Should we penalize smokers and the obese?

[longknife]

Put 'em all in the clink!

 

[Dragonlady]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

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

 

[Zander]

 

[Spoonman]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Spoonman]

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.

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]

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.

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

Don't see why it matters.

 

[Katzndogz]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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...