn more energy than you eat then you wont get fat.

I donate to food-banks that take wild game meat. Hunters on my farm kill at least 10 deer a year. They don't really want the meat, so my family & I butcher, grind & bag it all. We can only eat a couple of deer a year so we donate at least 8 deer worth of meat to the food-banks. Protein calcium & vitamins are good for building strong bones, muscles & brains.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 21, 2013)

We need to start with obese smokers and work our way down


----------



## Underhill (Mar 21, 2013)

Againsheila said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



If you give it to them?    I know it's illegal to sell, but giving it to them I don't see how the FDA can regulate that any more than giving a friend a venison steak.


----------



## Againsheila (Mar 21, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



No, apparently you cannot give away unpasteurized milk, at least not in this state.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 21, 2013)

Underhill, that makes sense if it is done in a private mode with the milk being sold.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 21, 2013)

Againsheila said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Does your state consider it a health hazard?


----------



## Againsheila (Mar 21, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Yes.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 21, 2013)

Bad law.


----------



## dblack (Mar 21, 2013)

Queecho Feecho said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?
> ...



Exactly. I don't quite get the reasoning behind the argument that the unintended consequences of regulation like EMTALA justifies dictating to us how we finance our health care. If these are genuine arguments, and the thing that really has the reformers peeved is freeloaders pushing their health care costs off on the rest of us, then we should attend to the real problem - the regulation that makes it possible. Repeal it or change it to prevent the negative effects.


----------



## dblack (Mar 21, 2013)

Againsheila said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



They have to do it that way. Otherwise the laws banning sale are relatively easy to get around. What if I was 'giving' away unpasteurized milk and accepting charitable contributions from the recipients of my gifts? Where do you draw that line? That's why commercial regulation of this nature is so poisonous. It inevitably violates our rights and needlessly inserts the authority of government into personal, private decisions.

Seriously, is this what government's for? To tell us how to eat?


----------



## KissMy (Mar 21, 2013)

dblack said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b27EFldZ17k"]Police "Guns Drawn" Raids on Organic Food Stores[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW00OqtQyqw"]RAWESOME RAID[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdLxMKuxyr4"]Ohio food coop raid[/ame]


----------



## KissMy (Mar 27, 2013)

Againsheila said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Big Corporations won't even allow you to say your milk is free of artificial hormones.

"In 2003, Monsanto sued Oakhurst Dairy over Oakhurst's label on its milk cartons that said "Our farmer's pledge: no artificial hormones," referring to the use of bovine somatotropin (rBST). Monsanto argued that the label implied that Oakhurst milk was superior to milk from cows treated with rBST, which harmed Monsanto's business. The two companies settled out of court, and it was announced that Oakhurst would add the word "used" at the end of its label, and note that the U.S. FDA claims there is no major difference between milk from rBST-treated and non rBST-treated cows."


----------



## Dragonlady (May 27, 2013)

The food stamp program cannot be used to buy fresh, unprocessed foods. You can buy a bag of potato chips with your food stamps, but not a fresh, uncooked potato. You can buy a box of pizza pockets, but not a whole uncooked chicken. What kind of nutritional program favors processed foods over fresh?


----------



## Gracie (May 27, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> The food stamp program cannot be used to buy fresh, unprocessed foods. You can buy a bag of potato chips with your food stamps, but not a fresh, uncooked potato. You can buy a box of pizza pockets, but not a whole uncooked chicken. What kind of nutritional program favors processed foods over fresh?



Huh? That is not true. The only thing in my state that I cannot get with food stamps is something from a deli located in the market that is pre made or pre cooked.


----------



## Rozman (May 27, 2013)

TMBJB said:


> Also higher premiums for those who do not eat at least 5 fruits and vegetables each day, sedentary  people whether thin or fat, soda drinkers, insomniacs since sleep deprivation severely affects health, those that drive recklessly, and anyone else engaging in any type of unhealthy behaviors.  Sounds fair to me. NOT!



Those in high risk professions should pay more as well then.

Police
Firefighters
crane operators
taxi drivers
window washers
construction workers
fisherman
sushi makers...(real sharp knives)
animal handlers in a zoo
drug dealers
explosive manufacturers

and so on and so on.....


----------



## lynn63 (May 27, 2013)

Connery said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Connery said:
> ...



Yet they still have 215 thousand adults and 43 thousand children still without healthcare.


----------



## dblack (May 27, 2013)

Rozman said:


> TMBJB said:
> 
> 
> > Also higher premiums for those who do not eat at least 5 fruits and vegetables each day, sedentary  people whether thin or fat, soda drinkers, insomniacs since sleep deprivation severely affects health, those that drive recklessly, and anyone else engaging in any type of unhealthy behaviors.  Sounds fair to me. NOT!
> ...



Exactly. And so on. 

What we need is a system that itemizes responsibility accurately. Something that encourages people to be accountable for maintaining healthy habits.

Hmmm....


----------

