I know this is simple but.. who gets cancer most: smokers or non-smokers?

healthmyths

Platinum Member
Sep 19, 2011
28,396
9,973
900
I know that sounds stupid BUT idiots who are so in favor of Obamacare specifically the ban on "pre-existing conditions" obviously have NO CLUE!

If they did they would understand that now because of the ban insurance companies for example in the case of smokers will because they don't know who is and isn't will raise the rates for everyone! And that's because they don't know which policyholder will cost them more due to cancer caused by smoking!!

I know that sounds too obvious BUT WAKE up people that's how it is!
So today insurance companies are RAISING employer rates in order to cover:
A) All applicants regardless of "pre-existing conditions"..i.e. smokers
B) Adults up to age 26 on parents' policies!

THESE two factors alone are RAISING employer rates and this didn't have to happen!


Obamacare, the law’s architect, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, was all over the op-ed pages, talking about how the bill would reduce the cost of health insurance. “What we know for sure,” he told Ezra Klein, “is that [the bill] will lower the cost of buying non-group health insurance.”

It is important to recognize some limitations in our modeling of prices. In particular, given publicly available data we cannot incorporate the effects of the ban on pre-existing conditions exclusions. This ban will cause a rise in premiums as insurers are forced to cover conditions that they had previously excluded. In addition, there are new premium taxes on insurers that will raise premium rates…Overall, we cannot predict the net impacts of these factors on premiums without more analysis.

How Obamacare Dramatically Increases the Cost of Insurance for Young Workers - Forbes
 
I switched to electronic cigarettes almost two years ago after 25 years of a pack and a half a day.

I feel better than ever, saved tons of money and the e-cigs are a far more pleasurable experience.

I recently purchased the Cadillac of E - cigs, the ProVari. Amazing device!

No smoke, just flavored water vapor with nicotine...mmmmmmmm

Oh and you do realize that smoking has never been considered a pre existing condition right? And smokers pay higher premiums? And that won't change under the Affordable Care Act right?
 
Who gets cancer most? Perhaps that question would be better phrased as "Who gets LUNG cancer most?" Or, "Who gets ESOPHAGEAL cancer most?'' Then again, many smoke for decades and die cancer free at an elderly age. I believe that our deaths are partly pre-destined.

Yes, genetics often predisposes many to cancers or other problems.

So do we do genetic testing for these predisposition markers and charge accordingly for insurance?
 
It seems there is absolutely no way to avoid some of your healthcare dollar going to pay for someone else's illness.
 
Who do you think pays for the cancer treatments of those who do NOT have health insurance?

Why can't the rw's understand this very simple fact?

And why are they so against personal responsibility?

And, DAMMIT, WHY do they continue to demand that we pay more than any other developed country but get way less than they do?

Why don't we deserve the same caliber of care that we taxpayers pay for our congress to get? If they're so damned against it, why don't they pay for their own? Why can't the whole country have the same high quality of health care coverage that Mass has?

I friggin sick of paying for the rw's health care at the emergency room because they don't want to buy their own health insurance.
 
A Chinese study linked specific types of cancers to specific foods, particularly foods from animals.

Perhaps we should deny health coverage to meat eaters and milk drinkers too.

Sidebar:
If you have streaming NetFlix, check out the documentary Forks over Knives. I'll never give up steak but it certainly makes a strong case for it.
 
Who gets cancer most? Perhaps that question would be better phrased as "Who gets LUNG cancer most?" Or, "Who gets ESOPHAGEAL cancer most?'' Then again, many smoke for decades and die cancer free at an elderly age. I believe that our deaths are partly pre-destined.

Yes, genetics often predisposes many to cancers or other problems.

So do we do genetic testing for these predisposition markers and charge accordingly for insurance?


Often, predisposition markers skip a generation.
So, in your socialist world, skipped generations pay the cargo for others.
Simpleton.
 
Who gets cancer most? Perhaps that question would be better phrased as "Who gets LUNG cancer most?" Or, "Who gets ESOPHAGEAL cancer most?'' Then again, many smoke for decades and die cancer free at an elderly age. I believe that our deaths are partly pre-destined.

Yes, genetics often predisposes many to cancers or other problems.

So do we do genetic testing for these predisposition markers and charge accordingly for insurance?


Often, predisposition markers skip a generation.
So, in your socialist world, skipped generations pay the cargo for others.
Simpleton.

As opposed to your fascist world, where we simply kill them to eliminate the defective gene and perfect the race?
 
Yes, genetics often predisposes many to cancers or other problems.

So do we do genetic testing for these predisposition markers and charge accordingly for insurance?


Often, predisposition markers skip a generation.
So, in your socialist world, skipped generations pay the cargo for others.
Simpleton.

As opposed to your fascist world, where we simply kill them to eliminate the defective gene and perfect the race?

Thanx for putting words into U.S. Cit.'s mouth.
You quoted the wrong post, for sure!!! :D
 
Often, predisposition markers skip a generation.
So, in your socialist world, skipped generations pay the cargo for others.
Simpleton.

As opposed to your fascist world, where we simply kill them to eliminate the defective gene and perfect the race?

Thanx for putting words into U.S. Cit.'s mouth.
You quoted the wrong post, for sure!!! :D


:D well it seemed one ridiculous post deserved a ridiculous response.

Without hijacking the thread, Im wondering what your thoughts are on Congress' history ( both Rep and Dem ) of borrowing money from the future to pay for today?
 
Who gets cancer most? Perhaps that question would be better phrased as "Who gets LUNG cancer most?" Or, "Who gets ESOPHAGEAL cancer most?'' Then again, many smoke for decades and die cancer free at an elderly age. I believe that our deaths are partly pre-destined.

Yes, genetics often predisposes many to cancers or other problems.

So do we do genetic testing for these predisposition markers and charge accordingly for insurance?


Often, predisposition markers skip a generation.
So, in your socialist world, skipped generations pay the cargo for others.
Simpleton.

I said genetic testing not genetic family history. The marker would not show if it skipped you.
Uber simpleton.
:D
 
Last edited:
Yes, genetics often predisposes many to cancers or other problems.

So do we do genetic testing for these predisposition markers and charge accordingly for insurance?


Often, predisposition markers skip a generation.
So, in your socialist world, skipped generations pay the cargo for others.
Simpleton.

I said genetic testing not genetic family history. The marker would not show if it skipped you.
Uber simpleton.
:D

:slap:
 
We have always paid for Health Insurance for the uninsured, difference now is the astronomical cost. Tort reform could go a long way for reducing the cost. Trial lawyers a/k/a ambulance chasers have raised health care costs 10 fold over the last 40 years.

Heck when my oldest child was born, I didn't need health insurance, I could afford to (and did) pay the cost of the doctor and the hospital. It was a whole $350.00. Can't do that today.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top