U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
Old 05-18-2009, 11:15 AM
Location: Tennessee
33,979 posts, read 32,471,125 times
Reputation: 49971


Originally Posted by strumpeace View Post
Considering that Tennessee taxpayers subsidize the cost of insurance for state employees, and that the cost of insurance continues to increase particularly for smokers, of course the smokers should be required to make up the difference. Why in the world should I be required to pay more for your insurance when you refuse to help yourself? Short answer: I shouldn't.

BTW, people who die from smoking-related illnesses (lung cancer, emphysema, etc.) tend to take a long time to die, meaning that their illnesses are stretched out--often over decades--and are ridiculously costly to treat.

Insurance rates are based on likelihoods, and trust me, insurance companies pay actuaries a hell of a lot of money to determine likelihoods. They base those likelihoods on real-life statistics, and for right now, the likelihood that a smoker's health will cost more long-term than a fat person's is statistical fact. So to you all, this may not seem fair, but to the insurance companies that base their rates on proven statistics and likelihoods, it is perfectly fair.

And to the taxpayer who you think should have to subsidize your long, slow, painful, costly death, it's perfectly fair.
Well it takes 18 - 20 years for your kids to get off your policy. That's pretty long for the rest of us insured people to be supporting them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 05-21-2009, 10:32 AM
Location: Louisiana
1,740 posts, read 2,936,921 times
Reputation: 563
Originally Posted by mbmouse View Post
Ummmm Can anyone say "Discrimination"?
Next it will be if you are over weight, or drive an SUV, or what ever else the government decides is bad for someone. What happened to USA, land of the free? (meaning free choice)
This is UNBELIEVABLE: a moderator who isn't a left-wing lunatic.

Nice post Mr./Ms Mouse.

I will soon refrain from political commentary altogether (not just this forum) as I have heard that the Obama Brown Shirt Corps will be commissioned soon, and conservative patriotic Americans will be taken from their homes in the dark of night, never to be seen again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-21-2009, 01:00 PM
Location: Pensacola, Fl
656 posts, read 953,399 times
Reputation: 373
Originally Posted by pineywoods View Post
I am so weary of hearing anger and accusation against the "Feds" as I keep hearing from news commentators and from so many people who seem so anxious to see our government and its leaders as "out to get us." Apparently I'm in the minority, because I'm still blessing my government, glad to live in America, where my government provides me a high quality lifestyle by ANY standards, and so many freedoms and amenities that i can't count them all. I choose to be grateful and appreciative. I choose to see our government and our leaders as basically decent people who really want good things for us all. The US is not and never will be perfect, but it isn't the great Satan we hear it lambasted as today. Nor are taxes necessarily the great evil "rip off" so many claim. Again...I choose to see my blessings and be grateful. Sorry for the rant, but I've about had it with the non-stop negativity on TV and all around. God bless the USA.
I cannot remember (or find) the exact quote, but it goes along the lines of this, "When people are ignorant to the liberties and rights given to them, it is easier for government to take them away." (I believe it was said by Thomy J.)

If you don't even know that you have the liberty to do something, then you are less likely to question it when it is snatched away from you. This quote comes to mind also:

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson.

Originally Posted by pineywoods View Post
This is quickly becoming a political thread, and probably belongs elsewhere. I'm with Jab and others who choose to see the US government as "on our side" for the most part instead of flat out against us.
The government isn't 'on our side' or 'against us.' The people who are in power are in it for themselves. Really and truly, the bureaucrats you speak so highly of (read: government) could care less about you or me. They are doing what ever is necessary to keep themselves and their party in power. That's just the truth and bottom line of the matter. Of course they have to have a consensus among the common man to get what they want done, but as we grow larger we are seeing that the base they require is less and less (one representative in the House has over approximately 600,000 people in their congressional district. It's very easy for them to get re-elected without having even half of the people support them).

Originally Posted by pineywoods View Post
And I agree with jakila too. There is too much instant polarization based on partisan politics with little thought behind it. I like his thought that people need to start thinking more practically and with less stubborn, automatic dogmatism. When it comes to policies that 'interfere' with personal freedoms , like the smoking tax, don't we also want a society where there is accountability when those personal freedoms have a direct affect on insurance costs?
I agree but my stance is that it should be across the board; don't discriminate on a group of people simply because it's unpopular right now. Really, who's next? I don't believe social engineering should be implemented in a society, but if we choose to do so, why discriminate? For every seemingly negative personal choice we make, we'll have a tax or a higher premium. Don't want kids? You'll pay more taxes to cover you own ass when your old. Want to hike? We'll charge you extra for the boots and on your insurance because you can tumble down a mountain, and God forbid if you survive, we'll have to pay for your treatment. Want to surf? Hike up those rates!! We can't have you get limbs torn off by sharks or have your board hit you in the head and you still get to pay the same rates as us people who don't do anything that could be a 'potential' risk to health right (which is really a non sequitur since simply living imposes a risk for harm)?

Originally Posted by pineywoods View Post
Anyway, tough issues. Just please, people, show some respect for the US Government.
Respect is given when respect is due. As of yet, the government hasn't shown much respect to it's people, other countries, and nature.

Originally Posted by pineywoods View Post
There's too much name calling, vile accusations, ignorant rants with no facts to back it up. (Much of it on your daily news shows) Everyone has something nasty to say, but why bring the country down with that potty talk?
Most of my rants are filled with factual information that the larger populace just doesn't know because the larger populace goes to get their information from the daily news shows (who rape information and put their own twist onto it). And it's the 'potty talk' that we hold onto to so much that has made reforms and changes in this country. If you don't complain (which is essentially what bad mouthing the government is), then who is to expect that change will be made? If you don't dissent and 'rant' about how things are being done, how will anyone know that it needs to be changed? It get's back to Thomy J's quote about tyranny. All it needs is silent sheep to gain a foothold.

Originally Posted by pineywoods View Post
There is so much crap being thrown around about the President of this country. Whether you voted for him or are part of his party or not, we need to stick together as a country and appreciate our freedoms. Party labels are so dang divisive...which is why I'm an independent voter.
There's always crap being thrown around about the president. Pick a president, any president, and you'll see that someone is always throwing crap around about them; it's human nature. Also, it's because we use such a small portion of the ideological spectrum that political pundits and the like must create differences. I appreciate my freedoms and fight hard to keep them and restore the ones that have been taken away from us. I don't care for the two-party system at all (matter of fact, I hate it), and nod my head at people who vote party lines.

Originally Posted by rabid View Post
This demonstrates the beauty of being a libertarian. I believe that anyone should be able to inject themselves with whatever they want to. Cocaine or Drain-o, it's their life. Not for me to decide what someone chooses to be poisoned with.

the only problem with smoking is socialized medicine.

Why? Because people want the freedom to smoke but they also want their insurance to cover them if they get lung cancer, despite numerous warnings on the pack. Well, why should MY insurance premiums be raised because someone else has a relaxed attitude towards smoke inhalation? You wanna smoke then pay your own bills when it kills you. Yes, you smoke, you got cancer (like my own dad did), I got no sympathy for you. Sorry.

I don't think this law goes far enough. It should be "wanna smoke? go ahead. CHOKE."

Smoke if you want. Don't ask me to pay for your new lungs. I guess that's all I have to say about that.
What I can discern from your post is that you are very biased against people who smoke. I don't smoke myself, but I don't think I'm any better than people who do. It's almost as if you seem to look down on people who smoke. I hate to put it like this (I really can't think of any other way to say it), but if you were really a true libertarian, then you'd be for all of the groups who have higher health risks to have a tax or higher insurance premium implemented upon them too; not just smokers. It's discrimination - plain and simple. It's singling out a group of people based on a commonality and legislating against them negatively because of that commonality - It's wrong, plain and simple. I'd like it if people didn't smoke, but who am I to tell them how to live? Better yet, who am I to force them to live a certain way or pay the price of continuing to live their way? That's the crux of social engineering and it's what I mostly don't like about it. But my point is, why just stop at smokers? Why not include everyone else who engages in high risk behavior?

Originally Posted by RiWrites View Post
After helping to care for a man who I considered a second dad, who was dying from lung cancer and emphysema it makes me wonder why anyone would want to smoke. He started at 16 but stopped too late. Not only the cost of buying cigarettes but health wise makes it not worth it.

People want to smoke fine but down the road why should I pay more in insurance when you are dying from cancer. You might think you are healthy and no damage is done but it is. Look at the lungs of a smoker and they are black.
Your "why should I" question can be applied to anyone else who seemingly harm themselves.

Originally Posted by RiWrites View Post
Your family is darn lucky. Still why do it if there is even a small risk. What is so enjoyable about sucking in smoke into your lungs. Lungs are for breathing fresh air not chemicals.
It's an addiction and usually being addicted to something has no rhyme or reason for why the addict does it. It doesn't make sense to us because we are not addicted to it; but for someone who is, they can't function without it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-25-2009, 12:46 AM
Location: So. Dak.
13,495 posts, read 33,484,167 times
Reputation: 15044
Unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to read this entire thread. Very interesting though.

Insurance was originally designed as a pool. We all chip in and if someone needs to draw from it, they are the unfortunate ones.

I'm with Mouse and several others on this one. It's outright discrimination.

Smokers have to help contribute to the Drs. visits of the obese couch potatoes so why should they be targeted? The cost of high blood pressure pills and stomach surgeries and the many complications that obesity brings far outweigh the costs incurred by a smoker. OR what about the parents who run their child to the Dr. every time they sneeze?

AND since this would be group insurance, there would be no separate premium increase for one group of people so I don't understand how they can do this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top