Should we penalize smokers and the obese?

[Luddly Neddite]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Katzndogz]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Obesity is its own worst punishment - kinda like virginity.

 

[AquaAthena]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.