Tobacco use and the ACA (Obamacare)

[auditor0007]

Doesn't the President smoke?

I believe he finally quit.

 

[auditor0007]

Doesn't the President smoke?

Bone-her does.

You can tell he does. It's funny how you can usually pick out a smoker once they get past their forties. Their faces just don't look healthy.

 

[Care4all]

It depends on your own State laws....if your state has a law that permits insurance companies to charge more for smoking or if your state does not allow insurance to charge more for smokers...

That's how it is now...some States allow the surcharge, some states don't.

Why doesn't ACA encompass all tobacco users in all states? Is this a national health policy or not? Why are cancer patients covered and not tobacco users?

Drug addicts? Epileptics?? AIDS patients? Turrets syndrome? Agoraphobia? Persons with aversion to cockroach infested fire fighter boots?

Honestly, what the fuck is going on here?

I agree with you, that charging smokers more is unfair....it's been happening all along though, for a couple of decades now....nothing new there...and it's simply wrong...

I'm certain if the ACA didn't allow insurance companies to charge more for smokers you all would have been accusing the Negro in chief Obama for easing up on smokers because he is one....eh?

 

[auditor0007]

It appears that the ACA is a mandate for all Americans to quit using tobacco...

Toolkit: Tobacco Cessation and the Affordable Care Act - American Lung Association

If people choose to smoke, that is their business, but it comes with a cost. It's unfortunate that the vast majority of smokers are lower income earners. It makes things that much more difficult for them. The only issue I have with the tobacco companies is the fact that they lied to us for years, and they knew they were lying. They didn't care if they killed people or not. Looking back, I wish I had never started smoking. If cigarettes had been as expensive back then as they are today, I'm not sure I would have ever started.

 

[auditor0007]

Which all begs the question... is tobacco usage a matter of checking a box on the application?

Is a blood test involved?

Will the government ultimately draw the blood of every American?

If not, why not?

If you state that you are a non-smoker and do not pay smoker's rates, if you become seriously ill due to your smoking, the insurance company may not cover your bills.

 

[Mr. H.]

It depends on your own State laws....if your state has a law that permits insurance companies to charge more for smoking or if your state does not allow insurance to charge more for smokers...

That's how it is now...some States allow the surcharge, some states don't.

Why doesn't ACA encompass all tobacco users in all states? Is this a national health policy or not? Why are cancer patients covered and not tobacco users?

Drug addicts? Epileptics?? AIDS patients? Turrets syndrome? Agoraphobia? Persons with aversion to cockroach infested fire fighter boots?

Honestly, what the fuck is going on here?

I agree with you, that charging smokers more is unfair....it's been happening all along though, for a couple of decades now....nothing new there...and it's simply wrong...

I'm certain if the ACA didn't allow insurance companies to charge more for smokers you all would have been accusing the Negro in chief Obama for easing up on smokers because he is one....eh?

Negro be damned... it's about encompassing all Americans. Where's the meth provision? Heroin? Paint huffers? Toenail smokers...

The singular exception here is... tobacco.

And NOT second hand smoke- which kills 3,000 Americans annually. Where's that exception?

Is anyone beginning to see what a monumental bastardized fuck up this whole charade is becoming?

The ACA is my incentive to abuse tobacco to the point of debilitating myself and thereby receiving reduced premiums with greater benefits.

 

[Wry Catcher]

My Papa lived o be 94, he smoked cigs and cigars, dipped Skoal and chewed Redman. he died of Kidnet failure.
People get cancer and die that have never used tobacco.
It's just a reason to jack up the prices by private insurers.

I'm 65 and three close friends from my youth died around their 50th Birthday; each was a heavy cigarette smoker. My Dad's 92 and he quit smoking in 1955; his twin sister never quit and died of lung cancer 12 years ago.

Smoking causes more than cancer, it raises blood pressure which has a negative effect on the kidneys and causes platelet's in the blood to become sticky, causing the arteries to constrict leading to heart attacks, strokes and PAD.

Since a pack of smokes is around $5, it seems a pack and a half a day smoker will spend more harming his body in a month then s/he will pay for health care under the ACA.

 

[Mr. H.]

It appears that the ACA is a mandate for all Americans to quit using tobacco...

Toolkit: Tobacco Cessation and the Affordable Care Act - American Lung Association

If people choose to smoke, that is their business, but it comes with a cost. It's unfortunate that the vast majority of smokers are lower income earners. It makes things that much more difficult for them. The only issue I have with the tobacco companies is the fact that they lied to us for years, and they knew they were lying. They didn't care if they killed people or not. Looking back, I wish I had never started smoking. If cigarettes had been as expensive back then as they are today, I'm not sure I would have ever started.

There is an exception for obesity. There is an exception for non-tobacco related cancers. There is an exception for Honey Boo Boo insanity. It's all covered... unless you smoke or "chew". Alcoholic? No problem. You wine 'em, we dine 'em. Cafeteria Health Care. Just stay away from that shit that looks like spinach... tobacco.

It's a goddamn clusterfuck. And that little semi-negro prick of a Pres just shot his jizz wad all over your lick-tard faces.

 

[auditor0007]

It appears that the ACA is a mandate for all Americans to quit using tobacco...

Toolkit: Tobacco Cessation and the Affordable Care Act - American Lung Association

If people choose to smoke, that is their business, but it comes with a cost. It's unfortunate that the vast majority of smokers are lower income earners. It makes things that much more difficult for them. The only issue I have with the tobacco companies is the fact that they lied to us for years, and they knew they were lying. They didn't care if they killed people or not. Looking back, I wish I had never started smoking. If cigarettes had been as expensive back then as they are today, I'm not sure I would have ever started.

There is an exception for obesity. There is an exception for non-tobacco related cancers. There is an exception for Honey Boo Boo insanity. It's all covered... unless you smoke or "chew". Alcoholic? No problem. You wine 'em, we dine 'em. Cafeteria Health Care. Just stay away from that shit that looks like spinach... tobacco.

It's a goddamn clusterfuck. And that little semi-negro prick of a Pres just shot his jizz wad all over your lick-tard faces.

You do realize that insurance companies have always charged a higher premium for smokers, right? This isn't something new. Secondly, many states are not allowing it any longer. Maybe you would be more supportive of a national healthcare system paid for by tax dollars. Then you wouldn't have to worry about paying more for your tobacco use.

 

[Mr. H.]

Who said I use tobacco?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Smokers should pay more for insurance, they are a higher risk. People who are obese should pay more for insurance, they are a higher risk. People who have diabetes should pay more for insurance, they are a higher risk.

What a lot of you are missing is Mr. H's point. All other high-risk people don't pay more, they've spread the cost out to the rest of us (so we get to pay more so the high-risk people don't. That's fair??? That's fucked up) but they have not done so with tobacco. Smokers still have to pay more but obese people don't.

Someone tell me ... should a 16 year old newly licensed driver pay the same for car insurance as a 40 year old, 30 years experience, good track record driver?

Yet, that is the idiocy of the ACA. Well, except for the ebil, ebil smokers.

 

[Politico]

Hey. If you can't control people's behavior, legislate it am I right?

Doesn't the President smoke?

He's smoked everything from stogies to poles. What does tha matter? He's not beholden to the same laws we are.

 

[Care4all]

I went to a Maine government site.... and only 2 insurance companies are offering health care insurance on the exchange in my State, one is Anthem blue Cross Blue shield, and for Smokers they are charging 30% more for an individual smoker's policy, if there are more people in the family policy that do not smoke, they do NOT raise the price of their portion of costs on the policy, only the smoker's portion of the policy is raised by the 30%.

The second Insurance choice on the marketplace exchange is a NON-PROFIT health insurance company, and this company DOES NOT charge more for smoker's.

so, the poor that do smoke in Maine, with the NON-PROFIT insurance company on the exchange, will NOT be charged more for being a smoker if they choose a plan from them...

and I might say, from all that I skimmed over, the NON-PROFIT Insurance company, has better Insurance plans and policies, for Mainers allowed to purchase on the exchange, than what Blue Cross blue shield is offering on Maine's exchange.

6 years ago, when we moved to Maine, I applied for a health Insurance Policy through Anthem Blue Cross Blue shield, (My husband is a disabled vet so he gets his coverage through the VA) it had a high deductible of $2000, with $7500 out of pocket expense before Insurance came in and covered 100%, 20%/80% before such.... This policy for JUST ME, yes just me, was $12,500 a year for just the premiums...and I am a non smoker, have no conditions or sickness, and take no medicines for any illness, had not hit my 50's yet, but was close....(insurance goes up, every year from your age)

Now, 6 year's older, on the exchange with Anthem Blue Cross/Blue shield, with a $2000 deductible and $4000 out of pocket expense before they come in and pay 100% 20%/80%, the policy runs $9300 a year that's a HUGE savings each year! So, at least in my State, Insurance on the exchange is cheaper than it was 6 years ago, before the ACA passed. Don't get me WRONG, Insurance costs, if you don't have a group insurance plan through an employer who is footing most of the bill is OUTRAGEOUS, and unaffordable in most cases with most people....I am just saying that on the exchange, it is more affordable than it was prior to the exchange....which is a GOOD THING imho.

Also, I was wondering if ALL States have a non-profit on the exchange that does not penalize the poor for being smokers?

Has anyone else checked out their State's exchange or read up on it on their State's gvt site?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I recently attended an informational meeting on the ACA, and everything was presented like it was roses and chocolates. Except for one key word- tobacco.

No "pre-existing conditions" to worry about. No one can be denied.

But tobacco usage is the Red Flag here... the only Red Flag.

WASHINGTON — Smokers – and chewers – in some states may have to pay as much as 50% more in premiums than non-smokers if they sign up for insurance through state health exchanges that open next month, according to provisions in the Affordable Care Act.

Health law smoking penalties could hit poor the hardest

So why isn't tobacco use considered a pre-existing condition?

Opponents of the rule argue that smoking is an addiction that can't be ended through punishment and that smokers need insurance because of their health issues. Also, they say, there is no proof that higher costs for insurance cause smokers to quit.

Ahhh... but if you use tobacco AND have a chronic condition, you may come out on the better end of the deal -

...smokers with chronic conditions will at least save money because they won't have to pay higher premiums for having health problems even if they have to pay a penalty for using tobacco.

Evidently, low-income communities will be paying much higher premiums...

"Tobacco disproportionately targets low-income communities,..."

And even the American Lung Association has serious concerns...

The American Lung Association also opposes tobacco surcharges, said Jennifer Singleterry, the group's manager of lung health policy. "We believe smokers should be helped to quit, but not punished for not doing so," she said.
The surcharge could cost people hundreds or even thousands of dollars more, depending on a person's policy and if they are already being charged more for age, she said.

SO... here we have a pre-existing condition that is denied under the ACA and primarily targets the poor.

The Semi-Negro In Chief.

Gotta love that little nappy headed boy.

I smoked for 30 years and paid higher premiums because of it. Too fucking bad. If they want lower premiums, then they should quit like I did. I'm upset that most states are actually not charging higher premiums to smokers, but I didn't set this thing up.

Why shouldn't smokers pay for their own actions?

Not long ago, the usual haters all said that gays should have to pay higher premiums because they 'engage in dangerous behavior'.

But, the op and other seem to be saying they should not have to pay for their own actions.

 

[dblack]

I recently attended an informational meeting on the ACA, and everything was presented like it was roses and chocolates. Except for one key word- tobacco.

No "pre-existing conditions" to worry about. No one can be denied.

But tobacco usage is the Red Flag here... the only Red Flag.

WASHINGTON — Smokers – and chewers – in some states may have to pay as much as 50% more in premiums than non-smokers if they sign up for insurance through state health exchanges that open next month, according to provisions in the Affordable Care Act.

Health law smoking penalties could hit poor the hardest

So why isn't tobacco use considered a pre-existing condition?

Opponents of the rule argue that smoking is an addiction that can't be ended through punishment and that smokers need insurance because of their health issues. Also, they say, there is no proof that higher costs for insurance cause smokers to quit.

Ahhh... but if you use tobacco AND have a chronic condition, you may come out on the better end of the deal -

...smokers with chronic conditions will at least save money because they won't have to pay higher premiums for having health problems even if they have to pay a penalty for using tobacco.

Evidently, low-income communities will be paying much higher premiums...

"Tobacco disproportionately targets low-income communities,..."

And even the American Lung Association has serious concerns...

The American Lung Association also opposes tobacco surcharges, said Jennifer Singleterry, the group's manager of lung health policy. "We believe smokers should be helped to quit, but not punished for not doing so," she said.
The surcharge could cost people hundreds or even thousands of dollars more, depending on a person's policy and if they are already being charged more for age, she said.

SO... here we have a pre-existing condition that is denied under the ACA and primarily targets the poor.

The Semi-Negro In Chief.

Gotta love that little nappy headed boy.

I smoked for 30 years and paid higher premiums because of it. Too fucking bad. If they want lower premiums, then they should quit like I did. I'm upset that most states are actually not charging higher premiums to smokers, but I didn't set this thing up.

Why shouldn't smokers pay for their own actions?

Not long ago, the usual haters all said that gays should have to pay higher premiums because they 'engage in dangerous behavior'.

But, the op and other seem to be saying they should not have to pay for their own actions.

Yep. That's where all this is headed. All of our personal health decisions are now up for political debate. Lovely.

 

[Care4all]

I recently attended an informational meeting on the ACA, and everything was presented like it was roses and chocolates. Except for one key word- tobacco.

No "pre-existing conditions" to worry about. No one can be denied.

But tobacco usage is the Red Flag here... the only Red Flag.

WASHINGTON — Smokers – and chewers – in some states may have to pay as much as 50% more in premiums than non-smokers if they sign up for insurance through state health exchanges that open next month, according to provisions in the Affordable Care Act.

Health law smoking penalties could hit poor the hardest

So why isn't tobacco use considered a pre-existing condition?

Opponents of the rule argue that smoking is an addiction that can't be ended through punishment and that smokers need insurance because of their health issues. Also, they say, there is no proof that higher costs for insurance cause smokers to quit.

Ahhh... but if you use tobacco AND have a chronic condition, you may come out on the better end of the deal -

...smokers with chronic conditions will at least save money because they won't have to pay higher premiums for having health problems even if they have to pay a penalty for using tobacco.

Evidently, low-income communities will be paying much higher premiums...

"Tobacco disproportionately targets low-income communities,..."

And even the American Lung Association has serious concerns...

The American Lung Association also opposes tobacco surcharges, said Jennifer Singleterry, the group's manager of lung health policy. "We believe smokers should be helped to quit, but not punished for not doing so," she said.
The surcharge could cost people hundreds or even thousands of dollars more, depending on a person's policy and if they are already being charged more for age, she said.

SO... here we have a pre-existing condition that is denied under the ACA and primarily targets the poor.

The Semi-Negro In Chief.

Gotta love that little nappy headed boy.

I smoked for 30 years and paid higher premiums because of it. Too fucking bad. If they want lower premiums, then they should quit like I did. I'm upset that most states are actually not charging higher premiums to smokers, but I didn't set this thing up.

Why shouldn't smokers pay for their own actions?

Not long ago, the usual haters all said that gays should have to pay higher premiums because they 'engage in dangerous behavior'.

But, the op and other seem to be saying they should not have to pay for their own actions.

Why shouldn't alcoholics? why shouldn't people with type 2 diabetes due to self obesity? why shouldn't the heroin addict? why shouldn't the cocaine addict? why shouldn't the sky diver? Why shouldn't the person with cancer running in their family pay more?

It's a matter of principle....if none of the other illegal addicts, and high riskers have to pay more, why should the tobacco addict be singled out?

The cigarette smoker is ALREADY paying for SCHIP, for children's health care for the entire USA...plus for whatever their state collects in taxes to use etc etc etc.....

It's simply unjust....and it's been unjust, long before the ACA.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Why doesn't ACA encompass all tobacco users in all states? Is this a national health policy or not? Why are cancer patients covered and not tobacco users?

Drug addicts? Epileptics?? AIDS patients? Turrets syndrome? Agoraphobia? Persons with aversion to cockroach infested fire fighter boots?

Honestly, what the fuck is going on here?

I agree with you, that charging smokers more is unfair....it's been happening all along though, for a couple of decades now....nothing new there...and it's simply wrong...

I'm certain if the ACA didn't allow insurance companies to charge more for smokers you all would have been accusing the Negro in chief Obama for easing up on smokers because he is one....eh?

Negro be damned... it's about encompassing all Americans. Where's the meth provision? Heroin? Paint huffers? Toenail smokers...

The singular exception here is... tobacco.

And NOT second hand smoke- which kills 3,000 Americans annually. Where's that exception?

Is anyone beginning to see what a monumental bastardized fuck up this whole charade is becoming?

The ACA is my incentive to abuse tobacco to the point of debilitating myself and thereby receiving reduced premiums with greater benefits.

That'll show them!

Seriously, you have me LOLing.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I smoked for 30 years and paid higher premiums because of it. Too fucking bad. If they want lower premiums, then they should quit like I did. I'm upset that most states are actually not charging higher premiums to smokers, but I didn't set this thing up.

Why shouldn't smokers pay for their own actions?

Not long ago, the usual haters all said that gays should have to pay higher premiums because they 'engage in dangerous behavior'.

But, the op and other seem to be saying they should not have to pay for their own actions.

Yep. That's where all this is headed. All of our personal health decisions are now up for political debate. Lovely.

That's bullshit of course but, where is the righteous indignation when the Rs are discussing how best to screw over women?

They're egging them on.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Why shouldn't smokers pay for their own actions?

Not long ago, the usual haters all said that gays should have to pay higher premiums because they 'engage in dangerous behavior'.

But, the op and other seem to be saying they should not have to pay for their own actions.

Yep. That's where all this is headed. All of our personal health decisions are now up for political debate. Lovely.

That's bullshit of course but, where is the righteous indignation when the Rs are discussing how best to screw over women?

They're egging them on.

dblack, you DO know, don't you, that smoker's have been paying higher premiums for a long time and, its your poor beleaguered insurance companies who made that decision.

Jeeeeez.

 

[BillyV]

My Papa lived o be 94, he smoked cigs and cigars, dipped Skoal and chewed Redman. he died of Kidnet failure.
People get cancer and die that have never used tobacco.
It's just a reason to jack up the prices by private insurers.

I love the anecdotal stories about how someone's relative lived to be 100 smoking five packs of cigarettes per day. Those are great stories, but they ignore the millions of people who need to be hooked up to an oxygen tank for the rest of their lives due to smoking. The truth is that lung cancer isn't the worst thing that can happen to a smoker, because that usually kills them quickly. The fact is that smokers cost us more in healthcare, especially as they get older.

Actually, no. Smokers cost the healthcare system the least over the course of their lives; since they don't live as long they spend many less years accessing the system. And if you consider the amount they also pay in federal taxes to support other healthcare initiatives like SCHIP, they are contributing much more than your average non-smoker. Add in the fact that they also don't collect Social Security nearly as long, it's a net budget positive that people smoke. A free market health insurance program would naturally charge more since they do tend to have costly diseases during discrete policy periods, and the insurer gets no benefit from the shorter life span since they obviously stop paying premiums. But a "national" health plan does benefit from those things and should take them into consideration.