Should we penalize smokers and the obese?

[Connery]

The smoking bans in public buildings, bars and restaurants have made it possible for those of use who don't like cigarette smoke to go out in public again. I quit going to bars and restaurants completely in the 1990's because I couldn't stand the smoke. Now eating in restaurants is pleasant again.

Next we have to ban cell phones, bad manners and belching as a sign it was a good meal.

 

[Dragonlady]

Next we have to ban cell phones, bad manners and belching as a sign it was a good meal.

If you want to pollute the air around you, smell like an ashtray, and shorten your life, feel free to do so, but you don't have the right to pollute MY air, and subject ME to asthma attacks and carcinogens. So take it outside, and at least 50 feet from the front entrance to any building.

 

[Connery]

Next we have to ban cell phones, bad manners and belching as a sign it was a good meal.

If you want to pollute the air around you, smell like an ashtray, and shorten your life, feel free to do so, but you don't have the right to pollute MY air, and subject ME to asthma attacks and carcinogens. So take it outside, and at least 50 feet from the front entrance to any building.

I do not smoke, but, you sure are burned up over my statement...

Also, I hope you do not wear perfume, deodorant and bathe regularly as not to stink up the area where i eat.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Really? Just by way of example....

State of New York - Regulation of Smoking in Public and Work Places

§ 1399-o. Smoking restrictions.

1. Smoking shall not be permitted and no person shall smoke in the following indoor areas:

• Places of employment;
• Bars;
• Food service establishments, except as provided in subdivision six of section thirteen hundred ninety-nine-q of this article;
• Enclosed indoor areas open to the public containing a swimming pool;
• public means of mass transportation, including subways, underground subway stations, and when occupied by passengers, buses, vans, taxicabs and limousines;
• Ticketing, boarding and waiting areas in public transportation terminals;
• Youth centers and facilities for detention as defined in sections five hundred twenty-seven-a and five hundred three of the executive law;
• Any facility that provides child care services as defined in section four hundred ten-p of the social services law, provided that such services provided in a private home are excluded from this subdivision when children enrolled in such day care are not present;
• Child day care centers as defined in section three hundred ninety of the social services law and child day care centers licensed by the city of New York;
• Group homes for children as defined in section three hundred seventy-one of the social services law;
• Public institutions for children as defined in section three hundred seventy-one of the social services law;
• Residential treatment facilities for children and youth as defined in section 1.03 of the mental hygiene law;
• All public and private colleges, universities and other educational and vocational institutions, including dormitories, residence halls, and other group residential facilities that are owned or operated by such colleges, universities and other educational and vocational institutions, except that these restrictions shall not apply in any off-campus residential unit occupied by a person who is not enrolled as an undergraduate student in such college, university or other educational institution;
• General hospitals and residential health care facilities as defined in article twenty-eight of this chapter, and other health care facilities licensed by the state in which persons reside; provided, however, that the provisions of this subdivision shall not prohibit smoking by patients in separate enclosed rooms of residential health care facilities, adult care facilities established or certified under title two of article seven of the social services law, community mental health residences established under section 41.44 of the mental hygiene law, or facilities where day treatment programs are provided, which are designated as smoking rooms for patients of such facilities or programs;
• Commercial establishments used for the purpose of carrying on or exercising any trade, profession, vocation or charitable activity;
• Indoor arenas;
• Zoos; and
• Bingo facilities.

2. Smoking shall not be permitted and no person shall smoke in the following outdoor areas: Ticketing, boarding or platform areas of railroad stations operated by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority or its subsidiaries.
3. Smoking shall not be permitted and no person shall smoke within one hundred feet of the entrances, exits or outdoor areas of any public or private elementary or secondary schools; provided, however, that the provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to smoking in a residence, or within real property boundary lines of such residential real property. The provisions of section Thirteen Hundred Ninety-Nine-P of this article shall not apply to this subdivision.

State of New York - Regulation of Smoking in Public and Work Places

Obesity

"The city's Board of Health approved Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s ban on large sugar-sweetened drinks at its monthly meeting Thursday morning. Eight members voted for it, and one abstained; no one voted against the proposal.

Under the plan, all restaurants, fast-food joints, delis, movie theaters, sports stadiums and even food carts will be barred from selling sugar-sweetened drinks in cups larger than 16 ounces.

“This is the single biggest step any city has ever taken to curb obesity,” Mayor Michael Bloomberg said at a press conference after the vote. “We believe that it will help save lives"
Ban on Large Sodas Rubber-Stamped by Board of Health - DNAinfo.com New York

So smokers can't pollute other people's breathing space. Works for me. I would think that rw's would be in favor of not allowing one group to force another group to engage in behavior against their will but, as with other issues, I am wrong. In FACT, the rw's love nothing more than to force others to abide by their rules. (That's why abortion and marriage equality enter into it. But, you already knew that, didn't you.)

Where is the part where government charges smokers more than non-smokers. Or, did you cherry pick that one phrase so you would not have to address the actual topic of the conversation?

BTW, I really like #3 under the smoking law. I really get sick (literally) of walking through a haze of stench just to get into a building. Smoke all you want but you do not have the right to force me to smoke as well.

Cherry pick my ass pal.

That has been addressed in the taxes that are levied upon cigarettes. So, the taxes on cigs goes towards paying the higher health care costs incurred by smokers?


As far as number 3 is concerned, you have been blowing smoke in this thread since inception and we tolerate your intellectual stench.Just like your friend who doesn't know the meaning of the word, "fascist", you STILL do not have the right to force me smoke and you should not have the right to force me to pay for your health care.

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.

 

[Connery]

So smokers can't pollute other people's breathing space. Works for me. I would think that rw's would be in favor of not allowing one group to force another group to engage in behavior against their will but, as with other issues, I am wrong. In FACT, the rw's love nothing more than to force others to abide by their rules. (That's why abortion and marriage equality enter into it. But, you already knew that, didn't you.)

Where is the part where government charges smokers more than non-smokers. Or, did you cherry pick that one phrase so you would not have to address the actual topic of the conversation?

BTW, I really like #3 under the smoking law. I really get sick (literally) of walking through a haze of stench just to get into a building. Smoke all you want but you do not have the right to force me to smoke as well.

Cherry pick my ass pal.

That has been addressed in the taxes that are levied upon cigarettes. So, the taxes on cigs goes towards paying the higher health care costs incurred by smokers?


As far as number 3 is concerned, you have been blowing smoke in this thread since inception and we tolerate your intellectual stench.Just like your friend who doesn't know the meaning of the word, "fascist", you STILL do not have the right to force me smoke and you should not have the right to force me to pay for your health care.

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.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Cherry pick my ass pal.

That has been addressed in the taxes that are levied upon cigarettes. So, the taxes on cigs goes towards paying the higher health care costs incurred by smokers?


As far as number 3 is concerned, you have been blowing smoke in this thread since inception and we tolerate your intellectual stench.Just like your friend who doesn't know the meaning of the word, "fascist", you STILL do not have the right to force me smoke and you should not have the right to force me to pay for your health care.

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.

 

[dblack]

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.

Again with your orwellian conception of 'responsibility'? You're trying to twist the language to twist the way people think. To be clear, regulatory schemes like PPACA don't engender responsibility, they dictate obedience. Responsibility is being free to decide what to do, and then being accountable for the results. The regulatory state takes away the freedom to decide, as well as the accountability.

 

[thanatos144]

The progressive motto is if it doesn't look like us or act like we tell it tax it and punish it...

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Whine all you want. I still believe people should take responsibility for their own health care costs. Even the whiny rw's.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Whine all you want. I still believe people should take responsibility for their own health care costs. Even the whiny rw's.

That's right they should and a hospital or a doctor should have the right to refuse care to someone who doesn't pay their bill.

 

[gwennie]

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.

Yes......but you forget that smokers already pay higher premiums. They choose to smoke and smoking has been proven to cause a myriad of health problems, so the public should not have to pay for their bad choices. Those who are obese should pay higher premiums as well, though I think there should be some cut off numbers used to determine those premiums. Those who are considered morbidly obese should be paying higher premiums whereas those who have a BMI of 30 should not. Barring some bizarre medical condition, no one has the "right" to weigh 350lbs+ and then expect everyone else to pay their medical bills because they now have high blood pressure, diabetes, chronic pain due to bad knees and lower back problems, heart disease, etc... People should be required to take some personal responsibility for their health status.

 

[gwennie]

Whine all you want. I still believe people should take responsibility for their own health care costs. Even the whiny rw's.

Agree to a certain extent. Most people cannot afford to pay out of pocket a doctor visit cost of $125/visit....the office visit cost in my neck of the woods and I live in a rural area..., much less pay $50 for prescription medication. If doctor visits were $40 and a 10 day course of major antibiotics costs only $10, then your expectation that everyone cover their own costs would be reasonable. Hospitalization, of course, is another issue. If you want people to take responsibility for their medical costs, then significantly reducing the cost of medical care, greatly improving the economy, and major tort reform is needed in order to accomplish that goal. But from what I've seen no lawyer in DC is in favor of tort reform, doctors are still required to pay huge tuition bills for medical school training but at the same time accept major cuts in reimbursement rates from insurance companies, and the economy continues to tank in a major way with no end in sight.....

 

[dblack]

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.

Yes......but you forget that smokers already pay higher premiums. They choose to smoke and smoking has been proven to cause a myriad of health problems, so the public should not have to pay for their bad choices.

So don't make them.

That's the frustrating bit of chicanery at the core of this argument. If the 'stingy liberals' really think it's so unfair for them to be paying for the health care of 'deadbeats', then change the laws. If EMTALA is a thorn in your side, let's repeal it. I'm sure you'll get plenty of conservatives to join you in that effort.

But, that's not good enough, is it? Because what these laws are really about is controlling people. Fascists like luddly aren't interested in helping people, they're interested in bullying them. Forcing them to toe the line and march as ordered by the state and their corporate sponsors.

 

[dblack]

Whine all you want. I still believe people should take responsibility for their own health care costs. Even the whiny rw's.

What you're advocating is the opposite of responsibility.

 

[NoNukes]

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.

One does not generally ingest as much weed as they would tobacco.

 

[BillyV]

Just wondering why those who don't smoke, drink, or become obese, exercise regularly and get regular preventive care, thereby greatly extending their lives, shouldn't have to pay a penalty to support the Social Security and Medicare systems? Their poor choices create enormous social costs that are subsidized by those making more reasonable life choices that remove them from the entitlement systems much earlier (if they survive long enough to get any advantage from the system). Should the rest of us have to pay for the long-lived's higher retirement and medicare costs? If not, how do we make them responsible for their own higher retirement costs? Or, does their right not to smoke and be fat negate our right to not have to pay those extra costs?

 

[dblack]

Just wondering why those who don't smoke, drink, or become obese, exercise regularly and get regular preventive care, thereby greatly extending their lives, shouldn't have to pay a penalty to support the Social Security and Medicare systems? Their poor choices create enormous social costs that are subsidized by those making more reasonable life choices that remove them from the entitlement systems much earlier (if they survive long enough to get any advantage from the system). Should the rest of us have to pay for the long-lived's higher retirement and medicare costs? If not, how do we make them responsible for their own higher retirement costs? Or, does their right not to smoke and be fat negate our right to not have to pay those extra costs?

Those selfish pricks.

 

[Papageorgio]

So smokers can't pollute other people's breathing space. Works for me. I would think that rw's would be in favor of not allowing one group to force another group to engage in behavior against their will but, as with other issues, I am wrong. In FACT, the rw's love nothing more than to force others to abide by their rules. (That's why abortion and marriage equality enter into it. But, you already knew that, didn't you.)

Where is the part where government charges smokers more than non-smokers. Or, did you cherry pick that one phrase so you would not have to address the actual topic of the conversation?

BTW, I really like #3 under the smoking law. I really get sick (literally) of walking through a haze of stench just to get into a building. Smoke all you want but you do not have the right to force me to smoke as well.

Cherry pick my ass pal.

That has been addressed in the taxes that are levied upon cigarettes. So, the taxes on cigs goes towards paying the higher health care costs incurred by smokers?


As far as number 3 is concerned, you have been blowing smoke in this thread since inception and we tolerate your intellectual stench.Just like your friend who doesn't know the meaning of the word, "fascist", you STILL do not have the right to force me smoke and you should not have the right to force me to pay for your health care.

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 don't smoke, nor am I obese, nor do I participate in risky sexual behavior, should we charge higher premiums to those that are high risk because of their behaviors? What about drug addicts, do we charge them more?

 

[zeke]

You would think that the supposed party of personal responsiblilty (repubs) would be all for the idea of risk based premimums for medical insurance.

If you have a couple DUI's, your car insurance goes way up. If you have a bankruptcy in your credit profile, you cost of money goes way up or you can't borrow money at all.

If you file too may claims on your homeowners insurance, they will cancel your policy.

And I don't hear a single right winger complaining about that.

But weight 350 pounds, smoke two packs of cigs a day and eat nothing but McDonalds all the time......and the right wingers think those people should not pay more for their health insurance.

And what is really funny, is that so many of the people like I described above, are unable to get a job or hold a job and end up on Social Security Disability Income and Medicaid and get their bills paid by the government.

How is it you right wingers want to slow the growth of government and private paid health coverage, but don't want people to pay penalties for unhealthy behaviour?

 

[dblack]

You would think that the supposed party of personal responsiblilty (repubs) would be all for the idea of risk based premimums for medical insurance.

If you have a couple DUI's, your car insurance goes way up. If you have a bankruptcy in your credit profile, you cost of money goes way up or you can't borrow money at all.

If you file too may claims on your homeowners insurance, they will cancel your policy.

And I don't hear a single right winger complaining about that.

But weight 350 pounds, smoke two packs of cigs a day and eat nothing but McDonalds all the time......and the right wingers think those people should not pay more for their health insurance.

That's not the issue at all. The problem is when the insurance is mandated, or when the relative 'premiums' are implemented in the form of tax penalties and fines. In a free market, if an insurance company wants to discriminate against fat people, or smokers, or bad drivers, or whatever, it's their right. And it's my right to refuse to do business with them if I think they are out of line. Or at least it was my right, until PPACA came to town.

How is it you right wingers want to slow the growth of government and private paid health coverage, but don't want people to pay penalties for unhealthy behaviour?

Not sure I fit the 'right-winger' motif, but for me it's a matter of not wanting government dictating personal health habits. Simple as that.