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.
The same way that an employer requiring you to take a drug test before they hire you is not invading someone's privacy. You don't have to take the test, but they don't have to sell you health insurance.
If you are turned down for health insurance, are you exempt from the individual insurance mandate?
If you are turned down for health insurance, are you exempt from the individual insurance mandate?
Well I believe that part of the point of Obamacare is that you can't be turned down. Insurance exchanges, no pre-existing conditions exclusions, stuff like that.
The same way that an employer requiring you to take a drug test before they hire you is not invading someone's privacy. You don't have to take the test, but they don't have to sell you health insurance.
That doesn't answer the question. Saying if you refuse to take the test, they don't have to sell you insurance doesn't address the point of asking for the test being an invasion of privacy in the first place.
If it is merely the fact that verifying the behavior requires too much invastion of privacy, then should they be able to exclude any claims resulting from such behavior? If you were injured in an accident while texting and driving for example, that's proof that you engaged in that risky behavior. No invasion of privacy occurs.
Well I believe that part of the point of Obamacare is that you can't be turned down. Insurance exchanges, no pre-existing conditions exclusions, stuff like that.
Well, if they can't turn you down, and you refuse to pay, how can they charge you extra for such?
Lack of exercise has close to the same effect on avg. lifespan as smoking. If you can't do 50 push ups, 50 situps, 10 pull-ups, and run a mile in 7 minutes, then you are not it shape and should be charged more too.
You are aware, of course, that many exercises can cause injury that can require more medical care to repair. My knee surgery, for example.
I think the real question is should smokers be mandated to pay more for insurance by the Federal government. I say no and let the free market determine the element of risk they are willing to accept based on how they decide to charge extra for smokers or not charge extra for smokers if they are so inclined. It is not the Federal government's business on how a business decides to accept or reject risk in their business model. This is, once again, an enormous overreach by the Federal government.
We should let the mathematically indicated fair rates apply. Whatever those should be.
Similarily though, we should reduce their OASDI contribution appropriately for their earlier mortality.
Are the mathematically indicated fair rates for a person who smokes only cigars the same as for a person who smokes only pipes as for a person who smikes 2 cigarettes a day or 2 packs a day?
Are the mathematically indicated fair rates for a person 5 pounds overweight the same as for a person 5 pounds obese as for a person 50 pounds obese?
Or do the mathematically indicated fair rates conflate all of the above?
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 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.
