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 air you breathe and the food you eat contain carcinogens too. So what. Unlike cigarettes, a significant link has not been established between smoking weed and cancer.
Of course, any kind of abuse (i.e. smoking) should cost more on insurance. I shouldn't have to pay extra because your a weak willed cancer stick smoking sob
How are you going to prove someone is extreme snowboarding or basejumping? You have to go for low hanging fruit. Life is not fair, too bad.
People should pay more for stuff that is easily traceable if it affects health.
Here's how that works - you ask the questions. Some people are going to answer truthfully. They get a higher rate. Then you give a "grace period" of say, three years. If a person is hurt in an accident involving an activity he claimed he didn't do, then that accident isn't covered by the insurance.
And people who obese should be charged a higher rate, definitely - the same rate as smokers. People who are alcoholics and drug users should be charged a higher rate as well (same scenario as above with the three year period - plus add a drug/alcohol screen). Don't forget - they check prior medical records, so if you lie about your activities or weight, but in any medical records you've answered yes to smoking, drugs, alcohol, or been to any sort of treatment clinic or been arrested for a DUI or any drug charges (they can run a criminal background check too) then the higher rate should apply till you can prove you no longer drink or do drugs (perhaps a repeat crim check, blood test, medical records check at your expense after three years).
ESPECIALLY if we go to a government subsidized plan - why should my tax dollars pay for the poor lifestyle choices of others when I take care of my own health? I don't smoke, I'm not an alcoholic, I'm not overweight and I don't have any dangerous hobbies.
You just said they can determine if you're a smoker by testing you for nicotine. Which is incorrect, by the way. There are cigars, pipes, chewing tobacco, nicotine gum, nicotine patches, and now electronic cigarettes, all of which will all put nicotine in your system but have no tar. And it's primarily the tar in cigarettes that kills you, not the nicotine. But anyway, that's not my point. You could get around that by testing for the tar instead of the nicotine. My point is that after saying they can test you for nicotine, you now say they should not invade peoples' privacy. How is a mandatory nicotine test not invading someone's privacy?
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.
So why does it matter if it's not a choice? I don't want to subsidize people with bad genes.
Because there is no moral hazard. With smoking and obesity, there is a moral hazard created when people with bad habits pay the same as people without. If you're an obese smoker and you pay the same rate as someone with 12% BF, who eats right and exercises, where is the incentive to quit smoking and lose weight? Making people pay the same regardless of lifestyle choices lessens the incentive to make the good choices. When society lessens the incentives to make good choices, it tends to result in more people making bad choices which negatively impacts society as a whole.
If people want to smoke that's fine, but society shouldn't encourage it by subsidizing their healthcare by artificially (restricting free markets) reducing incentives to quit.
If you don't want to subsidize unlucky people with bad genes, that's your belief. In that case I don't have a problem with society with sharing the burden of their healthcare, since they did nothing to cause their problems.
I support monthly weigh-ins. Fat people pay a donut tax. Twelve months and you're out.
If we can ban guns and Big Gulps we can certainly ban sugar, salt, fat, and cholesterol.
Banning cholesterol would mean everyone instantly becomes a strict vegan.
Banning sugar, salt, or fat would effectively be banning food, and everyone would starve. Try to a name a food that does not contain any sugar, salt, or fat. Even plant foods contain all three.
Here's how that works - you ask the questions. Some people are going to answer truthfully. They get a higher rate. Then you give a "grace period" of say, three years. If a person is hurt in an accident involving an activity he claimed he didn't do, then that accident isn't covered by the insurance.
And people who obese should be charged a higher rate, definitely - the same rate as smokers. People who are alcoholics and drug users should be charged a higher rate as well (same scenario as above with the three year period - plus add a drug/alcohol screen). Don't forget - they check prior medical records, so if you lie about your activities or weight, but in any medical records you've answered yes to smoking, drugs, alcohol, or been to any sort of treatment clinic or been arrested for a DUI or any drug charges (they can run a criminal background check too) then the higher rate should apply till you can prove you no longer drink or do drugs (perhaps a repeat crim check, blood test, medical records check at your expense after three years).
ESPECIALLY if we go to a government subsidized plan - why should my tax dollars pay for the poor lifestyle choices of others when I take care of my own health? I don't smoke, I'm not an alcoholic, I'm not overweight and I don't have any dangerous hobbies.
Should a person obese by 5 pounds pay the same as a person who is obese by 50 pounds?
Obese people, people who drink, people who do risky sports, people who drive fast cars, etc.
Why JUST smokers ?
THIS.
Plus, smokers already pay more for health insurance on the open market.
If companies wanted to punish smokers with an increased contribution to employer-offered health insurance, they could only fairly do this if they also punished others like the obese, heavy drinkers, etc.
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.
only fair thing to do..
