|
|
Post by Forever Sunshine on Jan 30, 2013 9:14:47 GMT -5
Penalty could keep smokers out of health overhaul
Not that reducing smoking isn't a worthwhile goal, but just like constantly trying to raise the taxes on cigarettes, this fee increase primarily effects those in the lower income brackets.
"WASHINGTON (AP) - Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance because of tobacco penalties in President Barack Obama's health care law, according to experts who are just now teasing out the potential impact of a little-noted provision in the massive legislation.
The Affordable Care Act - "Obamacare" to its detractors - allows health insurers to charge smokers buying individual policies up to 50 percent higher premiums starting next Jan. 1.
For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums.
Younger smokers could be charged lower penalties under rules proposed last fall by the Obama administration. But older smokers could face a heavy hit on their household budgets at a time in life when smoking-related illnesses tend to emerge.
apnews.myway.com/article/20130124/DA40Q9HG0.html
|
|
|
|
Post by jackthelad on Jan 30, 2013 9:27:30 GMT -5
Smokers and Alcoholics cause there own illnesses, it is self inflicted, smokers and alcoholics, treating these people, take out a lot of money from our health care, I think they should pay partially for there treatment to compensate. Forgot to mention obesity, another drain on our medical resources, people eat all the wrong food, get extremely fat, the expect the state to sort them out. The only remedy for smoking, drinking, and over eating is willpower, and that doesn't cost a penny/cent.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2013 11:56:31 GMT -5
BTW. when is Obama going to quit smoking?
|
|
|
|
Post by Shirina on Jan 30, 2013 17:04:42 GMT -5
Obamacare is imperfect and, in fact, doesn't help the very poor at all unless you happen to live in a state that voluntarily expanded Medicaid to cover more than people who are blind, deaf, or have dependents.
|
|
|
|
Post by a on Jan 30, 2013 17:20:37 GMT -5
BTW. when is Obama going to quit smoking? 2010 |
|
|
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 30, 2013 18:07:48 GMT -5
Smokers and Alcoholics cause there own illnesses, it is self inflicted, smokers and alcoholics, treating these people, take out a lot of money from our health care, I think they should pay partially for there treatment to compensate. Forgot to mention obesity, another drain on our medical resources, people eat all the wrong food, get extremely fat, the expect the state to sort them out. The only remedy for smoking, drinking, and over eating is willpower, and that doesn't cost a penny/cent. Why stop there? Anyone who doesn't exercise enough, who participates in dangerous activities like skiing, where you can break bones, anyone who drives too fast, anyone who is promiscuous and liable to get an STD, etc, etc, etc. Only vegetarian saints who run marathons should get a break on health insurance. |
|
|
|
Post by janieshere on Jan 30, 2013 18:09:33 GMT -5
Well, as I've said on other boards: Smokers already pay a hugh 'sin' tax! Let them use that to help with the medical expenses. I don't think it's right to single out one section and make them pay way more; when other conditions cause just as much spikes in medical bills too, and they are 'self' inflicted. Alcohol, junk food, etc.
Smoking in public places have all stopped (that I'm aware of anyway) so this cuts out secondhand smoke damage to others out there. Most smokers that I know (myself included) do not smoke in their homes and try to be responsible with their 'habit' as some call it. Yet it is more than just a habit. It is an addiction! One that the government allowed people to get hooked on and continue to do so! Then they want to come after the smokers and make them 'pay'.
Crap, the government needs to stay the hell out of this situation. I'm not anti-government and actually appreciate a lot of things they do for us. However, it is getting ridiculous when they get to choose what's healthy or not...AND they aren't even fair about it to boot!
|
|
|
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 30, 2013 18:46:33 GMT -5
Crap, the government needs to stay the hell out of this situation. I'm not anti-government and actually appreciate a lot of things they do for us. However, it is getting ridiculous when they get to choose what's healthy or not...AND they aren't even fair about it to boot!
-----------------------
How about universal healthcare? Our government pays across the board, whether you smoke or not, obese or not, work out or not. It seems fairer.
|
|
|
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 30, 2013 18:47:59 GMT -5
Not only that, but we pay into the pension plans, never to collect. It saves them quite a bit of money.
|
|
|
|
Post by janieshere on Jan 30, 2013 18:52:17 GMT -5
Crap, the government needs to stay the hell out of this situation. I'm not anti-government and actually appreciate a lot of things they do for us. However, it is getting ridiculous when they get to choose what's healthy or not...AND they aren't even fair about it to boot! ----------------------- How about universal healthcare? Our government pays across the board, whether you smoke or not, obese or not, work out or not. It seems fairer. I'm all for it myself. |
|
|
|
Post by Shirina on Jan 30, 2013 20:35:29 GMT -5
Yeah, as Welts said, once you let the nose of that camel into the tent, the rest of the camel is soon to follow. The Big Money lobbyists will be pushing for the government to rule on what is healthy and what isn't ... how many minutes per day must be spent exercising, monitoring the foods you buy at the store, and then doing their best to proclaim every sickness as somehow the fault of the victim to avoid paying out insurance claims, etc.
We really don't want to go down that road.
|
|
|
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 30, 2013 21:54:35 GMT -5
Yeah, as Welts said, once you let the nose of that camel into the tent, the rest of the camel is soon to follow. The Big Money lobbyists will be pushing for the government to rule on what is healthy and what isn't ... how many minutes per day must be spent exercising, monitoring the foods you buy at the store, and then doing their best to proclaim every sickness as somehow the fault of the victim to avoid paying out insurance claims, etc. We really don't want to go down that road. Exactly! The only fair thing to do is treat everyone. That being said, sometimes our doctors throw up their hands and say "Seriously? You want us to do a quadruple bypass on a 96 year old? Spend a hundred million on coaxing some more life into an anacephalic 18 week preemie who won't live longer than a month, if that?" Then it goes to court and yadda yadda yadda. On the whole, however, I consider it pretty fair. |
|
|
|
Post by robinpa on Jan 30, 2013 22:39:45 GMT -5
I said from the beginning when the affordable care act was first proposed that they should just put forth a universal healthcare program instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shirina on Jan 31, 2013 0:03:21 GMT -5
That's what they should have done. But insurance corporations - who are people, too - are also too big to fail. Better for living people to die than to render state-created people-corporations to collapse due to obsolescence.
Besides, "Why should I have to pay for someone else's health care?!" I can hear the right-wingers going into histrionics already.
|
|
© 2011 -- 
Crap, the Name Escapes Me 
