Obama Care will target cigarette smokers.....

[LoudMcCloud]

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

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

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

it is about control nothing more nothing less

or and how it can be taxed

 

[editec]

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

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

 

[LoudMcCloud]

Obamacare will make us a nation of part-time employees

 

[jon_berzerk]

Obamacare will make us a nation of part-time employees

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

the prezbo felt the urge to talk minimum wage increases

 

[tap4154]

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

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

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

 

[t_polkow]

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

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

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

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

 

[BillyV]

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

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

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

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

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

The actual numbers for lifetime from 20 years old medical costs were:

“The lifetime costs were in Euros:

Healthy: 281,000

Obese: 250,000

Smokers: 220,000

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

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

 

[tap4154]

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

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

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

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

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

The actual numbers for lifetime from 20 years old medical costs were:

“The lifetime costs were in Euros:

Healthy: 281,000

Obese: 250,000

Smokers: 220,000

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

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

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

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

 

[dblack]

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

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

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

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

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

The actual numbers for lifetime from 20 years old medical costs were:

“The lifetime costs were in Euros:

Healthy: 281,000

Obese: 250,000

Smokers: 220,000

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

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

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

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

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

 

[BillyV]

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

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

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

The actual numbers for lifetime from 20 years old medical costs were:

“The lifetime costs were in Euros:

Healthy: 281,000

Obese: 250,000

Smokers: 220,000

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

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

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

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

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

 

[alan1]

Good. That is the way it should be.

Why do you think that?

 

[BillyV]

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

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

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

The actual numbers for lifetime from 20 years old medical costs were:

“The lifetime costs were in Euros:

Healthy: 281,000

Obese: 250,000

Smokers: 220,000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dblack]

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

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

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

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

 

[BillyV]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[American76Pride]

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

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

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

 

[boedicca]

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

you voted for it

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

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

 

[boedicca]

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

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

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

You don't understand economics much, do you?

 

[American76Pride]

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

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

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

You don't understand economics much, do you?

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

 

[boedicca]

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

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

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

You don't understand economics much, do you?

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

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